The films that Peter Jackson made are about as faithful you could be to the source material without creating a confusing and obscure mess for the modern cinema audience. Decisions like omitting Tom Bombadil during the fellowship are entirely understandable, as he derails the main plot and relieves tension at point when the director needs to be raising the stakes and bringing the audience quickly into the story. As for finishing Saruman off early and axing the Scouring of the Shire, well again, as much as it pains me to say it, it just wouldn’t carry the trilogy through to a satisfactory ending for non diehard-Tolkien fans. It’s a second, (cinematically less impressive) climax after the main plot has been resolved and the audience wouldn’t react well to an obviously depressing homecoming and more subdued resolution to what has already been a nine hour film journey at this point. No, I’m afraid the films are structured the way they are for good reasons. Moaning about it doesn’t help. You can get away with things like this in epic literary tales but you can’t pull it off on screen.
I don’t understand the idea that these films aren’t true to the spirit of Tolkien. They have their issues, but Tolkien wasn’t a guy that just wrote fun, upbeat adventures. The books are just as violent as the films are, if not more so
@@bjkapz Hard disagree. The only action scene from ROTK I like as much involved Shelob, but that's a one on one more intimate scene. I think Helm's Deep is incredible. I agree the stuff in ROTK is bigger, but to me it's a bit less involving.
Seems like Ebert may have read the Hobbit, but not LOTR. Jackson didn't turn LOTR into a primarily dark adventure; that was Tolkien. Jackson stayed pretty true to the original's balance of tones.
Ebert is definitely a tolkien fan. Probably moreso than Jackson given his modern dialogue and awful so-called "hobbit" movies. But like Ebert says, they are good movies if not good adaptations.
@@PaulSmith-qs1es Nonsense. Just because Jackson's way of looking at the story is different from yours doesn't make him any less of a fan. besides, John's right. "Whimsy"?? What book is he talking about? LOTR is anything but whimsical. Roger's obviously confusing it with The Hobbit.
@@bighands69 , I adore LOTR and have read the series through at least 10 times in my life (the last 3 or 4 times to my children). I was terrified that Jackson would botch the film adaptations, but he far exceeded my expectations and stayed much closer to the originals than most directors. The first glimpse of his rendering of Minas Tirith brought me to tears. Wish I could say the same about his adaptation of the Hobbit. Based on what he did to Radagast in the Hobbit, it's probably just as well that he didn't include Bombadil and Goldberry in LOTR.
He’s probably so ashamed by how stupid he sounded for disliking the 1st one, the reasons he didn’t like it were so retarded. How can you be angry at a film not ending in a satisfactory way when it’s the 1st part of a trilogy
At least he admits it. And there is value in an honest critic who watches a movie for what it is, from the perspective of somebody who does not already know the story. He was left cold by the first one, but it was growing on him as time went on. No reason to call him an idiot because his take on a movie is different than yours.
having literally just come here from watching Ropers review of fellowship,, the way he seems to so happily and gleefully review this one it almost makes me think he got chewed out by someone for his previous review and is trying to save his ass on this one.
I think you're on to something. He was such a willfully ignorant whiner with his first review. It's like someone complaining about the Wizard of Oz because "...everybody knows monkeys can't fly! Sheesh! This movie is dumb!"
People, especially critics don't change their opinions on movies for others. It was his own genuine opinion. He didn't care for the first and came around to the next two. Simple as that, end of story. Also, he came around on the first one after enjoying Return Of The King, so now he likes all three of them.
I agree with Ebert; the Hobbits were shoved too much to the side in this movie. They should have involved them more, and shown their struggles. However, having said that, the second novel has them basically traveling over very hostile and barren land for a very long time with an imprisoned and very unpleasant Gollum, and too much of that could get tiresome. I don't know which book Tom Bombadil appears in, but that segment would have taken entirely too long to film properly, and would have distracted from the film, as charming as it was.
I find it curious that Ebert is factoring his knowledge of Tolkien’s works into his review. When he reviewed Watchmen, he also would occasionally write a column responding to letters. One that I wrote and he responded to was if he read the graphic novel, to which he said it was irrelevant-he reviews films separate from their source material. Based on his LotR reviews, that’s not 100% the case.
