The Two Towers; One Freepers Review

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.

I need to respond to this.

First, it is patently unfair to hold a film to the book. The mediums are different and Tolkiens use of exposition is impossible to convey clearly in film. So point 10 is moot in my opinion.

Second, if you are to compare the book to the film, read the book first. Gimli was spouting one-liners in the book, he was funny in a "Alright! Now I get to kill orcs!" kind of way. Legolas was supposed to possess super-human agility and dexterity. (The "surfing" wasn't near as bad as the out of context commercials made it appear.)

Third, the elven scenes I thought were very well done. The movie makes it appear (although those who know the books know differently) that Arwen accepted her Father's wishes and left Middle-Earth. This is important as she is Aragorn's inspiration and his hope. The elves represent the people that men wish they could be and their departure puts the mantle of that goodness and greatness on the weak shoulders of the human race. Do you think that Elrond doesn't have a scrying device like Galadriel has her mirror? It's very possible that they indeed could communicate over long distances.

Fourth, I think the change in personality in Sam and Frodo could possibly be caused by the Ring and the hard traveling and lack of food and water, don't you? Aragorn I think stepped up into a leadership role and Gandalf had obviously been transformed into a different incarnation.

Fifth, the Urak-hai army arrived, but we did not get a good look at every block in that army. The light infantry arrived first, then the baggage trains. Basic military procedure for marches.

Sixth, the Urak-hai who came in contact with the horses on the causeway didn't die, they were knocked off the causeway! You try and take a shoulder check from a good sized horse and see if it doesn't push you back a step or two. Sadly, the Urak-hai were on a narrow piece of stone arched high off the ground. The horse "nudged" them and off they went.

This is clearly what I was talking about. People remember the most insignificant things that irritate them and they get blown up because of how good the movie was. I would like to know what scenes in particular were washed out, I'll look for them next time.

You should look for the boom mic dropping into view in The Sixth Sense when the boy and his mother are sitting in the car and he reveals his secret to her. Doesn't ruin the movie, not even worth noting, but a couple of "washed out" scenes were worth complaining about?

Reposting my review:

*SPOILER ALERT*

To those of you who haven't seen TTT yet, the critics are right for once: it's an incredible second part. Of course, to fully appreciate it I'll have to go back at least 4 or 5 times, LOL, but I'm still in shock. Gollum is unbelievable. I was skeptical about the praises because Gollum was always my favorite in the book, but it's true: His double personality is SOOO well shown.

I was a bit worried about Faramir, but after seeing the movie, I thought the Faramir's changes turned out pretty good. And I don't agree with the critic who said the actor playing Faramir wasn't great. I liked the way his facial expressions were able to convey his evolving feelings about Frodo and the ring.

I also enjoyed Grimli's jokes. He was cuddly as a teddy bear this time. Legolas' mounting of that horse leaves you speechless (worth watching it again just to figure out how he does it!)

I liked Sam's portrayal. Sam is my second favorite in the book and in the movie, the actor does a really good job of showing Sam's evolving from being Frodo's servant to becoming his protector and counselor. Frodo's troubled soul is also very well rendered by Wood, decidedly a great Frodo.

My favorite movie character, Aragorn (gorgeous but airhead Mortensen) gets even better this time. I loved the way Jackson dealt with his symbolic transformation from a troubled man to a leader of men as he puts on his knight's armor. Very cool!

The Ents were fine too, and you'll enjoy the way they deal with Saruman.

My only complaint: Helm's Deep: IT WAS TOO SHORT. Sigh. Incredible, but too short for my taste. I wanted more. And especially the arrival of Gandalf and the Rohan riders. Guess I'll just have to wait for the extended DVD...

Like I said, I need to go back.

The Frodo storyline is a much more contemplative storyline than the other two...

