Two Towers Stands Tall
The Second Film May Outdo the First

One of the most difficult things for a movie reviewer to do is be consistent. If, for instance, I say that last year's The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring is a perfect 10, it does not allow me a chance to say another film is better. So how does The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers stack up? Is it better? Could it be an 11?

For those who are not familiar with the books or the first film, The Lord of the Rings concerns the realms of Middle Earth, where elves, dwarves, hobbits and men live together. For many years, a ring of power (known as the One Ring) has been in the possession of a hobbit named Bilbo Baggins who knew nothing of its dark power. Now a great evil is rising in the land, and the dark Lord Sauron is trying to reclaim the Ring. Sauron is a disembodied evil that dwells in the land of Mordor, from where he controls an army of monsters who would destroy Middle Earth.

Accepting the Ring from his Uncle Bilbo, Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood) has become the Ringbearer. His quest is to return the Ring to the fires of Mount Doom where it was forged in order to destroy it. The original fellowship that was assembled to protect Frodo on his quest has broken. Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) fell into the depths of Moria fighting a creature called the Balrog. Merry and Pippin (two hobbits) have been taken prisoner by orcs working for Sauron's puppet, the wizard Saruman (Christopher Lee). Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli (a human, elf, and dwarf, respectively) have set off in pursuit of Merry and Pippin. Only Sam (Sean Astin) has remained by Frodo's side in his quest.

This is the rather desperate state of things at the beginning of Two Towers. With the fellowship shattered, things look bleak for our heroes. To complicate matters, the creature Gollum (from whom Bilbo originally took the Ring) is following Frodo and Sam. Gollum (also called Smeagol, his original name) is a frightful creature, driven mad and wasting away because of his obsession with the Ring. The creature is completely computer generated, based on the actions of actor Andy Serkis who also supplies the voice for Gollum.

Meanwhile, Saruman has built an army of his monstrous Uruk-Hai. This army is set on the destruction of the land of Rohan, where the Riders of Rohan (the great horsemen) dwell. This land is key to an assault on Gondor, and could very well mean the end of Man if the region should fall. King Theoden (Bernard Hill) removes his people to the kingdom's keep at Helm's Deep, but even the stone walls and caves may not protect his people from the assault by Saruman's army.

The forces of Good are stacked against insurmountable odds, and it appears likely that even if Aragorn and the others survive, Frodo may lose his battle of wills with the Ring he bears. If the Ring falls into Sauron's grasp, all will be lost.

Everything about The Two Towers is as good, if not better than the original. It speaks volumes about director Peter Jackson's ability to make such an epic trilogy and to make the second part even more exciting than the first. To his credit, he overcomes the largest obstacle (film length), by quickly cutting between the several different stories that are simultaneously occurring. By the time the movie began to climax, I could scarcely believe two hours had already passed. The final hour, likewise, moved so quickly I found myself begging for the film to continue!

The special effects are a wonder to behold. It is no wonder that no one attempted to make a live-action film of The Lord of the Rings before now. Without computer generated effects, some of the creatures and the sheer scope of this film would not have been possible. For myself, the sight of the Ents attacking Isengard was one of the most remarkable, but I think everyone will be amazed by the appearance of Gollum/Smeagol. The special effects are so good, in fact, that he seems almost human.

When Fellowship came out last year, I was not reviewing films online. This was one of the lulls in my reviewing career. So you'll have to take my word for it when I say I would have given it a perfect 10. The film fulfilled every expectation, although there were a few scenes missing (from the book) that I wish had been included. Still, at almost three hours, one could hardly complain about it being cut short.

When the extended version of Fellowship became available on DVD, I was pleasantly astonished that several scenes cut from the theatrical release had been included. If the perfect film could have been better, the DVD made it so. Enter dilemma number one: can a theatrical release be marked down because the DVD release is better? For a moment, let us entertain this notion and say yes. So if the theatrical release is demoted to a 9 (or a generous 9.5), the extended DVD version is now a 10.

Then, I saw Two Towers. If Fellowship was a work of art, Two Towers is a masterpiece. If Fellowship (either the theatrical or the DVD version) is a 10, how do I rate Two Towers? Is this film a possible 11? Or is my fanboy exuberance getting the better of me? Is this film merely "as good" as the original? Or does my entire scale now need to be revised to put this new film into perspective?

For the sake of my own sanity, let's not expect me to rewrite my entire scale. To be fair to Two Towers, it is an excellent film that is even more enjoyable than Fellowship. That said, there's no better ranking than a perfect 10 out of 10. Both of the first two chapters in the series are perfect movie making. When Return of the King comes to theaters next December, The Lord of the Rings may have a triple crown.

MY RATING: 10 out of 10.

RATED: PG-13
RUN TIME: 179 min.