Lord of the Rings: Two Towers Reviews Rolling In 440
flogger writes "After the first showing of The Two Towers, the reviews are now coming in. They are positive and SPOILER FILLED. Reviews can be found here, here and a short one here." Don't say you weren't warned. I'm not reading them. I finished re-reading TTT saturday, and am ready to see Ents walk.
Spoiler filled? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Spoiler filled? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Spoiler filled? (Score:5, Funny)
I've got this genious rendering engine called B.R.A.I.N. It renders hundreds of thousands of characters realtime and it looks so realistic. All you have to do is input a text (ASCII not an requirement) and it output gorgeous scenes instantanious.
Re:Spoiler filled? (Score:2, Funny)
WOW! I know some people who could use one of these...
Re:Spoiler filled? (Score:3, Funny)
Goes something like..
"That is nothing, I can get several trillion polygons with billions of colors at thousands of frames per second! It is called outside, you should try it some time. Check out the cool wind special effects some time as well
Jeremy
Re:Spoiler filled? (Score:3, Informative)
If there's a question, there's a Google [google.com]
Re:Spoiler filled? (Score:4, Informative)
It is both spoiler filled for both those that have and have not read the books.
All info on the new film will be spoilerish for people that have not read the books (a surprisingly large group).
Information pertaining to specific changes and added scenes as well as descriptions of the flow of the narrative would be spoilers even for the crowd that has read the books.
Re:Spoiler filled? (Score:4, Insightful)
There are also some of us (well, me at least) who read the books many years ago and can only remember sketchy details. I don't know if being reminded of forgotten plot points counts as being spoiled, but I'm happier rediscovering them as the films progress.
Re:Spoiler filled? (Score:3, Insightful)
I couldn't agree more. Films aren't jack-in-the-boxes or jokes with punch lines.
Re:Spoiler filled? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Spoiler filled? (Score:3, Funny)
The butler did it.
It turns out that he was dead all along.
She's a guy.
Re:Spoiler filled? (Score:2, Funny)
He's "mother"
Vader is Luke's father
Samuel L. Jackson caused all those accidents
He dies in the end. Judas betrays him.
Re:Spoiler filled? (Score:5, Funny)
Man, you didn't stay until the end of the credits, did you? Yeah, he dies at the end, but get this -- three days later they go to the gravesite, and IT'S EMPTY! Creepy, right? But then he actually like shows up and it turns out he came back to life. Seriously, dude. His old friends are freaked out for a while, but then they get used to it. And then they all hang out on the beach and have this fish barbecue, but I'm not sure what's up with that.
Re:Spoiler filled? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Spoiler filled? (Score:2)
And the Lone Gunmen buy the farm.
Re:Spoiler filled? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Trolling avoidance FAQ V1.0b (Score:3, Funny)
Is Micros~1 acceptable?
Re:Trolling avoidance FAQ V1.0b (Score:2)
Here's a hint, world! No one uses DOS anymore! We don't need 8.3 filenames!
Re:Spoiler filled? (Score:3, Funny)
Not watch it? That seems a bit extreme.
Perhaps they should put a new message up at theatres, "Warning, this movie contains spoilers for this movie."
Offensive title (Score:4, Funny)
What was wrong with The Lord of the Rings II?
Re:Offensive title (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Offensive title (Score:5, Funny)
2001: An Urban Crisis Odyssey? Osama of Arabia? The Wizard of Afghanistan? The Day the Earth Watched TV? Birth of a Palestinian Nation? Casabinladen?
Re:Offensive title (Score:5, Funny)
The Hobbit Episode II, III and IV,
and then the Hobbit will be released about 20 years from now, along with enhanced Episodes II, III and IV featuring a digitally inserted Tom Bombadil with a Jamaican accent and dreadlocks.
Or wait, should they be The Silmarillion Episodes III, IV and V
Or maybe...
Re:Offensive title (Score:2)
Boing
Re:Offensive title (Score:3, Funny)
Lord of the Rings II: Electric Boogaloo
and maybe a huge dance number on the battle front with Michael Jackson and 40,000 orcs.
Re:Offensive title (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Offensive title (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Offensive title (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Offensive title (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Offensive title (Score:2)
Re:DUMB PIECE OF AMERICAN, UNEDUCATED, PATRIOTIC S (Score:2)
Re:DUMB PIECE OF AMERICAN, UNEDUCATED, PATRIOTIC S (Score:2, Informative)
The second half (the 4th book) revolves around the trek of Sam and Frodo to destroy the one ring, whose power was used to build the foundations of the mighty tower of Barad-Dur.
With these 2 structures featured heavily, there seems little other reason how Tolkien came to the title.
Re:DUMB PIECE OF AMERICAN, UNEDUCATED, PATRIOTIC S (Score:5, Interesting)
Taken from JRRT's letters. You will easily find many more references on google.
