FILM: The Two Towers - Peter Jackson (2002)

[BloodBoal 7,538]

 

The Two Towers - Peter Jackson (2002)

 

The theatrical cut.

Thought I'd revisit that one since I revisited The Fellowship Of The Ring theatrical cut relatively recently. This is quite an interesting sequel, as it was shot at the same time as the first film, yet it still has its own distinctive look and feel (as it is less of a journey/adventure movie and more of an action movie). In a way, that is great, as it means the film has more new stuff to offer than just new characters and locations, but unfortunately, some of the changes were not to my liking. The movie also did not have the surprise element of the first. With The Fellowship Of The Ring, few people knew what to expect in terms of quality, and most of us ended up being unexpectedly blown away by that film (the "unexpected" part making the whole experience even more enjoyable). But now, we knew the quality standard we could expect from Jackson and his team, we had something to compare the sequel to. And sadly, the comparison is not in the favour of The Two Towers (not to say this is a bad film, but more on that later). But to take a better look at the whole picture, let's go back to the beginning, shall we?

 

This is 2002. The movie begins with what is still to this day one of the finest movie openings ever: Gandalf versus the Balrog Of Morgoth. Right from the start, we get a sequence that is bound to become classic! OK, this experience is going to be awesome! And then we cut to the Hobbits walking in Emyn Muil, and there, something felt off, something I couldn't quite put my finger on. After Gollum was introduced, things started to get better again. And then, it was here: the Three Hunters sequence, one of the coolest "the heroes are back!" moment in a sequel. It was blood-pumping! But as the movie went on, I was starting to realize that, while it was still well-made on the whole, with exciting scenes (with sequences like the Battle Of The Hornburg being just as good as anything in The Fellowship Of The Ring), new vistas, new characters, something didn't quite sit right with me. And again, I couldn't put my finger on it. It was only a few years later that I managed to really determine some of my problems wih this film.

 

One of the major issues I have with it are the visuals. To me, The Fellowship Of The Ring was visually close to being flawless. It was colourful, the special effects were not overused and blended seamlessly with real elements, there was a lot of on-location scenes... It looked great. But the sequel is quite a different beast altogether when it comes to visuals. First, there is the color palette. As I said, The Fellowship Of The Ring was a colourful movie: we had vibrant greens for the Shire, a sickly yellow and brown for Bree, a warm orange and gold for Rivendell, an oppressive grey for the Moria sequence along with menacing reds for the escape from that place, the ethereal blue for Lothlorien... Each location had its own color, which helped create the sense of going on a journey to discover new locations, each with their own distinctive features... And then came The Two Towers, with a colour palette basically limited to grey (Emyn Muil, the Black Gate, Helm's Deep, Osgiliath, Isengard...) and blue (for the many night scenes in the film, including the lengthy Battle Of The Hornburg sequence). Sure, there are the occasional moments which offer a bit more colour (the Dead Marshes with some yellow and green, Edoras with some red and brown after Theoden is "cured" by Gandalf, more green for the Ithilien sequence), but even then, they were toned down. Thus the movie looks less interesting in that regard.

Another problem having to do with the visuals is the amount of scenes shot in studio. Here again, The Fellowship Of The Film was great in that regard, with a healthy ratio of probably something like 60% of on-location shooting and 40% of studio shooting, with most of the scenes shot in a studio meant to be taking place indoors anyway (Bag-End, the Prancing Pony inn...). With The Two Towers, that trend was reversed, with much more studio shooting (most of the Frodo and Sam storyline was shot that way, apart from some Emyn Muil and Ithilien scenes, same thing for the Pippin and Merry storyline...), which led to those infamous fake rocks appearing everywhere, and fake lightning that makes it clear the scenes were not shot outdoors (take the first few scenes between Frodo and Sam and Gollum for example or the Fangorn Forest sequence). The result is a film that simply doesn't look as good and natural as the first one. Add to that some dodgy special effects (the infamous green screen effect for Merry and Pippin on Treebeard (which always looked bad to me), Sam on the falling rock at the Black Gate...) and you have a rawer looking film compared to the visually refined The Fellowship Of The Ring. Don't get me wrong: it's not a bad looking film, but for a sequel to FOTR, I expected something better.

