Roger Ebert's TTT Review

[Thorin]

Just looked at Ebert's review of TTT....Purist's be justified. Just a few quotes here for the FADs...
"It is not faithful to the spirit of Tolkien and misplaces much of the charm and whimsy of the books, but it stands on its own as a visionary thriller. I complained in my review of the first film that the hobbits had been short-changed, but with this second film I must accept that as a given, and go on from there....What one misses is the thrills of these epic splendors is much depth in the characters...TTT will possibly be more popular than the first film, more of an audience pleaser, but hasn't Jackson lost the original purpose of the story somewhere along the way? He has taken an enchanting and unique work of literature and retold it in terms of the modern action picture. If Tolkien had wanted to write about a race of supermen, he would have written a ME version of Conan the Barbarian. But no. He told a tale in which modest little hobbits were the heroes...

Hmmm...Hobbits losing their significance? "Spirit" of Tolkien being lost? (That's gotta hurt from a professional movie goer for all those FADs using the whole "spirit" argument)..Lost the meaning? With Aragorn and Saruman being distorted and the hobbits relegated to the background, I can understand why.

Who's been saying this constantly?? Purists, that's who.

[Bergalad]

Except that Ebert is far from a purist. Here's another part of his review:

"The details of the story--who is who, and why, and what their histories and attributes are--still remains somewhat murky to me. I know the general outlines and I boned up by rewatching the first film on DVD the night before seeing the second, and yet I am in awe of the true students of the Ring."

I suspect that someone who has read the books would not write such a thing. Since Ebert's not a purist I don't think he can speak for those who are.

Ebert's a famous name, but there are better reviews (and by "better" I don't necessarily mean "more favorable") at www.rottentomatoes.com - they've collected over a hundred there so far.

[aragil]

I dunno Thorin- everybody is going to have a different feeling for what rings true to them in the books. For me personally Bjarki has done an excellent job of crystallizing the over-arching themes of the book in this post:
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=202797#post202797
I highly recommend that you read it- see if you agree that these are the themes that Tolkien was trying to express in his works. My review post on this board expresses how I think that these themes were succesfully conveyed in this movie, but of course I recommend holding off on reading it until after you've seen the second movie and have your own opinion.
I've always had respect for Ebert, but there are times when I don't agree with him. This movie seems to be the biggest such occasion so far. For my personal part, I think the Hobbits were emphasized as the centrepieces, esp. Frodo and Sam. I also saw the spirit of Tolkien alive and thriving in both movies- perhaps more so in the second! It seems my review is exactly opposite to Eberts- I thought that whatever shortcomings the movie had were for its technical aspects, not for it's ability to convey the themes and plot of Tolkien.

[TheDarkTyrant]

I have found you never EVER want to listen to a professional critic. They don't care for anything except doing their job. Sometimes they're biased towards certain things which will dictate their review.

The only people you should listen to are those who are real people who aren't getting payed to express an opinion.

[BelDain]

It is true how the focus on the Hobbits being the center of the story has been done away with. It's all about the destruction of the ring and Men's fight against Sauron.

[Wynston]

I totally disagree with Ebert. But that's nothing new. I dislike most of his reviews. I don't believe the hobbits were relegated to a back story at all. I actually thought that the scenes with Frodo, Sam and Gollum, and their interaction, were some of the high points of the film.

[Goro Shimura]

Originally posted by Thorin
Hmmm...Hobbits losing their significance? "Spirit" of Tolkien being lost? (That's gotta hurt from a professional movie goer for all those FADs using the whole "spirit" argument)..Lost the meaning? With Aragorn and Saruman being distorted and the hobbits relegated to the background, I can understand why. Ebert just proved that you don't have to be a Tolkienologist to state the obvious.

The arguments in defense of the changes are strained to say the least. Perhaps PJ did portray some of the major themes of the work-- but if he did so... it's heavy handed. That in itself is a much smaller problem than the collective weight of the reinvention of nearly every major character.

"He has taken an enchanting and unique work of literature and retold it in terms of the modern action picture."

