Der Herr der Ringe - Die zwei Türme

Schneller, actionmäßiger und mit einer größeren Ausstattung als Der Herr der Ringe - Die Gefährten. Drei Stunden sind wie im Flug vergangen. Ganz zu schweigen davon, dass mit Prachtstücken, zu denen im ersten Film der Kampf mit Balrog gehörte, Die zwei Türme bis zum Platzen gefüllt sind. Der Herr der Ringe - Die Gefährten hat mir aber trotzdem besser gefallen. Er war langwieriger und langsamer, sein Inhalt war aber voller und konsistenter. Die zwei Türme sind verkürzt. Die atemberaubende Action wird als Leporello von schönen Bildern serviert, die aber durch die Geschichte nicht so fest verknüpft sind. Dieses Handicap könnte ich dem Film verzeihen, weil es sich "nur" um eine Verbindung von zwei Monumenten handelt. Ein Kritikpunkt bleibt aber – der Humor, der dem Film seine Würde und den dramatischen Charakter nimmt (Gollum beim Kochen des Fisches, Gimli auf der Mauer). Die visuelle Seite ist aber wirklich herrlich. Man findet hier die ausgefeilteste und "am besten gespielte" digitale Figur (Gollum), die jemals auf der Filmleinwand zu sehen war. (20.12.2002)

The Two Towers is such an emotional and visual barrage that the brain is not able to absorb everything it sees at first, and when it was over I couldn't remember what I saw at the beginning. This is not a film to watch once, you absorb it only after a second or third viewing. Die-hard fans of the book will probably squeal in disgust at how Jackson dared to change the plot and character of Faramir. I don’t care, on the contrary, I think those changes benefited the film. I even loved the much-criticised scene with Arwen, in fact, I think it’s one of the best in the film. A film is a film and a book is a book, they are two different worlds. I'm interested in the film and it's well made, it's spectacular and awesome. (16.01.2003)

Der umstrittenste Teil der Trilogie... Wie man es auch dreht und wendet, das ist ein wirklich guter Film in jeder Hinsicht, und das zeigt sich erst in der erweiterten Fassung, in der die ansonsten recht kaputte Storyline von Smeagol, Pippin und Baumbart heilt, die Geschichte von Faramir (letztlich eine der besten Änderungen) ausgebaut wird und der ganze Film Schwung bekommt. Keinen Schwung im Sinne von "dynamischem Vorwärtsflug", sondern einen Schwung im Sinne von "ja, es läuft langsam, aber ich möchte, dass es noch langsamer läuft, weil es so schön ist". Der unverständliche Sturz Aragorns in den Abgrund irritiert mich ungemein. Warum? Aber so ein kleiner Fleck kann den Eindruck eines Spektakels nicht schmälern. König Theodens Monolog vor der Schlacht in Helms Klamm ist ein weiterer Moment, der mir wohl immer in Erinnerung bleiben wird, ebenso wie die Rückkehr der Einwohner Rohans zum König... (25.01.2004)

After watching the theatrical version a few times, I was convinced that, after the excellent Fellowship, The Lord of the Rings movie saga was doing a head dive before it got a chance to take off properly. It was indisputably a strong experience, but too obviously to be taken at face value without anything hidden “underneath the surface". “Merely" perfect craftsmanship and “just" a good movie which, in this case, is too darn little. It’s void of emotion and some of the changes leave you speechless; not even Michael Bay comes anywhere near this. Add to that unbalanced pace and overall incoherence. But then I saw the Special Edition. It’s incredible how this version, which lasts 45 minutes longer, has far better and more balanced pace and, thanks to added and extended scenes, it gains a completely new dimension. These are two different movies in terms of both tone and quality. (20.11.2003)

