The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) User Reviews

An Epic in every sense of the word.

[Loving_Silence · 10/10 · 12 August 2010]

Peter Jackson truly outdid himself when creating the Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring and he fails to disappoint us in the 2nd part of the Trilogy. The Two Towers shows us that he is not a one-hit wonder, like so many directors are. I actually think that The Two Towers reaches the same level as the Fellowship of the Ring, and sometimes even surpasses it.

This film is the biggest film in the trilogy. What do I mean by that? Well this film has so many things going like the amazing Battle of Helms Deep. Frodo and Sam journey to Mount Doom, to destroy the Ring. But the one who's leading them through the way is Gollum, he looks so creepy and realistic, that he doesn't feel disconnected from us. A powerful performance by Andy Serkis as Gollum, he should of been nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor.

The Best part of the film, is quite easily and everyone knows it the ending. The ending of the battle of Helm's Deep is quite breathtaking, and as Gandalf the White comes in the distance with another army to defeat the Orcs. When Treebeard and his army of Entz tear down Isengard, the destruction and the battle is so immense in size, that you truly have to see to believe.

In size and scale, Peter Jackson has truly redefined the word "epic" and he also pays attention to the small things that truly elevate this movie from great to amazing. I definitely recommend this film to everyone, but you really should watch the first movie to truly understand what's going on.

10/10

A standing ovation for all concerned.

[rc_whittle · 10/10 · 19 December 2002]

It seems ridiculous to want to add my own comments to a slew of others that are already in IMDB's records, but I feel like I cannot sleep nor cease the throbbing in my chest until I release some of what I have so recently seen.

Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings is one of the bravest projects ever attempted by a filmmaker. Mr Jackson deserves every ovation he will receive, every award, every bit of the praise and adoration that will be spoken and written.

This second installment of the story is a masterpiece in every sense, forget your prejudices about the books, they are another way of looking at this beautiful story (I know this is slightly against the rules, but a I cannot resist saying that a previous writers comment - a comment that compared the Lord of the Rings Films and Books to the difference between Romeo and Juliet in screenplay and ballet formats - was entirely accurate).

Gollum was an excellent amalgam, so easily could he have been an annoying Jar-Jar-Binks-Alike. Instead the way that Jackson and Serkis (and doubtless many many others) chose to portray the CGI incarnation of "Smeagol" was incredibly emotive and powerful. Gollum is profoundly disturbing, amusing, almost lovable... Not even John Ronald Reuel himself could induce that range of emotions for Smeagol in me...

A truly skin-crawling performance by a superb Brad Douris as the evil Grima Wormtongue was just beyond words. Douris _Became_ Wormtongue in a skillful fulfillment of what was already inspired casting.

Probably the most definitive casting of this film though was Manchester born Bernard Hill as Theoden, King of Rohan. The casting for "The Two Towers" makes one shake ones head and wonder, in retrospect, whether anyone else could have filled these roles. Mr Hill's performance was truly first rate, a performance which contributed greatly to "The Battle of Helms Deep", scenes which were a spinning tornado of emotions for the viewer.

Viggo Mortensen goes from strength to strength. His performance is visceral and yet sensitive. The overriding emotion that Tolkiens vision of Aragorn induced (at least for me) was awe at his heroics. Mortensen's portrayal in Jackson's frame brings new aspects to the Aragorn character. Mortensen's Aragorn is emotionally dextrous to go with his physical dexterity, he is sensitive, seemingly empathic, warmer and more fundamentally human, and yet super-human in presence and charisma. "Definitive" is not strong enough of a word.

If you still view Jackson's epic with scepticism I implore you to put down your preconceptions and your prejudices, but most of all put down the books... This is beautiful way to see middle earth, don't pass it up - The books are the ultimate fantasy epic - the pictures you draw in your head are better than anything you can imagine, but The Lord of the Rings "The Two Towers" is one wonderful interpretation of that epic story.

Go, Laugh, Cry, and Sit in Awe of this cinematic treat.

Magnificent epic

[calcat91355 · 9/10 · 5 March 2006]

The Fellowship of the Ring was a monumentally entertaining film, the Return of the King was an amazing wrap-up to the epic of our times, but the most dramatic moment for me came at the end of the Two Towers. After 3 hours of sweeping vistas, excellent Shakespearean acting, and otherworldly sights and sounds, we are treated to a scene that still sends chills down my back and rouses me like nothing since the final scene in Rocky. A lone rider (we all know who), set against the top of a hill, massing legions of horsemen behind him. He appears just as the heroes are losing all hope. Once he begins his descent down the hill with his army behind him, the camera begins a slow pan over the top and down with them, showing the size and scale of their forces. The evil army below looks up with surprise, a bright light fills the screen, the camera focuses on the lead rider (again, we all know who) who lets out a wrenching battle cry, the music swells to unbelievable heights, and I am swept away like I've never been before.

This is cinema at its very best.