BINGO!

One thing for sure... the "spirit" of Tolkien is pretty far from that of the modern action picture!!!

[Talimon]

Two things. One, Ebert is far from being authorative. Indeed, I would never trust him regarding this type of movie. I've seen him give 4 stars to movies that can't hold a candle to TTT. Most recently perhaps 'Femme Fatale'. Or, even better, the two Harry Potter films. I still remember very vividly Eberts remark that the first Harry Potter movie was better FotR. Or the fact that he gave the same rating he is now giving TTT and FotR to other horrible, horrible movies (The Mummy, for instance). I'm sorry, but anyone who wants to argue that either of the two Harry Potter films are better then FotR is clearly not judging them as films, and is blinded by hype. I commend Ebert for not hiding this fact, but if he is indeed a movie reviewer then he has not given very good reasons as to why this movie, as a movie, suffers. Also, you need to remember that Ebert is as subjective as any movie reviewer. One of the most ballsy and in my opinion brilliant movies recently released is 'Fight Club', and he absolutely detested it. He gave it two stars, the same rating he gave the two new Star Wars films. Personally, I can't relate to a critic who thinks either of the two new SW films is the same quality as 'Fight Club', or has the guts to say what it says.

My second point is that you have to judge movie criticism on a wide scale. This is why sites such as rotten tomatoes are useful. Here are a few links that should help you get a more accurate picture regarding the critical response to TTT:


http://www.mrqe.com/lookup?the+two+towers

http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&id=1804738128&cf=critic

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheLordoftheRingsTheTwoTowers-1118285/

[aragil]

Originally posted by Goroshimura
One thing for sure... the "spirit" of Tolkien is pretty far from that of the modern action picture!!! Come on Goro, you can do better than that. In what way was this a 'modern action picture'? Do you mean to say that it was filmed using modern techniques and technologies, and that it contains action? If so then I agree, but I'm not sure how that could be helped. Certainly nothing that detracts from the spirit of Tolkien's books.

However, if you're saying that the telling of the tale in the movies is being done in a clichéd and decidedly modern way, then I absolutely disagree. Whatever else I might say, PJ's LotR is like nothing, nothing I have ever seen on film before. It is not that I will not compare it to other films, it's that I can't compare it to other films- for me it is that different! To say that it plays like any other film for today's audience is a pretty incredible statement (IMO), and one badly in need of specific references from the movie.

[Talimon]

However, if you're saying that the telling of the tale in the movies is being done in a clichéd and decidedly modern way, then I absolutely disagree. Whatever else I might say, PJ's LotR is like nothing, nothing I have ever seen on film before. It is not that I will not compare it to other films, it's that I can't compare it to other films- for me it is that different! To say that it plays like any other film for today's audience is a pretty incredible statement (IMO), and one badly in need of specific references from the movie.

With this I absolutely agree. Neither TTT nor FotR feel like anything I've ever seen before. That is half the reason I love them so much.

[PRH]

Originally posted by Talimon
With this I absolutely agree. Neither TTT nor FotR feel like anything I've ever seen before. That is half the reason I love them so much.
FOTR, definitely. TTT, not quite so much. It has several little 'moments' that feel cliched.

You make some good points comparing Ebert's review with his other reviews, but he does always seem to score a film based on it's potential and intent within it's genre, rather than how it fits with other films. Nevertheless, same score as HP films?!? You gotta be kidding me Ebert. Those fail on every level except production design.

[Talimon]

Originally posted by PRH
Nevertheless, same score as HP films?!? You gotta be kidding me Ebert. Those fail on every level except production design.

You misread me, PRH. He gave a better score to the HP films. He rates out of 4 stars. He gave both HP films 4 stars, and both LotR films 3.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Bergalad
Except that Ebert is far from a purist. Here's another part of his review:

"The details of the story--who is who, and why, and what their histories and attributes are--still remains somewhat murky to me. I know the general outlines and I boned up by rewatching the first film on DVD the night before seeing the second, and yet I am in awe of the true students of the Ring."

