The Two Towers

[Mead]

This would have to be the first time for a very long while that I've gone to a film on its opening day. I'm glad I did- The Two Towers was simply unbelievable.

Waiting in the line did make one thing apparent- if you're over 18, there is NO excuse for dressing up for a movie, no matter how much you like it. I understand that some people like Lord of the Rings an awful lot- heck, I wouldn't have been there on the opening night if i hadn't had more than a passing interest in it, but still, the moment you put on elf ears to go to a movie, you're pretty much condemning yourself to a life of tragedy.

Anyway, the movie- wow. This is a film that is going to please a lot of people. The story is broadly faithful to Tolkien's original, in general it was a faster paced, darker film than the first of the trilogy. Visually, this film isn't just good, it's revolutionary, full of 'how the **** did they do that' moments. Even if you loath Part I, Tolkien, fantasy, and 'epic' films in general, its still worth seeing this film for the visual effects and cinematography alone. Enormous armies march, fight and die spectacularly, giant walking trees wreak havoc on some poor bastards, but the more subtle visual effects are perhaps the most stunning- the thing which spun me out was watching an flawlessly rendered computer generated Gollum splash through a 'real' stream and flip a fish out of the water. It didn't look like Jar Jar Binks, it didn't even look like really professional flawlessly done computer effects, it just looked real, period.
The Two Towers takes itself seriously- the dialogue is ye olde shakespearean, and the only thing which prevents it from being borderline farcical is the suspension of disbelief- quiet easy, given the incredibly pretty scenery- if you get immersed in what's going on, you forget how strange some of the things said are. There are some lighter moments if you're looking for them- the director seems to have a bit of a dwarf fetish, Gimli spends the entire movie alternately acting tough or being the butt of some artificially contrived short joke, also I'm not sure this was intended, but Frodo and Sam still appear to be obviously batting for the other team so to speak, and Gollum is hilarious in a sickly horrific sort of way. Speaking of Gollum, he by far the best character in this film- disturbingly real looking, his voice was perfect, and the entire persona was compelling- you'll feel a bit sorry for him, but its also clear he's a creepy little bugger- the scene where a schizoprenic gollum has an argument with himself was very very cool.
As far as the other characters, Viggo Mortenson is a masterful Aragorn, Ian Mckellan is as good as he was in the first, albeit with limited screen time, John Rhys-davies hams up the comic aspects nicely, and Orlando Bloom seems to be a more mature, integral Legolas. Most amazingly though, Liv Tyler does not suck, indeed, she seems more comfortable as Arwen than she has ever looked playing any other character, including Liv Tyler.
Probably the biggest problem with the film is something which it couldn't really avoid, given the source material- this film lacks a hugely satisfying resolution, simply because it doesn't stand alone- I can't wait to see how all three films look when watched together.

So all things considered- see it. Now, where was I..? 364 days to go until Return of the King.....

 

[Docker_Brat]

Agreed with what you said Mead, it was completely brilliant.

Queues were mad at Morley.

 

[Carmelo Anthony]

One of the most pathetic movies I have ever seen in my life

Tragedy.. thats the only word that can describe this 3 hr long bore fest

 

[thehardaway]

Originally posted by Mead
The Two Towers takes itself seriously- the dialogue is ye olde shakespearean

Ye Olde Shakespearean? I'd say spoken in modern language with only a slight tinge of old tongue used.

The effects were brilliant, storyline great, and was captivating from the moment "Lord of the Rings" came up and you start hearing echoes from Moria of the previous events. That whole opening, I was glued.

Sam and Frodo really look like they need a room together. Gollum was great, the dialogue between Smeagol and Gollum simply brilliant, and the reintroduction of the Nazgul was cool.

The hopelessness and desperation of war shown at Helm's Deep was powerful. A situation of 300 against 10,000, where any male, boy or man strong enough to hold armour and sword HAD to fight.
I agree with the film's ending, though I did think they left it at a better position this time than the FOTR did.

I would have liked to have seen more of the battle when the Rohirrim joined the fray, I thought it was a bit underdone and the battle ended abruptly. Now to wait for the dvd releases and finally, the Return of the King.

 

[speedy]

Originally posted by Carmelo Anthony
One of the most pathetic movies I have ever seen in my life

Tragedy.. thats the only word that can describe this 3 hr long bore fest

I dont think you can call it pathetic because so many aspects of this movie are incredible. The scenery, special effects, attention to detail and just the magnitude of the whole thing. But I must agree at times that the movie is plain boring and the lack of any satisfactory resolution at the end is a real killer.

Its still worth a look though.

 

[Mobbs]

Heading off to see it today ... just finished watching the DVD of FOTR with the cast commentary, hyped me up well for the 2nd instalment!

Attn : Mead - but was it as good as Ghost Ship?

