The Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1920x800 | 8047.57 MiB | 1080p | |
|
720x288 | 1915.67 MiB | hidivx | |
|
592x238 | 931.14 MiB | divx | |
|
480x204 | 989.93 MiB | ipod | |
|
320x128 | 383.44 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
A New Power Is Rising.
The Battle for Middle-earth Begins!
All will be sacrificed... All will be lost... Unless all unite against evil. (Trailer)
The fellowship is broken. The power of darkness grows...
The Journey Continues December 18th
Eventyret er tilbage[Denmark]
Sauron's forces increase. His allies grow. The Ringwraiths return in an even more frightening form. Saruman's army of Uruk Hai is ready to launch an assault against Aragorn and the people of Rohan. Yet, the Fellowship is broken and Boromir is dead. For the little hope that is left, Frodo and Sam march on into Mordor, unprotected. A number of new allies join with Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, Pippin and Merry. And they must defend Rohan and attack Isengard. Yet, while all this is going on, Sauron's troops mass toward the City of Gondor, for the War of the Ring is about to begin.
| Liv Tyler | Arwen |
| Viggo Mortensen | Aragorn |
| Ian McKellen | Gandalf the Grey/Gandalf the White |
| Elijah Wood | Frodo Baggins |
| Sean Astin | Sam |
| Cate Blanchett | Galadriel |
| John Rhys-Davies | Gimli/Voice of Treebeard |
| Bernard Hill | Theoden |
| Christopher Lee | Saruman the White |
| Billy Boyd | Pippin |
| Dominic Monaghan | Merry |
| Orlando Bloom | Legolas |
| Hugo Weaving | Elrond |
| Miranda Otto | Eowyn |
| David Wenham | Faramir |
| Peter Jackson |
8.70 out of 10 (187081 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Disappointed / Confused...
posted on 30 Aug 2009So much opportunity so much waste. Many friends who are not fans of the book liked the film. However they liked it for the wrong reasons - "What a great action movie" they said. That is exactly what it is. I have accordingly marked it better than Conan and Beastmaster because it is far better executed than those movies of that genre. I however think the film should have been an ongoing tale of heroic romanticism based on the work of J.R.R. Tolkien. This it is not. Anybody expecting as much will be disappointed by the character portrayals and the plot devices which so cruelly savage the original storyline. Oh it all could have been so different - just look at FOTR!!!
Why "Towers" is slightly less satisfying than"Fellowship"
posted on 30 Aug 2009This is comparing TTT with Fellowship. These two are by far the best in their genre that no comparison with any other movies in this genre is even meaningful.The first reason why Towers is just slightly satisfying is the Shire, or absence of it, rather. While the grandeur of the dwarfs' caves and the bewitching charm of the elves' forests equally excite and delight me, the real magic of LOTR is rooted in the humble, simple, but most comfortable dwellings of the hobbits in the Shire, just as the ultimate strength of the fellowship of the ring is rooted in the simple, fun-loving but resilient and enduring hobbits. Therefore, while the entire movie of Fellowship is immensely satisfying, it's the very first part, when Gandalf was coming to the Shire, that I best love. And I miss it a little in Towers.The other reason has to do with the difficulty of making the book into a movie. In the trilogy, each of the three volumes is sub-divided into two books. In Fellowship, the movie pretty well follows the book in a single, linear progression. In Towers, book 3 deals with what happens in Rohan while book 4 tells the story of Frodo and Sam going into Mordor. Within book 3, the chapters alternative between the stories of Aragon's trio and the two hobbits. Obviously, it wouldn't do to follow the structure of the book in making the movie, devoting the entire first half to Rohan and the second half to Mordor. The director and film editor have done their best however the movie came across as slightly too fragmented.These two reasons are really personal, and not flaws of the movie.Finally, just a few comments on the characters:- Glad to see that Aragon is gradually coming into his own, becomeing more and more like a king, the way it should be- Gollum is a masterpiece, the closest to the original among all the characters- Treebeard is a bit of a disappointment, but it is also the most difficult, if not outright impossible, to create on screen (to faithfully reproduce his speeches in full length on screen will probably drive away even the most loyal audience, but without this aspect, it's really not the Treebeard that we know)- Eowyn is beautifully played, as is Faramir- In the Middle Earth in my own mind, Theoden is older and thinner; but I gladly accept the movie version- Similarly, I cannot expect Legolas and Gimli to be like the ones who have lived in my Middle Earth for over 30 years; but I like the movie version too- Gandalf's character takes on many different shades; the one I love most is when he was going into the Shire, at the very beginning.
