I disagree. I felt like he was more the realist. Ebert was more the idealist. Roger could be transported back to his youth and age of innocence to appreciate a movie like this. Gene peered on as a buttoned up adult, obsessing about political correctness before it was ever cool.
@@xiiixxix5504 Lol I know what Gandalf was cause I'm a fan dumbass. But as a movie critic he can't possibly know that cause it's not mentioned. And you say "Should know what a wizard is" when LOTR is the only place Wizards are like that. Fuck outta here.
@josephthemighty fucking moron he died in the first movie then came back how the hell else do you explain don’t comment and try to act cool like mr know it all @VirtuaSavage y’all just made fools of your selves L for y’all don’t know jack shit get the fuck outta here losers come at me again and I’ll Fucking own you
Amazing that Ebert would live 10 more years past this Review. He was already ill here but just kept going. Rest in Peace Sir and Gene Siskel. They were indeed a fondly remembered part of growing up and enjoying movies. They were taken far too soon.
They aren’t perfect movies but imo they still are the greatest movies ever made. Just every strength magnifies the strengths of every other part and creates a sum so much greater than its parts that no movie or series can hope to reach such heights. One thing that’s amazing to me looking back at fellowship in particular is that the CGi is clearly using outdated graphics and techniques. They are using just cut out, saturate and key frame effects that you could do in flash player at parts. But at the same time you look at it and go no one has ever used that technique and done it better before or since. It is the absolute pinnacle of special effects of its time and will never be dated because the flaws of the technology are overcome by the pure artistry and mastery of the people using them. Watch the rock fall through the staircase in Moria. That is just a cut out of a picture of a rock moving through the frame. It’s not even a cgi rock it’s just a 2D image. It looks absofuckinglutely perfect. Nothing about its movement is off. Nothing about how it interacts with the stairs is off. The only thing that’s a bit off is it’s color and that’s just the technology at the time. It absolutely astounds me.
The way this trilogy was shot, where parts of 3 were shot before 1 etc. You can't do it justice by reviewing it three separate times. I think you need to judge it as one long epic movie. I think the Academy got it right by awarding it just about everything after the third installment. Those awards weren't just for ROTK, it was for all three, seen as one piece.
My wife and my youngest daughter insist on watching all three extended cuts about twice a year. On the other hand, I can't remember the last time we watched any of the Hobbit movies.
I think the Hobbit trilogy takes more flak then it deserves. It is really good - just not the epic masterpiece that is the Lord of the Rings Movies. Compared to all the other fantasy and sci fi movies out there the Hobbit Trilogy stacks up pretty well.
LOL Roeper is still dealing with the fact that he gave Fellowship of the Ring a thumbs-down. Half of what he says here, when he isn't praising the entire series, is him trying to weasel around about panning part one. Ha.
Roeper said is was a film about "a silly little ring" after the first film. That's a big change that he should have addressed more clearly in this review.
@LycanVonWolf I agree with your statement for the most part, but they never do that. Especially if it's a well known novel, they always feel the need to compare
Funk O'Matic Wow lol, you’re offended... i’m sure you’re unfamiliar with countless classics yourself. To say you’re dumb and clueless because you don’t like a particular story is showing the closed-off and ignorant person you are. And btw I am a huge LOTR fan, I just don’t get offended and butthurt when people disagree with me
they probably didn't know that gandalf isn't really a physical being, just a spirit given physical form. if you've only read the trilogy it doesn't really explain the lore of what's going on with the maiar etc. I didn't know until I was way older that Sauron and Gandalf are the same race
Goes to show you he has zero clue about this movie. He wrote a 3.5 star review on his website instead of a 4, Ebert. Are you kidding me? He missed the boat on this one. He didn’t get the allegories and was upset at the lack of realism LOL. Flabbergasting. JRR Tolkien was a genius. They missed the depth.
@@edenvincent4527 well said same here! Debatable also that balrogs and dragons and just one Uber powerful Orc were first Maiar twisted by Morgoth . Once my brain discovered the similarian 🤯
@@rollotomassi4768 Actually, Its not Peters fault how it went(even if I liked the first two movies very much) . He spontaneously took the directing job over and hasnt had the normal time of pre production. Because of that, he stood under constant time pressure and couldn't develop this movie with his full passion
The Lord of the Rings trilogy is one of the best film trilogies of all time. Some people ignorantly write them off as being overlong just because they get easily bored when sitting down to watch 3 hour movies, especially a fantasy epic like this one. But they’re brilliant as a technical milestone and a narrative story. Anybody who says these movies are not good are out of their ever-loving minds. They will go down as some of the greatest achievements in film history period. I always thought Roeper was a fraud.
Really like this review as it's from two people that have been turned around as non fans into people that appreciate what was done. While people are pointing out what they got wrong lore wise (the Gandalf bit, etc) the fact that they can readily identify all the characters by name and enjoy all three LONG fantasy movies as a whole while not being fans is pretty remarkable. All that on top of what they do for a living, too.
While I liked Roger Ebert, he had a terrible tendency to miss very important plot points and hold those misunderstandings against films. It should have been obvious Gandalf is NOT just some old man. I am also pretty sure Ebert has no idea Gandalf died and was reborn between parts 1&2.
Excellent points, but if he missed these points it's a mark against the movies. Jackson should have made a better attempt to make these things clearer. And remind people with flash backs or something.
@@nosuchthing8 Depends. I didn't miss those points and I think that as the vast majority of viewers followed it, Jackson did enough. As a person who'd read the book, it's hard to know for sure, but I lay this particular miss on Ebert.
Jack The Film Fanatic Ebert only gave the trilogy a mildly good review though and Roeper disliking the first one, made him lose his credibility. The LOTR trilogy is excellent and all three movies are pieces of art. The Hobbit Trilogy was a bit disappointing though.
I dunno, he acknowledges that he didn't get into it until half way through the two towers. I think it's perfectly valid to think that you don't like something and then have your opinion change as more context is added
I just got back from a marathon of all three extended films (including short intermissions) and they were right, it was exactly 12 hours long. Really enjoyed them! The scope and scale of Peter Jackson's vision are amazing. The pinnacle of high fantasy filmmaking.
Simple economics say so. They got a big talented ensemble cast to sign contracts for three movies so they could not hold out for more money for the sequels. That would have upped the budget enormously. Also in twenty years not heard a single member of the cast complain about that.
Hahah, Roeper starts out like "meh" on Fellowship, then as he reaches this movie, he's like "Okay.. okay.. Well, this is.. this is good. This - this right here... this is good...."
