Write descriptive essay about The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers movie 2002, write an essay of at least 500 words on The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, 5 paragraph essay on The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, definition essay, descriptive essay, dichotomy essay.
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
Year:
2002
Country:
USA, New Zealand, Germany
Genre:
Drama, Action, Adventure, Fantasy
IMDB rating:
8.7
Director:
Peter Jackson
Sean Astin as Sam
John Bach as Madril
Sala Baker as Man Flesh Uruk
Cate Blanchett as Galadriel
Orlando Bloom as Legolas
Billy Boyd as Pippin
Jed Brophy as Sharku
Sam Comery as Éothain
Brad Dourif as Wormtongue
Calum Gittins as Haleth
Bernard Hill as Theoden
Bruce Hopkins as Gamling
Paris Howe Strewe as Théodred - Prince of Rohan
Storyline: While Frodo and Sam, now accompanied by a new guide, continue their hopeless journey towards the land of shadow to destroy the One Ring, each member of the broken fellowship plays their part in the battle against the evil wizard Saruman and his armies of Isengard.
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1920x800 px 16794 Mb h264 (High) 1536 Kbps mkv Download
HQ DVD-rip 720x304 px 3011 Mb h264 1787 Kbps mp4 Download
Reviews
Second installment, great DVD, story a bit muddled, a movie mainly for "Ring" fans.
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.
2004-05-18
Second movie of Great Trliogy!
I love this movie! It's even better than the first one. I actually saw this for th first time just weeks after I saw the first movie for the first time.

This has so many graphics and special effects, it's hard to know where to begin.

**Minor spoiler ahead.**

I like the part when you see a flashback, to when before Boromir was killed. You see that Boromir and Faramir were the best of friends, and their father, who wasn't very nice to Faramir, seemed to only love Boromir. After Boromir is killed, Dethomir blames Faramir. But Faramir only does what he feels is right. (Except for the time where he took Frodo and Sam to Gondor.) Not only is this a terrific movie, but it could not have been better. It may be too long for some people, but it it not too long to me.

I think it is amazing that the two actors who played Boromir and Faramir have a certain resemblance.

It is only 3 hours and 43 minutes long, and there's at least a half hour alone on the credits.

If you like the first movie, you won't be disappointed in this movie.

My Score: 10/10.
2006-02-27
Extended Edition is definitive Tolkien
I have loved Tolkien's masterpiece since I was 10 years old. I bought the calendars by Brothers Hildebrandt all through college, and I have eagerly awaited the movies since they were announced some four years ago. I just saw the Extended "Two Towers" last night at the Seattle Cinerama, and I was absolutely stunned by how improved it is over the earlier edit (which I saw three times in theatres). As good as "Fellowship" is, I feel that the restored "Two Towers" blows it away.

****** SPOILERS ******

So many things that felt half-finished in "TTT" now contribute to the richness of detail that makes this such an epic. The stable scene with Brego, Aragorn, and Eowyn is pivotal in setting up several later scenes. The migration of the trees of Fangorn to Helm's Deep, the flashback to Boromir in Osgiliath, and Theodred's funeral all serve to bring the story much more in line with Tolkien's vision. Even the raiding of the stores by Merry and Pippin is wonderful, injecting some of the lightheartedness of "Fellowship" into what is a much darker story.

****** END SPOILERS ******

This trilogy will stand as a singular achievement in cinema history. In an era when many big-budget films are mindless, sadistic two-hour pageants of explosions and gunplay, it is remarkable that these films were made at all, let alone with such faithfulness to very complex source material. Bravo to New Line, Peter Jackson, Howard Shore, the entire crew, and of course the magnificent cast, especially Ian McKellen.
2003-12-15
More of the same
After falling asleep watching The Fellowship I decided to give the two towers a chance.

It sadly is more of the same unimaginative black and white world depiction like the Fellowship. There are only 2 kinds of people, the good guys and the bad guys in the Lord of the rings movies.

The good guys look nice, fresh, heroic and smart. The bad guys have hideous faces, wear old clothes, are conniving and not too bright. In the two towers Frodo continues his way to Mordor to destroy the ring. This time accompanied and guided by Gollum, some CGI created creature. Again they walk an awful lot and encounter some danger which they narrowly manage to avoid. At the end of the movie though, they still haven't managed to make it so well need a 3rd movie to find out if Frodo will succeed. I have a strange feeling that he just might.

The 2 captured Hobbits escape and seek refuge in a walking tree. I've been told they spend 58 hours per frame to make it look real. To me it looked straight out of Sesamestreet and i had trouble not to laugh.

