Lord of the Rings - The Two Towers ENworld reviews & discussion (SPOILERS)

[JacktheRabbit]

So much nitpicking with so little deductive thinking.

1. The elves get there because they are travelling a much shorter distance than the orcs are. Also Galadriel has her pool, this allows her to have a pretty complete picture of what is going on.

2. The Nazgul as a rule gain most of their power through fear. Its part of the subtle magic of Middle Earth. A Nazgul doesnt win a battle throwing around fireballs and blasting everyone in sight. They win a battle by crushing the will and hope of their enemies and thus allowing the orcs to win. This is their strength and their weakness. Until Faramir shot the NAzgul's mount you saw ZERO arrows fly towards it. The soldiers of Gondor were too shaken and afraid to fight. Once Faramir gains the courage and shoots the mount I am sure it would break the spell for many of the men beneath him. Another few moments hovering there and the Nazgul would have been peppered with arrows as the men of Gondor said to themselves "well if my Captain can do that then I sure as hell am going to at least die trying".

3. Sam does not know how Boromir died. He does know how Boromir was acting days before his death and even the day of his death. Only a fool wouldnt know the ring was affecting Boromir from watching him.

 

[Assenpfeffer]

In many instances I’ve noted that to criticize TTT is almost verboten. If one criticizes it for the liberties taken with the source material, to no discernable improvement, one is called a purist. If one criticizes it as a movie, referring to internal plot, characterization and pacing problems, one is accused of nit-picking. I find it odd that so many people want to turn off their critical faculties when viewing a movie. I agree, there are times when that can be fun, when one simply wants some B-grade eye-candy. I do not consider this movie as B-grade eye-candy, and so I point at faults that detracted from its potential.

In the same way that too-zealous fans defend Star Wars or Star Trek, yes, LotR fans can get defensive. I've done it myself, and not just for LotR.

But, let's face it, a lot of that is a reaction to the school of "it SUX becuz it changed this and this and this! and then peter jacson came to my house, beet mi up, shot my dog and stole my wallet!1!1!" criticism.

As an aside, some people like to make a distinction between "great films" and "film I personally love." Others do not. Sometimes this is difficult to do. My personal example is The Thirteenth Warrior, a movie that has (to be charitable) a ton of problems. But I love it, and have watched it probably 30 times. This does not mean I would argue that it was the best film of its year, or even a particularly good film at all. But it has Vikings and dragonships and drinking horns and mead halls and big honkin' axes and Valhalla! And I dig that stuff!

ahem. Pardon me. I get a little overexcited when talking about the GREATEST FILM OF ALL TIME!!! YOU"RE ALL PHILISTINES!!!

Uh... sorry.

 

[shilsen]

Nicely put, Assenpfeffer. I just watched "The Thirteenth Warrior" for the 7th time yesterday. "Lo, there do I see my father...". Oh yeah!!

 

[billd91]

Here is an excerpt from Roger Ebert's review...just like the last movie, he gave it a tepid thumbs up/*** review...


I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. If anything, the hobbits are in MORE action in the movie. What's dear Roger going to say when the third movie comes out..."This proves that Aragorn is the hero! The title is 'The Return of the King'....SEE!".

<snip>

And what's with this "gentle medievalist" stuff? Tolkien writes about essentially a war of Armageddon! Is Ebert denying any of these battles took place in the books?

I used to value his opinion, but in the last few years I find myself agreeing with him less and less.

In defense of the movie against Ebert's critique, it IS Aragorn's movie. Jackson has pretty much stated this, just as he stated that Fellowship is Frodo's movie. At different points in the story, different characters are in spotlight. I'm betting movie 3 will be Sam's movie... maybe the supporting hobbits' movie as well. The final book, Return of the King, is ironically not at all Aragorn's book. It should be that way with the movie as well, I hope.

Now, in defense of Ebert, although Helm's Deep is a major turning point in staving off the threat of the industrialized destruction that Saruman's forces represent, it's not as large a percentage of the book as the battle is a percentage of the movie. I think Ebert's of the idea that Jackson has turned this into too much of an action piece focusing on the battle compared to the book.

 

[Assenpfeffer]

Nicely put, Assenpfeffer. I just watched "The Thirteenth Warrior" for the 7th time yesterday. "Lo, there do I see my father...". Oh yeah!!

My second favorite part of the whole movie is the Choosing of the warriors toward the beginning.

My third favorite part is the death chant at the end.

My favorite part, though, is when Buliwyf, weakened from the poison, after just killing the chieftain of the eaters, sits down against the outsided wall of the steading, plants his sword, stares outward like a badass and dies. That just ruled.

"Today... was a good day."

