The first group of reviews are in, although no major reviewers are counted in yet. Generally very positive opinions with some nitpicking at what a smart filmmaker would necessarily have to do to cram these three books into a movie. Jackson has to be lauded for really doing the impossible -- "The Two Towers" is the most complex and convoluted of the three books and he's woven in some of "The Return of the Kings" for cinematic continuity. I just see some critics showing bias towards epic fantasy and not attempting to understand what Jackson has done here. The depiction of "Treebeard" and the Ents draws the most negative response and that is admittedly the most difficult part of the story to depict on film As good as CGI is, I propose that one leaves their objectiveness outside the door when trying to enjoy a film like this. The book is fantastic and although Tolkien managed to create a world that appears real, it is still a product of imagination. I read these statements and realize that these people suffer from "adultishness." Link to reviews:
FIRST REVIEWS OF TTT:
The last image has stretched the screen! I'll leave it up for a few more days and then delete it. There's lots of images on the internet right now -- link to them via the sites I have given above.
The one thing that bothers me is the love affair being expanded. But, that is what movie audiences want. I guess it will be interesting to see the new parts in the "Two Towers". It obviously is easy to say, "Well, it could of happened!" Anyway, can't wait to see the movie - loved the "Fellowship"!
BTW, you didn't leave a radio button of Smeagol on the Poll?
The poll was the Fellowship only. Don't think Smeagol wants to throw the ring into Mount Doom.
The Arwen/Aragorn relationship history was drawn from appendices and I think it works well as it gives Aragorn and the world of men more of a tie with the elves.
LW, yes, both of these things tie to the end. On point,
1) I might even argue with you that Smeagol was number 10 and without his help they would not have gotten to the throat of Mount Doom.
2) As I said, "Well, it could of happened!" I do take your point here to heart and do believe beside it being an audience builder it is good for the story - gotta see it first though!
Thanks for reply! (BTW, I wouldn't have voted for Gollum anyway, just like to be contrary - ha!)
I really meant to type FOTR and I agree that without any spoiler that your interpretation has validity to it.
I tried to stay away from the spoiler also! Think I should remove or rewrite the comment? As I look back it is kinda leading!
Naw -- I don't believe that's enough to really spoil anything. So many people who have seen the film have already read the books and those who haven't I believe ran out and bought the books! There's even a soft cover all-in-one volume at my local Sam's Club!
LW, when you wrote, "The Arwen/Aragorn relationship history was drawn from appendix...", is that at the finish of Book III, a separate book or in Silmarillion. I know I get lost and totally bored in the appendix to Book III and need to read Silmarillion again. I haven't read any of JRR Tolkein's other books and should.
It's in the appendices included with the three volume edition of the novel (well, I guess in the six volume which is also available and as Tolkien originally wrote it). Tolkien spent a great portion of his life creating just the basis for the novel before he even started writing the book. I think there were two motives for having it in the film -- the books takes a lot of time to establish the relationship of the elves and men which couldn't be done in the film so the personal relationship of Arwen and Aragorn served a purpose as well as making the female characters more important. Was this an effort to be politically correct? I don't think so. Of course, much has been written about the homoerotic slant of the books and if that's one's perception, it certainly does help to have a traditional Hollywood love scene in each film. I'm wondering how Jackson handles it in the last part.
I've never plowed through "The Simarillion" from start to finish but have scanned most of it. What's you opinion of the book? Does it include much about mankind as I don't remember that it does? Of course, I have the book but haven't cracked it open for over thirty years!
The extended version of FOTR does a much better job establishing the relationship of elves to men, the hobbits and dwarves. I think it is good to read the books and then see the films, preferably several years apart. I started re-reading the books just before the first film and decided to wait for the entire film and finish reading them. This is still one movie divided into three parts and originally it was going to be one film (Miramax backed down on making two films). It was an executive at New Line who decided it could only be done in three films.
"I'm wondering how Jackson handles it in the last part."
The marriage! Gets big time coverage there!
I haven't reread "The Simarillion" in 25-30 years myself. I remember that there is much ado about the begining of the ring and Smeagol's life. Kinda Cain and Abel. In the FOTR the begining of the picture maybe from "The Simarillion". There are also other chapters about other things - 1st Age I think. Of course the elves lived through it all. There are other books also - more in deepth about other ages. I do remember reading something about the time after - well uh, the third book. That may have been in "The Simarillion" also.
I reread all three books again after I saw FOTR and then went back and saw the film again. I need to now see FOTR again, then go see The Two Towers and maybe even read the trilogy again before seeing that film again.
Anyway, I'm ready, it's close!
Ebert and Roeper, THUMBS UP!
Although Roeper wasn't impressed by Part I, he joins Ebert in giving Part Two, "The Two Towers" a thumbs up for its concentration on the action/adventure aspects of the storyline.
Watch next week on ABC.
The image would not transfer -- here's the link to The One Ring's download of the longer TV trailer and a gallery of still shots (4 pages):
http://www.theonering.net/movie/preview/ttt_tvspot_01.html
Thanks for that link, George. Great stuff! I won't go stand in line Wednesday, but definitely plan to see the Two Towers next weekend.
"The Two Towers" makes the AFI awards list for 2002:
http://www.afi.com:82/about/afi2002.asp
A great review by Elvis Mitchell of The New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/18/movies/18LORD.html
The reviews are generally spectacular -- Ebert is still regretting the loss of much of the whimsy of the books but I'm afraid I disagree. That film could never be made and it wasn't my favorite aspect of the books:
http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/twotowers
BilllW - three thumbs up, I made the first showing in my little town this morning.
LW, the Arawen+Aragorn (excuse my spelling, I don't want to look them up) were well done and coulda happened! They added to the show and reminded everyone of Liv Tyler. I could say more, but don't want to spoil. All I can say is I was wrong.
Gotta reread the 2nd book now to get the two (book and movie) in jive. I feel the "whimsy" is there, what ever that is!
Boy, you are a fan -- I don't plan on seeing it until next week or between Christmas and New Years (I got one free ticket in the Extended DVD of FOTR).
The Golden Globe nominations: Best Picture, Best Director
They didn't list the soundtracks yet but I believe I did mention before that the voters of Cinema FM voted it as the favorite score of all time. It may be that it's up against the score for "Chicago," as the first film score was up against "Moulin Rouge." A strange comparison of apples and oranges.
