The Definitive Two Towers Review by Panguitch

I’ve got a lot to say about this movie, but I’m going to try and encapsulate it all in one definitive review. I’ll cover the film as a film, the film as a sequel, the film as an adaptation of Tolkien’s book, and also take a look forward to next year’s Return of the King. If I miss anything, feel free to bring it up in the comments and I’ll address it there. This review will reveal major details about the movie’s plot, but I won’t give much more away than the previews and trailers have.


Premise

In case you didn’t know, Sauron is trying to take over Middle-earth. Also, the great wizard Saruman has defected and now serves Sauron. This is important, because now Gondor, the greatest kingdom of men and longtime shield against Sauron’s overarching intentions, is surrounded. Sauron’s land of Mordor, his innumerable armies of orcs, and his tower of Barad-dur press in from the east while Saruman’s army of new and improved orcs (Uruk-hai) and his tower of Orthanc rise to the northwest.

The wise know this war will not be won on the field of battle. Their hopes are laid on the Fellowship, given the mission of covertly taking the One Ring (which has fortuitously come into their possession and contains Sauron’s power) to Sauron’s doorstep and destroying it in the fires of Mount Doom. Unfortunately, the Fellowship has been broken. Gandalf (the group’s leader and Saruman’s one-time junior) fell in battle with a Balrog. Boromir (the Steward of Gondor’s son) died at the hands of Uruk-hai, who also took Pippin and Merry (hobbits) captive. Aragorn (unacknowledged heir to Gondor), Legolas (elf) and Gimli (dwarf) pursue the Uruk-hai while Frodo and Sam (hobbits) continue on to Mordor with the Ring and a malevolent Gollum shadowing them.

Realizing all the while that true hope lies in Frodo and Sam’s success, the other remnants of the Fellowship are nevertheless drawn into the building conflict between Saruman’s forces and Rohan (a neighboring kingdom to Gondor). Victory is doubtful, despite the noble spirit of the Rohirrim, and without aid it’s unlikely that their efforts will succeed even in momentarily distracting the Enemy from his search for the Ring and its bearer.


This film cannot stand alone, which isn’t a bad thing.

I’ve tried to be concise here, but still give a novice a decent idea of the story’s premise. The exercise has only confirmed to me the complexity of the plot, and the impossibility of concisely explaining the premise of this, the second of three parts of The Lord of the Rings. If you’re already familiar with the story, my efforts are wasted on you. If you aren’t, my efforts have probably done little to enlighten. So at this point let me take the opportunity to emphasize the fact that The Two Towers is not a standalone story. It is the third and fourth parts of a six part novel. It cannot fully be appreciated without familiarity with the first and second parts of that novel, as embodied either in the movie or book The Fellowship of the Ring.

The fact that this movie cannot stand alone is seen as a weakness by some. If it is one, then it’s a weakness of film generally, not of this movie specifically. Film has great difficulty adapting large stories because people’s butts tend to fall asleep after the fourth hour. The truth is that the films, like the books, should be considered one story, one movie. If you want standalone then wait another year and you can watch all three movies in a row—the way they should be watched. Personally, I wouldn’t limit film to short stories. And I can see why large stories should be broken up into segments. And I have little sympathy for people who fail to see the initial segments of a long story and then complain that the latter segments don’t make sense or can’t stand alone. For similar reasons I get aggravated when book sequels spend extensive time rehashing the back stories of their predecessors.

In other words, you shouldn’t bother watching this movie unless you’ve seen the first. And not because of any weakness in this movie but because of the weakness in the thinking of any person who would see it expecting to ‘get it’ without having seen the first.


The Camera’s Eye

Peter Jackson directed (The Frighteners, Heavenly Creatures, Meet the Feebles).
Andrew Lesnie directed the photography (Babe, Babe: Pig in the City).
D. Michael Horton edited (John Gilbert edited The Fellowship of the Ring).

The Fellowship of the Ring was nominated for Oscars in all three categories (making it even stranger that John Gilbert was replaced), and also for Best Picture. Andrew Lesnie won for cinematography.

