Even while “The Fellowship of the Ring” was still on it’s theatrical run in late 2001 and early 2002, loved by critics and audiences the world over and almost instantly finding its way onto most best film lists, we were quick to realise that this awesome three-hour epic fantasy was but an opening salvo. The true scale and the real battles of Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy would only become apparent in the second two chapters. And while any doubts in Peter Jackson’s filmmaking talents were quickly cast into Mount Doom, “The Two Towers” is still considered the somewhat difficult middle chapter, lacking both the strong opening and conclusion present in the trilogy’s bookends.
Launching us straight into the action, with literally no introduction or summary of what has previously happened, Jackson treats the film exactly as it should be: One long story, simply subdivided. And from the outset it becomes clear that the continuation is altogether more complex and considerably darker. Where “Fellowship” functioned as a road movie of sorts, “The Two Towers” sees our heroes take on separate journeys. And unlike the book where the plots are clearly separated, it makes sense to have the different strands be intercut. Frodo and Sam (Elijah Wood and Sean Astin) continue their long journey towards Mordor, tracked and then joined by the twisted and deceitful Gollum, played to perfection by motion capture pro Andy Serkis. Thus, using a combination of performance, voice and computer magic courtesy of Weta, Gollum aka Smeagol is without a doubt Jackson’s trump card for “The Two Towers”. Not only does the gangly creature look and behave in a manner that is photo-real, it is also the sort of pioneering work that has permanently changed the parameters of what is possible. And while the technical aspects of Gollum’s inception will be praised by most, it is important to note that like the rest of the trilogy, Jackson never gets carried away with a gimmick like this: Gollum is a fully fledged character, and one of the trilogy’s strongest pulling points in terms of different emotions. All kudos to Serkis here – it’s an utterly fantastic performance. The One Ring also is growing more powerful. It begins to take hold of Frodo who sees, in Gollum, what he may become if he should fail in his task.
Merry and Pippin (Dominic Monaghan and Billy Boyd) meanwhile, after managing to escape captivity, find their way into Fangorn forest and befriend one of Tolkien’s greatest creations: a walking, talking tree. Not a tree technically, an Ent. The Hobbit duo still provide most of the film’s humour but are now forced to fend for themselves, no longer are the other heroes around to protect them. Together they must persuade the Ents to go to war and aid their friends, a task proved difficult by the fact that Ents are by nature very slow and thoughtful. It’s in these scenes in particular that “The Two Towers” sometimes loses the edge and exhilarating sense of adventure that “Fellowship” possessed. The pacing is slowed right down, through the Ent bits but also through Frodo’s encounter with Faramir (David Wenham), brother to the deceased Boromir (Sean Bean). There’s a lot of walking hither and thither, without ever getting any closer to destroying the Ring. Jackson is being highly faithful to the book of course, which isn’t a bad thing and viewers will be so caught up in the story, that the three-hour run-time will still fly by. “The Two Towers” is by no means above criticism in this regard but the problems are minor and it should be remembered that with a film before and after it, it fulfils its purpose excellently. In fact keeping these meandering storylines in check is testament to the writing genius of Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens.
Finally, we follow the journey of Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli who track the Uruk-hai holding Merry and Pippin captive and are thus introduced to the world of men, namely the kingdom of Rohan. Aided by the new and improved Gandalf (Ian McKellen returns from his “death” in Moria as Gandalf the white), they travel to Edoras to aid the besieged Rohirrim in their battle against Saruman’s ever growing threat. Several new faces join the cast here including Bernard Hill as King Theoden, Karl Urban as Eomer, Miranda Otto as Eowyn and the ever creepy Brad Dourif as Wormtongue. It’s an outstanding ensemble. Development comes also with the introduction of a love-triangle of sorts, with Eowyn making eyes at a Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), who is troubled ever by his love left in Rivendell who, if Hugo Weaving has anything to say about it, will sail to the Undying Lands and be parted from him forever. Fans of the book (and the appendices in particular for most of the love story was mined from there) will eagerly lap it up. As a result, the pacing the the middle act slows somewhat before it all culminates in the all-action battle of Helm’s Deep when all minor problems will be forgiven. Like Gollum, there are some really jaw-dropping effects and pure cinema on show here, really upping the ante and raising the bar higher yet again. We didn’t think that was possible but well, we have been wrong before…
As everything in “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy is consistent, so is its music, composed by Howard Shore. There are not enough superlatives out there to describe just how good, well researched and executed his music for the series is. Taking the the very solid and Oscar winning base of music from “The Fellowship of the Ring” Shore develops these themes and adds in new ones as well. There is a theme for Eowyn, another for Gollum and, perhaps most significantly, Rohan’s signature theme: As the whole Rohan society is based around ancient Scandinavian cultures, Shore writes for the Hardanger fiddle and a beautiful theme that soars above the images. It just feels like the music was always there, belonging to that world. The action music is developed further also: Isengard’s 5/4 pounding is relocated even further into the bass and some of the Lorien themes reappear for the elves at Helm’s Deep in a much more militaristic manner. Once again, there are two versions of the soundtrack available: The regular album and the Complete Recordings four disc set. While the casual listener may be satisfied with the single disc offering, film score fans should really shell out for the Complete Recordings which presents all the music in the film – there’s plenty of material that didn’t make the cut on the regular album.
