BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

The Two Towers

  
  

Page: 12(3)45

 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
16:22 / 22.12.02
LONG!

Well, I enjoyed it. Peter Jackson said that each film has a colour and I think TTT's is gold. Even the grey stones in the caves looked gold.

My main problem with the film is that the whole thing has become 'The Adventures of Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas' with everyone else secondary. Merry and Pippin spend almost the entire film riding around on Treebeard and bugger all else. After capturing Gollum Frodo and Sam mainly do a lot of walking and even Gandalf appears about twenty minutes in, hangs around for what feels like another twenty then disappears until the end of the field.

As well as The Two Towers, there's the Two Brothers, Faramir and Eomer (phew, I can put this crowbar down now). Both deeply disappointing. Firstly Eomer, I can see why Jackson, doing the Glorfindel/Arwen switch, might want to have Eomer instead of Erkenbrand, but feels like he's worried that Aragorn will have less chance to be so damn noble if there's two men with beards fighting at Helms Deep. Faramir, I think Jackson does a great diservice to. I presume Jackson wanted the Ring Bearer to go to Osgiliath to save having to take him to Minas Morgul (Jackson doesn't seem to believe in terror in a palpable force as it is in the books, which may explain why) but in doing so makes Faramir seem even worse than his brother, when he's supposed to be the better of the two.

Gollum? One of the things I was worried about, Andy Serkis is wonderful, as are the CGI team. I was doubly concerned after the appalling CGI Dark-Galadriel from the first film, but Gollum is amazing. I genuinely thought at times he was real, no doubt helped by the actors acting with Serkis himself. After his initial appearance I'm glad Jackson didn't use him to try and scare the audience all the time, making him an all-round character, so that you cheer when he triumphs over his own dark side, and feel sorry when Frodo leads him in to a trap. Anyone who's watched 'Babylon 5' (which must be most of us, right?) will know of the efforts made to make bad characters sympathetic and good so that ill ends once thought richly deserved end up as terrible fates, Gollum in RotK may end up the same. The Frodo/Gollum relationship is a bit muted, after initially saying he wants to try and redeem Smeagol, so he can know if he can be saved, he doesn't actually do much else.

The battle is too long. RotK has to top this but has more story to tell, so it could have done with a little less dwarf-tossing and a bit more time to the other characters. What about the breaking of Saruman's power, Pippin and the Palantir, and Gandalf riding with him to Minas Tirith? It's a shame that we know that Saruman doesn't get to despoil the Shire, thereby missing one of the themes of the book, but it would have made more sense to finish him off in this film, so that we concentrate in the last on the greater evil of Sauron.

The Two Kings (hand me back that crowbar), Theoden and Elrond. At no point does Theoden get the chance to shine like he does in the books. Instead he first has to be freed from physical sourcery by Saruman (completely unnecessary with Grima there) then spends most of the rest of the film making 'bad decisions' so that Aragorn looks more Kingly by comparison. And Elrond. He seemed a bit petty in the first film but it's worse here, a long, unncessary and confused sequence where he first tries to persuade Arwen to leave Middle-Earth and then some sort of telepathic conference call with Galadriel. Both slow things down (along with the strange Aragorn falling off a cliff bit). Elrond seems to have lost all hope since sending the Fellowship of the Ring on their quest yet despite convincing Arwen that all hope is lost and they have to leave now, seems in no hurry to leave himself. Why not reveal he is also a Ringbearer? Why not some practical use of his and Galadriel's power against Sauron rather than him standing around bitching about it?

Special effects and the Big-atures are, as ever, amazing, though I did start to get sick of that 'flying around the hilltop' shot that gets overused in the first hour or so. Well worth seeing, if only because at least someone is still making damn big adventure films without then complaining that cinemas aren't technologically advanced enough to show them and I'll forego any kind of marking until I've had the chance to see it several times as with FotR. But overall it's a fine film, possibly the best of the year.
 
 
mixmage
17:45 / 22.12.02
Just seen it. Loved it.
Had the chance to see the limited edition extended cut of the first episode recently and loved that too. So I'm a fan - anyone else remember that old live action/animation version? My Little bro watched it 14 and a half times on a rental... had to go back, see?