In The Two Towers the style and vision of Fellowhip is appropriately continued. New Zealand is a wonderland, and while there aren’t as many postcard vistas as there were in Fellowship, there are some. And more importantly, New Zealand’s versatility allows not only for postcards, but for some terrain that looks suitably dead and hostile in the scenes with Frodo and Sam, and for some landscapes suitably reminiscent of the British Isles for the Anglo-Saxon-esque Rohirrim. The shooting of such terrain is expert, and the sweeping views add much to the complete-world flavor of the story.

Towers also showed a more refined touch in many ways. The ‘transformation’ scenes of Fellowship (Gandalf in front of Bilbo, Bilbo in front of Frodo, Galadriel in front of Frodo) varied in their effectiveness. Most were appreciative of Gandalf’s scene, while Bilbo’s met mixed reactions and Galadriel’s was unsatisfactory. But even when successful these scenes showed a propensity for the movie makers to trust to their technological toys more than to their actors. There are thankfully no such scenes in Towers. When, for instance, Frodo snaps at Sam in much the same way Bilbo earlier snapped at Frodo, his visage is only contorted by his own musculature. His voice may have been electronically tampered with, but such modification is of a subtlety the Fellowship scenes could have benefited from. Similarly, the close-ups are toned down a little, or perhaps more successfully integrated. The overall result of such restraint is a movement away from melodrama.

If not New Zealand itself, then the greatest strength of the filming is the portrayal of the action scenes. The camera is indeed like an all-seeing fly, but this fly doesn’t move in slow-motion. What we see is more like something a fly really would see—blurred, jumpy, scattered. In contrast to the current trend in Hollywood of slowing the action down and getting a good look at it from all angles (e.g. The Matrix and Blade), which is great for showing off the team’s special effects prowess, Jackson’s approach is far more realistic, hearkening back to classic war movies. In scenes where thousands die, few deaths are seen with clarity, there is little time to contemplate them, and no one holds our attention for more than a few seconds. This is an anti-stylized approach, stylized in the pursuit of realism.

As my wife is quick to complain, this can leave an audience dizzy and confused. But it’s probably what I love most about the direction and editing. It involves the audience not as an awe-struck spectator watching the protagonist dodge slow-moving bullets, but as someone riding piggy-back on a soldier involved in a real battle. This approach makes us part of the action by making us feel the confusion, the adrenaline, and the speed.

That said, Jackson unfortunately does not hold himself entirely to this technique, and indulges himself gratuitously in a few scenes. For instance, Legolas’s skating down the stairs on a shield while firing arrows is entirely juvenile and unnecessary. Worse, it reminded me of Willow. The steepness of the angle of descent for Gandalf and Eomer’s charge is not credible. Giving in to such whimsies betrays Jackson’s greater vision, and thankfully such missteps are infrequent and not overshadowing. And when it comes down to it, if I had to pick between a movie that indulges in some showmanship or a movie that indulges in heavily laden mise-en-scene and artistically fraught silences, I’m not sure I wouldn’t go with Hollywood.


Art and Tone

I’ll refrain from listing the personnel responsible for the art of the movie; its makeup, costumes, sets, music and effects. Lists can be found at imdb.com. But it bears mentioning that Fellowship won Oscars for effects, makeup, and music, and was nominated for sets, costumes, song and sound.

Perhaps the awe of shrinking people down to hobbits or dwarves has worn off since Fellowship, but the accomplishment is still remarkable. Most remarkable is the scope of these movies’ creation. Costumes and props were made in such abundance and according to such carefully laid plans that their effect is reminiscent of Tolkien’s ability to impress upon the audience that this is more than a story, it’s a complete world.

Two distinct kinds of orcs are discernable. Easterlings, Rohirrim and Southron humans are introduced (I’m particularly partial to the Easterlings’ armor—they’re the ones at the gates to Mordor). The Rohirrim are particularly noteworthy. Their dress and their sets are accurately reminiscent of the Anglo-Saxons which is exactly what Tolkien had in mind. Their wooden hall is the incarnation of Beowulf’s Meduseld, with some extra horse motifs. Even the casting is perfect here, with red hair and freckles prominent. The Gondorians are a stark contrast: plate armor versus leather and ring mail. Theirs is more a black and white world, while the Rohirrim are definitely earthy. My one complaint in the area of costumes is Arwen’s translucent (thankfully not transparent) dress. We don’t need to see the shape of her legs or breasts and showing them is distracting to the story. Worse, it’s done in a time and a way that implies a depth to her relationship with Aragorn that has not yet been achieved.

