Cast: Elijah Wood, Ian McKellan, Viggo Mortensen, Sean Astin, Dominic Monaghan, Billy Boyd, Orlando Bloom, Christopher Lee, John Rhys-Davies, Liv Tyler, Bernard Hill, Brad Dourif, Andy Serkis, David Wenham, Miranda Otto, Karl Urban

Synopsis: Second film of a million budget trilogy of movies based on the classic fantasy story "The Lord of the Rings" by J.R.R. Tolkien. This part is based on the middle two books of the series, known as the novel "The Two Towers". Set in the mystical world of Middle Earth, an alliance of nine rather unusual people have set out across the land to destroy the Ring of Power before the Dark Lord Sauron can obtain it. Along the way Gandalf, the wizard who set the young Hobbit Frodo Baggins out on his quest, fell whilst saving their lives - yet the quest continues in the face of tragedy, indeed its only just begun.



The Fellowship is split, torn asunder by the decision of the ring bearer. Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli continue in pursuit of the Uruk-Hai orcs who've taken Merry and Pippin. As the chase begins through the vast fields of the kingdom of Rohan to retrieve them, they're joined by someone they thought they'd lost and continue on to visit Rohan's King Theoden to seek his help in stopping the traitorous wizard Saruman and his ever increasing army of Orcs heading in their direction. It all comes to a head at Helm's Deep, an ancient fortress where the armies of Rohan try to hold the forces back. Merry and Pippin meanwhile escape their captors and end up in the ancient Fangorn Forest where they meet some rather unusual and magical allies to help in the battle to help stop Saruman and regain control of the Tower of Isengard.
Meanwhile Frodo and Sam continue on their path toward Mordor - across the jagged peaks of Emyn Muil, through the deadly marshes and along the mountain sides of the wasteland. Their only guide? The scheming creature Gollum who pledges to help them reach Mordor in exchange for his life, but continually plots to take back his Precious for himself. Along the way they'll encounter many horrific sites, visit the sinister Black Gates, be discovered by the men of Gondor and their General - the brother of the slain Boromir, and take a dire path into Mordor which leads only to tragedy, despair and death.

Pros:


Amazing on Technical Level

Great Performances

Faster & Darker Thank Film #1

Cons:

Slow Patches

Characters Given Short Shrift

Doesn't Have As Much Wonder As Film #1


"The Two Towers" proves that "Lord of the Rings" is not a trilogy, but rather one massive flick chopped into three parts. There's no "previously on..." and no hope for catching up if you skipped the first film, this three hour epic starts right where we left off at the end of the first movie and consequently ends with surprisingly little fanfare or progression in terms of its characters or plot. Yet, it works and works superbly. As all of these films were shot at the same time, pretty much all the compliments that applied to 'Fellowship' in my first review of the Fellowship apply here - acting from all involved is great, production design is just spectacular, the script is clever and the excellent FX are used to enhance plot rather than be the focus of it. Having the first film under their belts though, Jackson & crew seem to have a better sense of confidence when it comes to taking risks with the trilogy and overcoming what very minor problems of pacing and some of the hobbit dialogue that cropped up in the first film. Two Towers is a faster and more action-centric film with a bigger scale, less convolution of characters, and a clever interweaving of three seperate plots into one cohesive and engaging story. Its certainly more crowd-pleasing than the last film and those who found that 'Fellowship' failed to bring more action to keep up the pace of the three hour adventure. But those people have to keep in mind that the Fellowship is the introduction, building up characters, letting you get to know them and shows some brilliant sides of Middle Earth and what everyone is fighting for. "The Fellowship" is the heart of the trilogy.
That said personally I enjoyed 'Fellowship' and its key moments somewhat more. 'Fellowship' was a road movie with a lustrous look and varied environments ranging from the green fields of The Shire and the red fire of Moria to the blue magic of Lothlorien. 'Towers' on the other hand is uniformly grey and flat green with a lot of desolate rock climbing or fights in grass fields/muddy fortresses giving the whole film a more monotonous look. Its more a linearly plotted medieval war movie which builds up over two hours towards one big battle scene and when it finally arrives-its impressive. On the opposite side the Merry & Pippin storyline, the weakest of the three subplots (the Frodo/Sam/Gollum stuff is the best), has the pair pretty much sitting in a talking Tim Burton-esque tree (Treebeard, The Ent)for 2.5 hours until the last 20 minutes where it turns into the 'Ent attack' - an FX spectacle that had my jaw literally on the floor in amazement. The graphics were amazing, bringing the Ents to life. I had wondered how they were going to do that because The Ents scene were a big part of the book actually. My boyfriend , who saw it with me both times, had pointed out that one of the Ents had been on fire during the battle at Isengard until the water put him out.

