Too much of an "in-betweener" to be fully enjoyed, except for the introduction of one key character...

Rating: 7/10 (11 November 2016)

I called "The Fellowship of the Ring" the first instant classic of the 21st century and one of the many accomplishments the film achieved was to be listed as the 2nd Best Fantasy Movie by the American Film Institute and to be the most recent film to make it in the AFI's Top 100 Greatest Movies of All Time. What I forgot to mention is that it wasn't the most recent to be listed in any AFI's film for this privilege goes to its successor "The Two Towers" listed in AFI's Top 100 Movie Quotes. Do I need to mention which line made it in the Top 100?
The line says a lot about the key element of "The Two Towers", it introduced one to one of the most emblematic characters of the trilogy, the creepy yet weirdly cute in his childlike attitude: Gollum. In less than ten minutes, Gollum is as fully developed a character as all the members of the Fellowship of the Ring put together, from his voice and speech mannerisms to his elastic moves and constant crawling as if he was constantly looking for something one might have accidentally dropped, something of high value, that he'd call, with his raspy and ominous voice, "my previous". And if it wasn't for the introduction of Gollum, I'm afraid the second opus of the trilogy might have only been a continuation.
And even being the continuation of a classic full of so many characters and based on the rich, dense and labyrinthine plot of Tolkien's book isn't enough to grab you by the eyes and hook you to the story, unless you're hardcore Tolkien's fan, and even then. A second opus isn't just the 'what-goes-next' but also the second offering of a director, and apart from the hypnotic presence of Gollum and his mysterious and fascinating split personality, I must admit that sometimes, throughout the film, I stopped paying attention to the screen. I know everything looked great, and everyone did justice to their roles. But it seemed like the novelty was gone, and the plot dragged on for too long. Ironically, the Tolkien purists complained that five chapters were abandoned and the story went too fast.
I trust their perception but I think this says a lot more about the difficulty to adapt a story of such epic scale. At one point, there were new characters every ten minutes, and they all looked the same: dressed with medieval fashion, long hair, bearded, noble looking or close enough. So I tried to focus on the faces I knew, the ones I could name, and eventually, I could spell, I felt secure as long as I had Frodo in the screen, and Sam, Gollum who won me instantly, Araghorn, Legolas and Gimli (whose height relegated him to the rank of comic reliefs after the two side- kicks hobbits were gone). But by the second third of the film, even these characters couldn't carry the story. There came a moment where Frodo's wide-eyed expression started to annoy me, where I didn't much care for the talking tree subplot and when even the return of Gandalf left me perplex.
"The Two Towers" confronted me to the one reality that the first installment miraculously prevented; I'm not into Fantasy movies. Not to be pedant or cynical, but I'd say the problem of Fantasy is that it has too much fantasy indeed, it is so virtually full of possibilities that even death loses its realism, anyone can kill but anyone can be saved, I knew Gandalf would survive and was I glad to see him back on the screen, but when you have a character falling to a certain death in a mountain of lava and coming back triumphant, you know the notions of odds is relative. It's like the entire storytelling is governed by the primitive pattern that good guys will win, inevitably, because they're good by essence not because of some powers or skills. Inversely, the enemy contains so many hideous creatures that you know they're like naturally inept to win, on the long term.
The film was great in every technical aspect, the production design, the special effects, the battle sequences, but the offering was nothing new once you've digested the first part. The film certainly works as a link between the introduction to this magical universe and what will be the climactic confrontation of the end, but that's what it is, an in-between movie highlighted by the introduction of Gollum, which is the equivalent of Master Yoda in "The Empires Strikes Back", but "Two Towers" is no "Empire" equal. "Empire" is a classic on its own, not a continuation. Besides, the "Star Wats" trilogy was built on a three-year span between the movies while "The Lord of the Rings" provided each opus one year after another, the first one was the immersion, the last one was the farewell. The second was probably the one that had the least time to be appreciated.
And maybe Peter Jackson knew it and you can tell some unusual hastiness in the storytelling, the one pointed out by the Tolkien fans. Maybe this is why it focuses more on the human characters and on more conventional war/history movies tropes, while the Hobbits are left in the background. Somehow, anyone would get the feeling that the third one will be better, so perhaps the merit of "Two Towers" lies on the frail shoulders of Gollum, the first CGI character played by an actor, Andy Serkis. The combination of electronics and real acting, seven years before "Avatar" is the one milestone, the film achieved. Not that bad, after all.