As far as the motivation behind Sauron and Saruman... There is a school of thought that sees the series as Tolkien's metaphor for the rise of Nazism. Sauron, Saruman, a dark axis of tyranny - Hitler and Mussolini.

I don't know if this will have filtered into your local press, but up here in Midgard... sorry, the Midlands, there has been some speculation that this series will become recruiting material for the far right. Stephen Shapiro of Warwick University recently went on record over fears that the war between white-skinned humans/elves and Black Uruk-Hai will be used to reinforce their racist agenda.

hmmm... throw a few runes into the mix and the bastards can't resist.
 
 
mixmage
17:52 / 22.12.02
try googling Andvari's Ring... oo-er, missus!
 
 
illmatic
23:04 / 22.12.02
Me and my mate Nick have just got back in from seeing it, and are both a bit pissed so scuse shit quality post(had a nice falfel on the way back from the station, btw). We both thought it fucking rocked, and all ye naysayers are boring bastards - it's a fucking monstrous epic, everything you wanted a film to be when you were a little kid.

Nick: nothing to say (too stunned... erm, I mean drunk).
 
 
Foust is SO authentic
23:52 / 22.12.02
I just have to say again, it rocked.

But that could be my sheer excitement and joy overwhelming whatever critical viewing facilities I may have. I'm going to watch it again next week.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
10:18 / 23.12.02
Had to work all bastard weekend, so still haven't seen the bugger.

Looking forward to it, but I recall feeling after first two viewings of FotR that the only way to genuinely do justice to the story would be in Soprano's style installments, 45 minute renderings of each chapter, so the sympathy with each individual race's motivations / feelings etc. have time to take root and make sense.

That said, after a few subsequent watches (and you really do have to see these movies a good few times to really appreciate them methinks) I totally love the FotR, and haven't even seen the extended DVD version yet.

Roll on Xmas.
 
 
Seth
10:27 / 23.12.02
Awesome film. I've been three times now, and you're right: it does get better with each re-watch. Bring on the extended cut!
 
 
Simplist
17:32 / 23.12.02
Greetings all, first post...

Leaving the theater my reaction was generally positive, but also somewhat ambivalent. Unlike the tightly structured narrative of the first film, TTT had an "all over the place" kind of feel to it as Jackson attempted to weave the various scattered plot threads of the middle chapter into something cinematically coherent, not always entirely successfully. This contrasted somewhat jarringly with the unified narrative of the first film, as did the overwhelming bleakness of the scenery and situations. As it's been twenty years or more (!) since I read the books and my recollection is thus less than clear, I wasn't upset as some were by the various changes to the plot (I gather from other posts here and elsewhere that there were more of them in this film than in the last). However, certain storylines that I do remember being much more important in the book clearly got less screen time than they needed to work well (ie. Faramir, and most especially the Ents).

All that having been said, my ambivalence is rapidly fading the more the experience of the film sinks in. Jackson certainly succeeded in creating a sense of having been transported into that world; I was reluctant to let go of that feeling as I exited the theater onto the loud city streets of San Francisco. The Gollum storyline was well done on nearly every level, and the battle of Helms Deep was terrifying. The bleak aesthetics worked also as part of the metaphorical and actual journey/descent of the characters from the lushness and grandeur of FOTR to the arid steppes and dying wastelands of TTT to (presumably) dark, grey, volcanic Mordor in ROTK. There were a lot of good character moments; not as many as in the first film, certainly, but they were there, and this was a different kind of film in any case.