A True Fantasy Movie

[Mithrindir · 10/10 · 30 December 2004]

From the beginning to the very end, the Lord of the Rings trilogy is interesting and enjoyable. The books and the movies alike grasp one's attention as if they were real. You, the reader or viewer, can sense the pain of the characters, their emotions. The trilogy is truly powerful on screen. The second movie, however, I believe has something the first and third are missing; it feels like a bridge connecting two great islands. There is something unique about it that cannot easily be described. Metaphorically, the first movie is, say, a soldier. The third movie is the path home from war. And the second movie is the act of coming home because it contains the obstacles that must be passed through before achieving the goal. Although not 100% loyal to the written trilogy, the movies are done in such a way that the mainstream audience and LOTR fans from before the movies came out can say they were enjoyable and well made.

The final hour of The Two Towers is grand, terrifying, and epic on a biblical level.

[justinrsko · 10/10 · 8 December 2002]

The opening scene of The Two Towers provides an outstanding, yet very brief, taste of action, cinematography, and special effects, only to be matched (and far surpassed) in the final hour of the film. The stunning events of the third hour of The Two Towers are undoubtedly the centerpiece of the film, and while the first two hours serve finely as story development, they primarily build anticipation for the final hour, which mostly depicts the battle of Helm's Deep. More than anything else, the first two hours merely tease and torment the patient audience. It's a shame that such a gap has to exist between the first minute and the final hour, but I take no reservations in saying that despite how you feel about the first two hours of the film, the final hour will make the wait entirely worth its while.

As stated, the road to the battle of Helm's Deep can be enormously long and painful for any viewer aware of what breathtaking scenes await towards the end of the film. Perhaps The Two Towers' biggest fault is in its own accomplishments; the first two thirds of the film are well shot, well paced, and they necessarily and adequately progress the storyline, but when compared to the spectacular final hour, the first two hours seem uneventful and insignificant. However, to be fair, I feel that it's simply impossible to create two hours of film that could appropriately lead into the battle of Helm's Deep. It's difficult to comprehend how such scenes came to exist in the rather short amount of time Peter Jackson has had to create six hours (so far) of finished film. The battle of Helm's Deep is simply unreal; it's unlike any event that has come to pass since fantasy films gained, and regained, popularity.

As assumed, The Two Towers begins where The Fellowship of the Ring ended. The majority of the film follows four separate groups and their story lines: Frodo and Sam; Aragorn and Legolas, Merry and Pippin, and Saruman and his army. The performances live well up to the standards of the first film, with a particularly notable performance from Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn, whose role is significantly larger in The Two Towers. Aragorn satisfies a thirst for someone to root for, a thirst that was left partly unquenched in Fellowship. It's much easier to root for Aragorn than it is for Frodo; Aragorn has many more qualities of a leading man, a soldier, and a hero. More than once did the audience, filled mostly with academy voters, applaud the heroics of Aragorn. Gollum also shines in a much-welcomed large role, due to extremely realistic computer animation, and a fine performance from Andy Serkis, upon which the animation was modeled. In Fellowship, it was appropriate to consider Gollum one of the many great 'features' of the film. However, here he is more of a leading character and a 'star,' and his convincing dual-personality, stabbing voice, and well-choreographed body movements make him consistently eye-grabbing and the center of focus of nearly every scene in which he appears.

As was The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers is a visual delight. Those who have seen Fellowship are no doubt familiar with the beauty of the landscapes of New Zealand. The cinematography is, again, one of the best aspects of the film. The swooshing camera movements that follow the armies and horsemen throughout the fields are extremely satisfying in this post-Matrix era. The shots of the ascending enemy-laden ladders in the battle of Helm's Deep are terrifying and chillingly gorgeous all at once. The visual effects take an appropriate leap forward from those of the first film. While the visual effects in Fellowship were outstanding, the battle of Helm's Deep provides for the best application of CGI since the rippling waves of The Matrix's 'Bullet Time.' The battle of Helm's Deep features absolutely awe-inspiring and seamless integration of acting, stunts, and computer animation. Each orc seems to have its own personality, demonstrated in its movements and visual features. The masses of armies fight with strategy and true character, which I imagine is much harder to accomplish than animating thousands of identical clone troopers. The only problem I have with the visual department is the look of Gimli, the Treebeard. Gimli's visual features seem a bit childish and uninspired, inconsistent with the standards set by the rest of the film. But again, there is simply nothing that compares to the battle of Helm's Deep. George Lucas and the Wachowski brothers certainly have not created anything that approaches the grandness and magnificence of The Two Towers' final hour, and I doubt they will do so anytime soon.

In The Fellowship of the Ring, I had a few minor problems with Howard Shore's score. While I thought it was gorgeous and it established several very memorable themes, I don't think it handled the sentimental scenes (opening in the Shire, Gandalf's passing) properly. I thought it caved in to the melodrama a bit too much, resembling the emotions from James Horner's Titanic. However, I believe that The Two Towers requires the type of score which Howard Shore accomplishes best: dark, continuous, and unrelenting, as demonstrated in Se7en and Silence of the Lambs. The theme used in many of the action scenes in Fellowship (low brass, six notes repeated with a rest in between) is much more present in The Two Towers, appropriately. A brand new theme is also unveiled, the theme for Rohan, a prominent kingdom in Middle Earth. Rohan's theme is played more often than any other melody in the film, underscoring most of the memorable and heroic scenes with great effect. Howard Shore undeniably exhibits his skills as an 'A-list' composer, and with a possible double Oscar nomination this year for The Two Towers and Gangs of New York, he could get propelled to the very top of the 'A-list,' right beside John Williams and Hans Zimmer in terms of demand.

