The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers [Theatrical Version] [2002] | ![The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers [Theatrical Version] [2002]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41H0G062XNL._SL500_.jpg)
| Director: Peter Jackson
Actor: Elijah Wood|ian Mckellen|viggo Mortensen|orlando Bloom
Studio: Entertainment in Video
Category: Video
New (13) Used (46) Collectible (4) from £0.01
Rating:  286 reviews
Sales Rank: 4515
Format: Pal
Language: English (Original Language)
Rating: Suitable for 12 years and over
Media: VHS Tape
Discs: 1
Number Of Items: 1
Running Time: 179 Minutes
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.4
Dimensions (in): 7.3 x 4.2 x 1.1
EAN: 5017239114816
ASIN: B000062V8X
Theatrical Release Date: December 18, 2002
Release Date: August 26, 2003
Add to Wishlist
| |
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Amazon.co.uk Review
With The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, the focus of Tolkien's epic story moves from the fantastic to the mythic, from magic and monsters towards men and their deeds, as the expanding panorama of Middle-earth introduces us to the Viking-like Riders of Rohan and the men of Gondor. Which is not to say that Peter Jackson's three-hour second instalment doesn't have its fair share of amazing new creatures--here we meet Wargs, Oliphaunts and winged Nazgul, to name three--just that the film is concerned more with myth-making on a heroic scale than the wide-eyed wonder of The Fellowship of the Ring. There's no time for recapitulation, as a host of new characters are introduced in rapid succession. In Rohan we meet the initially moribund King Theoden (Bernard Hill); his treacherous advisor Grima Wormtongue (Brad Dourif); his feisty niece Eowyn (Miranda Otto); and his strong-willed nephew Eomer (Karl Urban). Faramir (David Wenham), brother of Boromir, is the other principal human addition to the cast. The hobbits, though, encounter the two most remarkable new characters, both of whom are digitally generated: in Fangorn Forest, Merry and Pippin are literally carried away by Treebeard, a dignified old Ent; while Frodo and Sam capture the duplicitous Gollum, whose fate is inextricably intertwined with that of the Ring. The film stands or falls with Gollum. If the characterisation had gone the way of Jar Jar Binks, The Two Towers would have been ruined, notwithstanding all the spectacle and grandeur of the rest. But Gollum is a triumph, a tribute both to the computer animators and the motion-captured performance of Andy Serkis: his "dialogues", delivered theatre-like direct to the audience, are a masterstroke. Here and elsewhere Jackson is unafraid to make changes to the story line, bringing Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath, for example, or tipping Aragorn over a cliff. Yet the director's deft touch always seems to add not detract from Tolkien's vision. Just three among many examples: Aragorn's poignant dreams of Arwen (Liv Tyler); Gimli's comic repartee even in the heat of battle; and the wickedly effective siege weapons of the Uruk-Hai (which signify both Saruman's mastery and his perversion of technology). The climactic confrontation at Helm's Deep contains images the like of which have simply never been seen on film before. Almost unimaginably, there's so much more still to come in the Return of the King. On the DVD: The Two Towers two-disc set, like the Fellowship before it, features the theatrical version of the movie on the first disc, in glorious 2.35:1 widescreen, accompanied by Dolby 5.1 or Dolby Stereo sound options. As before, commentaries and the really in-depth features are held back for the extended four-disc version. Such as they are, all the extras are reserved for Disc Two. The 14-minute documentary On the Set is a run-of-the-mill publicity preview for the movie; more substantial is the 43-minute Return to Middle-Earth, another promotional feature, which at least has plenty of input from cast and crew. Much more interesting are the briefer pieces, notably: Sean Astin's charming silent short The Long and the Short of It, plus an amusing making-of featurette; a teaser trailer for the extended DVD release; and a tantalising 12-minute sneak peek at Return of the King, introduced by Peter Jackson, in which he declares nonchalantly that "Helm's Deep was just an opening skirmish"! --Mark Walker
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 281 more reviews...
 Not as good as the first film .... a bit too Hollywoodised. November 6, 2008
N. Thompson (Hull, England)
The first film (Fellowship of the Ring) was closer to the book in content and in the overall feel of the film. Sadly, this film suffers from what the first film did not .... its a little too 'Hollywoodised' and Peter Jackson could be accused of George Lucas-esc tackyness. Unlike the first installment, this movie differs too much from the book. The films ending is corny with an over the top Hollywood-esc speech from Sam which was a little too cringfull. The main battle at the end of the movie is visually impressive but has over-the-top moments that almost ruin the climax. These moments include such tacky antics as Legolas riding his shield like a surf-board down a set of stair whilst firing arrows .... and where Aragorn and Gimli hold off hundreds of Orcs all by themselves. At times this film verges on being rediculus ..... I know its a fantasy tale and should be taken as such, but there is no need to dumb it down in such a way.