In summary, what problems there were seemed largely to be a function of the film's "middle chapter" status. Jackson didn't have the option of following a relatively simple central narrative this time (as he did in FOTR with the forming and breaking of the Fellowship), nor was he able to wrap things up in any satisfying fashion; rather, he had to, as I said earlier, attempt to weave various semi-related plot threads into something coherent while continuing to build momentum toward the final chapter, and for the most part he succeeded. At the risk of restarting a debate that's now grown somewhat tiresome (though perhaps not on this site; I've been lurking here only a few weeks), I'll contrast this with my experience of another recent "middle chapter": I really enjoyed "Attack of the Clones" in real time, however the more I thought about it afterward the less happy I was with it, and I never was moved to give the film a second viewing. My experience of TTT has been the opposite; I was ambivalent-to-positive at first, but the more it sinks in the more the ambivalence fades, and the more I look forward to seeing it again.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
18:01 / 23.12.02
Well, Farmair had the same problem that Legolas and the Ents and so on did - people had to keep being weak and then recanting and regaining the mission, thus acting completely out of character and disrupting the ideology and balance of the original while they did so, in order to create some sort of modern, cinematic construction of character. Legolas is a fucking elf. His attitude to death is utterly unlike a human's. He is the son of Thranduil. He does not have to be saved from the power of pussying out by Heterogorn. And so on, and so on.

Helm's Deep was beautifully done, but far too long, and tactically incoherent. Not to mention suddenly a shitload of elves - so the last alliance of men and elves is now the penultimate alliance of men and elves. Nice. Do the dwarves get to be written back in as well, or do we only need one of those for the funnies?

And the Arwen-Aragorn stuff was wincemaking. Elrond as Victorian father, Aragorn as misguided character making the first misunderstanding in a romantic comedy (It would bever work; I'm a crazy maverick, a loner, a troublemaker. You're an elf. Pointy pointy little elf), Arqen being a block of wood, Aragorn being saved by the healing power of Liv Tyler's phantom lips.And fucking Enya. Everywhere Enya. No wnder the elves are leaving - so would you if whenever you appeared cod-Celtic wank started durging away on the soundtrack. Just embarrassing - not to mention Galadriel and Elrond's sudden magic telepathy. What was that, the two of them fighting evil with the power of Godley and Creme?

So, technically glorious, beautiful to look at, great fun, some top performances (although Bernard Hill and Liv Tyler stank the place out), but sometimes silly and a bit directionless. Wil be interesting to see how they do the Return of the King, since almost all of that is various history lessons delivered by Gandalf, Denethor, et al.
 
 
Jack Fear
19:00 / 23.12.02
...people had to keep being weak and then recanting and regaining the mission, thus acting completely out of character and disrupting the ideology and balance of the original while they did so, in order to create some sort of modern, cinematic construction of character.

I think that's spot-on. Watching TTT, it seemed like Jackson, at several points, simply lost faith in the source material--or more properly, lost faith in the ability of the action-movie crowd who are this film's secondary audience to relate to the source material.

Of course there would be changes in the process of adaptation: but this time around I find myself baffled by his decisions that were made. I can only assume that Jackson must have thought that Yet Another Battle Sequence with Faramir acting like a bastard is somehow more inherently "cinematic" than a pastoral interlude showing Faramir as decent and not-particularly-ambitious. But in practice all the sound and fury of Osgiliath was dull and pointless, where the book's quiet conversations, carrying the weight of old wounds and difficult decisions, crackled with drama.

I'm still organizing my thoughts on the matter--expect a fat essay some time in the next 24 hours--but overall I was troubled. There was much that was magnificent, and much which had me weeping manly tears-but there was also much which served simply to confuse or negate the qualities and themes which made the books so resonant in the first place. Which seems to rather miss the point.
 
 
Jack Fear
19:01 / 23.12.02
Oh, and was anyone else distracted by the curious resemblence of Faramir...



...to Neil Gaiman?

  
 
Simplist
19:32 / 23.12.02
Looking around further (I avoided reading any reviews until I got around to seeing the film) I came across the following review, which I think presents the positive case for the film better than anything else I've seen: _BLANK">http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2002/12/18/two_towers/index.html
 
 
arcboi
19:55 / 23.12.02
But Faramir doesn't have a mullet
 
 
grant
20:30 / 23.12.02
Geek complaint: the sacking of Isengard needed Huorns. Roots penetrating stones.
And, narratively, shouldn't Aragorn have left for the Paths of the Dead at the end of this one?

In the book, Osgiliath is mentioned, and so are the Riders on Wings, but as backdrop to Faramir - pointing out that he is way out on the frontier, with bad things happening in front of him and breaking through behind him. I suppose Jackson was showing and not telling us this, but I kinda wish there was some other way to do that.

