When you really like a movie, the length of it is irrelevant. A LotR movie is never too long, nor is it too short. It is precisely the length it needs to be.
@@HugoSoup57 ebert gave good reasons why he didnt like it to be fair to him. He implied that he understood why its a such an acclaimed movie but it just didn’t sit right with him in terms of being an adaptation
And now he knew how Gene felt, in that position. There's some kind of irony here, I think, with Roger taking Gene's role and having to contend with a more dour version of himself-namely, Richard.
Asylum Saint His reasons were valid, especially the length of the movies. Nobody needs to have movies much longer than 2 hours. If you can't cut it down to that, turn it into a mini-series so the audience isn't exhausted at the end of it.
Alexander Loucks I agree completely, the Lord of the Rings trilogy is extremely long, but very rewarding with great acting, story, writing, and pacing. I also think they are some of the best movies ever made.
If you don’t like fantasy then I can see just dropping into them being tough. The true quality in the movie is revealed by the fact that all of them have no serious complaints and absolutely adore all three movies by the time the third comes out
Roeper's main point is that the pacing is crap and it's too long. Ebert agrees that it's too long. A short film directed by Peter Jackson would be an hour long (King Kong 2005 and the Hobbit movies are just way, way, way too long). Harry Potter 1 was well-paced fun, at least in comparison. LOTR is so serious and somber most of the time outside of Pippin and Merry. It's like comparing opera to rock-and-roll. They're both good, but if you just want a fun time for a short time and not an epic story that takes a long time to develop, rock-n-roll/Harry Potter 1 is the way to go. I still like both movies, but yeah, LOTR is an investment whereas Harry Potter 1 is a self-contained movie. Interestingly enough, Harry Potter went full Jackson at the end with Deathly Hallows in 2 parts.
Ebert was not a fan of sword and sorcery/high fantasy films. He gave TLOTR good reviews, but back-handed them commenting about they can't carry any emotional weight, which is obviously wrong. Gandalf's fight with the Balrog, Boromir's sacrifice, it's all very melancholic and sad and is quite easily analogous to real world themes. Don't know WHAT annoyed Ebert about high fantasy.
@@bud389 Don't know WHAT annoyed Ebert about high fantasy. maybe one of its main goals according to Tolkiena - which is escape. And they hate escape, becouse they are - according to Tolkien - jailers :)
Ebert told it straight, but roeper was blinded by a few little things. The only thing roeper focused on was the length and the silliness. Welp it a fantasy epic what did he expect. Ebert will always be one of the best reviewers. (Also I missed siskel)
For everyone hating on Roeper, you need to watch his reviews of The Two Towers and The Return of the King. He comes around and retracts his review of The Fellowship of the Ring and acknowledges LOTR as an epic masterpiece. It's actually really fun to watch his view evolve over time.
his view didnt evolve, he just realised he was so utterly wrong and that he personally wouldnt be taken seriously again as a credible film critic if he kept giving shit reviews to the greatest trilogy ever made. money talks
Ebert was always the smartest. He understood the way things worked. If it's a movie aimed at kids, he says well kids should like the silly thing. If it's a dumb action film, he says it's fun for what category it's trying to be.
@@malafakka8530 If Gene loved Babe and adored its sequel for them pushing the boundaries of what film is capable of, there’s no reason for him not liking these
I can only imagine what Roeper's review of the original Star Wars would be. "This thing...after 2 hours, Luke and Han turn around with their medals on...and they almost look at the viewers and say....SEE YA AGAIN IN 3 YEARS FOR ANOTHER BIG GEORGE LUCAS MOVIE!"
I haven't seen this since it first aired but I STILL remembered "silly little ring" portion of Roeper's objections and how mad it made me. He describes the movie like he's reading from a prepared statement in which he doesn't understand anything he's reading. He doesn't appear to know that the first Harry Potter movie has a conclusion because the book was written that way. He apparently has no idea that The Lord of the Rings was originally a single book before the publisher had Tolkien break it into three, thus the reason behind the unresolved ending. Also, from what I can gather, he probably has never even read a fantasy book. as the fantastical elements seem to go right over his head. I will always wonder what Gene Siskel would have thought of it.
Whether you like fantasy or not, LoTR is objectively one of the greatest movies ever made. Over 20 years later it still stands the test of time and I think for many more decades to come. Clearly this Roeper person is not someone who has the intellect to objectively critique any type of a movie.
