Peter Jackson’s second installment in his Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Two Towers, faces a double challenge from the peanut gallery. First, it has to please the Tolkien fans, who with the exception of a few die-hards embraced the first film in the series, 2001’s The Fellowship of the Ring. Second, it has to live up to the expectations of the hordes of new fans Fellowship --- one of the most commercially successful films ever produced --- created. In addition, it’s the second of three movies, and the source material is (arguably) the weakest book in Tolkien’s trilogy.

Like the master filmmaker he’s proved to be, Jackson answers these concerns and delivers a movie worthy of Tolkien’s name.

Towers picks up where Fellowship left off: Frodo and Sam have departed the group after Boromir’s betrayal and death and are making their way to Mordor alone. They soon meet Gollum, only hinted at in Fellowship, who proves to be the most interesting character in the movie byfar. Meanwhile, in a story that could be peeled from today’s headlines, the wizard Saruman has ordered his Orcish armies to begin invading smaller, defenseless countries like the Saxon-esque Rohan to he can plunder their natural resources and pollute their environment, too. Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli have pledged themselves to help defend Rohan from this incursion, and the King orders a retreat to the mountain stronghold of Helm’s Deep to await the inevitable. While this is happening, Merry and Pippin make friends with Treebeard, a gigantic creature called an Ent who is basically a walking oak tree. The Ents, an ancient species older than the Elves, hold a council to decide how best to deal with Saruman and his armies.

Let’s be clear: Towers is a bridge movie. It is the second act in a three-act film, and as such does not stand on its own. Yes, it has taken liberties with the specifics of the plot. But the question is whether or not Jackson kept the spirit of the books, and he has. In fact, he’s turned what was a fairly flat, action-oriented section of the novel into something with more depth. There’s no need to discuss the warg battle, Aragorn’s near-demise, or the arrival of the elves at Helm’s Deep. These changes are cosmetic at best. What Jackson did by fleshing out characters like Eowyn and focusing on the plight of the average Rohirrim (citizen of Rohan, to the uninitiated) was to drive home the reason for the battle in the first place. Tolkien largely created a work where kings and warriors dictated how the women, children, elderly and poor would live - or die. In Jackson’s film, he explores the fear that a common farmer would have if an Orc, controlled by a power-hungry wizard, were to suddenly burn his fields, kill his daughter, and destroy his life. In other words, Jackson has created a war movie that has action galore and still takes the time to deliver on the oft-overlooked human element.

So what this film creates is a complete experience that delivers to both kinds of fans: the Tolkien enthusiasts, who should be pleasantly surprised at the content (if they can get over themselves first), and a great "middle" film for those who simply enjoyed Fellowship. Like the first movie, an Extended Version DVD is already in the works (huzzah!), and Jackson has hinted that Return of the King may very well run four hours in length --- making the entire finished product an eleven-hour film, if viewed continuously. If that isn’t enough to send you into convulsions, just imagine how great the destruction of Isengard will look and sound in your living room. Drooling yet?

Oh yeah, the CGI effects on Gollum are groundbreaking. But I’m sure you’ve heard that before.

Final Grade: A