Which is why I put some stock in what he's saying (most of it). He has hit the nail on the head that many of us purist's have harped on for so long. It's just nice that someone outside of the Tolkien fold who isn't even as ingrained in Tolkien as some of us are, saw PJ's changes for what they were.

And folks, just because some movies get the same rating, that doesn't mean that they are comparable. A movie can get two stars for lousy dialogue, and another movie can get two stars for an entirely different reason like poor plot development or cheesy special effects. The same rating doesn't mean that the person is putting them both on the same level. Each movie is rated according to itself.

[aragil]

If giving two movies equal ratings doesn't put them on the same level, then I don't know what does. Had a chance to read Bjarki's post yet? I'm curious as to what you think. If nothing else, it's nice to put a finger on these nebulous concepts of "Tolkien's themes" and "Tolkien's spirit".

[Talimon]

Thorin, while it is true two movies may get the same rating for different reasons, a rating is still representative of a reviewers overall opinion on a film. If one film gets a 4/4 and another 3/4, that reviewer is saying the 4/4 movie is a better movie. If this is not true I don't know what is. Other then the fact that I heard the exact words come out of his mouth, Eberts scores reflect his opinions on the films. He is thus stating that both HP films are better then both LotR films. Personally I can't even remotely agree.

[PRH]

Originally posted by Talimon
You misread me, PRH. He gave a better score to the HP films. He rates out of 4 stars. He gave both HP films 4 stars, and both LotR films 3.
Then you really gotta be kidding me Ebert!

[Talimon]

Fellowship of the Ring:

http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/2001/12/121901.html

Sorcerers Stone:

http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/2001/11/111601.html

The Two Towers:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-lord18f.html

Chamber of secrets:

http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/2002/11/111504.html

[Mrs. Maggott]

I will say nothing about Mr. Ebert's "ratings" but this: he is right when he says that Jackson changed the focus of LOTR from a great mythic tale of heroism, friendship, courage and self-sacrifice in which the "action" was but another means of conveying those virtues, to a straight out "action adventure". Virtually every change that Jackson has made in plot and character are designed to "clear the way" for more action scenes. His character revisions are but a further attempt to "engage" the particular character in some or other sort of "conflict" if not with weapons, then emotionally (Aragorn, Arwen, Elrond, Eowyn et al.) The whole thrust of the films is to "push the envelope" to ever larger and more striking scenes of battle: Weathertop enlarges to Moria enlarges to Parth Galen enlarges to Helm's Deep and (I'm sure) will then enlarge to the Battle of the Pelennor Fields.

The hobbits - in that they do not participate in the battles - have indeed been relegated to a necessary but no longer central part of the film. Doubtless in ROTK, that will change as Frodo nears the climax of the Quest, but at present, I do not believe that anyone seeing these films and having not read the book would consider any of the hobbits the central character; among them, yes, but certainly the main focus of the film has definitely moved not only with regard to the book, but even with regard to the first film! Indeed, one sometimes feels that Mr. Jackson begrudges the hobbits what importance (and screen time) that they do have because he might have been better able to use it for another battle sequence.

[Goro Shimura]

Hear hear!!

The noble Bjarki might have a point concerning the three major themes running in the work... BUT many of the smaller themes that help make the work into the classic that it is are ruined or obliterated in order to add more time for fighting and special effects.

One example of a ruined theme is the "Saruman of Many Colors" bit. Book-Saruman helps to illustrate that an "ends-justifies-the-means" kind of pragmatism is ultimately just as bad as plain old evil. This subtle point is lost if we turn Saruman into a one dimensional thrall!!!

And as the mighty Mrs. M. has pointed out in the Finding God thread: Aragorn is a pretty powerful "type/shadow" of Christ. She has also done a good job of pointing out the major liberties the film takes in altering his character. Combine that with the Hollywood froo-froo stuff and the typology of the work is worse than ruined!!

Watering down these contrasting characters pushes the movie closer and closer toward being just another "Predator/Terminator/Aliens" type of movie. There's things (I hope) that salvage it. But we still end up more with a comic book morality.