This is true. But because of this, the Frodo/Sam/Gollum portion of the story is the most heart-wrenching, and inspiring. I read THE TWO TOWERS last week as a prep for seeing the movies (and, since it's been some time since I've actually read the LOTRs, TTT was the one book of the three that I remembered the details of the least), and I have to say that the book is better than the movie for the simple reason that what makes the book so grand and moving are things that do not translate well into the medium of movies. In both sagas -- the first being the tale of the remaining fellowship of Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, the return of Gandalf, and the experiences of Pippin and Merry, and the parts they all played in the defense of Gondor and the defeat of Saruman; and the second being the separate quest of Frodo and Sam, and their new fellow-traveller, Gollum -- there are projected the values of courage in the face of fear, devotion to one's comrades, the summoning of strength in the face of one's own weaknesses, hope in the face of despair, the willingness to pay the ultimate sacrifice in defense of something higher than oneself. Tolkein's text, in the dialogue found in the book, sets these values soaring. Peter Jackson projects these values as well, but in the midst of an action film. Most of Tolkein's inspiring passages come in simple speech or conversation between the principle characters. The book is, I believe, more powerful than the movie, but the movie is the most powerful movie I've ever seen. (That's an indication of how truly great the books are.)

There is so much to absorb about this film (and I concur that if one is not a Tolkein buff or LOTRs fan, or has not followed the story up to this point, the content and power of the film will be lost on such a one)....

I don't know if Peter Jackson meant it this way, but this film seems most timely for our place in history. The understanding that there is evil in the world that threatens to overwhelm what is good...(Jackson even portrays the allied army of Sauron's in hooded wraps that make them look Arab...This isn't an intentional knock on Arabs or Islamists, because I think Tolkein presents the "axis" troops in this way. Certainly C.S. Lewis did the same in the "Narnia" series.) The recognition that good will not overcome evil simply by being good. The forces of good need to be marshalled for an all-out fight if victory is to be assured...The idea that the culture of freedom is superior to the culture of death and oppression -- there is no "moral equivalency" in this movie. While there is "diversity" in the sense that there are many different peoples and cultures (elves, dwarfs, men, hobbits), their strength is in what unites them, what they have in common -- a love of freedom, and a willingness to fight for it...The notion that devotion to values and principles higher than oneself can motivate people to lay everything on the line. This is simply affirmation that there are some things worth fighting for, and their is honor and glory in the fight, even if the outcome of the fight isn't sure, and defeat is most likely. (In reflecting on this, I think this is one of the problems with my generation -- the Baby Boomer generation. We are a generation so self-absorbed, so realtivistic in our worldview and values, that we do not believe there is anything truly worth fighting for; nothing worth sacrificing our miserable existences for. Maybe this is changing, at last. But this is one of the basic themes of LOTRs)....

The most poignant scene, to me, was the desparate declaration by Frodo after they have been taken to Osgiliath by Faramir, when he says to Sam, "I cannot do this!" The feeling of desparation and resignation was palpable. This feeling of despair, inability, and defeat is a common human experience -- which one of us hasn't faced, at some point in their lives, a battle or a situation where they felt completely outmatched and overwhelmed? Sam's response, that the fight and effort is worth it because they fight for what is good, was as inspiring a statement ever presented on film.

Finally, the character Gollum/Smeagol, I thought, was tremendous. I've never seen a character in film who could elicit both disgust and overwhelming pity at the same time. Gollum's debate with himself about whether to serve "the Master" or to "kills it" -- the battle within himself -- and the victory (momentary as it would turn out to be) when "Smeagol" wills "Gollum" to "go away and never come back," was heart-wrenching. Smeagol, in his own way, is heroic. He is the perfect characterization of ruined humanity -- ruined by sin, selfishness, and uncontrolled desire. There is still a spark of goodness in Gollum, but it's all the more sad and tragic because (if you've read the books), you know that that spark never overcomes the darkness. I'm pulling for Andy Serkus, who provided the action under the CGI Gollum, as well as the voice, to win the Oscar for best supporting actor.