Unlike the first chapter “The Two Towers” has a few minor problems, which are all ironed out by the end. In overall consideration however, these will make little impact on “The Lord of the Rings’” place among the greatest trilogies and films of all time. And because it is all one story, “The Two Towers” does an excellent job of building on “Fellowship’s” opening and sets us up perfectly for “Return of the King’s” dramatic finale. Genius filmmaking.
Film
Score
User Rating
How does “The Two Towers” rank in the LotR trilogy for you? If you have any thoughts on my review or anything at all please do leave a comment, follow me on Twitter and subscribe to the RSS feed. Much appreciated – thank you! Until next time, all the best.
Nov 29, 2010 @ 22:45:11
Another great review. Since you ask how we feel about the various movies in the trilogy, I thought I would throw in my thoughts:
The Two Towers has one major shortcoming, that for any LOTR (even semi) purist is unforgivable. This is the inclusion of the Elves into the battle of Helms Deep. This entire episode in the movie is both wrong and illogical. In the book, the warrior elves of Lorien were all nominally equivalent to Legolas. Yet, in the movie they all simply die off during the battle, no doubt to save Peter Jackson the problem of trying to figure out what to do with them next. I could go on and on about this disastrous choice in the movie, but I have written too much already.
The other portions that were not faithful to the book were all fine, and perhaps even aided in telling the story (see I am not a blind purist). I rather liked the way in which the sword was brought to Aragorn. Even the falling off the cliff scene did little damage to the story, but certainly added a bit more excitement. For some purists, the scene with Faramir destroyed the character, while I thought Jackson handles this OK (especially in the extended edition). Strangely enough, it is the Faramir scenes that have created most of the debates in our house, when LOTR_TT is discussed.
If it was not for the Elves in Helms Deep, I think I might even rate this one the best of the three. But due to that scene, for me it is by far the worst.
Nov 30, 2010 @ 07:59:00
Thank you for your kind words!
Ah yes, the elves. Personally I find it a nice touch or idea that the elves would make a final stand before leaving Midde Earth forever (which is the way Jackson argues it…) however I agree with you that simply killing them all off is, like you said, a simple way of getting rid of them when they’re not needed anymore. I seem to remember in the book a moment when Legolas and Gimli mourn the fact that they can’t supply a host of eves and dwarfs to aid the men of Rohan. However I am also glad that the filmmakers didn’t take it a step further and have Arwen appear to fight at Helm’s Deep. This was in one fo the earlier drafts and explained on one of the extended DVD specials. It’s good that they saw sense and dropped it.
As for Faramir, those arguments were no doubt initiated by certain Miss Ransoms
but I must say that while Jackson’s interpretation is different, it makes sense that it would seem very strange to have someone, especially a man, totally immune to the power of the ring. So I think his temptation and eventual realisation that the ring cannot aid men is very well handled in the film. And without a doubt that scene with Boromir on the extended cut explains it all a bit more.
What did you think of Harry Potter?