If not the picture itself, there should be a way to recognize and award the battle of Helm's Deep. The battle sequence alone represents successful filmmaking in its highest form. The choreography of the battle, the visual effects, the pacing, acting, cinematography, and music, all work together in perfection to achieve grand filmmaking which is as entertaining and enjoyable as film can be. For this very reason, no one, whether a fan of Fellowship or not, should miss The Two Towers.

Great movie

[auuwws · 10/10 · 28 September 2020]

Great movie I really enjoyed watching and better than the first part

If you're a fan, that's not about to change.

[joe_unander · 10/10 · 18 December 2002]

Really, I should probably let this film soak in a bit; I am, after all, on something of a "post-viewing" high right now. However, at this moment, my feeling remains the same from the first installment - this is the movie experience I've been waiting my whole life for. In case you haven't gathered, this movie is visually stunning, literally breathtaking. I mean that, some of the scenes in this film simply stopped my lungs in their tracks, shocked at the pure, enveloping beauty of the shot. Peter Jackson has a profound grasp of visual manipulation like few directors have ever had.

The acting is, as always, superb. Kudos for hiring "actors" not "stars"; "Oscar-worthy" over-acting could have threatened the realistic touch the film's remarkable cast supply. Specific mention goes to both John Rhys-Davies in his well enjoyed comic turn, and very largely to Andy Serkis, who was a major role in creating the most realistic and brilliantly well-performed CGI character I've ever seen (Gollum).

For the most part, and as a fan of the books, I take no offense to the slight plot modifications. My understanding is that Tolkien himself realized that visual adaptation of LotR would require a somewhat different take on his work, and was apparently open to such minute changes. There are also a few tiny bits and pieces I was disappointed to see not make the final cut, however, I'm sure a future inevitable extended DVD will take care of those.

In short, if you found the continual enjoyment I did with the first movie of LotR, this movie will in no way let you down. Not even for a minute.

Highly recommended, 10/10.

Helm's Deep could be the greatest battle sequence of all time.

[EVON1TY · 10/10 · 2 March 2023]

As you know Tolkien did a great job with creating the world. Also did a perfect job with writing the battles. Also It's not that easy to fitting that to the adaptation. The whole cast did pretty perfect job with The Two Towers. I know whole Trilogy made in same time. Only the film editors are changing through the trilogy. So they managed a great job making these movies.

I think The Siege of Minas-Tirith sequence is also pretty good and flawless. But the horror and darkness is so effective in The Helm's Deep Battle. You may predict the Rohan People are going to win, they're the good guys after all. But even if you are watching this movie second time, you will feel that hopeless times again.

The first half of the movie feels slow, I think that brings realistic style to a fantasy movie. Of course there is too important scenes in the first half of the movie, I'm saying the most important scenes are in the second half of the movies. This goes for all three movies.

Tell me how can a movie achieve this much? Costume Design, Makeup, Art Direction & Set Decoration, Film Editing, VFX, SFX, Scores. The Trilogy manages to be revolutionary nearly all of that. At least it is Revolutionary in 5 of them. Some movies made me love some genres, The Lord of the Rings made me love the Cinema.

The story - and the heightism - continues

[j30bell · 7/10 · 20 December 2004]

In the Two Towers (TT) we are re-united with most of our heroes from the Fellowship of the Ring (FotR). Split apart by betrayal, and a company of orcs, Frodo and Sam have begun the last leg of their quest to Mordor. Ant and Dec (sorry, Merry and Pippin) are prisoners of the orcs, pursued by Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli – a quest that brings the company, and the people of Rohan, closer to conflict.

Opinion is divided about the second film. The entertainment junkies seem to think it's better than the first, largely on account of the Battle of Helms Deep, which is rather impressive. I thought it was a bit weaker, mainly because, in a wilderness adventure, there's more emphasis on the characters than in the spectacle of set piece action; and because the CGI is less subtle as a result.

Once again, liberties are taken with the story. There's no riding of the Grey Company. There's a more obvious tension between Eowyn and Aragorn (Legolas has to remind Aragorn who he's dating), and (controversial among the Tolkienites) Faramir's character has been darkened somewhat. In fact, the directorial trait of adding more colour to the main characters while painting out the subtlety of the peripheral ones continues from FotR. Partly because we're introduced to more characters in TT, the overall effect leaves the film slightly two-dimensional. On balance I thought the treatment of Faramir to be less heinous than that of Denethor in Return of the King, but more on that later.

The mood, though, remains pure Tolkien and that, more than anything, is the triumph of the movie. From the Beowulf-like set for Meduseld (Tolkien famously nicked his description of the seat of Rohan from the UK's first epic) to the majestic sweep of New Zealand, the film more than once reminded me of my own mental images of Tolkien's world. And, once again, I found myself interested in the story.

