🎦 The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers full movie HD download (Peter Jackson) - Drama, Action, Adventure, Fantasy. 🎬
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
Year:
2002
Country:
USA, New Zealand, Germany
Genre:
Drama, Action, Adventure, Fantasy
IMDB rating:
8.7
Director:
Peter Jackson
Sean Astin as Sam
John Bach as Madril
Sala Baker as Man Flesh Uruk
Cate Blanchett as Galadriel
Orlando Bloom as Legolas
Billy Boyd as Pippin
Jed Brophy as Sharku
Sam Comery as Éothain
Brad Dourif as Wormtongue
Calum Gittins as Haleth
Bernard Hill as Theoden
Bruce Hopkins as Gamling
Paris Howe Strewe as Théodred - Prince of Rohan
Storyline: While Frodo and Sam, now accompanied by a new guide, continue their hopeless journey towards the land of shadow to destroy the One Ring, each member of the broken fellowship plays their part in the battle against the evil wizard Saruman and his armies of Isengard.
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1920x800 px 16794 Mb h264 (High) 1536 Kbps mkv Download
HQ DVD-rip 720x304 px 3011 Mb h264 1787 Kbps mp4 Download
Reviews
If you're a fan, that's not about to change.
Really, I should probably let this film soak in a bit; I am, after all, on something of a "post-viewing" high right now. However, at this moment, my feeling remains the same from the first installment - this is the movie experience I've been waiting my whole life for. In case you haven't gathered, this movie is visually stunning, literally breathtaking. I mean that, some of the scenes in this film simply stopped my lungs in their tracks, shocked at the pure, enveloping beauty of the shot. Peter Jackson has a profound grasp of visual manipulation like few directors have ever had.

The acting is, as always, superb. Kudos for hiring "actors" not "stars"; "Oscar-worthy" over-acting could have threatened the realistic touch the film's remarkable cast supply. Specific mention goes to both John Rhys-Davies in his well enjoyed comic turn, and very largely to Andy Serkis, who was a major role in creating the most realistic and brilliantly well-performed CGI character I've ever seen (Gollum).

For the most part, and as a fan of the books, I take no offense to the slight plot modifications. My understanding is that Tolkien himself realized that visual adaptation of LotR would require a somewhat different take on his work, and was apparently open to such minute changes. There are also a few tiny bits and pieces I was disappointed to see not make the final cut, however, I'm sure a future inevitable extended DVD will take care of those.

In short, if you found the continual enjoyment I did with the first movie of LotR, this movie will in no way let you down. Not even for a minute.

Highly recommended, 10/10.
2002-12-18
Great One
I considered The Fellowship of the Ring to be one of the greatest movies ever. This one is better!

The scenery is marvelous, the animations great, and the story superb. This episode strays further from the books when it comes to the unfolding of events, but I feel that it stays closer in atmosphere and realism; the nazgûls are now the fear-inspiring creatures they should be. Gollum, excellently implemented, even becomes more realistic then I remember him from the books, not to mention other attempts to portray him. His schizophrenic monologues are among the highlights of the movie.

The major drawback is once again the apparent incapability of the dark-side creatures. Aragorn with fellows can ride back and forth among them unhurt, while the Uruk-Hai fall in large numbers just for being nearby. Though I enjoy many of the jokes made at Gimli's expense, this still is another thing I partly dislike. Gimli sure is no clown in the books.

I rate the movie 9/10 (my highest so far).
2002-12-18
'Towers' works on almost every level, except one plot thread
Welcome back to my reviews of the Middle-Earth saga. We've gone on An Unexpected Journey, visited The Desolation of Smaug, witnessed The Battle of the Five Armies, and met The Fellowship of the Ring. Today, we are going to go on our next stop of the Lord of the Rings saga. Fasten your seatbelts, it's time to get hit by a waterfall. Let's enter...

