🎦 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
DVD-rip 480x234 px 797 Mb mpeg4 647 Kbps avi Download
iPhone 640x360 px 2004 Mb h264 1561 Kbps mp4 Download
Reviews
A Shout Out to WETA!!! Truly Awesome!
First off, The Two Towers is an amazing achievement. As with the Fellowship of the Ring, the Two Towers is one of the best films ever. However, the only problem I find with this film is that it is too short. Yea, you heard me right! The new characters needed to be fleshed out a little more. The Fellowship of the Ring IMO is superior because of the interaction between the core players. We were there when they made their journey, we were not hopping back and forth between their individual adventures. Yes I know that is the way the book is written, but I just prefer the Fellowship's more intimate look at the characters. This withstanding the Two Towers is an amazing achievement. WETA Digital truly deserves all of the kudos that have been bestowed upon them. They have supplanted Industrial Light and Magic as the preeminent digital effects company.

Bottom Line:

10/10!!!

2003-09-01
The Weakest Link - a spoiler or two
Really, The Two Towers is the weakest of the three novels, and it is only natural that the middle volume would be a bit of a let down. Jackson does a nice job of trying to lift the story - the battle sequence is fantastic - but to my mind the 10 I might have given for this movie went over the cliff with Aragorn. I have nothing against Jackson deviating from the books - I was not troubled by the changes in the Faramir character, for instance, and adding the Warg riders themselves was a nice touch. But what was the purpose of sending Aragorn over the cliff? Creating false tension that probably fooled less than 1% of the audience? Screen time for Liv Tyler? All it did for me was make the movie feel false for about ten minutes. This crucial mistake is compunded now that we have the Extended Edition and see some of the scenes that were left out of the theatrical release. the movie would have been stronger without Aragorn's fall, and with, for instance, the scene between Boromir and Faramir, or the march of the trees to the Battle of Helms Deep.

Well, so be it. One or two major missteps in a ten hour movie is not unexpected. On its merits, apart from that, this movie, like the whole trilogy, is a magnificent achievement.

One question: every time I look, Legolas is shooting dozens of arrows. And every time I look, his quiver is full. Where are the arrows coming from? Elf magic?
2004-02-09
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 journey continues!
This is an extremely intriguing film, the battle scenes, especially Helm's Deep were amazingly well done!!!! I can't believe Peter did so well! Some say that the film was too long, I say it wasn't long enough, not even the super awesome extended version! There are very few director's that revolutionize Hollywood, but I say Peter is one of the best!!! He portrayed everything with amazing visual effects, the huge armies and epic battles! Treebeard is sweet! He is so treelike and was well done, like the picture in my head! This movie has no flaws, and is one of the best! Definitely this trilogy is the greatest epic of all time! Stories like these will always live on in the hearts of fanatics like me!
2006-04-12
What Was I Waiting For?
Took me a LONG time to see this film. Anything that EVERYONE liked, I was sure I wouldn't. But, when I finally got around to watching it I was shocked. It was a lovely film and was much more moving than I expected. The effects were great but never distracting as many films are. And the story was faithful. The stars were all perfectly cast and it wsa beautifully adapted. If MGM and the old studios were still making great costume epics today they would have been proud to have made this one!
2004-02-24
Jackson remains a genius, and this series remains a masterpiece--Faithful enough to Tolkein, and a fantastic movie!
I've read ---with care and delight--- the books four times in the last 34 years, including the recent reversion to Tolkein's "original" manuscript, edited by his son. I'm a fan. There, I said it, and I'm glad, I tell you!

This second installment of the trilogy is probably as good as a movie could get. It captures the Tolkein vibe probably as well as it could be captured in a theatrical release. Watching the flick tonight I realized that much of the vaunted charm of the very readable and very "literary" Tolkein books is in part the time it takes to read the long pages--- 1,000 to 1,400 pages, depending on the edition your are holding. And that time--- weeks and weeks of pouring over pages, re-reading certain passages, pondering and mulling over the fake languages and songs, and histories Tolkein concocted--- allows one to create and invent the Tolkein world inside oneself. That's GREAT! I loved each time I read the original. But no one could possibly expect a movie to give you, in 2-1/2 hours, that kind of luxurious lingering in the fantasy world. Duh!

Therefore, the movie's focus on action--- and FYI, it is dead-on accurate and faithful to the books--- is OK. The Ents' meeting in the forest took 3 or 4 DAYS in the book, and Merry and Pippin spent many more days hanging with Treebeard. The movie telescoped that down into a few hours. But hey!!! Think about it--- how could a movie, ANY movie, capture all of the sylvan reverie (including the Hobbits growing a couple of feet taller with the Entwash, etc.) in a trilogy movie series? All of that dreamy book-world stuff would be great to see on the screen--- but it would take dozens and dozens of hours of screen-time. Who could sit in a theater for that many weeks? There aren't that many "festive" people on the planet to make such a theatrical release profitable.

