Lord of the Rings - The Two Towers

(317 votes, average 4.49 out of 5)
Facebook Share

Bumper art by Phillip Murphy

Nostalgia Chick on Twitter and Facebook

Comments (173)
  • Aytsan
    Thanks, Nostalgia Chick! Great review. Keep them coming!
  • ToonaFish  - hmm
    I..have to admit I'm kind of surprised: LotR is a great material for both review, and humour... even if also very demanding. Can you remake these reviews? No, seriously... It's not the opinions or things you laid out, it's just how it's done. I think there's a lot of room to do it... well, better, funnier, cooler..! :)

    I do appreciate you took a much more difficult approach than just following the plot line within this review; but I was rather looking forward to addressing (funnily) some of the more goofy parts of the movie, and was quite disappointed you left them out. Also it's a wee bit unfair to completely leave out the only good thing Peej did almost all by himself in this movie - Grima/Eowyn completely unforced conflict that Tolkien only mentions in the book; but Douriff makes into the definite goofy highliht of the movie... everything else, when you watch the movies, you can just TELL - yep, this bit Peej did on his own; because it sticks SO out of place it hits the viewer right in the eye. I guess that happens when you tamper with a piece of literature a guy took 30 years to polish out. It's gonna be pretty polished, dude.
  • stargirl73
    The Two Towers isn't my favorite in the trilogy (that honor belongs to Return of the King), but I do love it more than Fellowship. While I do agree that the buildup to Helm's Deep was too much, I loved the actual battle. It's one of my favorite battles in all the trilogy. As a whole, I loooove Two Towers. Can't wait to see your review for Return of the King! (And more of the Frodo fall count, can't believe I never relized how much he fell during the movies!)
  • Joshism
    Other LOTR/HP "inspired" films: "Eragon". Which failed both as a movie and as a LotR clone. If Helms Deep was perhaps overdone, the ineptness of Eragon's climatic battle was best summed up when someone shouts "Summon the archers!" and two guys jump out.

    On the other hand, I enjoyed the first 2 Narnia films (haven't seen the 3rd) and specifically liked the LotR-esk battles, especially since I'd heard the book really glosses over them.
  • iDEMANDWeekendAtBernies3
    Have not watched these movies since the theatrical releases. Gotta see them again!
  • HanSK
    There's never enough Dakka
  • LilacElf82
    As far as Gollum, the Rankin Bass version of the character scared the SHITout of me as a kid. The way he talked, his actions gave me nightmares right into my teens. As a result, I was very curious how Peter Jackson would do the character. I was NOT disappointed. Gollum is wonderful and easily the best thing about the film.

    And as far as the comparison to the Narnia movies, allow me to plug the greatest Narnia/LOTR crossover ever: http:// www.fanfiction.net/s/ 4293806/1/
  • Dacilriel
    The only thing that really bugged me about The Two Towers adaptation was the scene they added with Aragorn going over the cliff and dreaming(?) about Arwen. It was a really pointless excuse to add in a romance scene.

    I love the way they made Treebeard look and speak, but I do wish they hadn't made Merry and Pippin get so impatient and pushy with him. He's awesome.
  • pomaflah
    Well, to be fair he did have a similar scene in the book when he visited with Galadriel.
  • junebug_nery
    "This is Backstory, son of Exposition!" XD XD XD You rock, NChick. You just rock.

    Also, I remember being so relieved when that one Ent finally got to dunk his flaming head underwater in the battle scene.
  • laptopgirl42  - narnia
    i find it really interesting that you used this episode to talk about both Treebeard and Narnia. as you might know, the character of Treebeard (who i must admit, i enjoy also) was based on the Narnia author himself, c.s. Lewis. Lewis and Tolkien were pretty tight friends when they taught at oxford. they belonged to the same literary club, and even helped each other out with their respective novels. in fact, Tolkien was the one who reintroduced Lewis to Christianity. when Lewis died in 1963, Tolkien was deeply, unset. but enough with the history lesson
    and as someone who grew up in a conservative Christan household (LOTR just barely snuck in there) in the late 90s- early 2000s, the Narnia movies are real guilty pleasures for me, at least the first two. heck, i read every single Narnia book by the time i was 12, and trust me, those movies are probably the best adaptions those books ever got (the musical based on the first on is the worst I've come across personally so far, but the 80s BBC version comes close). the Narnia books are beloved parts of my childhood, and they're what got me interested in fantasy in general
  • Henson

    Wow...I didn't think that anyone else had actually SEEN the Lion, Witch, Wardrobe musical. Guess it gets around more than I realized.
  • ladydiskette
    I have read the book and watched the movie (in that particular order) but this is the first time I heard there was a Lion, Witch, Wardrobe musical.

