|
First, I must admit that I knew I was going to have some problems
with this film from the get-go. See, we all have our childhood fears
– the monkeys from “The Wizard of Oz,” clowns, large dogs, etc. My
childhood fear centers squarely on Gollum. As children, we would
watch the annual airing of cartoon
version of “The Hobbit” on television, and every year, I would
clutch onto my dad as Gollum howled “my precious” through eighteen
gallons of saliva and row upon row of bad teeth.
The “Two Towers” has a lot to do with Gollum. Way too much, if you
ask me, but he’s “a big part of the quest,” according to husband.
Thank goodness that Tolkien saw fit to write in the character that
most of my female friends have taken to calling “Hot Ranger Dude.”
(This pronouncement is usually
followed by husband rolling his eyes the futile correction, “his
name is Aragorn.”)
Anyway, in order to prepare ourselves for “The Two Towers,” friend
and I watched “Fellowship of the Ring,” the night before. This
proved to be invaluable, as little time is wasted on rehashing the
first film. I recommend this activity to anyone before seeing “The
Two Towers.” It is not that the film will
be incomprehensible, but key relationships may prove a bit confusing
without the background material fresh.
We meet far more residents of Middle Earth in the “Two Towers.”
Peter Jackson, proves an incredibly detail-oriented man, as he
spares no details in making sure that these kingdoms, towers, living
forests and armies be as authentic as possible.
In the “Two Towers,” Gollum’s presence is required, as he knows the
back way into Modor. And, as much as I hate to admit it, there is a
great deal of character development when it comes to Gollum. We do
learn that the “we” he uses is not so much the royal “we” as it is
due to the multiple personalities that the ring brought about in his
crazed mind. We learn that he was once a Hobbit. Between moments of
childhood fear, I may have had one or two moments of sympathy for
this CGI character.
Of equal importance, the need for the destruction of the ring is
further realized. This does much to move this series beyond the
realm of uber-geek fandom and into the mainstream as epic tale.
There are few that would benefit from the continued existence of the
ring and far more that would suffer if it were to fall back into the
hands of its original master.
Of note in this series is the use of digital effects. It would seem
as if the whole concept of digital effects were invented solely for
bringing Lord of the Rings to the big screen. Here, we find battle
scenes that are made all the more better because of these effects.
In an era of filmmaking where digital is used more often than not
for bad (think Forrest Gump meeting JFK), or where it is used in
lieu of good set design or character development (think Star Wars),
Jackson seems to make digital an almost seamless part of the film.
The Usual:
What it’s Worth: Pay full-fare or matinee at a first-run theater
with a great sound system. See it soon, before the film is relegated
to the smaller screens.
Main Reason To See This Film: If the third film comes off as well as
the first two, this will become the definitive “How To Do A Trilogy”
for all filmmakers to come. Also, don’t tell husband, but this is a
fantastic story in the reluctant-hero genre with something for
everyone.
Main Reason Not To See This Film: If your childhood fear had
anything to do with the talking trees in “The Wizard of Oz,” certain
scenes may send you over the edge.
MPAA Rating: PG-13
|