So, to the flaws. I mentioned in an earlier review of FotR the astonishing heighism in Peter Jackson's adaptation. You can imagine Jackson scratching his head wondering what to do for laughs now that Ant and Dec have been nicked by Ugluk, Grishnakh and the lads. His solution is ingenious; find the next shortest member of the company. Gimli, therefore, shoulders the mantle of comedy relief. As a strapping man of 6'4'' I am allowed a certain disdainful disinterest to such a phenomenon; but it is worth noting. Also worth noticing is the astonishing transformation of Arwen from a feisty, most un-Tolkien lady in FotR to the submissive pre-Raphaelite stereotype of the books. I guess this is because Eowyn has turned up, but still. The Elves still speak like they're doped up, except the peculiarly immune elfin fancy boy, Legolas. On that note, was it really necessary for him to mount his horse that way? Or surf his way down a staircase at the battle of Helms Deep? Jim Horner should do an alternative Beach Boys theme for that scene.

Anyway, these are minor points in a film that is, if not a major, then at least a minor, triumph. As mentioned by others, the film is worth seeing for Gollum alone. And I can think of many more reasons to see it. You could also check out the extended version, which is even better. 7/10.

"a good-looking creation albeit not much else"

[sol- · 4/10 · 14 January 2005]

The second part of the movie adaptation of 'The Lord of the Rings' books, this is a good-looking creation albeit not much else. It is a CGI showcase, and features good film editing and make-up, however ultimately it is pretty much on par with the first film in terms of virtues and vices. Again, it is visually stunning, but it still is too long, too violent and it is too convoluted in plot. The screenplay is no improvement over the first film in terms of character and plot development, and therefore it is equally as not involving as the previous part of the trilogy. The film features one of the largest battle scenes of all time, but it is also one of the least interesting, as it is just mindless action. It also is a slow and sluggish watch, and in many ways the weakest entry in the trilogy, however if you can separate the films than this would actually rate as the strongest entry, because the special effects in the film are the best and most creative, and in such a visual but not all so compelling film series, this is one of the most important aspects. The visual and audio effects both won Oscars, and out of the three films it is the only one that deserved Best Visual Effects.

My precious...

[JohnLennon1985 · 10/10 · 18 December 2002]

Seriously, I never thought a movie could get better than the Fellowship of the Ring, but it did. This movie should be #1 on the IMDb top 250. This movie, as long as it was, captivated me from start to finish, and those who are not entertained by this movie can not be entertained period.

Yes, I have read the book. Any chapters cut out at the end of books III and IV will probably themselves in the next installment. If you haven't noticed, the beginning of the Two Towers was actually closed the Fellowship of the Ring on the big screen.

Gollum was a CG masterpiece. He added some light to this incredibly dark movie. At the same time, there are areas where you feel sorry for the poor guy, or just want to kill him. Smeagol was probably the most diverse character I've ever seen.

Elijah Wood put on a better performance than he did in the first movie, as did Sean Astin. Ian McKellen, who captivated us in the last movie, captivated us even more in this one. Viggo Mortensen, John Rhys-Davies, and Orlando Bloom made a great trio. They laughed together, cried together, prospered together, and suffered together. This trio gave life to Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas. Eowyn expressed her emotions clearly through Miranda Otto.

The music need not be discussed. Its greatness speaks for itself.

Favorite Scene: The Battle of Helms Deep. Possibly the greatest scene in the book, 50% of the trailer, and action packed climax to this beautiful movie.

The movie, like its predecessor, fails to bring us closure, but that's ok. Closure will come next year. I look forward to the Return of the King.

The Two Towers is now my favorite movie of all time.

The scale is broken. 10 is not a capacity sufficient enough to hold this movie... my movie... my... precious...

If there was a spotlight for all time movie reviews it would be this trilogy-to-be-one film

[jasonmg99 · 10/10 · 10 February 2004]

I have to say this film starting with the fellowship was incredibly well made. I know Titanic received 11 awards but I think this whole trilogy should receive 15. This intro to the trilogy was extremely in depth and even had the best prologue ever. I enjoy being introduced to the characters and thier origins and learning about the history of the one ring and how it does evil upon middle earth even after Sauron's death. Be patient with the action as is picks up as the trilogy's story unfolds. It all depends on what you see movies for. But this whole trilogy has quite a bit of everything. That alone surpasses all movies.

10/10 (actually more than that)

The Wooded Claw...

[Xstal · 8/10 · 3 April 2023]

The quest to melt the ring in Doom continues, as two Hobbits and a Gollum lacking sinews, crossing marshes full of dread, towards the Black Gate's where they head, and then they're captured by the brother, of one once dear (although he was somewhat affected by the ring before expiring). After fleeing from an evil band of orcs, another pair of Hobbits sit with stalks, of an Ent known as Treebeard, who gets annoyed when friends are sheared, summons brethren, and against the foe they walk. Helm's Deep provides the backdrop for a battle, where sabres, swords and axes are all rattled, but walls come tumbling down, as the Uruk-hai hit town, when their hoards stampede and charge like crazy cattle.