"I am not at all happy about the title `the Two Towers'. It must if there is any real reference in it to Vol II refer to Orthanc and the Tower of Cirith Ungol. But since there is so much made of the basic opposition of the Dark Tower and Minas Tirith, that seems very misleading." [Letter #143]
You see?
Re:Offensive title (supplemental) (Score:3, Funny)
Free pass in the super duper DVD box set. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Free pass in the super duper DVD box set. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Free pass in the super duper DVD box set. (Score:2)
Re:What what? (Score:2)
Re:Free pass in the super duper DVD box set. (Score:2)
Spoilers?!? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Spoilers?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Spoilers?!? (Score:2)
SPOILERS, OH NOES!!! (Score:5, Funny)
-_-
the battle (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyways, the LOTR movies are a must watch : can't be missed. Though not in the same league as the Star Wars movie, they are a similar phenomenon. Similarly the Matrix movies will not be missed by most geeks. Other movies to watch out for - Star Trek Nemesis ; Equilibrium ; Terminator 3
Re:the battle (Score:3, Interesting)
LotR > Star Wars.
Re:the battle (Score:2)
While both movies are heavy of effects, Star Wars (which I really do like) comes across like a cartoon and FotR comes across like it's real. Not because of technical skill, but because of the way they were used. Also, FotR had many wonderful performances, especially Ian McKellan, but the whole cast was great. The acting in Star Wars II makes Al Gore look passionate and vivacious. (See my previous post in another thread for the summation of Anakin and Amidala's relationsship in 6 lines of dialogue).
Re:the battle (Score:2)
I agree completely, LOTR is not in the same league as Star Wars - LOTR is just so much better ;)
Seriously, this is mostly about taste - I personally look much more forward to TTT than I did to AOTC, but that is just my personal opinion.
Re:the battle (Score:2)
Please explain further why Star Wars is in its own league. I would really love to hear the sides as to why Star Wars is better than anything else. I know we have some Trek's here too so let bring it all out while we are at it! Personally I don't go crazy for Star War; I waited for a friend to rent Phantom Menace and did not even bother watching Attack of the Clones (???). So I'm oblivious to anything relating to Star Wars so enlighten me please.
Re:the battle (Score:2)
LOTR (Score:2, Funny)
Where can I get the Cliff's Notes?
Re:LOTR (Score:2)
Not in the book... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not in the book... (Score:4, Funny)
moderation totals:Informative=1, Funny=1, Total=2
Funny information isnt it... moderators repeat after me: I wont have crack early in morning,I wont have crack early in morning,
I wont have crack early in morning,
I wont have crack early in morning,
Re:Not in the book... (Score:2)
Am I the only one ... (Score:5, Interesting)
seriously, some movies I'll see no matter what the reviewer says,
LOTR is one (three) of those.
I'll read the reviews solely for the purpose of getting other people's take on the movies. Like the "discussion" part of an article comes after
the "results" section.
I know it sounds sick but hey
Re:Am I the only one ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you do that?
So you know whether or not you liked the film?
Szo
Re:Am I the only one ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Am I the only one ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Quite effective, actually.
Spoilers right in the story (Score:5, Funny)
Well that's ruined that bit for me.
Re:Spoilers right in the story (Score:2, Funny)
I can wait... (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, it is entirely possible that I will wait until the "Final" movie is released and get the "Super Mega Ultra Complete (untill the Sequel/Prequel) Boxed Set Collectors Version Directors Cut" and waste a whole week watching it.
Or I might just keep my money in my pocket and read a good book.
Re:I can wait... (Score:2, Redundant)
In a few minutes, I'm going to take a dump. No wait, I might wait until tonight, and take a "Super Mega Ultra Complete (until the Sequel/Prequel) Collectors Version Directors Cut" dump.
Or I might just keep my poop inside me and read a good book.
Re:I can wait... (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact that a plethora of "Director's Cut" DVDs argue against this claim notwithstanding, you are mistaken.
The director's cut is, simply enough, the director's last contribution to the film. Only a handful of directors are so well-respected/full of themselves to have so-called 'final cut' rights, wherein the director's cut really IS what you see on the theater screen.
For those directors not lucky enough to be in this group of maybe 5-10 directors, once they've finished their cut the film goes to the producers, who remove scenes that drag, reposition scenes to improve the flow of the story, and generally do their best to make sure the film is as accessible and lucrative as possible.
Some producers are phenomenally good at this. Jerry Bruckheimer springs to mind. He is as famous and sought after as he is because he can take a movie that's an utter piece of crap and turn it into a moderately high grossing piece of crap.
But, given that it is the fashion of the moment in Hollywood to imbue the director with a mystique that suggests he is the only person that really, truly counts when it comes to filmmaking, it is inevitable that "Director's Cut" DVDs get made. After all, who knows better than the director how the movie should be?