 

[Uncle Steve]

Originally posted by Mead
the moment you put on elf ears to go to a movie, you're pretty much condemning yourself to a life of tragedy.

Sounds like the Trekkies found another use for their Spock ears

I went on Boxing day; Glenelg cinema was jam-packed. I wasn't as impressed with it as the first one, though. It was a lot harder to follow than the first - not easy if you're not better than familiar with the book. Agree about Gollum though - he was very well done.

 

[Blues Angel]

Who cares bout the movie..

I'm in love with Orlando Bloom (Legolas)

Phwoarrr!!!

Worth seeing for him ALONE!!

 

[sabre_ac]

I am a fan of huge pre gun war scenes and two towers was up there with the best.
My favourite has always been the very first scene of gladiator but I would say that it was almost surpassed by the fight for rohan.
And by the way the elf kicks some serious ass.

 

[Mead]

Originally posted by Mobbenfuhrer
Heading off to see it today ... just finished watching the DVD of FOTR with the cast commentary, hyped me up well for the 2nd instalment!

Attn : Mead - but was it as good as Ghost Ship?

Thats a big call, Mobbe, and not one i'm prepared to make.. Ghost ship was, after all, one of the greatest films of our time

Incidentally, the oafish dude in Ghost Ship (which one, you might ask) is pretty good as Eomer in Lotr, although you frankly don't see much of him.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

I loved every moment of it. Gollum was fantastic-definitely my favourite character from the book and now my fave from the films.

 

[knuckles]

Two towers

I don't know. I just think it is hard to play both Ottens and Richardson in the 50M arc. Might work.

 

[Bulldog1954]

I was expecting to see Katherine Heigls boobies when I opened the thread

 

[TigerCraig]

Re: Two towers

Originally posted by knuckles
I don't know. I just think it is hard to play both Ottens and Richardson in the 50M arc. Might work.

Champagne Comedy

 

[M29]

The best movie I have seen. Better than Part 1.

Star Wars can **** right off.

 

[The_Flying_Egg]

Originally posted by Bulldog1954
I was expecting to see Katherine Heigls boobies when I opened the thread

They didn't give me enough space for my avatar

 

[Tigers_Goddess]

Re: Who cares bout the movie..

Originally posted by Blues Angel
I'm in love with Orlando Bloom (Legolas)

Phwoarrr!!!

Worth seeing for him ALONE!!

Your not wrong there, forget the rest just make the whole movie about him

Loved the first and I'm dying to see the second

Havent even seen the movie yet (going Sunday) and I've allready organized to see it 3 times with 3 different people.

 

[Dan26]

The second episode of a trilogy is supposed to be the cliffhanger. Why wasn't Shelob, the giant Spider used as she was in the book to "kill" Frodo? Obvously it will happen at the beginning of the 3rd movie, but what's the point in having a cliffhanger like that at the start of the 3rd when it should be at the end of the 2nd? It defeats the purpose.

The movie was visually fantastic but excruciatingly slow. The strange thing about the The Two Towers is that it ends the same way the first part ends - with Sam and Frodo on their way to Mordor (ableit with Gollum). So really, nothing has happened to progress the story of the ringbearer. We see a huge battle for middle Earth, with Theoden fighting to save his people, but once it is all resolved we are basically where we were at the end of the first movie. Sure Isengard has been destroyed but the stroy is about Frodo getting to Mordor not Isengard. You could put the third movie straight after the first and it would nearly make sense! Having studied movies, I can tell you that the whole second part is hypothetically dispensable if you were making one long movie about the entire saga. You could sum up The Two Towers in the first 10 minutes of Return of the King. And yet Jackson takes three hours to show this and doesn't even include the best cliffhanging part!

If you want to see how a true second instalment of a trilogy, should be constructed in terms of the ending, witness Back to the Future Part II or The Empire Strikes Back.

The battle scene was way too long too. Even though a big battle is a major thing, it is usually better not to actually see the tedium involved. We had a 40 minute lead up, and then the 40 minute battle itself. Way, way too long. Unnecessary. No matter how technically good the film is, I do not see why it had to be dragged out so long. All the battle scenes are spectacular but whenever anyone opens their mouth they always utter things that are supposed to sound weighty and serious but is always agonizingly pretentious and bordering on self-parody. Jackson seems more concerned with spectacle and "awe" than telling the story, knowing of course that the story has already been written. Thak God for Gollum. He was the best character in it. I actually pitied him, he was that convincing. Just a great character. So, whilst there was plenty to like about the film, I'll tell you what - if I sit for three hours I want the story to progress.

And Aragorn "dying", which was an obvious excuse to write Arwen into the movie (she isn't even in the book) was just not right. When an entire stroy thread is invented for convenience, it just doesn't work. The epic feel, and sepectacle is wonderful, but I next time I'd prefer less action, and more intimacy with characters.

