🎦 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
iPhone 640x360 px 2004 Mb h264 1561 Kbps mp4 Download
Reviews
The best second part in the history
When I first saw The Fellowship of the Ring, I got really disappointed. But, The two Towers is completely different. The plot of the movie is interesting and their characters are really complex. Besides, the special effects of the movie are unbelievable, specially in the battles. In my opinion, the best actor of the movie was Sir Ian McKellen, who played Gandalf the Wizard. The soundtrack of the film was also great, especially the one that is used in the Kingdom of Rohan. In conclusion, this movie really made me change my opinion about The Lord of the Rings Trilogy and made me a fan.
2004-02-11
Upholding
Although the expedition was in parts, the march was not over. Kind Frodo accepted bad Gollum without hearing the opinion of Sam. In fact without Sam, the task could not be finished. From the ending part of the first film, we could see Sam was realizing his promise.

The ring began torturing Frodo. His flesh and soul suffered double strike. But he still persisted in it. That was the hardest moment for Frodo in the journey. Insisting is just the victory. So does it in reality.

Although Saruman and Sauron were defeated, the dark lord Sauron still had the ability to reorganize the dark army and attack the mankind again. The peace for Middle-earth had not come yet.

The hardship in the journey deepened the friendship between Frodo and Sam, Merry and Pippin. They endured the test, though the victory had not come yet. A friend in need is a friend indeed.

As the second film of TLOTR trilogy, it is necessary and satisfying. 9/10
2005-08-22
Is It Magical?
Spoilers herein.

One hallmark of science fiction and fantasy is the creation of a world that includes to some extent the creator. That way, instead of inhabitants bumping around in a world, we get a complex set of interactions: some as a result of the world affecting the players, and some the other way around. Tolkien's work fits well within this tradition, in fact why it was so successful I think is the thoroughness with which he developed the magical laws. The reader not only understood that the magic had power, but had some notion of how it worked. That allowed the reader to exist both at the level of Frodo and the magical level of the wizards and demigods.

That's the soul of the books; not any episode, not any `theme' about brotherhood or hope or any such sodapop.

The first film of this saga impressed purely with the sheer ambition of the project, and we now have the second one. It is fun watching, just like `Speed' was in its day, but I'm unhappy with some of the choices that were made.

With film, there are specific ways to span the two worlds, ways which a few filmmakers have been exploiting for a long time -- long enough for some of them to appear in mainstream films. Almost none of those techniques were used here. Nearly all the choices were ones that plant us firmly in the world of the inhabitants who are buffeted by the world's forces just like we as people are. This literally boils all the magic out of the books, and we are left with `Braveheart' meets `The Black Cauldron' except slightly more expensively done and with some monsters.

The travesty is not that these choices were made to protect the investment in the films, but that so many Tolkien enthusiasts miss the point and argue about whether elves appear in the wrong scenes.

Further to the philosophy of the film: the manner in which the characters deal with the camera is roughly equivalent to the relationship the readers' imaginative `eye' has with the text. In addition to being cast at the level of the adventures and not the magic, there are other problems. That stance is inconsistent -- the greatest offense comes in the middle of the great battle. Until then, the players have been dead serious. They've been in their lives, not characters in a movie that wink at us. But all of a sudden, we have a barrage of winking: the `surfing' move, the dwarf-tossing joke, the 007-like standoff on the bridge. All of these depend on us knowing it is a movie and the characters leaving their lives and knowingly entering the movie.

Other problems with that stance. The various technologies used each have their own way the camera must be used. The two perspectives that impressed me were the handling of the fight between Gandolf and the balrog and the relationship we have with Gollum. In the first, our eye IS magical as it swoops around sometimes watching the fight, sometimes IN the fight. This use of the camera is new -- I noticed it also last week in `Treasure Planet' when encountering the black hole. But it entirely different than the soliloquies Gollum (and several others) have. Under the guise of talking to themselves, they are really talking to us, nearly looking at the camera. All of the camera engagement is from Bergman, and is his well-studied solution to the Shakespearean stage technique.

I liked both of these, but they are inconsistent with each other, inconsistent with Tolkien's magic as noted and inconsistent with the movieland jokes. But there are even more diverse perspectives. We have the helicopter shots (again from `Braveheart'), and a few similar shots of virtual sets. We could have had some new movement (like the balrog fight), but we are supposed to recall similar shots.

