A lot has been said
about the latest performance of the Lord of the Rings sequel,
and how it will pretty definitely not make it to $400 million
even with any Oscar consideration the film receives. Every
week box office fans are jazzed up about whether the film will
beat so-and-so in the top five/ten, but I feel that people in
general are over-hyping/over-talking the situation a bit much.
It’s hard to go on a fan-site message board without reading
posts about Two Towers long-term domestic forecasts, resulting
in fan after fan of the franchise posting a thread about how
he/she can’t wait till the sequel garners every box office
record known to man.I understand that everyone has their
own opinions and viewpoints toward certain topics, but to me
it feels like any film fan with any realistic idea of
moviemaking would realize some of the flaws The Two Towers
carried. I’ve seen movie fans post the Lord of the Rings
sequel as an A+ or an A in grade, but sort of wonder if any of
them comprehend the basic language of film themselves. Some
claim it’s the best film of 2002, which I find ludicrous, but
then again that’s just me. When I originally saw the sequel, I
was very impressed indeed with the results of a three-hour
film that pretty much flew by my eyes. But as for a movie that
was jam-packed with quality at every corner of its
story/execution, Two Towers didn’t have it all.
The intro has some truly great cinematography, but then as
it immediately switches gears into the special effects
division involving Gandalf (Ian McKellen), I suddenly felt
like I was watching fake visuals. The segment had the feel of
a standard computer game, which slightly took me out of the
ride. The movie graduates a bit after this point, as the
cheesy FX shots are given a break and the story begins. But
Two Towers carries along various other moments (many of the
living trees appeared too CGI, for one) where it is so damn
obvious we’re watching computer generated images. I may be
picky, but when I make the association that I’m watching
fakeness roll onto the screen pretty clearly, it sort of makes
the imaginative feel fade away a little bit.
Harry Potter & the Chamber of Secrets, on the other hand,
did a pretty suave job of performing visual effects that we
knew were blue screen-based but the believability from at
least my mind was there. The film carried a bare minimum if
any (at the top of my head) fake or cheesy shots that took my
imagination out of the magic unrolling. The Two Towers has a
lot of splendid visuals and action shots that are really well
done, but it also has its share of unbelievable (in a negative
sense) views that can take someone out of the picture.
From my understanding of film, I always thought that A or
A+ films (even an A-) would involve spectacular performances
from just about the entire cast. An A+ movie is essentially a
perfect production without any flaws. If you gaze at the
acting lineup in Two Towers, I wouldn’t exactly brand the
general acting at the top of its game. I saw more good in
Elijah Wood the second time I saw the sequel and likewise for
Sean Astin, but nowhere near Oscar worthy. That’s not to say
they’re bad, as they’re believable but not quite outstanding.
I felt that if there was one performance that rocked the
world, it was Viggo Mortenson. Is he Oscar worthy? Not really,
but he pretty well sold the part.
Ian McKellen does a good job once again filling the shoes
of Gandalf, but didn’t find it overly special despite my
opening night audience cheering loudly at his first big
appearance. There’s also a moment nearing the end with
McKellen involved that springs exact memories from the ending
of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (right before Indiana
and clan are riding off into the distance). And if you
actually pay attention earlier on in Two Towers, the spot
where Aragorn (Mortenson) believes to know how an incident had
once taken place over a piece of land is almost an exact
copycat of a relevant scene in The Princess Bride.
'TTT Rules Praise' Continued...
