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'll happily debate this with you, friend.

*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.*

- This runs counter to PJ's stated goal.

*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.)*

- I've read them to my children for 20 years, and another 10 before then just for myself. The one liner issue was only a problem when it fell out of context - Gimli prat falls from a horse and says "I meant to do that?" or "Toss me - just don't tell the elf." Hardly defensable mischaracterizations. That may play for the teen crowd but not me. Same with the stair surf - Legolas was otherwise played superbly.

*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.*
- even in the absense of anything in the appendix of the novels these scenes meant nothing and had nothing to offer to the story.

*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.*
- the mirror is not a two way intercom.

* 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?*
- maybe for Frodo (but he waffled back and forth) but not Sam, who remains calm and stalwart. When he jerk the rope and slams Gollum to the ground that is an uncharacteristic act of cruelty totally out of line with his character.

*Aragorn I think stepped up into a leadership role and Gandalf had obviously been transformed into a different incarnation.*
- the moment Gandalf returned Aragorn stopped doing anything remotely leader-like. I never mentioned any problem with Gandlaf other than the constant grinning.

*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.*
- that would be basic procedure. But there are 3 wide shots of the entire force - no baggage - no pack animals - no siege ladders held overhead for a long march. The ladders were metal so they weren't cut and made locally.

*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.*
- watch it again. Some fall off, most don't. They lay down on the bridge and don't get up. I've seen rodeo clowns get flipped into the air and land on their backs yet still jump up and run. And they aren't bloodthirsty killers wearing armor.

*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.*

- There is more than just a few insignificant problems here. The white outs occur 3 times in Theoden's Castle and twice in Helms Deep. Look for a white-over sepia wash.

*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?*
- a boom drop is doesn't ruin the story - bad editting does.

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.