A waste of money or the dawn of an epic Trilogy?

Rating: 8/10 (13 January 2003)

I must start by saying, that at the end of this review you will get two ratings from me. One for the first time I saw the film (December 19th) and a second one for the second time I saw it (January 12th). I watch films like this (and Star Wars films) two times in the cinema, because I feel that I am too overwhelmed by the visuals at the first time to really capture the whole film. Another reason, why I do not enjoy The Lord of the Rings as much at my first view, is that I've read the books. This means that I (while watching the film) start wondering how they've done this and that and ask myself: What came next?'. This of course prevents me from getting deep into' the film, but unlike other films it does not totally spoil my viewing experience. The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers (together with a limited number of other films) are the only ones, that can make me shed a tear, even when I'm not that able to plunge into' the story.

After the big success and the quality adaption, that The Fellowship of the Ring was, the expectations for the Two Towers were enormous. Not only for the general public, but for me also, even despite the fact that I thought that The Two Towers was the worst' book of the trilogy ( with The Return being just a notch better than The Fellowship of the Ring). I obviously cannot say yet, that The Two Towers is my least favorite film, but what I can say, is that it was not as good as the first film. This has nothing to do with the actors (even though Ian McKellen isn't as great as he was in The Fellowship of the Ring), the effects or the story. Contrary to what some might think now it has also nothing to do with the fact that Peter Jackson added a few scenes,left some out and even delayed the appearance of Shelob until the last film although it has something to do with the artistic freedom' Peter Jackson permitted himself in making this film. The only thing that really bugs' me about this film is (and I know I'm going to sound like one of those idiotic Tolkien freaks) that it did not quite grasp the essence of the book, of the whole trilogy for that matter, for The Lord of the Rings is basically about Frodo's quest to destroy the Ring of power in the fires of mount doom and it is my opinion that this part of the story did not get enough attention throughout the film. While I was reading the book, I could fully understand Frodo's difficulty with the ever heavier growing ring, that started to poison his mind and caused a lot of struggle within Frodo. A struggle in which he was all by himself, for nobody knew what it was like and nobody could help him bear this ever growing burden. Peter Jackson (obviously) tried to bring that part of Frodo's feelings onto the screen, but in my eyes he failed. The terror of the Ringwraith's and the inner struggle within Frodo were much better depicted in The Fellowship of the Ring than they were in this film despite the fact that it was an essential part of the 2nd book of the trilogy. Now I know that this film has been cut (as The Fellowship of the Ring had been) to reach a wider audience and to earn back the BIG bucks that were invested in the making of this trilogy, so I can only hope that Peter Jackson cut essential parts out of the film instead of forgetting to forge a good second chapter of what is and could become an epic and classic trilogy on paper and on film respectively.

Oscars for: Best Art Direction-Set Decoration and Best Makeup

Nominations for: Best Cinematography; Best Picture; Best Director; Best Writing; Best Effects, Sound Effects Editing; Best Sound; Best Editing; Best Effects, Visual Effects and Best Costume Design

One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them alland in the darkness bind them.

1st view: 7,5 out of 10

2nd view: 7,5 out of 10