Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

This is topic Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000471

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 12-17-2002, 04:29 AM:

I saw TWO TOWERS tonight and I hate to say that it SUCKED REALLY BAD!!!
I had high hopes for this one after being blown away by FELLOWSHIP, but was severely let down.
It is clear that all the budget was spent on the first movie with a little spread to the second with the trailer in mind.
The trailer looked really good, but the only stuff in the movie that were even good were IN THE TRAILER ITSELF!!!
All the rest of the effects and digitized characters looked cheesy, cartoonish, and to put it bluntly, FAKE!
So yes, they spent all the money on the first film and the trailers for the second just to get people reeled in.

This has got to be the worst movie Peter Jackson has ever done.
Worse than MEET THE FEEBLES!!!
Yes, it was that bad.
All the greatness of the FELLOWSHIP flushed right down the toilet.

Ok, I didn’t really expect you to buy into a line of that.
The movie was good.
Go see it.

It seemed to me that this one had less action than the first and dealt more with people trying to find safe places and getting where they were going.
But I haven’t seen the first one since it was in theatres and I was drawn away from the story too much by the ear ache I have been dealing with today to really pay attention to it.
All I could do was to look at the screen and wait for a fight or some weird imagery to break out.
I should see it again when no part of my physical being is in pain.

MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD

I did like Golem (is that how you spell it?) though.
I though at first that he could easily suffer from the Jar Jar Binks syndrome, but we were spared from the annoyance.
I was surprised to find out that he was MPD and enjoyed the conversations he had with himself.
Especially the first one where the camera would cut to different angles so it looked like he was talking to a twin brother of sorts.

There was one main thing I missed in this one that I really liked in the first one.
Remember in the first one when Sauron (I don’t know how to spell that one either) blew up and a big VWOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUWWWWWWMM sound came from the subwoofers and shook the whole damn auditorium?
They didn’t have anything like that in this one.
Also, Cate Blanchett didn’t go insane for a moment like she did in FELLOWSHIP either.

Posted by Jacob Huber (Member # 1138) on 12-17-2002, 05:32 AM:

The good thing about working in a movie theatre for slightly more than minimum wage: the privilege to see movies of this caliber two whole days before anybody else in the general public, and getting paid for it (all overtime hours for me). This film was absolutely stunning.

The digital effects were near seemless and leaps and bounds ahead of Lucas' Episode II. The sound was phenomenal running at 7.0 in a normally 6.0-6.5 house on a CP500. Thankfully, the print was also flawless, nine reels and not a single lab splice or defect.

The story was what one would expect from the middle child of an epic trilogy, one of a much darker sort. The pacing is good, if slightly slow at the beginning and fast at the end (I didn't want it to be over). I absolutely loved the war scenes, but felt there weren't enough of them until the very end. I'm with James about the huge boom from Sauron in the first one and was hoping for something similar in this one, but to no luck. Gollum's inner demons were portrayed beautifully, and I too loved the conflict scene of his fight of his alternate personalities, Smigle v. Gollum.

Many reviewers on other websites say that this film is much better than the first, and I'm going to have to agree with them on this one, hell, even Peter Jackson says that this one is his favorite. It's rare when you go into a movie with extremely high expectations and it still manages to blow you away. I'm definitely going to have to watch this again many times over.

10/10 flawless [thumbsup]

Posted by Josh Kirkhart (Member # 1046) on 12-17-2002, 06:14 AM:

Damn good.

I agree with all the good things people will say about this one, except it was not (for me) better than the first. In the first everything was much more personal, this one was a little more scattered. Amazingly enough it was not long enough for me. I think its a great middle and thats all I was expecting. Gollem ruled, can't wait to see the next.

Great sound mix, not enough umph. Score will win once more if Far from Heaven is overlooked, and GONY is not great. Print had a few seconds of horizontal blurs, have no idea what they were, otherwise flawless. The cinematography beautiful.

****1/2

Posted by John Gordon (Member # 523) on 12-17-2002, 02:10 PM:

One word, Awesome!

Posted by Aldo Baez (Member # 790) on 12-18-2002, 06:14 AM:

After one viewing this one is not nearly as good as the first one... but I'll have to see it again to give my full opinion.

Posted by Brian Hogan (Member # 940) on 12-18-2002, 04:14 PM:

i think i drfted off to sleep more in this one than i did the last one.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-18-2002, 09:38 PM:

12/18/2002, Regal Cinema World 8, Eugene OR, #3, 3:45PM, SDDS (I asked). Attendance around 400, basically a sellout. Flawless print except for 1 lab splice -- very sharp & detailed for what I assume is Super 35. Excellent presentation.

