Posted on 12/19/2002 8:14:17 AM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
How does one begin to discuss a film that is at it's essence not a film in the way most people understand. There can be no mistaking, those who do not have an understanding of who these characters are, either from viewing the first movie or by reading the books, cannot begin to catch up with this movie. In that understanding, this movie cannot and does not stand on it's own. Unlike other "middle installments" (The Empire Strikes Back, The Temple of Doom, The Godfather Part II) this film is not a complete story, and for some non-book fans that will be a serious problem.
The second problem with the film is the unrelenting pace by which things happen. I say that it is a problem, but not in a bad way. It's like having a girlfriend or wife that is so attractive that other men are constantly staring. Or having your stock portfolio increase so much that the SEC investigates. You know, it's a problem, but not one you want to be rid of. The film is fast. Let me make that clear, it is F A S T.
Imagine the Die Hard movies all in 90 minutes. Bruce takes care of Alan Rickman and frees the skyscraper in 30 minutes before taking on rogue Special Forces at JFK and blowing up their plane at the 60 minute mark and then jumping in a cab with Sam Jackson to foil another group of terrorists in the city in another half hour. But don't cut any scenes.
The third problem, and again this is from someone who is very familiar with the books, is the uneveness of the story. This actually is a real problem, and why the film seems a bit choppy at time. Unfortunately, this is the good Professors doing and he left himself an out that Jackson couldn't take. The Frodo storyline is a much more contemplative storyline than the other two and feels much more mellow and sinister. Tolkien worked around this by keeping it seperate in his storytelling; Jackson had no such luxury. A fault with the film, but oddly enough the fault lies in not the director nor the material but rather in the medium itself.
Wow, sounds like I had a lot of problems with the film, doesn't it. Well, no. In fact quite the opposite. The problem with reviewing this film is there is such a cornucopia of real magnificant things that it is easier to recognize that which didn't work instead of that which did. Imagine talking about Ben-Hur without mentioning the chariot race. What a magnificant piece of film making! The Two Towers has so many "chariot race" type scenes that it would be impossible to describe them all and diminish them if you just took a sampling.
Absolutely the best film of the year, and that includes fan favorites such as Spiderman and critics favorites such as The Hours or Far From Heaven. Sadly, the problems with the film will stick out in the minds of many due to the consistantly excellent qualities that permeate this work of art. For that reason, I think that the academy might overlook many of the great accomplishments of this film. That is very dissapointing, because Andy Serkis, Howard Shore (whose score works much better in this film for me than in the first film), and especially Peter Jackson deserve to be holding little gold statues in March.
My only real beef is that, compared to the book, Rohan was made to seem so weak, with only Eomer having any fighting men worth speaking of (and only 2000 of them, to boot). How is Theoden going to field 9000-odd in aid of Gondor?
Why the dialog from Frodo defending Gollum to Sam? ("You wouldn't understand, Sam!")
Because in the book, we are told that Frodo senses that Gollum is what he will become if he holds the Ring. Sam doesn't understand this, and Frodo defends Gollum to Sam several times because of this difference in points of views. Having this discussion between the two allows this varience in view point to be seen clearly by the non-book readers.
Why the stupid "exocism" scene between Gandalf and Theoden? Instead of the subtle conquering of Theoden's doubts, as in the book, we are hit over the head in this version. In addition, here Saruman already knows that Gandalf is the White, before Gandalf even visits Orthanc.
I can see your point a bit, but in the book it is a form of magic that makes Theoden wan and weak. Remember that Saruman's most powerful magic was the power of his voice. Grima learned these tricks and used them to seduce and destroy the mind of Theoden.
Theoden's personality is changed: now he goes to Helm's Deep merely to retreat; not fight.
Again, I can see the point. However, by combining Dunharrow and Helm's Deep to save time in the film, it would make sense that Theoden uses Helm's Deep as a retreat instead of as a forward Stronghold.
Aragorn falls off a cliff? Why add scenes not in the book when he could have added something that WAS in the book?
Dont' know for sure. We missed the Wargs in Hollin, and Saruman had Warg riders terrorizing the Westfold. Maybe this was Jackson's way of getting the Wargs in the story and show how dangerous Rohan had become even for an armed column. Having Aragorn go over the cliff may have been an effort to replicate the trauma of Gandalf falling from the bridge in the first film. Non-book viewers probably were very concerned, while the book readers were confused by that scene.
Legolas "skateboarding" down a stair. How hokey can you get?
Wasn't as bad as I feared, hope it gets cut from the DVD.
Now the topper: Faramir CAPTURING Frodo and taking him to Gondor's abandoned city to surrender the ring to Denthor! What a bunch of crap!
In the book Faramir did capture Frodo, Sam and Gollum. He did plan on taking them to Gondor as was the law. He just let them go before heading for Osgiliath.
And a RINGWRAITH almost grabs the ring?! So much for Sauron not knowing where the ring is!
I tend to agree with those who say we will not see the tense scene at Minas Morgul where the Witch King turns and looks in Frodo's direction. This scene replaced that one in the book. Plus, Sauron doesn't think anyone would even want to bring the ring to Mordor, so when he finds out it is in Osgiliath, he probably just assumes that the Gondorians have it.
If the director had wanted to make his own story, he should not have put Tolkien's name on it and the title "The Two Towers"!
Jackson has been quite clear that this is not "J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings". I think Tolkien would have loved the fact that there was a retelling of the myths he created. No myth has an "official" version, that's what makes them myths as opposed to copyrighted stories. Jackson has retold the story even while changing the details some. That shows what a strong story it is that it can be retold without slavish faithfullness to the 1973 version of the novels. (Of course the changes made through the 1950's and 1960's do not concern the "Tolkien purists" since the Professor himself made those changes.)
Which was Tolkien's intent, right?
Absolutely. I'd love to hear Tolkien's view of all of these debates about details. I bet he'd be more relaxed about it than the "purists." He's also be thrilled to know how much the myths he "found" have become such a part of the fabric of our western culture.
He showed good sense there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.