Of two minds about the Elven archers, too. I think they were there mainly because oo! Legolas was sooo coool! in the first movie, so now, we have to have like 50 dudes who can shoot like him! and all that weird telepathic stuff between L. Ron & Gala was there to justify having a team of dudes who can shoot like hell. They should've been Rangers, but nobody remembers them from the first film.

And now, my better half wants me to shave off the beard, grow my hair long, and dye it blond. Her boy, who is still young enough to ride my shoulders, wants me to grow the beard longer and dye it green.

Peter Jackson, you're tearing this family apart!
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:36 / 23.12.02
and all that weird telepathic stuff between L. Ron & Gala was there to justify having a team of dudes who can shoot like hell.

Because they can use the Palantirs without fear or observation. Because of *special* electricity.
 
 
Jack Fear
01:24 / 24.12.02
I didn't have a problem with that, myself. I think it actually improves on the books--giving more of a sense of the gathering storm, as the free peoples come together, one by one, and make ready for war. Bringing the elves into the alliance earlier on ratchets up the tension, I think: even Elrond can no longer deny that the threat is real, and that this fight is his, too.

Poor Hugo Weaving: I think he's a fabulous actor, I really do, but he is so miscast--he looks terribly embarrassed and uncomfortable throughour, squirming in his robes & hair extensions. Poor guy.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
08:18 / 24.12.02
Jack- I was too busy thinking that Eomer looked like Simon Pegg from Spaced (sorry, can't be arsed to do pictures)
 
 
Spatula Clarke
09:59 / 24.12.02
Not really got much to say that hasn't already been covered. It's a shame that the fantastic work done on Gollum was let down slightly by the rubbery Ents and lack of a feeling of gravity on the CG creatures generally (which is always a problem in films like this).

Anyone else notice how Eowyn suddenly vanishes from the film once the battle begins? Jackson obviously didn't know exactly what to do with the character here; she couldn't be shown hiding in the caves after he'd made a point of showing her courage and skill with a sword, but he also couldn't put just the one female character in the midst of battle. Having a number of female fighters in those scenes could have got some of yr major LotR geeks in a strop. So, instead, she disappears for the entire battle and surrounding scenes.

Oh, yeah. Ent eyes = resin. See?
 
 
arcboi
12:22 / 24.12.02
Having now seen the film, what can I say? My gob was well and truly smacked.

Gollum just looked amazing. Andy Serkis has done a great job . If this man doesn't get an Oscar then he should definitely recreate that scene from 24 Hour Party People

I had no problem with the Ents who IMHO came across as pretty convincing, although I'd agree that some of the shots of Merry and Pippin looked poor - but that's a minor quibble against the scale and style of the entire film.

Legolas just keeps getting better and better - the amazing horse mount and shield sliding antics were damn impressive.

The Helms Deep battle was just jaw dropping - Aragorn and Gimili's defence of the bridge being one of the best moments.

I'd certainly rate it as one of the best films I've seen this year.
 
 
Foust is SO authentic
15:12 / 24.12.02
Did your audiences gasp at Legolas's horse trick too?
 
 
arcboi
15:28 / 24.12.02
Just about everyone in the audience gasped when they saw it.

I'd heard about it previously and IIRC it was done for real with no computer trickery. I thought 'Well OK, he gets on a horse - no biggie'. But when I actually saw the way he did it... well, I missed the next 5 mins of the film while I scrabbled on the floor looking for my jaw....
 
 
The Natural Way
15:41 / 24.12.02
Well, Randy, in the trailer Eowyn can be seen lurking behind a stalagmite (or whatever they are) in the caves beneath Helm's Deep, ready to jump a particularly evil looking orc....

Special edition here we come! Whoop!
 
 
The Photographer in Blowup
17:55 / 24.12.02
So we won't see Grima slashing Saruman's throat, is that what you mean? So what?

If they cut the Scouring of the Shire to put some more fighting scenes with another climatic battle like the one in Two Towers, who cares at all?

It's not that i don't understand and respect the feelings of the trilogy fans, who are far from being geeks like these x-men fans, but come on - which is better? Battle scenes like te one in Helm's Deep, or Frodo and Sam returning to find the Shire destroyed? I choose the former.
 
