The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) (1 Viewer)

[Ronald Epstein]

Hi Ron, some people (not here) who haven't seen the film have been bellyaching about "Arwin singing" and I'd like to know the context of that. Does Arwin sing an Elvish song, and where does she sing it? Is is long or is it short (such as Aragorn's singing in the Extended Edition), and is it good?

If I remember correctly, she does not sing at all.

I could be wrong about this because there are several
dream sequences with her, but I don't think she sings.

 

[Jason Seaver]

I dare not read any review, or even the sneek peak. All I want to know is how does this compare to FOTR and is it a worthy sequel?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adding onto Edwin's comments: Not a review I've read of The Two Towers says it's worse than Fellowship.

Well, I haven't written mine yet.

I enjoyed the first rather more than I expected, but this one only connected with me during the Ent scenes. It's all connective tissue, and by the time the end came, I felt that rather less than three hours of story had been told.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Hmmm - maybe the anticipation for this movie is not as great as I thought.

Not nearly the same number of views/responses as when Ron did the FOTR sneak preview.

Ron - has your opinion, thoughts, feelings changed at all since you have had a couple of days to digest it all?

Also are you planning to see it again in the theatre?

 

[Eric Franklin]

 

[Robert Crawford]

This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for "The Two Towers". Please, post all comments, links to outside reviews, film and box office discussion items to this thread.
All HTF member film reviews of "The Two Towers" should be posted to the Official Review Thread.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Crawdaddy

 

[Lou Sytsma]

You know what they say - the act of getting to the end is almost important as the actual end itself.

TTT does this quite well in the book form.

Based on Jason's viewpoint it looks like the movie is doing the same thing which means it will be quite enjoyable.

There is no doubt though - many of us really want to get to the ROTK.

Glad to hear someone pick the Ents as the highlight of the movie for a change.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

That's good to hear Eric. Can't tell from this thread though.

 

[Jason Seaver]

You know what they say - the act of getting to the end is almost important as the actual end itself.

TTT does this quite well in the book form.

Based on Jason's viewpoint it looks like the movie is doing the same thing which means it will be quite enjoyable.

Well, that means it could be quite enjoyable. I'd disagree, though - "getting there" is only half the fun if there's the feeling of progress. I really didn't find that to be the case with much of them movie, which felt like running around in circles. You could cut a huge chunk of the Frodo/Sam/Gollum story out and not really miss much.

Another issue I had was the movie was the amount of familiarity it seemed to expect. We didn't see much of Gollum in FOTR, but didn't get much explanation of him in TTT. Similarly, when Gandalf is now "Gandalf... The White!", there's no indication of what this means within the story's universe.

 

[David_SG]

From Jason's review:

You could cut a huge chunk of the Frodo/Sam/Gollum story out and not really miss much.

I take it you're not familiar with the remaining story, right? If not, then I doubt you'll say that when all is said and done. If you have read the books, then that would be a most disturbing comment.

 

[Micheal]

Jason Seaver, I tried posting this in your review thread (before it was made "Official") and it was deleted.(Thanks Crawdaddy!) Moving it here would have been nice. j/k
I hope it's ok to post it here.

I can’t see someone watching The Two Towers without having watched Fellowship the night before.

I don't quite understand this? Why would you want to watch TTT without having seen FOTR? It would be like watching The Empire Strikes Back without watching Star Wars first? You also said "the night before". Are you suggesting that I would never want to watch TTT on it's own? I disagree with this but I'll save judgment until I've seen the movie.
Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean. Hopefully you'll see this and set me straight.
Thanks,

 

[Eric Franklin]

Well they never explained "Gandalf the Grey" in FOTR. Didn't seem to bother many people.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Gandalf the Grey - Saruman the White - Gandalf the White.
Hmmm - I'll have to think about this.

 

[Jason Seaver]

I can’t see someone watching The Two Towers without having watched Fellowship the night before.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't quite understand this? Why would you want to watch TTT without having seen FOTR? It would be like watching The Empire Strikes Back without watching Star Wars first? You also said "the night before". Are you suggesting that I would never want to watch TTT on it's own? I disagree with this but I'll save judgment until I've seen the movie.