The music is rarely noticeable, which is as it should be. This is the mark of talented composition for movies. It subtly adds to the tone, sometimes by its absence. The only exception is during Arwen’s scenes during which it becomes more heavy-handed—probably in the effort to make Liv Tyler more attractive than she is.

Again, the special effects are amazing. The computers get a lot of attention here, though more traditional techniques also deserve some of the credit. Mention must be made of Gollum, whose appearance alone should win the movie an Oscar for effects. Surprisingly, he’s most believable in the many close-ups we get of his face. Few humans have put forth such a credible and emotive performance with the camera inches from their nose. I should also add that this image of Gollum actually surpassed any artist renderings I’ve before seen. Too often he’s drawn as green. Here he’s suitably pale and the impact is that of an extremely old, emaciated hobbit. His eyes were expressive—the hardest objective for computer created characters, and his lips had just the right quiver. (Strangely, he kept reminding me of Fiona Apple. Do I have a Gollum fantasy buried in my subconscious?)

The other computer generated characters and creatures were less impressive, and yet still amazing. The Oliphants, while perhaps overly exaggerated in size, were well-done. The ents were great. The wargs were wonderfully hyena-like. And the flying steeds of the Nazgul were delightfully distinct from the dragon cliché. The Balrog makes another appearance, and if anything has been improved. Granted, Alan Lee deserves much credit, and Jackson’s team has wisely copied images from the most well-known Tolkien artists. But even the generated armies were perfectly indistinguishable from the real ones, and Theoden’s transformation is impressive. This all leads me to believe that this team and these movies have what the original Star Wars movies had but Lucas has since lost: maverickism. The unexpected ability to surpass what has come before. WETA, the little effects team from New Zealand that could, has surpassed the bloated ILM in artistry, and maybe even perfection.

There are, however, a few moments when the effects team and Jackson get carried away with themselves. For instance, the spirits Frodo encounters in the Dead Marshes are a little much. I think this is another area of self-indulgence where restraint would have served better. This is not to say I dislike the ‘horror’ elements of Jackson’s movies. Rather, I often champion them as essentially being present in Tolkien, if not always noticed. I just think the emphasis was wrong in this case.


Acting

The casting is splendid. My only hesitation in that is Liv Tyler, whose coloring is right, and whose acting is serviceable, but who just isn’t beautiful enough.

Elijah Wood as Frodo deserves more credit than he gets. Sure his big blue eyes are the most noticeable thing about him. But there’s more than just Frodo’s innocence and awe at the world there. He’s also perfect in his corruption. His eyes equally well serve as the pained addict with the haunted gaze of lost innocence. And they have some fire in them during his darkest moments when the Ring takes him. As for the rest of him, he’s got an easy role. He just needs to look tired.

Ian McKellen as Gandalf has a smaller role in Towers. Nominated for the supporting actor Oscar for Fellowship there’s little question that he deserved it (though Jim Broadbent may have just as much). To my mind, there’s no finer actor today. The role of his facial expressions in Fellowship are this time filled by Gollum, but there’s still a smile and wry eyebrow from Gandalf that remind us of McKellan’s talents.

Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn loses some of the self-doubt he suffers in Fellowship and his character is less rich for it. But he remains in limbo, leading and yet following. He bows to Gandalf, and grumbles behind Theoden’s back at times. At others he rises to his full height and commands as is his place. Hopefully his persona will solidify in Return. As for the action, Mortensen is adept to a degree I never would have suspected when I first saw him in A Portrait of a Lady.

Sean Astin as Sam is slightly goony, his accent not always consistent and most of his time spent whining and complaining about Gollum. Hopefully the extended DVD will restore his role to the breadth it had in Fellowship. As it is, his only decent lines come at the end, and they’re the best in the movie outside of Theoden’s. My verdict is still out for this portrayal. Return will decide me.