I think this movie has become a genuine classic, for good reason. It's a three-hour fantasy movie that feels about half as long. How it decided to adapt the book to the movie is brilliant. It's constantly fun, action packed and full of symbolism and heart. It has great cinematography, great music and really underrated acting from lead to supporting actors.
"So, you're giving it a thumbs down". Roeper: "I'm giving it a thumbs down. Too many characters to follow". Ebert: "Whoa". (Unspoken thought: "I'm dealing with an idiot"). My IQ actually went down several points listening to Roeper. Ebert was nearly yelling at him at the end, and Roger had serious health problems by this point. How exactly did Roeper get hired as a film critic again??
Don't listen to Roeper This is a fantastic epic fantasy film with fantastic acting and writing And if this movie drags on for too long, hey! At least it's not The Hobbit
Holy lord Roeper comes across badly here. Rude in his interrupting and 'out-voluming', and incompetent as a critic in his overtly biased and condescending view of the entire genre.
I'm surprised Ebert agreed with Roeper when he said Harry Potter 1 was better than Fellowship of the Ring. I really like the Harry Potter films and the first two have a lovely magical quality about them (that gets a bit lost in the sequels when the gloom sets in). But all The Lord of the Rings are much better films, they are pure cinema of the highest quality. It's not a contest as they are for my money, the greatest trilogy ever made. I've been plenty of 90 minute movies that feel much longer than even the longest Lord of the Rings film and that's a testament to how well put together these films were by Peter Jackson and Co.
You know, I can relate to where Roeper is coming from because when I was 5 years old and this movie hit theaters, it was such a whirlwind of excitement that was so foreign to me. My friends and I were always either playing basketball in the drive way or swinging lightsabers at each other, and then one Monday they're all just frothing at the mouth at how legendary this new film was (all of their parents were Tolkien heads that got them into it) and it was totally lost on me. All those mystical speeches, all the different kinds of elves, all the different civilizations, all the characters with such similar sounding names that I could hardly ever tell them apart, and I didn't understasnd what was so special about the ring. Like, it turns people invisible? What's the big deal? Why is it so important? Of course, I started to get on board by the time The Two Towers came out and by the time of Return of the King, I was totally hooked and I realized just how off I was in my response to the first one. Fast forward twenty years later, I'm a huge Tolkien head and I've read each one of Tolkien's books Middle-Earth books (not just the LOTR trilogy) multiple times.
I’ll bet Roper changed his tune after LotR became one of the biggest and most beloved movie trilogies of all time that even rivals the original Star Wars trilogy. On top of all that, LotR is a more popular series than Harry Potter
Fellowship of the Ring is one of the most perfectly paced and edited films ever made. It feels half its length. Sorcerer’s Stone, on the other hand, not so much.
I love how Roeper was simply overwhelmed by the very idea of a complex narrative. Too many characters! Too much speaking! Why, oh, why, can Hollywood get back to making great movies like "Three Men and a Baby"?!
I think that Roeper’s ONLY complaint here boils down to: “There’s too many characters! Why are there so many characters?! Hur dur too long! I’m having an aneurysm!”
After watching this I will never trust a Roeper movie review. He’s the kind of guy dorks call a dork. Edit: and in comparing this and Harry Potter he liked Harry Potter, I almost threw up in my mouth
I respect reviewers who dislike movies and stick to it so long as they had valid reasons and Roeper did. He thought it was too long and this kind of thing was obviously not his bag. He does not deserve hate for an opinion. Ebert was a great reviewers, but he had well known biases for and against movies too and disliked many films that are now seen as great because it was not his kind of movie. Very violent films was a big dislike for him.
Let's highlight the staggering profundity of Mister Roper: "On and on it goes, only to reach an abrupt non-ending. " "The characters are getting tedious after a while. They go on one adventure after another." "There's Frodo the Hobbit character who's in this little elfen world or whatever. " "And they're all going after this silly little ring that makes people go 'Oooh evil!'" Savor it. You rarely get such distilled, unabashed what-the-fuckery these days.
all i have to say is Roeper I disagreed with , he missed th whole point of the movie. I love it and did not feel it was to long, I guess because I loved the books, so the lenth of the moive did not bother me, I also disagree I loved the whole cast and everyone was cast well acted and cast. to this day years after it opened I still enjoy it. After look back at this , Ebert say he was taken back by the action over story telling, well, I wonder what he would think of Game of Thrones , he might complain about the same thing.