 

[danbala]

Now, I’m going to preface this with a qualifier. I liked the movie. I thought it was a lot of fun. I will say that it did not match Fellowship of the Ring, neither as movie nor as adaptation. And viewed as either simply a movie or as an adaptation, it has flaws. That’s all I’ve been saying and all I ever will say.

Fair enough. The world would certainly be a dull place if we all agreed on everything.

In many instances I’ve noted that to criticize TTT is almost verboten. If one criticizes it for the liberties taken with the source material, to no discernable improvement, one is called a purist. If one criticizes it as a movie, referring to internal plot, characterization and pacing problems, one is accused of nit-picking. I find it odd that so many people want to turn off their critical faculties when viewing a movie. I agree, there are times when that can be fun, when one simply wants some B-grade eye-candy. I do not consider this movie as B-grade eye-candy, and so I point at faults that detracted from its potential.

I have to admit that I am one of those people who found the movie to be basically perfect. Perhaps there will one day come a movie that sets the bar for Fantasy movies even higher (RotK?). But for the moment, I have to admit that I basically love this movie and built into that is the reflexive need to defend her.

I’ve harped on the problems I’ve seen with the movie, so I will not do so again. I find it odd, though, that this movie is praised for characterization. I would say that there were some fine moments of it, including Grima and Gollum. Some efforts were pedestrian, standing on the previous film but not advancing our understanding of the characters. Eowyn, while capably handled, is not a stand out. Compared to the characterizations of Boromir or even Elrond in FotR, I find the work done here to be acceptable but not incredible.

While I was left with almost the opposite impression. I was very pleased and surprised how well the movie on one hand introduced us to seven or so new main characters while on the other still provided addition depth of character to the reoccuring characters. In particular, I thought it did a great job with Sam and Frodo, introducing a strange dynamic with Gollum (Sam even becomes a little jeolous of the connection between Frodo and Gollem -- even such a miserable one). That friendship in particular really rang true for me.

While its true that some characters were left on the sidelines a bit (Eomyr, Gandalf, Elrond. Merry Peppin) this was served by the needs of the story. I was much more pleased by this than if the filmakers had been compelled to find a way to cram them back into the story.

Many characters suffered. Merry and Pippin are almost superfluous, and were this not an adaptation, I would have said get rid of them, or store them away some place safe until needed. They did nothing that couldn’t have been done more efficiently, without detriment to the story.

I think the reason for one of the contrversial changes from the book -- the decision to have Peppin basically trick Treebeard into war -- was driven by the need to make these characters a bit more dynamic then they were in the book. Personally, I understand the need for this change and accepted it.

There are also internal problems with the movie. I won’t mention the speed with which the elves arrive at exactly the proper place to fight.

But admit: wasn't it really cool when they showed up? To me, this was one of the many highlights. Therefore, from my perspective this quibble is like looking a gift horse in the mouth.

I would be interested to know how a single arrow in his mount could drive off a Nazgul so close to capturing the Ring. Sure, arrows could kill the Fell Beast he rides, but giving up on getting the Ring when it is so close? Heck, wade in there with your sword and dagger and take the damn thing!

I remember having the same thought when my father read to me the Hobbit as a kid. One arrow to take down a whole dragon? As far as the wraith goes, Aragon previously chased off five with a sword and a torch, so they are probably not meant to be killing machines.

And how does Sam know the reason for Boromir’s death? Frodo may have told him that Boromir tried to take the Ring, but neither Frodo nor Sam even knew about Boromir’s death.

Hmmm. Interesting point. It sounds like something that will be made clearer in the extended cut DVD. (As will how Faramir learned of Boromir's death).

Shouldn’t Faramir be a bit suspicious of these creatures who purport to be his brother’s friends, but who know nothing about that brother’s death until it’s convenient?

He struck me as about as suspicious as he could be. In fact, he was much more suspicious than he was in the book, but we covered that already above.

I’m not going to comment on a charge by cavalry down a hill of loose stones with an incredibly steep incline into a fixed pike position with only the benefit of a flash of brilliant light (though I guess I just did), but I would like to know why the Uruk-Hai fail to regroup and counter-attack, still holding the advantage in numbers?

Again, for me this was such a cool moment that quibbles seem beside the point. Personally, as cool as the fight scenes were, i didn't need to see the Uruk-hai come in for another assualt. i'm willing to presume that there was a great deal of additional carnage not shown.

In any case, while I like the movie, I do find it a flawed and qualified success. I look forward to RotK.

Now that last part is something we both can agree on!

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Well I saw the film again. So this time I'm going to post a few more thoughts than I did before.

