Wow, so I'm now supposed to believe that the US is the model to follow when dealing with dictators? :lol: The "disposable dictator" policy has been in effect for decades. I'm sure you are familiar with the term "state sponsored terrorism" now are you? People only bring up the ruthless dictator argument when said dictator stops being useful. So please spare me the "we liberated the poor Iraqis" nonsense.
I'm also sure you are aware that over 10 years of UN sanctions, the application of which was largely controlled by the US (96% of shipments blocked were blocked by the US who claimed dual use for things like generators for water treatment plants, hospital equipment and medical supplies, etc) killed over 1.5 million Iraqis including 500,000 children under the age of 5. But of course, I assume you jekbrown will say that this was all evil Saddam's fault.

Who hijacked my thread!? ;)

eXcentris,

Yes, we know the US is more evil than Saddam could ever hope to be. We frequently gas our citizens, kill children who write "anti-government propagana" on city streets, and I could go on, but I'm sure you know firsthand of the atrocities the US performs on its people.

Oh. We also slaughtered millions of turkeys for the holidays. I forgot that one. I'm heading to Saudia Arabia, where they know how to treat their men and women equally, and have more freedoms than the US constitution could ever afford them.

Please... Nobody here ever said such a thing and you know it. But to claim that the US is the model to follow when dealing with dictators is just ludicrous. A cursory look at history will shoot that argument down in about 10 sec. And to believe that the US (or any government) bases it's foreign policy on humanitarian reasons is also silly and naive. "Saddam gasses his own people" is an argument used to sell the war to the masses, it has little to no bearing on the real reasons this war was undertaken which are mainly geo-political. So again, give me a break with the "we liberated the poor Iraqis from evil Saddam" nonsense, this ain't LOTR fantasy land.

And for the record, I don't have a problem with Ebert's review of ROTK. :)

I forget the name of the boat but didn't the U.S. turn away a boatful of Jews right when the Holocaust was gaining full force? Some of those people were then sent to concentration camps and killed.

I agree that the U.S. sometimes doens't get involved in a war until properly motivated (oil, politics, etc).

our record is clearly superior to anyone elses. Is it without flaw? of course not. Have we used petty dictators to offset other dictators/regimes on occassion? sure, usually when all out nuclear war or massive invasion is the other alternative. I'll take whats behind door #1 bob. Sometimes there is no perfect magic bullet solution, if there was, there would never be any wars/problems in this world in the first place.

Quote:

---

People only bring up the ruthless dictator argument when said dictator stops being useful. So please spare me the "we liberated the poor Iraqis" nonsense.

---

its only nonsense if you either a) dont give a crap about other human beings or b) have never seen people whos lives/souls have been crushed by dictatorship. I have never said that the reason the US went into iraq was to free iraqis... just that it was a result.. and a GOOD one. Sorta like the cold war, the purpose of it may have never been to free the people of eastern europe from russian domination, but that was the result, and it was good. BTW, at what point were Hitler, Stalin, Mao "useful"? Your arguement only seems applicable with small-time wanna be dictators.

Quote:

---

I'm also sure you are aware that over 10 years of UN sanctions, the application of which was largely controlled by the US (96% of shipments blocked were blocked by the US who claimed dual use for things like generators for water treatment plants, hospital equipment and medical supplies, etc) killed over 1.5 million Iraqis including 500,000 children under the age of 5. But of course, I assume you jekbrown will say that this was all evil Saddam's fault.

---

wow, you can read that fax from the DNC like a champ. The real truth of the matter is that the UN allowed enough food for every single man/woman/child in iraq to receive a healthy diet... but that said food never got to the poor people of iraq because saddam made sure it didn't. Between the 1st and 2nd gulf war he controlled how food was distributed in his country. The UN build scores of "food distribution points" and saddam had his minions collect food from them while threatening death on poor starving people who got in his way. Just like the warlords of somalia, saddam used food as a weapon and a commodity to buy allegiance. Its an old story, and will probably happen again. At any rate, the idea that iraqis had plenty of food and the evil US came and stole it all from them because we dont like saddam is a complete lie. Your arguement reminds me of people who blame the malnourishment of the jews in the WW2 concentration camps on allied blockades and not german guards who had orders not to feed them. -rolleyes-

on top of all of this, the US are the ones who help feed the world and come when people are in great need. Where was (insert any country you want here) when the berliners needed an airlift? where were they when somalian warlords starved who knows how many? how about in afghanistan, who brought food aid there? Who sends disaster relief porfessionals around the world when someone else is in trouble... even people who HATE us? (big quake in iran, our people have already volunteered to help). Who gives more charity to 3rd world countries than the US? who donates more of their time in 3rd world countries? on and on and ON. Im sick and tired of rabid anti-american yahoos who just dont know chit. They nick-pick every little decision and mistake as if anyone has/can do it better, and whine and cry alot but when it comes right down to it its clear the US is the most generous country in the world and absolutely vital to worldwide stability. Have we solved every problem in the world? no, but we try to help even when no one else will and to me, that says a lot about who americans have become, late and post 20th century.

j

jekbrown: God Bless! and well said

I agree with you 100%!

