User Score
9.0

Universal acclaim- based on 1239 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Dec 10, 2012
    5
    This somehow did not work for me. If this was supposed to be serious, it was verging on the ridiculous. I could excuse the first one for a little low-brow humour considering it didn
  2. RickyC.
    Jan 9, 2004
    5
    The worst of the trilogy...I hated the talking trees storyline.
  3. LanceE.
    Dec 22, 2003
    5
    -Please people please, when you rate a movie very like, such as an 8 to a 10, give valid reason to do so. Saying, "The special effects were the best!" or "This movie rocked!" isn't enough. Validate your score. As I shall do with mine. -For those who've never read the book, they might enjoy this movie a lot, for those who have read the trilogy, will loathe it for the most part. -Please people please, when you rate a movie very like, such as an 8 to a 10, give valid reason to do so. Saying, "The special effects were the best!" or "This movie rocked!" isn't enough. Validate your score. As I shall do with mine. -For those who've never read the book, they might enjoy this movie a lot, for those who have read the trilogy, will loathe it for the most part. -Negatives: -The movie opted for a plot driven story rather than a character driven one. The books were about the Fellowship and their struggle, they were about Frodo and Sam and their hardships. This movie is about war, not the characters, but war. BIG MISTAKE! This is completely untrue to the novel. As a result of that, there are new plot events added in, important ones removed and characters that don't appear, or are killed off. Yeah, apparently Jackson doesn't care about killing characters that were NEVER SUPPOSED TO DIE. -What the hell were the elves doing at Helms Deep? Well, as a result of this split from the novel, Haldir and many characters die that weren't supposed to. -Also, the BIGGEST MISTAKE JACKSON MADE was making the battle at Helms Deep central to the movie. WRONG! It was always supposed to be about Frodo and Sam. As a result, one of the most important scenes in this chapter is cut and moved to the next installment. That was a mistake in itself. The event has more significance to the second installment than the third. I'm talking about Shelob. Now imagine if in THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, the event of Darth Vadar telling Luke that he was his father and that Han Solo being frozen were moved to RETURN OF THE JEDI. That would have been dumb right? Well same as this! -Next Mistake: Helms Deep is a dull half hour, perhaps more, long battle. It just drags on. Regardless of the special effects, it's still monotonous, considering that it wasn't supposed to be the main focus of the second chapter. Jackson just wanted to create the biggest battle in movie history and as a result, the second movie suffers horribly. -AND YET ANOTHER MISTAKE: Someone already mentioned this, that the Nazghul saw that Frodo had the ring. HOW STUPID IS THAT? That was NEVER supposed to happen because Suaron was supposed to think Aragorn had it. As a result, the Palantir scene is now in the next movie and the effect of foreshadowing has been completely lost. -Also, GIMLI the Dwarf is just so untrue to his novel half. He's a joke in this. He's not supposed to be the laughing stock in the novel. WHY DID JACKSON SLAUGHTER THE CHARACTERS? -Some other points: -Too long, they didn't have to add their own dumb scenes, poor script in places where they added new scenes, Arwen and Aragorn scene unneeded. -Anyone else notice that the only good acting in this movie is by Ian McKellan and Viggo? Oh Lord, Elrond can't act, he's the exact same in THE MATRIX. -No, I'm not biased because I've read the novels. I saw the first and second movies before reading the trilogy and I disliked the movies. And there you have my critique, WITH REASONS WHY this movie was OVERRATED. Expand
  4. BenW.
    Sep 6, 2003
    5
    Visually striking, but GOD was I bored.
  5. AwpoI.
    Aug 9, 2003
    5
    While this film is a great piece of cinematographic achievement, I left the theatre somewhat apathetic to the plight of the fellowship. All deviations from the book aside, this film failed to capture the sense of hopelessness of the quest that made the second book so gripping. Whether the LA times critic knew what he was talking about when he said that it stumbled too little and coursed While this film is a great piece of cinematographic achievement, I left the theatre somewhat apathetic to the plight of the fellowship. All deviations from the book aside, this film failed to capture the sense of hopelessness of the quest that made the second book so gripping. Whether the LA times critic knew what he was talking about when he said that it stumbled too little and coursed forward too much, I agree. The characters stumbled along in the book, which made their doom seem all the more inevitable. Let's hope for more from the third movie. Expand
  6. T.Kjer
    Feb 8, 2003
    5
    Not nearly as good as FOTR. At least an hour too long. The battle at Helm's Deep is a big bore. Much ado about nothing with some of the worst dialog, about par with weak George Lucas scripts. The humans and elves are beautiful/handsome dullards. The final climax has the sweep and excitement missing in most of the rest of the film, but it should have been extended. Christopher Lee is Not nearly as good as FOTR. At least an hour too long. The battle at Helm's Deep is a big bore. Much ado about nothing with some of the worst dialog, about par with weak George Lucas scripts. The humans and elves are beautiful/handsome dullards. The final climax has the sweep and excitement missing in most of the rest of the film, but it should have been extended. Christopher Lee is given nothing for his character. If a filmmaker is going to stray from it's source why not make it more interesting and delve into what makes Saruman tick? Expand
  7. Stick
    Dec 30, 2002
    5
    This movie lacked development of all the characters with the exception of Gollum and Frodo. Gollum was the best CGI I have ever seen. The rest of the characters just seem to take up space on the big screen and run around a lot... really, they ran so much it took up half the movie!! Also, why didn't Jackson tell the audiance anything about the magic cloak Sam received in the FOTH, yet This movie lacked development of all the characters with the exception of Gollum and Frodo. Gollum was the best CGI I have ever seen. The rest of the characters just seem to take up space on the big screen and run around a lot... really, they ran so much it took up half the movie!! Also, why didn't Jackson tell the audiance anything about the magic cloak Sam received in the FOTH, yet use it in TTT? If it wasn't important enough to the story line earlier, then don't use it when it's convenient. I hope the ROTK cleans up the damage TTT did to the series. Expand