A Elbereth Gilthoniel, oh star-kindler, to the glory of the starry host, I shall now sing! O come to me, Fanuilos! What can I say, the Two Towers extended version is very problematic and I myself have difficulty with it at times. Watching the extended version was therefore a feeling of perfect satisfaction, because I believed Jackson all that time, that he would convince me of the presence of another golden masterpiece. The difference in Faramir's character from the original suddenly stops being a violent complication of Frodo's journey, but becomes a perfectly written character full of humanity. Jackson and his screenwriting team prove that they have the source material read inside out and, above all, they convince the viewer of the key aspect - they understood its spirit. It's not about the fact that the elves decide differently than in the book, but about the fact that in that moment, the power of alliance shines through the screen. And just as strong is the romantic storyline concerning Aragorn's actions, and it is expanded in the necessary way. What good would it do for ignorant viewers to know that at the end of the book trilogy, in the appendices, his whole story is fully told, when without cuts to the Rohan, they would know almost nothing about his past? I simply don't see any mistakes here. Not here, where one unforgettable scene is followed by another and the most intense moments are replaced by those that move me to tears. (23.12.2004)

Flashier, more explosive, and slightly faster than The Fellowship of the Ring, but not really better overall. The Two Towers has a lot of unforgettable moments, Peter Jackson is uncompromising in the action scenes and there is an abundance of severed limbs. But it's amazing how masterfully he composes the intimate scenes, too, especially the elven ones. Howard Shore’s Unique music also plays its part, it’s properly action-packed and beautifully resonant, exactly how the score for a massive film like The Two Towers should be like. But Fellowship has its unmistakable charm, besides begin the first, something new that is hard to resist. In addition, occasionally, the continuation of the monstrous trilogy is a bit too pompous (especially scenes with Bernard Hill), but without a doubt, it is one of the films of the year. (12.08.2006)

[extended] The first one suits those who like distinctive characters and RPGs (by which I don’t mean rocket launchers), three is the nirvana of those who love epics, but two strikes a balance between them, and that's why I currently like it best of the trilogy (otherwise about on par with one, but I've seen that one a bajillion times). While the first is practically a standalone film and the third a megalomaniacal ending, the second is a sort of "intimate" awakening of the nations, where the stories of the individual characters and the whole development of the history of Middle-earth are fantastically intertwined. That's why these factors are constantly given far more consideration than in the previous installment. The Battle of Helm's Deep works far better than the Battle of Pelennor Fields because it's not so much based on Massive Armies as it is on heroic characters, helped by its setting – a ravine with a fortress and a huge wall with nowhere to retreat to at night and in the rain. Compared to the third "sure thing" installment, Jackson is still betting the farm on a bunch of ideas and experiments – try explaining to a special effects studio that you want the Ents to look like animatronic puppets, for example. Speaking of walking trees, the scene of the last march of the Ents is one of the highlights of the entire film trilogy, and it all just elaborates on Tolkien's line "...and so the Ents went out on their last march." What’s more, The Two Towers handles the two strongest stories of the trilogy for me, the one about Éowyn and the one about Merry and Pippin. The Scandinavian feel of the realm of the Rohirrim is just icing on the cake. (06.08.2012)

For me, it is undoubtedly the weakest part of the series, yet it contains scenes that other films could never reach. For example, ordinary scenes, when Gandalf and the Gondorians arrive to help, always move me to tears. Nevertheless, one has the feeling that something great is expected. That great something is, of course, "The Return of the King." However, if every film had such an interlude within the trilogy, the studios would have a win. Epic and intimate at the same time, emotionally powerful, beautifully Hollywood-esque, but also sometimes disgustingly brutal. However, the film works best in a trio with the other two films. (28.01.2014)

I don't know why, but the second part will probably be the best of the whole trilogy for me. It's not because of the story. All the parts are great in this respect. It's rather because of the gloomy atmosphere of the whole movie. Unlike the calm storytelling style of the first part, things are set in motion, the movie has a swifter pace and more action certainly doesn't hurt. The great Peter Jackson has everything worked out down to the last detail. Especially the epic final battle shows his brilliant directing skills. Compared to the first installment, the visual effects have also improved, Gollum in particular is excellent. Although I consider this part the best, I'm not saying that the other parts are inferior. The whole trilogy deserves 5 stars. (25.07.2012)