Disable Flash   

Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

PG-13 179 minutes

Directed by Peter Jackson
Written by J.R.R. Tolkein, Peter Jackson, Phillipa Boyens

 · Ian McKellen
 · Elijah Wood
 · Viggo Mortensen

Review by Dante

I cannot say that I've ever anticipated a movie so highly as Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. Which, in itself, is interesting considering I have never read the books, nor was I excited before seeing the first one. But somewhere in between I became completely enamored by this series. It was the great characterization and captivating story that eventually got me hooked. I, since, have seen Fellowship of the Ring countless times.

But, what did I expect of the sequel? I just hoped that they would continue with the same respect for the characters as they had in first film.




The Two Towers is nearly as brilliant as the original. It begins where the first one finished off, a continuation of Frodo's journey to Mordor to unmake the "precious" ring.

The artistic direction of this movie truly helped make it as great as it is. The writing was tremendous (of course) and the dialogue helped keep my attention. All the camera angles seemed fresh and the score was not as monotonous as the first. I love how they capture such a dark tone and how it all helped to embody the plot. Visually, this film looks great.

I go to a science fiction movie with so many things i can take as being unrealistic. A few things were pushing my limit. Take Gollum, for instance, a digitally rendered character who's a little too compatible with Jar Jar Binks. Alright, that's a little harsh but his voice is a little too reminiscent. But, unlike Jar Jar, Gollum is not overplayed. Gollum is a necessary character though, and, fortunately, he was used "just enough." Another thing that was hard to swallow were the talking trees. But, it was just another important part to the actual novel itself. So, with the storyline given, they made such unbelievable things as tolerable as possible.




This movie is incredibly fun to watch, and I probably wouldn't watch many films over it. However, it is not a film that would probably be enjoyed by everyone, had they never seen The Fellowship of the Ring. The film I would be most likely to compare it to is The Empire Strikes Back. Granted, I dislike Star Wars as much as the next guy, but Empire is a film that you could watch having never seen the first one and still come out saying "this is a damned good movie." I really do not think that anyone who saw The Two Towers would say the same. Because, unlike Empire Strikes Back, The Two Towers does not surpass its predecessor. The Two Towers merely continues an idea, which is absolutely terrific, but without the characterization from the first one, it's not sensible. As a sequel, it is perfectly done: Just the way it was intended. It was three hours and I never wanted it to end. There really was not much left to ask for. It was that good.



As stated, I think it is nearly as good as the first one, but the fact that it does not stand alone makes it unable to be better than its predecessor. Place this with The Fellowship of the Ring and it's obvious that this was meant to be part of one story (which we know to be true). If anyone had just seen The Two Towers, never before seeing the first, I'm sure they would have retained a level of enjoyment. However, without the first movie, The Two Towers would not make any sense.

This film did not disappoint, it stayed true to the characters and expanded upon all that was so great in the first. This is undoubtedly one of the best movies I have ever seen, just below The Fellowship.

I urge everyone to see this movie, but I do suggest seeing The Fellowship of the Ring first.

640 Words Published: 26 December 2002

Reviews and articles Copyright 2002-2006 their respective authors. No content, except text explicitly
provided in the web feeds, may be reproduced without prior written permission from the author(s).
SMART-POPCORN.com, images, and characters Copyright 2002-2006 Thom Stricklin.
All rights reserved.