The second installment in Peter Jackson’s adaptation of The Lord of the Rings had fundamental problems from the start. As the second part of a three-part story, it covers mainly the plateau level of the narrative arc; the hero’s introduction and rise of action has already happened, and the climax is a long ways off. For this reason, many film goers found it tedious. Is it possible for such a classic story to suffer from sequel-itis?

If it does, it certainly wasn’t J.R.R. Tolkien’s fault. He wrote The Lord of the Rings as one long book, until publishers made him trisect it. As the middle segment of a novel, The Two Towers makes sense: a drop in action is expected as the story plateaus. But can it stand on its own? The author tried his hardest. Fascinating characters like Gollum/Smeagol take the stage, a wonderful metaphor for the evil inside all of us. Frodo and Sam finally find refuge with Faramir, a character made strangely sinister for the film when writers realized there wasn’t enough peril. It all builds towards climax, and though the end drifts off into ambiguity, it would be hard to film the story any other way.

Did You Know?

In an illustration, Tolkien revealed that the “two towers” were Minas Morgul, the Nazgul’s hideaway, and Orthanc, Saruman’s forest kingdom that is destroyed by the forces of nature. However, in the film, Peter Jackson refers to the “two towers” of Isengard, the last stronghold of men, and Barad-dur, Sauron’s kingdom.

Though unpopular with some movie buffs, The Two Towers has some of the best critical reviews of the trilogy. It stands at 97% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Think you know everything there is to know about this movie? Try your hand at our The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers social trivia. If you’re feeling really ambitious, play some more social film trivia on our Fantasy films genre.

Popularity: 5% [?]

Categories: Movie stories //