Topics Topics Edit Profile Profile Help/Instructions Help Member List Member List Edit Profile Register  
Search Last 1|3|7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  


Sepulchritude Forum » The Absinthe Forum » Arts & Other Philosophical Sundries » THE TWO TOWERS « Previous Next »

Author Message
Posted on Friday, January 10, 2003 - 6:07 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Well, considering that both Gollum AND the odious Dobby (from the latest Harry Potter film) were modeled after the same actor -- and had the same eyes ...
Posted on Thursday, January 9, 2003 - 12:46 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Something to look forward to in the Return of The King.
Posted on Wednesday, January 8, 2003 - 1:48 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

There were people just like that in the theater when I first saw it. They laughed at GOLLUM, for god's sake, not when he's doing the genuinely funny split-personality stuff but when he first appears, all pale, fanged and demonic -- I thought that scene was terrifying.
Posted on Wednesday, January 8, 2003 - 1:42 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I have yet to see it, but here's a fun review from a wonderful site:
entitled "Letter Mentally Composed Friday Night"

Dear Cast and Crew of The Two Towers:
Well done. I was worried that the movie might not have been as enjoyable to someone who's never read the books, but I liked it just fine. Thanks,

Dear The Guy Sitting Behind Me at the Showing of The Two Towers,
I would like to thank you. Not necessarily for your habit of laughing like a smug retard pretty much every time anything in the film happened at all (but mostly things that were not intended to be funny, such as Ian McKellen, um, riding a horse) thus distracting the viewer (me) during any moments intended to be dramatic or tense - no, I would like to thank you for the embarrassed cough that issued from behind me when I finally could take no more of your moronic HE HE HE HE HE and very loudly fired out a HE HE HE HE HE myself. The movie was good, yes, but I note that you stopped your retarded little laugh after that, and I imagine you shifting uncomfortably in your seat and being far too self-conscious to enjoy the movie that you obviously spent a long long portion of your empty life waiting for, you fat bearded twat, and it was really the most satisfying thing that happened all night. Also, how does it make you feel that I had not actually seen you and I nevertheless knew that you were fat and had a beard, just from hearing your eternal-virgin laugh? No lie; my friend Darin pointed out that not only were you annoying but also fat and bearded, and I said that I already knew. You are a barnacle on the collective hull of the human race. If you decide to do the honorable thing and dress up in full Klingon regalia and kill yourself, please, for the love of all that's holy, send me photos. Before and after. Don't skimp on the lighting - I can't masturbate to it if I don't see tears. Thanks.
Posted on Wednesday, January 8, 2003 - 1:07 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Actually the weaponry and armour on the Rohan side was impressive, it was very early Anglo-Saxon, particularly the armour which was near as damn it period accurate. Eomer's helmet was spot on for 5th to 7th century Germanic warrior. But someone should tell Aragorn that a leather gambeson is supposed to be worn UNDER a mail-shirt. A gambeson is worn to protect against impact (not just to look cool) and a mailshirt to protect against cutting blows, the mailshirt stops the cutting blow and a gambeson underneath softens the impact of the blow thus reducing the likelihood of crushed internal organs.

As to the cavalry charge. The Picts used a similar formation against the King Ecgfrid and his Northumbrian cavalry at the famous battle of Nechtansmere in 685 ad (a formation known as the Dunnichen battle block). The Picts (under their King Brude MacBili) had rows of long spearmen with warriors with swords and other short weapons stationed between the spears to finish off anyone who fell off his horse after it was skewered. Directly behind the spearmen were other rows of spearmen and swordsmen in reserve (similar to what the Orcs had in Twin Towers) to step in to fill the gap when the men in the front row fell and so on. The Northumbrian cavalry and their King were slaughtered by a weaker (but better planned) side and the powerful invading Northumbrians were driven south of the river Forth forever. Forget the battle of Bannockburn, Nechtansmere was Scotland's greatest battle.

Horse cavalry do not charge down against a disciplined, organised spear formation. You either use archers and slingers to take out the spears, or at least break up the formation, or you even use an infantry charge, or you try to get behind the formation with your cavalry. You don't waste your cavalry.
Posted on Wednesday, January 8, 2003 - 12:30 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I was hoping you'd have something to say about the weaponry, Lord H.

What would cavalry actually do under those conditions, just accept the losses from a head-on charge or try to outflank the spearmen?
Posted on Wednesday, January 8, 2003 - 12:24 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I only went to see it last Saturday. I thought it was very good, not great like the first film but very good nevertheless.

Although how the fuck none of the riders of Rohan's horses got skewered on the Orcs spears when they charged down the hill at the end? Blinding sun or not those spears would have taken out the first line of cavalry (Gandalf included). And when Aragorn, the Rohan King made that glorious ride out of Helms Deep each swipe of their swords seemed to send a dozen Orcs flying off the ramp at a time. Who made their swords is what I want to know as I want one of them.

I think the coolest moment of the film was when Aragorn makes his entry into the hall at Helms Deep, pushing the doors open and making his entry, battered and bruised but cool as fuck.
Posted on Wednesday, January 8, 2003 - 9:36 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

The ents kick ass. Wormtongue was good too. The main complaint that I had is that they had plenty of material to begin with, but instead of sticking with what they had they made up a bunch of new stuff. I guess they thought it would be better for the movie than sticking to the book.

I'll wait for the last episode before I make any judgement on the series. Like my judgement matters to them, they made money...
Posted on Friday, January 3, 2003 - 8:47 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Gimli DID get his gift in the extended edition of Fellowship of the Ring. It's worth watching.