    I should go check that out.

    I remember back when that movie came out, the Youth Churches were really trying to plug it focusing on the whole "Aslan is Jesus allegory"/boys and girls being called "Sons and Daughters of Adam and Eve" to counter-set Harry Potter and LOTR the kids were getting into, some of it worked.

    Some of it didn't.

    But the problem is that it played it out that it was a mainstream christian allegory movie, which kinda doesn't explain where is the symbolism in Santa Clause giving kids weapons would have to do with christianity.

    Still, to be fair, it was because of that book that I was interested in archery.
  • ManWithGoodTaste
    Pfft... that's nothing. Try liking a movie most people hate!
  • wolfdreamer1978
    Good review. However, even though yes the other movies tried to be like the Lord of the rings, I loved the movies you mentioned, from Starfall, Narnia, Golden compass. OK Lemony snickits was bad, bust still watchable.

    Personally, Gollum was my least favorite character.
  • RJ Dalton
    Boy, how I hated the Narnia movies. That was NOT what the Narnia stories were meant to be.
  • sabbathunter  - Ents
    I love the Ents! Treebeard, Quickbeam! and the rest are awesome!
  • leikaitsndead  - i not buy it
    the thing I hate most about your videos, you're going to a school of arts and aim everything your teacher tells you about films and critic and you runs to make your smelly video and people say ho nostalgic chick, you're so amazing and illustrated
  • BrianMagnumFilms
    behold, ladies and gentlemen, the face of the internet
  • Falconfly
    @leikaitsndead: I hate using this "argument", but you're just jealous.
  • leikaitsndead  - Falconfly reply...
    I have a degree in visual arts, an MA in Theory and Criticism of the image, as I can like films of Alejandro Jodorowsky also I might like Rick Alverson movies.

    what I do not like are those tones'm being critical of the movies and thought like: "this silly movies have great success because most people are moron"

    I hate this recent wordiness has lindsey, which commonly have teachers who never did anything like students and the only job they could find it as teachers of the institute from which came
  • mrrubino
    Nobody cares about your B.A. in Wasting Mommy and Daddy's Money. If big talky make brain hurty, there are plenty of videos of incoherent screaming on this site.
  • leikaitsndead  - Mr. Rubino

  • pomaflah
    The Two Towers should have been at least two movies, since it was two books. It was still stunningly animated and acted, and I do love it for that, even though it was somewhat weak in the middle.
  • SpectralTime
    ...I feel like you're looking a little too far into "this worked in Fellowship, so they added it here."

    Remember, as near as I can make out, all three films WERE shot at the same time.

    Also, I'm not too fond of "Joanne and Cletus" examples, if only because it grates on my anti-elitist nerves.
  • TragicGuineaPig
    Frodo really needs to take some more Dexterity points the next time he levels up, maybe add some skill points to Tumbling or something.
  • AngelFeathers  - Elitist much?
    I know you went to film school and all but you do have a holier than thou attitude at times and it gets quite annoying. Especially when you talk about the audience being Cletus's etc and saying things like the first Harry Potter and the Narnia movies are mediocre.

    That's your opinion and box office numbers say different. The first Narnia film was released theatrically starting on December 9, 2005. The film grossed over $745 million worldwide, making it the 44th highest grossing film worldwide of all time at the time. The movie stayed incredibly close to the source material and as far as I know, was enjoyed by all.

    I actually enjoyed the climactic battle in Narnia more than any lord of the rings battle. Those were always so dark and gritty and the Narnia ones were full of fantastic creatures of all kinds and colors that I just enjoyed it more.

    Also, his name was Haldir, and they say it several times in the movie.
  • CaptainCanada
    It's not elitist to note that the first Harry Potter and Narnia movies aren't really that good. That's a common opinion. In the former case, Chris Columbus is one of the blandest directors out there. Alfonso Cuaron and the subsequent directors brought style to that property.
  • Floweramon
    Whereas for others, the movies started a steady decline after the first two, mostly because they stopped feeling like the same world from the books. I can personally say that the only one of the later films I've ever watched multiple times was the third one. All the others, once was enough.