Suddenly Gandalf appears out of nowhere and wasn't killed after all in his demon battling in film number 1. Ahh, what a shame. You really cant believe anything in this movie. After some bickering in the land of horsemen we see a huge battle between the (300) good guys and the (10000) bad guys. Off course, the good guys win. How surprising. By then I finally dozed off into a deep sleep whilst knowing this is a perfect film for children aged 3 to 10. It wasn't as bad as The Fellowship but it was still waaaaaaaaaaaaay too predictable and simplistic. I didn't give it a 1 but a 3 because I did like the cinematography and the locations where nicely chosen.
2008-12-21
Exciting fantasy sequel
This film starts off where "The Fellowship of the Ring" leaves off; Frodo and Sam are on their own and heading to Mordor with the sinister Sméagol who has promised to guide them through the mountains, Merry and Pippin are in the hands of Saruman's Orcs as they return to Isengard and Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli are in pursuit until they are diverted into helping King Theoden of Rohan.

The film switches between the three groups so we never get chance to forget what the characters are doing. I think this is the only film that I've seen where the narrative follows different groups who never meet each other. The action is even more spectacular then the previous film, the storming of Helm's Deep is one of the most spectacular scenes that I've ever seen, also amazing are the realism of Sméagol, the CGI creature based on the movements of Andy Serkis and the Ents, huge creatures that look like walking trees.

The actors did a great job, especially Elijah Wood as Frodo as he approached Mordor you could almost feel the increasing weight of the ring hanging from his neck. The cast of characters here is quite a lot larger than the previous film giving us some great new characters, the most obvious is Sméagol who was only glimpsed before but there is also the wonderfully vile Grima Wormtongue and Eowyn, King Theoden's niece who is smitten with Aragorn.

If you haven't seen any of the Lord of the Rings films I strongly recommend this but only after watching The Fellowship of the Ring, if you don't watch that it will be hard to understand what happens here.
2009-07-16
Can't wait for extended verion!
I want to really thank Peter Jacksson and all the actors for sharing their talents so heartfully. Peter Jacksson has really put aside all qlichees and easy going fooly and created a movie true to the books and the author him self. I think Mr. Tolkien is smiling to see what they have created together. Actually I also want to thank the sponsors for not making a commercial stunt of the movies, like e g the first Bat Man movie. There is also no feeling of intefearing with the movie or even the casting of the characters. No playing it safe, just tying to make the books come alive. I have seen first two movies and so far top-notch, I hope to see the extended version of the Two Towers soon :-)
2003-09-13
A FANTASTIC FANTASY FILM! THE BEST PICTURE OF 2002!
im not one to like fantasy...i liked the first LOTR movie, but i wasnt crazy about it. i thought it was an ok fantasy film. then comes "The LORD of the RINGS: The Two Towers". it such a great improvement over the first and probably the best sequel ever thats better and more fulfilling then the original. "TTT" got robbed at the oscars: peter jackson deserved best director and this movie deserved BEST PICTURE OF THE YEAR!. hopefully next year, both peter jackson and return of the king will finally win the oscars they rightfully deserved. as claudia puig from usa today said..."THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS' is among the most breathtaking achievements in recent cinematic history" i agree. "ttt" stands above every movie in 2002 and is certainly THE VERY BEST PICTURE OF THE YEAR AND THE BEST FANTASY FILM TO EVER MAKE IT TO THE BIG SCREEN!
2003-08-26
Jackson should have called it "Middle Earth Stories" - It has nothing to do with Tolkien except the names and places
After watching the Two Towers, I was so disappointed that I left the theater resolved not to buy the DVD and to sell my current copy the Fellowship (which I bought in the hope that it would be redeemed by the later movies.) To be fair, my frame of reference for the movie was based entirely on the books, which I have been reading (over and over again) since I was nine. It seems as though Peter Jackson takes some perverse pleasure it making the characters do exactly the opposite of what they did in the books. I understand it is difficult to transport any book to the screen, but Jackson's changes were not even remotely consistent. This... of course... is the heart of my disappointment. Tolkien wrote a story that seemed to peer into another world - not just of fantasy, but a worldview that is in essence pre-modern. Tom Shippey (Journey into Middle Earth) explains it as a reconstruction of the Middle Ages and its psychology - with priorities, duties, and responsibilities appropriate to that era. C.S. Lewis talked about it as a "Discarded Image" that we once knew, but now no longer fully understand. The Lord of the Rings is a fascinating glimpse into a world where honor and virtue (the immaterial world) stands always higher than the temptations of the material world (such as greed, selfishness, pettiness, etc.) Peter Jackson captures none of that. More importantly, his free reconstructions not only confuse the story on the surface level, but also run completely counter to the spirit of the book. Jackson's characters have no concept of higher duties or responsibilities - they are portrayed as weak creatures constantly at struggle with their base emotions (with no room for higher ideals). In fact, this movie was especially dark and pessimistic. True... this may reflect the modern mindset - in fact, it probably mimics it perfectly. The problem is that I love Tolkien precisely because it does not pander to the modern mindset. It speaks of higher things. I have friends who have never read the books who liked the movie, and I suspect that my love of the books has significantly shaded my perspective. Indeed, if viewed completely on its own terms, the movie is probable fine. But... what I find continually disturbing is Jackson's repeated claims that he has remained true to the book - that is an outright lie! I know he does not want to offend the Tolkien fan base (like me), but I find his pleas of innocence to have exactly the opposite effect. He did not stay true to the book, in either its letter or its spirit. It would have been less startling to me if he had simply called it by another name and made no pretense of turning the book into a movie.

