Metascore
88

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

User Score
9.0

Universal acclaim- based on 1257 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 325
  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 29, 2014
    10
    The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is yet another near flawless film in this already magnificent trilogy. Oddly enough, this is my leastThe Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is yet another near flawless film in this already magnificent trilogy. Oddly enough, this is my least favorite in the trilogy, but it still delivers so much perfection in every single area. It's one of my favorite movies of all time. Expand
  3. GeorgeC.
    Feb 3, 2008
    10
    Two Towers doesn't have the mood that the first one does, there are more battle sequences, heavier plots, and thrilling moments. This is Two Towers doesn't have the mood that the first one does, there are more battle sequences, heavier plots, and thrilling moments. This is Gullom's show, partailly Aragorn's (who of which has a background that gives off 10 minutes of important refferences of who he will become). Gandalf has just risen, it is partailly his show. Same Legolas', he is important in this because it is about time the elves stop chillin at home talking poetry, this time the elves go to war, which gives Legolas more screen time, which I like. Gimli, well he is always the humorous little cheekster that gives the fun to the screen. Frodo, this is ultimately his show, taking the ring to Mordor, his advnture is the most important. There many other characters, eomer, Eowyn, Theoden, Theodred, Pippin, Merry, Sam (who becomes way more important in #3), Gamling, Gladriel, Saramaun, Saraun, Treabeard, Arwen, and Lord Elrond. Everyone is connective and always have a powerful importance in the show. I loved this movie, this is the best of the three, has excellent moments, and the outline is very interesting. This is defintely up for the Oscars, it may have won only 2, but the Oscars it got it certainly deserved. Expand
  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 14, 2013
    9
    Not as good as the first film, this film may feel long in some parts but it still boasts of what the first film contained: great action,Not as good as the first film, this film may feel long in some parts but it still boasts of what the first film contained: great action, adventure, fantasy, good acting, great music and stunning cinematography. I think this is the worst of the trilogy, but it still is a great film nonetheless. Expand
  6. Jan 20, 2015
    9
    The second part of Peter Jackson's Rings trilogy is for me, possibly the best film of the series.
    Like the others, it is truly epic in its
    The second part of Peter Jackson's Rings trilogy is for me, possibly the best film of the series.
    Like the others, it is truly epic in its design and in bringing Tolkien's fantastic legend to life, but this film contains a kind of atmospheric tension (best seen In Sam and Frodo's story) and gritty brutality (in the battle at Helm's Deep) that the other films did not quite possess in such measure.
    As in the other films, the settings and scenery of the film are outstanding: from the eerie bleakness of the dead marshes to the wild and windswept hills of the plains of Rohan, this is beautifully filmed stuff.
    Much of the acting is also of a very high standard. Ian Mckellen and Christopher Lee fit their roles as wise and mighty wizard (Gandalf) vs evil and corrupted wizard (Saruman) perfectly and Elijah Wood (Frodo) and Sean Astin (Sam) really take their performances to even higher standards in this installment.
    I apologise if the following actors escape me here (!) - there are also several fine additions to the cast in this movie and the characters of Theoden, Eowyn and Grima Wormtongue also shine. But perhaps the finest performance comes from Andy Serkis, who plays Gollum. Gollum is of course 100% computer animated, but such is the strength of Serkis' performance and the realism of the animation, that this is definitely the performance of the film.
    The battle of Helms Deep is also truly memorable, and the finest battle in the trilogy of films. We see lots of bloody fighting, hear swords clanging, arrows twanging from bows, see ladders assailing the fortress wall and even a huge explosion shake the foundations of the wall apart. Brilliantly done. The only that perhaps betters it are the prodeeding scenes - Saruman addressing his huge army at Isengard, the bleakness of the mood inside Helms Deep, the arrival of the elves and finally the tense wait just before the start of the battle, when we see and hear the huge army of the enemy slowly making it's way towards the gates under darkened skies.
    It may be a superb film, but it is not totally without fault. Some characters will tend to irritate Tolkien enthuiasts, particularly Gimli and Legolas, who seem to have been given more trivial roles in this film, especially in the battle scenes. A large chunk of the plot has also changed, or at least been moved in this film as well, and some viewers may find themselves that Sam and Frodo do not get to face Shelob until the final film of the series, rather than in the Two Towers (as they did in the book). But the gripes do not amount to nearly enough to discredit what is an immense achievement and one of the finest fantasy films made in recent years.
    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 325 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.