Rings 2: What The Papers Say

What everyone wants to know is: Does The Two Towers live up to its spectacular predecessor, The Fellowship Of The Ring?

According to critics all over England, the answer is a resounding YES!

Chris Tookey of the Daily Mail got the ball rolling when he declared: "It's one of the best films of all time."

Comparing it to the first film, he said: "It's more spectacular, more exciting, more emotionally rewarding."

He also describes the script as excellent, saying, "It supplies comic and romantic relief to go with all the action and grandeur." And he adds: "This is the speediest three hours in the cinema I have ever experienced."

Johnny Vaughan, writing his first film column for The Sun, wholeheartedly agrees.

He liked the fact that "for the first time in the history of sequels we're plunged straight back into the action".

He says: "This is a truly great film... More epic than any story ever made into film...

"Fact is, for the entire two hours and 59 minutes the only thing that mattered in my life was a plain gold ring on a chain round the neck of a short guy with pointed ears and hairy feet."

The Guardian also felt it bettered 'Fellowship', and made a reference to that other epic of the moment, Harry Potter, which made Peter Jackson's films feel all the more impressive.

The Two Towers was described as "a more intense experience than the opening slice of JRR Tolkien's masterpiece, which still managed to win four Oscars to Harry Potter's none and take £554m at the box office".

The Times gave a typically conservative view, concentrating more on the certificate than the film itself.

It describes it as "bloodthirsty" and "disturbing" and says it was "far too violent for under-12s".

The Telegraph had the bright idea of having members of both sexes review the film.

Sarah Sands wasn't impressed. She described the experience as "like being trapped in a nerd's bedroom. Whenever you take a step towards the door, he cries, 'No, you must watch this bit, this really is amazing.'"

She goes on: "The only protagonist with any human range is Gollum, who is computer-animated.

"Equity must be getting nervous that an animated green house elf called Dobby is the star of Harry Potter and now Gollum is the only character worth watching in Lord of the Rings."

And she wasn't happy with the three-hour running time either. She said: "I cannot over-emphasise the length of this film.

"It took Peter Jackson nearly six years to make the trilogy and you feel that you have been with him all the way."

Mark Monahan, on the other hand, loved every minute. He says, "I would happily sit through it all over again," describing the film as "even darker, grander and bolder than its predecessor".

Monahan then showered praise upon the action, saying: "I have always found epic battles a formless, impersonal turn-off.

"But only the most inveterate wimp could fail to be moved by the climactic battle at Helm's Deep."

He also recognised the achievements of the technical team in creating a character that wipes the floor with anything from Harry Potter.

Gollum was described as "an extraordinary rich, all-digital character who reminds you that Dobby was nothing but an irritating, one-dimensional nerd."

The paper also focused on the online petition, where 3,000 people accuse the film-makers of "cashing in" on the terrorist attacks on America.

The Two Towers Protest Organisation claims: "The name will cause the return of emotions which left so many people in shock."

But Peter Jackson, aware of the poignancy of Tolkien's choice of title, did consider changing the name of the film, which was already in production in September 2001.

He said: "It's true I thought about the title in the aftermath of the attacks, but the book is 50 years old and I don't think I could change the title even if I wanted to."