|
|
Post by janntosh on May 6, 2020 19:54:46 GMT
Ring?
Roeper's complaints are some of the dumbest, most clueless statements ever uttered and even Ebert is somewhat lukewarm. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is the better movie? What was wrong with them? LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 6, 2020 20:17:24 GMT
Ring? Roeper's complaints are some of the dumbest, most clueless statements ever uttered and even Ebert is somewhat lukewarm. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is the better movie? What was wrong with them? LOL While I definitely don't agree with them, it is their opinion and I respect it. Roger Ebert just didn't fully warm to it, but he did give it a positive review. If you read Roger Ebert's lengthy written review you will better understand why he didn't love the movie. Here is one paragraph that explains why he doesn't love the movie and it is totally reasonable if you ask me. "That "Fellowship of the Ring" doesn't match my imaginary vision of Middle-earth is my problem, not yours. Perhaps it will look exactly as you think it should. But some may regret that the Hobbits have been pushed out of the foreground and reduced to supporting characters. And the movie depends on action scenes much more than Tolkien did. In a statement last week, Tolkien's son Christopher, who is the "literary protector" of his father's works, said, "My own position is that 'The Lord of the Rings' is peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form." That is probably true, and Jackson, instead of transforming it, has transmuted it, into a sword-and-sorcery epic in the modern style, containing many of the same characters and incidents." Every critic does this with certain movies. Siskel disliked The Silence of the Lambs, Apocalypse Now, Casino and Taxi Driver and Roger Ebert found Siskel's complaints about The Silence of the Lambs ridiculous. Roger Ebert dislikes A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket, To Kill a Mockingbird, Die Hard etc. I dislike a lot of highly praised movies too, so I'd be a hypocrite to complain about their opinions.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on May 6, 2020 20:46:51 GMT
Ring? Roeper's complaints are some of the dumbest, most clueless statements ever uttered and even Ebert is somewhat lukewarm. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is the better movie? What was wrong with them? LOL While I definitely don't agree with them, it is their opinion and I respect it. Roger Ebert just didn't fully warm to it, but he did give it a positive review. If you read Roger Ebert's lengthy written review you will better understand why he didn't love the movie. Here is one paragraph that explains why he doesn't love the movie and it is totally reasonable if you ask me. "That "Fellowship of the Ring" doesn't match my imaginary vision of Middle-earth is my problem, not yours. Perhaps it will look exactly as you think it should. But some may regret that the Hobbits have been pushed out of the foreground and reduced to supporting characters. And the movie depends on action scenes much more than Tolkien did. In a statement last week, Tolkien's son Christopher, who is the "literary protector" of his father's works, said, "My own position is that 'The Lord of the Rings' is peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form." That is probably true, and Jackson, instead of transforming it, has transmuted it, into a sword-and-sorcery epic in the modern style, containing many of the same characters and incidents." Every critic does this with certain movies. Siskel disliked The Silence of the Lambs, Apocalypse Now, Casino and Taxi Driver and Roger Ebert found Siskel's complaints about The Silence of the Lambs ridiculous. Roger Ebert dislikes A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket, To Kill a Mockingbird, Die Hard etc. I dislike a lot of highly praised movies too, so I'd be a hypocrite to complain about their opinions. Seems like Christopher & Ebert might've preferred a 10 part, slower, more drawling mini-series.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on May 6, 2020 20:49:17 GMT
Well, different strokes for different folks as they say. I've had my share of movies I've agreed and disagreed with them on.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 6, 2020 20:49:41 GMT
While I definitely don't agree with them, it is their opinion and I respect it. Roger Ebert just didn't fully warm to it, but he did give it a positive review. If you read Roger Ebert's lengthy written review you will better understand why he didn't love the movie. Here is one paragraph that explains why he doesn't love the movie and it is totally reasonable if you ask me. "That "Fellowship of the Ring" doesn't match my imaginary vision of Middle-earth is my problem, not yours. Perhaps it will look exactly as you think it should. But some may regret that the Hobbits have been pushed out of the foreground and reduced to supporting characters. And the movie depends on action scenes much more than Tolkien did. In a statement last week, Tolkien's son Christopher, who is the "literary protector" of his father's works, said, "My own position is that 'The Lord of the Rings' is peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form." That is probably true, and Jackson, instead of transforming it, has transmuted it, into a sword-and-sorcery epic in the modern style, containing many of the same characters and incidents." Every critic does this with certain movies. Siskel disliked The Silence of the Lambs, Apocalypse Now, Casino and Taxi Driver and Roger Ebert found Siskel's complaints about The Silence of the Lambs ridiculous. Roger Ebert dislikes A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket, To Kill a Mockingbird, Die Hard etc. I dislike a lot of highly praised movies too, so I'd be a hypocrite to complain about their opinions. Seems like Christopher & Ebert might've preferred a 10 part, slower, more drawling mini-series. They probably would have. Roger Ebert rates the movie with a positive review and you people still complain. Would you like him to lie and say he loves a movie that he doesn't? I want to know what critics actually think, not what they think everybody else would like them to think.
|
|
|
|
Post by mstreepsucks on May 6, 2020 20:52:25 GMT
I think basically their complaint about it was, they thought it was a little too dry.
Is that basically what they trying to say?
