The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) (mini-review++)


(If you’re curious, my review process. It’s also pasted at the end of this post. I don’t believe in Rotten Tomatoes. I just believe in me.)

(***all-purpose SPOILER ALERT*** there may be some in this review)

The mini-review:

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

acting 9

directing 9

writing 9

effects 10

editing 8

SW score: 45

4.7 out of 5 octopi

++ “It’s as if a billion geeks cried out in joy and then got even louder. In the geek pyramid of legendary tales, J. R. R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy is below no other. Now, this is not a typical pyramid. There is no undisputed #1. Hobbits and Jedis and Vulcans and Spider-men all are just shades of the most awesome. Peter Jackson was born to direct this masterpiece. We just had to wait for him to get the requisite chops and clout. He did not disappoint. Sure, some geeks will complain of the subplots and characters that he cut but he took a sacred text and distilled just about the best adaptation possible. The acting performances were pristine. the effects were groundbreaking. The score was triumphant. I don’t think any geek could ask for much more.” The quoted text was my review for the first flick in this inestimable trilogy. I think this is the best movie in the trilogy. And I give the most of that credit to Andy Serkis’ performance as Gollum. It has that Empire Strikes Back feel to it in that it’s the hardest part for our heroes. It also doesn’t end on a victorious note, much like Empire. But the heroes survive, battered and bloody, to forge on. Elijah Wood also delivers his best turn of the trilogy. It’s about as perfect as a geek opus can be.




(1) Shark Wrighter (SW) Score: Based on a sum of 5 sub-scores (acting, directing, writing/story, effects: cinematography &/or animation &/or effects, editing) with 1 being terrible and 10 being terrific.

(2) Octopuses (0-5 šŸ™, with 5 being fantastic and 0 being feces)

(3) Octopuses are my unquantifiable feelingā€¦not that SW score is scientificā€¦but this one is even less so

(4) ++ This optional section includes any incredibly *brilliant observations that don’t fit into simple quantitative slices like the scores and octopuses *(they are likely NOT brilliant)


Leave a Reply