The films positive aspects do rescue this film but its disapointing that this part of the trilogy needed saving in the first place. The first third of the film is excellent, the second third drags on too long and becomes stale ... the final third of the movie is entertaining but tacky, corney and over the top. However, its hard to give this film a bad review because of the impressive production, CGI and acting.
The main problem with this episode is that its too stretched out and Peter Jackson additions and alterations to the orignal tale are disapointing and just plain Hollywood.
This movie is the weakest of this great series of films. However, overall it is still an enjoyable movie but at times can irratate the hell out of me .... especially when judging it against the very high standard they set in the "Fellowship of the Ring".
 My favourite of the trilogy October 13, 2008
PlasticPingu
Quite possibly the most beautiful film of all time, this is an epic one-of-a-kind story of love, loss, friendship and hope, and a war of good vs. evil.
A magical film, pure and simple.
Part of the Greatest Story Ever Told September 16, 2008
Marlyly (London - UK)
I truly believe that 'the Lord of the Rings' is one of the greatest stories ever told. The tale of Frodo Baggins and the ring of power continues in the second part of the trilogy, where Frodo and Sam are continuing their relentless qyest to Mordor to destory the ring, only to be joined by the sinister yet pitiable creature known as Gollum. Meanwhile, Merry & Pip try their hardest to escape from the evil orcs who captured them at the end of 'The Fellowship of the Ring', whilst gimley, Legolas and Aragorn meet a king and immediatley sense something is not right. Old characters reurn and new ones are introduced as the tale of the Ring grows closer to it's end.
The extended edition is far superior to the original, though the amount of time it takes to watch borderlines on ridiculous. there are many (necessary) explanations and more focus on various story arcs. I was especially pleased at the extra focus on Arwen and Aragorn, one of the main stories to hold my interest.
As with the 1st of the films, each shot, every scene is spectacular to watch, and as the viewer you never question the integrity of this fantasy world - for a few hours you truly are transported into this world, the characters do exist, the elves, dwarfs, orcs, ents and hobbits are all real. The soundtrack is breathtaking and the acting is superb - teh characters all look and sound the part and the script is infallible. I don't really have any complaints, except (as I mentioned earlier) for the length of the film, but as this is the extended edition, and that no matter how long this film is it never once feels boring, all is forgiven on my part and I sincerely look forward to watching 'the Two Towers' again. This is how film adaptations from books are meant to be done. Those responsible for the Harry Potter and Narnia films would do to take heed and learn from the master.
 Epic August 14, 2008
Mr. M. A. Reed (Somewhere, GB)
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
As those of you who've read my review of the first movie, you'll know that The Lord Of The Rings isn't a great movie. It's a very promising part of a potentially excellent whole. And The Two Towers is but the second slice of the trilogy. Sadly, like the first, the McGuffin of a plot is still flimsy, despite the effort and hard work of the team who made the film, and the whole epic experience -and make no mistake it is unapologetically epic - is frankly overdone.
Sometimes less is more. And what we see is more, a hell of a lot more of New Zealand in the opening sequence than in the other film. Long, ponderous panning shots of mountains and snow that seem to last as long as the film itself.
It's not what you show - but what you don't show that`s important. The problem with The Two Towers is that it, like bad television, shows you everything, and tells you nothing. It's trying too hard to be something epic, something meaningful, when all it is is a big overblown nine-hour cinematic romp of good and evil. It's a two-hour classic trapped inside the body of a three-hour epic.
Where some people think an epic is three hours, Pete Jackson rewrites the book. Three hours is just an ad break. A quick, fast, meaningless bit of fun. For something to be an epic, it has to last half a day (including the inevitable `extended' editions of each film to follow on DVD) to watch in all. Whereas other people trim scenes in order to add speed, excitement, and clarity, Jackson adds. And adds. And adds. Everything. There's probably a kitchen sink in there somewhere.
Just like the first film, there's huge sequences of irrelevant exposition, dialogue, and improbable, insulting co-incidences. Even the smallest moments are played in such a manner as to try and add weight to what is essentially, padding dialogue.
