Shiny 'Ring' isn't quite flawless - strange title, odd review

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | December 19, 2001 | Roger Ebert

[aruanan]

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.

Written by someone who apparently last read TLOTR many decades ago. I wonder what he'll say when The Return of the King comes out.

[PJ-Comix]

Roger Ebert---Screenwriter of such epic movies as "Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls," "Up!" and "Beyond The Valley of the Ultra-Vixens." I kid you not. Check the IMDB data base.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

You might want to check out Roger Ebert's review here, and decide whether to ping the ping list. All his comments about the film are positive, but he is unhappy that it isn't the book.

[Physicist]

First he says:

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.

So OK, he thinks the movie was too short. Not enough attention to detail, no time to stop and smell the roses. Fair enough. But then he says:

But it does go on, and on, and on--more vistas, more forests, more sounds in the night, more fearsome creatures, more prophecies, more visions, more dire warnings, more close calls, until we realize this sort of thing can continue indefinitely.

So is the movie too short or too long? There's a lot of territory to cover in nine hours over three films, even without lingering over Hobbits' breakfasts. How should it have been paced? Should the story have been edited so that less happens?

[Skywalk]

In short, like most critics, he has to "criticize," but this time he forgot to make it consistent. Having read hundreds of reviews about some of my favorite movies(and a couple I hated) on rottentomatoes.com, I found myself laughing at the contradictions between one review and the next.

"Russell Crowe is great."

"Russell Crowe mumbles and stumbles his way through another film."

You can't get one review to agree with another, it's pretty funny.

[Physicist]

It doesn't get any better than that.

Two complaints about Gladiator: 1) they rearranged the history when they didn't have to, and 2) the cinematography was awful. Everthing was dark and indistinct, even in broad daylight. They spent lord knows how much money creating a CG virtual Rome, and the shots of it look like the old Burger King "I Love This Place!" commercials.

[Physicist]

I should add, however, that I loved the movie. The story was great and the combat was spectacular. Russell Crowe and Joaquin Phoenix were excellent.

[Abundy]

For good or ill, my Roman History is subpar. That may have allowed me to appreciate the movie for its message as well as its cinematography?

Anyway, appreciate your input.

[Gordian Blade]

You picked up a great example of a reviewer contradicting himself. Can you imagine the reaction of almost everyone if the film had spent hours on hobbit meals and the poetry and songs of Rivendell, but cut out most of the action sequences? As it is, some reviewers find the part in Hobbiton too long. The action scenes are all in the book from what I know so far, having not seen it yet. It's a matter of being selective in what to include and what to cut. From past reviews, I think Ebert prefers introspective films without a lot of action. I have 6 tickets for the 24th, so I'll judge for myself. (Myself and 5 other people, not for me to see it 6 times! Hmmm, on second thought...)

[Doctor Stochastic]

I watched the first few minutes of "Gladiator" and I have to agree with you. I discovered the movie was just a (poor) remake of "The Fall of the Roman Empire" with much less bite.

[Sloth]

I noticed that contradiction, too... Also, he seems to be complaining that the movie is not the realization of Tolkien's vision, or whatever, then complains about the overshadowing presence of the elves, humans, etc., which IS how the first book goes... After the Fellowship comes apart, the later books have Sam & Frodo and Merry & Pippen striking off on their own, at which time I'm sure Ebert will write a review lamenting that there aren't enough elves or shots of the Shire.

[4Freedom]

Just as a side-note, I have a '1976 autograph from Mohammed Ali that he signed 'The Lord of the Ring'.

I ran into him in a Howard Johnson's in Benton Harbor, Michigan. He was having an argument with his girlfriend, Porche, but he was real happy to stop and give me his autograph. Maybe he appreciated the chance to change the subject.

[Huck]

MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS! MAIXIMUS!

[Huck]

Ebert is trying to play both sides of this one. He wants to be different. I mean, the world is GUSHING over this movie. Maybe he felt compelled to be contrarian, and this is the best he could do. He was obviously motivated. Heck, he hit the books for this one!

[Wm Bach]

He was obviously motivated. Heck, he hit the books for this one!

Sometimes critics play to the audience, and sometimes to their peers. I think in this case, it's the latter, or maybe he sees himself as a jolly little hobbit, and didn't feel vicariously heroic enough in the first installment.

[paul544]

This is nothing more that Fat Ebert, not wanting to look like he is just going along with the crowd. Since every other critic is fawning over this movie, he feels the need to be different. He's yesterday's news.

[ecurbh]

But a true visualization of Tolkien's Middle-earth it is not.

This is interesting. Most reviews by the die-hard fans (the ones who live and breathe Tolkien) say the images on screen almost exactly match the ones they had in their minds all those years.

[BibChr]

After reading the review, I hoped it was "up" here at FR. I wish you'd put Ebert's name in the thread-title, so everyone'd know that was what this thread was about. I predict a double-posting.

That having been said, I'm not sure I've ever been more irritated by an Ebert review, though I've certainly disagreed before. And I haven't yet seen the movie. But this is hardly a movie review. This is more a review of how well Jackson did in bringing Ebert's vision of the LOTR to the screen.

I didn't think that was supposed to be the criterion of a good movie.

And besides, I disagree with Ebert's read of LOTR. Most emphatically in no way did "the Hobbits" devise a dangerous mission, and enlist Big People's help in pursuing it. Hobbits deplore Adventure. Nasty things, make you late for supper!

No, this was completely thrust upon the involved Hobbits, both by bigger beings and simply by the need of the hour and the unseen hand of Providence. The big people involved are not brought in by the Hobbits. They join for their own reasons. And in the end [SPOILER WARNING] it is two hobbits alone who resolve the matter.

Ebert seriously misread the books. I suspect he did the movie as well. And still he was compelled to three stars. Perhaps if some of the company had been depicted as homosexuals abused by Fundamentalist parents, whose persons and religion they reject, he'd have given it four.

Dan

[Huck]

or maybe he sees himself as a jolly little hobbit, and didn't feel vicariously heroic enough in the first installment.

lol. Thanks for the laugh. You are probably right. He did say they weren't fat enough.

[lds23]

Most reviews by the die-hard fans (the ones who live and breathe Tolkien) say the images on screen almost exactly match the ones they had in their minds all those years

I'd agree, except for Sauron. Tolkein wisely did not describe him physically (the unknown is always more fearsome). To show him as a man limits him, which underestimates evil.