A sweeping, epic failure --- POSSIBLE SPOILERS

Rating: Null/10 (18 December 2003)

There is no denying that "The Two Towers" is an impressive film, or that it is generally entertaining, but it is deeply flawed as well. I truly believe this could have been a great film, but because it is burdened with numerous problems it is ultimately a failure.
I enjoyed Tolkien's writings as a child, and reread them with pleasure as an adult, so when the first film came out I excitedly rushed out to see it. On the whole I enjoyed it, although it had some elements that bothered me. I was especially annoyed by Merry and Pippin's antics. At the time I was not too worried about the quality of the following movies on account of what I had seen since I knew Merry and Pippin would have to carry a large part of the second movie, and I assumed their characters would have to be made less "comedic" for them to do so.
Unfortunately, not only are they still annoying, but the character Gimli has also been made to provide comedic relief. I have no issue with comedy in the context of a serious movie, but the comedy here just was not funny. At one point, for example, unable to see over the battlements behind which he stands, Gimli requests a box to stand on.
Movies and books are different media, and a movie based on a book (or the reverse) can be judged without reference to its source material, and certainly is by those not familiar with the source. That said, those who are familiar with the book will come to the movie with some expectations of fidelity. When the director presents material different from that in the book, he should do so because such changes enhance the movie. When changes would negatively affect the movie, they should not be made. Many of the changes Jackson does make are of the latter category. Even without reference to the books, the flaws of the film are glaring.
There is a deliberately archaic feel to much of Tolkien's writing, and Jackson's screenplay largely obliterates this. He introduces contemporary touches which take away from the mythic qualities of the work, although these touches, no doubt, do render his project more commercially viable. Worse than this, some of the dialogue is just bad, and changes to the screenplay would have made "The Two Towers" a better film.

The introduction of the elves into the Battle of Helm's Deep appears to be motivated largely by a desire to have more elves in the film. It serves absolutely no other purpose that I can see, and is absolutely contrived. What is more, their marching in order, and turning their heads in unison towards the camera is ludicrous. I was torn again from a mythic world to a vision of a parade of US Marines with pointed ears.
The film also suffers from poor pacing. The middle of the movie, revolving around the character of Aragorn, is a mess. The dream sequences create a tedious morass that should have been edited out. Even the events leading up to these scenes should have been removed. They are deliberately manipulative, attempting to create tension about Aragorn's survival, but completely failing to do so.
Even the concluding battle, which has been much praised in the press, left me unstirred. Ralph Bakshi did a better job at depicting the battle in his 1978 film. The action is not particularly dramatic, and the repeated attempts at comedy ensure that whatever tension is built up is quickly dissipated.
The end of the film is meandering and pointless. Although "The Two Towers" does not complete the story being told, the dramatic impact of the film's conclusion could have been strengthened. Instead, the movie just peters out. Bakshi's film, by contrast, does build up to an impressive denouement. Tighter editing could easily have helped to build a sense of tension which would have made the victory over Saruman more satisfying.
For most viewers, both those familiar with the books and those who are not, "The Two Towers" will be a rousing adventure. The special effects are stunning. The acting is generally good. Jackson was perhaps a little too in love with his project, however. Had the middle of the movie been excised, the end re-edited into a more dramatically compact entity, and some of the dialogue rewritten, he could have produced a great film. He did not, and we are left with a sweeping, but ultimately unsatisfying epic.