Flawed, but still worth a watch for fantasy lovers

Rating: 6/10 (1 December 2014)

"The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" is the middle piece of Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings"-trilogy. Awards-wise the least successful, I would also classify this film inferior to 1 and 3. It starts with the plot twist that Gandalf is actually alive and we see Gollum for the first time, the visual description of what the ring does to people. For the most part, we follow Sam and Frodo (group 1) and Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli (group 2) after Boromir's death. Sam's behavior towards Gollum stood a bit in contrast to his warmheartedness with Frodo, but apart from that I liked these two story lines and also the introduction of Gollum (possibly the most interesting character from the trilogy). I really was not impressed at all with the storyline of the king who obeys to his evil snake servant and the whole family business of the king. Aragorn looking at the traces and seeing that the two Hobbits must still be alive was complete nonsense. The tree creatures (on which the Hobbits spend pretty much the whole film) were quite nice though. However, there were some problems with these too. The tree promised Gandalf nothing would happen to the Hobbits. So how come these Hobbits climb right that tree who vowed to protect them? He sure did not follow them. He was even sleeping before they woke him up. And why does he think they are Orcs at first? And when did the other hobbit duo become brave enough to scream at the trees to get them to help? They were just fools before all that and I just cannot see them transforming into credible heroes. Nonsense, I say. Also they don't even ask if Gandalf is still alive.
Another thing I wondered was how Aragorn knew that Sam was with Frodo. But that's just a minor criticism. One hour into the movie, Frodo and Sam are at the gates of Mordor. So what would happen the next 2.5 hours. Well.. the kingdom story happened and it did nothing for me. You can say yes it was in the book, but still you can cut the uninteresting parts and maybe make this an hour shorter and avoid the dragging. And that guy's name was Wormtongue? Really? That sounds like it would be the villain from a children's film. Or Harry Potter maybe. Anyway, the character was played by Brad Dourif, roughly three decades after his most significant role in Cuckoo's Nest, an interesting snippet in my opinion. Also the farewell song for the King's son did not move me at all. The whole story of Miranda Otto's character and Aragorn I could have done without. It added nothing really.
Saruman stays the main villain here just like in the first film, so it is a bit surprising as everybody keeps talking only about Sauron when it comes to LotR-villains. The creatures in this movie were top-notch, just like in the first, especially the Wolves of Isengard. Gimli provided comic relief again and it helped a lot that he had Bud Spencer's dubbed voice. Great fan here of the spaghetti westerns. That scene in which he asks Aragorn to throw him and not tell "the Elf" was very funny. The main characters keep surviving under the most difficult circumstances that you sometimes wonder if they are actually immortal (Aragorn here in particular, and Gandalf early on as well). Liv Tyler looks pretty nice and so does Orlando Bloom, but the latter did not do really much for me. His character is so interesting, but acting-wise and story-wise it was all very underwhelming about Legolas. Back to Frodo and Sam, I liked the issue if Frodo's friendship with Sam could survive Frodo's ring connection with Gollum. Which of the two is stronger? You may need to wait for film 3 for a final decision. And please disregard Frodo's constant visions and deliria. These were not done convincingly at all.
The big problem this film has that despite its stunning visuals, it is fairly uninteresting from an emotional standpoint. Neither the kids having to go to war as soldiers nor all the groups of fighters spectacularly coming to help our heroes at Helm's Deep I found particularly captivating (except the trees maybe, that was slightly intimidating). The second half of the film was weaker than the first I felt, mostly thanks to Gollum's introduction and presence early on. At least Gollum gets the final scene, so we can look forward to him in the final film. Random note: Why is Smeagol not naked and why does he wear a slip if he cares about nothing but the ring. We will never know. After that scene, we hear the closing credits. And while I liked Enya's song from the Fellowship, this one is a disappointment. It sounds much more like a Bond song and brings none of the fantastic aspects of the film to the table. I recommend this film to fantasy lovers. If you somehow enjoy the very overrated "Game of Thrones" and still have not seen Jackson's LotR trilogy, it is high time. They will enjoy it, but I cannot call this film an epic, let alone the entire trilogy.