IMDb > The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips
Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 4 of 244: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [Next]
Index 2434 reviews in total 

7 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

The Best of 2002!!!! Another masterpiece to the Lord of the Rings trilogy!!!

Author: OriginalMovieBuff21 from United States
27 April 2004

The Two Towers is another masterpiece of returning after Fellowship of the Ring. This had excellent and brilliant action. Like the Helm's Deep battle which made the 100 best battles of all-time. There wasn't much of a story but who cares, it's Lord of the Rings!!! I loved the sword-fighting and the orcs too. This movie gave me chills down my back from the fighting and the unforgettable lines. Gollum was so cool and funny. Andy Serkis did so well in doing Gollum's voice and the CGI was amazing! The landscape once again was superb. This is another one of my favorite movies. It's not better than the fellowship and Return of the King but was very close and is still a smoking brilliant film. Go LORD OF THE RINGS, BABY!!!!!!!!!

10/10!!! Highly Recommend!!! You better go see this movie!!

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Life enhancing

Author: Marcus Eden-Ellis from United Kingdom
27 February 2005

If you are reading this review (or indeed any other) trying to assess whether or not you should watch this film then please read no further and just go and slip in the DVD and let the sights and sounds of Middle Earth wash over you. Nothing I, or indeed anyone else, can say should help you to form an opinion prior to watching. I guess the audience for the three films fall into two categories; those who have read the books and those who have not. Those who have not, in my experience, tend to be overwhelmed by the absolute majesty of the vision but a little non-plussed by the actual story - seeing it as just some rather dopey fantasy; a Star Wars trilogy set in past times for the modern audience if you like. Then there is the "yes, I have read the books" class who in general seem to have a kind of smug arrogance grounded in comments such as "they left out too much", "its not what I imagined" or "Of course its all an allegory for the rise of the third Reich". Tolkein bemoaned the lack of an heroic mythology for the English people and he sought to create one in his Rings trilogy of books. My opinion is too humble to count - but if you want it, I believe he succeeded. The epic backdrop, the heroes and villains, the rich history, the races and the languages are all utterly plausible as a long cherished story handed down over many generations. Peter Jackson and his team must be congratulated not only for their wonderful realisation of Middle Eath and its inhabitants; but for crafting a series a movies that captured the very essence of what Tolkein was trying to achieve. Well done also for leaving out Tom Bombadil.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

It was shorter than expected but still awesome.

Author: Leah from United States
6 February 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The battle scenes were awesome but the plot was a little shorter than expected and it is more choppier than the 1st and 3rd Lord of the Rings (LOTR). I loved it when Legolas, Orlando Bloom, went on that shield like a skateboard. It was cool. Does any of you recognize Elrond from another movie? Let me give you a hint. "Mr. Anderson!" Do you know now? For those who do not know, it is Agent Smith, Hugo Weaving from the Matrix trilogy. Other famous LOTR actors are Sauroman, Christopher Lee, in the Star Wars Episode 2, and Gandalf, Ian McKellan, plays in X-Men as Magneto. Besides Christopher Lee, you notice that some of the good guys play bad guys in other movies. Weird huh? There are others but it is too many to list.

The extended version of the Two Towers is way better than the theatrical. It explains why Eomer gets kicked out in more detail. Also it explains more about Faramir, Bormir's brother, and their father. Gandalf explain more about his rank and what is going to happen next when he returned to Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimili. I thought that the Gollum singer was little jazzy for LOTR. I liked Enya better because she has such a beautiful voice.

In the book, LOTR creatures, such as the eagles, shadow fax, the spider, and so on talked in the story. I guess Jackson want to make the movie more realistic than book. They did a great job on Gollum. The actor had some special juice he drink for that voice. He explains in the special features. I really like the fact that Tolkien made his own language out of a bunch other languages and name it elvish.