Yep. He can die in a battle with a Balrog and be back in time for supper. I like the story, but if I look at it too closely, it uses a lot of ad hoc quasi-religious magic. Yes, Tolkien was a devout Catholic. I can think the plot devices are ridiculous and still love it for the same reason I think religious music (e.g., Bach) is beautiful. What it is not is an actual history -- it's just Eru Iluvatar entertaining itself. It's a fantasy.
I personally prefer the extended cut of The Fellowship of The Ring. Ive never felt so immersed in this universe. And I think they made Legolas, Gimli and Aragorn into untouchable superheroes by The Return of the King. Remember how tense the battle was in Fellowship when Boromir was killed??
i cant fault Roger too much as im not sure the films really get it across. but Gandalf is not an elderly human, he is a much more powerful and older entity that simply takes on the appearance of an elderly man. if i recall correctly Gandalf and the Balrog are actually the same thing, they justy chose different forms to appear in. i also have to say as far as confusion between characters. my father was a huge Tolkien fan and when i was a child he took me to see the old animated films in the theater. in those films Boromir looked like a big burly Viking and Aragorn looked sort of like a Native American in a Robin Hood like outfit. as much as i love the books and films, i have to admit the first 3 or 4 times i watched the fellowship before the other films came out. i was having a really hard time remembering which one was Aragorn and which one was Boromir. likewise i had some problems with Merry and Pippin.
One of the rare times films did justice to the literature. Quite unlike the Hobbit adaptation, which bore little resemblance to the book and which relied on special effects to a tedious degree. Tolkien has been called the literary giant of the 20th century. I'm glad this LOR film series was done
You guys are too quick too judge these reviewers but you have to know that literally NO ONE at the time could even comprehend what was happening on screen except maybe few diehard tolkien fans who were genuinely upset with Hollywood treatment of their favourite books (read up any old forum discussions after first movie came out and see for yourself). I remember being a kid ang going to cinema with my parents for this movie. I loved it, even though i had 0 clue what was going on, I just loved all the sword action and cool shots. But my parents were absolutely dumbfounded: What tf are elves, who are hobbits, why there are so many monsters, orcs, why the movie is so dark ??? The entirely new fantasy genre was born that day and it took everyone by surprise. It took decades for it to settle down and for everyone to learn it.
3:00 well, I guess Roger wasn’t much of a Tolkien geek. “He looks like a very old man, with his beard...” Indeed, he looked like an old man, and while yes he was *extremely* old, he was not a man by a long shot. Before taking the guise of a wizened old man and embarking to middle earth, he was a Maia, a very powerful angel-like being named Olorin in Valinor.
@@DefenestrateYourself yes. I’m aware of that. This is why the very first sentence of my comment contains the words “Well, I guess Roger was’t much of a Tolkien geek...” which I thought made it pretty clear I was referencing something outside the movies, but ok.
when they say they arent really Tolkien fans i dont know what to think, i mean whats that have to do with a series of spectacular films. i personally am not big on gangster films, but a lot of people will tell you The Godfather is the greatest film ever. i dont really like prison films, but onenight i reluctantly saw Shawshank Redemption and i had an entire emotional experience.
Ebert obviously doesn’t understand (just as I ddnt either), that Gandalf isn’t human, he’s a Maia spirit inside this body, so his power is limited somewhat, he’s actually from the same tier as Sauron 👌🏼 but they ddnt get into that in the films, that’s a whole level of detail that just wouldn’t fit into the movies
While obviously Peter Jackson couldn't put ALL the background material in, I think when Gandalf returns from death, the way it's portrayed on-screen, it's pretty apparent he's more than human.
If you had read the books, you would know that the Wizards (Ishtari) only appear as old men. You would also know that Arwen is not in the books, only in the appendices. By the way, I never really like critics. They are just voicing their own opinions and you know what they say about opinions. Glad they liked the movie anyway.
I have the opposite reaction. I always thought Ebert was a better writer than a critic. I love reading him when he's talking about his childhood, his travels, his friendships, his love of books, etc. But I mean his criticism of Gandalf in this segment is ridiculous, betrays his ignorance, and is fairly typical of a lot of his reviews.
I think it's a bit unfair to say that it's stupid that gandalf was very fast and strong in this movie, as Tolkien explains that gandalf is a 2000 year old wizard and the form of an old man was given to him to make him appear as kind and humble. But I guess it shows that neither of them have read or looked at any Tolkien literature
Paul McManus Actually Gandalf is a lot older than 2000 years. He’s a Maiar, which is basically a demigod, and is well over 8k years old, possibly older.
joke about the endings all you want. I do too. but the story doesn't just end with the ring in the fires of Mt. Doom each ending shows you something important to make the arcs complete, and to help you cope with the end and with saying goodbye... IT's emotional catharsis.
Roeper went full circle on these movies, he gave the first one a thumbs down and for the second one he reluctantly liked the second one and now in the third one he says it should get a standing ovation
If Ebert had bothered to read the books, he would have learned that Gandalf is a Maya, an angelic being who has taken the form of an old man but possesses all the power and energy of his station.