 

Another problem the film has to deal with is the fragmented narrative. The first film offered a straightfoward narrative, with the audience basically following the same group of heroes from point A to point B (with the occasional cut to the bad guys). But here, we have not two, but three different storylines (to which you can add the bad guys stuff and the occasional Rohan characters footage). It's not an easy thing to deal with. And the thing is, if one has to be honest, the Three Hunters storyline remains the most exciting, with the other two simply not offering the same kind of thrills. I guess The Gollum Show helps the Frodo and Sam storyline, but you can feel Jackson struggled with the Merry and Pippin storyline, not going back to that one a lot, and giving some hazy reason for those characters to be more active and be the ones forcing the Ents to go to war. And then there are the deviations from the book. I've realized only recently how a big amount of material in that film is not from the book, and if you cut all that stuff (the whole Arwen and Osgiliath sequences, the Wargs attack, etc.), you'd probably end up with a movie about 2 hours long tops! Most of those deviations didn't bother me much and still don't, as I can understand why they did it, even the Faramir one. Sure, it completely rewrites the character from the book, but it was a necessary evil: I agree with Jackson you can't have a simple man suddenly not being tempted by the Ring after having spent two whole films explaining how powerful the Ring is. Now, I'm not saying the solution he came up with is the best (it is actually quite clumsy, though the extended edition fixed it a bit), but it is understandable... But in any case, the movie doesn't have as good a flow as FOTR did.

 

OK, so I realized I listed a lot of bad comments, but don't misunderstand: it was only to explain why I don't think that film is as good as the first one (which remains a near-flawless masterpiece). I still believe it is an excellent film nonetheless with some fantastic movie magic moments (Gandalf coming to the rescue! The Ents going to war!) with some great stuff to offer: loved everything having to do with Rohan (Edoras looked superb), the Ents, the whole Helm's Deep sequence (still to this day one of the most impressive battle sequences ever)... The new characters add a lot to the experience, too: Gollum is probably the one that made sure the trilogy would become a pop culture reference for years to come, Theoden is a badass king played to perfection by Bernard Hill (the first film had two pitch-perfect bits of casting with Holm as Bilbo and Bean as Boromir, The Two Towers had Hill as Theoden, even if he would only truly come into his own in the third film), Miranda Otto is lovely as the fierce Eowyn and Wenham makes for a fine Faramir. Urban unfortunately didn't have much to do as Eomer (was a bit surprised by that. For some reason, I remember he did more. Funny that by using him to replace Erkenbrand, Jackson managed to get rid of two characters that way!) and while Rhys-Davies is OK as Treebeard, he doesn't make a great impression (I was never bothered that much by the fact an actor that played another major role did the voice of Treebeard, but I would have preferred if someone else had done it).

 

The score... Ah, the score... Clearly not as perfect as the first one. Much like the film, it feels rawer than the one that preceded it, less refined. Shore expanded the musical palette of Middle-Earth with that one, and for that he should be commended, but the result wasn't entirely to my liking. Of course, there was a great deal of excellent material, as was to be expected, but it seems the composer abandoned to some extent the strong narrative drive that was found in the first score. Here were lengthy sequences more focused on atmosphere than clearly telling a story. Part of it probably had to do with the fragmented narrative, which must have make it harder for Shore to give a natural flow to the score as a whole: he still did that admirably, but again, not as perfectly as with The Fellowship Of The Ring. One thing I noticed this time around (explaining why I don’t like that one as much as the first one) is that the locations are not as clearly defined musically as they were in FOTR: in the first score, the music for the Shire was clearly distinct from the one for Lothlorien, and both were clearly distinct from the one for Moria, etc. Much like the visuals, the music defined each location. In the sequel, the musical identity (again, just like the visual identity) of each location is not as pronounced. The music for Emyn Muil does not sound markedly different from the one for the Dead Marshes or Ithilien, for example: the differences are here, of course, but there are more subtle. Does not make it a bad score (some would probably say it's what makes it a superior score), but it does make it more challenging than the first one, and as a result, less accessible. Before anyone goes apeshit crazy on what I just said: I still love most of it (and a lot of parts I originally didn't care about, I came to like)...