[markrob]

Thorin, I must have missed it. Pretail who died and made Ebert king? His opinion is no better than yours and or mine. Unfortunately alot of people will read his review and either (1) go into the movie with a negative mindset, (2) take the book with them to the theater and compare the two exactly (aka purists) or (3) not see the movie at all which would be a travesty because after all it is a flick that is suppossed to be entertaining. I still havent seen it yet and my biggest concern I've heard so far that disturbs me is the whole Faramir scene, everything else sounds like a necessary adaptation to make a film that is generally accepted from the masses. Will try to see it this weekend and see what all the purists' fuss is about. Any sightings of Foe Hammer?

[PRH]

I read all 4 of those reviews Talimon posted. Ebert seems to be largely grading these movies based on how closely they resembled the books (in LOTR's case, the way he vaugely remembers them). This is a horrible way to evaluate a movie.

Also, he's just another in this long line of people who love these ridiculous Harry Potter movies apparently just because they've read the books. SOMEHOW, anyone who reads these HP books becomes absolutely hyponitized by those movies just because they accurately reflect what they read. I can't imagine something so dumb is really extracted from excellent books. If I'm really bored some day I may have to read them just to see if it somehow transforms my impression of the HP movies too. Personally, I think there are embedded subliminal messages in the text that trick people into enjoying these crappy flicks (production design aside).

[Talimon]

SOMEHOW, anyone who reads these HP books becomes absolutely hyponitized by those movies just because they accurately reflect what they read. I can't imagine something so dumb is really extracted from excellent books.

Don't count me as one of those, PRH!!! I've read the Harry Potter books, and I love their wit and all, but I am really no big fan of the films.

I agree with you regarding Ebert's review technique... for someone so highly acknowledged, it seems very amtuerish for him to review a movie based on how closely it sticks to it's source material. If I had not read the book, what would I make of Ebert's review? Nothing much, really.

I respect him for at least being honest about it, however. He doesn't hide the fact that for him it doesn't work. I think he has a lot guts to say PJs movie is not a gamble. I'm also willing to fight him to the death regarding the hobbits not being the heroes. Where does he get this from? He reminds me of someone from the theonering.net forums I used to argue with regarding Bakshi's film. That person was dead-convinced that Bakshi's film was pure gold, from start to finish. At one point I got so frustrated that I just had to ask him when was the last time he had seen it. He said 15 years ago. That basically ended the arguement. I think Ebert has a very relegated view on the trilogy, and to be honest with you I can't see where his criticisms are coming from. In my opinion Frodo/Sam/Gollum are really at the heart of the film. Without them, this would be an action film (though still not a very modern one). But thier tale is what gives this film its heart, and if Ebert can't see that I dont know what film he's watching.

[PRH]

Originally posted by Talimon
Don't count me as one of those, PRH!!! I've read the Harry Potter books, and I love their wit and all, but I am really no big fan of the films.
Wow! - you're the first person I think I've come across who read the books but didn't LOVE the movies. Fine work, not being duped by those flicks.

Then we're agreed - Ebert's reviews on the LOTR movies are full of baloney.

[Kiroshar]

In some ways, I have to agree with Ebert in that The Two Towers is much more of an action flick than The Fellowship of the Ring, but TTT was much more of an action book than FOTR.

That being said, I have to disagree with the hobbits no longer being the heroes of the story. The movie moves between three story lines, and two of them contain the events involving the hobbits. How much more could be done with Frodo, Sam, and Gollum on one hand and with Merry, Pippin, and Treebeard on the other? The dialogue could have been better, but the time given those story lines were adequate.

There are those who have stated that the Story line with the Ents did not work well and could have been bumped (I disagree), but PJ kept them in because the Ents not only destroy Isengard but also keep the hobbits, Merry and Pippin, involved in the major plotlines of the film.

If Ebert believes that the action parts of the movies overshadow the other two threads, then he must look at his own biases and ask why he believes that one third of action movie stood out for him more than the other two thirds of hobbits.