Anyone watching Gandalf's appearance near the end of the film anyone watching the improbable sequence where two of the nameless dwarves just happen to climb onto the one talking tree of the thousands in the forest, or where Treebeard jests that his character only thinks that something is worth saying if it takes a very long time, will be aware that Jackson squanders time as if were limitless. Anyone watching this film will be aware that more than anything else, whilst The Two Towers runs at 24 frames per second, for vast portions of its duration it runs at one thrill an hour. It mistakes length for gravitas.
Besides, The Two Towers are hardly ever seen, and never explained. Why are there "Two Towers"? What is the relationship between them?
The film does has its moments. The implication that runs through this film - through every frame - is that a war isn't about sides. The enemy, what mankind should be fighting, is war itself. The parallels between Bush and Saddam and Osama have never, in my mind, been portrayed in a clearer fashion than the opening sequence that pans over the entirety of Sauraman's domain, composed, as it is entirely of the machines of war. The message is clear. Those who want war will wage war, irrespective of how it may destroy the very fabric of the world we inhabit. These people believe that their pride and their beliefs and their ambition are more important than our very existence.
Where there's an army, there's an apocalypse.
It doesn't take a great leap of the imagination to see a man called Bush avenging the fall of his very own Two Towers whilst he prepares his armies for a war.
And the flipside of this comes the perhaps unsung tragedy of the film. Bernard Hill, who throughout the film acts as the King with dignity and forethought on a level I've not yet seen on screen, who realises that despite his best intentions, and the decisions of many, he has led his people into a trap that can only result in the extinction of his people - a man who, despite a will stronger than a horde of Orcs and a purity that outshines the darkness, realises that in a war it is only physical might that will prevail. And those who fight dirty, those who attack the undefended, those who have no concern for ethics, tend to win in a war. Which is why the Bad Guys are the winners.
And this brings us onto the finale of the film. The Battle Of Helms Deep, fought on many fronts and with many characters is handled as well as it could be, suffering - as it does - from trying to handle several disparate plot lines and unrelated characters who never meet. In effect, The Two Towers is three one hour films weaved together and not always successfully.
As far as epics go, only Star Wars : Send In The Clones comes near to The Two Towers in gravitas or scale. The problem is that The Two Towers is a film that aspires to far far more than it can deliver, and whilst it certainly deliver everything on an epic scale, the only thing it lacks is meaning.
I only hope that the upcoming Return Of The King can answer those questions.
Amazing June 17, 2008
Gary Selikow (Great Kush)
4 out of 4 found this review helpful
For the second time, Peter Jackson, works wonders in bringing JRR Tolkien's `Lord of the Rings' to life, and the Part II: The Two Towers is even more stunning than the first.
As a long-time fan of the books, I was very skeptical that the big screen could really do these works justice, but Peter Jackson, and everyone else who worked on this amazing project, has proved that it certainly can!
The hideous and destructive evil of the Orcs, Wargs and Black Riders is made even more frighteningly stark, and it is with a sense of wonder that we are introduced to the people of Rohan; the Ents and the horrible, crawling, scheming Gollum.
For me the highlight of the film is the Battle of Helms Deep, where a 10 000 strong horde of Orcs, Uruk-Hai and Hillmen from Isengard besiege the people of at this ancient fortress, and the ensuing battle shows the great courage and determination to survive of the besieged and their allies.
Seeing the innocent, beautiful faces of the children of Rohan, hiding with the women in the fortress, and then being flashed to the cruel terror of Saruman's forces is a contrast I will never forget, as Aragorn reminds us that the forces of Saruman are determined to destroy the people of Rohan, down to the last child.
In a clear analogy of propaganda for terrorism., Saruman works the Hillmen into a bloodlust, telling them that the Rohirrim took away their land and drove them into the hills, and now they must burn, destroy, and kill all in their path.
And it is with a sense of grand triumph, that we see Gandalf and the cavalry of Rohan charging down the hill to break the siege; and the army of angry Ents destroying Isengard
The message in the film is what makes it so remarkable and encouraging at this difficult time in human history.
Here is placed a monumental battle between good and evil, without any of the relativism or moral blur that blight our age.
The free world is under threat by dark and evil forces that have a demonic drive to destroy all that is good, just and beautiful.
And the question that faces us all today is asked King Theoden of Rohan: `How do we deal with such reckless hatred'.
Aragorn, the only answer that points the way to the truth, gives the clear answer: `Ride out and meet it, head-on'.
| |
|
|