The audible cuss I just made upon hearing roper say "drones of for three hours". I've had to pause and get on my phone just to type this. Wtaf. I don't think I can watch anymore. Thank you roper dude for ruining me hearing Roger tall about Lord of the fucking rings. One of the best movies of all time
This man does realize there's source material, right? Source material that's widely regarded as one of, if not the greatest fantasy series ever written. This guy gives out of touch a whole new meaning.
You're out of touch if you think bland archetypical characters is "the greatest". You've probably only consumed like 2 books and 2 films in your entire life.
@@iknoweverything4959 The Lord of the Rings books created those archetypes. It essentially created the fantasy genre as we know it. I've actually read 2 and a half books and watched (cumulatively) 3 movies.
@@CharlieMikeNS Your sarcasm isn't subtle, but you really haven't consumed much or had life experience, when you call something so unobservant as Lord of the Rings as "the greatest".
@@CharlieMikeNS I don't need to reveal the best, you should be broadening your horizons on your own. There are far superior novels and films that are more observant of real people, placed into a fantastical setting.
I understand and respect that it wasn't Mr. Roeper's cup of tea (at least at the time, no idea what he thinks of it nowadays), but Mr. Ebert nailed it with his mention of, paraphrasing, "it's a return to more old-school adventure films with sweeping cinematography and immersive storytelling". It's definitely not a good film to watch if you're in a hurry and don't have time, but I doubt anyone would watch it unless they had a free evening and were in the right mood. He's also right that the source material is more gently-paced, the film is necessarily faster-paced and somewhat more actiony.
Rooster McScratch some of the best movies of all time are really long length doesn't mean something is bad I think the length made the movies even better
This film is number 11 on IMDb top 250. It's regarded as one of the best movies ever made. It was nominated for a bunch of oscars and won 4! Its an absolute masterpiece. One of the defining movies of our generation, it's our Star Wars. I have several friends who say Fellowship is their favorite movie ever. Its an easy thumbs up. Its one of the best movies I've ever seen!
I watched Fellowship and Harry Potter 1 when I was 13 years old, and even I could have told you then that Fellowship was hands down a better film. It's embarrassing that they compare them at all, let alone say that Harry Potter was better.
The young adult from a village that never had anything go wrong inside of it is too wideeyed at being whisked across the literal bredeth of the earth when he's never journeyed 10 miles outside of a pastoral utopia. Come onnnn man lol
Surprised that the 1st part of a trilogy doesn't have a definitive ending.... WHAT?! If it'd were how he wanted it then it'd be three sorta related films
This movie was great at creating the tension with the ring wraiths, and showing the viewer what the Hobbit lifestyle was like, and how Frodo exploring this big scary world affected him. He's tiny and never seen anything before, of course he would be amazed and frightened.
I love how Roeper has a complete change of heart by the time he watches the other 2 films. No one can deny this trilogy is anything short of a masterpiece
I can understand. I remember people in the theaters going, "That's the end?" Everyone I talked to said it ended weird, but they liked it. Some scenes could have been edited down.
Even though I don't agree with them. I still think it's refreshing to see movie critics from a time when critics actually voiced their opinion and were not being sellouts to promote propaganda. I'm looking at you Black Panther.
wow roeper was way off. fellowship is one of the best films in cinema history. and while ebert liked it, he was a bit off too, cuz he said it was too long. for me it wasn't long enough. i could have easily watched a 9 hour version and been happy.
Man it’s really weird hearing people question the casting choices for Frodo and Sam at the time because now it’s downright impossible to think of anyone else in the roles
You are wayyy wrong Roeper. First, start your review by saying you never read the books. The film has to follow the book(s) which is laden with detail and dialogue. Ergo....it takes 3 hours to tell each part of the story. LOTR is one if, if not THE best book to film adaptation ever.
While I get someone not getting into Tolkien and especially if your first exposure is through the films, Roper sounds like one helluva Scrooge, very tone deaf and I wonder if he felt like wiping the egg off his face when ROTK took the Academy Awards by storm. Even as I saw it in the theater giddy with excitement when it came out, the problems in the script and the movie were apparent to me as a lover of the books... but the items on the plus side FAR outweighed any negatives. This was a world I wanted to be immersed in for far more time, so I gobbled the extended editions as well and wanted even more. But then, the Hobbit trilogy came out and I lost all interest in that trilogy. Something about FOTR and the LOTR trilogy in general clicks and works magnificently on all levels and cylinders.