 

[thehardaway]

Originally posted by Dan26
The second episode of a trilogy is supposed to be the cliffhanger. Why wasn't Shelob, the giant Spider used as she was in the book to "kill" Frodo? Obvously it will happen at the beginning of the 3rd movie, but what's the point in having a cliffhanger like that at the start of the 3rd when it should be at the end of the 2nd? It defeats the purpose.

The Return of the King only occupies half of the final book, the rest being in Appendices. With the Scouring of the Shire removed, it becomes even smaller. The stories really seperate in the final book, and the film will probably head in the same direction. If these fragments are seperated for a great amount of time, then the suspense will build, assuming we see the events early in ROTK. That being said, it could have been incorporated but was saved for the final installment.

The movie was visually fantastic but excruciatingly slow. The strange thing about the The Two Towers is that it ends the same way the first part ends - with Sam and Frodo on their way to Mordor (ableit with Gollum). So really, nothing has happened to progress the story of the ringbearer.

It went pretty quick for me. But I also thought SW:AOTC was tedious in parts. To each their own.

A brief trip to the events of Moria, then the battle of Gandalf and the Balrog. A better introduction to Gollum and his schizophrenic ways, a reminder of what the Ring does to those who possess it. Frodo can feel the burden of the Ring intensifying as they approach Mordor. His little spats (or was it lover's quarrels) at Sam show his personality and views changing, and is worried of having the Ring taken from him.

Sure Isengard has been destroyed but the stroy is about Frodo getting to Mordor not Isengard. You could put the third movie straight after the first and it would nearly make sense! Having studied movies, I can tell you that the whole second part is hypothetically dispensable if you were making one long movie about the entire saga.

Isengard needs to be destroyed, for Frodo to have any chance of destroying the Ring. Rohan was being attacked by Saruman. Gondor attacked by Sauron. The Men of Middle Earth have two wars with essentially the same enemy. With the destruction of Isengard and Saruman, it allows the Rohirrim to join the forces of Gondor against Sauron. This is only a decoy, and to take his focus away from Mordor (allowing Frodo to sneak in) as he attempts to destroy the world of Men.

A movie based solely on Frodo attempting to throw the Ring into the fires of Mount Doom would be about as intriguing as dishwater.

If you want to see how a true second instalment of a trilogy, should be constructed in terms of the ending, witness Back to the Future Part II or The Empire Strikes Back.

If only Lucas had applied these to SW:AOTC. Rarely are sequels better than the originals, trilogy or no trilogy.

The battle scene was way too long too. Even though a big battle is a major thing, it is usually better not to actually see the tedium involved. We had a 40 minute lead up, and then the 40 minute battle itself. Way, way too long. Unnecessary. No matter how technically good the film is, I do not see why it had to be dragged out so long.

The leadup and battle were intercut with scenes from the other two subplots. I think the battle scene was underdone, with the Rohirrim arriving with Gandalf and then it pretty much being all over. They could have trimmed some scenes and added others, but I think the length was pretty spot on, as if the Deep had fallen and Saruman victorious, Middle Earth would fall to Sauron.

All the battle scenes are spectacular but whenever anyone opens their mouth they always utter things that are supposed to sound weighty and serious but is always agonizingly pretentious and bordering on self-parody. Jackson seems more concerned with spectacle and "awe" than telling the story, knowing of course that the story has already been written.

Sounds like George Lucas with Episode 1 and 2. Directors feel a need to awe an audience these days (Episode 1 Pod Race, Episode 2 Assassin chase, Harry Potter Quidditch match)

Thak God for Gollum. He was the best character in it.

Couldn't agree more

And Aragorn "dying", which was an obvious excuse to write Arwen into the movie (she isn't even in the book) was just not right. When an entire stroy thread is invented for convenience, it just doesn't work.

It worked for those who haven't read the full story. I have read it many times, and it also worked for me. I am curious as to how that aspect will finish.

PJ took a few liberties, but it is HIS interpretation of the LOTR after all. In attempting to make something many thought would be nigh on impossible, PJ has done a brilliant job.

 

[M29]

Originally posted by Dan26
All the battle scenes are spectacular but whenever anyone opens their mouth they always utter things that are supposed to sound weighty and serious but is always agonizingly pretentious and bordering on self-parody. Jackson seems more concerned with spectacle and "awe"

Wasn't that the whole point of star wars? Special effects ad nauseam.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by M29
Wasn't that the whole point of Star Wars? Special effects ad nauseam.

What the hell has Star Wars got to do with this? You've posted two short posts on this thread and mentioned it both times.

This is LOTR, not Star Wars. They are different films.

Having said that, there was a huge difference between the battles in the two films.