Lord of The Rings: The Return of the King turns 20!!! Made $377 million domestically and $763 million worldwide Won 11 Oscar's including best picture of 2003 tying with Titanic and Ben-Hur for the most wins Stinks my sister Cara and I had to wait to see it in January 2004 cause my mom and dad wouldn't take us while on vacation This remains the absolute best of the trilogy ranking as one of the best fantasy movies of all-time proving the genre could be recognized 20 actors including Elijah Wood, Sean Astin, Andy Serkis, Ian McKellan, Christopher Lee, Orlando Bloom, John Rhys-Davies, Viggo Mortensen, Cate Blanchett, Brad Dourif, Dominic Monaghan, Liv Tyler, Hugo Weaving, Ian Holm, Bernard Lee, Karl Urban, Miranda Otto, David Wenham, Billy Boyd, and John Noble all reprise their respective roles for the last time Jackson manages to make everything bigger and better adding more to this mythology while also closing many story arcs in the process The cast is excellent as always, the special effects look the best they’ve ever been up to this point, Howard Shore’s score continues to be sweeping and rather emotional, the costumes and the set designs are pitch perfect, all the heroes and villains are well-established, and the pacing never falters Minas Tirith is my absolute favorite location with its white walls and architecture, the battle of Pelennor Fields is the best action scene in the entire trilogy, I’m glad Pippin gets more to do to make up for his clumsy decisions serving as a member of guard of the Citadel, Eowyn gets to fight serving her countrymen, and this successfully wraps everything up in a nice bow I was truly crying at plenty of moments that were tragic but also rightfully worth it saying goodbye to this beloved trilogy and these characters Yes the filmmakers rearranged some story elements and certain parts are cut out to make it narratively better plus it stretches over 3 hours which might be tiring for most viewers but it still translates into an amazing adaptation There can be no victory without suffering, no triumph without loss, no freedom without sacrifice, war is just plain awful, a day may come when the courage of men fails but not today, in the future there is death but there is also life, much must be risked in war, hope is kindle Jackson and his team have done the impossible by making an unfilmmable book series into something else entirely setting a high mark for the Hollywood industry for modern blockbusters It’s actually amazing he got it done in a timely manner with so many things working against him from reshoots, editing, press commitments, and defying expectations from fans In truth this is his favorite of the three films and I would agree it’s the most emotional concluding an expansive story already established by two films prior Peter Jackson, his cast and crew will forever have left their mark on Hollywood bringing one of the biggest film franchises to life thanks to state-of-the-art special effects wizardry next to influential storytelling that future filmmakers would follow
Colin Baker if you watched the films you would realise that they explored the theme of ‘’everyone should take part in the war’’ with the ents. Plus 30 more minutes isn’t necassery for the longest movie ever. It would also feel anti climactic. When will people learn, that films arent made the same way that books are. Somthings just don’t... fit
Andreas Noraberg Tom Bombadil didn’t fit, and no, I don’t expect the film to stick completely to the book. It’s just that that sequence was a huge surprise which the film audience were denied, and if you’re talking about too much content, the Pelennor Fields sequences could have been shorter. I could do without Orlando Bloom leaping on elephants for one thing.
Absolutely correct. As Gandalf tells the hobbits, "it's what you've been trained for". They needed to get out into Middle Earth to learn to come closer to their own country. Unnecessary in a generic action film, but indispensable in an adaptation of the Lord Of The Rings.
@@bookon999 And film, as in celluloid is an analog medium so it doesn't have resolution like digital, so it isn't really restricted by HD formats. So seeing films back in the day in a cinema really was the definitive experience.
@@filmbuff2777 I saw 2001 in 70mm and nothing compares to that. The actual film is better, not just the presentation, because the scope afforded by that sized screen sweeps you up and takes what came be a slow film on TV and makes it a perfectly paced film in a theater.
Every looked at Gandalf and just saw an old man, he neglected the fact that a recently resurrected super wizard probably isn't as bound by an old physical body as a human lmao
What Rodger doesn't understand is that Gandalf is not an old man. He is a magic character that took on the image of an old man. For those who don't know you should go to some LOTR channels and learn who Gandalf really is AND what he REALLY looks like. You would be surprised.
@@rollotomassi4768 It's not in the movie but the wizards were told by the Valar (basically gods) not to lead by power and to not show their power in combat if I remember correctly.
@@malafakka8530 In the second movie Gandalf says "Three hundred lives of men I have walked this earth". So the viewer can guess he is thousands of years old.
I can only hope Roger was playing here at not understanding Gandalf's true nature - to draw a parallel to Christian theology, he was essentially an Angel Of The Lord, which is why he was unaffected by the trials of age.
I don't think the films are explicit about Gandalf's nature, right? We know that he can resurrect, and we know he has special powers, but I can imagine someone untutored in the saga reading those as sorcerer powers instead of something more (that he's a Maiar).
@Dexter White Tolkien deliberately wrote the Hobbit for his chidren to enjoy. That's why it mostly appeals to younger readers. The Lord of the Rings, however, are different from the Hobbit in style and substance and aimed towards an adult audience. If you have never read it, I strongly suggest you do, it is by no means a children's book.
While I really liked Ebert's willingness to defy common wisdom and actually like movies he was supposed to hate like all the other pretentious movie critics did, he also could be almost purposefully obtuse about the most obvious things. Like, thinking Gandalf is just an old man who is inexplicably athletic. Hello, Roger? Did you sleep through the previous 6 hours of the trilogy? Do you also think Michael Corleone is merely inexplicably morose and Dorothy's house is inexplicably airborne?
well...he didn't like fellowship...so he can suck it. I mean of course you can not like a movie of course but i think he realized what a terrible mistake he had made because everyone else loved it and so he did a 180. But i don't forget nor forgive xd
I don’t need a review to watch this film, it’s definitely my favorite movie no contest. Phillips boyens, Fran walsh, Richard Taylor and peter Jackson are geniuses
Yeah the part of the movie lacking realism is a snarky comment when they know the movie is a fantasy/modern myth. Gandalf is a wizard who literary came back from death in the previous movie, obviously showing that he came back as a more powerful wizard than before and Ebert is like 'how can this old man outrun everyone?' That pretty much made him sound dumb.
Uh, excuse me?! He can't understand how Gandalf, a reincarnated wizard, can do physically tiring things??? It's really not that hard to understand. I think he was just trying to find something, anything bad to say about the film.
Ebert must be in pain. His jaw looks bad, downright scary. I'm currently going through radiation treatment for the same thing and I'm scared sh*tless. Cancer is ugly, but the powers that be allow this to continue.
Man, I hope that I've never seen so many movies that it makes me loose my wonder like these two obviously have. I get it, these two's idea of great cinema is some black and white, six hour foreign surge about some guy who gets his bicycle stolen. Yet c'mon guys, if suspension of disbelief is beyond you, hang it up.
He actually did give a vehement thumbs down to Fellowship, even when Ebert asked if at least respected the scale. It’s truly one of the more mind boggling critical rejections I’ve heard
Which is why I can't tell if he's being genuine with his review of The Two Towers and Return of the King or just wanting to be part of the crowd. I don't mind him not liking the films if he's at least being genuine. I always imagined that if you weren't going to like the first one, you certainly weren't going to like the sequels.
I'm sorry, yeah - an angelic being created before the universe was made manifest, in robes, riding literally the best horse in the universe... surely knights in armour on regular destriers would be faster?
Matthew Jay Evans Just that he slaughtered " The fellowship of the Ring" and ignored the source material. I also remember being dissapointed walking out of the cinema after the first Movie, but i quickly reminded myself that it was only the first installment, and more were to come. Roeper reviewed the Movie as if it was a single standalone Movie, and ripped it to pieces. Now suddenly he's had an epiphany and loves it, and the finished trilogy? I don't buy it. And if he truly was unfamiliar With the Source material he hasn't done the Research he should have done as a Movie reviewer.