"Harry Potter is a better movie." ...Sorry, what? I happen to be sort of a Harry Potter fan, but the Lord of the Rings movies are cinematic poetry, high art.
Roeper is clueless here by giving this movie a thumbs down, and Ebert kinds too, since he only gives this and the rest of the trilogy a mild recommendation. These are some of the best fantasy movies ever made and arguably the greatest trilogy of all-time. They thought Harry Potter was better than this? I can’t say I was ever the biggest fan of Harry Potter, but I’d watch this trilogy over and over again.
I actually don't blame Roeper initial reactions. For one, he gave positive reviews to the sequels, and acknowledged he was glad to have seen Fellowship beforehand. Secondly, as much as I love Fellowship, I initially had a tough time accepting it as its own movie because the story isn't "finished".
When you really like a movie, the length of it is irrelevant. A LotR movie is never too long, nor is it too short. It is precisely the length it needs to be.
I see what cha did there....:)
One does not simply give a Lord of The Rings movie a 'Thumbs down'.
I can't remember if it was Siskel or Ebert who once said ''No good movie is too long and no bad movie is too short."
The shock on Ebert's face when he realized Roeper was giving the review Roeper gave was priceless.
thirdimpact Ebert didn’t like the films that much, they were both wrong.
@@HugoSoup57 ebert gave good reasons why he didnt like it to be fair to him. He implied that he understood why its a such an acclaimed movie but it just didn’t sit right with him in terms of being an adaptation
And now he knew how Gene felt, in that position. There's some kind of irony here, I think, with Roger taking Gene's role and having to contend with a more dour version of himself-namely, Richard.
@abdultariq3457 Like he ever read the series.
Jesus this review should’ve ended roepers career
Asylum Saint His reasons were valid, especially the length of the movies. Nobody needs to have movies much longer than 2 hours. If you can't cut it down to that, turn it into a mini-series so the audience isn't exhausted at the end of it.
If you can't sit on your ass for 3 hours for one of the best movies ever made you don't deserve to watch it.
Alexander Loucks I agree completely, the Lord of the Rings trilogy is extremely long, but very rewarding with great acting, story, writing, and pacing. I also think they are some of the best movies ever made.
@@McClintonforThree 👏👏👏
He clearly didn't understand the film when he saw it & I think he realized this based on his reviews of the next two films.
"This fantasy film is too fantastical."
*- Richard Roeper, Genius.*
Good thing by the end of the trilogy, he finally understood what the films were getting at.
He does have a point. Fantasy movies from the 80s like Conan The Barbarian felt more real. Actually, FOTR feels more real than the other two.
He changed his mind later
If you don’t like fantasy then I can see just dropping into them being tough. The true quality in the movie is revealed by the fact that all of them have no serious complaints and absolutely adore all three movies by the time the third comes out
Fellowship of the Ring is way better than Sorcerer's Stone.
Rooster McScratch great argument.
*philosopher's
I think it is better but not way better.
I fucking love Harry Potter and Lotr
Hunger games is complete trash, and twilight is very garbage
Think that goes without saying
That moment when you realize Roeper is a complete ignoramus.
This movie is a all time classic..he s clueless
Roeper's main point is that the pacing is crap and it's too long. Ebert agrees that it's too long. A short film directed by Peter Jackson would be an hour long (King Kong 2005 and the Hobbit movies are just way, way, way too long).
Harry Potter 1 was well-paced fun, at least in comparison. LOTR is so serious and somber most of the time outside of Pippin and Merry.
It's like comparing opera to rock-and-roll. They're both good, but if you just want a fun time for a short time and not an epic story that takes a long time to develop, rock-n-roll/Harry Potter 1 is the way to go. I still like both movies, but yeah, LOTR is an investment whereas Harry Potter 1 is a self-contained movie. Interestingly enough, Harry Potter went full Jackson at the end with Deathly Hallows in 2 parts.
More like comparing a 5 star cut of steak to a mcnugget.
"They are all going after this silly little ring" -Richard Roeper, 2001
I'm listening to this is 2024 and literally gasped when he said that. What a maroon.