Kiroshar

[Foe-Hammer]

Well, I saw the movie, and am convinced now more than ever that jrr should have waited to write his story until he could consult with PJ. PJ has made it a more exciting and much less boring story. I for one will probablly never read the book again.

;)

[Kiroshar]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
Well, I saw the movie, and am convinced now more than ever that jrr should have waited to write his story until he could consult with PJ. PJ has made it a more exciting and much less boring story. I for one will probablly never read the book again.

;)

I understand your point, but PJ had far less time to move the major points along and tie the loose ends together than J.R.R. did in three main books plus a couple pre-history titles and a whole library of extra tales and historical supplements.

I also understand why some small changes were made in the films, and I hope Peter Jackson's larger changes make more sense when ROTK is viewed.

[Foe-Hammer]

actually, I am not a purist. I loved the books and am just fine with what pj has done with the movies. niether one ruins the other for me, but then again, I'm not the type that sits around in my wizard's robe and hopes for the day that it all becomes real. :eek:

all this whining about the movie not following the books makes me feel sorry for those doing the whining.

[aragil]

I see the dead hath arisen. Markrob's been looking for you.

[markrob]

Welcome back Mighty Foe, I see you took some time off as well during the two films. I think it has something to do with having a real life. I miss the old battles of us realist vs. ultra purist but it sound like its about to heat up again. Although I must say most of our old advesaries have softened quite a bit. Even Thorin is starting to be able to seperate book from film. I will see it tonight and cant wait. Look foward to being your alley again for awhile. Hope all is well. :cool:

[Goro Shimura]

:mad: :mad: :mad:
I've seen it....
:mad: :mad: :mad:

I can't believe you guys.

Ebert states the obvious... and all you can do is attack him or maybe his other reviews. Foe-Hammer characterizes anyone that critcizes the movie as being a whiner. You all are taking this tact because you haven't got a case.

"In what way was this a 'modern action picture?"

Ha! Come on, aragil... you can do better than that!

With the exception of two 45 second kissing scenes and one 30 second stewed rabbit scene, the movie is practically a non-stop dwarf tossing, suicide bombing, warg polo-ing, orc-stomping, elf-surfing, head-smushing brawling mayhem of death and destruction.

The action doesn't let up.

Any thoughtful or charming scene was either mutalited, lacerated, or omitted.

They should have cast Syvester Stallone as Aragorn and just be done with it!

[Foe-Hammer]

Hail Markrob, the Omniscient one! :D

Yeah, this works out well for me, football is winding down and the npw's are coming out of the woodwork. I already got two demerit points for sumpin'?! Probably a npw got ****ed.

It's good to be back and have allies in our eternal struggle against the enemy! BWAAAAAAHAHAHA!

[aragil]

Originally posted by Goroshimura
Ha! Come on, aragil... you can do better than that! Well, I got to admit, that is better in that it had a note of humor in it. Still sadly devoid of specifics. 30 seconds of stewed rabbit? Virtually the entire Frodo, Sam and Gollum thread was devoid of action, being instead a study on inner turmoil, especially Frodo and Gollum and their respective struggles with the Ring. The Merry and Pippin thread was also largely devoid of action- perhaps to the detriment of that part of the story lin.
As for the Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas thread, there was a lot of action in that- virtually all of it from the books (Warg riders were borrowed from UT). However, even here we got plenty outside of 'modern action movie' fare. There was Aragorn's interlude, which you already hinted at, Eowyn's inner struggles, the whole return of Theoden bit, the recognition by Elrond that maybe Middle-earth was worth fighting for, and the continued development of Aragorn through his relationships with Theoden, Legolas, and Gimli. Puhleeze, if you want a "Modern Action Picture" go watch one of the Die Hard movies and see if you can keep up with the body count. I'll be completely happy watching The Two Towers for another 3 hours.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Goroshimura
:mad: :mad: :mad:
I've seen it....
:mad: :mad: :mad:
I can't believe you guys.
Ebert states the obvious... and all you can do is attack him or maybe his other reviews. Foe-Hammer characterizes anyone that critcizes the movie as being a whiner. You all are taking this tact because you haven't got a case.