  8. BobK.
    Dec 28, 2002
    6
    Falls far short of the book; the only part that's better is the battle between the Balog and Gandalf. Changes, for the worst, the recovery of Theoden, the encounter of Pippin and Merry with the Fangorn, the meeting in Ithilien with Faramir...etc...
  9. MartinVonN.
    Dec 21, 2002
    6
    While visually breathtaking, the screenplay is clumsy, acting hammy and has little to do with Tolkien's Book.
  10. MCSlimJB
    Dec 20, 2002
    6
    Can't understand the raves: this is a significant drop in quality from the first film, despite amazing battle sequences and a very moving performance/CGI rendering in the character of Gollum. Retains most of the design virtues of the first film, but the narrative momentum is regularly punctured by slow spots. I saw "Fellowship" twice on the big screen; once is plenty for this one.
  11. KidR.
    Dec 19, 2002
    6
    The Lord of The Rings: The Two Towers is, as a movie, enjoyable. The special effects are spectacular, to the extent that fully CG characters, such as Gollum, seemed entirely real and natural. As an interpretation of Tolkien's novel, however, this picture is very poor. In particularity, certain characters have been altered beyond recognition, and certain events have been changed The Lord of The Rings: The Two Towers is, as a movie, enjoyable. The special effects are spectacular, to the extent that fully CG characters, such as Gollum, seemed entirely real and natural. As an interpretation of Tolkien's novel, however, this picture is very poor. In particularity, certain characters have been altered beyond recognition, and certain events have been changed without valid reason. Although I understand that certain sequences couldn't be filmed due to time constraints, there was absolutely NO reason for Peter Jackson to exclude crucial scenes from the book, only to replace them with senseless scenes of his own conception. The ending sequence at Osgiliath is a particularly egregious example. Expand
  12. KidR.
    Dec 19, 2002
    6
    The Lord of The Rings: The Two Towers is, as a movie, enjoyable. The special effects are spectacular, to the extent that fully CG characters, such as Gollum, seemed entirely real and natural. As an interpretation of Tolkien's novel, however, this picture is very poor. In particularity, certain characters have been altered beyond recognition, and certain events have been changed The Lord of The Rings: The Two Towers is, as a movie, enjoyable. The special effects are spectacular, to the extent that fully CG characters, such as Gollum, seemed entirely real and natural. As an interpretation of Tolkien's novel, however, this picture is very poor. In particularity, certain characters have been altered beyond recognition, and certain events have been changed without valid reason. Although I understand that certain sequences couldn't be filmed due to time constraints, there was absolutely NO reason for Peter Jackson to exclude crucial scenes from the book, only to replace them with senseless scenes of his own conception. The ending sequence at Osgiliath is a particularly egregious example. Expand
  13. RyanH.
    Dec 19, 2002
    4
    I was disappointed in this bloated, preposterous, fantasy action movie. The CG characters (excepting Gollum) were the worst cartoonish drivel since Jar Jar Binks of the current Star Wars trilogy. The action was unrealistic, over-the-top. There was likewise no suspense in the action, as all the characters are now playing in "god mode." Not as good as the first, not by a long shot.
  14. SkipY.
    Dec 18, 2002
    6
    It's as if the two movies were written by different people. I don't have a problem with taking liberties with the book, but these insertions and changes of character make no sense at all. And why trade great dialogue for mediocre? Were the writers that conceited that they couldn't resist putting more of their own work into this movie? The problems with TT have only to do It's as if the two movies were written by different people. I don't have a problem with taking liberties with the book, but these insertions and changes of character make no sense at all. And why trade great dialogue for mediocre? Were the writers that conceited that they couldn't resist putting more of their own work into this movie? The problems with TT have only to do with the writing. It really makes no sense. FOTR was near perfect; what a disapointment TT is. Expand
  15. C.Busse
    Dec 18, 2002
    5
    What a huge letdown after FOTR. I could not get over the massive liberties taken with Tolkein's work in this movie. Those who had not read the book in our group thought it was good, those who had were very upset; I almost walked out.
Metascore
88

Universal acclaim - based on 38 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 37 out of 38
  2. Negative: 0 out of 38
  1. 89
    God forbid this should ever play on an IMAX screen -- the concussive soundtrack and relentless visuals would likely strike viewers deaf and blind (but what a way to go!). Simply breathtaking.
  2. Reviewed by: Ty Burr
    100
    The miracle is that 'The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is better: tighter, smarter, funnier.
  3. 75
    A rousing adventure, a skillful marriage of special effects and computer animation, and it contains sequences of breathtaking beauty. It also gives us, in a character named the Gollum, one of the most engaging and convincing CGI creatures I've seen.