And then there are the Ents, animation straight out of `Poltergeist.' It is another set of views determined by the technology rather the story. Shifting among the bluescreen of hobbits in Ents, to the humanistic CGI Gollum, to the video game animation of the battle was jarring. We never were in Tolkien's world, just browsing through the aisles of your video store, shifting about.

LOTR was written with specific notions of reading in mind and is bound to them. But `Dune' was not. Imagine a film of Dune with this budget and Lynch's originality instead of Jackson's `me-too-isms.' Now that would be cool.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.
2002-12-21
The Two Towers! What Is It? The Answer Is: My Precious!
The second part of The Lord of the Rings saga maintains the style, momentum and integrity that made the first film as brilliant as it is and thus what Peter Jackson gives us is one of the best sequels ever and certainly the best film of 2002. I prefer the first film for being closer to the book but I completely understand the changes made from book to film and I see why they are necessary to keep the film's narrative flowing instead of dropping dead. The film is not without a few weaknesses mainly because of it being a middle part linking The Fellowship of the Ring and The Return of the King and therefore not having an obvious beginning or an end. This doesn't stop the film from being an experience that people shouldn't be cheated out of.

The acting is, like in the first film, very good and at times even brilliant. Viggo Mortensen improves greatly and provides a more well rounded and believable Aragorn and proves his qualities as an actor especially in the quit moments (of which there are too few in the theatrical release, this was remedied in the extended cut). Also Elijah Wood deepens his character considerably and shows many of the darker sides of his character in the film. This provides for some interesting exchanges between Wood and his faithful companion played by Sean Astin. Bernard Hill is introduced in this film along with the method actor, Brad Dourif. Both of the aforementioned are excellent in their respective parts even though there are some inconsistencies in Hill's character compared to the character from the book. These changes were obviously made for dramatic purposes and are very plausible. Ian McKellen's character, Gandalf, has been somewhat reduced in the second film but instead he steals every scene he is in. Likewise, Hugo Weaving's character has been reduced but he is still very good and keeps his character in the same style as in the first film. Orlando Bloom and John Rhys-Davies returns as well and I have to comment on the choice to make Gimli into comic relief, because while I understand the necessity given that Dominic Monaghan's and Billy Boyd's characters have taken a turn towards more serious characters there had to be someone to relieve the dramatic tension, I found it a shame that Gimli had been reduced to some bumbling clown. Fortunately most of his comic remarks worked. Among other characters introduced are Faramir, played by David Wenham, and Gollum, played beautifully by Andy Serkis. I'll get back to Faramir but for now I have to comment on Gollum. Gollum is quite simply the most interesting film character in the last decade and this relates both to the ground breaking special effects but also Serkis' performance, which was most unfairly not deemed fit for an Oscar nomination. Overall the acting is excellent like in the first film and all actors manages to develop their characters in ways that are at the very least acceptable.

The effects and fight scenes in this second film are among the best ever and is perhaps only bested by some of the effects in the third film in the series. The Gollum character and the battle for Helm's Deep seem to be excellent examples. Gollum is quite simply the most stunning and beautifully created CGI character of all time and he displays extraordinary emotional range. As previously stated The Battle for Helm's Deep is among the finest battle scenes ever created. Well paced and choreographed and above all the editing in between the hectic battle sequences and scared citizens provides for some emotional depth as well (something that was sorely needed in the battle sequences in Star Wars: Episode II). This gigantic battle isn't the only battle in the film. There are many other interesting battles but I'm not going to spoil them so you'll just have to see the film yourself. The battles are consistent with the style that was laid down in the first film they are simply on a much more epic scale.

Some people have raved that the changes made from book to film were too radical but I completely understand and condone the reasons which were obviously dramatic purposes. Especially David Wenham's character has been criticized and after watching it the first time I was a bit unhappy with his character as well but when you think about it the changes in the character were at the very least essential to maintain the narrative structure. There are other examples but it would really be pointless to mention them because the reason is exactly the same as in the case of David Wenham's character. Dramatic purposes.

Overall The Two Towers serves as an excellent link between the Fellowship of the Ring and The Return of the King and it deserves every bit of praise coming to it. One of the very best films of all time.

10/10 - On my top 10 of best films
2006-06-13
Freeking amazing Movie, review from a movie pro
The people who vote against this movie or didn't see it, or just hate it for hatred. This is the movie that changed the movie industry and set foot for the digital actors (3D Animation). This movie is a living legend, a god, and will rule for a century in my opinion.

