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

User Score

Universal acclaim- based on 1060 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)
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 37 out of 38
  2. Negative: 0 out of 38
  1. 100
    What makes Towers so staggering is the way it brings the full scope of Jackson's adaptation into focus. Without missing a beat in three hours, the film shifts from epic to lyrical and back.
  2. 100
    The result is harrowing and inspiring. As escapist entertainment, it's the movie of the year.
  3. 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.
  4. 90
    The virtues of Jackson's trilogy, thus far, have been pace and astonishment, which is almost the same thing. [6 January 2003, p. 90]
  5. Reviewed by: Claudia Puig
    Epic battles, spectacular effects and multiple story lines make The Two Towers a most excellent middle chapter in The Lord of the Rings film trilogy.
  6. The sequel's battle scenes -- especially the climactic assault on the Helm's Deep fortress by the armies of darkness -- easily put those of the "Star Wars" series to shame.
  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 307
  1. Aug 14, 2010
    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. Expand
  2. Mar 7, 2013
    It's the exact opposite of overvalued .It has VERY low rate -compared with the others- and it is the best of the 3. I'm really disappointed with the 3rd. And bored with it's style.
    Of course the Extended Editions were way better
  3. DerekP.
    Jan 17, 2006
    Give it up! This was the best of the trilogy by some substancial amount. I mean take into consideration that 1 year before Fellowship ended and you felt in awe. In Awe! This one completely satisfied my expectations plus some. PS. Anyone who loves LOTR should buy the box sets, the special features are amazing and have replay value. Expand
  4. Aug 9, 2011
    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. Expand
  5. Jul 3, 2012
    Good 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. Jul 9, 2014
    Just marvelous. It is hard for me to separate this one and the first film as it is just as magical and entrancing as its predecessors and while it does struggle from being a middle film, it never shows that struggle. As with the first film, the acting is beyond impressive, the script is great, the cinematography is great, and the action beautifully done. However, first and foremost worthy of praise is the special effects. How they do what they do is mesmerizing to me. In addition, the characters are completely engrossing and brilliant to watch as they transverse this immaculately designed and imagined world they live in. As with the first film, this film is the definition of an epic and is a stunningly great sequel to what was a great first film. I did not believe the first film could be improved upon (I do think this one is ever so slightly better), but dammit, it was. This one leaves you drooling waiting for the third film and the conclusion to this storyline. Expand
  7. RuisertTheMad
    Jan 18, 2003
    [***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 307 User Reviews


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.