...The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. The Two Towers follows several different plot threads: Sam and Frodo continue their quest to get to Mount Doom, as a creature named Gollum accompanies them; Aragon, Gimli, and Legolas all go in search of the Hobbits, and later head to Edoras in Rohan to assist in battle; Merry and Pippin are taken captive by Urku-hai and later meet a Ent that may help them in their quest.

This is probably my least favorite of the three films, let me just tell you that before we begin. Of course, that doesn't mean it's not a good film, it's a fantastic one. It's just I don't like some of the new characters we are introduced to and Merry and Pippin's story isn't that interesting to me. Anyway, let's get on with the review.

As usual, the best thing about the film is it's music. The music created by Howard Shore is always welcome, even in the film's most slow areas. The acting is really great too, by all members, but especially Elijah Wood and Sean Astin. Wood really portrays Frodo's desperation and slow descent into a form of madness due to him being influenced by the ring. Astin really works well with Wood, making Sam more than just a sidekick, but both a rock and friend that Frodo needs in his times of desperation.

The special effects are just as good as the previous films, if not better. Treebeard and Gollum are the obvious highlights, and they are created so convincingly that I couldn't really see any issues with them. I recently read that Treebeard was filmed on a green screen, and honestly, I couldn't tell, even when I watched some of the scenes in HD. Magnificent.

The cinematography and, well, shots of the film both are done beautifully. Every scene where groups are riding to battle and scenes where we see sweeping shots of landscapes look amazing, and you can tell that Jackson and anybody else working on that part of the film really wanted it to look good. The best example of this, in my opinion, is the first scene right before we get into what happened to Gandalf.

The plot works, for the most part. I found the scenes in Rohan to be the most interesting. Like Peter Jackson said, The Two Towers is mainly focused on Aragorn. It's his main story. So, obviously, that was going to be the most interesting and the most focused upon. I also liked Frodo, Sam and Gollum's story. Gollum's internal struggle is made that much harder halfway through the film, when Frodo has to do something that he didn't want to do. I have to wonder, if that hadn't have happened, would Gollum have been more accepting of not leading Frodo and Sam where they end up in Return of the King?

I don't know. I did think that the weakest story, and the one that I don't like to watch, is the story with Merry, Pippin, and Treebeard. I like the character of Treebeard, but it doesn't really work for me. It's just so boring, and it's usually cutting away from the more intriguing stories. Less focus on their tale would have worked for me.

In conclusion, overall, The Two Towers is a intriguing follow-up to The Fellowship of the Ring. While I had some issues with Merry and Pippin's storyline, the film itself is a action-packed ride and a great lead- up to the grand finale in The Return of the King.

10/10. Grade: A
2015-06-08
It was shorter than expected but still awesome.
The battle scenes were awesome but the plot was a little shorter than expected and it is more choppier than the 1st and 3rd Lord of the Rings (LOTR). I loved it when Legolas, Orlando Bloom, went on that shield like a skateboard. It was cool. Does any of you recognize Elrond from another movie? Let me give you a hint. "Mr. Anderson!" Do you know now? For those who do not know, it is Agent Smith, Hugo Weaving from the Matrix trilogy. Other famous LOTR actors are Sauroman, Christopher Lee, in the Star Wars Episode 2, and Gandalf, Ian McKellan, plays in X-Men as Magneto. Besides Christopher Lee, you notice that some of the good guys play bad guys in other movies. Weird huh? There are others but it is too many to list.

The extended version of the Two Towers is way better than the theatrical. It explains why Eomer gets kicked out in more detail. Also it explains more about Faramir, Bormir's brother, and their father. Gandalf explain more about his rank and what is going to happen next when he returned to Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimili. I thought that the Gollum singer was little jazzy for LOTR. I liked Enya better because she has such a beautiful voice.

In the book, LOTR creatures, such as the eagles, shadow fax, the spider, and so on talked in the story. I guess Jackson want to make the movie more realistic than book. They did a great job on Gollum. The actor had some special juice he drink for that voice. He explains in the special features. I really like the fact that Tolkien made his own language out of a bunch other languages and name it elvish.

