As grand as the "Fellowship"

Rating: 9/10 (21 December 2002)

Just as its predecessor, "The Two Towers" is a major scale film, very well executed and performed. I don't think I can call it a sequel, since it was simultaneously filmed along with parts I and III of the trilogy.
Just under three hours long, the movie picks up right where we left in "The Fellowship of the Ring". Frodo and Sam are on their painstaking way to Mordor and Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli are trying to catch up with the Uruk-Hai that took Pippin and Merry as prisoners. Enter Gollum, the Riders of Rohan and Treebeard, the new characters that play an essential part, each on their own, in the whole trilogy.
I was looking forward to see this movie ever since I was captivated by the first installment of the trilogy. I hadn't read any of the books by that time, but the story caught me so much, I just couldn't wait another year to know what happened to Frodo. I think that's the main difference between my perception of "The Fellowship of the Ring" and "The Two Towers". To be honest I felt that the first film was too long the first time I saw it, but when I finished the book and saw it again I felt it was too short.
Now, having read the book twice, I feel that "The Two Towers" is just a little bit too long, and I think I have a very good reason to do so: chapters 8-11 of book III and 7-10 of book IV were simply cut out and and replaced with many other battle sequences, like the attack of the orcs on the people of Rohan on their way to Helm's Deep, many flashback and dream sequences, and others I won't tell to avoid spoiling it for you. This certainly will benefit the third film "The Return of the King" as it will contain many more action sequences than the book describes (and I agree it needs them instead of such a long epilogue), but "Alas!" it made me mad having to wait another year to see them. And since those chapters are left out, the whole movie concentrates on the grand finale of the Battle of Helm's Deep. Did you think the first battle sequence of "Saving Private Ryan" was long? Think again.
Leaving this aside, the movie is a very good adaptation from the book. I'm amazed by the way Peter Jackson's vision brought the story and its characters from the books to the film. All the places and landscapes are everything I had pictured in my mind. I was so anxious to see Gollum and Treebeard come to life, and I got more than I expected. In fact, despite the disadvantage of being a digital character, Gollum's performance is the one that makes the most lasting impression in this movie (and perhaps the three of them). Just like Frodo, you feel pity for the little guy. Awesome voice performing by Andy Serkis combined with flawless animation. Also, kudos to Frances Walsh for her screenplay adaptation. It's no easy task writing a linear story from a book that goes forward and backward in time so abruptly.
I have to see it again two or three more times to make an honest vote about it. I thought 9 at first, but that's just because I missed Shelba so much. I guess you guys that had read the books before felt the same way about Tom Bombadil (although she's not out at all, no my precious, just delayed...).
Now bring on the Extended Edition on DVD! I want to see Treebeard's home, the complete battle with the Balrog, more Merry and Pippin! One year is too long to wait for "The Return of the King"!