 
The Photographer in Blowup
18:11 / 24.12.02
Stretching out the journey in Mordor, more like, since the destruction of the Ring will be the climax of the third film, and the Scouring of the Shire has been cut entirely.

i actually think the Return of the King ending with the destruction is quite better an ending than the return to Shire, so that's not going to put me off the third part.

Anyway, Two Towers was an incredible movie, epic in scale, darker than the first, perhaps more special effects-driven than the first one - i believe The Fellowship of the Ring was more emotional, not the type that makes one cry, though.

Still, this movie did what it is supposed - ir provived excellent scenes of heroism and bravery; after all, the movie is epic fantasy, so characters should all be noble, strong and heroic, ready to die for freedom and life.

Some scenes are memorable - the entire battle at Helm's Deep particularly - as well as the storming of Isengard; i could see the Ents' rage after they saw the destruction caused to their forest (my brother thought the whole 'talking trees' stuff childish)

Gollum's character was marvellous, although i disagree of those who said it was very real; it was better than most, but it was still a CGI effect - i expected better. Andy Serkis does indeed deserve an Oscar or his role, but i can't see the Academy nominating him for a CGI role, pity.

All in all, this was the movie i was expecting to see; some parts were cut from the book, but i don't remember missing them, as the three hours passed quickly.

I can see Two Towers getting another nomination for Best Picture, but something tells though that this year it will take even less nominations, and Oscars home.

Everyone should see this movie, best of the year 2002.
 
 
Old brown-eye is back
22:04 / 24.12.02
They won't give it Best Picture, just like they were never going to give The Fellowship of the Ring Best Picture. Return of the King they'll give Best Picture because then the trilogy (ie the filmed-all-at-once eleven hour cluster-fuck epic thing)will be finished.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
12:11 / 26.12.02
Haus's point about the filmmaker's shoehorning in obstacles to make the characters doubt their mission and then carry on with it is spot-on. Akin to this is the totally unnessecary sequence of Aragorn falling off the cliff in the warg-battle, and going missing until showing up just in time to save the day. Was that in the book, or not? It's been a long time since I read them.

The movie itself was about a half-an-hour too long, and I'll just echo everyone's points about the totally unnessecary Arwen/Elrond scenes, and the Battle of Helm's Deep being a tad too long. There also could have been less of Merry and Pippin and Treebeard walking through Fanghorn forest, as those two hobbits are ciphers and extraneous even in the books. And if they'd cut down the screentime of Entmoot, they could have shown more of the Ents wrecking Isengard, which was the high point of the film.

Also, no more fucking close-ups of Elijah Wood's face. Is there anyone who has seen both movies who isn't sick of looking at this dude's mug? Every other shot in the Frodo/sam/Gollum sequences are close-ups of Frodo looking surprised! frodo looking stricken! Frodo looking thoughful! I tried to examine Wood's face for make-up'd blemishes or enlarged pores or any imperfections but found it disturbingly smooth. Sam must have a backpack full of Neutragena.
---------------
Okay, re:slashtastic nature of the movie - Does anyone else think that Jackson really, really played this up ON PURPOSE, for giggles? I think Jackson is probably canny enough to realize that even if he didn't tip his hat to the homoerotic nature of the books, people (especially critics) would bring up the odd pairings of Frodo and Sam, Gimli and Legolas, etc. To foreground the manlove is to deflect criticism and also have some subersive fun with the source material. The Gollum/Sam/Frodo conflict is a much more convincing love triangle than the Aragorn/Arwen/Eowyn situation, with two submissives competing for "master's" love. Gimli's description of "dwarf women" ("most people think there aren't any") is completely unconvincing, and we're meant to think that the dwarves just get it on together with a wink and a smile.

-----------------

Oh, and the first words of the Uruk-Hai in the movie- "I smell manflesh"-are destined to be a camp classic. They already are in chez Todd
 
 
Jack Fear
12:15 / 26.12.02
Rosa: Whether you see the destruction of the Ring or the scouring of the Shire as the true climax of the story rather depends on whose story you think it is.

