Lord of the Rings, The: The Two Towers (DVD)

The preview of the extended version and of The Return of the King makes this DVD worth it for me. I'm a BIG fan and the previews shows that we have a lot of good stuff to look forward to.

Bring on the mob!

Maybe not

Granted, Two Towers had it's flaws. I cringed a bit with some changes that were made that made very little sense to me. Yet, I left the theatre feeling like I had enjoyed it more than the Fellowship.

I'm thinking that much improvements will be had in the extended edition, and even more when the entire trilogy can be viewed in context.

While I agree with the reviewers that "The Two Towers" was a lesser film than "Fellowship", I disagree with some of their reasoning. As a long-time admirer of Tolkien's printed stories, what I found most annoying about the film was that the production did not tread cautiously enough ("...they tread cautiously for fear of offending die-hards.") The reviewer cites the example (from the film) that Sauron wants to destroy the world of men, as if this were from the book, which is not the case. I did not so much mind many of the changes made in the film, except when the changes destroyed the integrity of the story. In the book, Sauron's purpose was in destroying any forces that oppose him, such as the Rohirrim; not in destroying 'the world of men' (in fact, he had many humans serving him - a detail that was not tweaked to accomodate the production's 'destroy the world of men' plot thread...). As the reviewers state, this does not make much sense: Unlike what the reviewers seem to be saying, this is NOT faithful to the book. There were many such changes in the film, which were gratuitous (i.e., didn't evan add excitement to the on-film story), and made the plot look as if it had holes in it. I could go on and on describing the plot-degrading changes made in this film.
While I did enjoy the movie on many levels (I went in expecting the book to be adapted as an adventure story just as "Fellowship" had been), I was ultimately let down that the film-makers were not as careful as they were the first time around. They had set the bar too high! With "Fellowship", I felt that a superb job had been done in the balancing of 'faithfulness to Tolkien' with good and even exciting film-making. This time around, they seemed, at times, intent on telling their own story for some stretches of the film, without much reason! I understood why many of the changes were made, but couldn't help feeling that it could have been done in a more thoughtful, respectful, and even more exciting way. (Don't get me wrong: I have been an admirer of Peter Jackson since long before the Tolkien project was ever announced, and I still am! Certainly, no other director could have done a better job, overall, in bringing these books to the screen.)

From the review: "Peter Jackson and Company missed out on an opportunity to improve upon the source novel. Dogmatic faithfulness to the spirit of a book is useless if that devotion does not yield cinematically desirable results. What Tolkien did not do with his novel can???t be rectified, but the movies inspired by his ???LOTR??? ought to have raised the story to new heights."

I am surprised to hear that the reviewers have read the book after making this statement. They then cite a false example to support their statement. For those of you who haven't read the books, just know that, in spite of what you may have heard, anything in the movie "The Two Towers" that doesn't seem to make sense plot-wise is a change made from the book!

Please note: When Eddie refers to "The Two Towers" as "LOTR2," he is following a precedent set by the author himself, who describes his three books on the cover pages as "Being the First Part of The Lord of the Rings," "Being the Second Part," and "Being the Third Part." What's more, three of the five sets of "The Lord of the Rings" that my wife and I have in our house (Ballantine Books) are further labeled "Part One," "Part Two," and "Part Three," with the fifth set (ACE paperbacks) actually designated "Lord of the Rings #1," "Lord of the Rings #2," and "Lord of the Rings #3."

Also note that Eddie's comments on the film and my own, while packaged together, are separate entities. They should be considered independently whether we agree or disagree upon common points.

John J. Puccio, Review Editor
DVD Town.com

John,

Thanks for rectifying the mistakes that these nitpickers have made.

Also, I wrote that the filmmakers were too faithful to the SPIRIT of the book, not the text of the book. There's a difference.