Too much story to tell in a measly 3 hour movie. Too much movie for my puny brain to assimilate in 1 viewing. State-of-the-art effects. My head hurts. Peter Jackson is a genius.

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 12-18-2002, 11:27 PM:

I enjoyed this one much more than the first Lord of the Rings film. The biggest improvement for me was the pacing. I thought "Fellowship" often took too long to say what it wanted to say, whereas "Two Towers" always seemed to take just as much time as needed without lingering. The three hour running time went by very quickly.

I also thought the cinematography in "Two Towers" was a lot less claustrophobic than in "Fellowship". "Two Towers" had more medium and long shots, and fewer super-tight close ups. The widescreen was put to better use this time around as well.

The special effects in this movie were leaps and bounds ahead of "Fellowship". Gollum was quite convincing for a CG character. Too often animators will make their creatures move as though such things as friction and inertia do not exist for them. I thought the CG creatures in "Two Towers" for the most part avoided this common flaw, adding greatly to their believability.

The quality of the print was much better this time, too. I thought "Fellowship" often looked grainy and had wildly inconsistent color and contrast. I'm sure this was due in large part to some scenes in "Fellowship" being digitally color corrected and others not (I recall an article saying about 60% of "Fellowship" went through digital color grading). "Two Towers" on the other hand was never grainy, always looked extremely sharp, and had very consistent color and contrast. I wonder if this film had a full-length digital intermediate instead of the partial one the first film had?

In any case I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this film. I will probably go back and see it at least once more before it leaves theaters.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-19-2002, 02:06 AM:

Peter Jackson is not a genius. However he does enjoy donuts.

In fact I am curious as to how he was elected to direct this trilogy, especially considering the many clunkers he's done in the past.

Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 12-19-2002, 03:44 AM:

Define the "clunkers"

Methinks we may be heading into "Moulin Rouge" territory

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-19-2002, 05:04 PM:

Well I haven't memorized Jackson's directing credits, but I did look at them the other day on imdb and don't remember anything that great. Heavenly Creatures probably being the most notable entry on his directography (is that even a word?). I remember wondering how he got the job. None of those movies performed particularly well at the box office. I am not saying that he is wrong for the job, just wondering how he got it. Simple question. He is obviously doing well with LotR.

I remember being unimpressed with "The Frighteners". The poster was the best thing about the movie. I have that poster... the "hologram" one or whatever the proper term for it is.

Does Baz Luhrmann enjoy donuts? I fail to see the relevance in your comparison, as Moulin was never supposed to be Lord of the Rings. Lord of the Rings had a HUGE fan base to appease, and they couldn't risk it all by getting the wrong director, hence my curiosity.

Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 12-19-2002, 06:38 PM:

Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, The
Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The
Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The
Frighteners, The (1996)
All the above financed thru America and possibly not true Jackson movies

Forgotten Silver (1995)
Heavenly Creatures (1994)
Braindead (1992) ... aka Dead Alive (1992)
Meet the Feebles (1989)
Bad Taste (1987)
Valley, The (1976)

As a splatter film maker he is very good. His first serious movie was technically proficient, however I will always remember the first time seeing Bad Taste & loving every minute.

I think you either love or hate his earlier movies. Like Moulin Rouge there is no inbetween.

Posted by Ken McFall (Member # 845) on 12-19-2002, 07:50 PM:

Now I've not seen the film yet.... but did peek at a bit.

There is one character that looks like he's been lifted directly out of Harry Potter....Dobbie! or is it the other way around? anyway he's almost a double. looks and sounds like!

As I say I've not watched it yet, will do that next week when I'm off. Then I can sit and watch it without having to think about what else is happening.

Regards.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 12-19-2002, 09:36 PM:

Remember here that Peter Jackson is not trying to make a Peter Jackson film, but rather a close as possible telling of some classic novels, in other words hopefully a Tolkien film if he plays his cards right.

I imagine that Peter Jackson probably had plenty of fun on the shoots, but would love to get back to some nice technically proficient blood and guts movies.

He has been trying to do a King Kong movie for like ever, and would love to do so.

Dave

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-19-2002, 09:38 PM:

I liked the "Two Towers" and thought it meshed in pretty well with "Fellowship of the Ring". But it does have the big weakness in being that it is really just the second act of a whole story.

In the first film, you have real work being done to establish character and make them interesting. There's not quite as much of that going on in "The Two Towers" except for the stuff involving Gollem.

Liv Tyler crying at the camera was a little much for me since it gave me flashbacks of "Armageddon" (which I certainly did not like). I was expecting a ballad from Aerosmith to erupt from the speakers in DTS at any second.