I'd rather look forward to Return of the King
posted on 28 Aug 2009The Battle of Helm's deep is just good to the eyes for a few minutes, I got very fatigued while watching it, I only bought Gimli's comic relief and Gollum's psychopathic performance. The Fellowship of the Ring is still much better for me, By now I realize The Lord of the Rings is all about Aragorn not Frodo because he returns as the King on the last one. But Boromir is the best character of the Trilogy he's a real human, I'd wait for the last one instead this is a sandwiched film.**1/2 out of 4 stars
Despite the criticism, is highly deserving of praise
posted on 28 Aug 2009Other viewers have made many comments, criticisms and comparisons and each are equally valid. Rather than reiterate what they've said, I'll leave most of the praise/criticism aside.Personally I enjoyed this movie both times I saw it, and more so the second time. Every movie I've ever seen has its faults, and this is no exception. The exception here is that I didn't care. The faults disappeared amongst everything else that was transpiring on screen.A number of viewers have commented on how "different" the movie is from the book. However, having seen a number of movie adaptations of books (and read a number of novelisations of movies) I enjoy it more when the director takes a few liberties and throws me a surprise or gives me something to challenge me mentally. A strict telling of the novel can often be boring and mundane. Nor may it translate to the silver screen well. How often I've thought that I would love to see entirely different endings to the book. Wouldn't it be radical to see evil triumph just once? Jokes aside, let the director take some artistic licence. Movies are not books, and nor are books movies. Enjoy each for its own accomplishments. I've thoroughly enjoyed Tolkien's books and thoroughly enjoyed Jackson's movies. They are both amazing in their own right, not exactly the same, but that makes them more enjoyable.I can't wait for the DVD to come out and breathe even more life into Middle Earth.
Could have been better. Should have been better...
posted on 28 Aug 2009I believe anyone who read Tolkien's masterpiece will be disappointed with this second installment of the trilogy. If you haven't read the book though, then this movie may be pure entertainment.Why I don't like this movie? First of all it is not completely true to the story (you can very well argue it doesn't have to be), and unfortunately the additions made by Jackson and his screenwriters consist of childish, cliche scenes or dialogues. The new lines sound like they have been written by Kevin Costner rather than Tolkien.The action scenes are exaggerated and overacted (with Legolas surfing down the stairs on a shield while firing arrows etc etc). The characters are all the time overcome with emotion, which toward the end of the movie makes you sick (Why is Frodo on the verge of tears all the time? Why does everybody hug and cast meaningful glances at each other every other minute?).The background music gets to my nerves after the first hour. There should be a substitute to this Nordic chorus singing at extremely high pitch whenever something grave happens.And then, back again the changes in the story are unforgivable for someone who loves the book. The removal of some parts of the story is, of course, necessary. But fiddling with characters (Oh Faramir!) is not.What you have is a Hollywood blockbuster based on a great book. I guess it could have been worse, which is the only good thing I have to say about this movie.
A Towering Achievement
posted on 26 Aug 2009The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers isn't a sequel to The Fellowship of the Ring, it's a direct continuation and it's every bit as brilliant, if not more. Just make sure you've seen Fellowship before seeing this movie. The fellowship established in the first film has been broken. Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin) continue to Mordor, being guided by Gollum, the first truly believable computer animated character. Meanwhile, Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), Gimli (John Rhys-Davies), and Legalos (Orlando Bloom) make new allies and launch an assault on Isengard. The Two Towers features a breathtaking atmosphere, amazing character development, and one of the most visually outstanding battle sequences in motion picture history. A must see.10 out of 10
Waiting for the extended cut!
posted on 24 Aug 2009WOW! Great movie, it doesn't follow the book as much as the first one (FOTR) did. But that was expected, and not necessary a bad thing. I said after FOTR that, if the movie would have been half an hour longer, I would have given it a rating: 10. But now I have to give 10-. Well, a year later came the extended cut, and now the movie is 10. For my opinion, there is the same thing with this one, I give Two Towers a rating: 10-, but i'm waiting for that extra 30min. extended cut. I believe that version wíll be the perfect 10.