Billy Boyd as Pippin and Dominic Monaghan as Merry become more than baggage and have scenes of their own. Some of their lines are even serious as they work to convince the ents to become involved. I have complaints about neither of them, I only hope Jackson follows Tolkien’s work and brings them into their own as individuals in Return.

John Rhys-Davies as Gimli does individuate in Towers, though he remains comic relief. This is a cheapening of his character, but done well-enough that I don’t mind so much. His lame dwarf-tossing line from Fellowship is even redeemed in this movie. Particularly memorable was his conversation with Eowyn about female dwarfs and how they can be differentiated from males (the Arwen-Aragorn romance isn’t the only thing Jackson’s pulled from the appendixes).

Miranda Otto as Eowyn puts in a performance that shines in Towers and has greatly impressed me. She not only looks the part, but she brings it to life in a way that will dispel the naysayers who’ve long complained that her character is a ‘token female’, or a man in disguise. Her concern for her people and her desire to fight is done credibly and is not at all trite. Her interest in Aragorn is subtly but effectively portrayed. There’s no doubt about it, but it’s demure and held back in light of greater events. Mortensen also deserves credit for this.

Orlando Bloom as Legolas is again uppity and exaggeratedly presumptuous. He’s constantly doubting Aragorn or Theoden and sometimes you want to smack him like the teenage kid he seems to be. Of course, he’s really older than any of the other characters and distinguished in his own right, but this is never established in the movies, and the impression instead is of a Gen-X chump who needs to be put in his place. Like Gimli, his character is almost one-dimensional, a victim of the short format that is film. All this said, I admit to enjoying his action scenes as much as the next guy. And he does look the part, though Legolas is supposed to have brown hair.

Karl Urban as Eomer is serviceable, his part not being large but his abilities being more than adequate for it.

Bernard Hill as Theoden is, with Otto and Serkis, one of the film’s standouts. His transformation is the product not only of remarkable special effects, but also of good acting. Throughout the tale his confidence in victory wavers, though his courage never fails. His care for his people becomes evident, and his debilitating nostalgia and yearning for better days are plain. The audience sympathizes with this man who laments that evil has come to Rohan in his days. But most impressive are his monologues. “Where are the horse and the rider . . .”

David Wenham as Faramir puts in a decent performance, and his resemblance to Sean Bean (Boromir) is perfect. But I must say I don’t agree with the extent to which Jackson took Faramir’s temptation with the Ring. I think this will damage our opinion of him for Return.

Andy Serkis as Gollum/Smeagol is the most amazing thing I’ve seen on screen for a long time. The push for a supporting actor nomination is not the hype I thought it was. The effects are, indeed, amazing. Sure, you can tell it’s a computer generated character, just like you can tell when an actor is wearing a mask. We all know it’s make believe, but even though we’re all focused on the fact that Gollum is computer generated, it’s done better than it’s ever been done before and we’re able to nevertheless see him as a character. Andy Serkis is a big part of the reason. He spent twice as much time filming as anyone else did. He went through every scene both with the other actors on location, and in the studio hooked up to gadgetry. The voice is his. The facial expressions are his. The movements and mannerisms are his. The split personality is the product of his portrayal. The currying of Frodo’s favor, the derision of ‘the fat one’ is his. And even the comedy is his. Rarely have I not been disappointed by so much hype.


Writing

This time Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson, and Stephen Sinclair all get credit. They were nominated last time for best adaptation, and their truthfulness to Tolkien is indeed remarkable. Despite such a constriction they’ve written a workable movie, and I’m duly impressed. However, at times it is painfully obvious where they’ve taken dialogue straight from Tolkien and where they’ve created it themselves. You know the kind of line, it’s like the “Let’s hunt some orc!” crap that stopped Fellowship dead in its tracks a couple times. The dwarf-tossing already mentioned is another example. Gratefully, the instances in Towers are less obtrusive. But there’s still a large difference between “Look for me on the dawn of the fifth day” or “Where is the horse and the rider” and the debate between Legolas and Aragorn over the Rohirrim’s chances or Gimli’s coaxing to his horse. But they couldn’t have done much better, and could have done much worse.


What of Tolkien?