Perhaps it's just me, but I saw this film, perhaps more than the first, as a story of spiritual warfare. Particularly, it was a presentation of the truth of how strength, honor, courage, hope, sacrifice, goodness, heroism, and ultimately victory can overcome our own frailties if we are committed to a goodness that transcends us (and from a Christian perspective, we draw upon the higher power that transcends us). It was a powerful movie, and I intend to see it again on Friday to absorb more of what is in it.

My wife and i saw it last night with some good friends of our who are moving back east. The first thing I would say is be sure to visit the restroom before the titles start. You will have plenty of time during the twenty minutes of commercials and previews.

First I should explain my reaction to the first movie. I left the Fellowship of the Ring feeling as if it could have been better and wishing it has been closer to the book. However, after reading the book again and seeing the extended DVD release, I came to like the Fellowship movie a great deal. I accepted the alterations to the plot as a necessary thing for a theatrical release in which many or most of the audience would be unfamiliar with the story.

I left the Two Towers feeling the same way. "Why did this not happen as in the book" I asked my friends. All four of us are, shall we say, a bit on the nerd side of life and have read the whole story many times over between us. We all wondered why the director felt necessary to make some thins to blatant and obvious, until we realized that we weren't the intended audience of the movie.

Once you come to this realization, it makes the film much more enjoyable. I think some of the feelings of incompleteness come because the Two Towers is the middle book in the story. It is the middle of the story, the characters are still being developed, and viewers who aren't familar with the story are being led gently through the story by following milestones that you can't miss.

For someone who like me read the Lord of the Rings when I was in grade school and ever few years or so since then these markers in the story come across as somewhat blatant and obvious. However, enjoying any film requires that you suspend a bit of belief and go along with what is being shown on the screen. Had I not known the story, then I think those milestones would have been necessary for me to not get lost in the story.

Here is an example, that I hope does not come across as a spoiler. It is the point in the story when they have passed Minas Morgul's black gate, and are moving along to the south. They come across a captain of Gondor who turns out to be Boromir's brother, Faramir.

In the book, they talk about the quest as well as Isludur's Bane and Faramir recognizes what fate his brother might have met. Faramir knows his brother is both passionate and obstinate, and would have wanted to deliver the great weapon of the Enemy to their father Denethor. Knowing his brother's heart helps Faramir resist temptation, and they let Frodo and Sam go free.

In the movie, Faramir and his men take Frodo, Sam, and Gollum to the ruins of the city of Osgiliath (sp?) which is under assault of first wave of the army of Sauron. In the book, however, Frodo, Sam, and Gollum pass Osgiliath a bit earlier in the story before the attack. Faramir does go there and makes a very narrow escape from Sauron's army, but this is after our heroes pass by. However, the movie differs in that Faramir takes Frodo and Company (and importantly, the ring) along with them for the fight. In the movie, the Ring Wraiths behold Frodo and nearly capture the ring, but luckily Sam is there to save his friend's life. Faramir, seeing his folly then lets Frodo and Company leave.

At first, I wondered why Peter Jackson had altered the plot, and made Faramir take Frodo with them. However, in retrospect, having a thoughtful Faramir just letting the Hobbits escape may have been too subtle. Seeing the Nazgul again and nearly witnessing the ring being captured by the forces of the Enemy perhaps makes a stronger point to Faramir. I think it is better for a movie audience to see that Faramir is the brother of Boromir by making him a strong and stubborn man. Faramir is still tempted by the ring, Faramir still overcomes the temtation, and the movie going audience gets to see the reason why Faramir lets them go. Had it not been done this way, his motivations may not have been clear.

I hope this doesn't spoil the movie for anyone. It is a relatively short scene near the end, but it illustrates why I liked the movie, and why as a rather picky fan I might be pursuaded that these films are worth the seeing. There were many such examples in the movie like this, when some detail were change to make the movie accessable to an ordinary audience. I don't think that this makes the movie un-watchable. I don't think it hurts the story. I think that it will grow on you, if you let it. Thank you.

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.