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 . . .

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....

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! )

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.