Jason

Wow - Ebert is thinking a lot of strange things.

LOL SEEKER! rotfl

"Our record is clearly superior to anyone elses". This is clearly a matter of opinion. Should we start with the history of South and Central America for the past 40 years? Oh, I forgot, "petty dictators" don't count. So how many people must a dictator kill for him to receive consideration? Once again, it is absurd to believe that ANY country's foreign policy is based on noble humanitarian reasons. Saddam is no different. You used him, and then you dumped him when he was no longer useful. Is the end result a good thing for the world and for the Iraqis? Yes, but nobody would have given a shit about the poor Iraqis if Iraq hadn't been in a geo-politically important region. Terrorism, WMD's, blah... Saddam was just a convenient scapegoat.

Wow, and apparently you can't read at all. I made no mention of the oil for food program which was only implemented in 1996. Newsflash, Iraqis weren't dying of starvation, they were dying because of contaminated water supplies and lack of medical supplies. Over 10 years of sanctions brought Iraq to it's knees and whether you like it or not the US, because it kept using it's veto to block shipments, is largely responsible for this. Who do you think insisted in keeping the sanctions in place despite the fact that it was apparent very early on that they had no impact on Saddam himself and only served to kill Iraqis?

You accuse me of not caring about the lives of the Iraqis and when I mention the death of 1.5 million of them you speak of little decisions and small mistakes? Brilliant.

But of course, anyone who doesn't see the world in black and white like you do and dares to criticize the US is "a yahoo that doesn't know chit". The US is vital to worldwide stability but it often acts like an immature child with a bull in a china shop mentality. The US does do a lot of good around the world, and it is often put in situations where it has to do the "policing" because nobody else (especially Europeans) have had the will, means, or desire, to even take care of their own problems. But it still has a long ways to go in terms of maturity and wisdom.

Now believe it or not, I'm no anti-American yahoo. In fact I often defend the US against what I call "primary anti-Americanism" which tends to blame the US for all the world's problem. But I'm not some brainwashed yahoo who just goes around saying "woooooo! the US is #1!"... Here's the deal, you are the only Superpower, the #1 US of A, and every one of your actions will be scrutinized. Criticism comes with the territory. You don't like it, move to Canada. :) But something tells me this won't go over too good with someone who stated that "I have no problem with the Bush admin foreign policy"...

Blah, I'm outta here.

Ebert gave the film four stars in his original review, so it doesn't seem likely that he'd give it a "thumbs down" on television.

I think you're misunderstanding Ebert's point. It's the *tone* of the violence that he has a problem with.

In his review for "Platoon" Ebert paraphrases nouvelle vague director François Truffaut: "it's not possible to make an anti-war movie, because all war movies, with their energy and sense of adventure, end up making combat look like fun."

Ebert's complaint with the violence in the LOTR films is that Jackson makes the battles fun and exciting. It's violence as pornography, battle and blood and fighting with the intent to thrill - whereas Tolkein's intent was to de-glorify violence, to make evil sickening and horrible.

The Lord of the Rings books are anti-war in tone, whereas the films make spectacle out of it to excite and titillate.

I happen to think that the LOTR trilogy is one of the crowning achievements in cinema of the past 20 years. It's ambitious, skillfully made, thought provoking, while being a popcorn-gnoshing-back-of-seat-grabber at the same time.

Jackson has somehow managed to have his cake and eat it too. Ebert just had some problems with the tone and intent of the films.

Would they have been better films had they not had to make money? Perhaps, perhaps not. But surely improvements could be made.

Just look at the Extended Editions.

I like his reviews but I come up with disagreements here and there... for instance...
Since the title itself is plural, it refers to all of the samurai shown in the movie. The entire clan. Not a single person.

I was never a big fan of Ebert, but I lost all respect for him when he opened up his review of The Power Of One with . . . Talk about not understanding a movie . . . -ohbfrank-

Ditto.

The word "Samurai" is both singular and plural - it could mean all of the members of a societal class or any single member of that class.

Since it's the "Last" Samurai someone has to be that Last man. I like the plural idea, but that's yet a third possible meaning. So Ebert is correct - he just left out the plural possibility.

From the DVD box art it's obvious that the studio wants you to think that Tom Cruise is the last samurai.

Yes, I really find it annoying when anyone tries to pluralize Japanese words such as "animes" and "mangas" as well.

But I guess I was just making a statement based on another persons post. I read a comment by someone that in the screenplay it clarifies that the title is plural. I should probably look this up to verify.