    As for Narnia, I've only seen those once, but I don't remember disliking them too much. (though I wasn't surprised to hear that the whole Susan/Caspian thing never happened in the books, because that felt tacked on even for someone who didn't read the books)
  • AngelFeathers
    I feel it is elitist to talk about something, say a movie, and say that it's mediocre like its a fact. Not everyone shares that opinion and that's just what it is, an opinion. Absolutely fine to disagree but when you state it like it's fact it gets belittling. Personally, I loved the first Harry Potter films and the first Narnia one because they stuck so closely to the books.

    It's the way that she says it that comes across elitist. She talks down to her audience and in almost a coddling way at times and other times as if they didn't have a mind of their own. I don't object to her having a different opinion but what I don't like is her talking down to her viewers which I feel she does fairly often.
  • mrrubino
    That's a perfect impression of the kind of person that cries about other people sharing their opinion without couching it in soft, warm, fluffy qualifiers like "This is my opinion, in case you couldn't tell and thought your reflection had rebelled against you." every third sentence or so.

    Just stop liking bad movies. Problem solved.
  • The Dubya
    "She has a different opinion than me so that means she's ELITIST!!!!!"


    And if it means anything, Harry Potter 1 and Chronicles of Narnia have SIGNIFICANTLY lower IMDB user scores than the any of the LOTR films....AND each standalone film still made more money from 2001-2003 than Narnia did in 2005...so even your little "enjoyed by all" whine may not be the most accurate thing ever..

    Hey, you're the one that brought this dumbass point up.
  • AngelFeathers  - never said that
    She's absolutely welcome to have a different opinion but when you are talking to your audience you should definitely be respectful. On more than one occasion she has talked down to her audience and I feel that is unnecessary and even a bit condescending.

    Also, just because its the internet and you can hide behind a keyboard doesn't excuse you from being disrespectful either. How about instead of being insulting and immature, counter the argument politely and without the attitude.
  • elelgood90
    Since when does box office equal a quality film? I say this as a huge Harry Potter fan: The first movie was not a great movie. I enjoy it. I watch it every time it comes on. But the truth is, each movie after that one improved(well except for Goblet of Fire, I hate that one, but that's a whole other topic). So Lindsay calling Harry Potter and Narnia mediocre is accurate. Then again, I don't completely agree with her, because I did enjoy those movies. I just think that they could have been much better.
    Lindsay is a good reviewer, and I respect her opinion.
    Anyways, my thoughts on this video: good work as always Lindsay. I have to be honest. I've only seen the movies once, and don't get me wrong, they were great movies. I've just never become a huge fan like most people. I appreicate the whole "casual moviegoer" thing. I watched all of the movies in one day and I still didn't remember who whats-his-face was who died. In fact, I have no recollection of it happening. Then again, I watched all of the movies in one day, so I was incredibly burned out by the time I got there.
  • Deadly Sinner  - Douche, much?
    You're using argumentum ad populum, a fallacy. Just because something is popular doesn't necessarily mean that it is good. If that was the case, that would mean Transformers: Dark of the Moon is one of the greatest films ever made, even better than all of your precious Harry Potter films.

    And the audience IS mostly made up of Cletuses. Most people refuse to see a movie unless it has a huge marketing budget and at least one recognizable star. They are why subtlety is not allowed in most big films. They're the ones who can't even follow Inception, even though it uses the entire first half to explain itself before anything actually happens.

    And Haldir's name is not the point of that part of the video. The point is that he's given no development so no one cares about him, and then he's given this huge death scene. And it's still true that the average person (the type of person who only watches the series once or twice,) will not be able to tell you his name after the film is over.
  • AngelFeathers  - popular?
    Well my argument is if the movie was a complete and total piece of garbage then wouldn't it not have made that much money or been as successful? And as far as book adaptations go, the first couple Harry Potters and the first Narnia movie were spot on.

    There are some movies, in my opinion, that I wonder why they are so popular when they, to me, seemed awful but at the end of the day, they made money so something had to have clicked somewhere. They succeeded in reaching people enough so maybe it was just me that didn't enjoy it.