Basically, what I mean is that ESB or AOTC or Back To The Future Part 2 are, though part of trilogies that serve in large part to connect the first episode to the third, also individual stories. TTT isn't, for the most part. Where I might, tonight, take Empire off the shelf and watch it without necessarily also watching Star Wars, I wouldn't do that with TTT - it needs the context of the other movies in the way that the others don't.
And, no, none of these Part 2s should be watched without having seen Part 1 at some point. What I was trying to get at was that TTT is really only interesting as the middle part of the story - one wouldn't say "hey, let's watch The Two Towers tonight!" inasmuch as one would say "hey, let's watch Lord Of The Rings over the next few nights!"

 

[Jason Seaver]

Similarly, when Gandalf is now "Gandalf... The White!", there's no indication of what this means within the story's universe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well they never explained "Gandalf the Grey" in FOTR. Didn't seem to bother many people.

True... But here, the distinction is apparently important. It's clearly a big deal to the characters in the movie that he is now "Gandalf... The White!" versus "Gandalf The Grey", but it's not clear why.

 

[Andrew_Sch]

You could cut a huge chunk of the Frodo/Sam/Gollum story out and not really miss much.

You COULD say the same thing about the book. I see your point about it just basically being them wandering around without much feeling of progress, but it's really more about the psychological dynamic between the three than the journey itself. Of course, I haven't seen the film yet, so I can't pass judgment on how it's handled there.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Hey guys! I saw this movie! Not half bad!
(Oh, how I envy those who've yet to witness the insanity at Helm's Deep.)
I noticed quite a few 'alterations' here and there (considerably more than in FOTR, if I'm not mistaken), but nothing that mars the film or dismisses the source material.
I hear New Line is really pushing for a Supporting Actor Nom for Andy Sirkis as Gollum. I doubt their efforts will yeild fruit, but there's no denying that Sirkis delivers something truly special here.
I'm not about to compare this flick to "Part 1", because A) each movie should be judged on its own merits, and B) I consider this more a continuation than a sequel. Suffice to say that if you loved Fellowship...there's no freakin' reason in the universe you shouldn't love this one.
And that's all I'm sayin'!
(Yes, I'll be back on opening day.)

 

[Andrew_Sch]

Also, it should be noted that Peter Jackson has repeatedly stated that with the LOTR trilogy he's basically making one movie that just happens to be broken into three parts. While you may or may not agree with this approach, it would seem to justify TTT being what you refer to as "connective tissue," as far as PJ's intentions for the trilogy as a whole go.

 

[David_SG]

Jason - thanks for clarifying. I do appreciate the visual spectacle that the AOTC ending provides - but I care more about the dramatic side - I want Helm's Deep to have more dramatic tension than what I felt with AOTC, and judging from your comments, that seems to be the case. Certainly not trying to take anything away from Lucas or ILM.

As for the Frodo/Sam/Gollum stuff - the reason that TTT is my favorite of the three books is the development of the character Gollum and his relationship with Frodo and Sam. To me, the interaction of these three characters provides a fascinating dynamic that enables TTT to add to the overall story, rather than serving as mere "connective tissue". I guess it makes perfect sense that you don't see a purpose to TTT if you don't appreciate Gollum's role in the trilogy, as to me, Gollum is the heart of TTT.

 

[Jason Seaver]

It's not so much Gollum as it is That Damn Ring. It represents a plot device/over-literal metaphor/political viewpoint that I strongly dislike, and since it's really central to the Frodo/Sam/Gollum thread, that whole thread is going to be tainted for me.

This isn't a bad movie, by any means - the other contest-winners in the audience applauded and seemed pretty excited. It just doesn't transcend its genre for me like Fellowship did, nor does it have the nigh-perfect pacing that made three hours seem like the ideal length in the last one.

 

[David_SG]

Deleted - ROTK spoiler territory