my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (Page 1)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers James R. Hammonds, Jr Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 931 From: Houston, TX, USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 12-17-2002 04:29 AM                     I saw TWO TOWERS tonight and I hate to say that it SUCKED REALLY BAD!!! I had high hopes for this one after being blown away by FELLOWSHIP, but was severely let down. It is clear that all the budget was spent on the first movie with a little spread to the second with the trailer in mind. The trailer looked really good, but the only stuff in the movie that were even good were IN THE TRAILER ITSELF!!! All the rest of the effects and digitized characters looked cheesy, cartoonish, and to put it bluntly, FAKE! So yes, they spent all the money on the first film and the trailers for the second just to get people reeled in. This has got to be the worst movie Peter Jackson has ever done. Worse than MEET THE FEEBLES!!! Yes, it was that bad. All the greatness of the FELLOWSHIP flushed right down the toilet. Ok, I didn’t really expect you to buy into a line of that. The movie was good. Go see it. It seemed to me that this one had less action than the first and dealt more with people trying to find safe places and getting where they were going. But I haven’t seen the first one since it was in theatres and I was drawn away from the story too much by the ear ache I have been dealing with today to really pay attention to it. All I could do was to look at the screen and wait for a fight or some weird imagery to break out. I should see it again when no part of my physical being is in pain. MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD I did like Golem (is that how you spell it?) though. I though at first that he could easily suffer from the Jar Jar Binks syndrome, but we were spared from the annoyance. I was surprised to find out that he was MPD and enjoyed the conversations he had with himself. Especially the first one where the camera would cut to different angles so it looked like he was talking to a twin brother of sorts. There was one main thing I missed in this one that I really liked in the first one. Remember in the first one when Sauron (I don’t know how to spell that one either) blew up and a big VWOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUWWWWWWMM sound came from the subwoofers and shook the whole damn auditorium? They didn’t have anything like that in this one. Also, Cate Blanchett didn’t go insane for a moment like she did in FELLOWSHIP either.  |  IP: Logged Jacob Huber Expert Film Handler Posts: 172 From: Evansville, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 12-17-2002 05:32 AM                     The good thing about working in a movie theatre for slightly more than minimum wage: the privilege to see movies of this caliber two whole days before anybody else in the general public, and getting paid for it (all overtime hours for me). This film was absolutely stunning. The digital effects were near seemless and leaps and bounds ahead of Lucas' Episode II. The sound was phenomenal running at 7.0 in a normally 6.0-6.5 house on a CP500. Thankfully, the print was also flawless, nine reels and not a single lab splice or defect. The story was what one would expect from the middle child of an epic trilogy, one of a much darker sort. The pacing is good, if slightly slow at the beginning and fast at the end (I didn't want it to be over). I absolutely loved the war scenes, but felt there weren't enough of them until the very end. I'm with James about the huge boom from Sauron in the first one and was hoping for something similar in this one, but to no luck. Gollum's inner demons were portrayed beautifully, and I too loved the conflict scene of his fight of his alternate personalities, Smigle v. Gollum. Many reviewers on other websites say that this film is much better than the first, and I'm going to have to agree with them on this one, hell, even Peter Jackson says that this one is his favorite. It's rare when you go into a movie with extremely high expectations and it still manages to blow you away. I'm definitely going to have to watch this again many times over. 10/10 flawless  |  IP: Logged Josh Kirkhart Expert Film Handler Posts: 165 From: Austin/Houston, TX, USA Registered: Nov 2001 posted 12-17-2002 06:14 AM                     Damn good. I agree with all the good things people will say about this one, except it was not (for me) better than the first. In the first everything was much more personal, this one was a little more scattered. Amazingly enough it was not long enough for me. I think its a great middle and thats all I was expecting. Gollem ruled, can't wait to see the next. Great sound mix, not enough umph. Score will win once more if Far from Heaven is overlooked, and GONY is not great. Print had a few seconds of horizontal blurs, have no idea what they were, otherwise flawless. The cinematography beautiful. ****1/2  |  IP: Logged John Gordon Film Handler Posts: 62 From: Earth Registered: Jul 2000 posted 12-17-2002 02:10 PM                     One word, Awesome!  |  IP: Logged Aldo Baez Master Film Handler Posts: 266 From: USA Registered: Mar 2001 posted 12-18-2002 06:14 AM                    After one viewing this one is not nearly as good as the first one... but I'll have to see it again to give my full opinion.  |  IP: Logged Brian Hogan Expert Film Handler Posts: 119 From: Charlotte, North Carolina, USA Registered: Jul 2001 posted 12-18-2002 04:14 PM                     i think i drfted off to sleep more in this one than i did the last one.  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 12-18-2002 09:38 PM                        12/18/2002, Regal Cinema World 8, Eugene OR, #3, 3:45PM, SDDS (I asked). Attendance around 400, basically a sellout. Flawless print except for 1 lab splice -- very sharp & detailed for what I assume is Super 35. Excellent presentation. Too much story to tell in a measly 3 hour movie. Too much movie for my puny brain to assimilate in 1 viewing. State-of-the-art effects. My head hurts. Peter Jackson is a genius.  |  IP: Logged Aaron Haney Master Film Handler Posts: 265 From: Cupertino, CA, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 12-18-2002 11:27 PM                     I enjoyed this one much more than the first Lord of the Rings film. The biggest improvement for me was the pacing. I thought "Fellowship" often took too long to say what it wanted to say, whereas "Two Towers" always seemed to take just as much time as needed without lingering. The three hour running time went by very quickly. I also thought the cinematography in "Two Towers" was a lot less claustrophobic than in "Fellowship". "Two Towers" had more medium and long shots, and fewer super-tight close ups. The widescreen was put to better use this time around as well. The special effects in this movie were leaps and bounds ahead of "Fellowship". Gollum was quite convincing for a CG character. Too often animators will make their creatures move as though such things as friction and inertia do not exist for them. I thought the CG creatures in "Two Towers" for the most part avoided this common flaw, adding greatly to their believability. The quality of the print was much better this time, too. I thought "Fellowship" often looked grainy and had wildly inconsistent color and contrast. I'm sure this was due in large part to some scenes in "Fellowship" being digitally color corrected and others not (I recall an article saying about 60% of "Fellowship" went through digital color grading). "Two Towers" on the other hand was never grainy, always looked extremely sharp, and had very consistent color and contrast. I wonder if this film had a full-length digital intermediate instead of the partial one the first film had? In any case I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this film. I will probably go back and see it at least once more before it leaves theaters.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 12-19-2002 02:06 AM                        Peter Jackson is not a genius. However he does enjoy donuts. In fact I am curious as to how he was elected to direct this trilogy, especially considering the many clunkers he's done in the past.  |  IP: Logged David Favel Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 764 From: Ashburton, New Zealand Registered: Feb 2002 posted 12-19-2002 03:44 AM                     Define the "clunkers" Methinks we may be heading into "Moulin Rouge" territory  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 12-19-2002 05:04 PM                        Well I haven't memorized Jackson's directing credits, but I did look at them the other day on imdb and don't remember anything that great. Heavenly Creatures probably being the most notable entry on his directography (is that even a word?). I remember wondering how he got the job. None of those movies performed particularly well at the box office. I am not saying that he is wrong for the job, just wondering how he got it. Simple question. He is obviously doing well with LotR. I remember being unimpressed with "The Frighteners". The poster was the best thing about the movie. I have that poster... the "hologram" one or whatever the proper term for it is. Does Baz Luhrmann enjoy donuts? I fail to see the relevance in your comparison, as Moulin was never supposed to be Lord of the Rings. Lord of the Rings had a HUGE fan base to appease, and they couldn't risk it all by getting the wrong director, hence my curiosity.  |  IP: Logged David Favel Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 764 From: Ashburton, New Zealand Registered: Feb 2002 posted 12-19-2002 06:38 PM                     Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The Frighteners, The (1996) All the above financed thru America and possibly not true Jackson movies Forgotten Silver (1995) Heavenly Creatures (1994) Braindead (1992) ... aka Dead Alive (1992) Meet the Feebles (1989) Bad Taste (1987) Valley, The (1976) As a splatter film maker he is very good. His first serious movie was technically proficient, however I will always remember the first time seeing Bad Taste & loving every minute. I think you either love or hate his earlier movies. Like Moulin Rouge there is no inbetween.  |  IP: Logged Ken McFall Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 615 From: Haringey, London. Registered: Apr 2001 posted 12-19-2002 07:50 PM                     Now I've not seen the film yet.... but did peek at a bit. There is one character that looks like he's been lifted directly out of Harry Potter....Dobbie! or is it the other way around? anyway he's almost a double. looks and sounds like! As I say I've not watched it yet, will do that next week when I'm off. Then I can sit and watch it without having to think about what else is happening. Regards.  |  IP: Logged Dave Williams Wet nipple scene Posts: 1836 From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA Registered: Jan 2000 posted 12-19-2002 09:36 PM                        Remember here that Peter Jackson is not trying to make a Peter Jackson film, but rather a close as possible telling of some classic novels, in other words hopefully a Tolkien film if he plays his cards right. I imagine that Peter Jackson probably had plenty of fun on the shoots, but would love to get back to some nice technically proficient blood and guts movies. He has been trying to do a King Kong movie for like ever, and would love to do so. Dave  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 12-19-2002 09:38 PM                     I liked the "Two Towers" and thought it meshed in pretty well with "Fellowship of the Ring". But it does have the big weakness in being that it is really just the second act of a whole story. In the first film, you have real work being done to establish character and make them interesting. There's not quite as much of that going on in "The Two Towers" except for the stuff involving Gollem. Liv Tyler crying at the camera was a little much for me since it gave me flashbacks of "Armageddon" (which I certainly did not like). I was expecting a ballad from Aerosmith to erupt from the speakers in DTS at any second. The CGI stuff in "The Two Towers" was great in some places but not quite as good in others. The Ents (those big talking trees) were really cool when they were stomping on orks or teeing off on them like golfballs ("Hey look! It's Tiger Woods as a tree!"). But in the closeup scenes where they were talking and blinking their eyes, I was more reminded of those wierd Monty Python animations by Terry Gilliam. And I think things could have been handled a bit better with Gollem. The motion capture and such for Gollem was really first rate. But the character design and some of the facial renderings needed more realistic detail. For any weaknesses the show had, I thought the Battle of Helms Deep really made up for it. There was some really cool stuff on that. At any rate, things are set in motion for "Return of the King". Expect some badass, bloody battles on that one. I think any money that was spared on visuals for "The Two Towers" will be overshadowed by some really serious visuals in the trilogy's final part. One thing I cannot get out of my head regarding "The Two Towers" is just how creepy I thought that scene was where Frodo fell into that swamp. Maybe no one else got bothered by it, but the way those decomposing ghouls looked with those big blank eyes and jagged teeth it really gave me some chills. Yeesh!  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.