"In what way was this a 'modern action picture?"
Ha! Come on, aragil... you can do better than that!

With the exception of two 45 second kissing scenes and one 30 second stewed rabbit scene, the movie is practically a non-stop dwarf tossing, suicide bombing, warg polo-ing, orc-stomping, elf-surfing, head-smushing brawling mayhem of death and destruction.
The action doesn't let up.

Any thoughtful or charming scene was either mutilated, lacerated, or omitted.

They should have cast Syvester Stallone as Aragorn and just be done with it!

Even my husband who read the book years ago and has forgotten most of it thought that the battle scene went on too long. He had no problem with the EE version of FOTR, but thought TTT was too long because it was one "battle" after another with no character or plot development. People just "appeared" and "disappeared" as the editors cut from theme to theme to theme, sometimes right in the middle of important plot exposition. It was almost as if the Director couldn't wait to get through all that "mushy" dry stuff and get to the "action"! My husband definitely told me that it reminded him of the "video-game" mentality with barely a breath to take between "death defying" whatever.

[Nóm]

Foe-Hammer characterizes anyone that critcizes the movie as being a whiner. You all are taking this tact because you haven't got a case.
How about saying who "all" is?
Everyone who reads your post?
Everyone who has posted in the thread?
Everyone who posts to invalidate the post which claimed that Eberts view was something close to proof that a particular opinion is fact? Or that a particular opinion carries more weight because a professional critic agrees?
I hope you are not throwing me (or anyone else) in with Foe-Tolkien should've learned a thing or two about story telling from Jackson-Hammer.

[Goro Shimura]

You're a worthy debater, aragil... but I'm not going to wrangle over the definition of "Action Movie" with you.

The "inner struggles" the depicted in the movie would carry a bit more weight with me if they were consistent with Tolkiens characters. (See above: mutilated, lacerated, etc....) They amounted to little more than segues for the head smushing.Such notions about Hobbits can be found in "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring," but the Hobbits themselves have been pushed off center stage. If the books are about brave little creatures who enlist powerful men and wizards to help them in a dangerous crusade, the movie is about powerful men and wizards who embark on a dangerous crusade, and take along the Hobbits. That is not true of every scene or episode, but by the end "Fellowship" adds up to more of a sword and sorcery epic than a realization of the more naive and guileless vision of J. R. R. Tolkien.

The Ring Trilogy embodies the kind of innocence that belongs to an earlier, gentler time. The Hollywood that made "The Wizard of Oz" might have been equal to it. But "Fellowship" is a film that comes after "Gladiator" and "Matrix," and it instinctively ramps up to the genre of the overwrought special-effects action picture. That it transcends this genre--that it is a well-crafted and sometimes stirring adventure--is to its credit. But a true visualization of Tolkien's Middle-earth it is not.Ebert's dead on.

[Goro Shimura]

Originally posted by Nóm
Everyone who posts to invalidate the post which claimed that Eberts view was something close to proof that a particular opinion is fact? Or that a particular opinion carries more weight because a professional critic agrees?Yep. That's just an example of changing the frame of the debate because you are unwilling to challenge the assertions we are discussing!!

That is an act, I might add, which is more in tune with the Vacillating Movie-Theodon than with the Honorable and Courageous Book-Theodon!

[Nóm]

Originally posted by Goroshimura
Yep. That's just an example of changing the frame of the debate because you are unwilling to challenge the assertions we are discussing!!

That is an act, I might add, which is more in tune with the Vacillating Movie-Theodon than with the Honorable and Courageous Book-Theodon!
My aim was to point out that Ebert's opinion has no more weight than those of the TTF members, not to invalidate Ebert's opinion. Not to divert an attack in a debate of which I wasn't even part.
I even said in my post that I don't get into the "spirit" of Tolkien debates.