My personal favourite of the trilogy

[TheLittleSongbird · 10/10 · 8 March 2011]

I do love all three films of The Lord of the Rings trilogy, all are visually stunning with wonderful music and strong narratives. The Two Towers is my personal favourite of the three for several reasons. For one thing it is less talky than Fellowship of the Ring, and the pace is a little more secure here. Also the final battle is just breathtaking in the action, direction and in its scope, and very compelling and epic. And some of the characters are developed more here than they were in Fellowship of the Ring primarily Frodo and Aragorn, who were played very well there but a little bland in comparison to here.

When it comes to the scope The Two Towers is possibly the biggest in the trilogy. The cinematography is one of the strongest assets, while the scenery, costumes, lighting and make up(the orcs look amazing) are all gorgeous. You can tell a lot of effort went into this and it showed. The music is also darker and perhaps more complex, the story is richer and compelling and the dialogue is thought provoking. People may disagree, but I think The Two Towers is the best directed of the trilogy too.

The acting is very good. Elijah Wood is likable enough with a stronger-written character, while Sean Astin's bumbling persona suits Sam really well. Viggo Mortensson is as strong and charismatic as ever. Ian McKellen, Christopher Lee and Bernard Hill are also perfectly cast, but the real revelation in my view with this movie is Gollum. Here Gollum is designed superbly, and Andy Serkis's performance is absolutely phenomenal and Oscar-nod worthy.

In conclusion, a fine film and for me my personal favourite of the trilogy. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Great One

[dcastor · 9/10 · 18 December 2002]

I considered The Fellowship of the Ring to be one of the greatest movies ever. This one is better!

The scenery is marvelous, the animations great, and the story superb. This episode strays further from the books when it comes to the unfolding of events, but I feel that it stays closer in atmosphere and realism; the nazgûls are now the fear-inspiring creatures they should be. Gollum, excellently implemented, even becomes more realistic then I remember him from the books, not to mention other attempts to portray him. His schizophrenic monologues are among the highlights of the movie.

The major drawback is once again the apparent incapability of the dark-side creatures. Aragorn with fellows can ride back and forth among them unhurt, while the Uruk-Hai fall in large numbers just for being nearby. Though I enjoy many of the jokes made at Gimli's expense, this still is another thing I partly dislike. Gimli sure is no clown in the books.

I rate the movie 9/10 (my highest so far).

An excellent addition to the series

[Person555 · 9/10 · 13 February 2005]

Vote: 8.8 (rounded up to 9)

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is an amazing movie that any Tolkien fan, adventure fan, or war fan should see. Acting: Elijah Wood as Frodo is amazing. He really captures the pain that the poor little hobbit must be going through. Ian McKellen as Gandalf is excellent,even though he has a much smaller role than in FOTR. Viggo Mortenson as Aragorn was another good choice and you could really experience what he must be going through. John Rys-Davies was really good as Gimli, but his jokes got really tiring before the end. Sean Astin as Sam fit the description of good old Sam well and also acted out the character perfectly. Bernard Hill as Theoden, Brad Dourif as Grima, Miranda Otto as Eowyn, Karl Urban as Eomer, David Wenham as Faramir and Liv Tyler as Arwen were all excellent actors. Gollum was really amazing. Andy Serkis deserves some award, for the perfect cat coughing up fur ball voice for Gollum, and kudos to the design team who made the motion capture suit. I wish we could have seen more of Christopher Lee as he is a superb actor. Orlando Bloom as Legolas, on the other hand, sucked. He had absolutely no emotion and if it wasn't for his fighting scenes then the character would have been totally wasted. Dominic Monaghan as Merry and Billy Boyd as Pippin were also good actors. Directing: Peter Jackson did another excellent job in this movie, though as i said in my FOTR review, his career as a horror movie maker hurt him. The scene where all the dead Orc bodies were piled up and one of their heads was on a pole wasn't really necessary (and then Gimli was going through the burning remains (hmmmm orc barbecue), and there was another stupid scene were you saw the Uruks being born out of mud sacs. Screenplay: Good, the only scene they needed was the one in the extended edition of the flashback between Faramir, Boromir and Denethor. That scene was really necessary to describe Faramirs character Special Effects: Too amazing for words. The Battle of Helms Deep was so perfect you couldn't tell what was CGI and what wasn't. Gollum didn't look like a fake. The battle of Isengard was also well done and when the ents broke the dam and Isengard was flooded i was reminded of a disaster flick. The special effects alone were worth the price of admission. Other: Again the cinematography was beautiful and just jaw-dropping gorgeous. Makes me really want to visit New Zealand just to see the places they filmed. Rohan, and Edoras especially were beautiful. Howard Shore's score was excellent. The Rohan theme song fit the beautiful scenery perfectly. Overall: An excellent movie worth seeing. If the filmmakers weren't so stuck up about themselves this movie would be even better.

Hail The Heroes!

