By Becki White

     Purists won't like "The Lord of the Rings: The Two
Towers" because of the cinematic liberties that were taken.
     But who cares about the 'purity,' it is an incredible film!
     I found myself saying 'wow!' more than a few times 
during the film, which I saw at 12:00 a.m. Wednesday,
December 18, 2002.  A lot of what I was seeing was 
probably CGI, but I still flinched at times from the clash of
swords and the pouncing of the gigantic hyenas.  And 
Gimli's efforts to see over the wall and his body count gave
us a chance to laugh and release some of our own battle
tension.  After all, isn't battle one of the things dwarves like
best?
     While comparisons between the film and the book are 
popular to make, let's look at the film just as a film.  For
starters, as a second part of a trilogy, this film outshines just
about any other sequel that has been made.  Sequels tend to
be letdowns but this one is its predecessor's equal in many
ways.  The immensity and complexity of the battle scenes
alone are worth the price of admission.  Characters continue
to develop in this film, with Aragorn transitioning from a 
solitary Ranger to a man who is really a king and leader of
men.  The friendship between Legolas and Gimli continues
to grow.  And the introduction of new characters like 
Wormtongue and our first real look at Gollum helps to keep
things interesting.
     I do want to point out one thing that the film did better
than the book.  In the book, the narration is divided into two
long segments:  the adventures of Frodo and Sam, and the
adventures of everyone else.  It was difficult for me to keep
track of what was happening to one group while reading
about another.  The film frequently switched back and forth
between Frodo and Sam, Merry and Pippin, and the 
others, making it much easier to keep a sense of the time flow
through the film.  Some critics apparently found this 
distracting, but I'd rather have it this way.  Maybe I'm too
used to multitasking!
     One of the biggest bones of contention for purists seems
to be the scenes with Arwen and Aragorn.  I want to see how
the so-called 'love triangle' is resolved in "The Return of the
King" before I pass judgment on this controversial segment.
The film implied that Arwen left Rivendell with other elves, 
heading west and leaving Middle Earth.  This takes place
after she seems to bring Aragorn back from the brink of 
death -- or is he just dreaming about her while he's 
unconscious?  While these things seem extraneous or odd
right now, I want to see what the director, Peter Jackson, 
does with it.  These scenes didn't happen in the book, but
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
     Is "The Two Towers" just a setup for the third film?  No.
Saruman has not only lost the battle, he's been routed and 
one of the two towers is removed from the threat against the
rest of Middle Earth.  The defeat of 10,000 orcs and an evil
wizard by a relative handful of men, elves, trees and a good
wizard should allow any film to stand on its own.  So if this
film is a bridge between "The Fellowship of the Ring" and
"The Return of the King", the span is supported by its own
base rooted in strong rock.