Epic, spectacular and thrilling, but also flawed.

Rating: 7/10 (8 January 2003)

In my review of 'The Chamber of Secrets' I mentioned how tough the job of Chris Columbus, director of the Harry Potter movies was. However when it comes to adapting books to film his job looks straightforward compared to Peter Jackson's. Over a thousand pages of novel had to be trimmed and shaped into six hours of film, perhaps two dozen important characters to bring to life, millions of devoted Tolkien fans and also the general filmgoing public to satisfy. I thought he did an amazing job with 'The Fellowship of the Ring', which was, aside from a few overwrought moments, probably as good an adaption as could possibly have been made. Unfortunately I can not say the same for 'The Two Towers'.
Oh, it is very good - Jackson again shows what a master he is at staging battle scenes and creating moments of wonder and horror, the special effects and New Zealand scenery are breathtaking and the quality cast again do a good job. But there are moments that are a bit corny and scenes that could have been more tense and exciting than they were.
The story consists of three seperate plot lines - Merry and Pippin journey into Fangorn Forest where they meet the Ents, the ancient Shepherds of the Trees, Frodo and Sam head closer to Mordor with Gollum, the twisted former possessor of the One Ring, and the remaining members of the Fellowship fight to save the kingdom of Rohan from the forces of Saruman, who has used magic and a treacherous advisor to enfeeble Theoden, Rohan's king.
While it is packed with characters and events, there is not as much in 'The Two Towers' as there was in 'Fellowship', so while it does not have quite the variety of locations events that the first film did, Jackson has been able to create a film that is not as episodic this time (which was inevitable with the theatrical version of 'Fellowship' - see the extended DVD version for a longer, better-paced cut). The three-pronged story is still which was the screenwriters and editors biggest problem, as they had to try and juggle and balance the plots so that the viewer follows what is going on while the movie's momentum is maintained. Generally I think Jackson and company did a fine job but, especially towards the end of the movie, they could have done a better one. The film cuts between the climaxes of all three plots which reduces the power of each of them, especially the epic battle of Helm's Deep. The battle is a huge, superbly choreographed sequence but the tension that it creates gets released too often as we shift to what Sam and Frodo or Merry and Pippin are doing. I think it would have been better to finish Sam and Frodo's story, except for the epilogue with Gollum, which belongs at the end, before cutting between the battle at Helm's Deep and the hobbits' dealings with the Ents.
Partly to provide a climax, a lot has been changed from the book. Many things that were in 'The Two Towers' will now be in the third movie (which makes me wonder how they will fit everything into 'The Return of the King') and a few things have been added. Some of the additions, such as the battle with the warg-riders and the Black Rider's sweep over the Dead Marshes, are very good. Others, such as Aragorn's near-death experience and his triumphant return, the slow-motion fall of Haldir and the reunion of a mother with her children are cliched. The screenplay is a flawed one: it does not always explain what is going on adequately and there are a disappointing number of melodramatic moments. I could have done with less shots of frightened women and children, less inspirational speeches, less beams of shining light and, though he was funny, less of Gimli the dwarf as comic relief. Sometimes, as at Helm's Deep, the atmosphere should be grim and frightening and a joke spoils the mood. As do a few cute, anachronistic moments such as when Legolas skates down stairs on a shield or when Sam talks about what it would be like to be a character in a great story. 'The Lord of the Rings' is not supposed to be postmodern - such moments just take you out of the alternative world that the movie is trying to create by reminding you that it is a movie.
But while it is not up to the very high standard of 'Fellowship', 'The Two Towers' is still a quality movie: spectacular, sometimes stirring and gorgious to look at and listen to. There is one other thing that would make it worth seeing: Gollum. The first CGI character to actually act well, Gollum, with his split personality, creepy voice and pale, veiny, superbly rendered body, is fascinating to watch. All his scenes are among the movie's best. If 'The Two Towers' does get an Oscar nomination for acting Andy Serkis, who did the voice and the movements that Gollum was based on, will probably be the one. I suspect though that this won't be the year that Peter Jackson gets to go up for Best Director or Best Film. Oh well, there's still 'The Return of the King.'
7 1/2 / 10