    To assume that an audience is mostly made up of Cletuses too dumb to follow Inception or go see a film without big stars is pretty elitist in itself there. There may be some truth to it, but that doesn't mean be disrespectful or treat others like they are dumb. Give the audience some credit. Without them, movies wouldn't be making money and to say that your above any body is just being pretentious.
  • Falconfly
    @AngelFeathers: According to you, popularity = being good.

    According to you, Twilight, Michael Bay's crap, FATAL and Bin Laden are masterpieces.

    Quit being a butthurt hypocrite.
  • leikaitsndead  - wrong...
    that thought snobbish. on that most people are stupid and have no brain to choose which movie to see, is really pedantic.

    there are many very good movies with a great box office.

    not to defend the video of lindsey, it means that she start to love you jejejeje
  • AngelFeathers  - meaning of the word.
    Do you know the meaning of the word hypocrite?

    : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
    : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

    So how have I been a hypocrite? I actually do think some of the Twilight movies and some of Michael Bay films are good. Never saw the other ones but it's ALL A MATTER OF OPINION!

    Obviously some people must think the Twilight movies etc are good because they kept making them and the movies kept making tons of money.

    No one is acting "butthurt" I am just tired of the NC referring to people in that way and feel she is being condescending to her audience. It's happened on more than one occasion and just finally spoke up this time. I do enjoy her videos but sometimes I think she could use some humility.
  • Falconfly
    @AngelFeathers: I was under the impression you hated the works I mentioned. Seems like you are not an hypocrite after all.

    You just have no actual media standards.

    Of course "good" and "bad" are entirely subjective. But "popularity = well thought writting, valid entertainment (not ironic or "so bad it's good")" and the same caveats is mind numbingly idiotic.
  • Vismutti
    Easy there. When she's talking about the general audience, she isn't talking about you or your friends. She's talking about the casual movie goer who only saw the movies once. The average people that Hollywood loves to pander to. The people who aren't "nerds".

    Also, "mediocre" doesn't mean "bad". It means "mediocre". Not everything can be either glorious art or shit. A lot of movies are just "okay". And they might be your favourite movies anyway. Many of MY favourite movies are pretty mediocre and I recognize that. (Personally I find the LotR films mediocre too, but I know that's not the popular opinion so I'll spare you that.)
  • AngelFeathers  - Mediocre
    I don't think she personally attacks people. I just think on more than one occasion she talks down to her audience and makes unfair assessments of people. I find this disrespectful and a bit condescending.

    It's the way she explains things, like its fact rather than her opinion that bugs me. If she would state things in a way, saying that it was her opinion or even popular opinion I would be fine with it, absolutely. Like for that example, the Haldir thing, instead of saying cletuses, she could have worded it like "For the most part, the movie going public who hasn't read the book won't know his name etc, which I would believe.

    I can definitely admit that some movies I like I think are mediocre but to say that like its a fact, when other people may have really liked it and thought it was oscar worthy etc, isn't really fair to them and hence why I don't announce it as a fact but explain my opinion.

    I love films that I think are mediocre as well, but they may not be to other people
  • The Dubya
    ....so basically you're upset that she has a different opinion than you, but doesn't have a bright glowing red "IN MY OPINION" sign flashing over her head so people like you don't get confused and think "SHE TEENK SHE BETTA DEN ME GGR IM MAYD!"

    That's cool I guess.

    But for real...you're overreacting. She points out the difference between the more hardcore movie/book buffs that'll know a lot more about the ends and outs of films and the source material and will look at films a bit more academically/logically/ critically than others, and the mass audience casual movie goer that, like it or not, are a LOT more disconcerting about what they're watching and usually need more hand-holding to get through a movie, especially one as dense as LOTR. Or as banal as Twilight or Transformers.

    I'm sorry if it offends your opinions, but there ARE ways of measuring quality not just in life, but in anything. If there wasn't, we'd be making the same films, the same food, play the same sports team, having the same 9-5 job, etc. etc. over and over again because since in your perfect world scenario, critics would just pat everything on the back and give everyone a participation trophy and the creators would just be able to crank out the same exact easy assembly line conveyer belt products over and over again because "Hey, SOMEONE (less informed) thought it was good! So here, be rewarded simply for existing! Scrutiny be damned! Yaaay!"

    http:// www.escapistmagazine.com/ videos/view/escape-to- the-movies/2747-The- Eagle

    And again, some people are more scrutinizing that others. And some folks are scrutinizing AT ALL and will just poison their minds with ANY random visual stimulated crap put in front of them just because it's a thing that exists. Jo-Ann and Cletus (you're simply offended by the wording, since you and her pretty much said the same goddamn thing about the Haldir scene. Oh but you did it in a "nicer" way. What a difference >_>) usually DON'T have informed opinions on what they're talking about, nor usually strive for it. And if the audience isn't striving to improve their minds, why should the creators bother to improve their product? Hell why should anyone bother to improve anything since "good enough" is fine and it's all just a matter of opinion, no matter how baseless it is?

