Ebert's Review of The Two Towers

Sun Times ^ | Ebert

[Leatherneck_MT]

Apparantly he didn't read the same LOTR that most of us have read. His review shows a complete lack of understanding of the story line. I've read the series every year since I was 10 years old (I'm 45 now). I think he rented one of the older movies that are now on video tape and wrote his review based on that. There's no way he could have read the books that Tolkien wrote, saw the movies that have recently been made and come to the conclusions that he came to in his review. The job(s) that have been done with this set of Ring movies has been as close to exemplary as you can get given the time constraints a file will place on you.

[Eternal_Bear]

This guy has always been an effete liberal wimp. Siskel was far better.

[AD from SpringBay]

Ebert is a lazy, ignorant reviewer with very little to say, as is obvious enough from this review. Basically his job is to say what is expected of him by the movie industry, but he doesn't do it very well.

Amen -Ebert doesn't want this film to win any major awards because that might validate the fact that most of what comes out of WhorryWood is crap.

I guess Peter Jackson should have shown Arwen's ta-tas and had Gimli use the F-word in every other sentence, and blamed Frodo's broken home for the whole ring problem. Now that would have been good cinema and worthy of an Oscar or two.

[dead]

Here’s a little tidbit from the Village Voice's (of course) review of “Two Towers”:

Speaking of double consciousness, the tender love between the hobbits Frodo and Sam is, as noted by Michael Musto two issues back, pretty much a given. But those joining the epic in medias res may be puzzled by the other meaningful looks. Is the sensitive elf Legolas (Orlando Bloom) cruising hunky Aragorn? Fellowship, to be sure…

[js1138]

go to http://www.rottentomatoes.com for links to all available online reviews.

[My2Cents]

I agree with you, Leatherneck. The thing that is remarkable about the job Peter Jackson and his crew did on these movies (at least FOTR, last year -- haven't seen TTT yet), is that the most devoted fans of Tolkein and the books were the most pleased with the films, almost unanimously. It took a person who loved the books to be able to do what Jackson has done. Ebert's opinion is inconsequential.

[eureka!]

"I'm going to see this film at 2:30 CST...I'll post my impressions."

Enjoy. I'm going to wait until the crowds go down after the holidays. Happy viewing...

[js1138]

78 reviews available today at rottentomatoes.

[Liberal Classic]

"The Two Towers" will possibly be more popular than the first film, more of an audience-pleaser, but hasn't Jackson lost the original purpose of the story somewhere along the way?

We'll see tonight. The smart money is on Ebert being full of it. When I saw the Fellowship of the Ring movie, I at first felt that Peter Jackson had been less true to the story than he could have been. However, after both reading the series again, as well as seeing the extended version on DVD, I have to say that Jackson did a stellar job. For theatrical audiences, you simply must abbreviate a story of this length. Jackson has managed to condense and adapt without making a complete botch of a movie. This in and of itself deserves credit, but when you consider his creation is to the liking of both Tolkien fans and the average movie-goer alike, you realize just how big of a stunt he pulled off.

[eureka!]

Thanks js. card, see #25 ...

[js1138]

Rottentomatoes is the best movie site in existence. They even collect online reviews for old movies. Their only failing is they don't archive reviews. If the host deletetes the review, it's gone. If you need membership in the host website, you've got to join.

[what's up]

He did an absolutely fabulous job.

He picked out just the right parts and remained amazingly true to the spirit of the book in the short 3 hours that he had.

[Rummyfan]

Hey Ebert .... his name is Gollum, not 'The Gollum'.....

[LdSentinal]

Ebert is a lazy, ignorant reviewer with very little to say, as is obvious enough from this review. Basically his job is to say what is expected of him by the movie industry, but he doesn't do it very well.

Don't forget the Ebert is a lefti-commie at heart. Remember hsi review of the liberal trash, "The Contender"? He called it a gutsy movie that told the truth and gave it 4 stars.

Ebert gave the first movie 3 stars and now the second. He's an idiot.

[Rummyfan]

From reading this review, I would say Ebert has not read the trilogy, but then he complains that Jackson didn't stay true to Tolkien. Huh?

[Rummyfan]

LOL!

Ian McKellan I guess???

[r9etb]

Is the sensitive elf Legolas (Orlando Bloom) cruising hunky Aragorn? Fellowship, to be sure…

LOL! It's always fun to see the results of people who approach literary deconstructionism through the lens of promiscuous homosexuality.

[BADROTOFINGER]

You know, I was planning on doing the same thing, but so many theaters are reel hopping this flick (showing on multiple screens) that crowding might not be a big issue. If you get the free time early, you might go check it out...JFK

[My2Cents]

I said it a year ago, that if Peter Jackson had wanted LOTR/FOTR to win the Oscar for Best Picture, he should have had Frodo suffering from a mental illness, Sam have AIDS, Gandolf be a Latino (Gandolfo), Merry and Pippin as gay lovers, Gimli as a bluecollar activist against corporate elven greed, Arwen do a nude scene, and Sauron be played by Rush Limbaugh.

[My2Cents]

Hey Ebert .... his name is Gollum, not 'The Gollum'..

He probably calls Batman, "the Batman."