Wednesday, December 18, 2002
Well, I've seen The Two Towers.
Now, I'm not one of those people who thought that Lord of the Rings was the best thing ever to happen to the cinema. Sure, they're nice movies, but I don't rate them as the greatest films I've ever seen. I was looking forward to The Two Towers though, and overall, I did enjoy it. It's a beautiful and engaging fantasy epic, like its prequel.
But I was wrong in thinking that it might be better than The Fellowship of the Ring -- even if it didn't seem to have quite as many gratuitous fight scenes. That is not to imply that a lot of things weren't gratuitous, however; there were a number of additions that didn't make sense or weren't needed at all -- especially the inclusion of Arwen and that bizarre Aragorn-falls-off-a-cliff bit.
I found the pacing for Fellowship a bit too quick, compared to the book -- but I was able to understand the necessity for translating it to film. With Two Towers, on the other hand, I find the pacing rather jarring in places. I think this has much to do with the way the different scenes between Merry and Pippin; Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, etc.; and Frodo and Sam were organized. The film doesn't always adhere to the book's timing for the meetings and rejoinings of the characters, and in turn I think this disrupts the pace. For example, Merry and Pippin end up spending the entire movie with Treebeard, who, while he looks really cool, has a couple of characterization problems. They never meet again with Gandalf or Aragorn -- not in this movie, anyway.
I thought the ending to be lacking entirely. The confrontation of Gandalf and Saruman, and the confiscation of the Seeing Stone, was left out completely, though one hopes that it will be addressed in the next film. I found this rather disappointing, personally, as I was particularly looking forward to that scene. Equally irksome was the fact that the scene with the Shelob was also left out, or left for the next film. Sam's noble decision to take the ring is such a better conclusion; it was a mistake to save that for later. What annoys me, though, is that there would have been enough room for the proper ending had the pointless scenes with Arwen, etc., been cut.
The acting was generally very good, although there were some disappointing character developments, namely Gimli's taking on the role of comic relief in the absence of Merry and Pippin, and the Ents weren't nearly as vehemently outraged about the destruction of the forest as they should have been, not till the very end. But the friendly competition between Legolas and Gimli was maintained, and the unwavering partnership between Frodo and Sam was, in my opinion, well done, as was Frodo's weakening resistance to the Ring. I was impressed with Faramir's resemblance, in appearance and personality, to Boromir; and Theoden's performance at Helm's Deep. And Gandalf, of course, does not disappoint.
The setting and technical aspects were, of course, amazing. That country is absolutely gorgeous, and I loved the design of Helm's Deep; it was so close to what I imagined. Everything about the film is so precise and beautifully done, and no one can fault the sets and costumes and graphics for this movie.
But the best thing about the film, the most accurate and wonderful character, was Gollum. I never, ever thought I would say that about a CG character -- but for this movie, it's absolutely true. Gollum is perfect; it's worth seeing the movie just for him. The way the duality of his nature is shown, as he argues with himself in the dark, is so fascinating and creepy and just wonderful. It's so easy to find both sympathy and hatred for the creature. It's a truly great portrayal.
So yes, despite its flaws, it's a good film; go see it (as if I actually have to tell you guys). I don't think it's one for the ranting purist, though. Alec, as I said earlier, for the sake of your sanity, do not go and see this film. :)
| 9:24 PM |
Comments
Who am I? I'm a twenty-two-