I think if you really watch and maybe read the trilogy, you might learn something out of it. I'm not saying you should but I would recommend it. If you like computer games, I would recommend Age of Wonders because it is a strategy game which has characters similar to the LOTR. But be careful, it can be addictive and you might find yourself playing for several hours.
2005-02-06
Peter, what have you done!?
This film was such a disappointment compared to the first one... About EVERYTHING has changed from the book, and it is not for the better, that is for sure. I don't quite know where to begin:

- Frodo is made to look like he is totally under the rings spell, and that he does not see the treacherous nature of Gollum. But then suddenly he is himself for two seconds when discussing with Sam whether their adventure will be told in a song or story... WEIRD!

- Gollum is just wrong... His eyes are too cute, sort of...looks like a small baby (they are not too beautiful when they are a week or two old, to tell the truth...)

- Shadowfax is supposed to be the fairest horse there is; almost supernatural. In the film he is just an average horse, and not even the most beautiful horse of the film... As to Gandalf, he is supposed to look radiant and powerful, almost like a god! But he just looks like an old, tired man...

- The elves in Helms Deep...where did that come from!? The elves never came to the rescue in that battle!!!

- Faramir is reduced to a copy of his brother, something which really annoys me! And then he brings them to the city with him...?

- Poor Gimli is made to be a "JarJar"...he is just this helpless, useless person that we are to laugh at. Yes, he is helpless sometimes, especially when it comes to horses. The thing with Gimli willingly going up on a horse in the film is just wrong; he's terrified of riding horses, and will only do so if he gets to sit with Legolas on his horse.

- Aragorn is made too much of a hero; it almost made me sick (And I am a girl!!!)

- Why did they have Pippin bite that brooch off his cape instead of letting him try to run away from the orcs before throwing it in the grass, like he did in the book? He doesn't seem so heroic in the film...

- Why did they make it look like the Ents were not interested in helping?

- There is so much from "Two towers" that is not in the film...I guess it will be coming in the next one, though, so I won't complain too much about that...

There are lots of other stuff I could have mentioned here, I am sure, but I will spare you for the rest. The first film was great, but Peter, you disappointed me with this one - I hope you do a better job with number three!

2003-01-08
My Visit To The Cinema
Don`t you just hate cinemas ? No matter where you sit you always end up surrounded by people who spend their time chatting amongst themselves as to the events on screen 30 seconds before they happen . If we`re after a running commentary we`ll buy the DVD thank you very much . Add to this unattended mad mental kids running around wild . In fact many years ago our local newspaper saw a no holds barred letter of complaint about a screening of 3 MEN AND A LITTLE LADY which referred to foul mouthed juvenile delinquents in the audience . And on top of all this I`m a chainsmoker and cinema chains don`t allow patrons to poison themselves or others with nicotine so as a rule I don`t visit cinemas . But it`s a rule I broke in order to see THE TWO TOWERS because I was literally dying to see it . So I booked my ticket well in advance for the premier screening in Rothesay on the 26th of January , popped into the cinema that night and demanded to be entertained

****** SPOILERS ******

I was entertained and more , but I later had some reservations . On a technical level TTT not only does not disappoint but it outdoes FELLOWSHIP in terms of both scope and scale but this doesn`t automatically make it as some people have claimed a better film . The battles of Helms Deep and Isengard are truly breath taking and out do anything Hollywood has done , but ironically by concentrating on spectacle TTT feels more like a Hollywood film than FELLOWSHIP . And all this spectacle causes a problem for Peter Jackson - How does he finish all these impossibly epic set pieces ? The simple answer is he can`t ! As several reviewers have mentioned the fractured storyline comes to the rescue of the director in much the same way as Gandalf rides to the rescue of Helms Deep : Cut to the most breath taking calvary charge in the history of cinema , cut to the Ents attacking Isengard and then cut back to Helms Deep where our heroes have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat , except they did so mainly off screen . It`s as if the director has used the fractured storyline in order to get himself out of a corner . Likewise reviewers on this site have noticed the story telling technique hides several plot holes involving characters appearing and disappearing to and from the story .