one of the biggest highlights of the film is Gollum, a CG character wonder who for the most part is just a wonder because its not just a flat visual creation but a true three-dimensional being that you both despise and pity - he's a character going through a major internal psychological struggle between his personalities and this is played out in the best scene in the film when he has a conversation with himself. The actor, Andy Serkis, who did the voice overs as well as the movement of Gollum did an amzing performance.Miranda Otto, John Noble, Karl Urban, David Wenham ( the beautiful Faramir) and Brad Dourif all deliver fine work as new characters even if Wenham in particular gets very little to do in this film. His character is more active in the book however. That's the only real main complaint many will have with this film - the original movie's characters get somewhat of a short shrift this time out - Gandalf has much less screentime, Saruman & Elrond are far less interesting, Arwen and the romantic flashbacks aren't that interesting, the Gimli character has become comic relief and even Frodo feels more of a supporting character this time out though gets some great scenes, such as the Dead Marshes. On the upside Legolas (Orlando Bloom as the beautiful elf), Merry and Pippin all get more screentime - Aragorn pretty much dominates the movie, and Sam is fleshed out much more (despite a long and sappy ending speech).

The Two Towers won't get the kind of awards that Fellowship won or was nominated for. 'Fellowship' was the most complicated and arguably least interesting of the books in the series yet Jackson turned it into an utterly brilliant film of wonder and magic. The film was amazing and I have to say that I like it better than the book itself. 'Towers' was easily the best "action" book of the four, and whilst the film makes a truly superb middle chapter to the series, and certainly one of the best films of the year, it doesn't stand alone on its own as well as the first film did - only by the slimmest of margins mind you. Note however that 'Two Towers' I enjoyed more on my first viewing than Fellowship (which took me 2-3 viewings before I really fell in love), so it may rise up more as I get more comfortable with it. The downloads are available now but not great quality. Make no mistake though, the only faults are that some of the storylines do drag on and that some of the characters are given short shrift - Jackson's changes to the book (such as the delaying of the Shelob scene till Film #3- Return Of The King) are disappointing only because we have to wait so damn long to see the result. The rest, like the first movie, remains utterly epic and brilliant filmmaking fantasy which is truly cinematic and will have you begging for Dec 2003 to role around as fast as it can. I also found a new character to think is utterly adorable besides legolas-although I will still remain intrigued. I give this film a 9.5 out of 10. **** --GODIVA

I had been looking forward to seeing this film for a LONG LONG time and was more than just a little excited when it finally premiered. Pirate movies have been missing at sea for years, though with good reason as the last few that did set sail were considered box office flops. So it finally comes time to reinvent them with the help of uber-action producer Jerry Bruckheimer. The good news is he's succeeded, 'Pirates' is a great adventure movie but not for the reasons you may think. Like all of Bruckheimer's movies its quite fast paced, full of massive action sequences, contains a solid (if slightly juvenile) sense of humour, and has some picturesque locales. Its also a film which relies more on telling a story and then incorporating the action into that rather than the other way around like all too many films these days. The result is something that, to use an analogy here, is like the more outgoing but less thoughtful younger brother of 1998's swashbuckler "The Mask of Zorro".
Because the film is based on a Disney ride, you don't expect much of a story but there is an elaborate background. It utilises all the old cliched elements so when it moves along it all feels too familiar. The script may not be the best in the world but it is perfect for the theme and humor for the film, same goes with most of the performances. Orlando Bloom is not only incredible to look at on screen, but he is a versatile actor witha touch of sensitivity and animal magnetism that you can see him as a potential pirate BUT with class. Keira Knightley, Jack Davenport & Jonathan Pryce are also well selected but their roles are insubstantial at best. Geoffrey Rush brings a fun and yet somewhat vicious tone to the character of Barbossa and makes him a more elaborate villain than expected.However, there is one man who stole the film- That man is Johnny Depp. Depp just camps it up to a volume of 11 as Jack Sparrow, our somewhat insane scoundrel hero who dons more mascara than Tammy Faye Baker, sashays in his walk more than a drag queen,has the scrouples of a drunken gambler, and has the different tones of his voice with make his character even more odd but so well suited.This is one of those performances which just OWNS a film, and it'll be a welcome reinvigoration of the career of this still ultra-talented young man. As with pretty much all Bruckheimer films, the production values are exquisite - from the glorious use of locales, to the digital effects and elaborate sets its all done with a no expense spared look but also in a way that honours all the old classics.
Verbinski's skilled hand, keeping the pace of the film flowing smoothly throughout and even though it feels a little slow towards the end, there's never really a quiet moment where things dull down. The themes and action vary greatly too with sword fights, massive ship battles, brawls and duels. Its a film which straddles the difficult line of being able to make fun of itself, without going overboard into silly 'wink at the camera' style stupidity. Towards the end like any movie the effects do takeover somewhat but the fighting skeletons trick looks cooler than expected. Gags are laugh-inducing throughout and whilst some running ones do fall flat (the eyeball one for instance), the majority comes from Depp's delivery and attitude, Rush's witty dialogue or Knightley's physical comedy - none of which gets old. This film was a great experience and I hope to see it soon, and maybe "Pirate" it as well. I give this an 8 1/2 out of 10.

