Lord of the Rings 2 (The Two Towers)

Having really enjoyed LOTR part 1, we saw this at the cinema when it was released. As the cinema viewing was marred by a noisy audience and poor sound quality, we decided to give it another whirl via the wonders of DVD.

Unfortunately, it was no more enjoyable second time round; far too long, far too many characters with stupid names and that frigging Golum saying 'precious!' every other scene.

We've not seen LOTR 3, so a treat in store, or more of the same?

 

Sadly I fear not. Personally I thought the films got worse with the last instalment the worse of the lot by some margin - I was very disappointed in it.

 

Hate to agree, but alas i must. As ive stated here before (all IMO obviously) the last installment was really pretty bad, not only a let down, but going beyond that into the realms of actually being a bad film. Im willing to bet that both the 2nd and 3rd installments suffered because of the time spent editing the 'extended special wizzy editions' that should have been spent making sure the theatrical version actually made sense and didnt suck.

 

The more I watch them, the more I'm convinced that they aren't much cop. I agree that the third one is very diffcult to watch as they butchered it so much, and it all became too 'Holloywood'. I think the success of the first two films really interferred with the third one from a creative perspective.

 

this may be considered contentious..

I thought the films were excellent renditions of the books, capturing the text and essence well.

The lord of the rings was a revelation of its time, an epic of its genre.

Compared to more recent literature however, I think it hasn't dated well, and taken into account my personal preferences, its been surpassed.

So, if you loved the books, you'd probably love the films..

Hobbits irritated the hell out of me in the books, and once again in the films..

 

I never read the lord of the Rings as a kid ( or adult), however I do remember vividly being read 'The Hobbit' at school. I think it was in the first year of High school. The teacher who read the book was a brilliant narrator and really brought the characters to life.
Perhaps if Peter Jackson had concentrated all of his efforts into making a really brilliant film version of the Hobbit, instead of stretching his skills out over the 3 installments of the LOTR then the end result might have been better.

The Hobbit would make a brilliant film, i reckon.

Getting that Gimley dwarf character to do the voice of the tree too, was a bad move, imho.

I saw all three films at the cinema a week or so after release , so the crowds had died down. The sound quality sounded PDG to me at my local UCG cinema.

 

Those who have criticised the LOTR movies are mistaken. If you have noticed dissatisfying aspects to the films you have merely imagined it.

 

I liked the books (well book. Although it is hard going really in places). And i thought the fellowship was a great film and i still do. The second was passable but nowhere near the standard of the 1st and ive already covered the drivel that is the 3rd part.

Editing is what really makes a film work not direction. And the editing in the 3rd installment is dire. There is no flow at all to the story. Some parts are extremely laboured and tedious, others scantily covered at best and worst no at all. It doesnt suffer from over-editing. It suffers if anything, from a lack of editing, because there simply wasnt the time. This is backed up by the extras on the extended DVD, one of which is a little documentary thing that follows the making of it and shows just how rushed the last one really was - in editing terms etc etc (and probably only half the story)

 

This is you doing your Bub impersonation; am I right?

 

Can't say I'm a fan of the books or the films, for me the films were far too long, the fact that I felt seriously obliged to like them oweing to the girlfriend at the time (who forced/persuaded me to watch all 3 films) I saw them being seriously obsessed with LOTR did not help a jot either!

 

For those of you who did not enjoy the films, maybe you should try a different scart lead for your DVD player? A mains filter too - may make all the difference?

FWIW, in my younger years I read the books (engrossed) several times. I thought the films (all 3) were a pretty good (& suitably 'spectacular') adaptation...though I did find my attention wandering at times...a difficult trade off - it is a long story, and deserving of so many hours, but how to keep people's attention for that long - I guess that's why there are the standard & extended versions? I only comment because I happened to watch Part 3 on Friday night.

 

Joe, who is Bub ? What did you mean? B.t.w. I was accurate in my comments. I am always right. Later I will return with an explaination of why I rank the LOTR ( as one ) as my favourite film.

 

I pretty much agree with bottleneck....and I'm a fan of the books. I re-read the books again before going to see the first film just to make sure I remembered all the finer details of the plot as that was always going to be impossible to captured completely by the films.

As bottleneck says, if you loved the books you'll probably love the films. They are as good a rendition of the books as you could hope to get. However, if you've never read the books then I can quite understand that the miriad characters and storyline could be quite confusing.

Michael.

 

Bub is the chap who posts as 'The Devil' here in ZeroGain. He also is always right, which is why I thought you might be parodying him.

 

I was a big fan of the books, was really into it when I was a teenager and read just about everything by Tolkein and about moddle-earth that i could find.

I thought the first film was superb.

The 2nd film was not so good, too much focus on action at expense of characters but it did manage to convey very strongly the sense of despair and hopelessness, despite which the characters struggle on with their tasks out of faith, belief and friendship. it totally botched why the Ents decide to attack Isengard.

The 3rd movie was too much the Hollywood blockbuster and rushed between action sequences, some of which were fantastic - the charge of the Rohirrim at Minas Tirith and Eowyn vs. the Nazgul.... but others overdone and cliched, like Legolas bringing down the Oliphant. Not enough time was spent on the reflective character based bits in the book, the tension between Gandalf and Denethor, nor was there enough sense of the hopelessness and vastness of the trek across Mordor by Sam and Frodo. Instead more of a rush between big scenes. A shame.... but there was so much ground to cover in the last film so I suppose a rush was inevitable. I am sure I read somewhere that the director's first cut of it was 6 hrs long!

My other citicism would be about the music - simply too much of it and relentless and predictable.

In all three films, the DVD extended versions put a bit more space into the story and are worthwhile improvements.

But all in all, despite these criticisms, I think the whole effort was stupendous and there has never been and probably never again will be such a superbly made fantasy film. Unlike just about every other film of this ilk, the dialogue was believable and most of the acting was good, sometimes outstanding, especially Ian McKellen and Viggo Mortensen.

Peter Jackson and all concerned deserve massive praise for the achievement.

 

Joe, ah I see now. Nope, no parody. I was simply defending my favourite film.

I make no distinction between parts. Each seem different as they move on with the story. Of course the first one is quieter and spends a good chunk of time setting out the characters, but that doesn't mean the characters treatment is thinner as the story progresses. Indeed by the time you get to the third one you kind of feel that the characters are your own personal aqaintences ! (Well, you do with drink in you ) The music is the best and if it seemed repetative it was certain musical cues reprising in different ways to trigger emotions. Worked brilliantly.

The critics here are indeed mistaken. They merely imagined the alledged shortcomings in the film. These are incontravertable truths I have uttered, and it is so.

Cloth-ears has spoken.

 

Cloth-Ears,

I bow down to you (now you have spoken). :respect:

I actually really enjoyed the first film and have watched it several times and still enjoy it. I just thought the second two were technically excellent but had little story and the characters took second place to the effects.

However, I do agree with the fact stated elsewhere that it was probably the best attempt at a difficult book to film and Jackson deserves a lot of credit for that.

 

The characters did not take second place to the effects. It was just that you were already familiar with the main characters from the first film. In the first film you had also been wowed by big battle scenes so maybe in 2 and 3 you felt this was just more of the same. But battles are part of the story and if you notice there is a progressively better rendition of battle through the films. The music and the scenery are enough in themselves to maintain interest. Watch the films again and enjoy the characters throughout the trilogy and you will find that you are mistaken. You will buy the extended versions to watch.
:knight:

 

LOL! I think not!