Ebert's review

[obscenename]

Ebert's confusion may be a result of Jackson's lame editing. The only closing to Faramir's arc in the movie is his big moment smiling at Eowyn at the coronation. Perhaps, as far as Ebert knows, he died from the injuries he suffered hopelessly assailing Osgiliath. That suicide charge could have been what he was referring to.

The movie was not good because of everything that was left out to make it 200 minutes. I can't say those 10 movies were better, but ROTK left me mad that I have to wait another 10 months for the EE. We fill in the gaps in our minds. People that haven't read the books just have the gaps.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Actually, I agree with Ebert (Not a common occurance). In fact, I think that's almost the best review of the films I've read- -That's more or less what I felt as well, upon viewing. I think that Ebert, without having read Tolkien, has provided a very clear-eyed look at what these films actually are.

Actually, I think Ebert's comments would also apply to the books, if he would read them - and I for one, disagree with him.

Basically, what he says boils down to: Since it's in Middle Earth, and there are fictitious creatures like orcs, trolls, ents and the like - and the characters are not faced with the same exact kinds of problems that we might face today or tomorrow, the story falls short and is not relevant to us.

Blame the source material by Tolkien, not Jackson's movies for that. Blame? Credit I should say. As stated, I disagree with Mr. Ebert's position. I also feel kinda sorry for him.

(spelling edit)

[dawningoftime]

The other problem is that people are so use to movies and stories that don't make people think. That to have a story like LoTR is a little too overwhelming for some people who want don't want to have to think about what's going on.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Valandil
Actually, I think Ebert's comments would also apply to the books, if he would read them - and I for one, disagree with him.

Basically, what he says boils down to: Since it's in Middle Earth, and there are fictitious creatures like orcs, trolls, ents and the like - and the characters are not faced with the same exact kinds of problems that we might face today or tomorrow, the story falls short and is not relevant to us.

Blame the source material by Tolkien, not Jackson's movies for that. Blame? Credit I should say. As stated, I disagree with Mr. Ebert's position. I also fell kinda sorry for him.

I agree Val, because not matter how many changes were made in the movies, it still follows Tolkien's "storyline" and "theme". That is undeniable. With that said, Ebert's comments easily carry over the books, since it is Tolkien's story we are talking about here...

[BeardofPants]

Oh for fnucks sake. Supposing that Ebert hasn't read the books - then how the hell would he know how to discern between 'elfin' 'elvish' 'elven' etc? Is it REALLY that important? *twitch*

I think his review is very valid in light of the fact that it provides an 'outsider' perspective of the films. And I think he has some very interesting points - so... you gonna write him off simply because he was ignorant of how to correctly spell 'elven'? Mebbe Black Breathaliser has a point on how anal 'purists' can be. *twitch*

[Millane]

i read a better review in Empire

[Isil Fallasion]

There is little enough psychological depth anywhere in the films, actually, and they exist mostly as surface, gesture, archetype and spectacle

I disagree with that because that is what archetypes are. They are basically symbols for psychological aspects of human understanding. They are they minds of way of trying to deal with and understand different things. So if there are many archetypes and gestures--then what's being said is "whoa you might actually have to think about what those gestures are portraying instead of having it spelled out for you letter by letter". Ancient Greek theatre was played by people in masks for this very reason and yet alot of those plays still resonate with people today(even though we don't normally play them in masks) largely because of the fairly universal nature of their archetypes and the fact that those sort of psychological questions and aspects are things people still deal with today, even if the settings are different.

[jerseydevil]

I agree with BOTH of Wayfarer's posts. I also agree with BoP pointing out how it is stupid to criticize him for how elven is spelt.

The movies lack any true deep characterization. It's action scene after action scene. Sure there are moments of emotion - but the movies are so jumpy that one never cares for the character. As I have said many times and Wayfarer reiterated here - unless you are already familiar with the story - too much is lost. Alspo = if it wasn't Tolkien over 50% of us would not have gone to see this movie. I most likely would not have gone to see it - or at the very least - would not have seen any of them after seeing stupid Merry and Pippin in Fellowship of the Ring.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by dawningoftime
The other problem is that people are so use to movies and stories that don't make people think. That to have a story like LoTR is a little too overwhelming for some people who want don't want to have to think about what's going on.

If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

BoP, it wasn't just the "elven" thing. Ebert clearly demonstrated he didn't know what he was talking about in the movies when he mistook Faramir for Boromir (or thought that Faramir was in the Fellowship.)