    Basically here's the thing....you would ask someone like Stephen Hawking about quantum physics, not some random guy you met in the parking lot of McDonald's, because CHANCES ARE that Hawking might be jusssst a bit more knowledgeable than Arby's guy. There IS a language and a smidgen of science in art, there ARE reasons people react to certain things the way they do, and there ARE ways to dissect, analyze, and critique them to judge their functionality. And some people just understand that better than others. PERIOD.
    And to say that everyone's opini...
  • Tfatcat2  - Nice.
    Nice wall of text dude. Hey lindsay your white knight is here to save you!!

    She is an elitist cunt, by the way.
  • Vismutti
    Well, the thing is, these reviews are (I'd argue) for two things: comedy and analysis. NChick might be a bit heavier on analysis than some other critics on the site but her reviews are still supposed to be comedic too. And Joanne and Cletus are a lot funnier than "general movie going public".

    Also, it's kind of the point of being a reviewer that you give your opinions. And others are allowed to disagree, but it comes of as whiny when you complain about a reviewer talking about her opinions. Okay, she could give a disclaimer that it's just her opinion, but that's kind of out of character for NChick. I don't know if it's out of character for Lindsay, since I don't know her, but this isn't really supposed to be her. And I'd say it's kind of expected that you know these are just her opinions.

    Oh and one more thing: I'm pretty damn sure many of those Joannes and Cletuses also make fun of us nerds for caring about a MOVIE so much. So I don't see any problem making a bit of fun of them too. Not saying one should think those people are worth less as human beings or anything (after all they often do much more work to keep the human society going than, for example, movie makers or critics), but it's okay to think their taste in movies is less refined. Because it's true.
    And the problem here is that most big budget movies made for them, and HAVE to be made for them to be profitable. Which means that the people who actually care about movies often don't get what they want.

    Plus, I'm pretty sure NC doesn't expect any of those people to be watching her reviews. I wouldn't expect them to watch her reviews either. They're not her audience even if they might be a part of the audience of these movies.
  • Mothmouth
    I'm actually still just currently watching The Two Towers, and I think I'm still in the first act, so... I will refrain from watching this video until further notice.

    By the way, I couldn't help but disagree with you about The Fellowship of the Ring, in that, despite it being a long, long, LONG film, it never, ever, EVER drags. Okay, maybe a little, but not at the parts you say it does. And probably about a number of other things as well. It's not that flawed.

    And The Hobbit isn't as bad as you said it is, despite me being late to get to the theater and missing pretty much the first half of it. That scene with Bilbo and Gollum together was really well done (I don't think that's a spoiler), even though I hadn't finished reading the book beforehand, but probably will later.

    In any case, it's still just a matter of opinion, but I think too many people dislike that film instead of like it, 'cause it still is really well done.
  • ToonaFish
    The Hobbit is horrible exactly in the part you didn't see, so it really is weird, to have such a firm opinion about a movie you haven't even seen..?
  • itstheblueguy
    Wow, she's REALLY hard on the fantasy movies, even the one at hand she apparently loves.

    Still, amusing review.
  • LikaLaruku
    Wasn't Mariadoc the bossy serious Hobbit in the book? & Peregrin was the lazy one who only thought about food?

    I also seem to remember the book portraying Gimli as a dumbass, because everyone corrected him & he was always wrong. He also had a really huge crush on Gladriel, who couldn't look less like a female Dwarf if she tried.

    Ent chapter was my favorite in that book too. Yeah, I always favor the plot derailing mini story.

    & that was how the last Orclympics ended in tragedy.

    I disliked Boromir in the book, but it was because he, like Galadriel, talked too much, repeating himself over & over without really saying anything.