I think if you really watch and maybe read the trilogy, you might learn something out of it. I'm not saying you should but I would recommend it. If you like computer games, I would recommend Age of Wonders because it is a strategy game which has characters similar to the LOTR. But be careful, it can be addictive and you might find yourself playing for several hours.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

a definite step down from part 1

Author: a666333 from Canada
15 September 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

People often worship this part of the trilogy but it was effectively ruined by the grossly unrealistic portrayal of the battles. A bit of rudimentary research could have prevented that up but Peter Jackson, who otherwise has a great eye for detail, clearly didn't respect his material or his audience enough to do his work properly, or, he was badly advised.

spoilers follow

For example; One does not launch mass cavalry charges down steep slopes. Anyone who has ever rode on a horse would know this. Historically, people have not been so crazy as it inevitably would lead to a mass pile up at the bottom and a complete disaster. One also does not charge cavalry directly into a well formed pike formation even on flat terrain, let alone down a slope. It is suicidal and skilled, experienced soldiers would avoid such tactics as a matter of routine.

There were other very badly handled scenes but I won't start listing them all but they are there for anyone to see.

It is really disappointing to create such wonderful costumes, bring in lots of motivated extras and state of the art SGI effects and then neglect to do even the most rudimentary research on the simple physics of battles (let alone intelligent tactics). It is also disappointing that the viewing public accepts such incompetence as justifiable "artistic license".

As an analogy, think of an otherwise well produced WW2 movie that portrayed soldiers and equipment doing things that were physically impossible or downright crazy. Wouldn't that hurt any film that set itself up to be an epic?

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Second installment, great DVD, story a bit muddled, a movie mainly for "Ring" fans.

Author: TxMike from Houston, Tx, USA, Earth
18 May 2004

Almost two years ago, after I saw the first of the trilogy, I wrote in summary...

"As a film of a historic work of fiction, and especially this DVD release, it is almost perfect. However, as a fictional work the story is a bit of a let-down, in my opinion. It is best appreciated by all the "Ringheads" out there who have bonded over the years with the ring trilogy and Tolkien. For my own enjoyment there are more interesting fictional works. Maybe I'll have a different opinion in two years, after I've seen all three of the installments. "

I've not seen the last installment yet, but my opinion has not changed any. First off the movie is entirely too long. Not that length itself is bad, but in an apparent attempt to follow the books faithfully, much of the story drags badly. Wise producers and directors realize that movies made from books must exclude much material, to keep the story interesting and the running time reasonable. People who read novels often do so over weeks. Movies are normally watched at one sitting. So, while this long movie may be just what the "Ringheads" want, for the rest of us it is simply too much of the same, and too long. Still, it has remarkable production values and is a joy to watch. Just too long and boring in spots.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

A compromised vision.

Author: jewelthrone from New Zealand
7 November 2010

Some of us may know the back story of how Tolkien himself never wanted his books to be made into a film and I have to say that I agree with him, much of the magic of his books were in the finer details and these could never be conveyed well in a film. Here we have a film that's well done in some ways yet in the grand scheme of things it was never needed, the books stand alone and this trilogy of movies are a perhaps selfish project? -that are essentially a compromised vision of the books, this big budget 'action' movie would serve those looking for a feast of CGI effects and action sequences, thankfully there is some subtlety and the interplay between characters is the films saving grace and I appreciate the tasteful selection of dialog used for the most part. One of my big beefs with The Two Towers and the other 2 movies is just how nonthreatening Sauron is in these films, I think this aspect weakens the movies a great deal, even the ring wraiths come across as impotent compared to creatures such as the Urak Hai. Another is the abrupt transitions between scenes, and the movies lose much of the 'glue' that the books had tying everything together. Finally 'some' of the CGI effects don't do justice to the imagination - Sauron's eye, and the faces in the dead marsh seem to suffer like Gladrieal did in the previous movie - a little bit too overly dramatic and washed out - I am only mentioning this as a comparison to the majority of effects in this movies which are actually very well done. Also the costumes are excellent, I especially thought the depictions of the orcs were excellent. Overall I can only give this 5 stars.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

When did Frodo and Sam go to Gondor? (Spoiler Warning!!!)

Author: Jerri from Canada
18 October 2003

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Although I enjoyed this movie I have a few gripes. Why did they decide to stray from a good thing. I have noticed alot of the "excellent" & "best movie ever" comments are from people who have not read the books.

As far as I recall Frodo and Sam did not go to Gondor. EVER. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Also what is going on with Aragorn's storyline? It also seems to have been creatively altered from the original storyline.