[Millane]

i disagree that the "elfin" thing is entirely irrelevant, it may be small but its just a stupid error that a competant reviewer shouldnt make, sorta like a footy commentator getting the players names wrong, also it sounds as if he is judging the story which is Tolkiens not Jacksons, Jackson put his own spin on it (or taint as some may say) but it is still Tolkiens story...

[Elfhelm]

Three people in this thread have repeatedly despised PJ for his adaptation because of their love of Tolkien. They have come to the defense now of Roger Ebert because he is one of the few critics to express dislike of the movies. In fact, it seems they are going out of their way to distort his anti-Tolkien statements into anti-Jackson statements. There is no way in the English language to interpret the following statements as anything other than anti-Tolkien statements:

The story is just a little too silly to carry the emotional weight of a masterpiece.

The epic fantasy has displaced real contemporary concerns, and audiences are much more interested in Middle Earth than in the world they inhabit.

They do that magnificently well, but one feels at the end that nothing actual and human has been at stake; cartoon characters in a fantasy world have been brought along about as far as it is possible for them to come, and while we applaud the achievement, the trilogy is more a work for adolescents (of all ages) than for those hungering for truthful emotion thoughtfully paid for.

At the risk of repeating myself, mythologizing has been a literary technique since before Homer. Ebert has gone beyond anti-Tolkien statements here and practically said that only stark realism is acceptable in assessing whether something is a masterpiece. I could run a long list of masterpieces that use unreal elements, like A Christmas Carol, but I know I would just be preaching to the choir.

That's my argument against Ebert, but my argument against his defenders in this thread is different. Are you so angry that you can't see when someone doesn't like the movie because he doesn't like Tolkien or any other fantasy writer? It's people like Ebert who have denegrated the fantasy genre for years. They shove us to the side with these statements that we are not adressing real concerns. Be serious! They said there was no such white whale as Moby Dick, too, but that's only because they don't think the things in their nightmares deserve thought or discussion. That attitude in society is actually the reason why lunatics were shoved into torturous institutions until about 100 years ago. I could go on, but I have to get back to work. Monsters are real. They exist inside us. We can't fight them without acknowledging them. Please reconsider whose side you're on!

[squinteyedsoutherner]

From the review of FOTR
by Roger Ebert


"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.

Wondering if the trilogy could possibly be as action-packed as this film, I searched my memory for sustained action scenes and finally turned to the books themselves, which I had not read since the 1970s. The chapter "The Bridge of Khazad-Dum" provides the basis for perhaps the most sensational action scene in the film, in which Gandalf the wizard stands on an unstable rock bridge over a chasm, and must engage in a deadly swordfight with the monstrous Balrog. This is an exciting scene, done with state-of-the-art special effects and sound that shakes the theater. In the book, I was not surprised to discover, the entire scene requires less than 500 words.

Settling down with my book, the one-volume, 1969 India paper edition, I read or skimmed for an hour or so. It was as I remembered it. The trilogy is mostly about leaving places, going places, being places, and going on to other places, all amid fearful portents and speculations. There are a great many mountains, valleys, streams, villages, caves, residences, grottos, bowers, fields, high roads, low roads, and along them the Hobbits and their larger companions travel while paying great attention to mealtimes. Landscapes are described with the faithful detail of a Victorian travel writer. The travelers meet strange and fascinating characters along the way, some of them friendly, some of them not, some of them of an order far above Hobbits or even men. Sometimes they must fight to defend themselves or to keep possession of the ring, but mostly the trilogy is an unfolding, a quest, a journey, told in an elevated, archaic, romantic prose style that tests our capacity for the declarative voice.

Reading it, I remembered why I liked it in the first place. It was reassuring. You could tell by holding the book in your hands that there were many pages to go, many sights to see, many adventures to share. I cherished the way it paused for songs and poems, which the movie has no time for. Like The Tale of Genji, which some say is the first novel, "The Lord of the Rings" is not about a narrative arc or the growth of the characters, but about a long series of episodes in which the essential nature of the characters is demonstrated again and again (and again). The ring, which provides the purpose for the journey, serves Tolkien as the ideal MacGuffin, motivating an epic quest while mostly staying right there on a chain around Frodo Baggins' neck."

I think he's talking about the film Elfhelm.