@Malcolm Nightshade No, of course he shouldn't lie about his opinions. My main objection is the disdain with which he treated the first movie, turned to respect and awe for the third movie. It's the inconsistency that troubles me. He admits that he had to get halfway through the second movie, before he began to care about the characters. That's ok, but as a critic you should treat each picture with a modicum of neutrality, and he didn't. A couple of quotes from the review of the first movie to illustrate my point: "[...]Frodo the hobbit character who is in this little elfin world, or whatever [...] And they're all going after this silly little ring that makes People go ooh evil." And now a couple of quotes from this review: " Frodo is so bruised and battered as he tries to deliver the one ring to its rightful destiny[…] I relished every hard fought victory, i felt the sting of each crushing loss." The wording is totally different. One is dripping with disdain, the other filled with respect.
@@Abbadonhades I felt the same way when I watched this review. I didn't see the review for the 2nd film. I watched this and was like 'what a minute didn't this guy piss all over the 1st film"? Now he's a fanboy? F him. Jumped on the band wagon when he realized he fucked up the 1st review.
watching Roeper's courage diminish over the time when critiquing these movies is sad and entertaining to watch. Roeper had the audacity to trash 'the fellowship', even before reading a page of the books back in 2000. watching this is satisfying.
the extended version of fellowship is pretty good, but the editing of the theater version is really frenetic, and it's my guess why he started off negative. It was so fast and so much information, you were never allowed to get involved with the characters.
@@DefenestrateYourself Precisely; he reviewed the movies. In the context of having already seen Gandalf go toe to toe with a Cave Troll in Fellowship, and a Balrog in Two Towers, that is a positively daft inference.
Siskel would have loved the lord of rings trilogy.
I agree. He always like sci-fi and fantasy a little more than Ebert did.
I disagree. I felt like he was more the realist. Ebert was more the idealist. Roger could be transported back to his youth and age of innocence to appreciate a movie like this. Gene peered on as a buttoned up adult, obsessing about political correctness before it was ever cool.
@@HarrisonHollers Gene Siskel loved Starship Troopers. Roger Ebert hated it. He made fun of Siskel for liking it.
@@bobbya9722 I think the two were extremely competitive and somewhat combative which made them television gold. GOLD!
Eeeeaaaahhhmmm.....
I'm not sure.
He doesn’t get that Gandalf is a thousand year old Maia, who just happens to take the form of an old man while on Arda. He is not actually an old man.
How could he know that, it's not explained in the movie at all.
VirtuaSavage should know what a wizard is dummie
He’s just hating on elders
@@xiiixxix5504 Lol I know what Gandalf was cause I'm a fan dumbass. But as a movie critic he can't possibly know that cause it's not mentioned. And you say "Should know what a wizard is" when LOTR is the only place Wizards are like that. Fuck outta here.
@josephthemighty fucking moron he died in the first movie then came back how the hell else do you explain don’t comment and try to act cool like mr know it all
@VirtuaSavage y’all just made fools of your selves L for y’all don’t know jack shit get the fuck outta here losers come at me again and I’ll
Fucking own you
Amazing that Ebert would live 10 more years past this Review. He was already ill here but just kept going. Rest in Peace Sir and Gene Siskel. They were indeed a fondly remembered part of growing up and enjoying movies. They were taken far too soon.
Sitting in the chair camera right is a sign.
Absolute masterpiece. Greatest trilogy of all time.
They aren’t perfect movies but imo they still are the greatest movies ever made. Just every strength magnifies the strengths of every other part and creates a sum so much greater than its parts that no movie or series can hope to reach such heights.
One thing that’s amazing to me looking back at fellowship in particular is that the CGi is clearly using outdated graphics and techniques. They are using just cut out, saturate and key frame effects that you could do in flash player at parts. But at the same time you look at it and go no one has ever used that technique and done it better before or since. It is the absolute pinnacle of special effects of its time and will never be dated because the flaws of the technology are overcome by the pure artistry and mastery of the people using them. Watch the rock fall through the staircase in Moria. That is just a cut out of a picture of a rock moving through the frame. It’s not even a cgi rock it’s just a 2D image. It looks absofuckinglutely perfect. Nothing about its movement is off. Nothing about how it interacts with the stairs is off. The only thing that’s a bit off is it’s color and that’s just the technology at the time. It absolutely astounds me.
Get the fuck out of here, get the absolute fuck out of here. The Godfather trilogy, period.
@@GregoryAlanBaileygamereviews If it wasn't for GF3 I'd agree with you. Those first two Godfather movies are extraordinary.
@@Alphabunsquaddisagree this trilogy destroys Star Wars too
LotR trilogy is a snoozefest. most overrated trilogy of all time
The way this trilogy was shot, where parts of 3 were shot before 1 etc. You can't do it justice by reviewing it three separate times. I think you need to judge it as one long epic movie. I think the Academy got it right by awarding it just about everything after the third installment. Those awards weren't just for ROTK, it was for all three, seen as one piece.
Is there a way to edit all 3 as one film like you can kinda do with Back to the Future?
You know when people say that Gandalf is just an old man and should be slower, it's my cue to quit the video.
Sam is the true hero of this story
I take it I’m not the only one who just watched all 3 reviews in a row? 😂
My wife and my youngest daughter insist on watching all three extended cuts about twice a year. On the other hand, I can't remember the last time we watched any of the Hobbit movies.
@@carlrosenzweig1867 im watching the LOTR extended as we speak 😆
I initially came here then saw your comment and went back haha what a ride
@@joefriedman9843 haha right!? It’s just Roeper getting humbled by the undeniable awesomeness of these films
I think the Hobbit trilogy takes more flak then it deserves. It is really good - just not the epic masterpiece that is the Lord of the Rings Movies. Compared to all the other fantasy and sci fi movies out there the Hobbit Trilogy stacks up pretty well.
Return of the king is one of the best movies ever made
Take out “one of” and the s in “movies” and you will be accurate.
All three lord of the rings are together the greatest piece of cinema in human history
Add "for me"
LOL Roeper is still dealing with the fact that he gave Fellowship of the Ring a thumbs-down. Half of what he says here, when he isn't praising the entire series, is him trying to weasel around about panning part one. Ha.
Jerk ass critics.
Fellowship is the best of the trilogy IMO
@@JezaLoki someone hurt your feelings nerd?
@@Nathan-gd7xq oh no!! A bully on the internet!! He's so tough
🤣🤣🤣
@@JezaLoki oh no! Someone who can dish it out but not take it on the internet!!!