    Harry Potter borrowed very heavily from LotR books (Rowling can deny it all she wants). I love em both, but they're alost the same thing. HP is just contemporary fantasy instead of high fantasy.
  • Mischi
    The problem with Harry Potter IMO is that it got famous during its production. Lord of the Rings was finished in one Volume (despite being cut into 3 parts later). So the story was finished when readers read the first lines of Fellowship. That is also the reason why the movie adaption of the Hobbit will not turn out that bad. the story is written. And additions, like some in the movie, have also been written by tolkien. To expect an adaption of the Hobbit novel as it has been published in the 1930s, AFTER the big hit of the PJ Lotr Movies and ignoring all influences to the latter story would be quite unlikely... and also I wouldn't want it that way.
    I have a feeling Lindsay will tear the Hobbit down in 2 weeks. I hope she remains reasonable.
  • tiffanybride
    02:04...yes, but gosh sooooo sexy, LOLZ. Actually, he was along the lines of Gollum, not so much evil as he was sort of craven, cowardly and pathetic, controlled by Saruman. And then that Legolas had to go and shoot him in the throat with an arrow just when it looked like he was finally going to break free from Saruman's grip. Damn Legolas!
    15:15..Awww, poor Gollum!
    Arwen's job in LOTR was to ride horses and cry, and Frodo's was to fall, apparently.
  • Fantasgasmic
    Back to the Future is the best trilogy ever made and not ruined by additional movies added later.
  • Mischi
    Yeah, except for Back to the Future part 2 and 3 and that back to the future was a great trilogy, but not the best.
    No seriously, Bttf is great, but it was clearly made with no intention for a sequel. The last part of film 1 was a joke. The director and producer admitted it, and they really had difficulties finding a good story that picks up where they left. Part 2 and 3 were good movies but they fall far behind the first one, thus IMO not the best TRILOGY... but nevertheless 3 awsome movies.
  • richtv
    I love BTTF but COME ON!!!!
  • Dreammirror
    Golem was a very well developed & explored character by the trilogies end --the cgi gamble paid off too. He was a tragic, pitiable, antagonist that in the end, could not be saved...but, at no time was he sympathetic-to me. Keep in mind at all times, he is a murderer! He killed his cousin to get the ring, and many, many others in his 500+ life. The book eludes to when Strider's search for Golem, he was probably responsible for some murders along a riverside, including missing children and babies. The scene they cut wasn't nessasary & did nothing to move the plot along, but his beating wasn't being done for nothing--Golem was a serial killer who had gotten caught by soliders in the middle of a warzone; hes lucky they didn't kill him on the spot.
  • BB Shockwave
    Lol, sorry, but google what "Golem" means... I kept reading your post and imagining Frodo being led by a 3-meter-tall clay automaton saying "Yesss, massster Baggingsss!" :D (The character's name is Gollum)
  • MihailoSRB  - ...
    Great video - can't wait for the next week!
  • TerminalSanity
    Gah, the Faramir scene it typifies Peter Jackson's greatest shortcoming when it comes to the series; he's as subtle as a brick and understands character driven human drama about as well as George Lucas understands good dialog. Faramir's role in the book is an extension of his Brother's tragic fate because he is the brother that should have gone that could have withstood the temptation and the character realized and agonized over that when finds out about the Ring and his brother's failure. But no instead of a character who shows us the that humanity too has strength and understanding even in the face of tragedy we get kind of a wishy-washy prince-ling with daddy issues.

    And what he did to Denethor well its clear the N-Chick has some words to say about that as well but it will suffice for me to say its so much worse than what Jackson did to Faramir.

    Don't get me started on how Peter Jackson completely botched the entire point of the Frodo, Sam, Gollum, and Ring relationship and how it pretty much ties directly to the entire underlying F-ing theme of story: here's a hint Mr. Jackson the"Ring of Power" does not represent addiction it represents the "Power" to command other people absolutely and how that kind of power is inherently corrupting and distasteful and best put in the hands of people who don't want anything to do with it and don't have lofty ambitions.

    -End of fanboy nitpicky rage the truth is I like the LotR movies, Jackson may not have fully realized the characters of Middle earth and finer points of the story but did an impeccable job of realizing the setting of them. Hell aside from the needless padding(and there was quite a bit) I rather enjoyed the Hobbit its way more up Peter Jackson's ally than the trilogy when it comes to storytelling and tone.
  • BB Shockwave
    Agreed... Faramir's unwavering resolve to keep his word - given before knowing of the Ring - was further amplified when he realized it was the same object that led to his brother's death.