If you see this as a story of Men and wizards and great kingdoms, then obviously the climax is the destruction of the Ring. If, on the other hand, you see it as a story about hobbits, then the scouring of the Shire is the equally obvious and necessary ending.

Tolkien was telling a story about hobbits, played out against the background of great events in the world of Men. Peter Jackson is telling a story about Men and wizards and great kingdoms, with hobbits as supporting characters. The change to the structure represents a fundamental shift in the viewpoint and themes.

more later...
 
 
The Photographer in Blowup
13:08 / 26.12.02
Rosa: Whether you see the destruction of the Ring or the scouring of the Shire as the true climax of the story rather depends on whose story you think it is.

If you see this as a story of Men and wizards and great kingdoms, then obviously the climax is the destruction of the Ring. If, on the other hand, you see it as a story about hobbits, then the scouring of the Shire is the equally obvious and necessary ending.

Tolkien was telling a story about hobbits, played out against the background of great events in the world of Men. Peter Jackson is telling a story about Men and wizards and great kingdoms, with hobbits as supporting characters. The change to the structure represents a fundamental shift in the viewpoint and themes.

I respect your point, jack, but i got many news for you:

If it had dependend on Tolkien, we woulldn't even be here complaining whether Two Towers is better or worst than Fellowship of the Ring, as he never wanted the movies to be made - so anything that Peter Jackson puts in the movie you should consider a blessing, because if it weren't for Jackson you would probably be claiming Harry fucking Potter as the epic of the year instead.

Besides, Tolkien didn't get the three Oscar nominations like Jackson got last year (and if you consider how many fantasy movies ever got Oscars, it's a pretty incredible achievement), nor did he create a 13 Oscar nominees epic, so anything that guy wants to make with the movie from now on, he can pretty much do, because he has that power, and because he has proved what he's worth a year ago - remember, this isn't Tolkien's book anymore, it's Jackson's movie, and it's brilliant.

And i can't believe you guys and your complaints: The movie itself was about a half-an-hour too long, and I'll just echo everyone's points about the totally unnessecary Arwen/Elrond scenes, and the Battle of Helm's Deep being a tad too long - What? half-an-hour long? Which part? The warg battle, the storming of Isengard? the attack on Isgiliath? (sorry if it's not properly written)

There isn't a scene in the movie that isn't good; what's wrong with Arwen and Elrond? It was necessary to explain why the Elf army goes in aid of Helm's Deep - it's background information, and a good point of characterisation at that. Helm's Deep is too long? What are you saying, i actually think it needed more time of screen - nothing like that has been done before, and i hope Jackson tops it with a 2-hour battle in The Return of The King, even if it means putting aside the Scouring of the Shire.

Akin to this is the totally unnessecary sequence of Aragorn falling off the cliff in the warg-battle, and going missing until showing up just in time to save the day

He didn't appear in time to save the day, but i understand your point - but come on, this is what the movie is about: heroic scenes; it's an epic fantasy story, it's meant to have brave heroes missing as dead only to appear in the last minute to save the princess/kingdom, blah-blah-blah...

There also could have been less of Merry and Pippin and Treebeard walking through Fanghorn forest, as those two hobbits are ciphers and extraneous even in the books. And if they'd cut down the screentime of Entmoot, they could have shown more of the Ents wrecking Isengard, which was the high point of the film.

Again, these long scenes with pip and Merry and Treebeard are meant to be characterisation and explain why the Ents finally decide to storm Isengard, which at first they didn't want to - and i don't think that was the highpoint of the movie, although it was rendered perfectly nonetheless.

And what's wrong with Frodo and Sam's friendship, and Gollum? I think it's very emotional and worthy of some screen time, and i'm the sort of guy who just loves long scenes of action.

Well, you want a story on Hobbits, read The Hobbit, as for me i want a story of Men and wizards and great kingdoms with some Hobbits in between; but if the Shire has to disappear so Jackson can show an epic battle at Mordor, then i guess the Hobbits have nothing to fear, cause there ain't gonna be no Scouring of the Shire in the movie, luckily.
 