[docmonster · 18 December 2002]

Every great adventure story worth telling has a solid hero - someone who puts others before themselves and uses their talents to do their best at keeping the forces of evil at bay even if it means the loss of life and limb. At its core, this movie has eight such heroes and each one lives up to the call. From Pippin and Merry, the lost hobbits who aid the Ents in battle, to Gandalf, Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas who held back the hordes at Helms Deep to Frodo and Samwise who continue to make their dangerous and arduous trek to Mount Doom. All of these characters are heroes and they're played with love, respect and meaning.

Though the acting in this film was top notch throughout, I found myself amazed by Gollum's (motion captured body and voice by Andy Serkis) overall performance. Though obviously CGI, there was so much emotion in this character that I couldn't help believe he was real! Though "Final Fantasy" was the only movie that created the most realistic CGI characters that dominated an entire film, Gollum is lightyears ahead with the simple fact that this deformed li'l hobbit seemed human. He had the spark of life behind those eyes that the FF "cast" lacked.

As a film, this movie has it all - action, drama, comedy - but none of it would've worked without characters we cared about, villains we despised and heroes we cheered for. With the obvious success of the first two installments, the release of the final film next December may prove this to be THE BEST trilogy ever made!

Jackson remains a genius, and this series remains a masterpiece--Faithful enough to Tolkein, and a fantastic movie!

[bopdog · 10/10 · 18 December 2002]

I've read ---with care and delight--- the books four times in the last 34 years, including the recent reversion to Tolkein's "original" manuscript, edited by his son. I'm a fan. There, I said it, and I'm glad, I tell you!

This second installment of the trilogy is probably as good as a movie could get. It captures the Tolkein vibe probably as well as it could be captured in a theatrical release. Watching the flick tonight I realized that much of the vaunted charm of the very readable and very "literary" Tolkein books is in part the time it takes to read the long pages--- 1,000 to 1,400 pages, depending on the edition your are holding. And that time--- weeks and weeks of pouring over pages, re-reading certain passages, pondering and mulling over the fake languages and songs, and histories Tolkein concocted--- allows one to create and invent the Tolkein world inside oneself. That's GREAT! I loved each time I read the original. But no one could possibly expect a movie to give you, in 2-1/2 hours, that kind of luxurious lingering in the fantasy world. Duh!

Therefore, the movie's focus on action--- and FYI, it is dead-on accurate and faithful to the books--- is OK. The Ents' meeting in the forest took 3 or 4 DAYS in the book, and Merry and Pippin spent many more days hanging with Treebeard. The movie telescoped that down into a few hours. But hey!!! Think about it--- how could a movie, ANY movie, capture all of the sylvan reverie (including the Hobbits growing a couple of feet taller with the Entwash, etc.) in a trilogy movie series? All of that dreamy book-world stuff would be great to see on the screen--- but it would take dozens and dozens of hours of screen-time. Who could sit in a theater for that many weeks? There aren't that many "festive" people on the planet to make such a theatrical release profitable.

Maybe if we were wishing, we could have wished for a 30 or 40 hour TV mini-series. Then we COULD afford to meander and linger and all of that. Seriously--- I'd have enjoyed it. But then, the battles and evil empire and such would have to be portrayed with a vigor equal to Jackson's efforts, else the drama and peril (etc.) would be lost. For MY ridiculous wishing, then, I'm wishing for them to have made two projects--- the 3 theater-release movies, AND a 30-hour TV mini-series for all the "literary" vibe. But then, instead of a $300 million triology, we'd have had a $1 BILLION dollar (but memorable!) TV mini-series. Oh well--- if wishing were having...

Overall, "LOTR Two Towers" is an excellent movie! A "10" out of "10"!!!

The Two Towers! What Is It? The Answer Is: My Precious!

[MinorityReporter · 10/10 · 13 June 2006]

The second part of The Lord of the Rings saga maintains the style, momentum and integrity that made the first film as brilliant as it is and thus what Peter Jackson gives us is one of the best sequels ever and certainly the best film of 2002. I prefer the first film for being closer to the book but I completely understand the changes made from book to film and I see why they are necessary to keep the film's narrative flowing instead of dropping dead. The film is not without a few weaknesses mainly because of it being a middle part linking The Fellowship of the Ring and The Return of the King and therefore not having an obvious beginning or an end. This doesn't stop the film from being an experience that people shouldn't be cheated out of.

The acting is, like in the first film, very good and at times even brilliant. Viggo Mortensen improves greatly and provides a more well rounded and believable Aragorn and proves his qualities as an actor especially in the quit moments (of which there are too few in the theatrical release, this was remedied in the extended cut). Also Elijah Wood deepens his character considerably and shows many of the darker sides of his character in the film. This provides for some interesting exchanges between Wood and his faithful companion played by Sean Astin. Bernard Hill is introduced in this film along with the method actor, Brad Dourif. Both of the aforementioned are excellent in their respective parts even though there are some inconsistencies in Hill's character compared to the character from the book. These changes were obviously made for dramatic purposes and are very plausible. Ian McKellen's character, Gandalf, has been somewhat reduced in the second film but instead he steals every scene he is in. Likewise, Hugo Weaving's character has been reduced but he is still very good and keeps his character in the same style as in the first film. Orlando Bloom and John Rhys-Davies returns as well and I have to comment on the choice to make Gimli into comic relief, because while I understand the necessity given that Dominic Monaghan's and Billy Boyd's characters have taken a turn towards more serious characters there had to be someone to relieve the dramatic tension, I found it a shame that Gimli had been reduced to some bumbling clown. Fortunately most of his comic remarks worked. Among other characters introduced are Faramir, played by David Wenham, and Gollum, played beautifully by Andy Serkis. I'll get back to Faramir but for now I have to comment on Gollum. Gollum is quite simply the most interesting film character in the last decade and this relates both to the ground breaking special effects but also Serkis' performance, which was most unfairly not deemed fit for an Oscar nomination. Overall the acting is excellent like in the first film and all actors manages to develop their characters in ways that are at the very least acceptable.