As I stated earlier, even though a big battle is a major thing, it is usually better not to actually see the tedium involved. Reservoir Dogs is a jewel-heist movie in which you never even see the heist. That is why I am so glad to know that George Lucas will not show us more than a glimmer of the Clone Wars on film. A lot of people will be upset thinking they get to see a whole Clone War movie next time around, but instead it will just be the ending (it will all have happened in between the second and third movie.) We do not need to know the details, just the results. Cause and effect are the points. The transformation between the two is usually boring. Showing a battle for 80 minutes doesn't progress the stroy. Fellowship was all building up and driving towards something big. Same thing applies with A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back, or with the Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones, or with Back to the Future part's 1 and 2. The building tension is great. Seeing it expelled is not, unless it is the end act, the money shot, where we know it is coming to a close. The Helms Deep battle too way too long and didn't seem to go anywhere.

 

[M29]

Originally posted by Dan26
What the hell has Star Wars got to do with this? You've posted two short posts on this thread and mentioned it both times.

The first time, I was trolling and bemused at how you could say

but is always agonizingly pretentious and bordering on self-parody

Considering lucas' on screen masturbation he has used in everyone of his films. (Except the 1st one, that was ok.)

If you want to see how a true second instalment of a trilogy, should be constructed in terms of the ending, witness Back to the Future Part II or The Empire Strikes Back.

thehardaway answered this one. IMO this one was miles better than the 1st.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by thehardaway
The Return of the King only occupies half of the final book, the rest being in Appendices. With the Scouring of the Shire removed, it becomes even smaller. The stories really seperate in the final book, and the film will probably head in the same direction. If these fragments are seperated for a great amount of time, then the suspense will build, assuming we see the events early in ROTK. That being said, it could have been incorporated but was saved for the final installment.

The last book goes for 293 pages, the second book for 340. The second book's ending will be covered at the start of Return of the King and the second books beginning was already covered at the ending of Fellowship. So, the events from the second book that Jacskon has transformed onto film is really only the middle 300 pages of the 340. This 300 is not a lot different to the length of Return of the King (293) without the appendices.

Originally posted by thehardaway
It went pretty quick for me. But I also thought SW:AOTC was tedious in parts. To each their own.

What's that got to do with anything? I thought Attack of the Killer Tomatoes was tedious too. Same with Police Academy 7.

Originally posted by thehardaway
Isengard needs to be destroyed, for Frodo to have any chance of destroying the Ring. Rohan was being attacked by Saruman. Gondor attacked by Sauron. The Men of Middle Earth have two wars with essentially the same enemy. With the destruction of Isengard and Saruman, it allows the Rohirrim to join the forces of Gondor against Sauron. This is only a decoy, and to take his focus away from Mordor (allowing Frodo to sneak in) as he attempts to destroy the world of Men.

A movie based solely on Frodo attempting to throw the Ring into the fires of Mount Doom would be about as intriguing as dishwater.

Oh I agree totally. Obviosuly the second film was always going to be adapted. How can we have a Lord of the Rings saga without one of the books! My point was that the events could hypothetically be covered in the first 10 minutes of Return Of the King similar to the voice over at the beginning of Fellowship, which basically covered 3,000 years of histroy of Middle Earth! The film ends the same way the first film ends - with our two heroes on their way to Mordor.

It's almost as if there is a whole bunch of stuff plonked in, that is adjacent to the main stroy. We dispense with that stuff very slowly over 3 hours (Isengard, Helms Deep), and then continue on where Fellowship left off. No cliffhanger at all.

Originally posted by thehardaway
If only Lucas had applied these to SW:AOTC. Rarely are sequels better than the originals, trilogy or no trilogy.

Last time I checked, SW:AOTC was far, far superior to it's prequel as was Episode 5 to the original Episode 4.

Originally posted by thehardaway
PJ took a few liberties, but it is HIS interpretation of the LOTR after all. In attempting to make something many thought would be nigh on impossible, PJ has done a brilliant job.

Agreee, he has done a great job. There is no need, however to make the films over 3 hours in length. They don't have to be 3 hours each to be good. How many fims are 3 hours? I'd guess 5%.

 

[Mooster7]

It's a great film. There are some things I would have done differently with both movies, but they did a fantastic job over all.

I agree with Dan about Shelob. Would have made a better cliff hanger. I don't understand why they had Faramir take Sam & Frodo to Osgoliath (sp?). It didn't happen that way in the books, and they could have used the time having Golem lead them to Shelob's lair.

Peace,

 

[Docker_Brat]

Not having read the book I didn't know about the spider. Thanks for the spoilers But you could be right, it may have made a better ending but having know knowledge of the alternative, I thought the ending was pretty good, you just know something is going to happen with Gollum listening to his dark side and leading them into danger.