Filming the ending of an Age

Rating: 9/10 (21 December 2002)

Darkness. Bleakness. Age. The final mustering of strength of a weary warrior and of weary, ruined kingdoms long past their splendor. The end of an Age of the world. That is what the Two Towers invokes.
Watching this film reminded me in a way that Fellowship did not that I am witnessing before my eyes the end of the Third Age. That is what this film is about. The darkness is not just the darkness of Mordor consuming Middle Earth, it is the darkness and bleakness of the end of an Age. Yes, elves are leaving Middle Earth. But, men and the kingdom of men also seem at their end, long past their glory. These ancient, worn kingdoms of men seem called upon to master their last strength, strength that is long past its glory; their kingdoms seem shadows, ruins, remnants of their former glory. Even when Theoden is no longer "possessed", Rohan and Theoden still seem past their glory, weary warriors, Rohan seems a weary kingdom, devoid of life, at the end of its days, gray and worn, devoid of many people. There are no teeming multitudes in Rohan. It seems an empty cold, windy chilled plain, a barren land. Osgilath, the ruined city of Gondor is in decay. Even the sky throughout the film is gray and bleak, like a gray, depressing November or December day at the end of a year, the dying season, winter. Sams words at the end of the film (pulled directly from the book) echoes this theme, what will there be left to save at the end? Will anything that once was remain the same? All will be transformed, and much that once was will be lost, by its last stand against darkness, as PJ has already hinted at for the Return of the King and as readers of the books already know.
This is a movie about war. In this, it is much different than Fellowship of the Ring. Fellowship of the Ring seemed much more fantastical and much more of an adventure movie. Two Towers, as PJ said, is a movie about men, about warfare. The movie, for me, at least, centers around Rohan and Theoden and Aragon (and Faramir) and the war of men (Rohan and Gondor) against Saruman and Mordor. This movie is much less Frodo-centric than Fellowship of the Ring. I remember in the DVD of Fellowship that Phillipa said that Fellowship was rewritten to make all the story Frodo-centric, centered around Frodo and the ring. While Frodo is still important in the Two Towers, it seems that the movie's focus is on Rohan and the plight of men (the plight of Osgilath and Farmir also reaffirm this), who seem worn, their kingdoms near desolation, yet expected to fight one last time, though at the end of their days. Gondor and Rohan seem shadows of their former glory, children and elderly fighting, their people dirty peasants, their cities in ruins. When the banner of Rohan falls before Aragon arrives, blown by the wind, truly that is the state of men and of Middle Earth at the time of the film.
To me, the main characters in this film are Theoden and Aragon, the old king of Rohan and the future king of Gondor. In Theoden we see the passing of the Third Age, a former warrior-king (similar to those in Germanic tales) past his prime as is his kingdom. He is torn about leading his people to war. He knows he may be leading what people are left in the kingdom to their end. He might be leading his kingdom to its final breath. I found his character wholly engaging, thought-provoking, and empathetic.
Viggo again does a wonderful job as Aragon.
As for the rest of the returning cast, they all do a wonderful job. John Rhyss-Davies is hilarious as Gimli. I love that this time his character is given more screen time, which was cut out of the theatrical version of Fellowship and not returned to Fellowship until the extended DVD.
As for Gollum, I did not find him as believable as many people have stated. Throughout he seemed to me CGI. However, in close ups of his face, he did look like Andy Serkis. Truly this was an actor acting Gollum when we focused on Gollum's face. I felt pity for Smeagol and terror of Gollum. PJ does a great job at the turmoil of Smeagol/Gollum and the difference between the two personalities and, most of all, at showing how Gollum is what Frodo is already becoming because of his "addiction" to the ring.
I did not find the changes to Faramir's character jarring. I had always found the Faramir section of the Two Towers rather boring, so I liked that there was more tension involved. In the end, Faramir is the Faramir that we know from the books. He doesn't give in to the ring. > The only thing I really didn't like about the movie was some of the scenes with Arwen. I did however think the scene where we see Arwen and Elrond together and Arwen has to make the decision to stay or leave definitely was a worthwhile addition to the film.
As for the Ents, Treebeard was rendered wonderfully and much of his dialogue came directly from the book. Some of the other Ents however looked a little "cutesy". I did have some misgivings that the Ents did not after Entmoot say right away that they would attack Saruman, but having Pippin and Merry lead Treebeard toward Orthanc to show him the desolation Saruman had created does give Pippin and Merry a more important role to play. We do get to see Pippin and Merry begin to take on more responsibility, though their role in the film is small compared to the other two major storylines, the major one being that of Theoden/Aragon and the other of Frodo/Golllum (again the old and the new, the old ringbearer and the new ringbearer).
Gandalf is given very little time in the movie also. Again, I think because the script was written toward focusing on the Aragon and Theoden comparison and the Frodo and Gollum comparison.
On the whole this is a very different film from Fellowship. Fellowship was about Frodo. This is about the ending of an Age and the trials of the weary kingdoms of men in the end times.
Did I like it? Yes. But for different reasons than Fellowship because this is a very different film than Fellowship as PJ has said.