Seriously, if you have not seen this trilogy, go and see it as soon as possible, as it is not just a movie about medieval times, it has everything a real movie should: Beautiful people (not a single ugly face), amazing art, incredible places (looks like heaven with skies of many colors, water and so much more). The acting is superb, the best in the world, they really hired the BEST out there, and as far as I can see, the movie was awesome because they did not allowed the motion picture to be corrupted with "political" reasons, so, all the actors, Post-production, sound, effects and everything else was really the BEST, no corrupted piece!!!!

The story is immortal, will get you in tears no matter what you are made of. The characters... so well done!!!

Do you know why this movie is so good? I will tell my opinion on it: I think it is THAT good, because Peter Jackson worked on it for more than 10 years (was forced to wait 10 years because no one wanted to give him the green light to shoot), that is why, it is a good way to ensure a good quality.
2006-12-23
More of the same
After falling asleep watching The Fellowship I decided to give the two towers a chance.

It sadly is more of the same unimaginative black and white world depiction like the Fellowship. There are only 2 kinds of people, the good guys and the bad guys in the Lord of the rings movies.

The good guys look nice, fresh, heroic and smart. The bad guys have hideous faces, wear old clothes, are conniving and not too bright. In the two towers Frodo continues his way to Mordor to destroy the ring. This time accompanied and guided by Gollum, some CGI created creature. Again they walk an awful lot and encounter some danger which they narrowly manage to avoid. At the end of the movie though, they still haven't managed to make it so well need a 3rd movie to find out if Frodo will succeed. I have a strange feeling that he just might.

The 2 captured Hobbits escape and seek refuge in a walking tree. I've been told they spend 58 hours per frame to make it look real. To me it looked straight out of Sesamestreet and i had trouble not to laugh.

Suddenly Gandalf appears out of nowhere and wasn't killed after all in his demon battling in film number 1. Ahh, what a shame. You really cant believe anything in this movie. After some bickering in the land of horsemen we see a huge battle between the (300) good guys and the (10000) bad guys. Off course, the good guys win. How surprising. By then I finally dozed off into a deep sleep whilst knowing this is a perfect film for children aged 3 to 10. It wasn't as bad as The Fellowship but it was still waaaaaaaaaaaaay too predictable and simplistic. I didn't give it a 1 but a 3 because I did like the cinematography and the locations where nicely chosen.
2008-12-21
The Greatest of the Three Rings
Yes, it's true. Return of the King may have won more of the Oscars as the culmination of Peter Jackson's magnificent cinematic achievement, but history will in fact adjudge "The Two Towers" as the greatest of the three Rings. If Fellowship was a road movie and ROTK was a friendship film, then Two Towers is an unadulterated war movie of heroic proportions. Peter Jackson said he based it on "Zulu"- and we can see why. It has a dramatic intensity and flow which none of the other films quite share. Good against evil are so sharply contrasted that you could cut your fingers on them. TTT also has the best score Howard Shore has produced. And it has the best dialogue.

The screenplay explains (with barely disguised contemporary resonance) what we are protecting in Western civilisation when we defend ourselves against those who would wish to destroy it. When Sam tells Frodo that there are "some things worth fighting for", when Merry tells Pippin that there "won't be a Shire" unless they do something about it, when King Theoden laments that "the sun has gone down in the West" this film could be entitled not the "Two Towers" but "the Twin Towers". It is Miltonic in its scope. It is cinema as art.

Yes, one may quibble about certain Entish details, and I know that the Elves weren't supposed to be at Helm's Deem, and that Faramir is a little undeveloped, but does this matter? Not at all. The Extended version is better than the original, but does not need to make such a quantum leap as Fellowship managed with its EE. However it will be a film that is seen as a landmark in cinema. A trilogy which may never be bettered. And a reminder of what we are all here for
2004-03-06
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
Compelling
Thank You Peter Jackson. These films are absolutely magical. The Two Towers has flaws, but is still a great experience of a movie. I looked at some of those who post to slam this film. One said that when he buys the movie he would use scene selection to skip over the parts he didn't like. I suppose the irony was lost on that one. I also saw a lengthy slam where the poster stated that on the two viewings he had of the film people were laughing at golem. I love this film, but I have only seen it once.

So do you see... this is a great movie. Even those who hate it can't look away. Even though it betrays their personal take on the books, there is magic on the screen that keeps them coming.

I will buy the DVD promptly Aug 26th.
2003-08-24
One of the greatest movies of all time
This movie was simply amazing. Great casting, great acting. The way this movie stuck to the book is hard to match by any movie. Although there were some differences this movie still stuck to the plot immensely and there can be no complaints. A must watch for all ages
2003-11-08
📹 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. 📀
×