Two Towers wasn't a standalone movie, and I feel I can't judge it in the way of a standalone film. It lacked the familiar flow of a movie, builds to a climax, periods of denouement, repeat, etc, etc, that FotR had. It was really just a series of images leading into Return of the King.
Posted on Friday, January 3, 2003 - 7:46 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Gimli was robbed of nearly all character development by the omission of the gift of Galadriel's hair.

I liked him as a great hearted brutal killing machine better than comic releif. Toss me, he says.

Right now, Tolkiens ghost is probably hunting around a barrow for a suitably fell sword with which to behead the director.
Posted on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 9:01 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

I do have one complaint... the fight amongst the orcs who were carrying Merry and Pippin was dumbed down to a comic dispute over food.

In the book it's about whether the Hobbits are to be taken over land to Isengard, or to be picked up by a Nazgul and flown straight to Mordor. Fortunately the Isengard faction wins, so the Rohirrim are able to ambush the orcs en route, unintentionally saving the Hobbits.

This is important in the book because it illustrates the uneasy alliance between Sauron and Saruman, who wants to find the Ring first and become the master. I can understand not getting obsessed with every plot detail, but I liked this one and missed it.
Posted on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 7:55 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

i like the part where the guy with the quaint clothing kills a guy with a quaint weapon. that was sweet. oh and then there was the pretty backdrops. pure genius, that.
Posted on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 1:27 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

I liked the part in the Battle of Helm's Deep wherein Jay and Silent Bob compete in the number of orcs they can kill. And it's a good thing Christopher Lee is sharp in his old age, because otherwise he might get his orc and clone armies mixed up...

Yes, I liked the movie.
Posted on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 11:10 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


I don't think Two Towers is the least interesting of the books, but it certainly is the least cinematic and the most bookish.

Yes, that's a better way of putting it. Much of the action isn't even portrayed directly (e.g., the Ents' assault on Orthanc) in the book.
Posted on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 10:21 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I loved it, though it did have its weaknesses. One slight disagreement with BJ: I don't think Two Towers is the least interesting of the books, but it certainly is the least cinematic and the most bookish. It belongs to a bygone age in which people actually welcomed diversions from the plot. If you like learning about pipeweed and the vanished Entwives (i.e., why Treebeard's had a woody all these years... ha ha), and other stories about Middle Earth, it's great.

The movie wisely skips all that stuff, and substitutes a number of scenes that are much more emotive and entirely made-up. Nonetheless they fit so well into the story that I had the pleasant sensation of seeing bits of Tolkien that aren't anywhere in Tolkien.

I'll definitely see this one again.
Posted on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 9:52 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I was very contented with the film...considering that all three movies were created at one time. This keeps a consistency about the whole thing and the final movie will be great as well.

I've read everything Tolkein has written and this film is the best likeness to his books as compared to most book to movie creations.
As far as Gollum, it was a computer generation from an actual person. There was an actor and his character was superimposed in digital form. I agree, it was great to see the digital form create actual emotions.
And what was the deal with Gimli? In the book I thought of him as more of a brutal killer rather than a comical character. I kept waiting for him to skillfully lop off heads right and left. That would be my only mal critique.
I liked the Ent's portrayal. They spoke slowly and acted slowly...that's the way it reads.
As far as the ending...if you know the storyline, it really didn't matter to me, you know it will continue. (so, I guess reading the books help)

Overall - Great movie...Hey, it beats the Star Wars series. And Star Wars is a great series.
Posted on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 9:02 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Well, since my Amish ass will never see, nor read the Ringy Thingy Trilogy, guess I should read the BJ review.
Posted on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 9:00 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I read it. And it jives completely with my opinion.

Thanks BJ, you saved me the sore fingers.
Posted on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 8:54 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Sold by weight, not meaning.

Got it!
Posted on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 8:53 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

No, but it looks impressive.
Posted on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 8:43 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

You read it?
Posted on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 7:57 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Now that's a fuckin' REVIEW!
Posted on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 4:32 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I adored it. Considering the source material (TTT is the least interesting of the three books), Jackson did an amazing job of maintaining dramatic tension. (The way Tolkein structured the book, the Aragorn/Rohan/Merry&Pippen storyline was the first half of the book, and the Frodo/Samwise/Gollum thread was the second half, which means almost nothing happened between the middle of the book and the last 2 chapters. And if you though the scenes with the Ents dragged in the MOVIE...)

Visually, the film is simply incredible. The Battle at Helms Deep so raised the bar on movie battle scenes that it will be a decade before anybody tops it, at least. And Gollum was the first time I have ever seen an all-digital character WORK in a movie. Sure, there were moments where it was obvious that it was digital, but there were moments where it WASN'T. That alone is an achievment. More to the point, however, the freaking thing could ACT. You could see tension and conflict in its face, in it's BODY LANGUAGE. They gave a digital character body language.

It was flawed, of course. I was not totally comfortable with Gimli being demoted to comic relief, but better him than Sam, or even Merry, whose character was finally showing itself as something other than a clone of Pipin. Some of the dialogue sounded off; the writers didn't always suceed in blending Tolkein's prose with their own. And, from a geek's standpoint, I didn't like that they portrayed Faramir as tempted to take the Ring for himself, as his brother had been.

My only other real complaint is where they left the story. Jackson's "Fellowship" ended with events that actually took place at the beginning of The Two Towers, and yet his "Towers" ended without finishing the story of the book. I would much rather have seen Shelob now than have them throw in some new some encounter with the Nazgul at Osgiliath, and I think the ending in the book would have left the audience MUCH more anxious for the next film. Not to mention expanding the character of Samwise in the film. The ending that we got felt almost like Bakshi's version, like they just STOPPED, and threw in some voice-over monologues at the end to fill things out.
Posted on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 6:37 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Bore Ring.

Administration Administration Log Out Log Out   Previous Page Previous Page Next Page Next Page