|
|
|
| Movie
Reviews - The Two Towers |
|
It is hard to improve on excellence, and
anyone who read my review of the The
Fellowship of the Ring will know how
much I truly loved that movie. Following the first installment in the
series is The
Two Towers, and although it is an excellent movie, there are many more flaws
than the first. Relax, relax. Take a deep breath and relax. The Two
Towers is a fine movie, but it doesn't compare to Fellowship. I don't
like comparing a sequel to the first installment, but keep in mind that
this is not really a sequel. In fact, to be honest, you need to think
about these movies not as three, but as one. The Two Towers suffers from
being the 'middle' movie.
The Two Towers suffered from having way too much exposition, characters
lending their voices for various bits of voiceover to progress the
narrative along. There was too much of it. Necessary? Probably. But it
weakened this chapter all the same. Fellowship, was able to sum up the
Hobbit and the history of Sauron in the first ten to fifteen minutes,
giving us all the background that we needed to know. From there the
story was quick, fast paced and constantly moving, even when very
little was going on. Towers, does seem to stagnate at points, either due
to the voiceover work or because the characters seem to linger.
Fellowship also benefited from introducing us to all of the characters,
both good and bad - the constant threat of the Orc, or the Belrock, or
Saruman - the Ring driving Boromir mad. The powerful dialogue of "You
shall not pass!", seemed to be missing from the second chapter.
Granted we met all of the main characters, but more were introduced.
They carried little fanfare about them. I was very disappointed with
Faramir, brother of Boromir. I wanted him to be like his brother,
however the character was barley on screen, and he didn't have much
personality. Sure he let the hobbits go, but he just seemed to be a
blank. While Sean Bean in Fellowship made Boromir a wonderful tragic
character, his brother lacked the passion. I'm not sure if that was done
by design or not.
Theoden, the King of Rohan was also a bit of a disappointment. Granted, he
was just released from a spell, his son is dead and half of his army
banished - he still should have been a more powerful leader. Kings are
the rulers of men, and he seemed lost among them. He had a few moments
where he burst out of his trance, but even during the battle of Helm's
Deep, he was just missing something.
There was another element added to this movie that should never have
been allowed - comic relief. I lost all respect for Gimli in Towers. In
Fellowship he was a hard nosed little bugger. In Towers, he was a joke.
From falling off his horse and stating "Oh, I meant to do
that" to actually being tossed. (Get it? Dwarf tossing?) After he
sounded revolted in the first movie of that option. They played too many
jokes about his height; not seeing over the wall, too short to cut his
head off, needing a box to stand on. Sure people laughed in the theatre
and I think they were supposed to, it's just that I didn't like the
transformation of this character. The one joke in Fellowship was enough
for that movie (they'll never sneak up on a dwarf) and any more than one
was too much for this movie. It reminded me of watching Raiders of the
Lost Ark. That was a serious movie. Certain touches of humor for flare
were added. Then in Temple of Doom, the movie was transformed into a
comic book, or a cartoon of itself and something is lost. Gimli suffers
a similar problem.
Another new character was Treebeard, and excellent rendition of the
forest Ent. These creatures are centuries old, and the looked it in
everything they did. From talking, to making decisions to even walking.
But still, they were one of the best additions to the movie. When all the
forest Ent's organize and finally decide to join the war they carried a
very big stick. Saruman looked very afraid of them.
Finally what can I say about Gollum? Another CG character. Is he Jar Jar
bad? NO! In fact he was very, very good. The character won me over with
his voice. Perfect! It's the voice you envision when you read the books.
He did look like a CG character, and maybe not as polished as he should
have been, but man does he come to life in a big way. He is obviously a
character gone mad with the Ring and even more so without it, longing
for it back. In some ways he almost steals the movie. The difference is
that you can see that this is a troubled character, with deeply
conflicting emotions and paranoia. We come to feel for Gollum, and we
understand Frodo's pity for him. Frodo, sees the transformation in
himself and he knows that if Gollum can be normal again, then surely he
can too.
Elijah Wood again turned in another excellent performance as Frodo - his mood
shifting as he tried to battle the effects of the ring. His performance
was outstanding - watching him slowly become more in tune with the Ring
until he almost turns on Sam. He is no longer the sweet and innocent
hobbit from the first movie. The One Ring is weighing heavily on him. He
falls to its power at several moments and in a truly startling scene, he
pulls sting on Sam and is moments away from skewering him. The
relationship between Sam and Frodo is as strong as ever. Frodo needs
Sam, and if he weren't there Frodo would have fallen to the Ring.
I was very much looking forward to the Battle of Helms Deep. It had all
the markings of an epic battle in the making. It was a great moment, but
not as good as I wanted it to be. Here is the only place so far that I can
find fault with Jackson's direction so far, and after watching the movie I
really wished he had watched Braveheart for a blueprint on how to do a
battle scene. The battle was predictable and slightly obvious. It was a
typical 'storming the castle' type battle. After the battle with the Orcs in Fellowship, where Boromir lost his life, I wanted something with
as much passion and emotion. Sadly it didn't live up to that battle. It
was a great fight, it was just lacking.
I think what hurt the movie was trying to follow the three different
storylines, with the characters all splitting up after the first movie,
and each storyline being so important to the main story arc. It just seemed to break up any momentum that any other individual storyline had.
Well, it seems like this movie sucked. No it didn't. I'm just picking on
the few things that I felt hurt the movie, and what kept it from being
as good as the first one. There were many wonderful moments in the film,
and I have to say that again the cinematography was outstanding. The
breathtaking beauty of Middle Earth (New Zealand) is quite remarkable.
After being exposed to Fellowship, it is far too easy to pick out things
that I didn't like in Towers. It just didn't have the same impact. I became used
to the
excellence that the fist movie provided. That's why I didn't mention how
much I liked the fact that Aragorn and Legolas were just as good in Towers as in
Fellowship. They had a great chemistry together on screen, and while the
comic tone of Gimli wasn't welcomed, the three of them looked like they
had been fighting alongside each other for years.
 
- 8/10
Blair Barbesin -
Contributor
More Reviews - Click
Here
|
|
|
|
|
