Replies

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?

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.

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...)

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.