The Two Towers is definitely a departure from "The Fellowship of the Ring" in many ways. For one thing, although there are many more fantasy creatures than in the first movie, this one feels much less like a fantasy film than "Fellowship" did. It hasn't all quite sunk in yet, but I try to mention as many things as possible here.

Many great things in "The Two Towers" exceeded my expectations, and the biggest one was Gollum. He was perfect. He looked pathetic. He looked twisted and not like someone you would want to tangle with. He seemed very fractured -- what I mean is that you could tell by looking at him that his mind was half lost. But there was also another side of him: A very pitiful, wretched side which was very humble and eager to please. One cannot say enough good things about Gollum. Visually, though, he looked like an actual shrivled, twisted creature that you could touch (and this was one of the most important things to me). He did not seem at all like a computer generated image pasted onto the screen.

Another really special surprise: I didn't think we would see the elvish cloaks in action, and indeed they were not used where they should have been most used, but they were utilized before the Gate of Mordor in a very cool visual effect.

Treebeard was also very cool. His legs were very long and he was quite, hm, bendable (contrary to the book, but that didn't bother me). I didn't see very much troll in him though (there were trolls elsewhere -- two of them opening the Morannon, for example). [Editor's note: See our citation at the end of this review.] His voice was very whispery and rough, and not as deep as I'd like, but it did suit him. [Editor's note: John Rhys-Davies performed Treebeard's voice.]

For the most part, I am satisfied with the plot of the movie. And yet, it seems there is always one thing I don't like with Peter Jackson's adaptations. I'm not complaining, though. To have a film version of "The Lord of the Rings", and to have only one thing per movie which annoys me, says volumes about the filmmakers' vision and desire for accuracy. In the first movie, the Council of Elrond bothered me most, though to a lesser degree the journey from the Shire to Bree also annoyed me.

In "The Two Towers", the whole episode with Faramir gets me. It is so off that it is not funny. The Faramir in the movie is almost the opposite of the Faramir in the book. Here, Faramir is a darker person, colder, and the Faramiric line in the book which I love so much ("Not even if I found it on the highway would I take it!") is entirely missing. The movie Faramir seems rather eager to use the Ring, and he even takes it as far as Osgiliath before seeing it's true nature.

Rohan, as a culture, is beautiful. The soundtrack's violin theme for Rohan is incredible -- the best piece of music I think Howard Shore has done for the "Lord of the Rings" films so far. Eowyn and Eomer are portrayed perfectly and Eowyn is explored more deeply as a character than in the book. However, Theoden strays a bit from Tolkien's portrayal, and he seems to reflect the strange helplessness that the people of Rohan reveal before Isengard's army. Yet the main characters of Rohan are great. Eomer's frustrated "rebellion" and Eowyn's infatuation with Aragorn are perfectly executed.

Before seeing the film, I already knew the story would end before we got to Shelob; but now, having seen the movie, I can honestly say her absence is not due to time constraints. For one thing, there are many needless scenes which don't advance the plot. The Arwen/Aragorn scenes feel like they were forced in there just so viewers wouldn't forget about that subplot, rather than because they enhance the story in any way.

Many things Elrond says just don't make much sense to me, either. And the Warg battle feels as though it was just an excuse to show the Wargs. Likewise, some of the scenes from the book which I wanted to see were cut short. The Uruk-hai's journey from the Emyn Muil to Fangorn Forest seems like one day and one night's journey, rather than two days. And Grishnakh doesn't even show up, or if he is in there, he never hints at having any special knowledge of the Ring. I felt cheated since I didn't get to see the brilliant dialogue that the hobbits have with Grishnakh, trying to manipulate him. I also felt cheated since many of Gandalf's great parts occur after the battle of Helm's Deep, when he confronts Saruman (which never happens in this movie).

The Entmoot also has a plot change which is unnecessary and feels contrived: after discussing Saruman for a day and much of the night, the Ents decide not to do anything about it and they all break up and go home. While Treebeard is escorting Merry and Pippin out of the forest, he sees a grove of trees which has been turned into a wasteland by Saruman's orcs, and he promtply decides to storm Isengard after all. Suddenly, out of the woods, come the rest of the Ents. I thought they went their own ways -- how did they get back together so quickly? But once they actually do storm Isengard, it's one of the most breathtaking, awe-inducing scenes in the entire movie.