Harry Potter better than Lotr? They’re obviously drunk
Something is wrong with you, you think Any Harry Potter film, is even in the same class as the Lord of the rings.
Can't really compare the two. You'd have to compare the last 3 movies of Harry Potter, which were great.
@@rollotomassi4768 Still not even in the same universe.
LOTR is in a league of its own.
Wow. Roeper was way, WAY off on this one. Fellowship is one of the greatest movies ever made.
i know and of the three this one is the best
No, the second and third were better. The first one barely had Gollum in it!
@@twmax6525 oh you’re right they had b*tch Frodo and rushed endings 🤦♂️
@@jayyavid5363 I never said that, shouldn’t twist my words. Whatever you mean by that.
Not even close lmao
"It's a trilogy!" That was hilarious!
yeah he actually gets mad lol
It’s clear that one person read the books and one didn’t.
Ebert, of course, is right. Having seen this movie probably 40 times, I will still watch it for what it offers: an incredible adventure.
David cawrowl He only gave it three stars though, the whole trilogy easily warrants a four star rating
Ebert was not a fan of sword and sorcery/high fantasy films. He gave TLOTR good reviews, but back-handed them commenting about they can't carry any emotional weight, which is obviously wrong. Gandalf's fight with the Balrog, Boromir's sacrifice, it's all very melancholic and sad and is quite easily analogous to real world themes. Don't know WHAT annoyed Ebert about high fantasy.
@@bud389 Don't know WHAT annoyed Ebert about high fantasy.
maybe one of its main goals according to Tolkiena - which is escape. And they hate escape, becouse they are - according to Tolkien - jailers :)
You're insane to watch that film 40 times, it's truly below average as a film.
Ebert told it straight, but roeper was blinded by a few little things. The only thing roeper focused on was the length and the silliness. Welp it a fantasy epic what did he expect. Ebert will always be one of the best reviewers. (Also I missed siskel)
Ebert refused to give Return of the King four stars simply because it was fantasy, so he wasn't perfect either
@@shawnhoelscher8164 But...he gave the first two Harry Potter films four stars...Am I missing something?
Roeper sounded like he was personally attacked by the movie lol.
Roeper: "Thumbs down from me!"
LotR fans, collectively: *hissing sounds with squinted eyes
After the cameras went off, fists were thrown. Blood was spilt.
Spears were shaken.
A sword day. A red day...
For everyone hating on Roeper, you need to watch his reviews of The Two Towers and The Return of the King. He comes around and retracts his review of The Fellowship of the Ring and acknowledges LOTR as an epic masterpiece. It's actually really fun to watch his view evolve over time.
his view didnt evolve, he just realised he was so utterly wrong and that he personally wouldnt be taken seriously again as a credible film critic if he kept giving shit reviews to the greatest trilogy ever made. money talks
Long and repetitive. So boring
He realized it was a money making trilogy
I'm absolutely positive he had no choice after all the hate mail, scorn, looks of disgust, and hatred he undoubtedly got from this!
"I don't like this story because I'm unwilling to suspend my disbelief or to care about the characters"
Ebert was always the smartest. He understood the way things worked. If it's a movie aimed at kids, he says well kids should like the silly thing. If it's a dumb action film, he says it's fun for what category it's trying to be.
“Frodo the Hobbit is not Laurence of Arabia” the slander 😂😂
I know!
Roeper you dope. You sir are no gene siskel.
I guarantee Gene would have called it top 3 of the year.
lol
I would not take that bet. He hated a lot of popular fare that might be considered classics today.
Gene would have liked these films for sure
I wouldn't be too sure about that.
@@malafakka8530 If Gene loved Babe and adored its sequel for them pushing the boundaries of what film is capable of, there’s no reason for him not liking these
I can only imagine what Roeper's review of the original Star Wars would be.
"This thing...after 2 hours, Luke and Han turn around with their medals on...and they almost look at the viewers and say....SEE YA AGAIN IN 3 YEARS FOR ANOTHER BIG GEORGE LUCAS MOVIE!"
Ebert will always be one of the go to guys for honest, relevant reviews. We lost him and Gene Siskel way too soon.