[aragil]

Originally posted by Goroshimura
You're a worthy debater, aragil... but I'm not going to wrangle over the definition of "Action Movie" with you. My objection isn't to The Two Towers being labelled an action movie- it clearly is one. My complaint was that people were labelling it a "Modern Action Movie", which to me represents a movie with a lot of violent style and very little substance. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was an action movie, but it was not an "modern" one.

Originally posted by Goroshimura
The "inner struggles" the depicted in the movie would carry a bit more weight with me if they were consistent with Tolkiens characters. (See above: mutilated, lacerated, etc....) They amounted to little more than segues for the head smushing.Ebert's dead on. Well I'd argue with you there. As to how close the movie characters were to JRRT's, there is happily now a place to discuss that (Characterization in the second movie was absolutely PERFECT!!! (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7972) ). As to how much the Hobbits were in the story I'd have to say Ebert was completely wrong. An entire third- and in my opinion the best third- of the movie was devoted to Sam, Frodo, and Gollum. How is this relegating the Hobbits to some side show? I agree with whoever said that the Ebert seemed to be selectively neglecting large portions of the movie to have said that.

[Foe-Hammer]

ebert is a moron. he isn't a movie critic, he's a psudo-intellectual boob who speaks out of his hind-end more than his mouth. his sole purpose is to give a voice to other psudo-intellectual morons who can't get their versions of movies into the theaters.

Thank god that all he can do is talk and doesn't really influence people like PJ who takes a book, which is no more than a convoluted mish-mash of half-baked ideas, and actually improves it by eliminating the more foppish characters.

These movies will single handedly produce more readers of the triolgy than all the npw's who sit around in their wizard robes pretending that changing this book is a sin of sorts. :rolleyes:

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
ebert is a moron. he isn't a movie critic, he's a psudo-intellectual boob who speaks out of his hind-end more than his mouth. his sole purpose is to give a voice to other psudo-intellectual morons who can't get their versions of movies into the theaters.

Thank god that all he can do is talk and doesn't really influence people like PJ who takes a book, which is no more than a convoluted mish-mash of half-baked ideas, and actually improves it by eliminating the more foppish characters.

These movies will single handedly produce more readers of the triolgy than all the npw's who sit around in their wizard robes pretending that changing this book is a sin of sorts. :rolleyes:
Ah, yes! There is nothing like enlightened discourse!

[markrob]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
ebert is a moron. he isn't a movie critic, he's a psudo-intellectual boob who speaks out of his hind-end more than his mouth. his sole purpose is to give a voice to other psudo-intellectual morons who can't get their versions of movies into the theaters.

Thank god that all he can do is talk and doesn't really influence people like PJ who takes a book, which is no more than a convoluted mish-mash of half-baked ideas, and actually improves it by eliminating the more foppish characters.

These movies will single handedly produce more readers of the triolgy than all the npw's who sit around in their wizard robes pretending that changing this book is a sin of sorts. :rolleyes:

Now thats the Foe Hammer we all know and love! Woe be it the day we cant develop our own opinions about what we see and read and have to depend on some fat ass nerdy movie critic to tell us how we should feel. :D

[Thorin]

Ah, Foe-Hammer, you're definitely the grenade you always were! Man, things are getting better everyday...markrob, aragil and Foe-Hammer, the FADs of old back together again. All we need now is Harad to come back and the Four horsemen of the Apocalypse are back in action!

Rally together purists! Unite against our sworn enemies of old!

Man it's good to have the nostalgic days of TTF back again!

[*Lady Aragorn*]

i don't know if anyone has posted this already but i heard somewhere that even thouugh it was a sequel, it needed to be able to stand alone.

[Mrs. Maggott]

It was a long time ago and so my memory may be playing me false, but I seem to remember that Bakshi ended his "battle at Helm's Deep" very much as did Jackson: Gandalf and the cavalry at the end. Of course, I could be mistaken, as I said, but still I remember Bakshi's movie actually ending with that charge and some disclaimer about there going to be another film (which never happened).

By the way, I saw TTT not too long ago but I don't remember what happened at the battle after Gandalf's (or the sun's) brilliant white light supposedly put to flight those very militarily-arrayed orcs. Did anything happen - or was the battle just "ended" at that point? Sorry, I really don't remember - it went on for sooooooooo long.........

