Great foreplay, but sadly unsatisfactory act (minor Spoilers)

Rating: Null/10 (18 December 2002)

In Germany, there is a saying that sort of fits this film: Operation successfully completed; patient dead. Which means that in spite of the technical perfection, the obvious dedication of cast and crew and the overall grandiosity of the whole enterprise, somewhere along in the movie, a strange feeling of shallowness and lack of emotional involvement creeps up. Lest fans now abandon this article, let it be said that "Two Towers" is nonetheless a hugely enjoyable viewing experience. The first part left me saying "wow" to myself several times and thinking that this might turn out the perfect adaption which "Fellowship" wasn't. The introduction with Gandalf and the Balrog falling down into the abyss is breathtaking, and Grimas performance (strangeley enough, my favourite in this film) has a shakespearian intensity. The "let's hunt orcs" sequence of Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli is all you could ever dream of while reading the book, and seeing the hosts of Rohan storm over the plains is alone worth the ticket. Also the filmmakers again managed to fit quite a number of little details from the book into the film, which will draw gratified smiles from the readers and probably go unnoticed by those who don't know the books. But even so, after two hours or so, somewhere between the fifth grunting uruk hai and the third cute Rohan refugee child hiding at its mothers breast, I found myself wondering why I was lacking the emotional involvement with the characters that is so strong in the book. Looking at my watch half an hour later, I found myself thinking: "o no, it's almost over - and where's the climax?" A sort of interruptus: Great foreplay, but sadly unsatisfactory act. Actually, this is quite a fitting metaphor, not least because this movie obviously is only part two of a three-act-play. And while the beginning in medias res works beautifully, the ending provided by the script only enhances the lack of a proper end of the story. But it also fits because all the orc-chopping going on towards the end of the film, all the surplus action invented by the filmmakers (as if there wasn't enough in the story anyway!) is probably going to appeal mainly to young masculine fans. Ok, we do have a rather kitsch horse-sequence and the flashback and -forward romance of Aragorn and Arwen for the ladies; but while scenes of fights and battles crowd the screen, the other elements of the story (like humour, legend or poetry) get rather trampled. More unfortunately for the film though, its concessions to popcorn-culture (and probably Jacksons own taste) are also often taking precious screen time away from the characters, who are again played beautifully by the great cast. This dominance of action over character is the more grievous as the film has to follow three story lines instead of one, the fellowship being split up and each party pursuing their own way against Sauron or Saruman. In the book, this works well enough because the first part of "The Two Towers" is dedicated to Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli, who in the end rejoin Merry and Pippin, while the second part follows Frodo and Sam, so that each part leaves off with a cliffhanger ending of its own. Obviously, this structural solution could not work in the film, but Jacksons frequent intercutting between the three story lines does make for some confusion - especially since all three subplots in the film end up in simultaneous action. And here one may at least ask why the heck Jackson didn't rather adapt Tolkiens original cat-and-mouse-play between Faramir and Frodo and Sam, thus contrasting a quieter, more suspense-filled storyline to the impressive CG-battle at Helm's Deep and the destruction of Isengard by the ents. But no, again he opts for action and has the hobbits carried off into the midst of Osgiliath under attack by the Nazgul. Frankly, who will follow? Those who know the book will grieve for the character of Faramir being corrupted (though played well enough by David Wenham otherwise!); those who don't will probably lose track of who's fighting who. All told, the film works well as long as the script follows the novel; it grows superficial when unnecessary action-sequences are added. Do we really need to see Legolas go surfing down a staircase while shooting at orcs? Do we need to see Gimli thrown (again?) Or have Aragorn, attached to a Warg, fall down a cliff to (apparent) doom and witness the grief of his friends, just as when Gandalf fell in the "Fellowship?" I suspect that here the unholy land of sequels popped up its head, which will have a successful device in the original movie repeated and exaggerated in the sequel. So, too, in the repetition of the "temptation scene": In "Fellowship" it's the powerlusty Boromir who tries to take the ring from Frodo; in "Towers" Faramir steps in his shoes, which is not at all true to the book and yields a rather weak sort of suspense as well as a very unlikely, abrupt and incredible change of mind in Faramir when he decides to let Frodo go in the end. Would Faramir otherwise really have been too statical a character, as the filmmakers will have it? The answer, of course, to all the above rhetorical questions is (in this critics opinion) no.