The Two Towers

A movie review by David Means

I found The Two Towers (hereinafter TT) to be a more intense film, with more action and lots more character development than The Fellowship of the Ring (FotR); much like the relationship between The Empire Strikes Back and A New Hope. Now that we are past the initial character introductions and situational set-up, we can really delve into the meat of the story, and that is what TT does.

Just like the FotR, there were some departures from Tolkien’s original, but only in one instance did I find it serious enough to complain about. (More about that below.) Despite the changes, the outcome of the different situations was essentially the same as the book. What was lost in translating the book to film was, just like FotR, some of the interesting details.

Some of the pluses in TT: The battle with the Wargs that was skipped in the first film pops up here in a different setting. There is more of the tension between Elrond and Arwen about her decision to give up her Elven immortality to be with Aragorn (although I thought the film spent too much time on this). We get to see more of the battle between Gandalf and the Balrog. We meet Eowyn and she turns out to be prettier, in a girl-next-door way, than the Elven women Arwen and Galadriel. Brad Dourif (Pieter De Vries in the 1984 "Dune" movie) makes a great Grima/Wormtongue. The Ents look great, as do the close-ups of the towers of Barad-Dur and Orthanc.

The battle at Helm’s Deep was well done, including the contest between Legolas and Gimli about who kills the greater number of Orcs -- although the subject was dropped and the final tallies never given. (Perhaps that will be fixed in the extended-version DVD.) The Black Gate of Morannon -- the northern entrance into Mordor -- was extremely impressive, especially the rock trolls which hauled it open and closed. We see the arrival of troops of both Easterlings and Southrons at Mordor, including two Oliphaunts, which are incredibly huge. The Dead Marshes are quite icky. 

I had always pictured the winged beasts the Nazgul ride as being something like pteranadons, but the creatures they are mounted on in the movie are sufficiently repulsive and evil-looking. 

The movie ends somewhat before the book did, but it is so full that you really don’t miss it. The parlay with the defeated Saruman in Orthanc and the whole encounter with Shelob have apparently been moved to the third movie, probably to maintain continuity and allow them to ‘compress’ the scenes.

I thought that Gollum was great, especially the conversations between Slinker and Stinker, as Sam names the mental halves. Gollum is one of the stars of this film, and will probably be one in the next one, also. Was it my imagination, or did Gollum and Frodo have a definite facial resemblance? I believe it was deliberate, to give Frodo a reminder of "There, but for the grace of the Valar, go I".

Some quibbles: The Ents did not walk as fast as the book describes them ("legs moving as fast as a gull’s wings"). Post-healing Theoden seems awfully belligerent and much too easily offended whenever Aragorn or Gandalf makes a suggestion about what he should do; far different from the grandfatherly persona he projects in the book. Erkenbrand is written out and his actions given to Eomer. The huorns are completely gone from the story -- but if Tom Bombadil can be cut from FotR, the huorns can be cut from TT.

POTENTIAL SPOILER INFO NEXT SEVEN PARAGRAPHS! Don’t read unless you’ve seen the movie!

I didn’t like the fact that Entmoot ended with the Ents voting against helping fight Saruman. The whole point of that episode in the book was that, as the Ents discussed Saruman’s treachery, their anger slowly mounted, they decided they had had enough, then marched off to see what they could do. The movie has the Ents deciding Saruman is Men’s problem, not theirs. Only when Fangorn sees the groves that have been cut down by Saruman’s orcs does he get angry and summon the other Ents. Yes, they finally fight (and the scene of the flooding of Isengard is great), but I fail to comprehend the departure from the book. Also, they skipped the "Ent draughts" taken by Merry and Pippin, but that is minor.

The business with Aragorn being dragged off a cliff by a Warg and falling into a river seemed to be inserted for the express purpose of that hokey "reawakened by true love’s kiss" scene, and to let him see Saruman’s army, which they already know is coming.

My most serious complaint has to do with the entire interaction between Frodo, Sam, and Faramir. In the books, Boromir is a proud man who slowly succumbs to the lure of the Ring, tries to take it by force, but realizes his error and dies nobly, protecting the hobbits. Faramir is presented as a more well-rounded man, skilled in both weapons and lore, and the more emotionally mature of the two brothers. He is tempted by the Ring, but is able to resist, treats Frodo and Sam with courtesy, then speeds them on their way.

In the movies, Boromir’s actions parallel his actions in the books, all the way from the Council of Elrond to his death at Tindrock Isle. In the movie, Faramir’s actions are completely contrary to his character in the book. In the movie, the "weak" Boromir holds out for several weeks against the lure of the Ring, while the supposedly "stronger" Faramir doesn’t last two minutes. 

As soon as Faramir finds out that Sam and Frodo have Sauron’s Ring, he bundles them up to take back to Denethor in Minas Tirith. Instead of the even-handed, careful, intelligent man we know from the book, Faramir has been re-written into a complete cad and bounder; a venal son who would apparently do anything to curry favor with his father. Although he does the right thing eventually by letting Sam, Frodo, and Gollum go, at this point the character is unlikeable, and certainly not worthy to be the future husband of pure-at-heart Eowyn.

As Marisa put it, "If the story of The Two Towers were a piece of music, then Faramir’s portrayal is a series of sour chords. So many nuances of the character were just wrong." In an otherwise excellent film, this character simply doesn’t ring true to Tolkien’s vision.

I realize the changes were made to heighten dramatic tension, and that only those who have read the books beforehand would know the difference, but by completely inverting the character of Faramir, I think Peter Jackson and the scriptwriters have done the viewing public a disservice. Anyone who reads the trilogy after seeing the movie is going to be rather confused by Faramir’s different conduct and personality. I was severely disappointed by that whole segment, and it seriously reduced my enjoyment of the film.

END OF SPOILER SECTION.

Anyhow, that is my two "silver pennies" worth. Anyone else have comments or questions?