Home Featured TV Shows All TV Shows Movie Reviews Book Reviews Articles Frequently Asked Questions About Us

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

"The thieves! The thieves! The filthy little thieves! Where is it? Where isss it? They stole it from us. My preciousss."

Includes spoilers!

I'll start off with something that might be slightly controversial, but I honestly think this trilogy is one of diminishing returns. Not by massive amounts, mind you. The quality doesn't suddenly fall of a cliff, this remains one of the best trilogies ever made; it's just that I do feel like each instalment is somewhat weaker than the previous one. What stops this film from reaching the same heights as the previous one are issues with how the text has been adapted, which I accept will not be universal to all viewers. Many watch and love these movies without ever having read the books, but I have so that's what I'll be mainly talking about in this review.

Like all the other books that make up The Lord of the Rings, The Two Towers is divided into two parts. Unlike The Fellowship of the Ring, which chronicles Frodo's journey with the Ring, each part follows a different set of characters. The first part follows the various members of the fractured Fellowship as they aid the people of Rohan in their war against the forces of Saruman. The second follows Frodo and Sam as they continue their journey to Mordor, meeting up with Gollum and Faramir along the way. That structure works perfectly fine on the page, but not so much on the screen, so it's no surprise then that the films abandons it completely it in favour of presenting all the events as they happen chronologically.

However, this does create certain problems for this film and The Return of the King. Where the previous movie cut and condensed in order to keep the plot moving, this one slows down and pads out in order to keep all the various plot threads moving at the same pace. Close to a third of the book is removed and transferred over to the next film; this is because Frodo and Sam's story progress far more quickly than all the others. The other storylines benefit for having a good alternative early end point with the Battle of Helm's Deep and the Ent attack on Saruman, but the Frodo and Sam storyline isn't so lucky. There's nothing there that really works as a narrative conclusion, so the writers make it a character one instead, mainly the arcs for Gollum and Faramir. Of the two, Gollum's failed redemption works the best.

After some teasing in the previous film, Gollum finally makes his full appearance in this film. What stands out most about him is not just how amazing the CGI still looks over 20 years later, but how much Andy Serkis' performance is able to shine through it, carefully showing how the two sides of Gollum's personality are distinctive from each other. Serkis makes you care for one half, the meek Smeagol, even root for him to overcome his bad side and become good. The scene where he's literally talking to himself is a brilliant piece of acting, directing and effects, a strong contender for the best scene in the entire trilogy.

The changes made to Faramir are less successful and do just feel like an attempt to stretch out this plotline, including a massive detour that isn't anywhere in the book. Unlike his book counterpart, the film's Faramir isn't a kind and gracious host to Frodo and Sam, and is just as tempted by the Ring as everyone else. It creates more tension and suspense, but does reduce Faramir to a mere shadow of his brother, robbing him of everything that made him distinctive as he essentially plays out a more condensed version of Boromir's character arc, just with a more happier outcome.


Despite the divided POVs, this film is as much Argorn's movie as Fellowship was Frodo's. He continues to struggle with his reluctance to become a king of men despite having all the best qualities of a natural leader, save regularly bathing. Falling off that cliff and into the river is probably the closest thing he's had to a wash since this quest started, and the only purpose that silly fake death actually serves. That entire Warg attack feels redundant, just some blatant mid-film action to further pad things out and provide another excuse to have Eowyn go “I can fight” and be told “No” by all the men. Speaking of which, Eowyn's entire arc is one of those things I have mixed feelings about, but I've saved those thoughts for the next review. The pining romance with Aragorn was one of my least favourite bits of the book and it's disappointing that the film decides to go all in on it. It never really convinces and just feels like a completely unnecessary addition, a pointless bit of romantic tension so they can throw in more Arwen scenes.

As I mentioned in the last review, one of the big changes the writers made was to add more conflict between the characters in order to produce more drama, but there are times here that it feels a little unnecessary. Tolkien's characters were not all that indecisive and knew exactly what they were going to do, even if they didn't always do it right away. Treebeard, for example, knew exactly what Saruman had done before he even met the hobbits, and it didn't take very long to convince the other Ents to attack him. No doubt this was changed for the movie to drag out the storyline and to also give Merry and Pippin more active roles since they don't really do anything.