Now comes the obligatory (for Tolkienites) comparative section. Let’s get the beefs over with. I’ve already mentioned my dislike for the exaggeration of Faramir’s temptation and Legolas’s impetuosity. I’m also disappointed that the ents effectively had to be tricked into becoming involved. As if they wouldn’t have known before that their forest was being devastated! The unforeseen arrival of ‘foreign’ assistance at Helm’s Deep is also problematic and contrary to the books. The loss of the Grishnak/Ugluk aspect of Merry and Pippin’s captivity is lamentable, but understandable. My biggest complaint is Aragorn’s wounded river scene. It’s entirely unnecessary. I understand that the hero being wounded heightens tension, but wounding him didn’t necessitate the extra scenes. They play no purposeful role in the movie. The Arwen vision could have been combined with the earlier Arwen vision. And as much as I enjoy seeing Mortensen make out with his horse, the episode is wasted time.

Beefs said and done, the film does some very good things. One of which is the exclusion of Boromir’s death and Shelob, both of which take place in Tolkien’s second book. Boromir’s death is more effectively placed in Fellowship, while Shelob will flesh out Return and give it more cliffhanging tension. Of course, this eliminates the cliffhanger that Towers ends with as a book, but I’m not overly dismayed at that, especially since close reading of the book reveals that chronologically the Shelob incident occurs during the beginning events of Return.

Perhaps the best decision, and it may even be an improvement on Tolkien, is the integration of the separate storylines. Tolkien divides Towers into two books, the first following Merry, Pippin, Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, and events between Saruman and the Rohirrim, the second following Frodo, Sam and Gollum. Integrating these stories, moving freely back and forth between them, helps the audience maintain a better grasp of time’s passing. Most importantly, it results in one movie instead of two.


Gandalf and the Balrog

Towers begins by hearkening back to the pivotal moment of Fellowship, Gandalf’s fall. This tragedy is shown at length, and its outcome revealed with Gandalf’s return. While much is made of Gandalf’s ‘resurrection’ and its messianic implications, something ought to be pointed out. Gandalf does not fill the role of a messiah since his own actions are not the deciding ones in the story. The similarities between him and Christ are worth noticing, but don’t bear anything more than brief notice.

The truth of Tolkien’s mythology is that Gandalf, Saruman, the Balrog, and even Sauron are all the same kind of creature. They are known as Maiar, and are roughly analogous to angels. Gandalf and Saruman are Istari, Maiar sent to Middle-earth by the Valar (gods, more or less) on various missions. Sauron and Balrogs are Maiar who chose to follow Melkor (the greatest Valar) when he abandoned Eru’s (the supreme/true god) designs for his own. Sauron was Melkor’s lieutenant, and in his absence has taken on his role. This is all neither here nor there, but it’ll give you something to impress your friends with, unless they’re Tolkienites themselves.


Terrorism and Racism

One interesting area of speculation regarding Towers centers around possible changes or additions that may have been made since Fellowship’s release. For instance, the filming for Towers was complete before Fellowship’s release, before 9/11/01. The cast was called back for additional filming and it’s interesting to wonder if 9/11 was on Jackson’s mind. I’m thinking of some events surrounding the Saruman/Rohan conflict. Especially lines like Theoden’s despairing: “So much death. What can be done against such hate?” And Aragorn’s response: “Ride out to meet them.”

Regardless of intentions, I myself couldn’t help but think of terrorism when the cute little Rohirrim children were being threatened by the forces of evil which seemed unstoppable. Of course, open war is what’s being portrayed, not terrorism. But even that is portrayed powerfully, with men being conscripted despite extreme youth or age.

On the negative side, I’m anticipating a resurgence of the “Tolkien is racist” dogma that many have tried to propagate over the years. The obvious resemblance of Southrons to Arabs and of Easterlings to Asians will not go unnoticed. Of course, such a portrayal is faithful to Tolkien in general if not in specifics. Rather than blow my top arguing with foes who’ve yet to surface, I’ll simply say that such notions are oblivious to one simple fact: if you’re Europe, other than enemies from within (which Tolkien portrays exceptionally well and thoroughly), enemies will come from without, which is necessarily from the south and east. Moreover, this is basic history, and history (or myth, if there’s any difference) is the medium in which this story is set. It’s also worth pointing out that the ‘evil’ of these humans is treated sympathetically, it being the exact same kind of evil that claims Gollum, the Nazgul, Boromir, and eventually Frodo.