On an altogether separate, more technical, note; I found the movie to suffer generally from poor direction. I realize this goes against the grain of almost of the critics, but honestly, I have a problem with Jackson's style of directing - this is completely apart from his editorial abuses. Specifically, he does not give the characters time to consider or reflect on the events; the cuts are too quick and unsatisfying. And this is not just a problem with too much material in too short a time - he could have lost the entire sequence with Aragon and Arwen freeing up 30 minutes or more (without any loss to the story). Also, Jackson so desperately wants this to be epics that he throws in giant panoramic scenes - unfortunately, he does so with the frenetic energy he puts into the scene cuts, which means that the scenes are constantly in dizzying movement. A sustained shot would be nice, and might give the viewer a moment or two to take in the context of the events. But alas, Jackson's sweep do not allow you to catch in any details, or even any of the magnitude. This leads me to the final technical complaint; for all the buzz surrounding the special effects, Jackson's team seems unfit for the job. I suspect he is constantly moving the panoramic shots because the scenes would not hold up to closer examinations. Elsewhere, the CGI characters (with the exception of Gollum, who was created and performed very well) were shallow fascimilies. There were several places during the final battle sequences, where I could almost see the blue/green screen overlays. If Jackson wants to create a competitor to ILM, he will be disappointed. The special effects were both unsubtle and immature - they did not blend well into the story, and were, occasionally, simply distracting.

Of course, if you have not read the books, these problems are minor and you may well love the movie. If you have read the books - but only so long ago that you can't remember the storyline, then you might like the reunion with old (albeit completely different) characters. If you love the books, their stories, and their message - this movie is probably not for you.
2003-09-13
Jackson tries to do too much here
I must admit that I did enjoy the first film and although it perhaps was a little slow in setting up the story it still remains a fairly compelling watch overall. Sadly I didn't get that same feeling when watching this second instalment for the following reasons...

Firstly, splitting all of the characters up and trying to show the story from various different perspectives is a risky strategy. If it's done wrong then it can make the film feel unfocused and not particularly interesting and sadly this second instalment falls into this very trap.

The film flits about from character to character, story arc to story arc without giving any particular character or story arc chance to develop or grow properly. It doesn't help that sometimes there can be long gaps from one story arc to another meaning that you may have forgotten what was going on in the previous story arc? I got the feeling that Jackson was trying to weave the stories together, but it seems that this isn't one of his strengths.

The second thing that bothered me slightly about this film was the character of Gollum - for some reason I felt that we were being teased in the first film that he was an interesting character that's shrouded in mystery. Whilst his character is fun for a bit, his repetitive rantings and antics do start to grate after a while.

I was also disappointed that Gandalf and Saruman weren't given much screen time here - the former seemed to just drift in and out of the story and the latter was only really featured towards the end. Although their absences were perhaps necessary to the story I found them to be the most compelling characters and was a bit annoyed that they both weren't in the film more often.

The final battle sequences are nicely staged and once again the performances from the principal cast were excellent - Bernard Hill's superb performance helped the film greatly when McKellen and Lee weren't on screen. John Rhys Davies also provided some excellent comic relief which again helped to improve my overall opinion of this film.

The Two Towers is still a worthy film that's relatively enjoyable, but I just felt that by splitting the characters up and in establishing separate story arcs that it felt a little disjointed and lacked the smooth and more simplistic flowing of the story in the first film.
2016-05-07
Over-rated
I was brimful of excitement and expectation prior to the release of The Two Towers. After thoroughly enjoying Fellowship I was told this installment would be even better as there is more action in this book than the first (I have never read the books). However I left the cinema after this film immensely disappointed.

I have read review after review of Two Towers with people saying this is the best film ever. Come on, I mean seriously! Two Towers is incredibly slow and if it wasn't for the climactic Helms Deep battle would be the worst excuse for a 3 hour long film since the first 2 hours of Titanic. Even during this epic battle it is interrupted by the character which personifies the slowness of the rest of the film, Treebeard. The romance, or attempted romance, between Viggo Mortenson and Liv Tyler is so erksome and pointless I wonder if it is included because Liv complained about lack of screen time. There certainly wasn't any need for her character in this film because their romance is distinctly uncaptivating.

Golum is created brilliantly and deserved the Oscar for effects but I was glad to see fhis film ignored in the other categories. I won't look forward to Return Of the King as much as this now. Disappointing
2003-05-18
Write descriptive essay about The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers movie 2002, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers movie essay, literary essay The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers essay writing, narrative essay, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers 500 word essay, argumentative essay The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers.
×