Of course you don`t notice these flaws at the time due to the awesome onscreen visuals but there is one major criticism you can level at TTT as soon as the credits roll and that`s a lack of an emotional impact . Yes you`ll gasp and cheer and feel your heart race but you won`t burst into tears . Remember the scenes in the first film where the fellowship escape into the mountains after Gandalf has confronted the Balrog or the departure of Boromir ? Remember how your throat tightened and you nearly had a tear run down your face ? Of course you do because these two scenes are amongst the most moving and heart wrenching in cinema history . Unfortunately there is no similar equivalent in TTT . And the film also cries out for a flawed but noble ambigous anti hero like Boromir in a story where everyone is either good or evil and no in between , though this is almost certainly the fault of Tolkien rather than Jackson who does manage to get the best out of his cast in film lacking in character development . Special mention goes to Andy Serkis who alas seems to have missed out on nominations for best supporting actor , Brad Dourif who plays a very slimy villain , and Bernard Hill who made me forget that this is the same actor who played Yosser Hughes in BOYS FROM THE BLACKSTUFF 20 years ago . But I couldn`t help but miss Sean Bean and I suppose casting him as Faramir twin brother of Boromir would have been just too obvious

But despite my criticisms I enjoyed TTT immensely and for three magical hours I forgot all about my nicotine addiction and the world outside . No doubt the audience at the Rothesay cinema felt the same way as me as we watched this film in a hushed silence . We laughed at the right bits , gasped at the technical achievements , but no one cried which means I can only award THE TWO TOWERS 9 out of 10
2003-01-27
Unbelievable
This movie is a first rate epic. From start to finish, it delivers the essence of Tolkien and his world. From Gollum to Helm's Deep, the special effects are innocent fun and spectular. I think Helm's Deep is unbelievable though. Peter Jackson knows what he's doing. He has a vision of Middle Earth, that none of us could've imagined.

On one hand this is a fantasy, and it's totally not real. That's why I think it's unbeliveable. How could this happen? I don't know. But all I care is that at least it's good.

The movie will utterly be remembered years from now.
2003-10-30
Jackson should have called it "Middle Earth Stories" - It has nothing to do with Tolkien except the names and places
After watching the Two Towers, I was so disappointed that I left the theater resolved not to buy the DVD and to sell my current copy the Fellowship (which I bought in the hope that it would be redeemed by the later movies.) To be fair, my frame of reference for the movie was based entirely on the books, which I have been reading (over and over again) since I was nine. It seems as though Peter Jackson takes some perverse pleasure it making the characters do exactly the opposite of what they did in the books. I understand it is difficult to transport any book to the screen, but Jackson's changes were not even remotely consistent. This... of course... is the heart of my disappointment. Tolkien wrote a story that seemed to peer into another world - not just of fantasy, but a worldview that is in essence pre-modern. Tom Shippey (Journey into Middle Earth) explains it as a reconstruction of the Middle Ages and its psychology - with priorities, duties, and responsibilities appropriate to that era. C.S. Lewis talked about it as a "Discarded Image" that we once knew, but now no longer fully understand. The Lord of the Rings is a fascinating glimpse into a world where honor and virtue (the immaterial world) stands always higher than the temptations of the material world (such as greed, selfishness, pettiness, etc.) Peter Jackson captures none of that. More importantly, his free reconstructions not only confuse the story on the surface level, but also run completely counter to the spirit of the book. Jackson's characters have no concept of higher duties or responsibilities - they are portrayed as weak creatures constantly at struggle with their base emotions (with no room for higher ideals). In fact, this movie was especially dark and pessimistic. True... this may reflect the modern mindset - in fact, it probably mimics it perfectly. The problem is that I love Tolkien precisely because it does not pander to the modern mindset. It speaks of higher things. I have friends who have never read the books who liked the movie, and I suspect that my love of the books has significantly shaded my perspective. Indeed, if viewed completely on its own terms, the movie is probable fine. But... what I find continually disturbing is Jackson's repeated claims that he has remained true to the book - that is an outright lie! I know he does not want to offend the Tolkien fan base (like me), but I find his pleas of innocence to have exactly the opposite effect. He did not stay true to the book, in either its letter or its spirit. It would have been less startling to me if he had simply called it by another name and made no pretense of turning the book into a movie.

