My two bits.

Rating: Null/10 (27 November 2009)

I think I pretty much said all the positives I had to say in my ROTK review. So now I'm going to vent my spleen.
I like the fantasy genre for what it is, but these days when I see the overblown and overwrought tweaks to what is supposed to be a mythological genre--I don't know--it just really boggles the mind as to how things could get so out of hand.
The fantasy genre is supposed to be taken from historical folklore of a thousand years past. But when one looks at the various iterations of "elves", "paladins", "wizards" and other personae that are said to populate these imaginary worlds, one wonders what went wrong. Final Fantasy has their short spikey-haired over-sized-sword dude, Warhammer has their "Fae in Space" thing going on, and, well, how does anyone buy into this crap in the first place?
So what does this have to do with Tolkien's Lord of the Rings series? Not much, other than the fact that Tolkien's work was built upon other works, and today's marketers have built upon Tolkien's work, and so forth, and so forth, and so forth. Until we now have huge swords, armor and weapons that could never be made, worn, and much less used. "The Two Towers" somewhat smacks of this, but much of that is Pete Jackson's artistic license.
And we need artistic license. It's what makes for good drama. But do trolls have to be twenty-five feet tall, AND wear armor? This film, like the previous film and the subsequent one, to me, suffer from a severe case of taking itself too seriously. Lots of slow motion shots, twirling camera stuff, and a sense of impending doom. Then again the Two Towers was meant to be the angst-ridden middle second act of the series.
Truth is I like this film for what it is. I don't have too many gripes with it. But I do take issue with Tolkien fans who really take these films as religious dogma of sorts. I've read pretty much all of Tolkien's works regarding Middle Earth, and his lesser known publications as well. They're entertaining, but I think one would be hard pressed to find any redemption in terms of spiritual enlightenment within the text of Tolkien's thoughts.
So, what are my real gripes? The whole current "fantasy" genre as a whole. Not just Pete Jackson's corner of it, but the whole "chainsaw swords" and magical powers with absolutely no basis in anything, deities that are physical manifestations and such... one wonders how anyone in their right mind could be a fan of this junk.
The Two Towers has the benefit of being A) popular, and B) well rendered by Pete Jackson's hand. Even so the film seems a bit heavy. Darkly lit, dark mood music with few light moments, impending thesping/circumstances. Do these "folk" (hobbits, elves, dwarfs, men, widgets, and whatever else) ever crack a smile or joke? We got a few moments of levity from the first film, but the second one, this film, seemed rather weighted with its own drama.
So what's the point of all this rambling? In the days when legends about elven folk and dwarfs were first conceived and told, they were considered real entities for parables of what and how to avoid the dangers of venturing off from the village by oneself. They were meant to explain away the unexplainable. Now they're a commercial product meant to be exploited by sociopathic marketers. The Two Towers teeter in that direction, but are saved by the creative teams vision for the films.
Even so, I think these films were made probably a few years before they should've been made, and I speak of none other than the CGI, which, to my eyes, looks like CGI.
So, in the final analysis, what do I have to say about Jackson's version of Tolkien's Two towers? Truth is I'm not too sure. It's an okay film. It entertains. And, really, what more can you ask for?