--- title: "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-two-towers/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-two-towers" critics_score: 74 critics_reviews: 19 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002): what the critics said Critics' score 74 from 19 reviews: 15 positive, 2 mixed, 2 negative. Most critics are won over, with fifteen of nineteen positive. The praise clusters on two things: Gollum, the computer-generated creature almost every review calls the standout, and the battle at Helm’s Deep, which even the doubters describe as the film’s high point. Several find it more assured than The Fellowship of the Ring, faster on its feet once the exposition is behind it, and a few credit Jackson with underplaying Tolkien’s weaker passages rather than filming them dutifully. The reservations gather around the intercut storylines, which some find shortchange the smaller threads and slacken the tension, and around the cliffhanger ending. The spread is wide. The Guardian finds long stretches boring; The Independent thinks it has lost Tolkien’s essence to horror-film clichés; The Times calls the acting wooden, though it too rates Gollum a marvel. The dissenters are chiefly the British broadsheets, writing on release. ## Empire — Caroline Westbrook Rating 5/5. 18 December 2002. The critic finds The Two Towers not quite as strong a standalone as Fellowship and somewhat one-note in tone, but still awards it full marks due to the high benchmark set by the series. They single out the breathtaking Battle of Helm's Deep and the impressive Gollum for particular praise. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/lord-rings-two-towers-review/) ## Screen Daily Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 6 December 2002. The second film in Peter Jackson's trilogy is one of the year's best, a thrilling, muscular entertainment that accelerates the pace into real adventure after the first film's exposition. It showcases Jackson as a disciplined cinematic storyteller who eradicates Tolkien's prose tedium in favor of fast-moving action, with standout praise for the compelling Gollum creation and the urgent energy elucidating themes of good versus evil. [Read the review](https://www.screendaily.com/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-two-towers/4011478.article) ## Sight and Sound Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 1 February 2003. The review praises Jackson's adaptation for shifting emphasis to underplay Tolkien's weaknesses and staging the Helm's Deep battle as satisfying spectacle. It singles out the CGI Gollum as the standout, stealing the show with expressive range and perfect mimesis. [Read the review](http://old.bfi.org.uk/features/ultimatefilm/chart/details.php?ranking=22) ## The AV Club — Keith Phipps Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 18 December 2002. The critic finds the film better than its predecessor, commending its seamless shifts between epic action and lyrical moments, thematic depth on war and loss, and technical achievements including Gollum. [Read the review](https://www.avclub.com/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-two-towers-1798198208) ## The New York Times — Elvis Mitchell Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 18 December 2002. The critic praises Jackson's scrupulous devotion to Tolkien's spirit in a gripping epic that drops viewers into the action and creates a perfect mating of filmmaker and material. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/18/movies/film-review-soldiering-on-in-epic-pursuit-of-purity.html) ## Time Out — TCh Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 10 September 2012. The review calls the film the centrepiece of the trilogy that redefines 'epic' in size and scale while giving the series stature through attention to small things like Sam's emotional moments. It notes the proliferation of subplots but highlights Gollum exposing the ring's corruptive power. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-two-towers) ## Total Film Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 18 December 2002. The critic dismisses pre-release doubts and finds the film easily matches the first in excitement, involvement and visual invention despite the challenges of adapting the middle book. They single out the groundbreaking Gollum character and the thrilling Helm's Deep battle sequence for praise. [Read the review](https://www.gamesradar.com/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-two-towers-review/) ## The Hollywood Reporter — David Hunter Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 6 December 2002. The critic praises the film's spectacular effects, performances, pacing, and epic scope, particularly the Battle of Helm's Deep and new characters like Gollum and Treebeard, while noting minor misgivings about the ending and the wait for the next film. [Read the review](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/lord-rings-two-towers-review-2002-movie-1068800/) ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 18 December 2002. The critic finds the film a rousing adventure and skillful marriage of effects and animation with breathtaking sequences, but notes it shifts focus to action heroes like Aragorn over the hobbits and is less faithful to Tolkien's spirit. [Read the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/lord-of-the-rings-the-two-towers-2002) ## Slant Magazine — Ed Gonzalez Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 6 December 2002. The critic highlights the film's thematic depth on evil and godlessness, stunning action like the Helm's Deep battle, and the haunting Gollum/Smeagol conflict, while faulting the crosscutting structure for shortchanging subplots and the cliffhanger ending. [Read the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-two-towers/) ## The New Yorker — Anthony Lane Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 30 December 2002. The critic calls it a fairly easy ride that crunches the book but delivers pace and astonishment, with effective computer effects like Gollum, though it leans into epic spectacle over psychology. [Read the review](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/01/06/fantasyland) ## Variety — Todd McCarthy Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 5 December 2002. The middle section of Jackson's adaptation is in some respects a more impressive film than its predecessor, with sharper narrative focus, livelier forward movement, nonstop conflict, and a gargantuan climactic battle at Helm's Deep. It delivers amply satisfying fantastical adventure with impressive realization of Tolkien's world, though it lacks some essential magic to fully transport non-fanatics. [Read the review](https://variety.com/2002/film/awards/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-two-towers-3-1200544488/) ## The Guardian Fi1m's normalised score 60/100 (inferred from the text). 13 December 2002. The film makes a powerful impression through its scale, energy, and detailed New Zealand landscapes, but is often boring due to its intercut storylines and bland acting. The standout element is the tremendous half-hour battle sequence at Helm's Deep. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2002/dec/13/artsfeatures.lordoftherings) ## Los Angeles Times — Manohla Dargis Fi1m's normalised score 50/100 (inferred from the text). 18 December 2002. The critic sees the film as an awkward adolescence for the trilogy that invests moviegoing with adventure through its visuals and journey, though it never reaches the highs of the first and gets swept up in battle. [Read the review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2002-dec-18-et-dargis18-story.html) ## The Independent — Guy Keleny Fi1m's normalised score 40/100 (inferred from the text). 27 December 2002. The critic finds the film a disappointment compared to the book and the first instalment, turning it into a fantasy horror movie with exciting action and effects but losing Tolkien's essence through Hollywood clichés and deviations like the altered Aragorn-Eowyn dynamic. [Read the review](https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/the-incredible-shrinking-tolkien-137464.html) ## The Times — James Christopher Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 12 December 2002. The middle episode sags as a vast, schematic action piece with wooden acting and fractured storylines that lack consistent tension. Gollum stands out as a slimy, schizophrenic marvel that steals the film. [Read the review](https://www.thetimes.com/article/sprawling-epic-is-ring-trilogys-weakest-link-s6mmmqp5h0z) ## Eye for Film — Angus Wolfe Murray Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 5 December 2002. The critic praises Jackson's monumental vision and respect for Tolkien's spirit in creating a believable fantasy realm. Gollum is highlighted as a magnificent invention amid epic battles and the shift from quest to survival struggle. [Read the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-two-towers-film-review-by-angus-wolfe-murray) ## Polygon — soham-gadre Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 18 August 2021. The critic argues that The Two Towers is a prime example of a great sequel that exceeds expectations through deeper character development and moral stakes. They single out its innovative interweaving of narrative arcs and humanism for praise. [Read the review](https://www.polygon.com/lord-of-the-rings/22631178/two-towers-best-lotr-movie-sequel/) ## Digital Spy — Emma Dibdin Rating 5. 28 November 2012. The film comes closest in the trilogy to faltering due to its multiple plot strands and meandering structure, though it remains strong by most standards. The sprawling Battle of Helm's Deep set piece sweeps away any misgivings with its epic scope and groundbreaking effects. [Read the review](https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a441286/lord-of-the-rings-revisited-the-two-towers-2002/) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-two-towers.md