The CGI stuff in "The Two Towers" was great in some places but not quite as good in others. The Ents (those big talking trees) were really cool when they were stomping on orks or teeing off on them like golfballs ("Hey look! It's Tiger Woods as a tree!"). But in the closeup scenes where they were talking and blinking their eyes, I was more reminded of those wierd Monty Python animations by Terry Gilliam. And I think things could have been handled a bit better with Gollem. The motion capture and such for Gollem was really first rate. But the character design and some of the facial renderings needed more realistic detail.

For any weaknesses the show had, I thought the Battle of Helms Deep really made up for it. There was some really cool stuff on that.

At any rate, things are set in motion for "Return of the King". Expect some badass, bloody battles on that one. I think any money that was spared on visuals for "The Two Towers" will be overshadowed by some really serious visuals in the trilogy's final part.

One thing I cannot get out of my head regarding "The Two Towers" is just how creepy I thought that scene was where Frodo fell into that swamp. Maybe no one else got bothered by it, but the way those decomposing ghouls looked with those big blank eyes and jagged teeth it really gave me some chills. Yeesh!

Posted by Aldo Baez (Member # 790) on 12-20-2002, 01:19 AM:

Ok just got back from my second viewing...
Definately not as good as the first one. This one was.. I don't know I mean the whole time when you were not watching frodo/gollum or merry/pippin it was all about helms deep this and that and the impending battle. This one deviated from the book alot more than the first, and what they did to Faramir really really sucked and had no point (For those not into the books Faramir is supposed to be sort of anti-Boromir really helping and encouraging Frodo and Sam along.)
I felt that there was alot of fluff in this movie, the warg attack was just a flashy show of effects (and not very good ones), the ending going to Osgiliath was pointless as well. And what was up with Gandalf all of a sudden fighting the balrog on top of the mountain how did they get up there? And the representation of the nazgul flying beasts, are they flying dinosaurs? The nazgul are supposed to be BADARSES you need to make something scarier than a dinosaur looking thing...
The good points gollum was really really good. There were obvious times when you knew he was cgi, but there also times where he just looked amazing and real. Treebard was good, I had a hard time figuring out if the closeups of his face were cgi or a sort of stop-motion animation..? Helms deep of course good. There were some memorable shots in the movie, at the beginning the wide angle shot of gandalf and the balrog falling into the water was amazing coupled with that gothic music. The shot of the ent meeting it sort of pans straight up, my favorite shot of the orcs on the ladders being raised during the battle (it was on the trailer too.)
A good movie, I think I enjoyed this one more than the first, but the first one is a better movie to me.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 12-20-2002, 09:21 AM:

How did Peter Jackson get the job? From what I heard, he wasn`t "given" the job for a planned project, he took the initiative and developed the project up to the point where he could show that he was capable of doing it. I think I read somewhere that he invested some of his own money to shoot a few demo scenes. Which reminds me of George Lucas hiring Ralph McQuarrie to draw those great conceptual paintings for Star Wars to demonstrate to the Fox people how the movie would look.
I think it is very good that during the past couple of years, "Hollywood" producers sometimes have taken the risk of giving big projects to "unusual" (in the sense of not being completely mainstreamy) directors, such as the Wachowski brothers for "Matrix", Sam Raimi for "Spiderman" or to let an "action movie" director like James Cameron do a mostly romantic movie like "Titanic".
Or Alfonso Cuaron, who is going to do the next "Harry Potter". I have to admit that I sort of liked the two movies Chris Columbus made, but I also thought they looked a bit too much like a routine job to me.
So I think it was a commendable decision to let Peter Jackson do this enormous project. There were many things I didn`t like about "Fellowship", but one simply has to respect his achievement, and I am looking forward to seeing "The Two Towers".

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 12-21-2002, 04:19 PM:

Did anybody notice that Gandalf is wearing tennis shoes in the scene where he calls the horses just after his reappearance?

