scroll2b

Now I know most don't read reviews from the guy, or have long since turned their back on him, or whatever, but I follow his reviews, if only because it's great when you see an amazing movie and read how others felt it. However, I can't help wonder what he's thinking after reading his review on ROTK.

Here's a link: http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert...r-rings17.html

Now I can understand his character psychology argument, but to say the film is not at all relevant to today's viewers, that it doesn't touch on issues we face today, but is only concerned with Middle Earth sounds like tunnel-vision to me.

I mean, and the republicans will chastise me for this, I couldn't help but think of Bush every time the King personally did something heroic and amazing as a leader, (because Bush is the exact opposite, IMHO). I couldn't help think of America's resistance during WWII in TTT when Tree Beard and friends wouldn't help with the war until they themselves suffered loss. All the morals and themes in the trilogy are totally relevant to the small decisions we face everyday. It’s how you live your life, etc.

Anyway, he did give the flick three and half stars, and really thought there were a lot of things going for it. I just can’t believe he wasn’t as overwhelmed as I was, and that he thought it was just for adolescents of all ages. What a pompous rascal. It's his opinion, though.

BigPete

Having had absolutely no attachment to the trilogy other than the films, I can see his point and, to a degree, agree. This will change no one's lives, and for most, it will remain fantasy and escapism. It is a Star Wars for today.

scroll2b

This is a terrible statement.

I agree with Moriarty from AICN who feels it to be most inspiring and that it's time to get on with his own dreams of filmmaking. I think this reaffirms any filmmaker's heart that there is still hope in cinema today. That Peter Jackson did it. I also agree with the guy that someone somewhere will be awoken by this film and go on to make films of their own. Braveheart changed my life. Movies can have such an affect. I'm sorry you've never met, at least, an aspiring filmmaker where that's happened. If you did, maybe you're forgetting him or her.

DVD Polizei

Good ole Roger.

He has probably never read the books, and from reading his review, doesn't even understand the basis from whence they were written.

Ebert is one of those politically correct reviewers, and would be more than happy to give a recommendation to a Queen Latifah flick with a whiteboy sidekick.

Ebert tends to look way too hard into movie ENTERTAINMENT. Hey Roger, that's ENTERTAINMENT, sweetie. If you want depth and psychological twists, go watch a David Lynch flick.

Yah Freekin' MORON.

BigPete

I think our differences lie in scope. You are talking about change as a way to rekindle spirit in a filmmaker who has lost his way, and I am talking about affecting a change in someone's complete world view, bringing on a level of enlightenment that makes them a completely different person. You are alking about hope for filmmaking and cinema and I am talking about hope for all mankind.

Rivero

Ah who cares about Ebert. Tolkien's book and these films will be watched and enjoyed by people long after he is dead.

CitizenKaneRBud

Ebert's review of ROTK is ridiculous. It's obvious that he didn't connect with, or particular like the movies. He gives it 3 and a half rating and talks about how bad the movie is throughout the review. I'm not saying it's embarassing that he didn't like it, but it's ridiculous that he gives it such a high rating. All because it's a huge technical achievement doesn't mean that one should be obligated to give it a great review. I guess I can't blame him though, every critic in america who gives it a bad review is TRASHED and considered idiotic. Would people rather critics lie about liking it, giving it a high rating just because everyone else is?

scroll2b

Point taken.

rushmore223

Ebert.... "Stupid Fat Hobbit"

Hokeyboy

Why do fanboys go berserk over Ebert? He gave it ***1/2 out of ****, for crissakes. It's his opinion; don't like it? Move on! There's a bazillion other critics out there who are absolutely kvelling over ROTK.

dvdordie

There are much more better movie reviewers here at DVD Talk than Ebert... the fatso who don't give a sh i t about good movies. All his good ratings went to 'Artistic' film. What a stupid biased reviewer.

chanster

These threads are ridicoulous - Ebert gave the movie 3.5/4 stars and people are so pent up with defending LOTR, they can't stand one piece of criticism which isn't even criticism. Ridicoulous.

Its just a movie (or books) if you base your moral code around movies and pieces of fiction, you need some serious help. LOTR = new Star Wars for fans who are complete syncophants and unwilling to believe that these movies are just pieces of entertainment.

fumanstan

Totally agree. Sorry fellas, but not everyone feels Return of the King is the greatest movie ever made. Heaven forbit someone have some beefs with it.

jekbrown

dude, forget about WWII, think War on Terrorism.

Rohan King: "what can good men do against such reckless hate?"

Gondor King: "ride out and meet them."

hell, Sarumans beard in TTT looks just like Osama bin Laden's. As you said, you have the forces of evil arrayed against the good guys... but certain good guy groups have the "well, they havent attacked us yet, so who cares?!" thing going on (aka France, Germany, Belgium). On the other hand you have Sam, who gives us the "there is some good in this world...and its worth fighting for" line representin' peeps like the americans. Guess that makes the Gondorians sorta like the Israelis... "long have your lands been protected by the blood of my people..." Not sure who the UN is... maybe those human guys that fight for sauron or something. lol.

its late and Im tired so I can't recall all the parallels I noticed during the films (TTT especially)... but they are there and seem pretty clear.

j

Supermallet

I hope you're not serious, and I hope these were not intended parallels, because that would make me enjoy the movie so much less. The only thing I can think is that the first film came out only a few months after 9-11, which means they had finished shooting before 9-11, so there's no way they could have intended to make parallels between this and the war on terrorism. And, considering Peter Jackson is from New Zealand, I doubt he's trying to rush out and congratulate Bush for his actions, which are pretty reviled even among countries who normally are American allies.

I'm not trying to get into a political debate, but I did want to say that, considering the films were conceived, written, filmed, and wrapped before 9-11, I highly doubt the films were meant to promote the war on terrorism in any way. Besides, a war on terror is unwinnable, a war to throw a ring into a pit of lava is.

Spooky

Considering all the gushing I've seen in some other critics reviews, I found Ebert's review to be refreshing and honest.

Jalizarin

HAHAHA!

Giantrobo

Many classic movies from years ago were criticized or outright panned by critics and the pubic at the time of release. Movies with "it" will stand the test of time and as mentioned above will be long remembered after the critics are long forgotten.

DVD Polizei

Suprmallet,

I think jekbrown was merely trying to draw parallels in THINKING and BEHAVIOR, not promote the theory the movie sent a message about the WOT.

Supermallet

Well, that may be, but if you look at it that way, you could also say that Frodo and company are actually the terrorists, a ragtag group joining together to fight big Imperialist America, aka Sauron. So really, it runs both ways if you want to look at it like that.

Ignite

This review IMO is more on point than just about any other that I've read. And for what it's worth, I completely agree with him.

victor_vc

Another vote of confidence for Ebert.

Groucho

If you read Ebert's reviews of all three films, it's obvious he's read the books. Probably before most posters on this forum were even born.

I'm in the camp that just rolls my eyes at the fanboys who go bezerk because Ebert didn't give their "precious" film the full four stars.

And if you don't think Ebert gives good reviews to "popcorn" flicks, you know nothing about Ebert.

Get Me Coffee

When should I start in with the fat jokes?

scroll2b

Did you even read my original post?