I haven't seen this since it first aired but I STILL remembered "silly little ring" portion of Roeper's objections and how mad it made me. He describes the movie like he's reading from a prepared statement in which he doesn't understand anything he's reading. He doesn't appear to know that the first Harry Potter movie has a conclusion because the book was written that way. He apparently has no idea that The Lord of the Rings was originally a single book before the publisher had Tolkien break it into three, thus the reason behind the unresolved ending. Also, from what I can gather, he probably has never even read a fantasy book. as the fantastical elements seem to go right over his head. I will always wonder what Gene Siskel would have thought of it.
Whether you like fantasy or not, LoTR is objectively one of the greatest movies ever made. Over 20 years later it still stands the test of time and I think for many more decades to come. Clearly this Roeper person is not someone who has the intellect to objectively critique any type of a movie.
Roeper actually did not recommend "Lord of the Rings: Thw Fellowship of the Rings"? Wow! No wonder why his journalist career fizzled now
By the time he reviewed Return of the King, he realized he needed to look at the trilogy as a whole. It eventually won him over.
@@Lightningrod75 More like "I've made a huge mistake that cost my career, so let me correct that by saying that those movies are great"
How can you give this movie a thumbs down? The trilogy is a masterpiece in its ability to reproduce the spirit of the books.
I think this movie has become a genuine classic, for good reason. It's a three-hour fantasy movie that feels about half as long. How it decided to adapt the book to the movie is brilliant. It's constantly fun, action packed and full of symbolism and heart. It has great cinematography, great music and really underrated acting from lead to supporting actors.
Well, this didn't age well. "drones on for nearly 3 hours", and you thought it a bad thing. Every single movie in this trilogy was a masterpiece.
“I believe in the quest” actually very touching
"So, you're giving it a thumbs down".
Roeper: "I'm giving it a thumbs down. Too many characters to follow".
Ebert: "Whoa". (Unspoken thought: "I'm dealing with an idiot").
My IQ actually went down several points listening to Roeper.
Ebert was nearly yelling at him at the end, and Roger had serious health problems by this point.
How exactly did Roeper get hired as a film critic again??
Don't listen to Roeper
This is a fantastic epic fantasy film with fantastic acting and writing
And if this movie drags on for too long, hey! At least it's not The Hobbit
Awkweird I mostly agree, but I like the Hobbit.
Lol
Just rewatched “The Hobbit”. It’s way better than I remembered.
Are you kidding me! The Lord of the Rings is a phenomenal masterpiece. period!
Degree7 All of them are
Fellowship of the Ring is a masterpiece that knows few equals. These guys really missed it on this one.
Holy lord Roeper comes across badly here. Rude in his interrupting and 'out-voluming', and incompetent as a critic in his overtly biased and condescending view of the entire genre.
I'm surprised Ebert agreed with Roeper when he said Harry Potter 1 was better than Fellowship of the Ring. I really like the Harry Potter films and the first two have a lovely magical quality about them (that gets a bit lost in the sequels when the gloom sets in). But all The Lord of the Rings are much better films, they are pure cinema of the highest quality. It's not a contest as they are for my money, the greatest trilogy ever made. I've been plenty of 90 minute movies that feel much longer than even the longest Lord of the Rings film and that's a testament to how well put together these films were by Peter Jackson and Co.
You know, I can relate to where Roeper is coming from because when I was 5 years old and this movie hit theaters, it was such a whirlwind of excitement that was so foreign to me. My friends and I were always either playing basketball in the drive way or swinging lightsabers at each other, and then one Monday they're all just frothing at the mouth at how legendary this new film was (all of their parents were Tolkien heads that got them into it) and it was totally lost on me. All those mystical speeches, all the different kinds of elves, all the different civilizations, all the characters with such similar sounding names that I could hardly ever tell them apart, and I didn't understasnd what was so special about the ring. Like, it turns people invisible? What's the big deal? Why is it so important?
Of course, I started to get on board by the time The Two Towers came out and by the time of Return of the King, I was totally hooked and I realized just how off I was in my response to the first one.
Fast forward twenty years later, I'm a huge Tolkien head and I've read each one of Tolkien's books Middle-Earth books (not just the LOTR trilogy) multiple times.
Im very happy Ebert lived long enough to watch all 3 films, it's an utter masterpiece.
I’ll bet Roper changed his tune after LotR became one of the biggest and most beloved movie trilogies of all time that even rivals the original Star Wars trilogy. On top of all that, LotR is a more popular series than Harry Potter
It's the best ever period. Godfather part 3 was poor and Star Wars just isn't as good as Lord of the Rings overall.