[Elfhelm]

squinty, even in the one you posted he calls Tolkien a "Victorian travel writer" and says the tale is "told in an elevated, archaic, romantic prose style that tests our capacity for the declarative voice" This is clearly anti-Tolkien and anti-fantasy-genre as a whole?

His problems reading have nothing to do with movie criticism, I know, but his problem understanding the very concept of myth invalidates his opinion on any epic whatsoever. It goes back to the Thucydides / Herodotus argument, of course, which probably started before them.

(by the way, I edited this for tone because it seemed to me that I was freaking out on my fellow Tolkien fans when I'm really just uptight about everyone who ever said a fantasy movie doesn't deserve an Academy award or that the genre is some sort of ugly step-child of real literature. peace)

[squinteyedsoutherner]

No. He doesn’t call Tolkien a Victorian travel writer, he says “ Landscapes are described with the faithful detail of a Victorian travel writer” that’s a compliment. In fact, I don’t think anything he wrote was intended to be negative toward Tolkien at all, and most of it is unquestionably complimentary.

But the reason I posted the article is that it clearly shows Ebert likes the book.

“Reading it, I remembered why I liked it in the first place."

How much clearer could he be? Ebert’s beef (in all three reviews, not just ROTK) is that the movie is missing what makes the book special. I agree with him, the film is a cartoon with great special effects, but not much depth.

[Elfhelm]

That's cool. But I read that statement as implying the book wasn't worth re-reading, only worthy of a cursory perusal for the purpose of refreshing his memory before writing the review. And his calling it "reassuring", in light of his contrast with things like Apocalypse Now (really Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness), comes off, to me, as talking down to the book and the young man he used to be. As if it's not really true, you know? In fantasy, good can conquer evil, unlike his "reality" where evil usually wins (vis. "the horror" in that other work).

(dang it why can't I spell things right the first time? hehehe)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Three people in this thread have repeatedly despised PJ for his adaptation because of their love of Tolkien. They have come to the defense now of Roger Ebert because he is one of the few critics to express dislike of the movies. In fact, it seems they are going out of their way to distort his anti-Tolkien statements into anti-Jackson statements. There is no way in the English language to interpret the following statements as anything other than anti-Tolkien statements:

I didn't acknowledge Ebert's review at all - other than to say that criticizing him for Elvin over elven is stupid.

I don't like the movies. I think they are cheap hollywood action flicks and could have been far better. You can disagree with me all you want - but I don't base my opinions on the herd.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner
How much clearer could he be? Ebert’s beef (in all three reviews, not just ROTK) is that the movie is missing what makes the book special. I agree with him, the film is a cartoon with great special effects, but not much depth.

That is EXACTLY what the movie is. it has lost the heart and soul of the book - which if you look in my posts when FotR came out - I felt the same way. Yeah - there are emotional parts of the movie, but too much of the movie stands on the shoulders of special effects and battles - many parts rely on cheap jokes.

[Nurvingiel]

All my posts in this thread indicate I think Ebert's review sucks, based on the fact that he does not demonstrate knowledge of the books or the movies.

This is not because of the "elfin" thing (not an enormous deal), but rather mixing up Faramir and Boromir (as has already been mentioned). Even fangirls can tell them apart!

[Anglorfin]

I also agree with Wayfarer. The movies were all about spectacle, with very little of the feeling that was present when reading the books. TTT was the perfect example. IMO it was horribly translated from book to movie and lost a lot of feeling because of the sequence of events. The little piece that comes to my mind is when Aragorn goes over the cliff. If you look at this added in part versus the change in Faramir's character for the film, you can see why the movies fail to capture the full scope of what Tolkien intended. You are trying to be forced to care for only a few people, instead of all of ME. To me, this puts the whole thing on a Gladiator level. Even though it applies differently for that film, you are still occupied more with caring for Maximus than caring for what happens to the Roman Empire if Cometus wins. I think the movies went astray because of that aspect, having the viewer's attention drawn to single characters instead of the whole world.


I have more but I'm tired. I hope what I said was clear enough but I'll try to tighten it up if I need to.

[Millane]

hahahah empire mixed up Boromir and Faramir, but they mix up most chracters, in the new one they labelled a picture of Ujio as Katsumoto played by Ken Watanabe, both the character and the actor mixed up
i still think the elfin thing is stupid, at least have a bit of knowledge before writing (or *****ing in this guys case) out a review... i disagree that PJ's film lost all of Tolkien, if you cant feel for any of the movie characters youve got a heart of ice and you cant appreciate Tolkien