Dolemite wrote:
]
] Hands down, the performance that brought a character to life
] more than any other was Andy Serkis' rendering of
] Smeagol/Gollum.

I agree about the Gollum character. The effects were breathtaking, and the character (and its foibles) really "came to life" on the screen for me. I'd forget it was CGI, and just enjoy the story.

As for the movie itself, I thought that "The Two Towers" was great, though not as great as last year's movie. It's still excellent, and I'll definitely see it again in theaters, which says quite a bit though. Until "Fellowship" last year, I rarely watched any movie more than once. There were perhaps three movies over the last decade that I'd gone to see twice (I saw "Matrix" three times). Then "Fellowship" came along, and I went to see it *eight* times while it was still in theaters. For "Two Towers" though, I'll probably only go see it one more time, when my cousin wants to go see it.

I think one of the reasons that I didn't quite like this one as much, was because of the much higher focus on action sequences over character interaction. Especially with combat scenes, even if well done, I personally tend to lose interest after a period of time, and think to myself, "Okay okay, it's a fight scene, we get the point, let's move on with the story." I'm well aware though that that's a personal bias, as some of the people I went to see TTT with said that they *loved* the fight scenes.

So, overall, on a scale of 1-10, I give "Fellowship" an 11, and "Towers" a 9.

Elonka :)

RE: Review: The Two Towers