I'm confused. Thumbs down to the Fellowship (don't watch it). Thumbs up to The Two Towers (watch it). (I'm not changing my review of the first film - Roeper.). I re-watched the first film and it really helped me appreciate The Two Towers...I really liked it - also Reoper. I do believe Roeper couldn't fess up to the obvious...he blew his review of the Fellowship.
I wonder if it was Ebert’s decision to pick Roper as the replacement after Siskel passed on. If so he must of not been thinking clearly because he was ill. Roper was a horrible choice . He had no personality and his critiquing ability was lousy .
It's not my favorite movie of the trilogy - I wish Jackson put Shiela in this movie, but its definitely worth it. The expanded 4 hour cut of The Fellowship is still the best movie IMO. I cant believe Roeper trashed that movie
I understand what his point was. When you look at the books, yes they have a dark tone, but Tolkien kept referring back to the Hobbits throughout the story and kept the storyline that it was the slow, steady, plodding courage and loyalty of Sam and Frodo to each other that got them close enough to Mordor to destroy the Ring and save Middle Earth. As heroic as Gandalf and Aragorn were, it was the Hobbits' sacrifice and perseverance that saved everyone; and a large part of their courage to do that came from their support of each other. I think that's what Ebert was referring to, that got lost in the adaptation from the novels to the movies.
@@maskedmarvyl4774 First of all, how exactly did the idea that it was the courage of Sam and Frodo that did the job get lost? That's what the trilogy is ABOUT. You may not like the details of PJ's interpretation, but to claim that the central storyline got "lost" just makes me think you didn't watch it. I'm sure that's not the impression you're trying to give, so I have no idea what you could possibly mean by that. And no, Roger's complaint is specifically that the book he read was about happy hobbits and fun adventures. Honestly, I think he was confusing LOTR with The Hobbit.
@@Serai3 , I was just agreeing with Roger, that in the second film, Frodo and Sam seemed to get relegated to the sidelines, and Aragorn appeared to be the prime mover of events. The novel, in my opinion, did a better job keeping the reader informed that all of the struggles going on around the world were going to be meaningless in the end, without Frodo and Sam succeeding. I don't think Ebert confused the Hobbit with the Lord of the Rings, I think he was really just referring to the comraderie of the Hobbits throughout the books, being more important than the fighting and action that occurred.
@@maskedmarvyl4774 Did you watch the same movie? The story of what Sam and Frodo were up to is still there in the movie, but it is far less interesting that what was happening elsewhere and simultaneously in the story, namely the beginning of the war. Imagine how awful it would have been if Jackson had watered down all that was happening in Middle Earth just so he could spend half the time watching two hobbits wander lost north of Mordor.
It’s not though. Star Wars is more morally complex and has a much deeper protagonist arc. Lotr has better world-building and is the films are more visually beautiful but that doesn’t mean one is categorically far superior
I literally think the opposite. Goes fellowship, return of the king , two towers. Also the extended editions are so overrated full of pointless scenes and annoying singing
@@adrianburnes4301 He's saying they were all pleasant and delightful. LOTR was dark and possessed of verisimilitude. Like when the orcs launch the severed heads of the knights of gondor from their catapults. He's wrong about the tone and that notion of "escapism." The movie isn't even as dark, just compare the chapter of Cirith Ungol.
@@adrianburnes4301that’s because an action sequence on the page is far more to the point than actually seeing it play out on screen. A battle of that magnitude would be as portrayed in the film.
Yes when I saw this in theatres I knew them it was a benchmark movie. The effects still hold up very well today. The last charge of Gandalf down the hill with the music was spectacular. No one left the theatre as the credits rolled.
Absolutely no chance. The fellowship is a far better film. Two towers sags so much in the middle especially with the ents. Helms deep is a masterpiece though
Holy cow have times changed. I was just a child when LOTR came out. They are now dropping F-Bombs in PG13 movies. If Two Towers is borderline R rating then, what does that say about us now?