Maybe if we were wishing, we could have wished for a 30 or 40 hour TV mini-series. Then we COULD afford to meander and linger and all of that. Seriously--- I'd have enjoyed it. But then, the battles and evil empire and such would have to be portrayed with a vigor equal to Jackson's efforts, else the drama and peril (etc.) would be lost. For MY ridiculous wishing, then, I'm wishing for them to have made two projects--- the 3 theater-release movies, AND a 30-hour TV mini-series for all the "literary" vibe. But then, instead of a $300 million triology, we'd have had a $1 BILLION dollar (but memorable!) TV mini-series. Oh well--- if wishing were having...

Overall, "LOTR Two Towers" is an excellent movie! A "10" out of "10"!!!
2002-12-18
As good as its prequel
In the Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Two Towers was my favorite, but it is as good as the prequel. Peter Jackson won his major triumph again! The thing about the Two Towers is that, it makes everyone wondered what was going to happen, the fellowship was broken and the dark lord is winning over middle-earth.

The Two Towers explained the path of the hobbits and the king. The film follows its prequel as did the book as Frodo and Sam make their way towards Mount Doom to destroy the ring of evil. They encounter a new creature called Gollum that is bound to the ring, and claims he knows the route into Mordor. Is he a friend or foe?

it then shifts to Merry and Pippin who are held captive by a band of Uruk-hai. the Uruk-hair get destroyed in a battle against humans, and Merry and Pippin flee into the forest of fangorn. There they meet the most beloved character in The lord of the Rings books, treebeard, a creature that is a walking, talking tree that must gather the other trees for an inevitable battle against Saruman.

And lastly, there's Aragorn, and his two friends Gimili, a dwarf, and Legolas, an elf. They follow the Uruk-hai, till the damned creatures meet their miserable fate. The trio encounter a band of human riders from a country called Rohan, which tell them the direction of the uruk slaughter, which leads the trio into Fnagorn forest, where they meet an unexpected friend, and learn that the folk of Rohan are being attacked by Saruman, and must make a stand against an army of 10,000! Can these three gatherers change the fate of middle-earth in the little time they have?

Peter Jackson has proved himself of filming great battle sequences, unique special effects, a great storyline of an unforgettable tale, and moral lessons all people must learn. 5/5
2004-03-06
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
The final hour of The Two Towers is grand, terrifying, and epic on a biblical level.
The opening scene of The Two Towers provides an outstanding, yet very brief, taste of action, cinematography, and special effects, only to be matched (and far surpassed) in the final hour of the film. The stunning events of the third hour of The Two Towers are undoubtedly the centerpiece of the film, and while the first two hours serve finely as story development, they primarily build anticipation for the final hour, which mostly depicts the battle of Helm's Deep. More than anything else, the first two hours merely tease and torment the patient audience. It's a shame that such a gap has to exist between the first minute and the final hour, but I take no reservations in saying that despite how you feel about the first two hours of the film, the final hour will make the wait entirely worth its while.

As stated, the road to the battle of Helm's Deep can be enormously long and painful for any viewer aware of what breathtaking scenes await towards the end of the film. Perhaps The Two Towers' biggest fault is in its own accomplishments; the first two thirds of the film are well shot, well paced, and they necessarily and adequately progress the storyline, but when compared to the spectacular final hour, the first two hours seem uneventful and insignificant. However, to be fair, I feel that it's simply impossible to create two hours of film that could appropriately lead into the battle of Helm's Deep. It's difficult to comprehend how such scenes came to exist in the rather short amount of time Peter Jackson has had to create six hours (so far) of finished film. The battle of Helm's Deep is simply unreal; it's unlike any event that has come to pass since fantasy films gained, and regained, popularity.

As assumed, The Two Towers begins where The Fellowship of the Ring ended. The majority of the film follows four separate groups and their story lines: Frodo and Sam; Aragorn and Legolas, Merry and Pippin, and Saruman and his army. The performances live well up to the standards of the first film, with a particularly notable performance from Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn, whose role is significantly larger in The Two Towers. Aragorn satisfies a thirst for someone to root for, a thirst that was left partly unquenched in Fellowship. It's much easier to root for Aragorn than it is for Frodo; Aragorn has many more qualities of a leading man, a soldier, and a hero. More than once did the audience, filled mostly with academy voters, applaud the heroics of Aragorn. Gollum also shines in a much-welcomed large role, due to extremely realistic computer animation, and a fine performance from Andy Serkis, upon which the animation was modeled. In Fellowship, it was appropriate to consider Gollum one of the many great 'features' of the film. However, here he is more of a leading character and a 'star,' and his convincing dual-personality, stabbing voice, and well-choreographed body movements make him consistently eye-grabbing and the center of focus of nearly every scene in which he appears.

