Better than the first, but also not

Rating: 10/10 (19 December 2002)

Much like Gollum in the film, I am off two minds about Two Towers. Oh it still gets a 10 and is an absolutely astonishing work of art and entertainment. The battle scenes alone are the greatest ever put to film.
My sole complaint comes only in comparison to the first film, Fellowship of the Ring. In FotR we get one story - Frodo's story - told over 3 hours. There is a singular drive and focus. Two Towers however, actually being made up of two 'books' (Lord of the Rings was written as six books that the publisher combined into 3) has a split focus. 'The Battle of Isengard" sections focusing on Merry & Peppin with the Ents, and Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli and the events leading up to the Battle of Helm's Deep; and 'The Ring Goes West' section featuring Frodo and Sam's dealings with Gollum and Faromir.
The movie rapidly moves between the two parts of the novel and as such, the is a lack of cohesion to the story. It doesn't movie forward in the way Fellowship did. Oh, it's still better than nearly any other movie out there, but whereas FotR is in my top 10 all time, Two Towers will have to be content with being in my top 20.
As for changes from the book, Who Cares???? It's a movie, not the novel on screen. If the author had wanted a movie, he would have written a movie. The job of a film is to tell the essence of the story. Getting every detail from the book exact is what makes the Harry Potter films so lacking in spark and magic. Peter Jackson's ability to deviate from the novel when it serves the needs of the movie is amazing and commendable. Anyone demanding slavish devotion to the text should be rightfully ignored.
And yes, that means Shelob and the tunnel have been moved to the beginning of the 3rd film. Yes that means the elves, and Arwen in particular, have a larger role here than in the novel. But it all works and works brilliantly. This is a film not to be missed on the big screen.