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on May 6, 2020 20:58:58 GMT
Maltin Movie Guide Review:
LOTR: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) - 3 out of 4 stars
"Sprawling, epic adaptation of the first part of J.R.R Tolkien's trilogy about Frodo Baggins, the Hobbit chosen to destroy a powerful ring that threatens Middle-earth. Moves in fits and starts, but intelligent and beautifully executed by director/co-writer Jackson, with phenomenal production values and a fine cast, led by McKellen, perfect as wizard Gandalf. Won Oscars for Makeup, Visual Effects, Cinematography (Andrew Lesnie), and Original Score (Howard Shore)."
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 6, 2020 21:01:13 GMT
Maltin Movie Guide Review: LOTR: The Fellowship of the Ring - 3 out of 4 stars "Sprawling, epic adaptation of the first part of J.R.R Tolkien's trilogy about Frodo Baggins, the Hobbit chosen to destroy a powerful ring that threatens Middle-earth. Moves in fits and starts, but intelligent and beautifully executed by director/co-writer Jackson, with phenomenal production values and a fine cast, led by McKellen, perfect as wizard Gandalf. Won Oscars for Makeup, Visual Effects, Cinematography (Andrew Lesnie), and Original Score (Howard Shore)." Basically he says he thinks it is an objectively good movie, but doesn't personally think it is a great movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on May 6, 2020 21:10:23 GMT
Maltin Movie Guide Review: LOTR: The Fellowship of the Ring - 3 out of 4 stars "Sprawling, epic adaptation of the first part of J.R.R Tolkien's trilogy about Frodo Baggins, the Hobbit chosen to destroy a powerful ring that threatens Middle-earth. Moves in fits and starts, but intelligent and beautifully executed by director/co-writer Jackson, with phenomenal production values and a fine cast, led by McKellen, perfect as wizard Gandalf. Won Oscars for Makeup, Visual Effects, Cinematography (Andrew Lesnie), and Original Score (Howard Shore)." Basically he says he thinks it is an objectively good movie, but doesn't personally think it is a great movie. He's more kind to Two Towers and Return of the King with 3.5 stars each. Not so kind to the Hobbit films with 2 and 2.5 stars to Unexpected Journey and Desolation of Smaug. The guide was retired in 2015 so there is no star rating for Battle of Five Armies. I think he might have done a review for it though on his website.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on May 6, 2020 21:11:37 GMT
Roeper is annoying.
I thought the most interesting stand-in for Siskel when he got sick was Tom Shales.
Strangely matched with Ebert's appearance and attitude.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 6, 2020 21:15:53 GMT
Basically he says he thinks it is an objectively good movie, but doesn't personally think it is a great movie. He's more kind to Two Towers and Return of the King with 3.5 stars each. Not so kind to the Hobbit films with 2 and 2.5 stars to Unexpected Journey and Desolation of Smaug. The guide was retired in 2015 so there is no star rating for Battle of Five Armies. I think he did a review for it though on his website. I'm in the minority in that Return of the King is my least favorite of the 3. It is less focused, it has silly extremely corny parts that feel out of place (the singing scene, the deus ex machina eagle...again), it used up all it's great awe-inspiring visual moments in the first 2 movies and so this one just feels a bit redundant and don't even get me started on the 20 endings.
|
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on May 6, 2020 21:28:57 GMT
I watched that particular review a few months ago. Roeper stating the movie was about a "silly little ring" made him lose all credibility while reviewing the film. Thankfully, he later warmed up to the latter two installments.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 6, 2020 21:37:05 GMT
I watched that particular review a few months ago. Roeper stating the movie was about a "silly little ring" made him lose all credibility while reviewing the film. Thankfully, he later warmed up to the latter two installments. Sometimes I think critics are just in bad moods when they watch certain movies. People don't take into account how much time critics spend watching movies and they aren't always able to given them their full attention. This is why I try and go back and watch certain highly rated movies that I disliked the first time. Sometimes I still dislike them and sometimes I have my mind changed. Roger Ebert did this with Blade Runner. He even states in his GREAT FILM review that he wasn't paying close enough attention the first couple times he watched it. I think he originally only rated it 2.5/4 stars and the when the Director's Cut was released he gave it 3/4 stars and then eventually 4/4 stars.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on May 6, 2020 22:13:09 GMT
I watched that particular review a few months ago. Roeper stating the movie was about a "silly little ring" made him lose all credibility while reviewing the film. Thankfully, he later warmed up to the latter two installments. Sometimes I think critics are just in bad moods when they watch certain movies. People don't take into account how much time critics spend watching movies and they aren't always able to given them their full attention. This is why I try and go back and watch certain highly rated movies that I disliked the first time. Sometimes I still dislike them and sometimes I have my mind changed. Roger Ebert did this with Blade Runner. He even states in his GREAT FILM review that he wasn't paying close enough attention the first couple times he watched it. I think he originally only rated it 2.5/4 stars and the when the Director's Cut was released he gave it 3/4 stars and then eventually 4/4 stars. I think Leonard Maltin did the same thing with Alien (1979). He went from 2.5 to 3.5 stars for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on May 6, 2020 22:26:06 GMT
Not as bad as Rex Reed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on May 7, 2020 6:19:13 GMT
It didn't do much for me. I still haven't seen the latter two parts of the series.
|
|