This is more like "10 Ways To Lose Your Audience". I found myself deeply more distracted by my guy than the movie. One could easily make the argument that "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days" is a perfectly acceptable diversion from not wanting to watch an action flick, or something meaningful that makes you think. It's a CUTE film, but that's it. Kate Hudson's Andie Anderson and Matthew McConaughey's Ben Barry are both affable individuals and, when the script allows it, there are fitful sparks between them. Yet I can't bring myself to recommend the movie. Why? What's missing? Simple: the romance. This movie is so intent upon getting cheap laughs and putting the protagonists in uncomfortable situations that it forgets they're supposed to be falling in love. Even though they don't know it, we should be able to sense it. But it's not there. So when, in the dwindling minutes, the filmmakers recognize that a happy ending is needed, How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days lets loose with a belated avalanche of hearts and flowers that radiates artificiality.

The storyline centers around a gargantuan contrivance that's as hard to swallow as a horse pill without water (which I have an interesting childhood story about that by the way). And the clumsy screenplay doesn't do anything to coat it. Andie is the "How To Girl" at Composure magazine, the "fastest growing woman's magazine in the country." Although she has a Master's degree in journalism from Columbia University and a burning desire to write about politics or religion, her editor (Bebe Neuwirth) has decreed that she must write columns about dating, cosmetics, sex, and wardrobe. So, for her latest effort, she has decided to hook a guy into asking her out, then, by displaying every negative characteristic a woman can use in a relationship (being clingy, self-centered, jealous, etc.), prove that he won't last ten days with her. It's a "how not to" guide to building relationships.

The Guinea pig for Andie's experiment is Ben. However, he's not just in this for the girl. He has bet his ad agency co-workers that he can make Andie fall in love with him within ten days. If he wins the bet, his boss agrees to allow him to manage a huge account. Of course, Ben doesn't know about Andie's agenda, and vice versa. So, for the next week-and-a-half, Andie does everything she can to get Ben to dump her, while Ben doggedly hangs in there, counting the days until he can get the account and run screaming away from Andie.

From time-to-time, How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days has a its very funny moments like the "lovefern" and calling his manlihood "Princess Sophia".Director Donald Petrie (Miss Congeniality) wants us to like both Andie and Ben, so he never allows either of them to do anything too reprehensible. It's a shame, though, because the movie could have been considerably more humorous, not to mention a lot edgier, had Petrie pushed the envelope. As it is, the best laughs come when the movie ventures towards the fringes of the safety net.

Kate Hudson has proven herself to be very good at one kind of role, but with a shockingly limited range. For a vivid example of this, contrast her wonderful work in Almost Famous with her one-note collapse in The Four Feathers. Fortunately, lightweight parts such as this one are well within her capabilities, and she acquits herself admirably as Andie. I have one big thing to say about her wardrobe though: If you know the girl has no chest, don't put her in those unflattering dresses. IE- get a push up bra, or one of those bras with water in them! Matthew McConaughey makes for a decent match. His rugged and good looks deflect most criticisms about his acting ability. But the problems with this movie have nothing to do with the leads, or with the sporadic nature of the sexual tension between them. Instead, they're more basic. I would be among the first to argue that, in a romantic comedy, the storyline is not everything. The problem is that, in movies like How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, it's closer to nothing. Let's put it this way--- It's a "cute" movie, but not a film. I had a great date though, so that at least livened the romance in the theater. I give this a 6 out of 10.

GODIVA