    But as you say, Denethor (or rather, Dementor here) got the worst end of the shaft - he was a noble figure still commanding respect even when he has clearly lost his will, whose halfling squire was ready to die by his side, so strong was his charisma and force of command... and in the movie, he is a frothing madman who has the most ignomious death in the whole series. I still could not bring myself to re-watch Return of the King... I should, but whenever I try I remember all the bad and unnecessary additions Jackson added, such as the whole stupid "Gollum turns Frodo against Sam" idea.

    That's why I am glad that he was much more subtle in adding new scenes and characters to the Hobbit... hope it stays that way in the next two installments too.
  • luvira
    "Because you can like something and still examine its cultural impact and explore its flaws"

    Yes! I advocate this. I can't stand fans, even in fandoms I'm part of, who insist the thing they love can't be anything less than perfect and above criticism and refuse to see reason, as well-pointed out and civil said criticisms are presented to them.
  • 3DMaster
    The trouble with the Narnia books, and thus movies, is very simply that nothing the protagonists do matters; Jesus comes to save the day and erases any consequences of their actions and choices. Making every single last event, every action, every part of the story, completely pointless.

    It isn't so much about making an children's book more epic with bigger battles that failed this movies, it's the story, or rather the non-story (Jesus saves the day, the end) that is the problem with those. You can make easily make a video about that.

    I like the Ents as well, and I think, considering the success of all three movies, that the average Tom, Dick, and Harriette didn't have a problem with them either, certainly not to the extent implied.
  • Lupinpatronus
    Pretty much what 3DMaster said, in regards to "Narnia."

    I almost feel the original Narnia book series is comparible to how you've talked about Disney's "Cinderella." Beautiful imagery with little to no character development. Like with Disney's "Cinderella" sequels, the "Narnia" films also had to retcon personality traits into the mains by adding conflicts; conflicts that, for the most part, seemed like logical inclusions that C.S. Lewis glossed over (i.e. Susan and Peter competing for who takes care of the family, the four being teenagers after having been kings and queens, realizing the effect of time passage in Narnia, the trauma of the White Witch, etc.). Almost all of the major moments in the "Narnia" films were in the books, just mentioned in passing rather than detailed (as a notable example, I was rather shocked to realize, upon rereading The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, that the battle is is never detailed in full, as most of that time is spent with Lucy, Susan and Aslan). What was Disney supposed to do with that? Like you said in your last video of Sir Ian, "Go big or go home."

    I do agree with you, though, that with other series the epic-ify approach did not pan out so well. "Golden Compass," more than Narnia in its marketing, pushed the connection to "Lord of the Rings," which I feel was really the movie's undoing, as the film itself wasn't . . . bad. It wasn't great, but it wasn't bad. But the marketing literally said "Here's the next 'Lord of the Rings'" when it wasn't that at all.

    And, as I mentioned over on your FB page, I'm glad you didn't go too hard on Harry Potter (as a lover of the series, myself). I know you don't much care for it, so to see you reference it for its historical value was kind of nice.

    I suppose I should at least mention something about "Two Towers."

    Um. . .

    I like it?

    . . .

    It's my favorite of the three?


    I only saw each of the films once. When they were released. But I am very much enjoying these reviews, regardless of my rather lackluster knowledge of the series.
  • SkullCap  - It's been awhile since I got this thing out...
    *Dusts off Soapbox* (Yeah, the subject I'm talking about is a very serious one, but I recognize the fact that my comment will likely be labeled by some as "preachy" this being the Internet).

    There is conflict, but not in usual sense. Usually victory rests on the shoulders of the individual/s. Here, Edmund is humanity, but he is unable to save himself that's the conflict. Were this just another tale, Edmund would redeem himself through some action (whether slaying the White Witch himself or sacrificing his life to save others). Mind you he tries both, but he fails. Yet here? Aslan, this mysterious, great being is paying the price for Edmund's fault. What? That isn't how it should be. A person should solve their own problems. Not the case here, Aslan's sacrifice for Edmund's life is the action taken to resolve the conflict. The resurrection of Aslan (Jesus) is the resolution to the conflict; just as the One Ring melting in the fires of Mt.Doom. Everything led up to the conflict of Aslan dying, resurrecting, and killing the White Witch. If Edmund hadn't been tempted then the sacrifice would not have been necessary.