[Darth Saruman]

Originally posted by *Lady Aragorn*
i don't know if anyone has posted this already but i heard somewhere that even thouugh it was a sequel, it needed to be able to stand alone.

And I don't really agree with that statement.

TTT is obviously the middle chapter of a larger story. People shouldn't expect to get what it's about if they haven't bothered to see the first movie.

Even the book can't really be fully appreciated unless it is followed by a reading of Fellowship.

[Foe-Hammer]

Originally posted by Thorin
Ah, Foe-Hammer, you're definitely the grenade you always were! Man, things are getting better everyday...markrob, aragil and Foe-Hammer, the FADs of old back together again. All we need now is Harad to come back and the Four horsemen of the Apocalypse are back in action!

Rally together purists! Unite against our sworn enemies of old!

Man it's good to have the nostalgic days of TTF back again!

LOL! Hail Thorin! Our most worthy advesary of old! With you leading the charge of the NPW's, what chance do we have? But never the less, we shall make war upon thee and thine allies to the last credit roll and beyond!

[Talimon]

I really hate to dig up the dead, but did anyone ever notice what review Ebert gave The Phantom Menace? 3.5 out of 4. As if giving the HP films better ratings then FotR or TTT wasn't enough, he now effectively says that the Episode I, a movie practically everyone thought was abysimal, was actually better then FotR. Pathetic, if you ask me. His logic could bring a grown man to tears. He excuses bad charachter development by reminding us that this is the "first story" in a chronolgy. How that justifies flat charachters is beyond me. His whole review goes lower and lower as it progresses. He tries to sell the claim that SW appeals because "unlike many movies, these are made to be looked at more than listened to". WTF?!?! It gets more blatant: "dialogue isn't the point, anyway: These movies are about new things to look at." Oh boy... read on at your own risk. If I had any doubts about Eberts reviews, this has been the nail in the coffin. It almost seems as if he was praising the movie because others were criticizing it. This would make sense of his FotR review, since the whole press was praising it. So much for reviewing the actual film. Keep in mind his criticisms of FotR and TTT when you read this:

http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/1999/05/051701.html

[Kiroshar]

George Lucas has transformed the Science Fiction of Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back into a Saturday morning cartoon show called Return of the Jedi and the Burger King Kid's Meals with a Nintendo twist called The Phantom Menace and Attack of The Clones.



I'm looking for someone.

Found someone I would say ... hmmm?

I'm looking for a great Movie Master.

Ah ... Movie Master.

He has great visuals.

Visuals alone do not make a movie maker great.

....



The Lord Of The Rings - The Fellowship Of The Ring is a much better film than The Phantom Menace.

The Two Towers, while having flaws in cutting down to the three hour theater length, is so much better than The Attack Of The Clones. After all, the latter is really only 30 minutes worth of viewing.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Kiroshar
George Lucas has transformed the Science Fiction of Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back into a Saturday morning cartoon show called Return of the Jedi and the Burger King Kid's Meals with a Nintendo twist called The Phantom Menace and Attack of The Clones.

I'm looking for someone.

Found someone I would say ... hmmm?

I'm looking for a great Movie Master.

Ah ... Movie Master.

He has great visuals.

Visuals alone do not make a movie maker great.

....

The Lord Of The Rings - The Fellowship Of The Ring is a much better film than The Phantom Menace.

The Two Towers, while having flaws in cutting down to the three hour theater length, is so much better than The Attack Of The Clones. After all, the latter is really only 30 minutes worth of viewing.
If visuals were all that was needed for a great movie, travelogues would be the highest grossing films of all times.

The simple fact is this: if you cannot get the audience to care about the characters - even if you have a fascinating plot - the film won't work. You have to be interested enough in the people in the film to want to know what happens to them and to care what happens to them. Otherwise, the film will never be anything more than a bad "B" film no matter how much money is spent on it, how talented the actors or great the special effects.