@@Nathan-gd7xq ok tough guy
Roeper said is was a film about "a silly little ring" after the first film. That's a big change that he should have addressed more clearly in this review.
@LycanVonWolf I agree with your statement for the most part, but they never do that. Especially if it's a well known novel, they always feel the need to compare
@Funk O'Matic
Yes sire you made your Sylef clear..
I agreed with you
@Funk O'Matic
But my be he not read the lotr nonvls
Funk O'Matic You’re not obligated to like a movie... he found the concept silly but he was in the minority, the movie is like 92% on rotten tomatoes
Funk O'Matic Wow lol, you’re offended... i’m sure you’re unfamiliar with countless classics yourself. To say you’re dumb and clueless because you don’t like a particular story is showing the closed-off and ignorant person you are. And btw I am a huge LOTR fan, I just don’t get offended and butthurt when people disagree with me
Weird to harp on Gandalf’s physical aptitude. Like he’s a wizard... ya think maybe there’s something else going on there?
they probably didn't know that gandalf isn't really a physical being, just a spirit given physical form. if you've only read the trilogy it doesn't really explain the lore of what's going on with the maiar etc. I didn't know until I was way older that Sauron and Gandalf are the same race
Goes to show you he has zero clue about this movie. He wrote a 3.5 star review on his website instead of a 4, Ebert. Are you kidding me? He missed the boat on this one. He didn’t get the allegories and was upset at the lack of realism LOL. Flabbergasting. JRR Tolkien was a genius. They missed the depth.
@@edenvincent4527 well said same here! Debatable also that balrogs and dragons and just one Uber powerful Orc were first Maiar twisted by Morgoth . Once my brain discovered the similarian 🤯
15 years since this movie came out and it is STILL brilliant. One of the best of all time. Period.
I agree. It's my favorite film of all time.
I’ve always love this trilogy
This trilogy was the second coming of Star Wars. It will be a classic forever.
Even though I can watch it anytime , if I run across it in a cable channel, I’m screwed.
I remember openly weeping in the theater at the end of "Return of the King". The one and only occasion in my life.
Gay
"My friends... You bow to no one."
Getting VHS of this when i was on school trip, going home and watching it was the best day of my life.
“ Mr Jackson what ending are we going to use”
Peter Jackson “ Yes”
Peter Jackson put so much time, effort, and passion into LOTR. I think he just didnt have it in him to do the same for the Hobbit movies.
@@rollotomassi4768 the “ Hobbit “ Trilogy was nothing but a cash grab.
I never understood the complains about the long endings
@@rollotomassi4768 Actually, Its not Peters fault how it went(even if I liked the first two movies very much) . He spontaneously took the directing job over and hasnt had the normal time of pre production. Because of that, he stood under constant time pressure and couldn't develop this movie with his full passion
Readers of the book(s) know he cut out several endings and shorted all the rest.
The Lord of the Rings trilogy is one of the best film trilogies of all time. Some people ignorantly write them off as being overlong just because they get easily bored when sitting down to watch 3 hour movies, especially a fantasy epic like this one. But they’re brilliant as a technical milestone and a narrative story. Anybody who says these movies are not good are out of their ever-loving minds. They will go down as some of the greatest achievements in film history period. I always thought Roeper was a fraud.
Gandalf merely looked like an old man. He was anything but.
Really like this review as it's from two people that have been turned around as non fans into people that appreciate what was done. While people are pointing out what they got wrong lore wise (the Gandalf bit, etc) the fact that they can readily identify all the characters by name and enjoy all three LONG fantasy movies as a whole while not being fans is pretty remarkable. All that on top of what they do for a living, too.
I agree, the movies are so good that even if you’ve never heard of Tolkien before the movies hold up on their own.
“Maybe the DVD release will be 12 hours” bingo.extended editions. The best 12 hours you’ll ever spend watching a trilogy.
While I liked Roger Ebert, he had a terrible tendency to miss very important plot points and hold those misunderstandings against films. It should have been obvious Gandalf is NOT just some old man. I am also pretty sure Ebert has no idea Gandalf died and was reborn between parts 1&2.
Excellent points, but if he missed these points it's a mark against the movies. Jackson should have made a better attempt to make these things clearer. And remind people with flash backs or something.
@@nosuchthing8 Depends. I didn't miss those points and I think that as the vast majority of viewers followed it, Jackson did enough. As a person who'd read the book, it's hard to know for sure, but I lay this particular miss on Ebert.
"With resolutions coming one after another after another..." Yup, all those endings!
It doesn't get much better than Ebert & Roeper.
Yeah it does, Ebert and Siskel
Twenty years later and I still have no idea what the Hell is going on with the Elves
Roger…he could grasp a lot…except the ability of a wizard
Thank god they finally appreciated this work of art.
Jack The Film Fanatic Ebert only gave the trilogy a mildly good review though and Roeper disliking the first one, made him lose his credibility. The LOTR trilogy is excellent and all three movies are pieces of art. The Hobbit Trilogy was a bit disappointing though.
Sounds like they should have read the books. They would love the films even more.
Hilarious watching roeper pretend he didn’t completely trash the first movie, which ironically was the best out of the 3
when I heard him start praising this movie I nearly fell out of my chair. what a douche bag
@@supermariozombies4824 so transparent
I dunno, he acknowledges that he didn't get into it until half way through the two towers. I think it's perfectly valid to think that you don't like something and then have your opinion change as more context is added
Agreed I honestly think it is the best out of the 3, fellowship was awesome, second and third one not so much,,
+Jack Reilly You like Fellowship best? I see you too are a man of taste
I just got back from a marathon of all three extended films (including short intermissions) and they were right, it was exactly 12 hours long. Really enjoyed them! The scope and scale of Peter Jackson's vision are amazing. The pinnacle of high fantasy filmmaking.
This is the best of the trilogy. Hands down.
There won't be another movie made like this again, and arguable there never was before.
Simple economics say so. They got a big talented ensemble cast to sign contracts for three movies so they could not hold out for more money for the sequels. That would have upped the budget enormously. Also in twenty years not heard a single member of the cast complain about that.
Hahah, Roeper starts out like "meh" on Fellowship, then as he reaches this movie, he's like "Okay.. okay.. Well, this is.. this is good. This - this right here... this is good...."
Better late than never.
Not all people read the books and loved it from the beginning i had a slow appreciation for it as well
Gandalf isn't an "old man." He's a Mair with the appearance of an old man. He can physically keep up with younger Men.