1) I was surprised by how little fighting there was. After Gandalf vs Balrog, there is almost nothing until the Worg attack, timed at 1hr30min. The fight for Helm's Deep doesn't start until 2hr15min. Balrog, Wargs, Helm's Deep. Very little actual battle scenes apart from that. This is not an action fest. It simply has the best large scale battle scene ever put on film.

2) The humour. Gimli and Legolas have a great friendship. "Shall I describe it to you, or shall I find you a box?" is a gentle bit of banter between friends. Gimli laughs at it. He laughs! And the dwarf tossing moment is a masterful bit of deadpan from Viggo.

3) The love section in the middle. Aragorn floats down the river, and then odd stuff happens. Don't like this section. It's (IMHO) boring. I have a feeling it'll be the bit I pass over most often on the DVD.

4) Theoden may not be what he is in the books, but he makes his decisions based on what he believes at the time. Face it, if your enemies were breaking down the door of your impregnable strong hold, wouldn't you be a bit distraught? Aragorn's suggestion to "Ride out!" fires him up. He's a real Death or Glory merchant, as a truly heroic King should be. When they all ride out and scatter the orcs on the bridge, it's a stunning moment.

5) The fell beast and the arrow. The beast flaps away for a moment, and then Sam carries Frodo out of sight. The Rider can't find them again amongst all that stone, and it knows it's vulnerable to the massed bowfire underneath it. Don't forget Sauron's arrogance, he doesn't truly believe the Ring can be used against him. When the Nazgul returns, his reaction would be "The Ring is going to Gondor? Excellent, it'll corrupt whoever is wearing it and I'll win with ease!"

6) Gollum. Possibly the best character in the film. His moment at the end, when he discusses with himself to lead the Hobbits to Her, is wonderful teaser stuff for RofK.

7) Gandalf snagging his sword out of mid-air in free fall and attacking the Balrog! Now that's a cinematic moment!

8) Legolas kills 6 (yes, 6!) orcs whilst on the shield, and then flips it, skater style, into another, all within about 5 seconds. Sounds like a 16th level + fighter with Rapid Shot and a Bow of Speed to me. Incredible.

9) Gimli and Aragorn charge the orcs. As someone said, it's like a handgrenade going off. Wonderful moment. What high level fighters are all about. Bring 'em on.

10) I loved this film. I'd never understood the WW1 appeal of the cavalry charge until now. Bring on RotK. I think seeing the ships appear from the south carrying Aragorn and the others to win the Battle of Pelennor Fields could be The Greatest Movie Moment Ever.

 

[FraserRonald]

Agree to Disagree

As much as I would love to continue this discussion, I think it's time I bit my tongue and let it go. If someone actually writes something that changes my mind, that really explains rather than excuses, I'll pipe in and accept defeat. Until then, I don't think there is much more I can add to this discussion, so . . .

Good movie. I'll see it again and I'll buy the DVD, but it's flawed and I consider FotR a superior movie.

And I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

Thanks to those who offered insightful, thoughtful answers.

And even minimal thanks to those snarky individuals who feel the need to act superior. At least--for the most part--those posts had something of substance.

Hope everyone had a great Christmas (or whatever holiday you might celebrate) and have a Happy New Year!

Take care all!

 

[EricNoah]

Second viewing notes:

Gollum improves a great deal. I see less of the CGI and hear more of his voice. Between his fish-smacking song and "Smeeeeeagolllll...... Why do you cry, Smeagol?" he's just a gripping, moving, soulful character.

I liked the Gimli banter. Yes, he falls down a lot, but he gets back up again, nobody's going to keep him down! (Sing it!) It's his reaction to the situations -- his good humor, his buoyant spirit -- that come through in these moments. You can see why Legolas is starting to like him.

Aragorn smiles more than I remember before.

The Faramir situation makes more sense. I find it telling that Faramir siezes not the Ring -- but the Ringbearer. And I find it gutsy (in a good way ) that the writers use book-Faramir's exact words in the movie just before he goes down movie-Faramir's little detour to Osgiliath.

I think a third viewing probably can wait for several weeks. I'm satisfied for now.

 

[billd91]

Re: Agree to Disagree

Good movie. I'll see it again and I'll buy the DVD, but it's flawed and I consider FotR a superior movie.

And I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

I think this sums up the discussion nicely. I too think that the first movie was better and there were issues with TTT that could have been handled/done better both with a better adaptation of the original and within the movie itself (such as Faramir saying that Boromir is dead without giving us any indication of how he could know that to be true... an error probably due to an unfortunately overzealous edit).
But it's a decent movie overall, worth seeing more than once at matinee prices and probably full price as well if you don't take out the financing necessary to also get a soda and popcorn.