Reactions and Recommendation

Finally, let me summarize my opinion by saying that Towers is a movie I plan to own. And for someone who owns a total of eight movies (not including some Ren and Stimpy videos), that’s saying a lot.

After Fellowship came out a friend asked me my opinion on Jackson’s faithfulness to Tolkien. It hasn’t changed with Towers. I believe the movies are as faithful to Tolkien as big-budget films could ever be (and Tolkien could not decently be done without a Hollywood budget). I think much of Tolkien’s deep intentions are reflected in the movies appropriately, the nostalgic/elegiac Anglo-Saxon tone permeating the Rohirrim attitude being a good example. At the same time, Jackson has made this story his own. The stylings and tone reflect him as much as Tolkien. The camera work and editing are distinctly his. But these elements, so much Jackson’s, are nevertheless wonderfully suited to Tolkien. The fact that he has made this story his own is by no means a failing. While Tolkien will always deserve and receive ultimate credit for this story, Jackson himself should be recognized for accomplishing a feat unparalleled in cinema.

I may pick at nits and complain about personal peeves, but I give Towers five stars. Six, if you know what I mean. I score it not as an individual film, but as the second third of what so far has been a five star film, excellent in every measurement a film can undergo. I recommend it whole-heartedly. If you’d let me I’d push it on you like religion. As long as you see Fellowship first. And it’s preferable you read the books first, to see them through your own eyes before you see them through Jackson’s.


Looking forward to The Return of the King

Fellowship bore the burden of exposition. Towers is all action. Return should be the culmination. It should begin with action, climax with a soulful twisting of failure and victory, and end in nostalgia—the heroes, the world we’ve come to love, receding into the mists, hurt beyond healing by the wounds it’s endured.

I suspect it will begin with Gandalf and company meeting Merry and Pippin at Isengard, one of the most hilarious scenes in the book. There will be an ultimate confrontation between Saruman and Gandalf. Will Jackson reserve Saruman’s fate for the Shire? On the borders of Mordor, Frodo and Sam will learn Gollum’s plan, as ‘She’ brings their struggle to a halt. Eventually, the Rohirrim will ride to Gondor’s aid. Will Theoden still need convincing?

I was glad to hear the Paths of the Dead alluded to in Towers. This suggests Aragorn will pass through them, circle around to Dol Amroth and sail up the Anduin to Minas Tirith. My wife says I shouldn’t be surprised that Jackson wouldn’t pass up the opportunity to show more ghosts.

It will be interesting to see John Noble portray Denethor. Such a complex character will be tricky. The ends of Faramir, Eowyn, Theoden, and the paths of Pippin and Merry will also be interesting to observe. And when will Aragorn’s sword be reforged and returned to him? Will Arwen bear it to him? The efforts of these actors in such culminating scenes will be telling.

Most importantly, I’m eager to see how Jackson finishes it. I suspect he’ll include the return to the Shire, and perhaps the scene at the Grey Havens. But will the Shire require scouring? My dearest hope is that Jackson will keep the mournful tone of Tolkien’s ending intact. It is a bitter victory, for while evil is thwarted, and the goodness of simple folk is kept free, virtue and wonder must pass from the land, unable to find healing in this world.


------------------------------------------
Thanks for making it this far. I hope I’ve added something worthwhile to the body of reviews already written.

- Panguitch


My reviews of other Tolkieniana:
• The Return of the King (movie): http://www.epinions.com/content_122274745988
• The Tolkien Reader: http://www.epinions.com/content_83305205380
• Meditations on Middle-Earth: http://www.epinions.com/content_100388015748
• J. R. R. Tolkien: Author of the Century: http://www.epinions.com/content_72574733956
• Tolkien: A Biography: http://www.epinions.com/content_220187037316
• The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays: http://www.epinions.com/content_221694496388
• Understanding The Lord of the Rings: The Best of Tolkien Criticism: http://www.epinions.com/content_226921975428
• The Children of Hurin: http://www.epinions.com/content_374810250884