 
Simplist
19:33 / 26.12.02
Gotta say I'm with you on this one, Rosa. My previous partial ambivalence to the film entirely vanished with a second viewing yesterday. Jackson's LOTR is epic filmaking on a scale rarely seen, and with real heart and sincerity (qualities sadly lacking in most fantasy and/or epic films of late). Sure, there are nits to pick, there always are; but on their own (filmic) terms these films succeed marvelously. I very much look forward to an epic 10-11 hour viewing of the three extended DVDs in late 2004.
 
 
A
02:26 / 27.12.02
I just saw it yesterday (which was the day it opened in Australia) and, while I don't have too much to say about it that others here haven't said already, I'd just like to throw my hat in the "liked it" camp. It did seem a little disjointed, compared with Fellowship, but as other folks have already said, that seems to be more to do with the source material than with poor filmmaking.

Something I did like is the way that Frodo appears and acts more and more Golem-like as he becomes increasingly affected by the ring. Nice touch, I thought.

Action movies never win Oscars, though (except for Special Effects and suchlike). The Best Movie award will go to something starring Tom Hanks as a retarded war veteran who learns a valuable lesson about life, or something.
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
11:37 / 27.12.02
ITEM 1: The use of Faramir in the film makes no sense. There's never any sense that he's enchanted by the power of the Ring - he never tries to take it, for example. He's convinced that the Ring needs to be taken to Gondor, just as his brother was at Elrond's council. Yet one poxy, badly acted speech from Sam about hope and shit, that would have stunk out a DragonLance novel, makes him decide to let them go? Bollocks.

ITEM 2: Love how the fact that Elves die is sooo much more tragic than all the shitloads of Men that also bite the big one. Because they're eternal, athletic and very, very pretty, right? A little echo of Black Hawk Down et al, IMAnachronisticallyAllegoricO. Some animals are more equal than others...

ITEM 3: More Dwarf tossing. Because the line got a big laugh in the first film, right?

ITEM 4: Toooo Muuuuuch Aragorn Romanticism! STOP IT! We know he's mysterious, heroic and has a tantalisingly exotic accent! We know he's going to be King (although it would be more in keeping with Jackson's earlier movies if he became Kong...)! Any more slow-motion shots of him opening doors, climbing on horses, saluting Orc hordes with his sword, washing his cock in the river, ANYTHING, will get a crazed Ngggh! from me...

ITEM 5: Wasn't Theoden supposed to die in the battle at Helm's Deep?
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
14:21 / 27.12.02
Nope, Theoden dies in the Battle of the Pelenor Fields, outside Minas Tirith, in the Return of the King. Right after it's revealed that Sauron is the Emperor from RotJ.

L.M. Rosa There isn't a scene in the movie that isn't good; what's wrong with Arwen and Elrond? It was necessary to explain why the Elf army goes in aid of Helm's Deep - it's background information, and a good point of characterisation at that.

Hmm, must have missed that, does Elrond make a deal with Arwen that if she goes off to the Grey Havens he'll send the archers to help the men?

He didn't appear in time to save the day, but i understand your point - but come on, this is what the movie is about: heroic scenes; it's an epic fantasy story, it's meant to have brave heroes missing as dead only to appear in the last minute to save the princess/kingdom, blah-blah-blah...

Except that, as you have admitted, he appears well before the last minute and I don't see what value it was to have that entire sequence in, other than, as you say, the story isn't about the little people and is about Men. I like the films, just a bit disappointed when I see elements getting lost. I'll be interested to hear what Peter Jackson has to say on this on the commentary to the special edition.
 
 
Jack Fear
14:45 / 27.12.02
It's a chance for Viggo to ride a horse.

Viggo keeps horses and is an excellent rider anyway, and lobbied Jackson for more horseback time for his character.

Seriously.
 
 
arcboi
17:50 / 27.12.02
Boy, I'm glad that some of the posts on this thread discussing things to come have huge *SPOILER* notes in case anyone not familiar with LOTR should be reading......
 
 
Jack Fear
17:53 / 27.12.02
Furthermore, Rosebud is the sled, Darth Vader is Luke's father, and that chick in The Crying Game is a DUDE!
 
  

Page: 12(3)45

 
  
Add Your Reply