Metascore
88

Universal acclaim - based on 38 Critics What's this?

User Score
9.0

Universal acclaim- based on 1217 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Starring:
  • Summary: In the second chapter in J.R.R Tolkien's epic trilogy, the Fellowship faces unimaginable armies and deception while also witnessing ancient wonders and the untapped strength of their people. (New Line Productions)
Watch On
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 37 out of 38
  2. Negative: 0 out of 38
  1. Moviegoers should be almost as entranced by the teeming, glorious landscapes and dark, bloody battlegrounds of Two Towers: astonishing midpoint of an epic movie fantasy journey for the ages.
  2. 100
    Like its predecessor, The Two Towers is a great motion picture, and not to be missed by anyone who appreciates fantasy adventure.
  3. Reviewed by: Ty Burr
    100
    The miracle is that 'The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is better: tighter, smarter, funnier.
  4. 90
    One of cinema's most absorbing fantasies.
  5. 88
    For now, The Two Towers feels like the second installment in what next year, when Frodo finally reaches Mount Doom and the story draws to a close, we'll surely be hailing as a masterpiece.
  6. Both a triumph of design and cinematic engineering and, at the same time, long, repetitious and naive.
  7. 60
    This second installment is heavy on battle sequences, which will thrill some viewers more than others.

See all 38 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Negative: 15 out of 321
  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 toWhen 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. Expand
  2. Dec 6, 2013
    10
    "LOTR: The Two Towers" is absolutely magnificent. It's more action-packed than the first and they're some of the greatest battle scenes ever."LOTR: The Two Towers" is absolutely magnificent. It's more action-packed than the first and they're some of the greatest battle scenes ever. It's emotionally powerful and the story is brilliantly paced and even tops the first one. The extended edition's runtime, at 235 minutes, is absolutely tremendously exciting. Expand
  3. JeremyE.
    Apr 18, 2006
    10
    In my opinion the best Lord of the Rings movie.
  4. 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.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. Expand
  5. Jul 3, 2012
    9
    Good acting, top notch visuals, epic battle sequences and a gripping plot make LOTR The Two Towers my favorite movie in the trilogy, andGood acting, top notch visuals, epic battle sequences and a gripping plot make LOTR The Two Towers my favorite movie in the trilogy, and probably my favorite movie period! This movie would be perfect if not for it's length, which is about 3 hours long. Expand
  6. Nov 13, 2014
    9
    A slight hair below Fellowship's quality, Two Towers is still a masterpiece. Although it does seem to slow down at times and differ from theA slight hair below Fellowship's quality, Two Towers is still a masterpiece. Although it does seem to slow down at times and differ from the source material in an occasional cliché way, it has the big plus of adding a theme of end and despair. Expand
  7. RuisertTheMad
    Jan 18, 2003
    3
    [***Potential Spoilers***] I loved the stunning cinematography and mountain vistas, I'd bet Jackson could do some wonderful tourism[***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

See all 321 User Reviews

Trailers

Related Articles

  1. Film Critics Pick the Best Movies of the Decade

    Film Critics Pick the Best Movies of the Decade Image
    Published: January 3, 2010
    Dozens of film critics have made their lists of the best films of the past ten years, and we've tallied the results.
  2. Ten Years of Metacritic: The Best (and Worst) Movies of the Decade

    Ten Years of Metacritic: The Best (and Worst) Movies of the Decade Image
    Published: December 17, 2009
    Our best of the decade coverage continues with a look at the past ten years in cinema. While the decade's best-reviewed movie may not have been a commercial blockbuster (or even in English), our lists turn up plenty of recognizable names in addition to obscure gems you may have missed.