“The overprotective Sam harbors an immediate dislike towards Gollum, but the ever-trusting Frodo, perhaps feeling a kinship for someone who has also had to bear the pressures and consequences of holding the ring, takes pity on the strange, hairless little being. Gollum joins Sam and Frodo, leading them to the fortress of the evil wizard Saruman, played by Christopher Lee.”
Right, right, he’s probably never read the books and Sauron and Saruman have similar names. Still, it pains me to think there’s this national film critic out there who thinks that Isengard and Mordor are the same place. Sigh…
You know, this is almost laughable. From the same review:
“Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli face much more action, intrigue and deception in the Kingdom of Rohan, while Sam and Frodo – who have penetrated the fortress at Barad-dur deep within the dark forests of Mordor – barely survive numerous attempts to kill them and steal the ring.”
Not as bad as the first gaffe, but still. Sam and Frodo penetrate Barad-Dur? Dark forests of Mordor??
The Salon.com review had high praises for the film. The reviewer admits to not reading Tolkien but at least has a good reason - he didn’t want to find out what was happening next.
Having seen the movie, I can see how someone who hadn’t read the books would be confused. There are a lot of names thrown around in the first hour with no context. The audience I saw it with was fidgety as all hell, and a few people even left. Maybe it’s because it was so late, but I don’t know if this one is going to go over as well with the non-Tolkein fan as the first.
As for the lousy CNN review, that is pretty shoddy, but if I hadn’t seen the movie yet I’d probably think the correct reviews were wrong too when they start with things like “And Faramir kidnaps the halflings and takes them to Osgiliath.”
The audience I saw it with was into it from the very beginning. There were lots of cheers, and I swear to God that a good two-thirds of the theatre chanted the “One Ring to rule them all” verse before the movie even began. And there were a lot of people in costume. But people didn’t take the movie as seriously as the first one. There was a lot of laughter, especially during the Gollum scenes, and I’m not sure they were supposed to be that light. I’m really uncertain how the movie’s going to be received over all. It’s got more action, so that might draw more casual moviegoers, though I think the hardcore types who loved the first movie might be turned off. This movie seemed more Hollywood to me, more “screw the source material, we’re filming this our way” than Fellowship. Those obvious lead-in lines you noted in the other thread cemented that for me. But who knows how that’ll affect the film’s reception?
Roger Ebert sounds like the “point man” for all the Tolkein fanboys that just can’t accept the movies(nor could they accept ANY possible adaptation) and are going to try to diss them in any way possible.
I do agree with Ebert to a point. I definitely miss the fact that in the books, the hobbits are portrayed as simple-yet-heroic characters, kind of like the British were during WW2. Affable, pastoral, often underestimated, but able to fight with the best of them in a pinch.
In the movies, the hobbits (especially Frodo) really have very little of that. All the scenes of Frodo’s heroism–his defiance of the Nazgul on Weathertop and at the river ford right after that, etc.–are changed so that now he’s just unconscious (and has to be saved by Arwen) or falls backwards with a look of fear on his face, dropping his sword in the process (and has to be saved by Aragorn). Other than carrying (and fighting) the ring, Frodo doesn’t do one heroic thing in either of the two movies. He spends all his time running for his life, calling for help, or being captured. I like that he has the heroism in being the ring-bearer (especially the voluntary decision to carry it from Rivendell), but I definitely miss the defiant I-may-go-down-but-I’ll-go-down-fighting Frodo from the books.
I don’t know about that. In the first film, the hobbits were never afraid to leap into the thick of things–remember the fight with the troll? The little guys were kicking ass and taking names.
In the Extended version of FOTR you see Merry and Pippin fighting and killing a lot of orcs in the Boromir death scenes as well…not sure why they ended up on the cutting room floor.
Ebert’s analysis is so consistently absurd, and generally diametrically opposed to what I see on the movie screen, that I think he might be the Lord or something.
"In the movies, the hobbits (especially Frodo) really have very little of that. "
“Frodo doesn’t do one heroic thing in either of the two movies.”
In The FOTR he does the most heroic thing of anybody. At the counsel while everybody is arguing he stands up and says he will take the ring to Mordor. Then when the Fellowship is breaking up at the end he knows he has to go off on his own because of the destructive influence of the ring. Then there’s examples of Merry and Pippen jumping into the fray with the troll and at the end battle by getting the orcs to follow them so Frodo can get away. You are about as for off base with those comments as you can get.
I mentioned his carrying the ring, and specifically his volunteering to carry it from Rivendell, as exceptions, if you read my post. And I agree that it’s not as bad with Merry and Pippin, because at least they help fight the troll (and Sam bashes a couple orcs with his pan). My main complaint (as I said) is with Frodo, who does nothing in any of the fights except fall over and get saved by other characters. Even the other hobbits, though, are not that brave or good in a fight (in the theatrical release). Sometimes they put up their dukes, but they get instantly swept aside. And Frodo never even gets that far.
It’s not like they don’t ROLL OUT A DAMN MAP in the movie, pointing to it and saying “Saruman attacks from the west, Mordor from the East…” and such.
Re: Ebert - I still really like the way he writes reviews. He’s one of my favorites in that respect. But I find his taste and critical skills becoming more and more irrelevant to me, and sometimes downright questionable. Steve and I have determined, though, that if you subtract out the “boobies” factor from every review, you end up with a reasonable score. Seriously. The man just likes movies with hot chicks, usually well-endowed ones, way too much.
Agreed, I’ve raised my eyebrows a few times on some recent thumbs up. Not to mention that Medved slipped quite low on my respect scale after I read this:
