User Score
9.0

Universal acclaim- based on 1216 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. Aug 14, 2010
    10
    When the "worst" movie of a trilogy is an absolute 10, then you sir, have a damn fine trilogy. This is an incredible movie from start to finish, but the one drawback is that it feels like it was continued and needs continuing. The thing is, it's actually worth the ride.
  2. Mar 26, 2012
    10
    The Two Towers is equally as good as the first but with bigger and better battle sequences. It has even more adeventure and even mixes in some comedy in that makes the movie flow perfectly. The best picture of the year.
  3. Feb 8, 2012
    10
    When people ask me which film in the Lord of the Rings trilogy is the my least favorite, I usually say The Two Towers. However, seeing as how all three films are all cinematic masterpieces, this doesn't mean jack-squat. The Two Towers, like its other two siblings, is quite simply one of the greatest films of all time. Director Peter Jackson does an outstanding job with staying true toWhen people ask me which film in the Lord of the Rings trilogy is the my least favorite, I usually say The Two Towers. However, seeing as how all three films are all cinematic masterpieces, this doesn't mean jack-squat. The Two Towers, like its other two siblings, is quite simply one of the greatest films of all time. Director Peter Jackson does an outstanding job with staying true to Tolkien's story, while adding some of his own flare to the film. Its visual effects, cinematography, and score are some of the best seen in film, which can be said about the other two films as well. The ending of The Two Towers is one of the most emotionally powerful endings of any film I've seen (which is saying something since I consider myself quite the film expert). The montage with Sam's moving speech to Frodo does the movie justice, and is the perfect ending to the second installation of the trilogy where hope for the defeat of evil in Middle Earth is all but faded. Frodo, stricken with grief and weariness of being the Ring Bearer, asks Sam what they are holding onto, which Sam responds with, and still to this day brings goosebumps and tears to me, "That there's some good in this world Mr. Frodo, and its worth fighting for!" Words we all could live by nowadays. Expand
  4. Sam
    Jul 14, 2005
    10
    It's a great film. The best of the 3, so in my opinion, the greatest film ever. Go ahead and think that many other films are the best, but in my opinion, this is the best of them all. I will respect your opinions, unless you disrespect mine or say this sucks or other crap is the best. Not just the best for action, but for acting, plot, and development.
  5. KrisK.
    Dec 16, 2002
    10
    I didn't think it would be possible, but TTT tops FotR. The first five minutes will take your breath away, and you won't get it back until the credits roll.
  6. MaggieM.
    Dec 18, 2002
    10
    Better than the first- Andy Serkis deserves an oscar for his enticing perspectives on Gollum. All the actors are wonderful- and I'm especially happy because we get to see more of Legolas', Gimli's, perspectives, which were hard to see the first time when they were outweighed by Gandalf, Frodo, and Aragorn.
  7. Dec 5, 2011
    8
    It was ok. While the CGI parts are pretty terrible and painfully obvious, The action more then makes up for it and the epic battle at the end delivers an amazing climax to the film. I agree with another reviewer that said you know its a good trilogy when the worst film in it still gets a high score.
  8. KathrineK.
    Feb 14, 2003
    10
    The Lord of the Rings was a fabulous book and has now been translated to the big screen. There has never been anything like this before. Sure we've seen fantasy, but how many of those have been nearly as successful as The Lord of the Rings? It is completely unique. The two towers is amazing and the screen play is great. It is packed with action and adventure and a strange yet The Lord of the Rings was a fabulous book and has now been translated to the big screen. There has never been anything like this before. Sure we've seen fantasy, but how many of those have been nearly as successful as The Lord of the Rings? It is completely unique. The two towers is amazing and the screen play is great. It is packed with action and adventure and a strange yet beautiful romantic scene between Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) and Arwen (Liv Tyler). The actors are, like in the first one, all wonderfully cast including new arrivals: Miranda Otto (as Eowyn) David Wenham (as Faramir) and Karl Urban (as Eomer). And also there was Andy Serkis who was fabulous as the voice of Gollum. The movie was undoubtedly the most amazing thing I?ve ever seen and will see over and over again! The movie was derived from a difficult and adult text and yet it was portrayed so wonderfully in the movie. It is amazing to see how people who did not read the books before seeing the movie were able to understand it so well, despite its obvious supernatural content. So many things which were explained in the book and couldn?t be so easily depicted on the screen were done successfully. The ideas and mythology behind the movie would have made The Lord of the Rings and demeaning trilogy to film, speaking not only of the actors? physical demands. The music was well set to ever scene, the settings were so beautiful and breathtaking. Edoras, the capital of Rohan, was actually a real set and was captured wonderfully on the screen. Everything was done to the most precise and final detail, everything was made overwhelmingly real. Isengard and the tower of Orthanc, although being models, just captivated the audience. They looked, in every way, genuine. The Two tower?s is a fantastic continuation of The Fellowship of the Ring and the Return of the King will be even better. Anyone who has read the book knows what to expect and, as shown in the movie so far, will be likely to receive nothing less then the best. The Lord of the Rings is simply brilliant, a directing victory for Peter Jackson. Expand
  9. Anonymous
    Jun 8, 2005
    10
    Think the first lord of the rings with a large, epic battle at the end. Better than the already excellent Fellowship, and it doesn't really feel repetetive. Battle, from small to big, are better than ever, and emotional resonance is not lost. Sean Astin's ending dialogue is something everyone needs to hear; a need to fight on in the face of darkness.
  10. Fishball
    Jan 11, 2003
    10
    Saw it for the third time and i can honestly say this film gets better with every subsequent watching!!...thatz more than i can say for most films these days -_-;;
  11. J.Man
    Jan 2, 2003
    10
    What else can you say at this point? The best of its kind. Truly a wonder.
  12. RJG.
    Jan 4, 2003
    7
    I know I saw a good action packed sword epic with a lot of great CGI special effects. The CGI generated Gollum and Treebeard are brillant. Serkis' voice over for Gollum is equally briallant. However, I'm puzzled as to why the producers of this film are allowed to get away with calling this move "The Two Towers." I'm equally puzzled by the people who have read the book and I know I saw a good action packed sword epic with a lot of great CGI special effects. The CGI generated Gollum and Treebeard are brillant. Serkis' voice over for Gollum is equally briallant. However, I'm puzzled as to why the producers of this film are allowed to get away with calling this move "The Two Towers." I'm equally puzzled by the people who have read the book and don't mind the ommissions and liberties taken with the book in this bastardized theatrical version. The movie ends with fully eight chapters, four in Book Three and four in Book Four, not even covered, mostly because the director wastes his time adding scenes that don't exist in the source material and stretching out the battle for Helm's Deep at least a half hour too long. What's next for ROTK? A company of Elves arriving to help Frodo and Sam battle Shelob? Why not have Aragorn marry Eowyn? Better yet, lets' have Aragorn and Eomer decide they're gay and Arwen and Eowyn decide they are lesbian and have a group same sex marriage at the end. Why not have Luke Skywalker become the new Ring Bearer?Who cares as long as what we are watching is called "Lord of the Rings," right? Expand
  13. JerryT.
    Jan 5, 2003
    10
    All i have to say is it blew me away.
  14. JonathanD.
    Feb 19, 2003
    9
    Not quite as good as FOTR, but that's like comparing gold to platinum; you really can't complain either way. An amazing, immersive movie with a HUGE scope, mindblowing special effects, great sound effects/music, and the best battle scenes ever in a movie (Helm's Deep ROCKS!). If you haven't already, go see TTT.
  15. ANewMulroneycakesIsArising,OrSomething
    Feb 8, 2003
    10
    [******Spoilers, as REM said, follow. Sorry******] I would like to invite Ruisert the Mad to take his finger out of his arse. I'm sorry, but he doesn't seem to understand that Jackson wasn't making a beat-for-beat visualisation of the books. That works for Potter because the target audience is young - the books are simple, the films are simple, the audience is satisfied, [******Spoilers, as REM said, follow. Sorry******] I would like to invite Ruisert the Mad to take his finger out of his arse. I'm sorry, but he doesn't seem to understand that Jackson wasn't making a beat-for-beat visualisation of the books. That works for Potter because the target audience is young - the books are simple, the films are simple, the audience is satisfied, the job is a good'un. That ain't going to cut the mustard here. What Jackson is making is a MOVIE in its own right. For example: Liv Tyler's involvment, and that of Weaving Hugo and Cate Blanchett, is a neat way of bringing people up to speed with what's going on - the sheer scale of the movie (and make no mistake - Two Towers was just the middle third of a nine-hour movie. People who say it should stand alone as a movie in its own right are talking bollocks on an unprecendented scale) required Towers to stop, children, and fill in a few blanks. Reminding the audience of Arwen - who hadn't been seen since halfway through Fellowship, and won't be seen again for a while - and her predicament, or of Elrond and his eyebrows, is quite sensible. Well, it helped ME. As for the "waste" that was the Edoras set - buh? What is he saying, that he'd rather see them wandering around a mountain pretending there was a town there? Talk sense or not at all. Complete altering of the storyline? Not really. Just a few bits here and there to make it go faster, nothing serious. Instead of Aragorn arseing about in some sparkly caves, they cut through the treacle and had Arwen to the rescue instead. They didn't bother with Dunbarrow because, well, "building the set for Dunbarrow? Why? For 1 or 2 scenes? What a waste." It didn't hurt anyone to put them in Helm's Deep. It is a shame that the "Saruman, your staff is broken" bit was left out, but it's not that subtle, f'crying out loud - imagine watching it in a movie. What's subtle on the page is a clarion call on the screen, precious. They presumably changed Halbabrad and Co into elves cos a) it's easier to explain and b) it doesn't make a sod of difference. As for Usgilliath, think about it: as a soldier, Faramir would have had to take Frodo and Sam to Minas Tirith anyway, as his duty. So he did. The whole "revalation of the Ring" thing was just delayed a little. Oh, and Shelob will appear in Return Of The King - which had far too little of the hobbits in it in the first place, so nyer, that's Tolkien's bad. Departure from the story? Departure from the story? Sod off. It's the same story, more or less, just with a book so massive, you need to compromise to adapt it properly. I suspect that Ruisert's failed to spot the merits of the film because he's clinging to hard to the books. That "notorious" bit with Legolas zooming down something and shooting things, for example. I don't remember that because I was swept up so hard in the atmosphere as a whole. It seems sadly likely that Ruisert was too busy nitpicking to enjoy himself. The film he's describing would probably be twenty hours long, and crap. And that's just the mid-section. This one is three hours long and really, rather ace. If you can see the wood from the trees, that is. Expand
  16. SteveM.
    Mar 5, 2003
    10
    Unquestionably the best Lord of the Rings yet. I love the first, but this was easily better. It should win best picture, but the academy always picks real duds. This year they'll probably pick the incredibly disappointing, overhyped and lame Chicago.
  17. TihomirB.
    Dec 29, 2002
    10
    Some bad changes but we can live with that.
  18. Dave
    Dec 30, 2002
    10
    I am 48 years old and have read the book at least 10 times. I have NO PROBLEM with the changes! Granted, I was worried when the ring headed to Gondor, but the resolution made Faramir even more noble. Fanghorn/Treeberad was exceptional. Battle scenes exceptional! Theoden ... Moving Shelob to film three.....brilliant decision. Eowyn and Eomer were inspired and Edoras a masterpiece and I am 48 years old and have read the book at least 10 times. I have NO PROBLEM with the changes! Granted, I was worried when the ring headed to Gondor, but the resolution made Faramir even more noble. Fanghorn/Treeberad was exceptional. Battle scenes exceptional! Theoden ... Moving Shelob to film three.....brilliant decision. Eowyn and Eomer were inspired and Edoras a masterpiece and superb location. Bravo New Zealand! But the masterpeice and centerpiece of the film was Gollum. Jackson and Co. and Andy Serkis imbued him with a humanity that defies description. We are so accustomed to computer characters like Jar Jar Binks that we stand truly amazed when someone takes the technology and uses it in a true performance reality. For all those who say this is just action and battle....you didn't WATCH the film. An all encompassing human and moral epic and an achievement os staggering proportions. When the three films are seen together it will represent one of the masterpieces of film......not JUST fantasy or action films or whatever label you want to attach.....but any genre of film. Thank you Peter Jackson for a thrill and continued surprise and awe! Many thanks to the critics for praising a "fantasy" film. You show true bravery as well! I noticed the film made none of the New York Times critics 10 best lists, proving the public can sometimes be better judges of good and bad. Expand
  19. FunEddie
    Jan 1, 2003
    10
    I saw the trailers, I visited the website on a regular basis, I read all the hype, by the time the movie arrived I was almost too scared to see it as my expectations were so high - I was expecting to see one of my favourite films of all time. That the film not only lived up to but surpassed my expectations is the greatest tribute I can pay to Peter Jackson and his band of merry men. Roll I saw the trailers, I visited the website on a regular basis, I read all the hype, by the time the movie arrived I was almost too scared to see it as my expectations were so high - I was expecting to see one of my favourite films of all time. That the film not only lived up to but surpassed my expectations is the greatest tribute I can pay to Peter Jackson and his band of merry men. Roll on Christmas 2003! Expand
  20. OddMagneGranli
    Jan 13, 2003
    10
    First of all, this movie is fantastic. People say this movie sucks because it isnt like the book. That argument is getting old, and besides that, its useless. I too have read the book, several times, but I found the films to be stronger, since they compress the best parts and melts them together. This is a movie, not a documentary. People and fanatic tolkien fans cry in wraith and anger First of all, this movie is fantastic. People say this movie sucks because it isnt like the book. That argument is getting old, and besides that, its useless. I too have read the book, several times, but I found the films to be stronger, since they compress the best parts and melts them together. This is a movie, not a documentary. People and fanatic tolkien fans cry in wraith and anger over the changes and exclusions, but go ahead and sour like an onion. Everyone else enjoys this movie, every night I have been to the movies peoples have laughed of Gimli`s funny comments, we have been impressed by the visuals and overwhelmed by the battles. What Peter Jackson does, is not harming the book, but he has to make some choices of what is staying and what is going. And since this movie isnt just for you "I know it all", but for ordinary peoples, he did the right thing. The result is a trilogy that will be as strong, and even stronger than Star Wars, and until Return of the King, this is my favoritefilm ever, even surpassing Fellowship. Pure perfection of filmmaking. Expand
  21. raVen
    Dec 8, 2003
    10
    Some people can take base emotions and unversal truths at face value, no matter what the window dressing is. Some can't. Literary-slash-cinema classics like the Wizard of Oz work on two levels, allowing the viewer to either A: enjoy the work as sensual experience, or B: enjoy the work for its broader allegory and implied metaphors. Obviously, in the case of LOTR, some people prefer Some people can take base emotions and unversal truths at face value, no matter what the window dressing is. Some can't. Literary-slash-cinema classics like the Wizard of Oz work on two levels, allowing the viewer to either A: enjoy the work as sensual experience, or B: enjoy the work for its broader allegory and implied metaphors. Obviously, in the case of LOTR, some people prefer option C: simply not give a damn and then cynically bash anyone who does. These people should just avoid the middleman altogether and stay home to watch Bill O'Reilly or something. The rest of us are enjoying the hell out of this trilogy. Expand
  22. JoseV.
    Oct 3, 2003
    10
    Epic! A true fantasy adventure that engages the mind to wonder. Mr. Jackson you have been robbed of your Oscar.
  23. MovieFaninTTTland
    Jan 6, 2003
    10
    I have finally gone and seen the movie. I had read a lot of the reviews before hand and I must admit that I was a little nervous about much. I knew about the film from the reviews that I have read. The film was very good, it moved a lot faster than the first (Which is what you would expect) I was expecting it to be a lot darker than the first from what everyone had posted. But I didn?t I have finally gone and seen the movie. I had read a lot of the reviews before hand and I must admit that I was a little nervous about much. I knew about the film from the reviews that I have read. The film was very good, it moved a lot faster than the first (Which is what you would expect) I was expecting it to be a lot darker than the first from what everyone had posted. But I didn?t think it was at all. Gimili's humour wasn?t over the top and if anything there was only one spot that the audience really cracked up with Gimili. I had no problems with [Spoiler Omitted], it highlighted that even heroes can be vulnerable to injury and it worked in well with other story lines within the movie which I think PJ was trying to achieve. I read one personal review thought that the Ents were very 2D; I didn?t think that at all, they definitely looked very rich in colour and character. I am going to go and see it again as I spent half the movie trying to spot the faults at which point I thought that most people had been too picky just for the sack of being picky. How does the saying go "Tall poppy syndrome". Well done PJ and co-horts it was a fantastic effort. Expand
  24. PaulM.
    Mar 16, 2003
    10
    I expected an unbelieveably, incredible awesome movie, but instead I got an awesomely entertaining one. Not quite as good as the Fellowship, but is pretty dang close. Is still one of the best movies ever made.
  25. ZoeS.
    Mar 19, 2003
    10
    THIS IS ONE OF THE GREATEST MOVIES OF ALL TIME! i espically loved the battle at helms deep. it was the best 3 hours of my life!
  26. RedHead
    Mar 8, 2003
    10
    THIS WAS AN AWESUM MOVIE! My friend liked it cuzz she thinks striders hot but i prefer elijah =) lol n e ways AWESUM MOVIE!
  27. JonathanS.
    Mar 9, 2003
    10
    An absolutely brilliant movie, perfect acting and great special effects.Not quite as good as the fellowship of the ring though.
  28. MychaelT.
    Apr 14, 2003
    10
    This movie is so off the hook!man it is so better than the 1st movie because it has more action...But the thing is.... Is that I don't know that I don't know when the movie comes out so that I can buy it so I can watch it over and over again.
  29. GiselaR.
    Apr 7, 2003
    10
    I wuz so0o0o0o0o excellent! i saw it 5 times! n legolas wuz so0o0o000o0o sexy 2.lol other than that it wuz awsome*~*
  30. WAKOJAKO
    May 23, 2003
    10
    A film for the ages. The best film of 2002.
  31. ChristyN.
    May 5, 2003
    10
    Fabulous Movie!!
  32. JeffW.
    May 9, 2003
    10
    It was like totally awesome and stuff yo, te he he *kiss kiss*
  33. Hillaryl.
    Jun 28, 2003
    9
    A fantastic movie of the year! love it soooo much!
  34. ErwinK.
    Jun 9, 2003
    9
    Fantastic movie. Battle seens were a bit drawn out, but Gollum was utterly captivating.
  35. Marc
    Aug 29, 2003
    10
    Oh it missed this bit from the book, ooh Shelob was'nt there, As great as the books & Tolkien are Tolkien did'nt make the films Peter Jackson did. His passion for the original text is evident Good on you Pete!!!
  36. Layne
    Aug 30, 2003
    10
    A beautiful, enrapturing epic adventure that remains one of my favorite films.
  37. KeithE.
    Sep 20, 2003
    10
    Ok... If you like the fantasy genre and enjoy a delightful story about the voyage of two hobbits then watch this film. To the people who complain about it being boring have been missing the sheer majesty of this project. Try looking at the beautiful scenes and the inspirational characters, they will capture your attention and take you to a place you have never been before. To the critic Ok... If you like the fantasy genre and enjoy a delightful story about the voyage of two hobbits then watch this film. To the people who complain about it being boring have been missing the sheer majesty of this project. Try looking at the beautiful scenes and the inspirational characters, they will capture your attention and take you to a place you have never been before. To the critic who said that this was too violent of a film has obviously never read the classic books either, since the second book is also deeply set in a wartorn world. The battle scenes were phenomenal and the Lord Of The Rings series will quickly become a part of film history. Expand
  38. EmmuE.
    Sep 9, 2003
    10
    This film is much better than I expected!!!
  39. mattm
    Oct 17, 2004
    10
    It was awsome the action im like the lord of the rings biggest fan and they did pretty good on keeping close to tolkiens ideas the special effects were awsome the action ive read all the books to and seen all the movies so take it from me it is worth the 3 hour line.
  40. BeccaF.
    Apr 13, 2004
    10
    This is in responce to Lance E.'s comments: I noticed that "your many reasons why the movie was overrated" all came down to one thing: the movie was not true to the book. So what? Does that make it less enjoyable? No. Some people, like you, come into the theatre already with ideas in in your head, which isn't a good idea. You should not care that it's true to the book This is in responce to Lance E.'s comments: I noticed that "your many reasons why the movie was overrated" all came down to one thing: the movie was not true to the book. So what? Does that make it less enjoyable? No. Some people, like you, come into the theatre already with ideas in in your head, which isn't a good idea. You should not care that it's true to the book enough to rate one of the best and coolest movies of all time a 5. And while i agree that basing your rating solely on special effects or how cool gollum looked, all of those little reasons add up to why we liked the movie so much. Here are just a few of the "small" reasons why this movie rocked: the special effects, the beautiful scenery, the great acting, the plot, how hard it must have been to turn this into 3 hours, the way that gollum, the orcs, and the ents looked, and much, much more. Expand
  41. MattL.
    Jan 28, 2005
    10
    The best movie trilogy. TTT is the 2nd installment and most dark, harrowing, and dreary of the coming events. Starts the war of men vs. evil.
  42. CoryB.
    Mar 15, 2007
    8
    A great movie! Full of adventure and fun, more epic than the first.
  43. [Anonymous]
    Dec 18, 2002
    10
    I can understand why C.busse's friends that read the book might have been disappointed but the people i went with that have read the book as well were still impressed with the film. After a year long wait, here we have LoTR:TT in all its glory. The movie, though ~long~, remains captivating throughout. If director Jackson had squeezed every last subplot from the book into the movie I can understand why C.busse's friends that read the book might have been disappointed but the people i went with that have read the book as well were still impressed with the film. After a year long wait, here we have LoTR:TT in all its glory. The movie, though ~long~, remains captivating throughout. If director Jackson had squeezed every last subplot from the book into the movie most people would have gotten bored with it but he does a superb job in presenting it regardless. I thought this film showed a lot more emotion from Legolas Gimli and Aragorn and how the 3 have bonded to form a nice little trio. And the final battle scene, you won't believe it it's so amazing. This movie is a very nice continuation of the epic Lord of the Rings. Expand
  44. DildoF.
    Dec 18, 2002
    9
    I loved this movie, but there are some little things that bothered me. Whatever, its a masterpiece ! One of the best movie i ever saw.
  45. Neville
    Dec 18, 2002
    10
    It's better than sex! (whatever that is)
  46. ArtyinusaLovesMacs
    Dec 19, 2002
    10
    Awesome movie. Gollum and the Battle scenes rock! Going to see this again, shortly.. 12/18/02
  47. AsenB.
    Dec 20, 2002
    10
    For a long time after I went out of the theater I couldn't believe that a movie can be so beautiful. I LOVE IT!
  48. Cory
    Dec 21, 2002
    10
    I've read this series over and over again, and no, this is not a perfect adaptation. So what? Certain changes are better, and before i get tied at the stake for this, think of the Theoden/Wormtoungue deal. Possesed works better than just duped for me. Anyway, this film is pure genius. Better than the first, with more human villains.... Gollum steals the whole show as the tortured I've read this series over and over again, and no, this is not a perfect adaptation. So what? Certain changes are better, and before i get tied at the stake for this, think of the Theoden/Wormtoungue deal. Possesed works better than just duped for me. Anyway, this film is pure genius. Better than the first, with more human villains.... Gollum steals the whole show as the tortured soul he is. Simply amazing. Expand
  49. KarlD.
    Dec 20, 2002
    10
    The best movie you'll ever see this year, and the best one till The Return of the King will be released. The Hellm's deep battle is just astonisghing. The visuals are impressive in every part of the film, and Gollum is just great and really merits something big this movie. 3 hours of pure magic, an epic of such a great scale that you'll never see a movie like this one in The best movie you'll ever see this year, and the best one till The Return of the King will be released. The Hellm's deep battle is just astonisghing. The visuals are impressive in every part of the film, and Gollum is just great and really merits something big this movie. 3 hours of pure magic, an epic of such a great scale that you'll never see a movie like this one in your life. EXCELLENT! Expand
  50. JackD.
    Dec 22, 2002
    10
    Epic and breathtaking, full of wonders and exciting scenes... loved it!
  51. DexterS.
    Dec 30, 2002
    10
    Wonderful war scenes, good action, nice effects... Well, perfect!
  52. BrianH.
    Oct 10, 2003
    10
    It could hardly get any better.
  53. Sep 24, 2012
    9
    Having recently read the book I did find that this departed from J.R.R.Tolkien
  54. Jul 31, 2012
    9
    An action packed ride that is every bit as good as the first movie. It may be the least enjoyable of the films, but the fact that it is still a phenomenal film stands as proof the Peter Jackson has created the most consistent and brilliant book adapted film franchise of all time. My only complaint would be that it does not focus enough on the characters like the first two films did, butAn action packed ride that is every bit as good as the first movie. It may be the least enjoyable of the films, but the fact that it is still a phenomenal film stands as proof the Peter Jackson has created the most consistent and brilliant book adapted film franchise of all time. My only complaint would be that it does not focus enough on the characters like the first two films did, but every other aspect of it is near perfect. Expand
  55. Jan 9, 2012
    10
    Like all the other films of the LOTR trilogy I watched this movie in one go without taking a break or falling interest. The actors did very well in the film but I personally think Christopher Lee (Saruman) stood out from the rest because of his cold yet powerful voice on several occasions during the film. Bernad Hill (Theoden) also did an excellent job as the king of Rohan. The fightLike all the other films of the LOTR trilogy I watched this movie in one go without taking a break or falling interest. The actors did very well in the film but I personally think Christopher Lee (Saruman) stood out from the rest because of his cold yet powerful voice on several occasions during the film. Bernad Hill (Theoden) also did an excellent job as the king of Rohan. The fight sequence were well choregraphed and the scene Wolves of Isengard was intense, fast paced and humorous (lol gimli). The Ent were also well brought into the screen and I think the best battle scene in all of the trilogy was the battle at Helms Deep. WELL DONE PETER JACKSON Expand
  56. Mar 13, 2015
    10
    Very good movie. Well done peter Jackson and Crew. They are made a nice job. The Lord Of the Rings: The Two Towers made me love fantasy movie. Because before i saw it i think fantasy movie suck, childish, and cheesy but this is not. This movie has epic battle sequence, beautiful landscape, stunning CGI, real setting and good cinematography. This film should've won best picture oscar 2002.
  57. Sep 23, 2011
    8
    "The Two Towers" isn't much epic as its powerful prequel, but its still amazes me that Peter Jackson can release such a wonderful movie within a year.
  58. Jun 1, 2012
    10
    Some of the best battles in the series....this movie is epic.
  59. Nov 4, 2011
    10
    It's quite similar to the Fellowship of the Rings in terms of visual effects and overall style. But the story has now become much more interesting and multidimensional as we watch the Fellowship, now divided, struggle to complete their journey to save Middle Earth. 4/4 stars.
  60. Nov 19, 2011
    10
    The best sound effects, also known for its impeccable sound, the script developed, very faithful to the book, good performances, a show well done, as I can say about the soundtrack, direction, costumes, makeup, art direction and visual effects. In short, an excellent movie.
  61. Sep 14, 2011
    9
    magnificent is the word i will say for this film, i havent read the book . And im sure i wont..cinematography is top notch expecially in the battle scenes its really awesome.
  62. Oct 17, 2011
    10
    The Two Towers might not be the best of the three Lord of the Rings movies, but it sure is one of the best movies I've ever seen! Great acting, story and scenes - movies cant get much better than this.
  63. Apr 3, 2012
    10
    Entretenida, con efectos especiales del mejor nivel, con un actuaciones sorprendentes y mas accion que la anterior. The Two Towers es simplemente perfecta, visualmente rica y muy bien dirigida por Peter Jackson. Es casi imporsible poder mejorar a The Fellowship of the Ring, pero Two Towers logra no solo ser tan buena, sino hasta mejor que la original.
  64. Aug 17, 2011
    10
    My favorite of the trilogy. Peter Jackson is a cinema god, there is a reason RotK tied for most oscar wins for one movie. Best fantasy novel and the movie does it complete justice. This is what modern cinema is all about: great acting, tasteful and thrilling special effects, excellent story of course, amazing screen play and the most spectacular soundtrack which is epic in battle sequencesMy favorite of the trilogy. Peter Jackson is a cinema god, there is a reason RotK tied for most oscar wins for one movie. Best fantasy novel and the movie does it complete justice. This is what modern cinema is all about: great acting, tasteful and thrilling special effects, excellent story of course, amazing screen play and the most spectacular soundtrack which is epic in battle sequences and harmonious in times of peace. A true masterpiece. To be watched again and again. 5/5 stars. Expand
  65. Nov 14, 2012
    8
    While the plot tends to meander, Two Towers is still alive and breathtaking in the moment. Jackson has proved himself to be a master craftsman of the so called 'epic movie.'
  66. May 26, 2012
    10
    With mind-blowing performances from the whole entire cast, along with skilled dialogue. Featuring its amazing visual effects, breathtaking action, and being even more emotionally resonant than the first. I give this movie 98%.
  67. Aug 9, 2011
    10
    This isnt filming this is art..
  68. Aug 9, 2011
    10
    This movie is pure gold. Besides a few weak points like some unrealistic lines and the shield-boarding down the stairs, it's perfect. There is no lack of emotion, all performances are good and the battle at Helm's Deep is perhaps the best ever in a movie. The highlight for me was the introduction to Gollum, though. He is one of the best characters ever.
  69. Mar 29, 2011
    8
    When compared to the previous movie, it was same old, same old for some stuff. Enjoyable, but too long. Plot became a bit more complicated, but battle scenes became much more awsome.
  70. Oct 30, 2010
    10
    the best in the trilogy and the awesomeness in the franchise.
  71. 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
  72. BenW.
    Sep 6, 2003
    5
    Visually striking, but GOD was I bored.
  73. 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
  74. 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
  75. 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.
  76. 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.
  77. 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
  78. AlienU.
    Jan 9, 2003
    2
    Three hours non-stop fighting, killing and chasing. Perhaps there was some very, very deep idea for what all this middle age massacre was doing and showing. But it was too hard for me to find out and justify it. Of course there was some storyline, but nine hours(3+3+3) massacre because of one wrong ring. How worth is human life than, can I ask?
  79. RuisertTheMad
    Jan 18, 2003
    3
    [***Potential Spoilers***] I loved the stunning cinematography and mountain vistas, I'd bet Jackson could do some wonderful tourism films for New Zealand, something a little less ambitious... Another thing that I liked was Gimli's line about dwarf wives and Aragorn's comment about the beards. It's true to the story, but it is information that's in the book, and[***Potential Spoilers***] I loved the stunning cinematography and mountain vistas, I'd bet Jackson could do some wonderful tourism films for New Zealand, something a little less ambitious... Another thing that I liked was Gimli's line about dwarf wives and Aragorn's comment about the beards. It's true to the story, but it is information that's in the book, and inserted in such a way as to develop the history that otherwise would be hard to translate to a film. I wish they'd done some of that during all the travel sequences. And the cgi Gollum was pretty well done technically, but watered down scriptwise, and the (gollum,gollum) was overdone. (Fisssssh!) ...... Other than those points, it was horrible. Horrible. A lot of it boils down to some bad decision making, I think - hiring Liv Tyler for what is not just a bit part, but a minor bit part. I love her in the role, but it's extravagant unless you do as was done and rewrite major portions of the story to justify the expense. Another bad decision was building the set for Edoras. Why? For 3 or 4 scenes? What a waste. But the unforgiveable sin is the complete altering of the story line. Someone earlier mentioned pandering to your typical movie-goer's sensibilities, like not sending the women, children and old men to Dunharrow. Or Leg - O - Lamb skateboarding down the stairs shooting orcs on the way. Please. Then there's the whole loony Aragorn/Arwen sequence. Did someone really think this was an improvement over the book's storyline? Send me some of whatever it was you were taking when you made that decision, ok? Instead, we could have had the wonderful scene in Isengard where Gandalf masters Saruman with mere words and not the ludicrous pyrotechnics we were bothered with in the FotR movie. Or to quote from the TT itself 'Wizards are subtle and quick to anger'. Subtle. I'll bet that's even defined in dictionaries in New Zealand. The part I'm referring to is where Gandalf is talking to Saruman in the tower, and Saruman refuses the offer to mend his evil ways and still help, in some small way, those he was sent to help. Then Gandalf says 'Saruman, your staff is broken.', and it breaks, and his power is broken by the same force that reincarnated Gandalf. Subtle, but very dramatic if done right. And why precious, oh why, did they decide to change Halbarad and Aragorn's other Ranger kin into elfses, and then kill Halbarad in Helm's deep instead of later? Why? I'd have thought it much cooler to see riders that even the horsemen of Rohan knew were the better. One of the most dramatic moments in the second book, I think. Lastly, the final ton of hay that breaks this camel's back is the Osgiliath sequence. Faramir deciding to take Frodo to Minas Tirith, instead of showing his better intuition about the ring and allowing them to continue. Frodo offering the Ring to the Nazdrool, right there where there's no real defense to prevent it being taken. I've often wondered if the writers didn't have bad dreams after reading the Cliff Notes of the Reader's Digest Condensed Version for Dummies of the Two Towers and felt the need to rewrite it. I mean, do you really believe a commitee of people I've never heard of before could possibly re-write something that's sold millions of copies over almost 50 years and improve it? Didn't they understand that the whole game was won or lost on keeping the Ring's location and more important, final destination secret? The way the book plays it, Sauron thinks the Ring is in Aragorn's hand after he shows himself as Isildur's heir with the reforged sword that took the Ring. Now obviously I'm one of those that have read the trilogy more than once, which is saying something. I've read tons of books, but not many rate one re-reading, but I've read these more than I can count. Despite that, I can't quite imagine it real enough. I want to see it just like I've read it, or as close as humanly possible. I know it's difficult translating a book into a movie, and we're talking one book, not 3. I have to give the guys credit for being crazy enough to try and pull this off. They certainly did better than the Ralph Bakshi animated movie that only did about the first half of the story. But I was very disappointed by the sudden complete departure from the story in this movie. I had problems with the first one, but they didn't ruin the movie for me. But I'm still glad I went to a matinee and only paid 2.50 to see this dog. Expand
  80. Forweg
    Mar 5, 2004
    0
    Horrible. They turned a literary masterpiece into a dumb action movie. Every character is dumbed down. Gimli is only used as comic relief. I feel sorry for anyone introduced to Tolkien's world through this garbage. I can only pray they don't ruin any more Tolkien books.
  81. Bert
    Mar 9, 2003
    0
    I fell a sleep it was so boring and stupid....surely a waste of time.
  82. RanmaC.
    Dec 18, 2002
    3
    One point for not completely replacing the ents with Arwen. One Point for remembering there WAS a ring. One point for (most of) Gullom talking. The rest of the movie had nothing to do with the book and the huge Arwen/Aragorn intermission almost put me to sleep. I'll only be seeing the ROTK in the hope that Shelob actually makes an appearance (a book late) and eats Sam, Frodo, and One point for not completely replacing the ents with Arwen. One Point for remembering there WAS a ring. One point for (most of) Gullom talking. The rest of the movie had nothing to do with the book and the huge Arwen/Aragorn intermission almost put me to sleep. I'll only be seeing the ROTK in the hope that Shelob actually makes an appearance (a book late) and eats Sam, Frodo, and whoever wrote the dreadful dialog in TT. Expand
  83. YupAha
    Jan 8, 2003
    2
    Face it, the geeks like me who read the books will walk away feeling like we didn't see the two towers but, as posted before, an adaptation. It boils down to this, if you have never read the books, this is an awesome movie. The effects are mindblowing in some aspects. If you have read the books, you will probably not dig it. I have seen it twice just to make sure it wasn't theFace it, the geeks like me who read the books will walk away feeling like we didn't see the two towers but, as posted before, an adaptation. It boils down to this, if you have never read the books, this is an awesome movie. The effects are mindblowing in some aspects. If you have read the books, you will probably not dig it. I have seen it twice just to make sure it wasn't the hour or the mood. I almost walked out the first time and the second i was in and out. Perhaps they will release an extended DVD of this movie, perhaps replacing some things...who knows. Hopefully we will return to the book for the Return of the King. Expand
  84. Amoviefan
    Apr 21, 2003
    3
    This movie is completely dull. Worse than Fellowship, which was very entertaining. Until the Battle for Helms Deep, this movie moves on in a slow plod. Hopefully, Return of the King will be better.
  85. Robee
    May 15, 2003
    1
    Terrible...
  86. HorsumH.
    Jul 21, 2003
    3
    I know this received a lot of praise, but you really must understand how much failure there is in this, how little bravery, and what a disservice was done to some beautiful epic books. much of the failure is in the screenplay, particularly the changes that were made that fundamentally broke into the characters heroism and strength. i defy any critic who thinks this movie has real power toI know this received a lot of praise, but you really must understand how much failure there is in this, how little bravery, and what a disservice was done to some beautiful epic books. much of the failure is in the screenplay, particularly the changes that were made that fundamentally broke into the characters heroism and strength. i defy any critic who thinks this movie has real power to defend king theoden's posession by wizardry in this book, a posession that is broken by wizardry, against, in the book, his breaking down under weakness and bad counsel and his personal redemption through his will. it is a small thing but communicates the fundamental failure of understanding of itself in this movie. the cast is quite good sometimes. the effects vary from breathtaking to cartoony. the sword fighting sometimes good, but never quite thrilling. the fake deaths keep coming at you. the gollum is good. read the books. Expand
  87. IlzeS.
    Dec 26, 2004
    2
    Just awful! Movie really sucked,what a stupid ring?! No real life and laws. I really dont like this movie.
  88. RickyC.
    Jan 9, 2004
    5
    The worst of the trilogy...I hated the talking trees storyline.
  89. SamL.
    Jul 11, 2003
    2
    This movie was SO over rated. It was actually quite bad. The only good acting in it was performed by Golum. Boo!
  90. David
    Jul 19, 2003
    0
    terrible, terrible, terrible! I'm a HUGE Lord Of The Rings fan and this was an insult! I camped out for 2 nights to see it and when i finnally got in, i was very disapointed! At first I thought it was a joke. But I stayed Hoping it would get better. Not at all. Very much OVER RATED!
  91. YoonMinC.
    Apr 19, 2004
    3
    By far, worst of the three. it has one great scene, where corpses are submerged in a bog. otherwise, it's wizard of oz on too much pot and maybe some other sh.t. hobbits are annoying as hell, orcs are cartoonishly ugly and stupid throughout, and the good guys are mostly dull. one of the characters is named wormtongue. gee, can you guess whether he's a goodie or a baddie? were By far, worst of the three. it has one great scene, where corpses are submerged in a bog. otherwise, it's wizard of oz on too much pot and maybe some other sh.t. hobbits are annoying as hell, orcs are cartoonishly ugly and stupid throughout, and the good guys are mostly dull. one of the characters is named wormtongue. gee, can you guess whether he's a goodie or a baddie? were his parents mr and mrs wormtongue? peter jackson oughta be renamed toadbrain. Expand
  92. MatthieuR.
    Nov 28, 2003
    0
    I fail to see the appeal of an overproduced, predictable film with weak acting. Maybe the special effects? There is no depth in this film, nor in the books themselves, which somehow have become mistaken with "literature"
  93. NjoiF.
    Dec 11, 2003
    1
    This movie is so pathetic that i find it abyssmal that anyone in the world actually likes it. Through the whole movie i had to struggle to not fall asleep. It is so boring that i cannot understand how can it could ever make it this far. The only occasional fights are not too bad, but even those are all about the totally irrealistic battles between 10000 bad guys agains 100 or so good This movie is so pathetic that i find it abyssmal that anyone in the world actually likes it. Through the whole movie i had to struggle to not fall asleep. It is so boring that i cannot understand how can it could ever make it this far. The only occasional fights are not too bad, but even those are all about the totally irrealistic battles between 10000 bad guys agains 100 or so good guys, who remarkably enough win the fight at the end of the day. Expand
  94. Aug 24, 2014
    10
    With just as much thrill and wonder as the Fellowship of the Ring, we find ourselves a bit farther on this remarkable journey. The relentlessly beautiful visuals are perhaps some of the finest cinematography of all-time. Another modern classic.
  95. Mar 27, 2012
    10
    If you don't love this movie you should go to the doctor because you clearly have something inside of you that prevents you from recognizing the epitome of what is a perfect film.
  96. Jul 12, 2012
    10
    In my opinion, the best of the Lord of the Rings films, and that's saying a lot. Not only does it duplicate everything that the franchise's first installment did right, it adds more of its own, such as the brilliantly made Battle of Helms Deep.
  97. Jan 17, 2013
    10
    The best movie from one of the best trilogies ever. Great battle and awesome story. LOVE IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  98. JeffM.
    Jan 15, 2003
    8
    A good, but not great movie. I didn't find it as enchanting as the first. Everything looks and sounds great, but unless you're the type of person who pleasures themselves to Dungeons & Dragons manuals, I don't see how you can truly love the movie. Now 6 hours into the trilogy, I just don't know if I can sit through even one more repetitive (albeit visually dazzling) A good, but not great movie. I didn't find it as enchanting as the first. Everything looks and sounds great, but unless you're the type of person who pleasures themselves to Dungeons & Dragons manuals, I don't see how you can truly love the movie. Now 6 hours into the trilogy, I just don't know if I can sit through even one more repetitive (albeit visually dazzling) battle sequence. Expand
  99. MissUnderhill
    Apr 15, 2003
    8
    Good, but I couldn't call it a classic. The first time I saw FOTR I thought "This is INCREDIBLE! It's a classic!" But when TTT ended I thought, "That was a good movie." I just I couldn't call it boring, but it does drag at certain parts. Not to mention it had such a weak ending. The only reason people like this one better than FOTR is because it has more of Legolas, more Good, but I couldn't call it a classic. The first time I saw FOTR I thought "This is INCREDIBLE! It's a classic!" But when TTT ended I thought, "That was a good movie." I just I couldn't call it boring, but it does drag at certain parts. Not to mention it had such a weak ending. The only reason people like this one better than FOTR is because it has more of Legolas, more humor, and great battle scenes. But it just felt like a huge battle and that was it. I mean, the book felt like that too (but the book was WAY better than this movie). The Arwen and Aragorn love story wasn't necessary, and seemed so sappy and long. Gimili wasn't even to be the comical character. While FOTR got most of the parts from the book, including the book's soul, TTT had some points from the book but not all of them. TTT definetly had top-notch special effects, acting, and battle scenes, but it didn't give you that "whoa...that was an INCREDIBLE movie" feeling at the end. Sorry, that's just how I feel. Expand
  100. SephirothDarkheart
    Apr 15, 2003
    10
    This was the best movie of all time...the actors were all hot and it did sway away from the books but it was way----better than the first one and i cant wait to see the third.
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.