I can somewhat forgive them for not getting on your knees and bowing and exclaiming, "we're not worthy! we're not worthy!". ...but to give it such a luke warm review... sheesh! get it together guys!
I want to see the full episode of this because I can see briefly that the previous film they reviewed is the pianist man two best picture nominees in the same show.
Roger Ebert rated The Phantom Menace higher than any of the Lord of the Rings movies. Like... how? What? Why? These guys' reviews just didn't age well at all.
The Eye Creature The Lord of the Rings are widely considered to be masterpieces and some of the best fantasy films ever made. The Phantom Menace on the other hand hasn’t aged well at all. It’s rightfully been called a disappointment. The Lord of the Rings have stood the test of time while TPM didn’t.
OK, Ebert's being really dumb here. They didn't change much from the novels; everything the movie is, was right there in the books. Lost Tolkien? Indiana...this IS Tolkien.
I like this movie a lot but there are numerous differences from the book. Theoden's motivation is different, the elves show up to fight, Faramir tries to take the ring from Frodo, the Ents decide not to fight and they added an Aragorn resurrection scene. Those are just a few off the top of my head. Many of them had good reasons, but several reveal that Jackson didn't really understand the motivations of the book characters or at least didn't trust that the audience would understand.
People who have read the books? They had plenty of whimsy. A lot of it was indeed cut out in the films because people like you would get bored, no doubt.
Honestly, Ebert is spot on. The Two Towers went over-the-top on the drama/action. The Fellowship of the Ring has always been the superior film in the series. The Two Towers, although I still love the movie, could've been flawless if they stayed more true to the book. 1. Making it King Theoden's idea to to flee to Helms Deep was a mistake. In the books Theoden was PISSED and wanted to just march on Saruman recklessly and Aaragorn convinced him to make a stand at Helms Deep since his forces were still divided. This would've provided much needed strength to Theoden's character. 2. Helms Deep battle became a bit too unrealistic, like a video game. I mean it's still one of the all-time great battle scenes, but they just could've scaled it back some. 3. And this is probably the biggest one, but the whole Sam speech at the end was just beyond sappy. Not needed. It was like trying to pull every ounce of drama they could outta' the movie, when in reality it worked against them. Had they stayed true to the books, TT's would've been on par with FotR...
@@HugoSoup57 It didn't feel like it was held together structurly and narrativly. It felt like 4-5 TV-episodes crammed into a big mass, even though the battlescene was imposing looking.
Angelus I disagree, I thought the structure of the narrative was held together amazingly. But believe what you want to believe, I guess. It’s not like I’m going to be able to change your mind.
The films that Peter Jackson made are about as faithful you could be to the source material without creating a confusing and obscure mess for the modern cinema audience. Decisions like omitting Tom Bombadil during the fellowship are entirely understandable, as he derails the main plot and relieves tension at point when the director needs to be raising the stakes and bringing the audience quickly into the story. As for finishing Saruman off early and axing the Scouring of the Shire, well again, as much as it pains me to say it, it just wouldn’t carry the trilogy through to a satisfactory ending for non diehard-Tolkien fans. It’s a second, (cinematically less impressive) climax after the main plot has been resolved and the audience wouldn’t react well to an obviously depressing homecoming and more subdued resolution to what has already been a nine hour film journey at this point. No, I’m afraid the films are structured the way they are for good reasons. Moaning about it doesn’t help. You can get away with things like this in epic literary tales but you can’t pull it off on screen.
Translation for Roeper: I was a complete idiot for giving the first one a bad review, my bad.
Never apologized or took back his review lol. You're backtracking for him bc u like the series. It's ok for people to have varying opinions lol
For a second I thought I heard Ebert say "ancient FUCKING trees"
0:48
FOCKING trees
Talking trees? Nah… Fucking trees
@@SamJohnsonAZ 😭😭😭
I don’t understand the idea that these films aren’t true to the spirit of Tolkien. They have their issues, but Tolkien wasn’t a guy that just wrote fun, upbeat adventures. The books are just as violent as the films are, if not more so
Battle of helms deep. One of the greatest battles ever filmed
Truly.
Agreed, TTT is rarely mentioned among the greatest action films of all-time or the best sequels ever made. I would argue that it's both.
@@Comictalent It's really not, the third film dwarfs every action sequence in this one. No pun intended.
@@bjkapz Hard disagree. The only action scene from ROTK I like as much involved Shelob, but that's a one on one more intimate scene. I think Helm's Deep is incredible. I agree the stuff in ROTK is bigger, but to me it's a bit less involving.
Seems like Ebert may have read the Hobbit, but not LOTR. Jackson didn't turn LOTR into a primarily dark adventure; that was Tolkien. Jackson stayed pretty true to the original's balance of tones.
Ebert is definitely a tolkien fan. Probably moreso than Jackson given his modern dialogue and awful so-called "hobbit" movies. But like Ebert says, they are good movies if not good adaptations.
@@PaulSmith-qs1es Nonsense. Just because Jackson's way of looking at the story is different from yours doesn't make him any less of a fan. besides, John's right. "Whimsy"?? What book is he talking about? LOTR is anything but whimsical. Roger's obviously confusing it with The Hobbit.
Jackson did not stay true to the books. He made great entertaining movies but they are not accurate to the books.
@@bighands69 * yawn* Please go learn something about film adaptation.
@@bighands69 , I adore LOTR and have read the series through at least 10 times in my life (the last 3 or 4 times to my children). I was terrified that Jackson would botch the film adaptations, but he far exceeded my expectations and stayed much closer to the originals than most directors. The first glimpse of his rendering of Minas Tirith brought me to tears.
Wish I could say the same about his adaptation of the Hobbit. Based on what he did to Radagast in the Hobbit, it's probably just as well that he didn't include Bombadil and Goldberry in LOTR.
Noticed Roeper completely turned his opinion around between the 1st and 2nd films.
He’s probably so ashamed by how stupid he sounded for disliking the 1st one, the reasons he didn’t like it were so retarded. How can you be angry at a film not ending in a satisfactory way when it’s the 1st part of a trilogy
I didn't know anybody actually paid attention to anything that fell out of Roeper's mouth.
I don't respect Roeper's opinion at all. He hated Fellowship, but just gave Lion King 2019 a positive review.
How dare he!!
That's because The Two Towers is a better movie than The Fellowship of the Ring.
"There's lots of people that know more about Tolkien than I do" -Richard Reoper
Never has a more accurate statement been uttered in a review.
Roeper is an ass.
At least he admits it. And there is value in an honest critic who watches a movie for what it is, from the perspective of somebody who does not already know the story. He was left cold by the first one, but it was growing on him as time went on. No reason to call him an idiot because his take on a movie is different than yours.
@@youtuuba His criticism just didn’t make any sense in his Fellowship review, that’s all.
Wow you're so cool you know Tolkiyen 😎
@@francescobruno418 I can read, too. Look into it.
At least Roeper comes around this time. Not sure what he was talking about in the first film. Guess it’s because he didn’t read the books.
having literally just come here from watching Ropers review of fellowship,, the way he seems to so happily and gleefully review this one it almost makes me think he got chewed out by someone for his previous review and is trying to save his ass on this one.
I think you're on to something. He was such a willfully ignorant whiner with his first review. It's like someone complaining about the Wizard of Oz because "...everybody knows monkeys can't fly! Sheesh! This movie is dumb!"
Everyone has a boss
Well this was a whole year after the first movie, it's not like they filmed this review the next day
People, especially critics don't change their opinions on movies for others. It was his own genuine opinion. He didn't care for the first and came around to the next two. Simple as that, end of story. Also, he came around on the first one after enjoying Return Of The King, so now he likes all three of them.
I agree with Ebert; the Hobbits were shoved too much to the side in this movie. They should have involved them more, and shown their struggles.
However, having said that, the second novel has them basically traveling over very hostile and barren land for a very long time with an imprisoned and very unpleasant Gollum, and too much of that could get tiresome.
I don't know which book Tom Bombadil appears in, but that segment would have taken entirely too long to film properly, and would have distracted from the film, as charming as it was.