There were a buttload of characters in Lawrence of Arabia too.
and Star Wars
you tell him Roger.
I like Harry Potter and all, but Fellowship is way more impactful and great than sorcerers stone is.
Casting for this movie was PERFECT...
Roger’s little “…hooo” after Roeper finishes his rant lol
Roeper said it's long. I say it wasn't long enough. Rogert Ebert was right:: Mr. Roeper is not the intended audience of this movie (trilogy).
Fellowship of the Ring is one of the most perfectly paced and edited films ever made. It feels half its length.
Sorcerer’s Stone, on the other hand, not so much.
Thank God that Richard Roeper wasn’t the studio head in charge of green lighting The Lord of the Rings.
I love how Roeper was simply overwhelmed by the very idea of a complex narrative. Too many characters! Too much speaking! Why, oh, why, can Hollywood get back to making great movies like "Three Men and a Baby"?!
Or ‘Baby’s Day Out’ or ‘Cheaper By The Dozen’?
"curious choices to play Frodo and Samwise" he says about two of the greatest casting choices ever made lmao
At 4:28 Ebert wants to smack the clown.
I think that Roeper’s ONLY complaint here boils down to: “There’s too many characters! Why are there so many characters?! Hur dur too long! I’m having an aneurysm!”
I was surprised when Richard Roeper gave it a thumbs down.
Ebert is thinking “god I miss Gene Siskel”
After watching this, I hope no fanboys complain about Gene Siskel ever again.
This hasn't aged well
After watching this I will never trust a Roeper movie review. He’s the kind of guy dorks call a dork.
Edit: and in comparing this and Harry Potter he liked Harry Potter, I almost threw up in my mouth
IT IS A TRILOGY!!!
Best part of the whole lortd trilogy is when Fredo says “GANDALFFF” at the end when he’s in bed 😂
Thankfully roeper realized he messed up and gave the next two movies glowing thumbs up
Wrong, he stood by this review and said that this movie was flawed in service in setting up the other two.
I respect reviewers who dislike movies and stick to it so long as they had valid reasons and Roeper did. He thought it was too long and this kind of thing was obviously not his bag. He does not deserve hate for an opinion. Ebert was a great reviewers, but he had well known biases for and against movies too and disliked many films that are now seen as great because it was not his kind of movie. Very violent films was a big dislike for him.
Let's highlight the staggering profundity of Mister Roper:
"On and on it goes, only to reach an abrupt non-ending.
"
"The characters are getting tedious after a while. They go on one adventure after another."
"There's Frodo the Hobbit character who's in this little elfen world or whatever.
"
"And they're all going after this silly little ring that makes people go 'Oooh evil!'"
Savor it. You rarely get such distilled, unabashed what-the-fuckery these days.
I take it back. “Harry Potter is a better movie.”? I want to slap them both.
1:50 “Whoa” indeed 🤷🏾♂️😂🎬🍿
*Fellowship* wasn’t hindered by the runtime or Elijah’s wide-eyed performance.
all i have to say is Roeper I disagreed with , he missed th whole point of the movie. I love it and did not feel it was to long, I guess because I loved the books, so the lenth of the moive did not bother me, I also disagree I loved the whole cast and everyone was cast well acted and cast. to this day years after it opened I still enjoy it. After look back at this , Ebert say he was taken back by the action over story telling, well, I wonder what he would think of Game of Thrones , he might complain about the same thing.
i'd get a job black boy if i were you
They are so wrong about this masterpiece.
You think Roeper ever figured out what a schmuck he sounded like?
The audible cuss I just made upon hearing roper say "drones of for three hours". I've had to pause and get on my phone just to type this. Wtaf. I don't think I can watch anymore. Thank you roper dude for ruining me hearing Roger tall about Lord of the fucking rings. One of the best movies of all time
This man does realize there's source material, right? Source material that's widely regarded as one of, if not the greatest fantasy series ever written.
This guy gives out of touch a whole new meaning.
You're out of touch if you think bland archetypical characters is "the greatest". You've probably only consumed like 2 books and 2 films in your entire life.
@@iknoweverything4959 The Lord of the Rings books created those archetypes. It essentially created the fantasy genre as we know it.
I've actually read 2 and a half books and watched (cumulatively) 3 movies.
@@CharlieMikeNS Your sarcasm isn't subtle, but you really haven't consumed much or had life experience, when you call something so unobservant as Lord of the Rings as "the greatest".