Don't get me wrong. As someone who has read the book time and time again, and who is intimately familiar with almost every detail, I know there is bound to be much in the movie that cannot live up to my expectations. But does that mean I didn't enjoy the movie? Far from it.

Like I said: the Faramir sub-plot was the only part which truly dissatisfied me, and I hope he becomes a wiser and nobler character (someone whom Gandalf specifically wants to consult with when he arrives at Minas Tirith) in "The Return of the King". If not, I'll never forgive him for marrying Eowyn. :)

I can't wait for the Extended Edition DvD of "The Two Towers" (to be released in late 2003 or early 2004) because I have a feeling that it will flesh out a lot of sketchy scenes we have in the theatrical version. "The Two Towers" needs an Extended Edition DvD much more than "The Fellowship of the Ring" did. "Fellowship" needed one to provide more characterization and restore more book moments to the film, but I feel the second movie needs more plot development. The plot is great and largely follows the book, but some parts just don't make as much sense as they could or should. The final word from me is that you should definitely see "The Two Towers". It's more gritty and darker, and less fantastic in tone, than "The Fellowship of the Ring". It's a movie you do not want to miss, even if you only see it once.

Editor's Note: Were the Trolls bred from Ents? Many readers feel that is what Treebeard meant when he told Merry and Pippin that Trolls were bred in mockery of Ents, as Orcs were bred in mockery of Elves. But Tolkien himself had something to say on the matter in Letter 153:

As for other points, I think I agree about the 'creation by evil'. But you are more free with the word 'creation' than I am. Treebeard does not say that the Dark Lord 'created' Trolls and Orcs. He says he 'made' then in counterfeit of certain creatures pre-existing. There is, to me, a wide gulf between the two statements, so wide that Treebeard's statement could (in my world) have possibly been true. It is not true, actually of the Orcs -- who are fundamentally a race of 'rational incarnate' creatures, though horribly corrupted, if no more so than many Men to be met today. Treebeard is a character in my story, not me; and though he has a great memory and some earthy wisdom, he is not one of the Wise, and there is quite a lot he does not know or understand. He does not know what 'wizards' are, or whence they came (though I do, even if exercising my subcreator's right I have thought it best in this Tale to leave the question a 'mystery', not without pointers to the solution). Suffering and experience (and possibly the Ring itself) gave Frodo more insight; and you will read in Ch. I of Book VI the words to Sam. 'The Shadow that bred them can only mock, it cannot make real new things of its own. I don't think it gave life to the Orcs, it only ruined them and twisted them.' In the legends of the Elder Days it is suggested that the Diabolus subjugated and corrupted some of the earliest Elves, before they had ever heard of the 'gods', let alone of God.

I am not sure about Trolls. I think they are mere 'counterfeits', and hence (though here I am of course only using elements of old barbarous mythmaking that had no 'aware' metaphysic) they return to mere stone images when not in the dark. But there are other sorts of Trolls beside these rather ridiculous, if brutal, Stone-trolls, for which other origins are suggested....

The origins of Orcs and Trolls troubled Tolkien, and he never provided a definite answer concerning the origins of either. However, he ultimately decided that Orcs should have a more sinister and horrifying origin: that the first Orcs must have been corrupted Maiar (Angelic beings who served Melkor, the first Dark Lord whom the Noldor called Morgoth) who intentionally debased themselves by taking on beastly humanoid shapes. Later on, these self-Incarnated Orcs must have bred with Elves and Men, thereby sacrificing part of their Angelic nature and becoming permanently self-Incarnated. Trolls (other than Stone-trolls) may also have had a similar origin. Hurin Thalion is said to have slain 70 Trolls after the Nirnaeth Arnoediad by hewing their heads from their shoulders with a great axe. It is hard to imagine his defeated enemies being Stone-trolls, since they attacked him in broad daylight.

But, were Trolls bred from corrupted Ents in Tolkien's vision? You will have to decide for yourself.