 

To end this review, a few words on the theatrical cut: unlike The Fellowship Of The Ring, this one doesn't flow as well. The fragmented narrative means there are less moments for the movie to breathe and it feels a bit choppier as a result. The fact that there are even more characters than in the previous film of course does not help. That is why the Extended Cut is the superior one, in my opinion: most (all?) of the additions are welcome and improved the experience, helping flesh out the characters more by giving each more screentime. Unlike FOTR, where I remember thinking the additions were nice but did not blow me away, the extended TTT was much more fulfilling, many added moments getting a more-than-positive reaction from me. The Faramir flashback in particular was awesome: it helped make us understand this character more, it was a good way to bring back Sean Bean and to introduce Denethor, and it also helped connecting all three films (with Boromir, a character exclusive to the first film, and Denethor, a character exclusive to the third one, both appearing in that scene). Most of the musical additions were also lovely. So I consider the Extended Cut to be essential, as it helped me appreciate both the film and the score more. You could feel that with this one, Jackson struggled a bit more to condense everything in the theatrical cut.

 

The Two Towers will probably always remain my least favourite of the three films as there is too much stuff that feels less refined than in the other two, even if it still has some fantastic stuff to offer and remains a spectacular experience. While I don't think Jackson could have improved The Fellowship Of The Ring if he had been given more time, I do believe it would have been the case with The Two Towers. Many moments feel like the consequence of hasty decisions, with results of varying quality. There is more room for improvement in a new adaptation of The Two Towers than of The Fellowship Of The Ring. That being said, it'll be hard to top moments like Gandalf's charge accompanied by Shore's rousing music. Yep, back then, even when Jackson was under pressure, he could pull off stuff like that easily!

 

8/10

 

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

I don't think I've seen the TE versions of these movies since the initial DVD releases. Once the EE's came out, which I consider the definitive versions of these films, I never watched the TE's again. For that reason, it's hard for me to respond to your specific criticisms, because at the moment I'd struggle to recall which scenes from the EE aren't in the TE. I know the big ones, of course, but it's really the smaller moments and extended scenes that are the glue that holds these stories together and make the EE's so superior (at least in the case of the first two films)

 

That said, I love TTT and consider it just behind FOTR.  I certainly think it's superior to ROTK, which probably has more memorable, and emotional, moments than TTT, but doesn't hold together as a film as well as the first two movies (not to mention having significant narrative flaws).

[Quintus 5,399]

Dude, sort your formatting out! 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

21 hours ago, Nick1066 said:

I don't think I've seen the TE versions of these movies since the initial DVD releases. Once the EE's came out, which I consider the definitive versions of these films, I never watched the TE's again.

 

You should give it a try. It's an interesting experience. FOTR works really well in that form. PJ did try to do the best film he could without thinking "Hey, no matter, we'll fix that with the EE!". TTT, on the other hand, is the first one where you can feel PJ probably thought: "OK, we can cut this, and this, and this. It's not a problem. We'll put it in the EE." and as a result, the theatrical cut simply is not as satisfying. The fact that PJ started playing around with the editing seems a bit more apparent in this one too: one can look at the dresses Eowyn wear from one scene to the next or the scene where Sam and Frodo are in a room with barrels, only for the barrels to disappear after a sudden cut, to realize that some stuff was probably moved around a bit (with scenes probably meant to appear at two different moments combined into one, or one scene split into two and placed at different moments in the film).

 

 

21 hours ago, Nick1066 said:

That said, I love TTT and consider it just behind FOTR.  I certainly think it's superior to ROTK, which probably has more memorable, and emotional, moments than TTT, but doesn't hold together as a film as well as the first two movies (not to mention having significant narrative flaws).