On an altogether separate, more technical, note; I found the movie to suffer generally from poor direction. I realize this goes against the grain of almost of the critics, but honestly, I have a problem with Jackson's style of directing - this is completely apart from his editorial abuses. Specifically, he does not give the characters time to consider or reflect on the events; the cuts are too quick and unsatisfying. And this is not just a problem with too much material in too short a time - he could have lost the entire sequence with Aragon and Arwen freeing up 30 minutes or more (without any loss to the story). Also, Jackson so desperately wants this to be epics that he throws in giant panoramic scenes - unfortunately, he does so with the frenetic energy he puts into the scene cuts, which means that the scenes are constantly in dizzying movement. A sustained shot would be nice, and might give the viewer a moment or two to take in the context of the events. But alas, Jackson's sweep do not allow you to catch in any details, or even any of the magnitude. This leads me to the final technical complaint; for all the buzz surrounding the special effects, Jackson's team seems unfit for the job. I suspect he is constantly moving the panoramic shots because the scenes would not hold up to closer examinations. Elsewhere, the CGI characters (with the exception of Gollum, who was created and performed very well) were shallow fascimilies. There were several places during the final battle sequences, where I could almost see the blue/green screen overlays. If Jackson wants to create a competitor to ILM, he will be disappointed. The special effects were both unsubtle and immature - they did not blend well into the story, and were, occasionally, simply distracting.

Of course, if you have not read the books, these problems are minor and you may well love the movie. If you have read the books - but only so long ago that you can't remember the storyline, then you might like the reunion with old (albeit completely different) characters. If you love the books, their stories, and their message - this movie is probably not for you.
2003-09-13
I rally wanted to love this movie.
I really really wanted to love this movie. I loved Fellowship, I found it nearly flawless. I give a 10/10 for the acting and the special effects. If I have never read the books, I would have been absolutely flawed by this movie. Some of the changes detracted from this movie, but not terribly.

But the fundemental changed made to Faramire (compare him in the book to the movie - not merely changed but the opposite) seriously undermined the whole plot of the trilogy.

Still, I have this an 8/10. On its own merits, it is excellent. But changes were made that weakened the story for no good reason...
2002-12-18
Peter Jackson does it again, pure screen magic!
Peter Jackson has done it again, with the second movie in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, "The Two Towers". An excellent film, but it is my least favourite in the trilogy.

Sam and Frodo continue their journey towards Mordor to rid Middle Earth of the One Ring, while Aragon, Gimli and Legolas prepare to do battle with the armies of the dark. Also, we get to see Gollum for the first time in this film, in all of his CG glory! Pure screen magic. Amazing special effects, a great storyline continuing the tale, this is a film that should definitely not be missed! The end battle is pure CG magic! Peter Jackson has done it once again! I recommend the extended edition, which shows us more in this wonderful tale.

I say that this is my least favourite in the trilogy for the simple reason that it jumps from Sam and Frodo, to Aragon and Legolas, to Merry and Pippen, and back and forth. It can get somewhat confusing and hard to follow if you have not read the books.

Despite this one minor flaw, the film is eye-poppingly beautiful, from the beautiful scenes, to the amazing special effects. Definitely not a film to be missed!
2004-12-28
See Also
Back Roads
Back Roads
USA ‘2018
6
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
USA ‘2017
6.1
📹 The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers full movie HD download 2002 - Bruce Allpress, Sean Astin, John Bach, Sala Baker, Cate Blanchett, Orlando Bloom, Billy Boyd, Jed Brophy, Sam Comery, Brad Dourif, Calum Gittins, Bernard Hill, Bruce Hopkins, Paris Howe Strewe, Christopher Lee - USA, New Zealand, Germany. 📀
×