I liked this movie. It is a lot of fun to watch and as I said, it should be respected for the magnitude of his achievement.
On the other hand, if I look at it not just as a fun movie to watch, but as an adaption of the novels, it really sucks enormously. I don`t mean all the many details which are different by necessity as this is a completely different medium.
I mean the many unnecessary deviations from the book. Why do the heroes have to keep falling down cliffs (Aragorn at the end of the skirmish, Frodo and Sam in front of the Black Gate of Mordor). Does it make the movie more dramatic? Why does the part Liv Tyler plays have to be so extended? Is Gimli the Dwarf soleley there to get a few cheap laughs? Why does Gandalf`s reappearance have to be so over-dramatic and kitschy?
As a whole, the movie, even more than the first one, is way too trashy and has no atmoshere or mythical depth like the books. Most things are too obvious and in-your-face such as the cited toy dinosaurs the Black Riders are riding on. Or the scene in the Dead Marshes with the dead faces below the surface was like from a very cheap horror movie.
It is also sad that very little attention is paid to details which help build a credible world.
Why do the Hobbits have different accents? They are from the same place. Why do the Riders of Rohan not have different accents? They should have maybe Scandinavian accents or a little eastern European feeling to their way of speaking as they are modeled on North-Germanic and Russian tribes.
I also think the whole movie is way too light and the colours are too pale. Obviously, this was an artistic decision, maybe to make it look more unreal or something. But I also think many scenes are way too agressively lit. For instance, the background of Fangorn forest is light that you can almost see all the lamps behind the scene. I think that looks very cheap.
The one major surprise for me was Gollum. I think I have never seen such a well-animated character, much better than the digital Yoda we had to see recently. His schizophrenic scenes were fantastic.
This could have been an even greater movie if it had more atmosphere and wasn`t just a display of costumes, monster masks and toy monsters.

"The Two Towers" in the movie are Saruman`s fortress Isengard and Sauron`s, the towers of evil. But doesn`t it say at the end of the first book that the next book will tell the story of the two towers - Isengard and Minas Tirith, the capital of Gondor? I can`t check myself as I have given the books to a friend.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-21-2002, 09:05 PM:

Liked it.

Agreed with Bobby that the CGI work varied considerably in quality, from "awesome" (much better than FOTR) to "marginal." The pacing also seemed a bit screwy: things move too slowly in the first half, and at about the right speed during the second half. The battle scenes are great. I'm not sure how to compare this to FOTR, but I think I have a slight preference for FOTR.

As with FOTR, the score and acting were great.

I'm looking forward to seeing this again in the near future, as there is just too much to absorb in one viewing.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 12-21-2002, 11:17 PM:

As for subjective content, I'll have to defer to my younger daughter, who thoroughly enjoyed all 3 hours of it.

I thought it was pretty good, not having been able to see the whole thing in one sitting yet...

Technically, I had some real problems with my print. There were defects in 2 reels, which even had my booker questioning my observations. However, the reels were replaced within 24 hours of my report, and everything's ok now. Still, it seems we've had more than our share of print problems lately... and these darned lab splices don't help the attitude any.

I'm hoping the digital proponents don't dredge up the nerve to point out that their medium won't have these distracting mid-frame splices in them... especially as they're caused by studio economics in the first place. [Mad]

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 12-24-2002, 01:13 AM:

I generally liked Two Towers, but I have some nits to pick.

1. GOLLUM looks and talks too much like DOBBY the house elf.

2. When the Blond Elf dude has his big dying scene on the top of the wall, I thought it was the Blond Elf dude who was the fiend. But of course he was fine as I discovered later in the picture.

3. Ok, so there are two towers. So one is the evil hideout of the other wizard. What is the other tower?

Other than that, I thought the film was very good. I really want to get kissed by Liv Tyler. So whose bright idea was it to make Hugo Weaving an Elf?

I never want to meet an Ork, I’m certain that I would soon become Ork Chow. All I could think of during the final battle scene was that I really wanted a General Electric M-134 5.56mm/7.62mm Minigun.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 12-24-2002, 04:55 AM:

quote:
1. Gallum looks and talks too much like Doby the house elf.

Some facial expressions are indeed a bit similar and then of course the general appearance of both is a bit weird. But Gollum is really extremely well animated and "played". The character and his strange hissy way of talking were there a long time before Dobby or [Mad]

Jar Jar Binks [puke]

quote:
2. When the Blond Elf dude has his big dying scene on the top of the wall, I thought it was the Blond Elf dude who was the fiend. But of course he was fine as I discovered later in the picture.

Isn`t it overly obvious that the Elves are the really good and noble in the movie? What confused me a little bit about the Elven captain was that, if Elves are timeless undying creatures, why does he have so bad skin?

quote:
3. Ok, so there are two towers. So one is the evil hideout of the other wizard. What is the other tower?

In the movie, the other tower is the Tower in which Sauron - The Lord of the Rings - lives near the fiery mountain. There are a few shots where you look from the top of Isengard on which the fiery eye is across to Sauron`s dark tower.
But as I wrote, I am not even sure if that is what Tolkien meant (see 3 posts above).

Posted by Aldo Baez (Member # 790) on 12-24-2002, 10:03 AM:

The two towers is specifically pointing to the alliance between sauron and saruman and their towers. I haven't read the book in awhile but I don't recall him referring to isengard and minas tirith. Besides in the third book it's pretty much destroyed (in the movie and books).

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 12-24-2002, 07:42 PM:

Like I said, I have given the books to a friend so I can`t check myself. Maybe someone who has them at home can. There is a paragraph at the very end of "The Fellowship of the Ring" which announces the second book and what it wil be about. In this paragraph, it is explicitly stated which the two towers are.