The sad truth that most movie fanboys (and naturally directors) ignore is that usually the director's cut is inferior to the cut put together by a talented producer. Often the director is so close to the source material that he cannot see subtle errors or elements that are inaccessible to the audience, let alone places that are simply uninteresting or weak. To him, those things have become a natural part of the plot, something the viewer *has* to see to truly appreciate the film.
Such problems are only compounded when the director, in addition to usurping the role of the producer, takes on the task of a screenwriter as well. None of these roles is especially easy, and while I concede that a rare individual might combine all the talents necessary to be a good writer, director and producer, I am quite unconvinced that any such individuals are presently working in the industry.
One example of this last should suffice: George Lucas' recent Star Wars films. Who out there hasn't longed for a "Producer's Cut" of Episode 1, where Jar Jar is silently snipped from sight for all time? Or for a "Talented Writer's Cut" of Episode 2, where Anakin is treated with more subtlety, given nuances of darkness rather than blatantly plotted as an angsty misunderstood passionate teenager whose turn to the dark side is inevitable?
Re:I can wait... (Score:3, Informative)
So when the previous poster was referring to buying a director's cut, Phil made an attempt towards a joke that no one is getting.
Re:I can wait... (Score:2)
Not always. Many movies are cut on orders from the studio, often for length if nothing else. Other things may be added or taken out if the moneybags don't like what the director came up with. Blade Runner is an example; the director's cut is a much better movie than the original release.
Re:I can wait... (Score:3, Funny)
Unbiased reviews (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't it possible to find a review from someone who isn't an obsessive zealot? I'm interested in finding out how good the film is, and I'm not going to get that from someone who has decided he's going to enjoy the film before he's even seen it.
Secondly, what is the point in having spoilers in a review? The whole point in a review is that you can find out how good the film is, so you can decide whether to see it or not. By giving away what happens in the film, you sort of take away the fun in watching it in the first place. Most reviewers seem to get by reviewing films without giving away every single thing that happens, why can't these reviewers?
Looks like I'll just have to see what the Filthy Critic says, although if he does review it it probably won't be up till February, and then he'll spend 90% of the review talking about his personal problems.
Re:Unbiased reviews (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at the imdb [imdb.com] - it has a 9.5 right now. I remember when the FOtR came out and it jumped to number one on the "best movies ever" list (#1 fantasy movie of all time, sure, #1 movie of all time, not quite). Eventually it settled to a more realistic spot.
If I got to see it right now, I would probably gush about it and inflate it's value too. But give me two months and I'll tell you how good it really was.
Re:Unbiased reviews (Score:3, Informative)
That statement is probably very true, which makes it even more interesting that I did not see one review in Swedish media that did not begin with words to the effect of:
"I never in my life read Tolkien, but..."
"I hated Tolkiens books, but..."
"I regularly piss on Tolkiens grave, but..."
and (this guy must be a real fan-boy) "I haven't read Tolkien in a great while, but...
After which follows a favourable through enthusiastic review.
Re:Unbiased reviews (Score:2)
That's one of the points of a review. Another point of reading a review is to increase your appreciation of something you have seen or are about to see. However, this presupposes that the reviewer is knowledgeable and insightful, and critical in an open minded way.
Fan "reviews" which simply reveal juicy tidbits don't serve any purpose other than idle curiosity.
Re:Unbiased reviews (Score:2)
And if they're book zealots then even better - no one is likely to be harsher on these films than a true die hard book fan.
But I agree with you on the spoilers . . .
about spoilers (Score:5, Insightful)
Andrew O'Hehir [salon.com], at Salon.com
Speaking of spoilers... (Score:5, Insightful)
Trailers are evil and spoilery.
Re:Speaking of spoilers... (Score:2)
Re:Speaking of spoilers... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Speaking of spoilers... (Score:2)
obviously I need to plan my life better (Score:2)
I can't even read this article because of the spoilers!! Anyone know of any English movie-theatres around Cologne/Dusseldorf area?
In Munich? (Score:2)
Re:obviously I need to plan my life better (Score:2)
http://www.cologne-in.de/kino/metro.htm
http://www.europeguidebook.com/germany/regions/we
If you want to drive down to the Kaiserslautern area they have it at
http://www.broadwaykino.com/01.programm/arthouse.
They are all releaseing the same day as the US, but because of the time change you actually can see it and have it reviewed here before the US general population can, all 179 mins of it.
Re:obviously I need to plan my life better (Score:2)
Noooo! (Score:2, Funny)
I don't wanna see that movie anymore.
nice move, Taco (Score:2)
I thought the Ents were supposed to be the big SPOIL-able thing in this one.
Choice quote from one review: (Score:5, Funny)
"...made ATTACK OF THE CLONES look like it was shot in a barn with hand puppets."