Anyone notice the Music in the trailer is directly taken from the movie "Requiem for a Dream"?
TheHopkinses That theme was used for many trailers in the 2000s
A lot of trailers use previously used music because the music isn't finished yet.
@@RetrocadePodcast Sports promos too
Great movie
I find it curious that Ebert is factoring his knowledge of Tolkien’s works into his review. When he reviewed Watchmen, he also would occasionally write a column responding to letters. One that I wrote and he responded to was if he read the graphic novel, to which he said it was irrelevant-he reviews films separate from their source material. Based on his LotR reviews, that’s not 100% the case.
I thought the same.
Yeah but he probably didn’t consider it a double standard as long as he liked it.
Well, but since he has read the book, he cannot afford to not compare them, what do you want him to do? Forget the book?
I'm confused. Thumbs down to the Fellowship (don't watch it). Thumbs up to The Two Towers (watch it). (I'm not changing my review of the first film - Roeper.). I re-watched the first film and it really helped me appreciate The Two Towers...I really liked it - also Reoper. I do believe Roeper couldn't fess up to the obvious...he blew his review of the Fellowship.
I wonder if it was Ebert’s decision to pick Roper as the replacement after Siskel passed on. If so he must of not been thinking clearly because he was ill. Roper was a horrible choice . He had no personality and his critiquing ability was lousy .
In the second half of this video, Roeper is channeling supremely high levels of “I didn’t read the book but I want to appear like I did” energy.
That’s how ebert acted in the first half.
It's not my favorite movie of the trilogy - I wish Jackson put Shiela in this movie, but its definitely worth it. The expanded 4 hour cut of The Fellowship is still the best movie IMO. I cant believe Roeper trashed that movie
Glad the other guy lightened up.
The New Siskel...RIP Siskel...and Ebert as well
@@kamuelalee There will only ever be one Siskel!
And one Ebert!
@@brianrose8772 Siskel and Ebert are in Heaven watching the greatest movies together.
2 huge 👍 for me. Arguably The best 1! Unbelievable battle scene!!
I keep wondering what book it was Roger read, because apparently it wasn't _The Lord of the Rings._
I understand what his point was. When you look at the books, yes they have a dark tone, but Tolkien kept referring back to the Hobbits throughout the story and kept the storyline that it was the slow, steady, plodding courage and loyalty of Sam and Frodo to each other that got them close enough to Mordor to destroy the Ring and save Middle Earth. As heroic as Gandalf and Aragorn were, it was the Hobbits' sacrifice and perseverance that saved everyone; and a large part of their courage to do that came from their support of each other.
I think that's what Ebert was referring to, that got lost in the adaptation from the novels to the movies.
@@maskedmarvyl4774 First of all, how exactly did the idea that it was the courage of Sam and Frodo that did the job get lost? That's what the trilogy is ABOUT. You may not like the details of PJ's interpretation, but to claim that the central storyline got "lost" just makes me think you didn't watch it. I'm sure that's not the impression you're trying to give, so I have no idea what you could possibly mean by that. And no, Roger's complaint is specifically that the book he read was about happy hobbits and fun adventures. Honestly, I think he was confusing LOTR with The Hobbit.
@@Serai3 , I was just agreeing with Roger, that in the second film, Frodo and Sam seemed to get relegated to the sidelines, and Aragorn appeared to be the prime mover of events. The novel, in my opinion, did a better job keeping the reader informed that all of the struggles going on around the world were going to be meaningless in the end, without Frodo and Sam succeeding. I don't think Ebert confused the Hobbit with the Lord of the Rings, I think he was really just referring to the comraderie of the Hobbits throughout the books, being more important than the fighting and action that occurred.
@@maskedmarvyl4774 Did you watch the same movie? The story of what Sam and Frodo were up to is still there in the movie, but it is far less interesting that what was happening elsewhere and simultaneously in the story, namely the beginning of the war. Imagine how awful it would have been if Jackson had watered down all that was happening in Middle Earth just so he could spend half the time watching two hobbits wander lost north of Mordor.
What’s up with boomers just jerkin to Star Wars when Lotr is leagues better.
It’s not though. Star Wars is more morally complex and has a much deeper protagonist arc. Lotr has better world-building and is the films are more visually beautiful but that doesn’t mean one is categorically far superior
So much better!🎉
Best of the three, followed by fellowship then ROTK. All are great though, and the extended versions are better.
Yes
I literally think the opposite. Goes fellowship, return of the king , two towers. Also the extended editions are so overrated full of pointless scenes and annoying singing
Ebert doesn't remember the books at all. He's thinking of the hobbit.
Not at all. Helms deep is way overblown in the film. Just one chapter in the book. Ebert is spot on
@@adrianburnes4301 He's saying they were all pleasant and delightful. LOTR was dark and possessed of verisimilitude. Like when the orcs launch the severed heads of the knights of gondor from their catapults. He's wrong about the tone and that notion of "escapism." The movie isn't even as dark, just compare the chapter of Cirith Ungol.
@@adrianburnes4301that’s because an action sequence on the page is far more to the point than actually seeing it play out on screen. A battle of that magnitude would be as portrayed in the film.
0:48 Who else heard him say "ancient fucking trees"?
Wtf did he actually say 🤣
@@priceyblackwinter2338 “Ancient Talking Trees.” I think.
He clearly said ancient talking trees.
No mean to be mean but you’re kind of a huge idiot if u thought he said that. 🤷🏽♂️
I remembered that trailer for Two Towers... one of the greatest movie trailers of all time.
The rare sequel that's better than the first one!
As a kid I thought the Fellowship was the weakest, as an adult it's my favourite.
Ha, Roeper trying to claw back credibility after his disastrous first review of LOTR.
Yes when I saw this in theatres I knew them it was a benchmark movie. The effects still hold up very well today. The last charge of Gandalf down the hill with the music was spectacular. No one left the theatre as the credits rolled.
It always seemed to me like Roeper just reversed his LOTR opinions due to fan backlash. I don't KNOW that. But it always seemed like that.
I agree with Ebert. Thumbs up, but I'd like to see tolkien somewhere.
The first one is a classic tale of good vs evil, the second one is awesome the third is spectacular
saying its dark and violent, i mean its literally about a battle for the destruction or survival of the world.
The Battle of Helms Deep was one of the greatest battles ever filmed, for a year. Then, I saw the Battle of the Pelennor Fields (about 30 times).
Empire was definitely the best of the trilogy.
The fuck? Since when was LOTR whimsical? The Hobbit, sure, but not LOTR. The books are surprising dark
The rare sequel that's better than the first one!
Empire is as well. I would also say Breaking 2
Facts
Because it is not a sequel. It is an 11-hour film divided into three parts.
Absolutely no chance. The fellowship is a far better film. Two towers sags so much in the middle especially with the ents. Helms deep is a masterpiece though
Neither liked it but both were told they had better.
My favorite of the trilogy
Man I think Ebert and Roeper completely missed the point of this trilogy
Ebert read the books. He simply found the movies not as good as the books.
Roeper is a fool. He compketely missed a lot of points.
Holy cow have times changed. I was just a child when LOTR came out. They are now dropping F-Bombs in PG13 movies. If Two Towers is borderline R rating then, what does that say about us now?
I can somewhat forgive them for not getting on your knees and bowing and exclaiming, "we're not worthy! we're not worthy!".
...but to give it such a luke warm review...
sheesh! get it together guys!
Aragorn is not drawn to Arwen. He's manipulating her into action.
Both
Fellowship was way better than Two Towers.
I want to see the full episode of this because I can see briefly that the previous film they reviewed is the pianist man two best picture nominees in the same show.
One of my older friends he saw all LOTR films opening day and remembered the jam packed showings. Wish I was there and not a small child back then. 😓
1:08 Did Aragorn say "Infidel" or is my hearing wrong.
This is definitely definitely better than the first movie in my opinion. Sorry not sorry for thinking that!
So funny to see Roeper turn around on this one, you can't deny LOTR!
i realize that they rate mouvies...BUT a lot of what they critique is in the book.
