3.5/4  A sheer masterpiece.
The part two installment of the Lord of the Rings film trilogy provided an exceptional cinema experience. Two Towers shows boundless imagination, exceptional direction, and good old fashioned escape quality. The battle scenes are truly epi... (read full)

4/4  Second Lord of Rings film in at #23
Much like the Empire Strikes Back in the second (or more confusing fifth) movie of the Star Wars series, The Two Towers follows the original with a much darker and richer storyline that makes it every bit as good as the first one. Masterfu... (read full)

4/4  Who Doesn't Like Ents is A Communist
A completely amazing tribute to Tokien's work, "The Two Towers" is a brilliant spectacle focusing on three distinct groups of adventurers as they delve deeper into the dark world of evil. I loved the usage of fantastical forestry for the ... (read full)

4/4  Constantly Fascinating
The first movie focused on one group of characters but this one focused on three (and passed with flying colors). Each group was fascinating because different events are happening around them and each group focuses on one generalized emoti... (read full)

4/4  Review - The Lord of the Rings (2001-2003)
Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood) was just a simple hobbit living in Middle Earth when Gandalf (Ian McKellen) sent him on a mission to destroy his uncle's Ring of Power. His adventure is chronicled in the three part epic, "The Lord of the Rings.... (read full)

4/4  ...tale ever told,...
TTT splits the tale, and you follow the old fellowship in different scenarios. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect in this one is obviously Gollum. The same happened to me with the Balrog in the first, so here I felt pretty excited about th... (read full)

3.5/4  The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers Quick Review
Probably the worst of the series. But, still definitely a great movie in its own right.

3/4  The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers Quick Review
Better than the first one, but as I wrote in the Fellowship review, you have to take all three movies as a whole, not seperatly.

3.5/4  The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers Quick Review
Lord of the Ring is really a film for all fantasy lover!

3.5/4  The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers Quick Review
The visual scope of these films is amazing. Although I was never really a fan of the books, I love the movies.

2/4  The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers Quick Review
Not exceptional in any way. Also, why do people have to include the whole trilogy on their lists, you never see them apart. I can understand really enjoying the first one but after that I can't comprehend someone enjoying this that much.

0.5/4  The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers Quick Review
Terribly boring. I saw these movies just to make sure I knew what I was talking about. Anyway, Elijah Wood is one of the worst actors.

1/5 Abysmally boring, hokey, long-winded, dull, ugly film
  by Rhian G. Hunt (Port Wing, WI United States)
Disclaimer 1: I am a Tolkien fan. I enjoy the Lord of the Rings books immensely for the grand, epic sweep and dignity of the narrative; the moving nobility of the characters; and the pretty much non-stop one-thing-after-another events of the storyline (not as gory or sex-filled as a modern novel, but definitely one menace after another).

Disclaimer 2: I was not going into this film expecting it to be faithful to the book -- and it isn't. You can recognize a few names here and there, a place or two (mostly by name or appearance), but it's so mangled and altered that you might as well call it "Peter Jackson's fantasy story with character names cribbed from Tolkien." Again, this isn't a criticism, though -- I know Hollywood can't stand to stick to a plot, and I wasn't expecting Jackson to, or judging his work on that basis.

However, I was prepared to judge it on its own merits, and by those merits, it's a stinker.

For one thing, the movie drags on .... and on .... and on. We get long views of these ham actors snarling and moping histrionically at each other, going on and on and on. There's never a normal discussion, anywhere -- it all has to be a snarling, prolonged argument, preferably with the actors flinging themselves around or twisting up their features like they've just gotten the world's worst wedgie.

For another thing, for God's sake, have them wash their hair. You get so tired of seeing every single character except Legolas with their faces smeared with everlasting dirt, their hair hanging in uncombed, matted, greasy ropes, their stubble always half-shaven. They look like a group of half-drowned hobos, perpetually. And while they were at it, they might have gotten a lead to play Frodo who doesn't look like Michael Jackson, a woman to play Arwen whose lips aren't so puffed out with silicone that she has a hard time speaking (literally), and practically ANYONE else to play Elrond.

And finally, the movie is cinematically hideous. The color of everything is grey. The lush green grasslands of Rohan are grey. The people are grey. The sets are grey. The clothing is grey. The sky is grey, even when it's sunny. The movie is so grey that it looks like a black and white film, except with less contrast than in one -- at least in a black and white film, you know the colors exist. This film, by contrast, is like staring into a bowl of tapioca for 4 hours.

There are a couple of good scenes -- specifically, the (Jackson-invented) worg fight and the Ent attack on Isengard. The last mentioned, especially, was actually interesting and exciting. But it only lasted about 90 seconds, alas. I will give Jackson his due for those two scenes -- and it shows the wasted potential. He should have ditched the original plot entirely, since he wasn't going to follow it anyway, and made a LotR action movie. His attempts at human interest are hokey, forced, and almost literally painful to watch, but when he goes to action, he occasionally produces a gem.

Except, of course, for the scene in Helm's Deep where Legolas skateboards down a staircase on a shield ....

5/5 One Ring To Find Them
  by D. Reed (Elkton, MD USA)
Like 1983 being the year for movies that have 3 in common, 2002 was the year for part 2's (Star Wars, Harry Potter and this). Again, can't really remember what wasn't in the original release so I'm reviewing the extended one. The cast continues to capture the essence of their characters and adding new dimensions (like the romance between Aragorn and Arwen, which is hardly touched upon in the books). The new cast members (Bernard Hill, Miranda Otto, etc.), like the original cast, capture the characters perfectly. Gollum is finally featured (having brief cameo spots in the first) and is the scene stealer of the film (another common occurance of 2002 was the advent of realistic looking CG characters; Yoda, Dobby and Gollum). The dual nature of the character is intriguing and you really feel sympathy towards him as he's completely bound to the Ring. And Andy Serkis really does an excellent job of switching between the softer voice of Smeagol and the harsher tone of Gollum. The action sequences build upon what the first film has done; the Warg battle and the Battle of Helm's Deep, along with the attack on Isengard are noteworth. Again, from what I can recall of the theatrical version, this is the superior version. For thanks to a new scene, we see the brotherly relationship between Boromir and Faramir and how Denethor (who originally was first shown in Return of the King) favors Boromir.

5/5 Great Deal
  by Joe Terabyte (Prescott, AZ)
After buying the Lord Of The Rings Extended Edition The Two Towers, I am very pleased. I already owned the two towers on dvd befor buying the extended version, so I knew that the movie was good. It is even better now that I can watch it with the tons of scenes that were not included in the first realeses. I reccomend this dvd to anyone who wants the entended edition but not all of the extra features in the multidisk sets.
The only con I can think of, is that, the disk is double sided so you have to handle it carefully. Other than that, this is a really good deal.

5/5 Simply a Must-Have
  by Bo Bennike (Sherman Oaks, CA)
I own both the theatrical and extended version. and don't agree with the official amazon review. The extended version is simply a must-have for the following reasons:

The theatrical version was hard to follow at times, but the extended version explains everything, so that the scenes and story-lines makes much more sense.
While running time for a theatrical version always dictate limited playing time, it becomes apparent two minutes into the extended movie just how much detail and clarification is lost in the theatrical version.

Peter Jackson clearly envisioned the extended version as the film to watch, it's clear in the pace and rhythm of the editing which seems to flow much better.

5/5 Good
  by Kimberly Falcetti
The movie came in on time, and was in perfect condition. I was very happy with this purchase.