2002's Greatest film!!!
posted on 20 Aug 2009Until 'The Two Towers' came out, I thought 'Road to Perdition' was the best movie I had seen for the year. 'The Two Towers' blows everything else away!Peter Jackson has outdone himself. When I saw trailers for 'Towers' I had the feeling it would be more of the same. Not so! The plot and character development are complex and fascinating. Woe to those who haven't seen the first film, and know nothing about Middle Earth!The battle at Helm's Deep is simply the greatest battle scene in movie history! 'Star Wars II' and its massive clone armies is sterile compared to this, and all other older movies with huge battle scenes now seem out of date. The buildup to this battle is tremendous, with fights and flights, hatred and wizardy, and moments of love and humor. Many new characters are introduced (wait until you see Gollum!).The cinematography in beautiful New Zealand is outstanding. Helm's Deep looks as real as it possibly could.The special effects are perfect! This movie could not have been made as well even five years ago. Gollum is the pinnacle of CGI! All credit must go to Peter Jackson, who has driven himself and his cast and crew to the breaking point, and come out the other side intact with a classic trilogy in hand (there is no way that 'Return of the King' can be stinker, so I feel confident using the word 'classic').Remember when you saw the gee-whiz sheen and excitement of 'Star Wars' and then when you saw 'The Empire Strikes Back' you were taken deeper, got more involved, and realized you were witnessing epic history? Same here, and on a grander, more mythical scale.If 'Fellowship of the Ring' didn't win any major Oscars, then unfortunately 'Towers' won't either. But it will be a shame if Peter Jackson is overlooked. This trilogy will most certainly be the pinnacle of his career, and he deserves recognition for his awe-inspiring direction commitment.This is grand filmmaking at its finest, and why we go to movies. Make sure you see this on the big screen-- twice at least!
simply, Superb
posted on 20 Aug 2009i have been waiting to see this film for 9 months..as i never went to see it in the cinema..now i wish i had to have.. from the very moment the film opens you know its going to be good.having read the 'Two Towers Book' after being blown away by the Fellowship..and i hate reading books..i couldnt wait to see how the film would compare with the book...i must admit if youve read the book..its hard not to nit pick your way throuigh the film..but its still a fantastic film...after buying the DVD i must say that the extras are quite poor..but i will be waiting to buy the 'Special Extended version' in Nov as the documentaries are first class and with 4 Audio Comentries its a must have DVD..if there ever was a film to show off DVD and your 5.1 sound system this is the film...the only critiscism i have is that they leave out a section of the the 'Two Towers' book where Gollum leads them into a Cave to meet 'Her'this was amazing to read in the book..and was one of things i was looking forward to seeing..but it will be in the 'Return of the king' which i guess is ok.my advice is to enjoy the film and leave ur critic thoughts outside the room.10/10
A 'Tower'ing Achievement But Has A Cracked Foundation. * * * (Out Of Four)
posted on 20 Aug 2009"The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring" started a craze within Hollywood over the buzz the series created. The follow-up, "The Two Towers" builds up on it, but in the end leaves us wanting a real ending. The film improves on it's action content, mostly within it's last third act, which we are shown an army of minions battling those against them in Helm's Deep, a last resort for poor villagers surrounding it from the evil of Sarumon. The film takes us on varied journeys of the now broken up fellowship and what each of the fellowship endure to fight for what they believe in: a little hobbit by the name of Frodo, who now we see is being taken down slowly by the ring and those who were taken down as well by it, in the form of a little creature known as Gollum, a computer generated creation so lifelike and realistic, you take it as just another actor within the film. The film has stunning cinematography and takes the best of New Zealand (The location of the filming) for it's depiction of Middle-Earth. The film, however, may wow audiences with the added action but may leave them lost in a haze from the hard, fast-paced plot setting as new characters, locations, and moments are thrown in left and right. But it's not too much to worry about if you stay focused on the story and don't get overwhelmed from the action. The coordination with the film is put nicely