    Just as mankind is made corrupt with original sin the only way to be saved was the perfect sacrifice (Jesus' death). Its goes against our human nature to have someone else pay the price for your mistakes yet that is what happens in the Bible. Its the core foundation for the Christian faith, the ultimate humility. Ergo that is what happens in the LWW and people think there's no conventional conflict/resolution of the individual because it usually rests on themselves. So when you say there's no story, your'e wrong. It is NOT a story about the individual overcoming obstacles like Alexander the Great or Queen Boudica. Never forget the entire NARNIA series is an allegorical introduction of Christianity for children. In Christianity Jesus dies on the cross for man's sins, comes back to life, and defeats the Devil. In LWW Aslan dies on the Stone Table in place of Edmund, comes back to life, and defeats the White Witch.

    That's the story. Shalom.
  • Falconfly
    @SkullCap: And hence why it fails as a narrative.

    This is why a work that relies exclusively on propaganda fails to have a proper narrative. What works to teach doesn't work to form a coherent, well written story.
  • jump2narnia
    As a longtime Narnia fan who has read all the books, I should tell you that Aslan does not save the day all the time. Besides The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe and Prince Caspian, he largely acts as a background character that gently guides the protagonists in the right direction. This is especially obvious in Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Silver Chair, and The Horse and His Boy. The thing that's so amazing about the Narnia books is that there is a loooot of depth in such short children's books. You can re-read them and get something new every time.

    While Tolkien was more of a linguist, C.S. Lewis was more of a storyteller.
  • Mr Fox
    Out of the three films, Two Towers is the one that you REALLY need to watch in its extended form. I mean, all three extended cuts are superior to the film ones but Two Towers is the most baffling in terms of how important the scenes left out of the theatrical version are. As someone who hadn't read the books at the time, the film really felt like it was missing a bunch of exposition and detail when I saw it in the theaters, something which then all clicked into place with the extended cut.

    I personally disagree with the Gollum thing - a really well developed gamble that paid off definitely, but I found him irritating rather than sympathetic. But I suppose I'll elaborate more on that in the RotK comments as it's that film where the worst part of the trilogy (IMO, obviously) really creeps in - the tedious and monotonous Frodo/Sam/Gollum love/hate triangle.

    Loved the review, to the point that I felt it really could've been longer, felt like you had so much more to say but ran out of time. Or then you're just saving it all for the grand finale. Or that I just like this stuff so much that I want more. Something or other.
Only registered users can write comments!

Follow us on:

Latest Videos

NC: WYNKA - Planes, Trains &

Watch Video

Bum: HG - Mockingjay P1

Watch Video

Yomarz: Farcry 3 - Blood Dragon

Watch Video

SF Debris: Dr Who - Blink

Watch Video

FB: Mr Turner & Nativity 3

Watch Video

ChaosD1: MMO - FFXIV

Watch Video

Shaun K: UG - To Be Continued

Watch Video

TNChick: Pump 23 - Another

Watch Video

Linkara: Avengers #1

Watch Video

Dom Reviews: Homeworld 2

Watch Video

RR: Cloudkicker

Watch Video

Animerica: Tokyo Majin, Part 2

Watch Video

GW: Leeroy Jenkins

Watch Video

Best for a Buck: Gunpoint

Watch Video

Ask Lovecraft: Tatoos

Watch Video

TNChick: Pump 22 There's No

Watch Video

BB: UnAmazing Spiderman2

Watch Video

Todd: Dick Tracy

Watch Video

MikeJ: Bare Lifts Infomercial

Watch Video

FB: Serena/Love, Rosie

Watch Video

Brad: Tries McRibMac

Watch Video

Linkara Riff: Why Braceros

Watch Video

Vangelus: Kyoryu Red

Watch Video

Nerd3: Big Hero 6

Watch Video

Team NChick: Pumptober 21

Watch Video

WTFIWWY: Love in Penguins

Watch Video

Blog Categories

What's Up? (145)
Sports (264)
News (285)
Book Reviews (569)
Funny (593)
Top # Lists (793)
Animation (1002)
Wrestling (1018)
Movies (1149)
Anime (1190)
Thoughts (1225)
Comics (1314)
Misc Reviews (1347)
Music (1547)
Video Reviews (2038)
Film Review (2863)
Uncategorized (4086)
Video Games (5435)
Old Blogs (15309)