 

To me, TTT lacks the refinement of the first film and the emotional power of the third one. Plus it is the only one with moments that don't do much for me (the lengthy Arwen sequence brings the movie to a rather annoying halt, the Treebeard scenes are not really engaging...). It's still a damn fine film, though.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yes!

[KK 3,307]

On 2/18/2017 at 7:23 AM, BloodBoal said:

In the sequel, the musical identity (again, just like the visual identity) of each location is not as pronounced. The music for Emyn Muil does not sound markedly different from the one for the Dead Marshes or Ithilien, for example: the differences are here, of course, but there are more subtle. Does not make it a bad score (some would probably say it's what makes it a superior score), but it does make it more challenging than the first one, and as a result, less accessible.

 

I think that's the beauty and strength of the score actually. Of the trilogy, TTT probably channels the natural Tolkien-esque ambience of Middle-Earth best. Something like "Gandalf the White" may not feel as overtly distinctive as the location/journey cues of FOTR, but it feels so inherently Tolkien, where Shore seems to write for a deeper subtext. This gets somewhat lost in the grandeur and scale of ROTK, but that's fine. One of the beautiful things about the trilogy is that each score, while part of a whole, has something unique to offer in spirit and craft.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Oh, yes, the Gandalf The White material is definitely some of the finest music in the trilogy, and captures the Tolkien spirit to perfection. And unlike you, I'd say it sounds distinctive. But stuff like the music for Ithilien or the Dead Marshes, not so much. And then you also have the material for the Ents which is a bit underwhelming too. That's why of the three musical storylines, the Three Hunters one remains my favourite.

 

You should try this experiment: listen to all the music from each storyline separately (that is to say listen to all the Three Hunters music on its own, then all the Frodo and Sam material separately, and finally all the Merry and Pippin stuff). You'll see that I'm right, and that the Frodo and Sam storyline, while having clear highlights, does not offer the most enticing musical journey (though, since you love stuff like Arrival, who knows? Maybe you'll say it's the best of the three!).

[KK 3,307]

While I agree that the pieces you point out aren't necessarily "distinctive", I still think they feel very "at-home" in Middle-Earth, if you follow me. I understand why that material maybe underwhelming for most. Even I was bored by many of those passages for many years. But there's a very natural Tolkien-esque/world-building ambience to them that I've really come to appreciate, and that's something you don't often hear often in these kind of big pictures. Something Shore himself never quite brought back for the Hobbit pictures (though I blame the films more for that one). The Ent material is a good example of that. Not melodically memorable, perhaps, but it has some of the coolest and most earthy textures of the work.

 

Some other moments that come to mind from the storylines you mentioned:

 

 

 

 

This whole bloody cue is fantastic:

 

It's like Shore built all the shapes and characters with FOTR, and then was adding the more subtle details of the painting with TTT. It's a far more textural work, much like DoS funny enough.

 

To clarify, I definitely see where you're coming from. I'm just trying to say that's a whole side I've come to love about TTT. That the Three Hunters storyline probably has the score's highlights is true, but as a whole, the balance works very well, for myself at least.

 

As for my favourite, that's ROTK, for various reasons. But each of them have something different to take away.

 

28 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

And unlike you, I'd say it sounds distinctive.

 

Mind you, I think it's very distinctive, and one of the finest moments of Shore's career. But many would, and have disagreed with me, hence my phrasing

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Well, of course you had to come up with the Oliphaunt music to prove your point, which is the best moment in the Ithilien sequence. Cheap shot!

 

Don't misunderstand me: like you, I've come to appreciate those moments which I originally wasn't too fond of (though I still struggle with the music for the moment when Frodo falls in the water of the Dead Marshes), but I think they could have been improved upon (who knows? Maybe giving a proper theme to Faramir would have helped give the Ithilien sequence (along with the Osgiliath one) more personality, something to connect it all). The Ents material in particular, while interesting on its own and offering more variety to the work as a whole, still feels a bit disappointing given the creatures it is meant to represent: surely, more could have been done with those!