and smoothly, except towards the end of the action where areas and scenes are disoriented and confusing, but it shouldn't matter too much. If there was one problem with the film it'd be for the ending. The film leaves you wanting more, which is a classic film gimmick, but by "wanting more" it's meant as wanting a more understandable ending. We're left seeing the Hobbits on their way to Mount Doom through a forest with no reasoning on the others (That is too plausible). But aside from the lackluster ending, the film leads gracefully onto act three of the series and gets you wanting more so bad it'll eat you inside...like a little ring we might know of... My Ratings:* * * (Out Of Four)B 8 (On IMDB's Scale Out Of 10)
Lord of The Rings: The Two Towers - Written by Peter Jackson
posted on 18 Aug 2009The one line summary says it all, the movie is terrible to watch. I made a foolish mistake in watching the two movies first, then reading the book.Jackson had no intention to follow Tolkiens story, he merely wanted to wander near the path, but not on the path. For example; the comments made by Gimli are horrible. The altered story is horrible. The special effects aren't that bright either.Spoiler: Arwen leaves Middle-Earth? Who is Aragorn supposed to marry? Eowyn? Dear o' dear... Why didn't Jackson write his own story?Overall: Horrible, absolutely horrible, 2/10.
Did Peter Jackson read the Two Towers at all?
posted on 16 Aug 2009Peter Jackson has made an art out of taking artistic liberties. Mr. Tolkien must be sitting straight up in his grave."Fellowship" was great, despite all the problems related to adapting an epic story to film. "Two Towers" was a travesty.And before all you non-Tolkien fanatics start clenching your fists-I don't think the problem is that Jackson left out too much. We all understand that he couldn't include everything. The real fault with this movie is that he added too much that was never in the Lord of the Rings.The opening scene was spectacular. The scenes with Gollum were superbly done. Edoras was magnificent. But the portrayal of Faramir as being seduced by the power of the ring was 100% wrong. Aragorn's MIA scenes were ludicrous. The mass exodus of the elves did not occur until years later in the books and where did the argument between Legolas and Aragorn in Helm's Deep come from. That was out of character for both of them, as was Gimli's comedy routine and Merry's bullying of the Ents.Wargs attacking the Rohirrim? Did Jackson include Wargs in the Two Towers to compensate for leaving them out of Fellowship? I wouldn't have missed them.To be honest I think Peter Jackson betrayed Tolkien fans. And for those that dismiss Tolkien fans as a small part of the audience: just look at the book sales for the LOTR. More people read Tolkien than have actually seen the movie.I won't rush right out to buy this DVD nor will I break my neck to see the Return of the King.
a worthy follow up to the seminal Fellowship of the Ring
posted on 16 Aug 2009Without doubt, Peter Jackson has once again done justice to Tolkien's staggering literary achievement. This film, though much, much darker in tone than Fellowship, delivers the depth and breadth of the novel in dramatic and engrossing fashion.Although several portions of the book have been either omitted or amended for the silver screen, the story does not suffer in any way. Fans of the book may be disappointed that the Ents received short shrift, but when viewed through the average cinema goers eyes (i.e. one that has not had the benefit of reading the book)even the most ardent LOTR fan must agree that the changes made sense. Several characters enjoy more screen time, notably Gimli, who provides comic relief at times when the on screen drama demands it. My highlight was the image of the Ents descending on Isengard. CGI has never seemed more appealing.I for one will be counting down the days to "The Return of The king". I will also be keeping my fingers crossed that certain elements of that particular book make the final cut.
PURE MAGIC!!!!
posted on 14 Aug 2009This movie has got to be the best movie this year. I mean you can't beat the all star cast, the effects, the suspense, drama, EVERYTHING!!!! I love that movie, I loved the first one and I'm waiting, with great anticipation, for The Return of the King. Peter Jackson did a wondrous job on this movie, I have nothing but good to say about it. The acting was great! I think that the actors and actresses and crew did such a great job, I didn't even want to read the books or anything before this movie came out, but now I'm reading the books, collecting merchandise, etc. I think that they did a great Job and anyone that doesn't like this movie must be crazy!!!!