As was The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers is a visual delight. Those who have seen Fellowship are no doubt familiar with the beauty of the landscapes of New Zealand. The cinematography is, again, one of the best aspects of the film. The swooshing camera movements that follow the armies and horsemen throughout the fields are extremely satisfying in this post-Matrix era. The shots of the ascending enemy-laden ladders in the battle of Helm's Deep are terrifying and chillingly gorgeous all at once. The visual effects take an appropriate leap forward from those of the first film. While the visual effects in Fellowship were outstanding, the battle of Helm's Deep provides for the best application of CGI since the rippling waves of The Matrix's 'Bullet Time.' The battle of Helm's Deep features absolutely awe-inspiring and seamless integration of acting, stunts, and computer animation. Each orc seems to have its own personality, demonstrated in its movements and visual features. The masses of armies fight with strategy and true character, which I imagine is much harder to accomplish than animating thousands of identical clone troopers. The only problem I have with the visual department is the look of Gimli, the Treebeard. Gimli's visual features seem a bit childish and uninspired, inconsistent with the standards set by the rest of the film. But again, there is simply nothing that compares to the battle of Helm's Deep. George Lucas and the Wachowski brothers certainly have not created anything that approaches the grandness and magnificence of The Two Towers' final hour, and I doubt they will do so anytime soon.

In The Fellowship of the Ring, I had a few minor problems with Howard Shore's score. While I thought it was gorgeous and it established several very memorable themes, I don't think it handled the sentimental scenes (opening in the Shire, Gandalf's passing) properly. I thought it caved in to the melodrama a bit too much, resembling the emotions from James Horner's Titanic. However, I believe that The Two Towers requires the type of score which Howard Shore accomplishes best: dark, continuous, and unrelenting, as demonstrated in Se7en and Silence of the Lambs. The theme used in many of the action scenes in Fellowship (low brass, six notes repeated with a rest in between) is much more present in The Two Towers, appropriately. A brand new theme is also unveiled, the theme for Rohan, a prominent kingdom in Middle Earth. Rohan's theme is played more often than any other melody in the film, underscoring most of the memorable and heroic scenes with great effect. Howard Shore undeniably exhibits his skills as an 'A-list' composer, and with a possible double Oscar nomination this year for The Two Towers and Gangs of New York, he could get propelled to the very top of the 'A-list,' right beside John Williams and Hans Zimmer in terms of demand.

If not the picture itself, there should be a way to recognize and award the battle of Helm's Deep. The battle sequence alone represents successful filmmaking in its highest form. The choreography of the battle, the visual effects, the pacing, acting, cinematography, and music, all work together in perfection to achieve grand filmmaking which is as entertaining and enjoyable as film can be. For this very reason, no one, whether a fan of Fellowship or not, should miss The Two Towers.
2002-12-08
A standing ovation for all concerned.
It seems ridiculous to want to add my own comments to a slew of others that are already in IMDB's records, but I feel like I cannot sleep nor cease the throbbing in my chest until I release some of what I have so recently seen.

Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings is one of the bravest projects ever attempted by a filmmaker. Mr Jackson deserves every ovation he will receive, every award, every bit of the praise and adoration that will be spoken and written.

This second installment of the story is a masterpiece in every sense, forget your prejudices about the books, they are another way of looking at this beautiful story (I know this is slightly against the rules, but a I cannot resist saying that a previous writers comment - a comment that compared the Lord of the Rings Films and Books to the difference between Romeo and Juliet in screenplay and ballet formats - was entirely accurate).

Gollum was an excellent amalgam, so easily could he have been an annoying Jar-Jar-Binks-Alike. Instead the way that Jackson and Serkis (and doubtless many many others) chose to portray the CGI incarnation of "Smeagol" was incredibly emotive and powerful. Gollum is profoundly disturbing, amusing, almost lovable... Not even John Ronald Reuel himself could induce that range of emotions for Smeagol in me...

A truly skin-crawling performance by a superb Brad Douris as the evil Grima Wormtongue was just beyond words. Douris _Became_ Wormtongue in a skillful fulfillment of what was already inspired casting.

Probably the most definitive casting of this film though was Manchester born Bernard Hill as Theoden, King of Rohan. The casting for "The Two Towers" makes one shake ones head and wonder, in retrospect, whether anyone else could have filled these roles. Mr Hill's performance was truly first rate, a performance which contributed greatly to "The Battle of Helms Deep", scenes which were a spinning tornado of emotions for the viewer.

Viggo Mortensen goes from strength to strength. His performance is visceral and yet sensitive. The overriding emotion that Tolkiens vision of Aragorn induced (at least for me) was awe at his heroics. Mortensen's portrayal in Jackson's frame brings new aspects to the Aragorn character. Mortensen's Aragorn is emotionally dextrous to go with his physical dexterity, he is sensitive, seemingly empathic, warmer and more fundamentally human, and yet super-human in presence and charisma. "Definitive" is not strong enough of a word.

If you still view Jackson's epic with scepticism I implore you to put down your preconceptions and your prejudices, but most of all put down the books... This is beautiful way to see middle earth, don't pass it up - The books are the ultimate fantasy epic - the pictures you draw in your head are better than anything you can imagine, but The Lord of the Rings "The Two Towers" is one wonderful interpretation of that epic story.

Go, Laugh, Cry, and Sit in Awe of this cinematic treat.
2002-12-19
📹 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. 📀
×