To me, the "good vs. evil" theme is over-simplified in this movie as opposed to the developments in "LOTR 1". In "LOTR 1", we saw Sean Bean's Boromir, one of the good guys, agonize over whether or not he should seize The One Ring from Frodo. As a human, Boromir wasn't pure good. However, in "LOTR 2", every character is either purely good or purely evil--which makes for very boring viewing for long stretches. I mean, how many times do I have to do be told that Aragorn is a mighty warrior with a stout heart???

Eddie

P.S. "If you rule Middle Earth, you rule Middle Earth, well-populated or not." I guess Sauron doesn't mind being the only living thing around, then. Must be lonesome sitting there twiddling his thumbs...

John, point taken, and thank you for the information. I guess it just sounds like fingernails scraping chalkboards to me, or people who pronounce my state, Washington, with an "r" before the "sh." (Nyah!!) Just a pet peeve, I guess, especially when the film itself is named The Two Towers, or The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. My copies don't have such titles as Lord of the Rings 2, but I do appreciate the correction.

Eddie, thanks for clarifying the spirit of the book versus the text of the book. I still have beef with "they tread cautiously for fear of offending die-hards" because, be it spirit or text, they sure succeeded in upsetting many a die-hard fan. Your review did make a distinction between spirit and text though. My bad.

"Must be lonesome sitting there twiddling his thumbs..." Don't ask me why, but I kinda' like this image. Makes him seem all the cuter. :p Maybe we'll see that in "LOTR3" ;) Extended Edition.

What's really silly about the "LOTR 2" vs. "TTT" argument is that Tolkien actually hated the fact that his publisher forced him to publish the one book "LOTR" as three volumes. If you want to be technical about things, you'd have to argue that making three separate movies is a continued blasphemy against Tolkien's wishes. Why don't people realize that my use of "LOTR 1"/"LOTR 2"/"LOTR 3" is a short-hand way of referring to the parts of a whole?

"Could you imagine a three hour movie, with three separate though related storylines, and having one full separate storyline in the first hour, another storyline taking up the entire second hour, and the last storyline occupying the entire third hour? Such a movie would be absolutely reamed by critics, fans, and general moviegoers alike. How would the element of time be handled if the movie were filmed in such a manner? The viewer would have no idea what was happening in the other two stories at any given moment in time. Doing so would only result in a sort of storyline tunnel vision, confusion, and severe scrutiny by anyone who bought a ticket. Well, anyone except for you, apparently."

Yes, I can--"Pulp Fiction". Last I recall, that movie won a lot of awards. Also, I have yet to meet anyone confused about the timeline in the "Pulp Fiction" universe.

Good call, Posters5. I did miss that one. Do you think it would work for The Two Towers though? I think the latter half of Pippin and Merry's tale would have most of the theater snoozing away. I'm kind of interested in people's responses on this.

"I think the latter half of Pippin and Merry's tale would have most of the theater snoozing away."

It'd be up to the filmmakers to make sure that no one fell asleep, then.

Besides, a movie doesn't have to be divided into even halfs, thirds, quarters, etc. If Pippin and Merry's tale could be told in less than an hour, then you'd only need to include less than an hour's worth of footage, right?

Bear in mind that I reviewed a movie, not Tolkien's "LOTR". If I have to read a book in order to get more out of a movie, then the movie has failed in its entirety. A movie has to stand on its own merits (and yes, I'm aware that Jackson's movies will one day be thought of as one big movie, and I did approach watching them as such).

That being said, I don't think that people have to read "LOTR 2" in order to understand "LOTR 2" the movie. The film's failings are entirely its own.

By the way, if you had read my review carefully, then you would not have even bothered to pick up the Sauron discussion again. I wrote about Sauron in the movie, not in Tolkien's "LOTR".

Also, the conflict that Boromir faced is one of the things that made "LOTR 1" so much richer in texture than "LOTR 2".

You'll find that we have actually agreed on 90% of everything when it comes to Peter Jackson's "LOTR 1" and "LOTR 2".