Yep. He can die in a battle with a Balrog and be back in time for supper. I like the story, but if I look at it too closely, it uses a lot of ad hoc quasi-religious magic. Yes, Tolkien was a devout Catholic. I can think the plot devices are ridiculous and still love it for the same reason I think religious music (e.g., Bach) is beautiful. What it is not is an actual history -- it's just Eru Iluvatar entertaining itself. It's a fantasy.
I personally prefer the extended cut of The Fellowship of The Ring. Ive never felt so immersed in this universe. And I think they made Legolas, Gimli and Aragorn into untouchable superheroes by The Return of the King. Remember how tense the battle was in Fellowship when Boromir was killed??
I only wish I had been old enough at the time to enjoy these in the theatre.
i cant fault Roger too much as im not sure the films really get it across. but Gandalf is not an elderly human, he is a much more powerful and older entity that simply takes on the appearance of an elderly man. if i recall correctly Gandalf and the Balrog are actually the same thing, they justy chose different forms to appear in.
i also have to say as far as confusion between characters. my father was a huge Tolkien fan and when i was a child he took me to see the old animated films in the theater. in those films Boromir looked like a big burly Viking and Aragorn looked sort of like a Native American in a Robin Hood like outfit. as much as i love the books and films, i have to admit the first 3 or 4 times i watched the fellowship before the other films came out. i was having a really hard time remembering which one was Aragorn and which one was Boromir. likewise i had some problems with Merry and Pippin.
One of the rare times films did justice to the literature. Quite unlike the Hobbit adaptation, which bore little resemblance to the book and which relied on special effects to a tedious degree. Tolkien has been called the literary giant of the 20th century. I'm glad this LOR film series was done
“ Airwin “ ?! 😂😂😂
🤣🤣🤣
Air Jordan-wen
And "Biggo" Mortenson
Nice to see them finally give this achievement it’s due 👏
You guys are too quick too judge these reviewers but you have to know that literally NO ONE at the time could even comprehend what was happening on screen except maybe few diehard tolkien fans who were genuinely upset with Hollywood treatment of their favourite books (read up any old forum discussions after first movie came out and see for yourself).
I remember being a kid ang going to cinema with my parents for this movie. I loved it, even though i had 0 clue what was going on, I just loved all the sword action and cool shots.
But my parents were absolutely dumbfounded: What tf are elves, who are hobbits, why there are so many monsters, orcs, why the movie is so dark ???
The entirely new fantasy genre was born that day and it took everyone by surprise. It took decades for it to settle down and for everyone to learn it.
The best of the trilogy!
I like how they did address some of their criticisms.
3:00 well, I guess Roger wasn’t much of a Tolkien geek. “He looks like a very old man, with his beard...”
Indeed, he looked like an old man, and while yes he was *extremely* old, he was not a man by a long shot. Before taking the guise of a wizened old man and embarking to middle earth, he was a Maia, a very powerful angel-like being named Olorin in Valinor.
The movies don’t communicate that fact, but ok.
@@DefenestrateYourself yes. I’m aware of that. This is why the very first sentence of my comment contains the words “Well, I guess Roger was’t much of a Tolkien geek...” which I thought made it pretty clear I was referencing something outside the movies, but ok.
OMG I miss him so much. I'm not crying you're crying.
I don't think you're crying.
Gandalf is one of the greatest if not the greatest character ever
Denethors death is still one of my favorite all time movie deaths.
I love the 2nd movie. Just like Empire Strikes Back, it's the dark movie that leaves you wondering if and how the hero(es) are ever going to triumph.
Buuuuuuuutttttt IIIIIIIiiiiiiiiii hattttttttteeeeeeeddddddddddd theeee eeeeeeeeeennnnnntttttsssd
when they say they arent really Tolkien fans i dont know what to think, i mean whats that have to do with a series of spectacular films. i personally am not big on gangster films, but a lot of people will tell you The Godfather is the greatest film ever. i dont really like prison films, but onenight i reluctantly saw Shawshank Redemption and i had an entire emotional experience.
Ebert obviously doesn’t understand (just as I ddnt either), that Gandalf isn’t human, he’s a Maia spirit inside this body, so his power is limited somewhat, he’s actually from the same tier as Sauron 👌🏼 but they ddnt get into that in the films, that’s a whole level of detail that just wouldn’t fit into the movies
While obviously Peter Jackson couldn't put ALL the background material in, I think when Gandalf returns from death, the way it's portrayed on-screen, it's pretty apparent he's more than human.
@@alexandersilady4751 Not apparent enough for many people not versed in fantasy or Tolkien in particular
If you had read the books, you would know that the Wizards (Ishtari) only appear as old men. You would also know that Arwen is not in the books, only in the appendices.
By the way, I never really like critics. They are just voicing their own opinions and you know what they say about opinions. Glad they liked the movie anyway.
Arwen is in the books. She only has one or two scenes but she's there.
@@polyhymnia701 Thank you for reminding me. 👍
Roeper sure came around...
Roger gave this movie 3.5/4 Stars.
Still the greatest cinematic trilogy of all time. Will we one day see a set of films that surpass them? I’m not so sure
Looking at these reviews now, it's really astonishing to see how good of a critic Ebert was.
I have the opposite reaction. I always thought Ebert was a better writer than a critic. I love reading him when he's talking about his childhood, his travels, his friendships, his love of books, etc. But I mean his criticism of Gandalf in this segment is ridiculous, betrays his ignorance, and is fairly typical of a lot of his reviews.
I think it's a bit unfair to say that it's stupid that gandalf was very fast and strong in this movie, as Tolkien explains that gandalf is a 2000 year old wizard and the form of an old man was given to him to make him appear as kind and humble. But I guess it shows that neither of them have read or looked at any Tolkien literature
Paul McManus Actually Gandalf is a lot older than 2000 years. He’s a Maiar, which is basically a demigod, and is well over 8k years old, possibly older.
Totally agree!
I ad the same reaction
How is it stupid if isn't really mentioned in the movies?
Great series
“Maybe it will be 12 hours all together”
joke about the endings all you want. I do too. but the story doesn't just end with the ring in the fires of Mt. Doom each ending shows you something important to make the arcs complete, and to help you cope with the end and with saying goodbye... IT's emotional catharsis.
Roeper went full circle on these movies, he gave the first one a thumbs down and for the second one he reluctantly liked the second one and now in the third one he says it should get a standing ovation
Roeper was always a hack
You can't really blame Ebert for not knowing that Gandalf is not human.