And when did Faramir turn evil. He was not like his brother. He didn't want to use the Ring as they portray in the movie.

I realize that the fight scenes were important to the creators of the movie. However did they need to be quite so long? With just a few minutes of cutting and leaving out the "never actually happened" Gondor trip. I believe they could have actually fit in the entire book. I now wonder how long the third movie will be. Not only do they have to fit in the entire third book, but also the end of the second book.

For those of you who thought this was the best movie ever I just suggest you read the book. I too liked the movie, but it is not the best ever. It would have been in contention if they had stuck to the original plot as it was written. Like they did in the first movie. However they didn't and that is that. I just hope they stay truer to the storyline in The Return of the King. We shall soon see.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:


Author: sundog1 from New Mexico
10 October 2003

There seems to be a lot of convincing going on in The Two Towers...

Master Samwise convincing Faramir to let him & Frodo go... Merry & Pippin convincing Treebeard to attack Isengard... The "angel" music convincing the audience to FEEL SAD NOW... The "theme" music convincing the audience to FEEL VICTORIOUS NOW... Peter Jackson convincing everyone how true he has remained to the spirit of the books...

From all that I have read, 98% of viewers adore TTT... and sadly I have ended up in the 2% that did not

I loved FOTR, but where that film simply veered off the road of the text, TTT plummets off the side of the road, down a ravine, takes some untraveled dirt back roads before taking some contrived short cut back to the original text in the film's forced last 1/2 hour

Though I know adjustments are always made in adaptations, this latest installment has lost the magic & sheer wonder of FOTR... None of the storytelling elements that made the first film so special are used in TTT... Sources of my frustration: * Choppy editing * Lack of fluidity * Is this movie a CGI showcase to sell new programs to perspective movie makers? * Axing central book events in favor of unecessary sub-plots * Lack of geographical reference (anyone who's read the books knows about the maps -- but what about those who have not read them??) * Uneven pacing * Forced emotional manipulation (instead of the authentic emotions that FOTR produced) * Sacrificing the thematic nuances of Tolkien's writing in favor of cinematic cliches to please a modern audience

I make no claims to being a "purist" or expert... like I said changes in adaptations are necessary, but man, I half expected stormtroopers to be riding on the wolves of Isengard

Can anyone understand what Treebeard is saying?

What's with these sudden cockney accents from the orcs - Oi's a-gonna ate yo (Meestah Scroooge/Fawvah Krees-mas --oops wrong movie)

Ok - enough, it's done, I said it, it's out in the cosmos

I'm praying for ROTK

For the other 98% of you -- please disregard this, you've already been convinced.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:


Author: armo-1 from Shropshire, England
23 May 2003

I thoroughly enjoyed 'The Fellowship' and was eagerly awaiting the release of 'two towers'. I have never read the books but was informed that the 'Two Towers' would be even better than it's predecessor as the plot thickens and action really gets going. However, on leaving the cinema after watching this film I was left somewhat disappointed.

I have read review after review saying this is peoples favourite film. I mean come on, be serious. It takes an age to get going and if it was not for the climactic battle of Helm's Deep would have been the worst excuse for a 3 hour long film since the first two hours of Titanic. Even in this ground breaking climax it is constantly interrupted by Treebeard, the character that personifies the slowness of the rest of the film. Also the attempted romance between Viggo Mortenson and Liv Tyler's characters seems just to be in this film because Liv complained of lack of screen time because there certainly doesn't seem any need for her character in this instalment apart from this pointless sub-plot.

The creation of Gollum was simply brilliant and deserved the Oscar but I was pleased to see this film ignored in the other categories. One thing is for sure, I will not look forward to the next sequel as much as I did this one, following this film's disappointment.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Am I wrong? How is this getting such high ratings?

Author: catherinemcmanus from London, England
20 December 2002

I went to see this with great expectations. It was like going to see Phantom Menace; I really, really wanted it to be great.

But, no, sorry, it really, really wasn't. At the start it goes straight into the action, no preamble, no 'setting the scene', I dont even remember there being any credits. Then it was very episodic. No acting, no characterisation to speak of. The scenes were short, not much interaction between the characters. Just loads and loads of orcs every where.

The best thing in it is Sam Gamgee.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 4 of 244: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history