Posted by Gracia L. Babbidge (Member # 582) on 12-26-2002, 02:10 AM:

*steps into geek mode*

Tolkein never intended for the Lord of the Rings to be published as anything other than one novel, and in fact hated the idea of it being split into three parts, but that's what ultimately happened. Publishers overriding authors. [Razz]

*getting a little more nit-picky*

*GOLLUM*
*DOBBY*

(correct spellings)

*calms down*

....and yes, I've watched 'the Two Towers' already. Three times. [Big Grin]

I was quite entertained for all three sessions. [Smile]

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 12-26-2002, 04:15 AM:

<RANT ON>
O.K. People. I liked this film. Those of you who want to compare it to other stories and films:

The original books were published in the 40's and 50's. I believe "The Hobbit" was published in the '30's.

If there would be any comparing it to any other fantasy film - you have to remember that the "Lord of The Rings" inspired just about every single sci-fi/fantasy writer in this century.

So "Dobbie" the house elf was a definate rip off of Gollum.

<RANT OFF>

As previously stated, this is the middle of the story, so the best is yet to come.

The ONLY complaint I have is the time in between. I think they should have spaced them out more like 6 months apart. Waiting a whole year really sucks!!!! [Eek!]

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 12-27-2002, 03:31 PM:

Dobby:
Gallum:

I groaned when Gallum used the "Smeagle is FREE!!!" line that was definately too close to the "Dobby is Free!" line. I am assuming that Peter Jackson didn't screen Harry Potter before making the final cut of Two Towers because I doubt that he would have left it in the movie. I am looking forward to him addressing the issue when the expanded DVD comes out next year.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 12-27-2002, 05:08 PM:

quote:
Like I said, I have given the books to a friend so I can`t check myself. Maybe someone who has them at home can. There is a paragraph at the very end of "The Fellowship of the Ring" which announces the second book and what it will be about. In this paragraph, it is explicitly stated which the two towers are.

Quoting myself here. Could somebody please check what it says at the very end of "The Fellowship of the Ring"?

Posted by Dwayne Caldwell (Member # 417) on 12-27-2002, 11:17 PM:

It's been a long time since I've read the books, and now I'm curious. Are Elven irises prone to color changes for some strange reason or did I witness a gross continuity error in the film? Because Legolas' eyes keep changing from blue to brown back and forth during a particular stretch in the film, and I noticed it about the time -MINOR SPOILER HERE- Aragorn makes it to Helm's Deep. Keep in mind Orlando Bloom's natural eye color is brown. And if it's a mistake, do you think Peter Jackson will digitize his eyes blue for the DVD release?

Of course this minor distraction doesn't change the fact I thought the movie ruled.

Posted by Chris Markiewicz (Member # 1415) on 12-28-2002, 11:20 PM:

At the end of the book The Fellowship of the Ring it is stated that "the second part is called THE TWO TOWERS, since the events in it are dominated by ORTHANC, the citadel of Saruman, and the fortress of MINAS MORGUL, that guards the secret entrance to Mordor."

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 12-29-2002, 12:22 PM:

Finally saw this yesterday and I liked it. The only part I didn't like was....
Well let me set this up
We got the ugliest bad guys that can be put on the screen, attacking a fortress that is better than the wicked witch of the east's. It's a life and death battle with the good guys losing. Heroes are falling all around and it looks like all is lost when someone in production decides it's time for a laugh???? So we see the blonde dude skateboard/surf/whatever down the stairs???? And then back to the story which was already in progress. Whoever came up with that idea needs to be locked in a room with those ugly dudes.
Is it now mandatory that we have a cgi character as the comic side kick?

Posted by Will Morrow (Member # 792) on 12-29-2002, 03:26 PM:

Astin was CGI? I didn't realize that. Sure explains a lot. ;-)

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 12-29-2002, 09:58 PM:

Thanks for checking that, Chris. My recollection wasn`t quite exact as to which the two towers were, but I was sure that it weren`t the two which were mentioned in the film. This underlines my basic impression even further that this movie deviates from Tolkien not just in a big number of details (which a movie necessarily has to do because it is an entirely different medium and has a different narrative time), but that is very unfaithful to the spirit of the books.
It is a very impressive movie production, but I think it entirely misses its point and uses Tolkien`s fantastic book as an excuse for a line-up of plastic monster masks and special effects.
The mythical atmosphere and density of the novels is completely lost.
Maybe someone from New Zealand can not be expected to have a feeling for the very rich and deep background of fairy tales, myths and epics of Europe that is behind this creation.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-31-2002, 01:28 AM:

Well I was dragged by my large family to this movie tonight, so it is time for my comments.