From above: "Bear in mind that I reviewed a movie, not Tolkien's "LOTR". If I have to read a book in order to get more out of a movie, then the movie has failed in its entirety. A movie has to stand on its own merits (and yes, I'm aware that Jackson's movies will one day be thought of as one big movie, and I did approach watching them as such)."

I didn't say anything about having to have read a book to see a movie.

From above: "By the way, if you had read my review carefully, then you would not have even bothered to pick up the Sauron discussion again. I wrote about Sauron in the movie, not in Tolkien's "LOTR"."


How I came to my conclusions that you blame Tolkien, in part, for the film's portrayal of Sauron:

From review: "My biggest beef with Peter Jackson???s ???LOTR 2??? is its depiction of Sauron as the baddest bad-ass in Middle-Earth. In the movie, it seems as if Sauron is interested only in destroying the race of man as well as any vestiges of moral good. However, if Sauron really managed to kill all of his enemies, then who would be left for him to rule? It would be one thing if Sauron were simply a madman...

"Okay, I concede that J.R.R. Tolkien???s ???The Lord of the Rings??? hardly delved into the psychology of Sauron???s behavior, but Peter Jackson and Company missed out on an opportunity to improve upon the source novel. Dogmatic faithfulness to the spirit of a book is useless if that devotion does not yield cinematically desirable results. What Tolkien did not do with his novel can???t be rectified, but the movies inspired by his ???LOTR??? ought to have raised the story to new heights. Instead, they tread cautiously for fear of offending die-hards."

While you did say 'Jackson's... depiction of Sauron' in the first paragraph, you did also go on, in the second, to say that Jackson missed out on an 'opportunity to improve upon the source novel', among other things, clearly making a correlation between the Sauron of the two mediums, and even seeming to draw a conclusion that it's Tolkien's Sauron that we're seeing on-screen, instead of something that you think Jackson should have reinvented.

As for having to read a review carefully, just how carefully should a person HAVE to read a review, of all things, to understand it properly?

"Also, the conflict that Boromir faced is one of the things that made "LOTR 1" so much richer in texture than "LOTR 2".

That was one of my points, as well.

"You'll find that we have actually agreed on 90% of everything when it comes to Peter Jackson's "LOTR 1" and "LOTR 2"."

I agree with this 100%!

"'You'll find that we have actually agreed on 90% of everything when it comes to Peter Jackson's 'LOTR 1' and 'LOTR 2'.'

I agree with this 100%!"

Okay, then, we're on the same side of the fence, it's just that I'm further away from it than you are.

At any rate, you (like many others) refer to "The Silmarillion" when it comes to Sauron. However, I wrote only about Sauron as depicted in Jackson's "LOTR 2". When reviewing "LOTR 2", I'm not concerned with Tolkien's "LOTR" or any of his other works unless there is a direct correlation between adaptating Books 5 and 6 of "LOTR" into Jackson's "LOTR 2". In the case of the movie, everything got simplified even though the movie could've expanded upon the complexities and depths revealed by characters such as Boromir, Gandalf, and even Galadriel in that scene where she almost takes The Ring from Frodo. In "LOTR 2", only Aragorn is multifaceted, and everyone else is either really sure (Gimli) or really unsure (Theoden, the Ents) but nowhere in between. This collapses the scope of the movie in terms of its thematics (even though the movie is "big"...but again, the size of a movie isn't automatically a harbinger of high quality).