The effects and fight scenes in this second film are among the best ever and is perhaps only bested by some of the effects in the third film in the series. The Gollum character and the battle for Helm's Deep seem to be excellent examples. Gollum is quite simply the most stunning and beautifully created CGI character of all time and he displays extraordinary emotional range. As previously stated The Battle for Helm's Deep is among the finest battle scenes ever created. Well paced and choreographed and above all the editing in between the hectic battle sequences and scared citizens provides for some emotional depth as well (something that was sorely needed in the battle sequences in Star Wars: Episode II). This gigantic battle isn't the only battle in the film. There are many other interesting battles but I'm not going to spoil them so you'll just have to see the film yourself. The battles are consistent with the style that was laid down in the first film they are simply on a much more epic scale.

Some people have raved that the changes made from book to film were too radical but I completely understand and condone the reasons which were obviously dramatic purposes. Especially David Wenham's character has been criticized and after watching it the first time I was a bit unhappy with his character as well but when you think about it the changes in the character were at the very least essential to maintain the narrative structure. There are other examples but it would really be pointless to mention them because the reason is exactly the same as in the case of David Wenham's character. Dramatic purposes.

Overall The Two Towers serves as an excellent link between the Fellowship of the Ring and The Return of the King and it deserves every bit of praise coming to it. One of the very best films of all time.

10/10 - On my top 10 of best films

A magical film.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 10/10 · 23 September 2023]

Frodo and Sam continue with their dangerous journey, desperately trying to reach Mordor to destroy the ring, aided by Gollum, who is still conflicted about helping the hobbits.

Where do you even start to unpick and comment on a film such as The Two Towers?

Epic in every sense, this brilliant film will entertain and thrill you, astonish and move you. This one had me gripped from start to finish, I love the journey, but it's the ending that makes this film so incredible.

The battle scenes are astonishing, some of the visuals even now are jaw dropping, the assembled armies look phenomenal. It is pretty much non stop action, for a long film, your attention will be held.

The acting, as good as it gets, McKellen, Mortensen and Hill are all considered tremendous, and rightly so. I have to give credit to the magic of Christopher Lee, his very presence and delivery still give me chills, what an actor.

Andy Serkis, off the scale, every single Gollum scene was flawless, the voice and visuals are tremendous, what an interesting and successful realisation.

10/10.

FilmCreature Reviews 'The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers'

[FilmCreature · 10/10 · 7 July 2007]

You'd think you can't improve on a 10/10 movie, but this one does, with great action and characters. There isn't much else to say about the special effects that I didn't already in my first review, they're still fantastic. Peter Jackson doesn't treat this like a sequel, it's just the continuing story of heroes battling the forces of evil.

Frodo, now alone except for his buddy Sam (Sean Astin), is on his epic journey to Mount Mordor to destroy The One Ring. He'll encounter Gollum, a wretched creature who's definitely up to something.

And meanwhile Aragorn and friends are trying to protect the little country of Rohan from imminent destruction from the newly-bred Uruk-Hai, vicious monsters crossed with man and elf.

4/4. Wish I'd seen it in theaters.

Tough to put on film but came out very well

[Barky44 · 9/10 · 5 August 2004]

Long before it came out, I knew The Two Towers would be the toughest of the three Lord of the Rings books to put on film. Not only is it the middle child, but the very structure of the book makes it hard to craft a linear story with all the plot lines in tact and interesting.

But I think Peter Jackson and company did a very good job. It's not as strong as Fellowship, but is still outstanding.

All the elements of the LOTR films are here: the beautiful photography, set designs, costumes, scenery, special effects. All amazing, all brilliant, all Oscar-worthy.

The performances are terrific, too. Bernard Hill, Viggo Mortensen, Elijah Wood, Miranda Otto, all did great jobs. The supporting actors, too.

It is sad that Ian McKellan's role is relegated to almost cameo status, but that's the nature of the book. The biggest shame is Christopher Lee. He has so little screen time in this film, I think he only says two or three lines on camera, the rest is "brooding". Such a waste, he is one of the great actors of our time, a real joy to watch (and a scene stealer to boot).