Nov 30, 2010 @ 20:14:10
Jan 15, 2011 @ 06:12:56
I saw all three LOTR films in the theater during the holidays, but didn’t remember them because I tended to fall asleep due to the length, jet lag, and relentless bombast. Most of the small intimate scenes I loved from the books had been edited out and replaced with loud melodrama, crashing symphonic chords, and battle scenes.
I’m now watching them on DVD and noticing how much Jackson changed Tolkien’s work. It’s understandable to compress and delete book material when going to film, but Jackson had no compunction about adding in new plotlines or changing characters and events to no good purpose that I could discern besides giving Arwen a larger role and amping up the drama in general — which to me amounted to cranking it up to eleven, a la Spinal Tap, all the time.
So you could say I’m a purist. Perhaps the world is better off with a mutilated film version of LOTR than no version. Some viewers will discover the books through the movies and that’s good. But still…
I thought the BBC radio drama version of LOTR was magnificent. It was both loyal to the book and effective in a different medium. I see no reason Jackson couldn’t have done likewise. Maybe he needed to go the action film route to sell the project to backers. Or maybe he thought — the fool! — his vision was superior to Tolkien’s.
The films aren’t bad but they are disappointing if you loved Tolkien’s original.
Jan 15, 2011 @ 15:05:40
Firstly, thank you for the comment: It’s always great to get a discussion going! At the danger of going on a rant, let me (as a fan of both the films and the books) counter your very well-put arguments.
I agree without a doubt that good parts from the books were lost and changed. However, to call Peter Jackson a fool and to dismiss his adaptation as a mutilation of the books, is a fundamental misunderstanding of his work and a misreading of the films.
Firstly, it is necessary to understand that film and book work very differently in the manner in which they tell their stories. What works on page may not always come off very well on celluloid. Considering that, Jackson’s LOTR is in fact not only very faithful but also extremely intelligent and clever. Managing just the right balance of action, drama and emotional attachment, Jackson captures the spirit of Tolkien like no other director could have done.
As a filmmaker it simply comes down to making the right choices. Many book purists for example lament the exclusion of Tom Bombadil. However, the decision to drop him from the films is justified because not only does Bombadil distract from the Ring plot, his appearance in the book itself is a highly questionable episode, not really in tune with the rest of the story. Similarly, the changes made to Faramir’s character are not a hindrance but an enhancement.
Lastly, I would like you to think of the horrible mess that Hollywood could have made of LOTR. As a single film perhaps or as an FX fest and characters without any depth whatsoever. Imagine someone like Michael Bay directing – now that would have been a mutilation.
Plus, if you fell asleep, then I’m sure you missed all the bits you didn’t like
All the best!
Jan 16, 2011 @ 01:01:19
BTW — how is Jackson’s Faramir an enhancement? That Faramir was a simpler, blander version of Boromir. Not like the wise, subtle Faramir in Tolkien who upholds honor and suffers his father’s favoritism towards Boromir. How I missed Faramir’s wonderful speech after he ascertains that Frodo is carrying the ring:
Instead, Jackson gives us: “Well, we’re going back to Gondor to give the ring to my father.” [paraphrase] Thud.
Maybe this was compression on Jackson’s part so we don’t get sidetracked into another complex Tolkien character that the the film didn’t have room to explore. Maybe so. But that’s hardly an enhancement.
Jan 15, 2011 @ 23:40:53
Johannes Ruckstuhl: Nice to meet you.
Well, I’m sure LOTR could have been worse — we have only to remember the horror of Ralph Bakshi’s animated version. And this time around I am awake for all of Jackson’s version.
I know that books and films tell stories differently, but that’s not the same as telling different stories. That’s a choice the director makes, and occasionally for the better, e.g. Howard Hawks and “To Have and Have Not.”
There are also examples of films that followed their books both faithfully and beautifully: the BBC “Brideshead Revisited” and the Jeremy Brett “Sherlock Holmes” episodes. Linklater did a fine job with “A Scanner Darkly.” As I recall the adaptations of “The Sun Also Rises” and “For Whom the Bell Tolls” were faithful and effective, though not great films.
So I don’t buy the argument that Jackson had no choice but to change (as opposed to compress as in the removal Tom Bombadil) LOTR substantially because of his medium. If you want to argue that changes must be made in pitching a trilogy for $250 mil, that’s quite possible.
