Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ebert's Review of The Two Towers
Sun Times ^ | Ebert

Posted on 12/18/2002 10:02:14 AM PST by Sir Gawain

LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS / *** (PG-13)

December 18, 2002

Frodo Elijah Wood
Gandalf Ian McKellen
Aragorn Viggo Mortensen
Sam Gamgee Sean Astin
Pippin Took Billy Boyd
Arwen Undomiel Liv Tyler
Saruman Christopher Lee
Grima Wormtongue Brad Dourif
Galadriel Cate Blanchett

New Line Cinema presents a film directed by Peter Jackson. Written by Frances Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Stephen Sinclair and Peter Jackson. Based on the novel by J.R.R. Tolkien. Running time: 179 minutes. Rated PG-13 (for epic battle sequences and scary images).

BY ROGER EBERT

With "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers," it's clear that director Peter Jackson has tilted the balance decisively against the hobbits and in favor of the traditional action heroes of the Tolkien trilogy. The star is now clearly Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), and the hobbits spend much of the movie away from the action. The last third of the movie is dominated by an epic battle scene that would no doubt startle the gentle medievalist J.R.R. Tolkien.

The task of the critic is to decide whether this shift damages the movie. It does not. "The Two Towers" is one of the most spectacular swashbucklers ever made, and, given current audience tastes in violence, may well be more popular than the first installment, "The Fellowship of the Ring." It is not faithful to the spirit of Tolkien and misplaces much of the charm and whimsy of the books, but it stands on its own as a visionary thriller. I complained in my review of the first film that the hobbits had been short-changed, but with this second film I must accept that as a given, and go on from there.

"The Two Towers" is a rousing adventure, a skillful marriage of special effects and computer animation, and it contains sequences of breathtaking beauty. It also gives us, in a character named the Gollum, one of the most engaging and convincing CGI creatures I've seen. The Gollum was long in possession of the Ring, now entrusted to Frodo, and misses it ("my precious") most painfully; but he has a split personality and (in between spells when his dark side takes over) serves as a guide and companion for Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin). His body language is a choreography of ingratiation and distortion.

The film introduces another computer-generated character, Treebeard, a member of the most ancient race in Middle-Earth, a tree that walks and talks and takes a very long time to make up its mind, explaining to Merry and Pippin that slowness is a virtue. I would have guessed that a walking, talking tree would look silly and break the spell of the movie, but no, there is a certain majesty in this mossy old creature.

The film opens with a brief reprise of the great battle between Gandalf (Ian McKellen) and Balrog, the monster made of fire and smoke, and is faithful to the ancient tradition of movie serials by showing us that victory is snatched from certain death, as Gandalf extinguishes the creature and becomes in the process Gandalf the White.

To compress the labyrinthine story into a sentence or two, the enemy is Saruman (Christopher Lee), who commands a vast army of Uruk-Hai warriors against the fortress of Theoden (Bernard Hill). Aragorn joins bravely in the fray, but the real heroes are the computer effects, which create the castle, landscape, armies and most of the action.

There are long stretches of "The Two Towers" in which we are looking at mostly animation on the screen. When Aragorn and his comrades launch an attack down a narrow fortress bridge, we know that the figures toppling to their doom are computer-generated, along with everything else on the screen, and yet the impact of the action is undeniable. Peter Jackson, like some of the great silent directors, is unafraid to use his entire screen, to present images of wide scope and great complexity. He paints in the corners.

What one misses in the thrills of these epic splendors is much depth in the characters. All of the major figures are sketched with an attribute or two, and then defined by their actions. Frodo, the nominal hero, spends much of his time peering over and around things, watching others decide his fate, and occasionally gazing significantly upon the Ring. Sam is his loyal sidekick on the sidelines. Merry and Pippin spend a climactic stretch of the movie riding in Treebeard's branches and looking goggle-eyed at everything, like children carried on their father's shoulders. The Fellowship of the first movie has been divided into three during this one, and most of the action centers on Aragorn, who operates within the tradition of Viking swordsmen and medieval knights.

The details of the story--who is who, and why, and what their histories and attributes are--still remains somewhat murky to me. I know the general outlines and I boned up by rewatching the first film on DVD the night before seeing the second, and yet I am in awe of the true students of the Ring. For the amateur viewer, which is to say for most of us, the appeal of the movies is in the visuals. Here there be vast caverns and mighty towers, dwarves and elves and Orcs and the aforementioned Uruk-Hai (who look like distant cousins of the aliens in "Battlefield Earth"). And all are set within Jackson's ambitious canvas and backdropped by spectacular New Zealand scenery.

"The Two Towers" will possibly be more popular than the first film, more of an audience-pleaser, but hasn't Jackson lost the original purpose of the story somewhere along the way? He has taken an enchanting and unique work of literature and retold it in the terms of the modern action picture. If Tolkien had wanted to write about a race of supermen, he would have written a Middle-Earth version of "Conan the Barbarian." But no. He told a tale in which modest little hobbits were the heroes. And now Jackson has steered the story into the action mainstream. To do what he has done in this film must have been awesomely difficult, and he deserves applause, but to remain true to Tolkien would have been more difficult, and braver.



TOPICS: Arts/Photography
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-139 next last
To: BADROTOFINGER
Good point. One thing for shure, I won't miss it. Enjoy...
41 posted on 12/18/2002 12:21:44 PM PST by eureka!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: dead
the tender love between the hobbits Frodo and Sam is, as noted by Michael Musto two issues back, pretty much a given.