But the stars of the piece have to be Gollum and Treebeard and the Uruk army. The sequence with the Ents seeing the destruction Saruman wrought upon the trees brought tears to my eyes, and their revenge brought cheers to my voice. The battle of Helm's Deep was probably too long, but impressive nonetheless (and will probably be the model for "epic battle sequences" for years to come). And Gollum. What can be said about Gollum that hasn't already been said. We have entered into a new age of CGI, and, like all great works of art, it has a human soul.

A great film. 9 out of 10, the only items keeping it from getting a 10 are the short-shrifting of Christopher Lee and that some parts don't quite flow too well (a problem rooted in JRR Tolkien's novel, not the fault of the filmmakers).

The Greatest of the Three Rings

[John_Mclaren · 10/10 · 6 March 2004]

Yes, it's true. Return of the King may have won more of the Oscars as the culmination of Peter Jackson's magnificent cinematic achievement, but history will in fact adjudge "The Two Towers" as the greatest of the three Rings. If Fellowship was a road movie and ROTK was a friendship film, then Two Towers is an unadulterated war movie of heroic proportions. Peter Jackson said he based it on "Zulu"- and we can see why. It has a dramatic intensity and flow which none of the other films quite share. Good against evil are so sharply contrasted that you could cut your fingers on them. TTT also has the best score Howard Shore has produced. And it has the best dialogue.

The screenplay explains (with barely disguised contemporary resonance) what we are protecting in Western civilisation when we defend ourselves against those who would wish to destroy it. When Sam tells Frodo that there are "some things worth fighting for", when Merry tells Pippin that there "won't be a Shire" unless they do something about it, when King Theoden laments that "the sun has gone down in the West" this film could be entitled not the "Two Towers" but "the Twin Towers". It is Miltonic in its scope. It is cinema as art.

Yes, one may quibble about certain Entish details, and I know that the Elves weren't supposed to be at Helm's Deem, and that Faramir is a little undeveloped, but does this matter? Not at all. The Extended version is better than the original, but does not need to make such a quantum leap as Fellowship managed with its EE. However it will be a film that is seen as a landmark in cinema. A trilogy which may never be bettered. And a reminder of what we are all here for

A compromised vision.

[jewelthrone · 5/10 · 7 November 2010]

Some of us may know the back story of how Tolkien himself never wanted his books to be made into a film and I have to say that I agree with him, much of the magic of his books were in the finer details and these could never be conveyed well in a film. Here we have a film that's well done in some ways yet in the grand scheme of things it was never needed, the books stand alone and this trilogy of movies are a perhaps selfish project? -that are essentially a compromised vision of the books, this big budget 'action' movie would serve those looking for a feast of CGI effects and action sequences, thankfully there is some subtlety and the interplay between characters is the films saving grace and I appreciate the tasteful selection of dialog used for the most part. One of my big beefs with The Two Towers and the other 2 movies is just how nonthreatening Sauron is in these films, I think this aspect weakens the movies a great deal, even the ring wraiths come across as impotent compared to creatures such as the Urak Hai. Another is the abrupt transitions between scenes, and the movies lose much of the 'glue' that the books had tying everything together. Finally 'some' of the CGI effects don't do justice to the imagination - Sauron's eye, and the faces in the dead marsh seem to suffer like Gladrieal did in the previous movie - a little bit too overly dramatic and washed out - I am only mentioning this as a comparison to the majority of effects in this movies which are actually very well done. Also the costumes are excellent, I especially thought the depictions of the orcs were excellent. Overall I can only give this 5 stars.

They Accomplished the Near-Impossible.

[tfrizzell · 25 March 2003]

"The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" is another excellent installment in the thus far excellent trilogy. The film picks up immediately where "The Fellowship of the Ring" left off as Elijah Wood and Sean Astin continue their long and seemingly hopeless journey to destroy the One Ring in the fires of Mordor. They run into the creature Gollum (played amazingly by Andy Serkis in a revolutionary character-generation). Serkis' motives are unclear as the ring has literally run him insane and created a split personality that combats the character's natural good side. Meanwhile Billy Boyd and Dominic Monaghan have escaped the dark forces that captured them, but now are in another dilemma as they try to convince a forest of living, moving trees to support their cause for good and truth. Viggo Mortensen, Orlando Bloom and John Rhys-Davies receive more help from the likes of Bernard Hill's army and his lovely niece (Mirando Otto). As all this occurs, Ian McKellen comes back and rehashes a role which seemed to have expired late in the first film. Hugo Weaving and daughter Liv Tyler know that victory is not certain and realize that they must leave their true homes forever to protect themselves and the lives of their people. Christopher Lee continues to create chaos with the help of the highly disturbed Brad Dourif (of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" fame). In the end not one, but two key battles will create the sure-to-be electrifying landscape which will be experienced by all in the franchise's final installment ("The Return of the King"). Many view "The Two Towers" as an achievement even more impressive than its predecessor. True the film does go beyond the technical faculties of "The Fellowship of the Ring", but it is hard for me to pick this installment over the first (which will likely always be my favorite). This film is more intense and you get the feeling of real danger and peril throughout, while the first was more of an emotional experience due to its nice elements of friendship, love and personal sacrifice. In short, "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" is an amazing sequel and it fits in well with the outstanding first film. 5 stars out of 5.