That’s the real answer I suspect. That’s why it became a loud action movie with cartoonish characters (Gimli!), blow you out of your seat special effects, grandiose Maxfield Parrish visuals, and a much stronger romance between Aragorn and Arwen. If you absolutely must make a holiday blockbuster out of LOTR, Jackson was probably right.
But if one cares about the story and characters as Tolkien wrote them, Jackson cut the heart out of LOTR, and that’s all there is to it.
Jan 18, 2011 @ 20:31:59
I would place LOTR in the same category of those that you mentioned as films that follow their source material closely and still manage to satisfy fans. Keep in mind however that two of the ones you mentioned (Brideshead and Sherlock) are in fact TV series which is a completely different ball-park again. A TV series of LOTR could possibly result in the most faithful adaptation of Tolkien’s text.
Jackson’s adaptation of LOTR is far from a “loud action movie” (although it contains great action) and contains so much more that “cartoonish characters.” Examining the dialogue in the films closely reveals that an awful lot of it is lifted directly from the books. At least in my opinion, Jackson’s genius lies in moments like the Moria aftermath, Boromir’s death or the conversation between Frodo and Sam as Mount Doom erupts. These scenes capture the true heart of the books as well as Tolkien did.
To the Faramir argument then…. If I were to be honest I would argue that whilst he is a great character in the book, his development is somewhat unrealistic. Listening to Jackson and Boyens’ arguments on “The Two Towers” Extras explains and justifies to me the changes that were made: The Ring is an object of evil and exerts power over even Gandalf and Galadriel and from the very beginning of the Prologue (Nine rings… men, who above all desire power… hearts of men are easily corrupted… etc) we’re told that the minds of men are weak. To then suddenly have a man appear who is completely immune to its power seems nonsensical. To me it makes a lot more sense and as a viewer much more fascinating to have Faramir tempted like Boromir but in the end to overcome said temptation and realise what the Ring is capable of, in other words what Boromir didn’t realise.
With source material so complex and a world so expansive, it’s almost inevitable that some of fans’ beloved bits may be changed or dropped when a film version is made. But I think it is very important to see as well that Jackson’s LOTR is not the definitive version, it is simply a a version. To that end I believe, Jackson’s LOTR is by far the best adaptation the world could have hoped for, a retelling that keeps all the emotion, adventure and balances the human aspect with the characters perfectly.
All the best!
Jan 19, 2011 @ 00:49:15
First, how is it that Brideshead Revisited and Sherlock Holmes are TV series and therefore “in a completely different ball-park”? Is Jackson’s LOTR in a completely different ballpark from all other movies because it was broken into three films? Of course not.
My point is that Peter Jackson changed Tolkien’s LOTR because he wanted to, not because the differences between text and film are so incommensurable that Jackson had no choice. Other directors have managed to translate text into film faithfully and Jackson could have too but he chose not to.
It was his opportunity using money he had raised, so he was entitled. Jackson wanted to make a big budget Hollywood action film based on LOTR and that’s what he did and he netted $2+ billion profit in the process. Bully for him. But I don’t have to like it and I don’t have to excuse Jackson because of some rationalization about film being different from text.
Take Faramir. You tell me that Jackson changed Faramir because he thought his version made more sense. Yes! That was Jackson’s *choice* because he thought his judgment was superior to Tolkien’s, not because film is different from text. Jackson could have followed Tolkien’s lead in this instance and it wouldn’t have broken the film. It would have been a different fork in the plot. He would have filmed a few different scenes with with different dialog.
You prefer Jackson’s Faramir because you are persuaded by Jackson’s commentary. Fine. I am not. I am persuaded by Tolkien — one of the great writers of the 20th century, the summit of fantasy writers without peer, and the creator of the LOTR universe. I will defer to Tolkien’s judgment in the matter of Faramir over that of a nondescript horror film director from New Zealand.
Jackson’s LOTR isn’t bad. I understand why so many people love it. Yes,
it is recognizable as Tolkien’s LOTR, but if you’ve been through LOTR a dozen times or so, you notice how much of the specialness of LOTR was lost — not compressed but replaced with Jackson’s mediocre, bombastic choices. Again, not because Jackson had to do so, but because he chose to.
Cheers!
Mar 14, 2011 @ 15:45:19