Well...
posted on 14 Aug 2009Well, it's not bad but it's not the best either. I was expecting much more than I got. Perhaps the reason is that LOTR 1 was absolutely brilliant and set high expectations. Perhaps another reason is the fact that I am a hardcore fan and have read the book innumerable times.Still, I accepted some changes in the LOTR 1. In The Two Towers, however, there are things that I cannot understand and/or accept.Mind you, I am not saying the movie is bad! It's just that I've spent an year in expecting to see something equally brilliant and exciting as the Fellowship.Now I will not be the one to start the endless discussion about the director's ideas and all this blah-blah. I just want to say that certain changes of the original plot do not contribute whatsoever to a better movie.POSSIBLE SPOILERS FOLLOW The kiss and hug part is all right - people who have not read the book have to understand the drama of Aragorn and Arwen. But, for god's sake, why changing some crucial details in the battle of Helm's Deep?! The elves' arrival and the speech of their leader was a horrible cliche. Not to mention Frodo and Sam's trip to Osgilliath - now that was really too much. END OF POSSIBLE SPOILERSThe ents were quite meager - I am sure that PJ would have cut them out the way he cut out Tom Bombadil in LOTR 1 if he could. The outcome of the entmoot and the following speech was yet another horrible cliche. As a result, at certain points, I was outright bored and/or was shaking my head in complete confusion and bewilderment. (I've never thought that I will be bored during this movie.)Now some good words. Gollum was really brilliant - too sad he is a computer graphic, not a human. He deserves an Oscar for his part.The effects in general were Ok, though, during the battle for Helm's Deep the orcs were flying aside like toothpicks. The crossing of the Dead Marshes was creepy enough to scare me out of my wit.The Two Towers time and time again reminded me that New Zealand has a very pretty nature and made me wish to go there.Once again, the film is not bad at all, but could have been better. No matter what I will go and see it again any time soon.
Awesome
posted on 14 Aug 2009Seeing the first film really grabbed me into automatically wanting to see the second episode. Let me start by saying this movie was awesome. It is filmaking at it's best. The movie continues it's magic and I think in my opinion this film was a better then the first. If you haven't seen the first one please do so... you might be off-guard.
Hats off to Andy Serkis!
posted on 14 Aug 2009Aside from one or two minor complaints, I found the movie very entertaining and enjoyable and would highly recommend the movie to anyone. I would like to point out that very little if anything has been mentioned about Andy Serkis and the character of Gollum/Smeagol. For myself, that was the most memorable character in the entire film. The animation sequences of Gollum/Smeagol were nothing short of phenomenal. They left me feeling almost as if he were real and deserved to be nominated for best supporting actor. At the very least, a new category of best voice over should be added. Andy Serkis most definitely deserves something for giving Gollum such amazing depth. I've done some acting and know firsthand it is no easy task to bring to life a live character. I can only imagine how much more difficult it is to bring so much life to an animated character as to cause to me willingly suspend my disbelief for nearly 3 hours and actually feel pity for the character. Call it an overstatement if you will. I stand by my comments about Serkis' performance and would be willing to cast my vote for him as a best supporting actor.
Causes violence in children
posted on 14 Aug 2009Normally I would be inclined to say The Two Towers is an exceptional film, however I feel it was way too violent for children. I base a lot of my comments on the reactions I see in my children. And this movie? Even my two year old had a problem digesting it...and she couldn't even understand the plot! Culminate this with some scary ents, and well, you have the idea. This is definitely not Bedknobs and Broomsticks. Shortly after its theatrical release I noticed a good number of children in my apartment building going to school with rings around their necks and imitating Gollum. Innocent enough, sure, but WHAT ELSE ARE THEY COPYING AT RECESS, huh? You can't tell me they aren't viciously beating the bejesus out of one another! This film is definitely geared toward a mature audience, probably 18 or older. Great film for adults.