This was better than the first film and even the third film.
They should have had Dom DeLuise as Gimli
Saruman is NOT the villain.
Amazing trilogy
Roeper the lap-dog!
The trees were the worst part
"Seruman"
Why does Ebert keep calling the books whimsy? Did he even read them?
@RockManLP thats true, but thats not the overall theme
Roger gave this movie 3/4 Stars.
In my opinion, still too low
Roeper...the queefwhiff continues...
Roger Ebert rated The Phantom Menace higher than any of the Lord of the Rings movies. Like... how? What? Why? These guys' reviews just didn't age well at all.
The Eye Creature The Lord of the Rings are widely considered to be masterpieces and some of the best fantasy films ever made. The Phantom Menace on the other hand hasn’t aged well at all. It’s rightfully been called a disappointment. The Lord of the Rings have stood the test of time while TPM didn’t.
Age well? It’s just an opinion. Please go outside and touch some grass.
OK, Ebert's being really dumb here. They didn't change much from the novels; everything the movie is, was right there in the books. Lost Tolkien? Indiana...this IS Tolkien.
I like this movie a lot but there are numerous differences from the book. Theoden's motivation is different, the elves show up to fight, Faramir tries to take the ring from Frodo, the Ents decide not to fight and they added an Aragorn resurrection scene. Those are just a few off the top of my head. Many of them had good reasons, but several reveal that Jackson didn't really understand the motivations of the book characters or at least didn't trust that the audience would understand.
What kind of idiot thought Lord of the Rings had 'whimsy'?
People who have read the books? They had plenty of whimsy. A lot of it was indeed cut out in the films because people like you would get bored, no doubt.
You haven’t read the books if you think Tolkien is serious all the time
tbh i prefer fellowship
it's actually geeks that hated LOTR,every geeks ive known hated lotr for some reason,it's amovie for real men
Not true; I'm pretty geeky and I loved them.
I hav many friends who are fans of the books as well as the movies, myself included!
Really a long movie.
Mark Uyeda That's not a bad thing
Outgoing entertaining man That’s not a valid complaint when everybody owns the DVD and Blu Ray now. Just pause it.
Honestly, Ebert is spot on. The Two Towers went over-the-top on the drama/action. The Fellowship of the Ring has always been the superior film in the series. The Two Towers, although I still love the movie, could've been flawless if they stayed more true to the book.
1. Making it King Theoden's idea to to flee to Helms Deep was a mistake. In the books Theoden was PISSED and wanted to just march on Saruman recklessly and Aaragorn convinced him to make a stand at Helms Deep since his forces were still divided. This would've provided much needed strength to Theoden's character.
2. Helms Deep battle became a bit too unrealistic, like a video game. I mean it's still one of the all-time great battle scenes, but they just could've scaled it back some.
3. And this is probably the biggest one, but the whole Sam speech at the end was just beyond sappy. Not needed. It was like trying to pull every ounce of drama they could outta' the movie, when in reality it worked against them.
Had they stayed true to the books, TT's would've been on par with FotR...
@degree7 yet the only main action was 30 min at the end of a 3h30 movie extended version...
Never had interest in any of these movies.
Same here. They are overly long and boring
You have a brain.
Then I guess you don't belong on here making shit comments
I'm not saying there bad I'm just saying there not my cup of tea. Everyones entitled to their own opinion. I am a fan of Roger ebert though
@@stevenbaxter9099 no, you are inferior because of it if you dont like it ,as you all existence.
I kinda like the 1. movie,
didn't quite like the 2. one,
and liked the 3. one quite a bit.
What? The Two Towers is an incredible movie with excellent acting, writing, and pacing. I hate to tell you this, but you’re just wrong pal.
@@HugoSoup57 It didn't feel like it was held together structurly and narrativly. It felt like 4-5 TV-episodes crammed into a big mass, even though the battlescene was imposing looking.
Angelus I disagree, I thought the structure of the narrative was held together amazingly. But believe what you want to believe, I guess. It’s not like I’m going to be able to change your mind.