Media Index |
Comments on this page can contain spoilers.
Page 1 | Page 2
| Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5
| Page 6 | Page 7 | Page 8
Lúthien, Åbo, Finland
I was dissappointed, especially after having seen the first film and quite
Jackson's work is very beautiful and the attention to detail in set design
and costumes is remarkable, but the many alterations from Tolkien's original
work made the film another story. It is understandable that some things
have to be left out for sake of time and different media, but I have no
understanding for the additions and alterations made. Faramir is unrecognizable,
the Ents Disney characters, Aragorn falling from the cliff and the set-up
of a triangle drama for the last film uncomprehensible. And having left
out large parts of the second book, I can't see how Peter Jackson's going
to pull through the last film.
anastasia, moscow, russia
something has happened. something unexpected. The first part, though having
almast all the ill features of a hollywood film, was still beautiful, and
had something to do with the book. But the second seemed some interpritation
of Star Wars. I felt almost sick seeing Aragorn and Arwen full screen kissing.
I don't want to heart anybody, who enjoyed this film, but now it seems to
me that J. R. R. Tolkien would not like all these at all. I will be thankful
for any reply. I'm a new-comer in the internet so I'm not sure I'll be able
to get to this very place once again so my e-mail is email@example.com.
I tried to escape too many mistakes but i don't believe i really managed
to do so, and i'm sorry. if anybody marks them to me i'll know that somebody
has read it. Good bye and best regards
Vince Lencioni, Mexico City, Mexico
I believe that the best fiction novel of the 20th century should have
been better respected in its movie form. I did not like how Peter Jackson
decided to change the story, especially in the Two Towers. What is worse,
the changes he made were not to shorten the film to accomodate time limits
or to advance the plot in the most efficient way either. Most of his changes
were either unnecessary or did not contribute to the plot or to the proper
characterization of the characters. I hated what he did to Faramir. I found
Two Towers to be disgraceful. Considering my love of these books, I found
Two Towers to be one of the biggest disappointments of the year for me personally.
If Tolkien was not the mild mannered person that he was, I'm certain he
would have rolled over in his grave on the opening night of Two Towers.
In fact, I would characterize Jackson changes as almost a form of narcism.
He couldn't leave well enough alone. The real detraction from all of this
is that with the movie, many people will stop at the movie, say that they
didn't like it, and never even attempt to read the greatest fiction novel
of the 20th Century. In this respect, Peter Jackson did Tolkien a real disservice.
We can only hope that Jackson decides to stay closer to the plot next December
with Return of the King.
G. H., Ireland
I have to say, although I enjoyed the Two Towers more, there were more
'mistakes' in it than the first film. For one thing, Peter Jackson's portrayal
of Faramir drives me mad!!! Does anyone agree that in the book Faramir is
far wiser, nicer, noble, respected and revered by his men, and fair to the
hobbits? He should have been more intelligent and understanding of the hobbits,
and he should not, underline NOT, taken them to Osgiliath! What on (middle)
earth was the point of that??!! (sorry, just felt like doing that!)
I think Aragorn should definitely have carried Anduril. It is a key part
of his character and his role in the story.
Frodo became too 'bad' too soon. He does not snap at Sam or show such signs
of the rings power at all at that stage.
Other than that, it was a brilliant film!!!!
Martin Dean, London, England
Although I have great respect for Peter Jackson and his work on the first
movie, I am sad to say that the two towers was absolute rubbish. Anybody
who says otherwise needs a good kicking.
There were too many changes to the story which didn't need to be there.
For example when Aragorn falls off the cliff and dies, supposedly. what
the hell was the point in that. NO NEED. Helms Deep was the worst action
scene I've ever seen, Braveheart was better. The elves also didn't fight
at helms deep. They killed off that fat elf Haldir for no reason. They thought
it might be dramatic, like when Boromir dies. No, he's just a fat elf. And
why did they cut Shelob from the end. This would have left the film on a
great cliffhanger because Sam has the ring and you don't know whether Frodo
is dead or not. I make my peace.
Abbi, Elmira, USA
I love the fact that the movies allow me to "see" Middle Earth-
I hate everything they changed from the book. I see the reasoning behind
some changes, some changes were absolutely pointless, and I am in mourning
due to the ruin of Faramir's character.
Bridgett, Chicago IL, USA
I saw the movies, and read the books (afterword) and I loved both. I can
live with them changing a few things. I think in some cases it wasn't neccessary,
but all the same the movies are great and I can't wait for the third one.
Sheob will appear in the 3rd one, so no need 2 complain about her not
being in the 2nd, the movie was 3 hours long as is. I also heard that the
whole scene when Faramier takes Sam and Frodo to Minas Tirith, it was just
to get Faramir dead. CRAZY I know but still, TTT deserves more nominations
for Oscars than it got.
Irwin Cohen, Youngstown, Ohio, USA
The movie treats the book fairly well, which is as much
as might be hoped for and better than might have been expected. Most of
the characters are well done, especially Gandalf and Gollum. Yes, a good
movie, although it does fall short in some ways.
(1) Theoden's character
in the movie is shallow; he is rejuvenated from a near trance to full vigor
by magic, whereas in the book he is a real human, despairing at first but
brought back to his true vigor by the encouragement and persuasion more
than by magic. And he goes forth to battle, not to hide, as in the movie.
(2) The ents of the movie are caricatures, cartoonish trees that
speak and move, not at all as in the book. And Tolkien's ents come to their
to go to war after a long discussion in their entmoot, not by quick persuasion
of the hobbits.
(3) The movie's treatment of Faramir was a bit shabby --
he "met the test" in the book, refused the ring, and released the hobbits and Gollum without futher
(4) Tolkien's orcs are a breed of elves, distorted by the evil
of Sauron, and cross-bred with humans by Saruman to form the Uruk-Hai.
They are not
manufactured by magic as apparaently they are in the movie. In general,
the movie relies on much more magic and battles than Tolkien. The same
can be said of the movie as the book: it is too short!
Alex, Greenville, SC, USA
wow....this was such a great movie. true to the book!
BUT, i do have one negative...where in the heck does it say that the army
of elves comes to fight the Orcs? it doesn't! bad choice Jackson! should've
stayed true! but, all in all, AWESOME movie! Gollum is so awesome! great
| Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3
| Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6
| Page 7 | Page 8 |
This page copyright © 2002 The Tolkien Society, registered as a charity in England, number 273809.