The movie had its good and its bad points. Of course I must first concentrate on the bad. I agree with Greg that there was way too much comic relief going on in what whas supposed to be dramatic scenes. I just can't get into movies that have "funny" going on with the "drama". I did not like some of the CGI effects. With the exception of Gollum, everything seemed to be rendered at a much lower resolution than the film was shot at, especially the water scene at the end. Looked awful. Plus much of the CGI animation just looked fake. Those 2 little bastards riding on that walking tree looked like a cardboard cutout bobbing up an down! The movie failed to hold my interest, and I found myself more interested in how fast the hairs on my arm were growing than what was going on onscreen. Also, if elves can be killed, why do they refer to men as "mortals"? That is retarded. You cannot call someone else "mortal" if there is any way that you yourself can die. And that elf died pretty easily. I bet they can commit suicide, too. So why does Liv Tyler have to worry if her boyfriend (who always seems to have a perfectly trimmed 5 o'clock shadow) dies? She can just kill herself. She doesn't have to live forever in emotional pain. Retarded retarded retarded!

The good points: Gollum's animation was done very well for the most part. High res! The movie opened fairly well until it got boring 15 minutes or so later. I really liked the first movie.

The presentation:
United Artists Continental 6, Denver CO.
Overall Rating: Mixed bag
Slideshow: Christie DLP motion slides presented in PowerPoint (or maybe Flash). Looked like crap! You could count the scanlines.
Picture: Very bright on the large Continental screen. Very sharp. I am not sure how big this screen is, but I'd reckon at least 80 feet or more in scope. (Christie package, by the way). Picture started out of frame.
Sound: Yuck! Waaaaaaay too much treble. I imagine that the CP500's EQ settings start out at the very bottom at 40Hz and gradually slant upwards the higher it goes. In other words, the higher the frequency, the more it was cranked. This auditorium didn't used to sound this bad. My house sounds better than this. Trailers and ads (all 15 billion of them) were played at an excruciatingly loud level. You would think that they would have learned how to play trailers at a lower level after all this time. Hell, when I worked there briefly I manually adjusted the volume for feature vs trailers.
Filmguard: Obviously not used
Dirt: lots of it at the many many splices throughout
Scratches: A few here and there, probably caused by the lab. However the Continental has obviously elected NOT to replace these reels.
Audience: Crap. I had forgotten how much I hate seeing movies with a big audience. They smell, they make noise, they need to be shot. The only movies that work well with an audience are comedies, which this movie tried to be apparently.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-31-2002, 10:06 PM:

12/31/2002, Regal Cinema World 8, Eugene OR, 3:45PM, #3, SDDS (I asked). Attendance about 200. See presentation comments below. This was my 2nd viewing. I used the freebie ticket that came with the LOTR DVD, and they still gave me 10 Regal Crown Club credits. Hot damn!

The movie has its good and its bad points. I will first concentrate on the bad... ... ... ... [processing] ... ... ... Well, I noticed one time, when Samwise was talking to Gollum, he seemed to be looking off to Gollum's side instead of right at him. And oh, yeah, when Merry and Pippin were riding in the trees (Ents?), it just looked kind of "wrong". These flaws maared at least 15 seconds of the film's 3-hour running time.

The good points: I enjoyed this WAY more on 2nd viewing because I could focus more on storyline and characters. Having worked in the videogame business for the past 9 years, I have oberved first-hand the creativity and dedication that goes into bringing this stuff to life. The makers sweat over so many small details (whether it's for a movie theater screen, or a computer screen). So I'll just say this (sorry for the cliches): "Two Towers" is one of the great modern film spectacles, an amazing achievement, and I really feel like I have to resort to petty nit-picking to say anything at all bad about it. I bet many people in the film biz look at Two Towers and say to themselves "I should someday be so lucky as to have my name associated with a film as good as that."

Presentation:
Overall Rating: Excellent. The hard-working and underappreciated staff of Cinema World deserves the 40-cent minimum-wage increase they're getting tomorrow. (I mean that sincerely. [Big Grin]

)
Slideshow: Conventional slides, which always look like crap (generally a combination of dim, dirty, fuzzy, and/or tilted). Not that I care though.
Non-sync: Val Kilmer's MovieTunes (is it MovieToons?). Val has a very promising fallback career going for himself in case his acting gig flops. Val has a good DJ voice, but it doesn't sound at all like him.
Picture: Imagery generated by some variation of a Simplex 35. Fixed-height screen is only about 30 feet in scope ("Just sit closer than you normally would!"). Uniformly sharp & bright, very steady. Reel-change splices were almost unnoticeable. If the image were centered just a little better in the masking, I would give it a "perfect".
Sound: Clean, crisp without being harsh, plenty of punch and directionality, and very deep bass. I didn't notice a single SDDS dropout. Most if not all the trailers also played in digital. "The Best Cinema Sound In This Hick Oregon Town!" would make a good slogan for Cinema World's newspaper ad. (Alternate suggestion:"Stadium seating is dangerous! You could fall on the stairs and poke your eye out!"
Dirt & Scratches: Almost zero dirt, and no scratches. Their print is near-flawless, even after 2 weeks on one of those platter contraptions (I think it's an ORC).
Audience: No gum snappers, seat kickers, talkers, cell phone users, wet hacking coughers, or unruly children today.

Posted by Paul Cassidy (Member # 951) on 01-01-2003, 08:03 AM:

I think some one from New Zealand can have a Feel for the rich mystical world of which is needed as New Zealand a very rich mystical heritage itself , if you ever explored the the Legends of the Maori People and their deep Mystical beliefs it would more that match the words written by Tolkien . [beer]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-01-2003, 12:22 PM:

First off...all three parts have been shot so it is unlikely they would have copied anything from Harry Potter.

Second... The Two Towers was bound to be the hardest film of the three. It is the middle part with no beginning nor end (tough on many movie goers to grasp). It it full of fighting which is exciting but too much of anything can be taxing. It also has the various parties breaking up so the audience has to keep up with the Frodo/Sam adventures, the Pippin/Merry adventures, and the Aragon/Legolas/Gimli adventures. And like magnets, each group pickup yet new characters...this much information can be a bit much for the typical movie goer!

Then there is the length...3 Hours is tough for many though if the subject is good, not nearly long enough. In fact, they didn't complete the story of The Two Towers . In the book, Frodo and Sam make it to the land of Mordor and we would have been left with a cliffhanger there (a better way to leave a middle part, in my opinion). So this part of the story must fall in the 3rd part The Return of the King. There is also some more left to to do at Isengard that has to be crammed into the 3rd part. The 3rd part is already much more complicated and they will have to loose something to keep it under 3-hours.

I much admire though how faithful they have been to the books and those cuts they have made are most understandable and forgivable.

Steve

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-01-2003, 08:15 PM:

Paul, I wasn`t saying that New Zealanders can not be mystical as such. All people have myths and fairy tales. What I mean is that I doubt (after watching this movie) if there is an understanding for the "atmosphere" especially of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Scandinavian, German and Russian legends and epics that Tolkien was inspired by. It is of course very difficult to describe that in words. Maybe I could try to describe it as "earthy", "heavy", very dark or sinister and cold. "Excalibur" would be a good example for a film which catches that. "The 13th Warrior" (BTW written and directed by Americans) was also more successful in catching that. Ironically, "Monty Python and the Holy Grail", while a comedy may give you an idea of what I mean. Also "Jabberwocky" (directed by American Terry Gilliam, but with extreme sensitivity for the image world of medieval England). Or listen to Sibelius, especially the 2nd movement of the 1st symphony, the whole 1st and 4th symphonies, "Tapiola" or "The Swan of Tuonela".
What makes Tolkien so fascinating for European readers is that the atmosphere of the medieval and Dark Age world as it perceived through legends and more importantly, landscapes, old castles, dark northern forest etc. is so believeable and "realistic". The fantastic events of his books become all the more fascinating because they appear so "realistic". The movie lacks that feeling completely.
I have no idea what Maori legends are like, but the images of their culture, housing, weapons etc. I have seen and the feeling they transport are completely unlike those of the northern European countries. That does not mean that they are less mystical and deep.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 01-01-2003, 10:36 PM:

This is directed at those that love to trash any movie in general because the book was better...

The one problem about avid book lovers who try to diss on cinema from books, is that they miss the entire point that bieng faithful the the images and concept of more than 100 million individual people is statistically impossible.

For you who found it totally offensive and not true to form, while I found it enlightening and wonderful, remember that you are not J.R.R. Tolkien. He is dead. I am sure that if he was not, he would be able to tell us if he likes this movie or not. Considering he is dead, we will just have to trust that the movie is just that... A MOVIE. It is not the book.

Don't get me wrong. It is just that you are trashing the film in general because it doesn't meet your personal expectations, and you have this sincere desire to make the rest of us feel that same pain you feel.

However, not all will agree that this film is not what it should be.

That is not to say that I was not bored to tears or anything, in fact, besides Gollum, the last hour was the only thing that really held my attention.

That is not to say that it didn't meet my expectations of the movie after having read the books. It did just that, knowing full damn well that you cannot cram those books into three hours without some directorial interpretation.