The film also makes Théoden a more cautious king, unwilling to go to open war with the man who possessed him and is currently attacking his western border. Instead he decides to take his people and hide away at Helm's Deep, which Gandalf practically scoffs at without really offering an alternative strategy. This is in sharp contrast to the book, where the two of them are in complete agreement about gathering together all of Rohan's warriors and going right after Saruman.

This is all to make the Battle of Helm's Deep a more significant event that will determine the fate of Rohan. Jackson doesn't change the basic elements of the battle, everything plays out more or less as it does in the book, but it is recontextualised into a dire last stand by a meagre force against a vastly superior one. Instead of Helm's Deep being a fallback position for Rohan's shattered western forces that Théoden goes to support, it is a sanctuary for all his people and defeat here will mean the final end of Rohan. The battle itself remains one of the most spectacular ever put on screen, probably THE most spectacular. I don't think anyone since has come close to matching it, not even Jackson himself. That said, Legolas surfing down the stairs on the shield was a little too silly even for my tastes.

For my money, this is the best looking instalment of the trilogy, in part because it's the least reliant on green screen sets, one aspect of the production that isn't aging all that well. It isn't bad, just increasingly jarring when they cut from actors in real, tactile locations to obviously standing in front of a green screen in a well lit and heated studio. The locations used for Rohan are so stunning you can practically hear the New Zealand tourist industry drooling about all the money about to pour into the country. Helm's Deep benefits immensely from being a mixture of physical sets and scale models, although the geography does make me wonder where the hell Gandalf and that army are coming from. Did he really march them up that mountain just to make a more dramatic entrance?


Myths and Legends

--I love that we actually get to see Gandalf's fight with the Balrog. It's a great way to open the movie with a bang.

--Most of the Arwen scenes are remnants of an earlier version of the film where she came with the Elves to fight alongside the humans at Helm's Deep after visiting Galadriel and Celeborn with her father to ask for their help. Arwen is in fact the granddaughter of Galadriel and Celeborn through her mother, Celebrían. She also has two brothers, the twins Elladan and Elrohir, who actually have larger roles in the book than Arwen, but do not appear in these films. Eventually this version was abandoned, Arwen's scenes were cut, and the battle had to be reworked to explain why there were still Elves fighting at Helm's Deep as reshooting them would've been too costly.

--Although Elves did not fight at Helm's Deep, they did not sit out the War of the Ring entirely. There were other theatres of the war not covered in the main narrative. Sauron sent a force of Orcs from Dol Guldur in Mirkwood to attack Lothlórien and the Woodland Realm of King Thranduil. He also sent legions of Easterlings to attack the Dwarves of Erebor and the men of Dale in the North. As with the conflict in Rohan, both campaigns ended in defeat for Sauron and his allies.

--Bernard Hill is so wonderful as Théoden, bringing so much gravitas to the role without sacrificing any of the warmth or vulnerability. The scene where he breaks down outside his son's tomb may be the most gut-wrenching moment in the entire trilogy.


--From the Rohan theme to Gollum's Song, this is my favourite out of all Howard Shore's LOTR scores.

--The city that Frodo and Sam are taken to by Faramir, Osgiliath, was the original capital city of Gondor.

--In the book, Éomer was imprisoned instead of exiled and fought alongside everyone else at Helm's Deep. The reinforcements Gandalf brought with him, who were foot instead of cavalry, were instead commanded by Erkenbrand, Lord of the Westfold. I don't begrudge the writers for cutting or combining a lot of minor characters, it's what I would do, but it does mean we miss out on the brotherly bond Éomer forms with Aragorn during the battle.

--Gandalf comes back from the dead, reborn as the more serine Gandalf the White to replace Saruman. The films never really delve too deeply into the nature of the wizards, probably so as to not overwhelm the audience with mythology. Despite his "death" being one of the key emotional events of the previous film, this one doesn't make too big of a deal that he's now back.

--It is very Tolkien to have nature rise up and fight back against the evil of industrialisation, but still feels like a quick and easy way to deal with Saruman so they can focus on Sauron.

--As I'm sure many are now aware, that scream after Aragorn kicks the Orc helmet was real as Viggo famously improvised the kick and broke his toe.


Gandalf: “Be silent. Keep your forked tongue behind your teeth. I did not pass through fire and death to bandy crooked words with a witless worm.”

Ugluk: “Looks like meat's back on the menu, boys!”

Legolas: “They're taking the hobbits to Isengard!”

Théoden: “No parent should have to bury their child.”

Frodo: "What are we holding onto, Sam?"
Sam: "That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo... and it's worth fighting for."