I mentioned "The Silmarillion" only because it was used by the film-makers, to great effect, throughout the first film, to give greater depth to the on-screen story. To me, this seemed more in the 'spirit of Tolkien', as far as the first film was concerned. I agree that everything was much simplified in TTT. That was probably the major disappointment that I had with it. I felt that this was not at all in the 'spirit of Tolkien'. Take Theoden, for example (as you did). The film stripped him of most of his 'character' and even took away much of his purpose in the story. In the book, he was not 'posessed' by Saruman. He had free will to believe Wormtongue's lies. He mistrusted Gandalf of his own free will. After his emotional healing at Gandalf's hands, he was shown to be a strong leader with a keen mind. Not the unsure feeb of the film. This device strengthened 'movie-Aragorn's' character in an artificial manner, at Theoden's expence. The same was done with the character of Treebeard. In giving Merry and Pippin more of an active role, Treebeard was made to look like a fool who had to be tricked into helping the 'good guys' save the day. Not at all in the 'spirit of Tolkien'. I felt that this destroyed many of the themes in Tolkien's book, in contrast to the first film, and as I said previously, introduced plot holes that just aren't present in Tolkien's original story. I can only hope that some of the film-makers' purposes will be made clearer when the TTT-EE is released, and maybe even more-so when ROTK is released (for which I have high expectations! - how can you go wrong with that story?!?).

I actually think that you and I are the same distant from the fence, in our respective ways.

Great, Heming! I'm glad that you understand that I wasn't out to "get back" at Peter Jackson. As you know, I wrote very positive reviews for Jackson's "LOTR 1" and "LOTR 1" EE, so I very much wanted to like "LOTR 2", too. It's just that some things bothered you, though what bothered me was different from what bothered you. And if a movie bothers me, then I can't give it the same high ratings that I gave to "LOTR 1", right? ;)

Uh, right. I never thought you were out to 'get back' at Peter Jackson. I'm not concerned about him anyway, and never was. And I'm glad that you gave TTT a lower rating than FOTR, since I think that's appropriate.

This line in the review gave me a REAL chuckle though:

"There???s plenty of testosterone, but estrogen is in short supply"

Yes, my boy...sigh

Why did that line make you laugh? Isn't it a fact that there are more major male characters than female ones in the film?

Yes, but unless you said it in a positive way, I took it as you were slightly disgruntled with the fact that the Two Towers featured a mostly male cast. In that case, you have to understand though, that's how LOTR is, and dramatically expanding the role of females, to many, *might* seem that the filmakers are taking a little too much liberty with the source material.

Also, I can't see how the film would work out with even MORE characters to accomodate some prominent female roles. As it is now, the film is already having a tough time juggling between so many main characters, and mind you, these are characters that cannot be cut down on screen time. They are, after all, the characters we've come to know and love, and are the pillars in Tolkien's story. So introducing new female characters probably wouldn't work to the film's advantage.

You took that sentence the wrong way, then. Observing the lack of females in the movie was an objective, neutral statement. Yes, I gave the movie some knocks, but not everything that I wrote was "negative". I have no problems with all-male casts (I loved "Saving Private Ryan"), and I have no problems with all-female casts (each "Little Women" is basically an all-ladies movie).

oh okay then

I created an account just to tell Eddie that he is a moron, not sure how you got to that position, but you really suck in your reviews.

No man! Eddie's just "unique"

*no offence Ed, just wanted to add some humor...or am I? ...dun dun dun...

Eddie "sucks in" his reviews? I'm curious, does he use a straw or are his reviews more like a lollypop?

And Eddie's a moron? -- Such a mature choice of words for simply pointing out a difference of opinion.

Kids. . .You have to love'em.

:p

YCH, I don't take offense to your comments. You show respect and have well-reasoned opinions.

Tim, one thing: .

Hmm, I read something in here that surprised me- the assertion that the film makers should have used The Silmarillion more, and I realized how true that was! Since that novel contains a great deal of the back story, throwing in some tidbits from it would have fleshed out the movie nicely. That was one thing they did right in the first movie, the entire intro is pure Silmarillion, without which the nature of the rings is pretty much unknown.

The flopping around in despair part was also valid, but that's a sharp divergence from the book, both in letter and spirit, since one of the book's main themes was that fighting for something noble was worth it, even if you knew you were going to fail.

I could go on and on about what I thought was wrong in this movie, but I didn't review it. Maybe Eddie'll contact me for the next one.