I mean... in the last movie he summoned lightning into his sword came back from the dead. The guy didn't exactly need to read the Silmarillion :)
The Extended Verison of The Lord of the Rings Return of the King is the longest flim of all-time is 4hr and 25min
My only problem: 16 endings! But yes a Great film
Lol true dat
Great movie
If Ebert had bothered to read the books, he would have learned that Gandalf is a Maya, an angelic being who has taken the form of an old man but possesses all the power and energy of his station.
Lord of The Rings: The Return of the King turns 20!!!
Made $377 million domestically and $763 million worldwide
Won 11 Oscar's including best picture of 2003 tying with Titanic and Ben-Hur for the most wins
Stinks my sister Cara and I had to wait to see it in January 2004 cause my mom and dad wouldn't take us while on vacation
This remains the absolute best of the trilogy ranking as one of the best fantasy movies of all-time proving the genre could be recognized
20 actors including Elijah Wood, Sean Astin, Andy Serkis, Ian McKellan, Christopher Lee, Orlando Bloom, John Rhys-Davies, Viggo Mortensen, Cate Blanchett, Brad Dourif, Dominic Monaghan, Liv Tyler, Hugo Weaving, Ian Holm, Bernard Lee, Karl Urban, Miranda Otto, David Wenham, Billy Boyd, and John Noble all reprise their respective roles for the last time
Jackson manages to make everything bigger and better adding more to this mythology while also closing many story arcs in the process
The cast is excellent as always, the special effects look the best they’ve ever been up to this point, Howard Shore’s score continues to be sweeping and rather emotional, the costumes and the set designs are pitch perfect, all the heroes and villains are well-established, and the pacing never falters
Minas Tirith is my absolute favorite location with its white walls and architecture, the battle of Pelennor Fields is the best action scene in the entire trilogy, I’m glad Pippin gets more to do to make up for his clumsy decisions serving as a member of guard of the Citadel, Eowyn gets to fight serving her countrymen, and this successfully wraps everything up in a nice bow
I was truly crying at plenty of moments that were tragic but also rightfully worth it saying goodbye to this beloved trilogy and these characters
Yes the filmmakers rearranged some story elements and certain parts are cut out to make it narratively better plus it stretches over 3 hours which might be tiring for most viewers but it still translates into an amazing adaptation
There can be no victory without suffering, no triumph without loss, no freedom without sacrifice, war is just plain awful, a day may come when the courage of men fails but not today, in the future there is death but there is also life, much must be risked in war, hope is kindle
Jackson and his team have done the impossible by making an unfilmmable book series into something else entirely setting a high mark for the Hollywood industry for modern blockbusters
It’s actually amazing he got it done in a timely manner with so many things working against him from reshoots, editing, press commitments, and defying expectations from fans
In truth this is his favorite of the three films and I would agree it’s the most emotional concluding an expansive story already established by two films prior
Peter Jackson, his cast and crew will forever have left their mark on Hollywood bringing one of the biggest film franchises to life thanks to state-of-the-art special effects wizardry next to influential storytelling that future filmmakers would follow
Everyone has a go at Roper, but Ebert said he preferred the first Harry Potter to FOTR in that review
I don't think Ebert and Roeper understood that Gandalf is not a human being. He's not an old man. I believe he's the same race as the Balrog, a Maiar.
What a pity they left out the Scouring of the Shire, a hugely significant chapter in the book.
Colin Baker if you watched the films you would realise that they explored the theme of ‘’everyone should take part in the war’’ with the ents. Plus 30 more minutes isn’t necassery for the longest movie ever. It would also feel anti climactic. When will people learn, that films arent made the same way that books are. Somthings just don’t... fit
Andreas Noraberg Tom Bombadil didn’t fit, and no, I don’t expect the film to stick completely to the book. It’s just that that sequence was a huge surprise which the film audience were denied, and if you’re talking about too much content, the Pelennor Fields sequences could have been shorter. I could do without Orlando Bloom leaping on elephants for one thing.
Absolutely correct. As Gandalf tells the hobbits, "it's what you've been trained for". They needed to get out into Middle Earth to learn to come closer to their own country. Unnecessary in a generic action film, but indispensable in an adaptation of the Lord Of The Rings.
How did we watch anything before HD?
With our eyes.
For proper aspect ratios and special features, we had laserdiscs.
@@bookon999 And film, as in celluloid is an analog medium so it doesn't have resolution like digital, so it isn't really restricted by HD formats. So seeing films back in the day in a cinema really was the definitive experience.
@@filmbuff2777 I saw 2001 in 70mm and nothing compares to that. The actual film is better, not just the presentation, because the scope afforded by that sized screen sweeps you up and takes what came be a slow film on TV and makes it a perfectly paced film in a theater.
I'm glad Roeper changed his tune
Every looked at Gandalf and just saw an old man, he neglected the fact that a recently resurrected super wizard probably isn't as bound by an old physical body as a human lmao
What Rodger doesn't understand is that Gandalf is not an old man. He is a magic character that took on the image of an old man. For those who don't know you should go to some LOTR channels and learn who Gandalf really is AND what he REALLY looks like. You would be surprised.
How could he understand that if the movie never reveals it?
Even if he were an old man, couldn't he use his magic to be a bad ass. I mean he is a wizard
@@rollotomassi4768 It's not in the movie but the wizards were told by the Valar (basically gods) not to lead by power and to not show their power in combat if I remember correctly.
@@malafakka8530 In the second movie Gandalf says "Three hundred lives of men I have walked this earth". So the viewer can guess he is thousands of years old.
I can only hope Roger was playing here at not understanding Gandalf's true nature - to draw a parallel to Christian theology, he was essentially an Angel Of The Lord, which is why he was unaffected by the trials of age.
I don't think the films are explicit about Gandalf's nature, right? We know that he can resurrect, and we know he has special powers, but I can imagine someone untutored in the saga reading those as sorcerer powers instead of something more (that he's a Maiar).
Fair enough; if he wasn't familiar with the books I could see the lack of clarity.
Dexter White - How do you mean?
@Dexter White Tolkien deliberately wrote the Hobbit for his chidren to enjoy. That's why it mostly appeals to younger readers.
The Lord of the Rings, however, are different from the Hobbit in style and substance and aimed towards an adult audience. If you have never read it, I strongly suggest you do, it is by no means a children's book.
snidelywhiplash yes! As Gandalf the White, he was stronger. A D&D level up theme lost on these guys at the time
While I really liked Ebert's willingness to defy common wisdom and actually like movies he was supposed to hate like all the other pretentious movie critics did, he also could be almost purposefully obtuse about the most obvious things. Like, thinking Gandalf is just an old man who is inexplicably athletic. Hello, Roger? Did you sleep through the previous 6 hours of the trilogy? Do you also think Michael Corleone is merely inexplicably morose and Dorothy's house is inexplicably airborne?