Gollum: “What's taters, precious? What's taters, eh?”
Sam: “PO-TA-TOES! Boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew! Lovely big, golden... chips with a nice piece of fried fish.”

Three and a half out of broken toes.

Mark Greig has been writing for Doux Reviews since 2011 More Mark Greig

5 comments:

  1. Aragorn's idiotic "oh noes, will he be dead?" is probably my biggest peeve with the LOTR trilogy. I'm sure it was done as an excuse to give Liv Tyler more time (well, I always begrudge that they ignore Glorfindel).

    It's true, though, that after watching the Hobbit "trilogy" all my big problems with this movie seem to have disappeared.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Haven't seen this movie in at least a decade (possibly two) but I remember enjoying it. And the score (especially the Rohan bits) are just SO beautiful to me. I think the movies do lose something once everyone gets split up and I didn't enjoy the third installment anywhere as much as this and the first one. I didn't know Arwen was initially scripted to lead an Elven army and now I'm mad I was robbed of that. A big fault of Tolkien's is the lack of female characters (it's the main reason why I've never been able to make it more than 50 pages into LotR). I actually don't remember Eowyn being infatuated with Aragorn but I can't blame the girl in the slightest. I mean you've seen Viggo right? With the beard and the hair and the dirt? In whichever movie he throws open the doors (was it this one) I mean that's one of the sexiest things ever captured on filme.

    This movie is a rarity in that I actually enjoy the battle scenes. I so rarely do but I think the camp of Legolas and Gimli keeps it light enough so I can be engaged and not like "ughhh more fighting."

    It is a stain on the Academy that Andy Serkis was never acknowledged for his work in thess films. I mean the acting is INSANE. I know he technically wasn't eligible for an an acting award because of the mocap situation but it seems like they could have given him a special honor or SOMETHING.

    ReplyDelete
  3. While we're praising the amazing work of Andy Serkis, he's the reason why the Planet of the Apes remakes were so good.

    I'm one of those science fiction people that doesn't get into fantasy so the book trilogy and the movie adaptations were lost on me. But my cousin Tracie, who was also my closest friend, would reread the trilogy every couple of years, and she loved the Jackson movies with all of her heart. She rewatched all of the special features as often as she rewatched the movies, and even looked for other movies and shows that featured the LoTR actors. For me, these will always be Tracie's movies.

    Thank you for your very interesting review, Mark. I didn't know a lot of this stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  4. While I agree with your opening statement about the trilogy being one of diminishing returns, I actually feel that's true of the books as well as the movies, especially after Jackson's strategic trimming. The chapters from the Prancing Pony to the Breaking of the Fellowship are Tolkien at his very best and the last two volumes are only intermittently as good.

    I understand why Jackson moved some material into the final film. The alternative is to end the film with one of the worst cliffhangers in the history of fiction. Also, the Return of the King (book) takes a VERY long time to wind down, so I can see why Jackson didn't want to film the Scouring of the Shire...but that leaves the third movie a bit short of material without scavenging some from the second.

    It's been a long time since I've seen the film and I can't recall what he did with Faramir very clearly, but my gut feeling is that Jackson always wanted to push how strong the corrupting the lure of the ring is. It is arguably LOTR's central theme, and sometimes I feel Tolkien undercut it by parading so many incorruptible characters by it. Oh, sure, they all say it would corrupt them (Galadriel's speech is a pretty one in particular), but none of them show any real hesitation in turning it down.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am so glad I watched the movies first because I definitely would've been among the core Tolkien fans who hated it. As it stands, I feel like they're two separate entities and despite some stupid liberties from P Jackson, did a surprisingly ok job making a watchable movie trilogy out of one giant story. The 2nd movie is my favorite out of the 3 which remains the only time I liked the 2nd entry out of a trilogy, ever.
    And similar to Billie I associate the movies affectionately with the tremendous love my cousin had for them. She introduced them to us and we'd watch the extra DVD features together. She adored Peter Jackson and was sad when he lost weight, lol. She likes her men potato-shaped.
    But anyway, I also totally understand the wistfulness of wanting, let's say, a TV series done right, in the reflective spirit of the books. There's something totally filmable there and beautiful and unrealized.

    ReplyDelete

We love comments! We moderate because of spam and trolls, but don't let that stop you! It’s never too late to comment on an old show, but please don’t spoil future episodes for newbies.