For what it's worth, I totally agree with Ebert, and sorry Hobbitheads, the movies were magnficent spectacle, but to some they were just movies, and are instantly forgotten. It doesn't mean I"m wrong or you have to hate them, but they didn't reasonate with the entire audience, and that's ok.

This is a good point. I would go mad if it was my job to see 10 movies a week, let alone being able to review them with clarity or perspective.
I don't know if Ebert's brain op has had a negative effect, but he certainly seems to have gone soft, handing out even more 3+ ratings than before; and this is a guy who was always fairly mainstream. Still, his is just one person's opinion; who gives a shit?

I agree with Groucho all the way.

I enjoyed the Trilogy, immensely in fact. But only for what it was worth. And it wasn't worth what it got at the Academy Awards, that's for sure. These are great, fun movies, but I'd hardly call them perfect.

When it comes to Ebert's reviews, I tend to be 50/50 with him in terms of agreement. Sometimes he hits it dead on for me, other times he's just completely off. But that's what we all are when we watch movies: critics. We have our opinions and critics have theirs. This doesn't even need to be stated.

A lot of times people get so involved in the hype that they begin to form an opinion before they actually see the film. Return of the King, in my opinion, was the worst of the three films, and I think it's because I don't buy the hype. Sure, I've never read the books, but that should mean my judgement should be unbiased, not based on my attachment to the book series.

Anyway, these threads are kind of pointless.

Ebert didn't have brain surgery.

I agree with Ebert... the LOTR were good, light entertainment, but anyone who found them 'lifechanging', 'spiritually moving' or 'euphoric' probably needs to get more involved with the real world.

And the truth is, the movies weren't even as good as the books, which are also just good, light entertainment.

I generally like the LOTR trilogy but it's not a favorite. I was overwhelmed mainly by the length of the movies.

i think each film in the LOTR trilogy was weaker than the previous. The Fellowship excelled when they were together, and was hit and miss once the group disbanded. Film just lacked a lot of chemistry between the characters.

I wanted to cry when I read this, but Ebert is entitled to his opinion...

...just wanted to say, stories are told to help us better our lives...

I found myself engrossed in the violence, which I thought was rather revolting, since the whole trilogy is about the last 20 minute of the film, which we all should try to strive for…

Peace…

Ebert liked Speed 2... that is ok

I can go with this. I mean you have Legolas & Gimli counting thier kills. Also, Legolas 'surfs' on a shield. None of the good guys die & there is no blood. It is glorified and totally off from what Tolkein intended. Is that enough to warrant a bad review? Doubtful, but if he grew up on the LOTR books than he has a fair argument.

Well, except that the "kill count" was in the book, too.Hmm . . . not sure about this either . . . Gandalf "dies", Theoden, Boramir, and Denethor are all killed, and there is certainly plenty of orc blood and a number of at least relatively bloody injuries (Frodo's finger, the stab wound from the Witch King on Weathertop, lots of cutting and crushing in various battles . . .). I wouldn't say that it's painted as a pretty picture overall.

What's with the Ebert bashing? Last time I checked, he was entitled to his own opinions...
Lord of the Rings, decent films. Entertaining enough, but I certainly don't think it deserved as much critical praise as it got.
I've read the books, and I agree with Jough. The books had a poetic quality to them. Peter Jackson's version is way too battle-oriented. Don't be calling Ebert a moron, moron.

Skimmed most of this thread and just to put in my two cents (a vote, so to speak),

I agree wholeheartedly with his review.

It's as if he took my exact thoughts and put them on paper after I saw this film, except that I would have kicked it down a star, but that is just me.

Of course, this is just my opinion, and I could be wrong....

Re: What's Ebert thinking?
 

I felt that same thing as I read that in the book, and saw it on film - there were so many parallels to the challenges we face in modern times, I don't know how someone couldn't recognize the relevance.

My feelings exactly.

I always get a kick out of imagining Ebert reading through threads like these and laughing to himself. (Yes he has visited DVDtalk before so its possible he's still lurking around! :D)

I doubt that. I heard the reason why people think he visited but I dont believe it. Everything that is posted here can be found somewhere else on the internet.

Why do people think he visited?

in one of his reviews (i'll try to find it if I can remember the movie) he referenced dvdtalk as a resource for timestamping particular scenes in a particular movie. if i recall correctly he actually listed a dvdtalk url.

ok, this isn't the one i'm referring to, but here is an ebert review in which he refers to the site.

http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/greatm...odbadugly.html

second to last paragrah.

Oh yeah I remember that.

ok, his other reference to our little site here was in one of his "Answer Man" articles which are not archived for reference. Here's the post in which we discussed this.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...ighlight=ebert

I think Ebert posted here under the user name "danol."

God forbid he gives the film 3 stars. This forum would have been torn down!

Ebert I can deal with...but god I hate Roeper...he knows nothing of cinema...