Re:Choice quote from one review: (Score:2)
Unexpected spoilers suck, scene by scene summary (Score:3, Interesting)
Music (Score:2, Interesting)
I really like "May It Be", and I still think she deserved an award for it.
So, did she?
Re:Music (Score:2, Informative)
Check out the soundtrack [lordoftherings.net].
"I'm not reading them" (Score:5, Funny)
Since when the editors read the articles anyway?
On a good day... (Score:4, Funny)
Comic Relief (Score:4, Insightful)
We need comic relief in epic movies as much as we need Jar Jar Binks to show up in The Return Of The King. IMHO it is atrocious to have humor in any serious work of epic scope. I never felt that Gimli served that purpose in the novel and I certainly despise this act by Peter Jackson.
Re:Comic Relief (Score:4, Interesting)
In the Two Towers book, I found the "contest" between Gimli and Legolas as to who could kill the most orcs to be very amusing. Not slapstick, knee-slappingly hilarious, but amusing nonetheless. I imagine TTT will be of roughly the same caliber in terms of humor.
I don't forsee Jackson making Gimli into a joke character by any means. His role in FOTR was nicely balanced, with some great lines and some very emotional scenes in Moria and in Lothlorien. Hell, the only character to take a pratfall in the FOTR movie was Aragorn (during the hobbit "sword training" scene in the Extended Edition) and it's not like that sullied the movie experience for all time.
Moreover, Tolkien's work was itself not dark and humorless, but full of joy -- lots of jokes, lots of songs. That joy deserves to be translated to film, not made into something overwhelmingly gloomy. Grimness and maudlin has no meaning unless it has joy and humor to contrast with.
Re:What disappointed me... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What disappointed me... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What disappointed me... (Score:2, Informative)
Uh... "one huge novel"? Where'd you get that idea?
It was originally supposed to be 6 books when he wrote it but the publishers, at the time of the original printing, wanted to save money on printing costs and force readers to buy more of the series all at once. They combined books 1 and 2 into one book, 3 and 4 into the next, and 5 and 6 into the last.
Re:What disappointed me... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's almost never noted that this is a revival of the format in which all the great (and not-so-great) English novelists of the 19th Century were usually published. They were called "triple deckers" in the jargon of the time. Most novels from authors like Jane Austen, Edward G.E. Bulwer-Lytton, or Charles Dickens were originally published in this form.
Re:What disappointed me... (Score:3, Insightful)
That being said each of the six 'books' (each book in the trilogy is divided into a pair of 'books') has *some* resolution though sometimes an unhappy one and for obvious reasons usually a "cliffhanger"). At the end of the first book they make it to Rivendell, at the end of the second (the end of FOTR) the fellowship is broken, etc. By ganging up two 'books' into one book or movie you sort of dilute the feeling of resolution because half of the FOTR takes place before the fellowhip is even formed so it's disolution is less satisfying as an (cliffhanger) ending. Which makes me wonder if they could have pulled it off as six two-hour movies. Each movie would feel a little more complete on it's own by telling a smaller but more satisfyingly resolved story. They certainly seemed to have enough footage and even though I really liked FOTR I have to say 3.5 hours for the director's cut starts to get overwhelming/tedious. From a mercenary standpoint for the studio that is twice as many movie tickets/DVD/merchandise sales.
Re:What disappointed me... (spoiler) (Score:3, Insightful)
But it seems to me that some people missed the conflict and resolution of Fellowship even when the director ADDED AN ADDITIONAL SCENE OF DIALOG BETWEEN ARAGORN AND FRODO TO MAKE THE CONFLICT EXPLICIT! The conflict is that the ring corrupts everything that comes near it making the Fellowship its self a threat to the quest. The resolution is that Ringbearer tries to go alone.
Re:TruthMedia review (Score:2)
Re:p2p? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Path (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, even if his goal is capturing the Ring Bearer, why not lay siege to Minas Tirith?? You stand a good chance of uncovering the Ring Bearer in due time, you have the troops, you don't leave your enemies unhindered to plot against you. You either starve Minas Tirith or make the ring bearer show himself in their rescue.
I would think that under any circumstances I would at least have small patrols at each bridge. Not only for looking for the ring bearer, but for policing and taxation.
They also must be pretty sure that Sauron is too stupid to run. They do no work trying to make sure the area is secure. There is no intelligence gathering beyond a 1-2 night look over of the outside of the gates. Although I find it hard to believe that Sauron could be that stupid and old at the same time.
I guess that the real points are this: Tolkien was a linguist, not a strategist, and in his utopian society the evil lord doesn't even collect unjust taxes from public works like bridges.
The first rule in taking over any land is control the lanes and means of transportation. This restricts supply, etc. The second is to limit communication. Sauron does neither. The only good explanation is Hubris. Again, how can he be this stupid and old??
~Hammy