In the normal world, the world of straights, that's called "friendship."

42 posted on 12/18/2002 12:21:53 PM PST by My2Cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
Appearently Ebert hasn't yet figured out the corruptive nature of the ring itself and the effect owning it had on Gollum.

But then I guess he never read the book.

As to "Frodo, ...........occasionally gazing significantly upon the Ring. "

That is the power of the ring which Frodo is well aware of but also subject to.

Ebert.....loser geek.
43 posted on 12/18/2002 12:34:01 PM PST by tet68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4
Scored Tix for me and the Mrs. tonight. YEEEHAHAHAH!!!!
44 posted on 12/18/2002 12:46:44 PM PST by Braak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Braak
We will try for tomorrow night. Enjoy!
45 posted on 12/18/2002 12:51:29 PM PST by cardinal4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Dead Dog
Y'know, I was just going to make that point...

Any movie that has any sexual deviancy, homosexuality or gender bending gets a great review from him regardless of how crappy the movie was

It appears that he is upset that the hobbits aren't the homos he hoped they were. This was back when a 'dear friend' was just that, not a butt-buddy.

As far a Tolkien goes, the Battle of Helms deep was modelled on battles he had seen first hand as a soldier in WWI

Ebert is a big fat ignorant pervert....

46 posted on 12/18/2002 12:58:40 PM PST by Cogadh na Sith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: chookter
Only three stars? That's downright criminal. These movies are the best thing to come to theaters in years.
47 posted on 12/18/2002 1:00:51 PM PST by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: 2Jedismom
(I actually can't wait to see this part!)

Don't sit in anticipation of it, that scene is not in the film (I just got back from an 11am showing).

But there's plenty of violence and despair left in to capture the mood of the book.

One of the scenes that hit me the hardest was when the men of Helm's Deep were suiting up for desperate battle. As the camera panned down a long row of burly men (and old men) preparing to fight, the view came upon a small sweet-faced young boy who couldn't have been older than twelve. Then the armorer placed a battle helmet on his head, and the camera moved on...

48 posted on 12/18/2002 1:07:39 PM PST by Dan Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: chookter
Ebert is a big fat ignorant pervert....

That pretty much sums up hit silly existance.

49 posted on 12/18/2002 1:08:10 PM PST by Dead Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
is dominated by an epic battle scene that would no doubt startle the gentle medievalist J.R.R. Tolkien.

The idiot Ebert needs to do his homework. Tolkien was a soldier in the brutal trench warfare of World War I, and all of his close school friends died there.

50 posted on 12/18/2002 1:09:23 PM PST by Dan Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan Day; 2Jedismom
That would be from the siege of Gondor, in the Return of the King.
51 posted on 12/18/2002 1:09:37 PM PST by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
That would be from the siege of Gondor, in the Return of the King.

Ah, thanks for the correction.

52 posted on 12/18/2002 1:10:37 PM PST by Dan Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Dan Day
I don't mean to be persnickety, but I just go through reading it again and my wife and I are going to see the movie tonight after work with friends. :)
53 posted on 12/18/2002 1:12:29 PM PST by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Dan Day
;-)

I saw The Two Towers at midnight last night. Oh my...it's fantastic.

Knowing PJ though...he's bound to put those heads flying through the air in ROTK. It's right up his alley!

Going to see TTT again at 6pm this evening!
54 posted on 12/18/2002 1:20:49 PM PST by 2Jedismom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Dan Day
I loved that part with the boy, too. Being the mom of two sons, both of which just love the Marines, it really grabbed at my heart.

You can click on my name to see the boys...
55 posted on 12/18/2002 1:22:30 PM PST by 2Jedismom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus
I think it may be you who are ignorant of "The Ring". Ebert may not be a Ring geek, but he's right in his criticism: the modest little hobbits (quintessential Englishmen) WERE the heroes.

I'm sure TTT will be great, but it does sound as though Jackson has forsaken much of the charm and character development of the book for pure action/adventure visuals. Nevertheless, I'll see it this Friday. The visuals DO look fantastic in the trailers.
56 posted on 12/18/2002 1:25:24 PM PST by jaime1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2Jedismom
Knowing PJ though...he's bound to put those heads flying...

Do you actually know him, as in "Hey, Peter, how's things?" or know him as in, based on LOTR, I think Peter will do thus and such in TTT?

Always good to have inside info...

57 posted on 12/18/2002 1:27:26 PM PST by muleskinner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Hey Cicero!~ I thought I was the only one who thinks Ebert is a dolt and a poor film reviewer. With you on board we can now both complain to his publishers and pushers.
58 posted on 12/18/2002 1:31:55 PM PST by Paulus Invictus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus
Yes. Ebert either didn't read the trilogy, or didn't understand it.
59 posted on 12/18/2002 1:36:15 PM PST by Oberon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
I saw it today. The action is incredible, although not quite as emotionally moving as the first, probably because there are so many characters and story lines to follow.

I've read the books several times, and all of the characters appear in the movie as I had imagined them to look. The Gollum is amazingly real.

Liberals will generally hate this movie - it deals in the themes like good and evil, bravery, self sacrifice, and the necessity of fighting for freedom.

The price of freedom is blood. We should be thankful to Tokien and Jackson for such an illustration.

One of a kind - don't miss it.
60 posted on 12/18/2002 1:37:43 PM PST by moyden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-139 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson