The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (Widescreen Edition) (2002)

I am sure that there are those who are bothered, angry even, that Peter Jackson didn't take a more literal approach to his "Lord of the Rings" films. To those people I would say that a literal word for word translation from text to screen (assuming such a thing were possible, which it's not) would be nothing but mimicry and in no way a tribute to Tolkien's genius. Rather, I would argue that Jackson's superb interpretation of "The Two Towers" beautifully captures the spirit of Tolkien without being slavish in its devotion. Moreover, Jackson successfully grounds his film in a recognizable reality, which serves to further engage the viewer.There are three ways (generally speaking) in which Jackson puts his fingerprint on Tolkien. The first is his interpretation of the text; areas in which without changing Tolkien he is nonetheless able to put his own spin on the text. There are two salient and superb examples of this that come immediately to mind. The first is that Jackson presents Gollum/Smeagol as a split personality. Gollum is a malevolent deceitful being who lusts after the ring, and Smeagol is an almost childlike creature, fierce in his devotion, but easily hurt. I found this approach to be utterly compelling, and a superb way to present Gollum, but at the same time, it is totally loyal to Tolkien's writing. The second example is the presentation of Gandalf freeing Theoden from Saruman as a sort of exorcism. Not only was this a visually intriguing way to present the scene, but it also shows great appreciation for Tolkien as a man. As a devout Catholic, I suspect he would have appreciated the overtones that swirl about the exchange.The second way in which Jackson captures Tolkien is in his portrayal of the characters. Given the constraints of the film format, the director is forced to both condense and flesh out various characters and exchanges. As such, it is critical that he portrays the characters appropriately, but within the context of the movie. There are any number of excellent examples to Jackson's characterizations, but there are a few that come immediately to mind. The first is using Gimli as much needed comic relief, but doing so in such a way that doesn't degrade the character. In fact, it has quite the opposite effect as it lends a certain emotional depth to the stalwart dwarf. Another example is the conflicted Theoden who is almost Shakespearean in his portrayal. Particularly moving was when at Theodred's grave he flatly states, "No parent should have to bury their child" and then breaks down. Finally, Eowyn's unrequited love for Aragorn is nicely captured, and largely without any dialogue, using glances and expressions to convey the story.Finally, there is Jackson's modification of Tolkien in order to both make the story work as a film and ground it in our present day reality. Most surprising among these is the appearance of the Elves at Helm's Deep, as they come to honor the old alliances. While completely absent from Tolkien's writing, I found this to be an excellent and effective modification. By introducing the Elves, Jackson is able to paint a portrait of Allies fighting against a common enemy in the World War II sense. Moreover, the elite Elves and Rohirrim fighting side by side against overwhelming odds echoes Thermopylae, where the grossly outnumbered Spartans saved Greece, and ultimately, Western Civilization, from the Persians. The second approach is more subtle, but completely pervasive as Jackson takes a fantasy war and couches it in familiar terms. For example there is a suicide bombing at one point during the Battle of Helm's Deep. While entirely within the context of Tolkien, Jackson's presentation rather brutally echoes our own dangerous world. Another fine example is Theoden's question, "What can men do against such reckless hate?" which rather succinctly captures the dilemma of fighting terrorism.My only two complaints are relatively small. The first is an entirely unnecessary dream sequence between Arwen and Aragorn which badly distracts from the mounting tension between him and Eowyn. The second is that while Faramir is ultimately true to the book, it takes far too long for him to realize the danger of the ring. Part of the beauty of his character is how he stands in contrast to his brother Boromir, and this is somewhat eroded by Jackson's interpretation.As for the discs themselves, they are everything one would expect based upon the first set, as the sound, picture and score are all superb. Furthermore, I found the additional scenes to be generally excellent. Theodred's funeral, which features a lament by Eowyn, was particularly moving. Also, through the addition of a few key scenes, I found the ending to be far more satisfying. The conclusions to the Battles of Helms Deep an Isengard are less abrupt, and Faramir is better rounded out.The extras are likewise superb and every bit as fascinating as the features from the first set. I'm not one who is easily drawn in by commetary on costumes and make-up, but these discs are so comprehensive it is impossible not to be drawn in by them. Finally, the audio commentaries are likewise comprehensive and interesting.If you are looking for a slavish recreation of Tolkien's work, you would do well to pass on these discs. However, if you appreciate the spirit of Tolkien's work, and fine filmmaking, you would do well to watch this film. Furthermore, you will never find a better value, as the extra's included in this four disc set once again set the standard to which all other releases must strive.Enjoy!Jake Mohlman

One of the great movies of all time. If you love fantasy, epic battles and an amazing story perfectly directed this is the movie for you.

Great to for mind an peace

No matter how many times I watch this movie, I am always amazed! Love it! Lots of violence & death. Not for children

Although it is not really necessary to stick to the knitting of the script of Tolkein's book, what the extended version displays in dramatic form is how far from the environmental and anti-violence message Jackson's theatrical edition has strayed. Given the advance complaints from Christopher Lee about the hatcheting of the third film, it might just be best to wait until the extended DVD comes out next Christmas. We'll find out soon enough. A question for Jackson: why would you edit the third film anyway? There is no fourth. Do it right, for a change.As to this film, as with the first, much of the extra footage fills in details or gives more substance that in the theatre release seemed to be passing nods to cognoscenti who may have brushed up on the book just before curtain. However, there are some critical passages that SHOULD have been in: most notably, "Sons of the Steward" segment, the initial capture of Frodo & Sam by Faramir, and most importantly, "Flotsam and Jetsam." In the case of the first, the essential dialectic between two sons of a father already unkowingly corrupted by the lure of the ring addresses everything from the literal implications to the endless psychological and family issues involved in the passing of one generation to another, be it business or early onset Alzheimers. But critically to the third film, this scene lays out what is a very key part of the conclusion of the story and why Middle Earth will be forever changed when it passes to men.As to Frodo's initial capture by Faramir, they come across a fallen opponent and Faramir delivers an oratory that is right at the heart of the tragedy of war, and this is a story borne of a tragedy in Europe in which young men answered calls and found their death. On top of the contextual part, the actuial acting in these two scenes is among the best in the series thus far. Pity. Do we really need more of the "Guns of Navaronne" type of film-making? Essentially all war movies are the same: stress in anticpation, catharsis in battle, sacrifice in the aftermath. What changes is the quality of the toys used to display it. That is NOT what the story is about.The Sons scene deleted also gives depth to Framir's confrontation with Frodo and Sam in the cave and establishes the ethical and the metaphysical reason why he, and not Boromir, should survive and have an important future in Middle Earth.Many of the other characters are given much more detail as well: Eowyn's part makes sense in this film now. She isn't just Renaissance eye-candy. The Ents are less Disney-like cartoons and actually manage to reel off both Tolkien's interest in lyrical poetry and the Heideggerian question concerning technology and the environment in more than broad pastiche.And that brings us to Flotsam: much has been made of Jackson's omission of the spider, which, honestly, is a mere dramatic device to advance the story (a more nefarious Tom Bombadill, if you will) that can be quickly addressed in #3. But at the fall of Isengaard, there is an essential confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman that defines the entire conflict that knowledge and power can produce among the knowing and the innocent. In the course of this confrontation, an orb is picked up that has enormous ontological consequences as the story unfolds. It ties in with the entire issue of knowledge, power, corruption and innocence. This is precisely how the movie should have ended, and more's the pity that Jackson took the Jerry Bruckheimer route.That said, and as the rumours begin to fly about the editing of RETURN OF THE KING, the third film is in danger of going Hollywood. I wept at the end of the books, and I suspect I'll just be full of popcorn with Jackson's resolution of the human factors, the exitential confrontations, the mythological interpretation of death and loss.This edition is truly what the second film should have been. If you love the story, pick this up.As to the superfluous material scattered over the other 2 discs, it's mostly for the Mac graphically inclined, but the discussion about Tolkien, featuring notably Christopher Lee, and the New Zealand as Middle Earth segments are terrific. Regarding Tolkien, the various talking heads give you an historical context, but unless you're literate enough to understand the dynamics between Tolkien and C.C. Lewis and even Charles Williams for that matter, this might be lost on the casual viewer. Still, I'm glad it's here. Tends to validate Lee's criticism's of Jackson's editing as well. It would be well to keep in mind that when published, it was ridiculed at Oxford as "Bored of the Rings" and actually never really achieved its legendary status until the hippies re-discovered it in the sixties. What began as an academic way of comforting his son in the midst of WW2 inspired so many of us later to be concerned about the very life-stuff of this planet, human and otherwise.