Gandalf isn’t really human. Hence his endurance.
Didn’t Roper give the Fellowship thumbs down?
YES. I've given him crap about it for years.
He's right. It's great as part of the trilogy but as a film itself does it resolve even one of its arcs?
pigs18 It’s the first film of a TRILOGY, it’s not supposed to resolve every plot arc. That’s what the series’ final installment is for
He lost me when he declared he was not a
Tolkien fan
Imagine thinking everyone needs to have the same taste as you 🤮
@@DefenestrateYourself Imagine the ignorance.
Redemption of the Queefwhiff. Today...we spell redemption..."r-o-e"..."p-e-r".
well...he didn't like fellowship...so he can suck it. I mean of course you can not like a movie of course but i think he realized what a terrible mistake he had made because everyone else loved it and so he did a 180. But i don't forget nor forgive xd
@@danielromero432 it's a fucking film opinion you damn flake.
Great movie. I liked two towers more.
I don’t need a review to watch this film, it’s definitely my favorite movie no contest. Phillips boyens, Fran walsh, Richard Taylor and peter Jackson are geniuses
Yeah the part of the movie lacking realism is a snarky comment when they know the movie is a fantasy/modern myth. Gandalf is a wizard who literary came back from death in the previous movie, obviously showing that he came back as a more powerful wizard than before and Ebert is like 'how can this old man outrun everyone?' That pretty much made him sound dumb.
This reminds me why I quit watching Television over 15 years ago. Annoying crap....
*literally
@@DefenestrateYourself haha thanks czcams.com/video/UEaKX9YYHiQ/video.html ^^
Uh, excuse me?! He can't understand how Gandalf, a reincarnated wizard, can do physically tiring things??? It's really not that hard to understand. I think he was just trying to find something, anything bad to say about the film.
Ebert must be in pain. His jaw looks bad, downright scary. I'm currently going through radiation treatment for the same thing and I'm scared sh*tless. Cancer is ugly, but the powers that be allow this to continue.
Man, I hope that I've never seen so many movies that it makes me loose my wonder like these two obviously have.
I get it, these two's idea of great cinema is some black and white, six hour foreign surge about some guy who gets his bicycle stolen. Yet c'mon guys, if suspension of disbelief is beyond you, hang it up.
Ive watched the trilogy at least 13 times.... I'm done.
Does Roeper ever disagree with Ebert? I haven't seen many reviews with Roeper, but he seems like a star struck yes man, no matter which review I watch
He actually did give a vehement thumbs down to Fellowship, even when Ebert asked if at least respected the scale. It’s truly one of the more mind boggling critical rejections I’ve heard
4:09 really Richard? Not Gollum either?
Gandalph is not human
Amazing considering Roeper eviscerated the first one.
Which is why I can't tell if he's being genuine with his review of The Two Towers and Return of the King or just wanting to be part of the crowd. I don't mind him not liking the films if he's at least being genuine. I always imagined that if you weren't going to like the first one, you certainly weren't going to like the sequels.
Lmfao mad because Gandalf the White on Shadowfax is outpacing Knights? Lol
I'm sorry, yeah - an angelic being created before the universe was made manifest, in robes, riding literally the best horse in the universe... surely knights in armour on regular destriers would be faster?
If you have a problem with Gandalf you have a problem with me
Too little too late Roeper.
Abbadon Hades Lol whats that supposed to mean?
Matthew Jay Evans Just that he slaughtered " The fellowship of the Ring" and ignored the source material. I also remember being dissapointed walking out of the cinema after the first Movie, but i quickly reminded myself that it was only the first installment, and more were to come. Roeper reviewed the Movie as if it was a single standalone Movie, and ripped it to pieces. Now suddenly he's had an epiphany and loves it, and the finished trilogy? I don't buy it. And if he truly was unfamiliar With the Source material he hasn't done the Research he should have done as a Movie reviewer.
Abbadon Hades Meh it was 15 years ago. No one gives a fuck anymore.
@Malcolm Nightshade No, of course he shouldn't lie about his opinions. My main objection is the disdain with which he treated the first movie, turned to respect and awe for the third movie. It's the inconsistency that troubles me. He admits that he had to get halfway through the second movie, before he began to care about the characters. That's ok, but as a critic you should treat each picture with a modicum of neutrality, and he didn't.
A couple of quotes from the review of the first movie to illustrate my point: "[...]Frodo the hobbit character who is in this little elfin world, or whatever [...] And they're all going after this silly little ring that makes People go ooh evil."
And now a couple of quotes from this review: " Frodo is so bruised and battered as he tries to deliver the one ring to its rightful destiny[…] I relished every hard fought victory, i felt the sting of each crushing loss." The wording is totally different. One is dripping with disdain, the other filled with respect.
@@Abbadonhades I felt the same way when I watched this review. I didn't see the review for the 2nd film. I watched this and was like
'what a minute didn't this guy piss all over the 1st film"? Now he's a fanboy? F him. Jumped on the band wagon when he realized he fucked up the 1st review.
I liked fellow ship best
Lotr fellowship 👍👎
Two towers 👍👍
Return of the king: oscar winner
I love how they complain about LOTR not being realistic enough! Hahaha!
I guess they never heard of fantasy
People should realize that film critic opinions are virtually irrelevant. All that matters is viewer opinion and what we all like and appreciate.
watching Roeper's courage diminish over the time when critiquing these movies is sad and entertaining to watch. Roeper had the audacity to trash 'the fellowship', even before reading a page of the books back in 2000. watching this is satisfying.
the extended version of fellowship is pretty good, but the editing of the theater version is really frenetic, and it's my guess why he started off negative. It was so fast and so much information, you were never allowed to get involved with the characters.
You don’t have to have read the book to critique a movie based on one.
@@emilepelletier8176 lots of people don't get this in the comments here.
Why is he hating on Ian mckellen
2:01
2:00
Wait...Ebert thinks Gandalf is just some random old man with a magical staff?
Yeah? He reviewed the movies and hadn’t read the books. Not a stupid inference to think an old man has the physical limitations of...an old man.
@@DefenestrateYourself Precisely; he reviewed the movies. In the context of having already seen Gandalf go toe to toe with a Cave Troll in Fellowship, and a Balrog in Two Towers, that is a positively daft inference.