A monumental piece of film-making and the best of the three
posted on 12 Aug 2009Despite seeing all three films in the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy in the cinema in sequence, I seem to be be reviewing them in reverse order. No matter because any opportunity I can get to see the three films again is seized upon with open arms."The Two Towers" focuses on the continued quest of Frodo and Sam (Elijah Wood and Sean Astin) on their way to Mount Doom in Mordor to destroy the Ring of Power which would otherwise spell the return of the evil Sauron and the end of Middle Earth. The Fellowship disbanded, Frodo and Sam journey alone until they encounter the pathetic creature known as Gollum (the sublime Andy Serkis). Meanwhile, the armies of Saruman (Christopher Lee) are amassing an attack on the land of Rohan and only Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli (Viggo Mortensen, Orlando Bloom and John Rhys-Davies, respectively) can save the day. And what of the mighty wizard Gandalf (Sir Ian McKellen), who is not all that he seems.You don't need me to tell you that this film is excellent. In my humble opinion, "The Two Towers" is the best film of the three. Personally, I found "The Fellowship of the Ring" a little too cutesy and bright at times and "Return of the King" seemed a little too battle-heavy - nothing wrong with that, of course, but it did seem too much sometimes as the screen exploded in a supernova of CGI. Here, much more of the action is acted as opposed to animated and it is so much better for it. Even the staggering conclusion to the picture, the battle of Helm's Deep, feels real and bloody. The brightness of the Shire in the first film is replaced with greys and dull blues, matching the feeling of hopelessness that beats at the heart of this picture. It's no great secret that Tolkien had the First World War in mind when he wrote "The Lord of the Rings" and it shows here. Combat is sharp, fast and brutal and keeping within the pessimistic tone of the film as a whole.The key success to the trilogy, I believe, is that you never stop believing in what you're seeing. As you watch the arrows rain down by the thousands on the armies of Saruman at the gates of Helm's Deep, you never stop to think that it was filmed in a quarry in New Zealand. It feels real and I cannot think of many other films in a different time and place that can boast such a claim - even the original "Star Wars" films can't claim that, I think. Every detail, from the glorious costumes and soundtrack to the set design and performances, is done to the highest level. Every effort is made to keep the illusion going and it never falters for a minute. The jewel in the crown is Gollum, a wonderful creation that moves CGI forward to hitherto unknown heights. It is a real crime that Andy Serkis received no acting recognition for Gollum at all - the part is as much him as it is computer-based.I could go on but I'm needed in the kitchen to help prepare the veg for Christmas lunch tomorrow. Basically, "The Lord of the Rings" is film-making at its very best and anyone with an ounce of interest in movies should watch these three films. It is an instant classic and, by rights, should remain so for generations. For my money, this film is the best of the three but my advice is to watch all of them and make up your own minds. Only good things can come of it.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- 110
- 111
- 112
- 113
- 114
- 115
Cheap, nasty over-rated film for the those who are fooling themselves
posted on 30 Aug 2009First of all this movie is shot with the cheapest cinema film stock giving it a dark blue orange tinge. If the so-called budget was as large as purported KODAK deep vision would have been used to provide rich colour.This film drags out demonstrating the lack of skill from the director. The battle scenes are totally incredulous and totally predicably notwithstanding the premise that most viewers would be obsessed by the original book.The continuity of the film is another sign of bad directing and editing.The acting was even worse with the same portentous tone being used throughout almost every line of dialogue. The attempt at light humour using the "dwarf" (who appears to change in relative dimension throughout the film) is simplistic to the point of banality.The box office success of this film can only be attributed to the blind obsession of those who loved reading the trilogy.The rest is astute marketing. The CGI effects are all plagiarised from other films and the artistic direction the same.The evil forces have the same face structures as the vampires in "Dusk til dawn" and the rest look excessively much like computer game imagery.This is long boring film with repetitious droning music soundtrack that just keeps on repeating. The cover of and adaptation of a famous Children's mythologically based novel turns it to a graphic depiction of bloody battle scenes far to unwholesome for a child audience if not overly boring for them as I observed.The schizophrenic depiction of the mind battle within the Golum is excessively much overworked and to the extent, where you feel like you are listening to a broken record.Lord of the Rings cultists will bit of footage as they indulge themselves in the illusion that this an epic masterpiece. In fact, it is cheap and nasty overrated and highly marketed money making venture by arrogant and conceited rich trust fund moviemakers in New Zealand.