 

That being said, I do agree with you that those moments at least have the merit of giving The Two Towers its own unique sound and not make it feel like a simple rehash of The Fellowship Of The Ring: they participate in expanding the musical world introduced in the first score, and that's why I never hated them or anything. I appreciate what Shore was trying to achieve. It's just that I simply can't help but feel some parts could have been improved upon (at least a bit).

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

KK is right, BB is wrong!  End thread.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

This thread is about the film, not just the score, so I see no reason to end it, thank you very much!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Good film! Slightly less than FOTR, slightly better than ROTK.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

1 minute ago, Stefancos said:

Good film! Slightly less than FOTR, slightly better than ROTK.

 

Wrong!

 

Please explain why you are wrong.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

ROTK, while containing the emotional pay-offs is the most problematic film in terms of how it dealt with certain story elements. Arwen'a story literally goes nowhere, the Paths Of The Dead feels like padding and leads to a deux ex machine climax for the Pellenor Fields battle. And compared to the other two films is glosses over a hell of a lot from the book. 

 

Also. Despite fighting giant Uruks there was a certain realistic tone, a grittiness to Helms Deep. Pellenor is a great action setpiece, but it's basically special effects galore. Closer to what PJ would do on The Hobbit than LOTR.

 

 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

1 hour ago, Stefancos said:

Arwen's story literally goes nowhere

 

Sure, but one could say the same about the Osgiliath deviation in TTT!

 

1 hour ago, Stefancos said:

the Paths Of The Dead feels like padding and leads to a deux ex machine climax for the Pellenor Fields battle.

 

So it feels like padding even though it's the one thing that helps resolve the battle? You're not making any sense!

 

Plus, it's not much of a deus ex machina, given that it doesn't come out of nowhere. We see Aragorn go seek the help of the Army of the Dead, and we know they are coming. You're not making any sense!

 

1 hour ago, Stefancos said:

And compared to the other two films is glosses over a hell of a lot from the book.

 

Unlike TTT?

 

1 hour ago, Stefancos said:

Also. Despite fighting giant Uruks there was a certain realistic tone, a grittiness to Helms Deep. Pellenor is a great action setpiece, but it's basically special effects galore. Closer to what PJ would do on The Hobbit than LOTR.

 

OK, so how exactly where they meant to depict giant Mûmakil without using special effects? Please explain!

 

That being said, sure, I agree, the battle of the Hornburg is probably better put together than the Pellenor Fields one, but is that enough to make TTT superior to ROTK? I don't think so, sir!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Slightly superior!

 

 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

No, slightly inferior!

 

The Academy agrees with me!

[Wojo 2,453]

TTT the film, in either version, suffered from having so much book material removed that it needed to be padded with filler. Boromir's death was moved to FOTR, the stairclimb to Shelob was moved to ROTK, and Saruman's final confrontation and fate cut out completely until the home video EE format.

 

What you're left with is padded with a warg attack, a lost Aragorn just so we can see the White Army approaching, the Arwen dream sequence, and Gandalf and Eomer disappearing for the middle section. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

Bloodboal, where's your ROTK review? C'mon mate, finish what you started.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

6 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

All in due time, my dear fellow!

 

You're just like KK!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Do not compare me with that conjurer of cheap tricks!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Proof it Blood! Proof that you are any better? Proof it before the court of public opinion!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

You have convinced me! KK is just toilet water!

[KK 3,307]

Et tu Steef?

 

You are following a false prophet old friend! The Messenger fell to darkness long ago. He is simply trying to drag you there withhim!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

FOTR Live To Picture review! NOW!!!!

[gkgyver 1,645]

Personally, I think giving any of these three films less than 10/10 is slightly ridiculous. But hey, just me.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yes it is!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Well, I've always been known to be a bit ridiculous, so I don't know why you guys seem surprised.

[Cerebral Cortex 3,357]

Not surprised, just appalled. 

Great review, by the way, BB. :^)