And what do you want for bad guys? You want that they should all be dressed up as circus clowns and carry balloons? Come on! It worked and it was very effective for 95 percent of the crowd, which is who actually pays for us to keep talking about this subject adinfanitem.. or whatever...

I loved the movie, will see it again, and if anything, it will hopefully encourage a whole new generation of youth to start reading again.

Dave

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-01-2003, 11:39 PM:

I thought Legolas surfing down the stairs during the battle was kind of stupid. But it was kind of funny when the good guy pushed that ladder backwards and smashed a bunch of baddies down below.

Posted by Lionel Fouillen (Member # 1475) on 01-02-2003, 05:37 AM:

I saw it a few days ago at the 5:00pm performance.

The film
Basically I'm not a Tolkien fan. My grandmother offered me the books when I was a teenager but I remember giving up reading The Fellowship of the Ring after about 30 pages. Too boring! I didn't see it at the theatre either but accepted to make an effort and watched the VHS at home a few months ago. I really loved it and was impatient to see the second installment.

The Two Towers is not boring but I had the feeling to see the same thing over and over for 3 hours. That's the usual problem with a central part of a work, as Steve mentioned. I liked it but I won't see it another time. What I don't like though is that, in most films like that today, you just seem to attend a special effects show where you can hardly notice somebody or something real! However a few scenes were very spectacular, especially when the Orks blow up the fortress ramparts.

The theatre
I saw it at the Opera 6-plex in Liège, in the larger auditorium (463 seats). I hadn't come to this multiplex for a few years, favoring the newer Kinepolis outside the town for its much better quality.

When I entered the auditorium, I was struck to see how sticky it became. The seats have never been changed since the opening of the multiplex in 1981 (where Raiders of the Lost Ark premiered with no sound during the first 5 minutes). Entire rows were broken-down (actually the best seats [Mad]

) and the seats were piled in a corner of the auditorium. A few bulbs for the auditorium lighting weren't working. Last but not least, there was a slight smell of piss in the air!

The projection in itself was good (good focus and sound volume), the automation system didn't fail and the scope lens and plate came at the right place at the right moment. I didn't notice dirt or scratches on the print. The only problem is that speakers cracked every time the sound source was switched (non-sync/analog ads and trailers/digital LOTR).

The attendance was low (approx. 50). During the ads and trailers, a kid started to play with a Gameboy or something and his mum didn't tell him to stop. Fortunately he stopped before the feature started. During the film, two cell phones rang but their owners immediately switched them off.

In the middle of the film, I needed to go to the toilet. Usually there is always a member of staff to watch after it and make sure it remains clean. This time there was nobody and it wasn't fully clean. Also, a panel still displayed "Toilets: 10 BEF" (although we use the Euro currency since 1st January 2002).

When the show ended, I wanted to complain about the poor conditions of the theatre but couldn't see any staff. I got out of the theatre using the main exit along with most spectators. This also stands for the emergency exit. Previously somebody apparently spilled a bucket of soda on the floor so it felt sticky when I walked on it (and there was no way to walk around it). The guy in front of me pushed the final exit door (this is a typical emergency door - "PUSH BAR TO OPEN") but the door never opened! It was stuck for some reason. So he pushed the other door next to it and, at last, I was back to civilization...

To all movie-goers out there, if you ever come to Liege, don't go to the Opera Cinema!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-02-2003, 11:00 AM:

Here's the article in the December 2002 issue of American Cinematographer:

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/dec02/two/index.html

Kodak camera negative films were used for the original photography, but a 2K "digital intermediate" was used.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-02-2003, 11:26 AM:

EDIT: Never mind, my question was answered in John's link.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-02-2003, 12:56 PM:

quote:
Kodak camera negative films were used for the original photography, but a 2K "digital intermediate" was used.

Aha! So that's why it had that videoish look to it. Too much edge enhancement and compression artifacts.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-02-2003, 01:18 PM:

Most agree that a 2K scan does not capture all the information on the original 35mm film negative. Eventually, higher quality 4K scans should become the norm:

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/products/v2/sehlin.shtml

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/products/v2/sehlin04.shtml

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/students/onCampus/oct2001/dfm.shtml

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/forum/featureFilms/stuartLittleP.shtml

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-02-2003, 04:12 PM:

Of course, all I could think was..."this should have been shot in 65mm!

Steve

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-03-2003, 09:42 AM:

Steve Guttag wrote: "..."this should have been shot in 65mm!"

[Cool]

With 70mm prints for the largest screens. [Smile]

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/dec98.shtml

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/march99.shtml

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 01-10-2003, 03:59 PM:

Bit of humour...
http://www.bbspot.com/News/2003/01/jaromir.html