An adroit adaptation of an extremely challenging novel

Rating: 10/10 (29 November 2003)

It seems impossible to write a review of this film without turning into a comparison between it and J.R.R. Tolkien's original text. The deviations from the plot of the novel have been decried and also lauded.
But that sometimes deflects readers from the nature of the accomplishment: Peter Jackson and company have taken a massive work (speaking of the entire trilogy), a sprawling work, and not just brought it to the screen but repurposed it to be a true film adaptation, playing to the strengths of the medium. The production team took a story that was plot-centric and made it character-centric; they took a story that in book form touched on an incredible number of areas and created a wonderful, rich universe and concentrated on the most important areas -- which makes it a less-than-perfect copy of the original source material, but a nearly perfect cinematic presentation of this story.
As the middle part of a three-act story, "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" was the most difficult to conceptualize and the most difficult to present on its own, and some hurdles were nearly not cleared...but they all were, eventually.
It's important to accept the storytelling premise: this is not a standalone film. It's less about character development than "Fellowship of the Ring" was and it's less about closure than "Return of the King" will be -- though it has both of those elements. It's the second act: that part of the story where we put the characters into impossible situations, where the challenges crystallize. The REAL story isn't about the quest to destroy the Ring of Power. It's about the internal journeys that Frodo, Sam, Aragorn and the rest each face. This film does an excellent job in getting that task done.
THE GOOD: The awesome panoramas and physical scope of what you see on screen is ever-present, as it was in the first film and I expect will be in the last. There are a lot of characters to keep track of, but most attention is placed on the ones that need it.
Jackson's decision to jump right into the second film -- to actually treat it not as a "second film" but as a continuation of the first -- means that every moment of screen time can be devoted to fleshing out characters and themes, which means that this film will contain more messages and things to dwell on than most films will. Some will find that a negative, but I found it a positive. Certainly Tolkien provided ample source material to choose from.
At the same time, the film does not attempt to flesh out everything from the novels, which helps the viewer focus on the important things.
The action is fast-paced but not overbearing, the acting superb and the balance between the physical and the emotional is good. Everything you've heard about the performance by Andy Serkis as Gollum is true -- easily the most significant digital character ever and a crucial performance.
Howard Shore's score is superb.
THE BAD: If you are a fan of the books and unable to let go of the text and keep an open mind, you're going to be distracted. I am a many-times reader of the books and I couldn't avoid devoting much of my attention to plot comparison during my first viewing. But once that was out of the way, I found that each successive viewing was a better experience than the last one.
If you are not comfortable with the entire fantasy genre, the good news is that "Lord of the Rings" doesn't overplay the role of magic in the story. There are fantastic elements of course, but most of what you see on screen (or on page, for that matter) is different in form from reality but not so much in function. That being said, "The Two Towers" has the most fantastic elements of the three volumes, and will be harder for you to swallow.
With the plethora of characters and with Jackson's wise choice to focus on the development of the core ones, some characters seem to get short shrift, including Gandalf, who is in the odd position of being both a key mover of events but at the same time NOT being one of the core characters in terms of development. That can be disconcerting if you're not paying attention. "Lord of the Rings" is not a casual movie.
A few of the visual effects are not up to par with the effects from the first film, though overall they are outstanding and in Gollum's case mind-blowing.
Of course, "good" and "bad" are subjective. The "bad" parts I list above are pretty circumstancial and might not make a difference to you. They didn't for me, which is why I give "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" unabashed top marks.
A NOTE ON THE EXTENDED EDITION: I found the Extended Edition DVDs to have great extra scenes that Tolkien fans will love and cherish (I certainly did), and the special feature had me completely enraptured. However, I still recommend the tighter, leaner theatrical cut as the better film experience.