Thoughts on "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers"

If you promised to Speak No Spoilers, Hear No Spoilers, and See No Spoilers, then please, don't read on! This review is NOT spoiler free! And I also did not bother to hide them like I did for "Chamber of Secrets", sorry.

If there's anything that I expected even before seeing the movie, it is that, unlike "Fellowship of the Ring", this movie would not be as faithful to Tolkien's version. But then, as level-headed and logical people would say, it is, after all, a film adaptation, and isn't expected to truly stick to the details of the books. The two Harry Potter movies are probably the closest thing to a truly faithful adaptation I've seen so far. Aside from the deviations from the books, though, "The Two Towers" still ranks as one of the very best movies ever made. And for that, I bow to the dedication and artistry of Peter Jackson and his cast and crew.

The opening shots of breathtaking snow-capped New Zealand mountains and the faint voices, as well as finally seeing what happened to Gandalf, was a good way to start the movie. It takes us back to familiar scenes from the first film, and answers that question of what happened to Gandalf when he "fell into shadow", and takes us right into the story with no introductions, giving us the illusion of continuity with FOTR. As usual, the scenery is wonderful, the sets were fabulous, and the costumes and props were truly magical and artistic.

As for the new characters... Eomer was great, and so was Eowyn. Miranda Otto has got the role down pat, she truly looked like a shieldmaiden of Rohan, mixing femininity and strength, and conveying a certain fascination and attraction for Aragorn. Great sword-wielding there too. Wormtongue was truly the treacherous being that he is, and King Theoden was the very image of a king. There was more focus on the friendship between Legolas, Gimli and Aragorn, which I truly appreciated, it being one aspect of the book that I really liked. Peter Jackson captured Gimli's humor and the unlikely camaraderie between him and Legolas. Gimli's voice carrying over the war noises when he was counting how many orcs he has slain was a nice touch. The Ents were great great great! They sounded and looked like how I pictured them. Also, amazingly, Arwen's extended scenes went well and were justified, although PJ kind of went ahead of the story, but he incorporated the scenes at the right time, so it was all good. :) Gandalf was wonderful too! He looked powerful and.... stunning! :)

The battle scenes were amazing. The sight of thousands of marching orcs and riders of Rohan really gave me goosebumps, as well as the sight of several hundred elves carrying bows. The scenes manage to convey war without being too bloody or violent. They also manage to focus on the members of the Fellowship, highlighting their differing fighting styles. Aragorn was a joy to watch with the sword, and Gimli does his best, combining some humor with his prowess with the axe. Legolas has become a cool fighting elf, at one point even performing "The Matrix"-like stunts, and another reminiscent of "Back to the Future" with Marty McFly on a hoverboard. The March of the Ents and the subsequent assault on Isengard, although not quite as... action-packed as the other battle scenes, was truly wonderful to behold. :)

Over-all, "The Two Towers" is cinematically brilliant.

But if I had 300 million dollars to spend on a movie there are some things I would have changed.

First, something about the Ents. In the book, the Ents have decided to go to war after the Entmoot, but in the movie, there seemed a degree of hesitation among the Ents, and somehow, it looked like they didn't care about the rest of Middle Earth, and only decided to go to war upon seeing Isengard and the destruction of the forests near it, which shouldn't be the case. I feel that part will change how the audience would view Ents. Their decision to go to war was a direct result of their "unhasty" Entmoot, and I felt that the Moot became rather insignificant in the movie because of their portrayed decision to not go to war.

Second, regarding Eomer. I felt that Eomer should have been with Theoden and the rest of the people in Helm's Deep, as in the book. He played a significant part in the battle there. But I do understand that this deviation enabled the production people to forego of the other characters that Gandalf supposedly brought as reinforcements to Helm's Deep at dawn. And Eomer coming to the rescue was more... dramatic, I admit. And there was something not quite right about Theoden. In the book, Theoden was very decisive, and his mind was set to go to war. But in the movie, he was a little hesitant. Is that another shot at the weaknesses of Men?

Third, regarding Haldir and the fighting Elves. "The Two Towers" was about the war fought by Men. I was rather surprised at the appearance of Haldir and the Elves at Helm's Deep. I would have liked that they portrayed the Men of Rohan battling their enemies themselves, Men against Orcs, with no help from Elves. After all, in the movie, they've already established that the Elves' time is over, and they were sailing to the Grey Havens. Why meddle in Men's affairs in this way then? And they killed off Haldir too! Awwww....

Fourth, Faramir. I thought Faramir resisted the lure of the Ring? That was what made him so different from Boromir, and what his character is all about. I can think of many reasons why PJ decided to change this aspect of Faramir's character, but I would have to disagree with him on this one. "I would not use the ring even if I found it lying on the wayside." That line was Faramir to me, so I was not happy with how his character turned out in the movie. Hrmmm... did the Ring really reach Gondor in the book? I forgot. Yikes.

Oh, and why did Arwen go to the Grey Havens? Or did she? And one other thing I was surprised about is Aragorn's seeming... err... well, it was implied that there was something between him and Eowyn, which shouldn't be. Or did that happen because they portrayed Arwen leaving Middle Earth? Or did I totally understand this aspect of the movie differently?

There were other little things that only made way for more questions in my mind actually, but I'd rather not nitpick since they weren't significant details anyway.

Oh, and the lines! The controversial lines! There were lines that can make people raise their eyebrows. Or was it just because these people all read "The Secret Diaries of the Fellowship of the Ring"? "It's me, Master Frodo! It's YOUR SAM!" "You're late!" "You look terrible!" "Do you want me to describe it to you, or shall I get you a box?" ROTFL.

One last question though. They ended "The Two Towers" with the Battle of Helm's Deep and the Assault on Isengard. Which only comes up to about half of the book. This has got me wondering just how much detail they would need to squeeze into "Return of the King" OR just how much they are going to cut. That would be interesting to see, although I'm sure that the Tolkien purists are going to scream murder.

Oh, and one other thing of note. Gollum. Smeagol. Andy Serkis did a fantabulous, award winning performance. He was exactly as I imagined, and then some. They were able to convey his schizophrenia so effectively, and his lust for the ring, and his confusion, and his pain... Masster looks after usss... He is tricksssy!... Good Smeagol... Come, hobbitssess.... Masster.... About that nomination for Best Digital Acting Performance? Let me hand it to Gollum with a handshake and a bow. He was probably the best actor in the movie. (where's the two-thumbs-up-smiley when you need it?!?!). Sorry, Master Yoda and Dobby. :D

I truly enjoyed the movie. Sure, it didn't quite meet all my expectations, but nothing ever does. It seems that will only happen if I had the money and produced the movie myself. ;) I wouldn't be surprised if it dominates the awards ceremonies again. It should win Best Picture this time though. Sheesh. :)



.:chronicled by senator skywalker at 6:36:00 AM:.
.: | :.

...