@@iknoweverything4959 Out of curiosity, what do you think the greatest fantasy series is? Have you ever read Lord of the Rings in its entirety?
@@CharlieMikeNS I don't need to reveal the best, you should be broadening your horizons on your own. There are far superior novels and films that are more observant of real people, placed into a fantastical setting.
He seriously gave the Lord of the Rings The Fellowship of the Ring a thumbs down? Wow.
movieman175 He gave it a Thumbs Down.
But he’s not wrong for having an opinion. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, right? He’s just stating his opinion.
Brian Rose I disagree, movies aren’t entirely subjective IMHO.
I didn't care for the movie until I read the book. And then the movie became everything. Especially the extended.
I understand and respect that it wasn't Mr. Roeper's cup of tea (at least at the time, no idea what he thinks of it nowadays), but Mr. Ebert nailed it with his mention of, paraphrasing, "it's a return to more old-school adventure films with sweeping cinematography and immersive storytelling". It's definitely not a good film to watch if you're in a hurry and don't have time, but I doubt anyone would watch it unless they had a free evening and were in the right mood. He's also right that the source material is more gently-paced, the film is necessarily faster-paced and somewhat more actiony.
Roeper, what?
Are you shocked some people don't like Lord of the Rings?
sacredbeastzenon yes
sacredbeastzenon no but he's meant to be a movie critic if he can't recognize how good the movie was then well he's just wrong
Rooster McScratch some of the best movies of all time are really long length doesn't mean something is bad I think the length made the movies even better
well 8.9/10 on IMDB i guess not too many people hated it didn't it stupid?
Roeper sometimes reminded me of the kid in English class who would get called on without having done the reading and just started winging it
This film is number 11 on IMDb top 250. It's regarded as one of the best movies ever made. It was nominated for a bunch of oscars and won 4! Its an absolute masterpiece. One of the defining movies of our generation, it's our Star Wars. I have several friends who say Fellowship is their favorite movie ever. Its an easy thumbs up. Its one of the best movies I've ever seen!
Wow that guy on the right has me fucked up, he really embarrassed himself
I watched Fellowship and Harry Potter 1 when I was 13 years old, and even I could have told you then that Fellowship was hands down a better film. It's embarrassing that they compare them at all, let alone say that Harry Potter was better.
Same! I can't believe he said that. It's insanity.
The young adult from a village that never had anything go wrong inside of it is too wideeyed at being whisked across the literal bredeth of the earth when he's never journeyed 10 miles outside of a pastoral utopia. Come onnnn man lol
One of my favorite movies of all time
Surprised that the 1st part of a trilogy doesn't have a definitive ending.... WHAT?! If it'd were how he wanted it then it'd be three sorta related films
This movie was great at creating the tension with the ring wraiths, and showing the viewer what the Hobbit lifestyle was like, and how Frodo exploring this big scary world affected him. He's tiny and never seen anything before, of course he would be amazed and frightened.
they said Harry potter is the better movie than LOTR. holy crap thats crazy talk
Best trilogy of ALL TIME!
one of the best films ever......
I love how Roeper has a complete change of heart by the time he watches the other 2 films. No one can deny this trilogy is anything short of a masterpiece
I can understand. I remember people in the theaters going, "That's the end?" Everyone I talked to said it ended weird, but they liked it. Some scenes could have been edited down.
Even though I don't agree with them.
I still think it's refreshing to see movie critics from a time when
critics actually voiced their opinion and were not being sellouts
to promote propaganda.
I'm looking at you Black Panther.
wow roeper was way off. fellowship is one of the best films in cinema history. and while ebert liked it, he was a bit off too, cuz he said it was too long. for me it wasn't long enough. i could have easily watched a 9 hour version and been happy.
Man it’s really weird hearing people question the casting choices for Frodo and Sam at the time because now it’s downright impossible to think of anyone else in the roles
How can you have greatness right in front of you on a fifty foot screen and not be able to see it? Roeper has no idea what movies are even for.
You are wayyy wrong Roeper. First, start your review by saying you never read the books. The film has to follow the book(s) which is laden with detail and dialogue. Ergo....it takes 3 hours to tell each part of the story. LOTR is one if, if not THE best book to film adaptation ever.
Even it isn't a perfect adaptation, it is one of the best ever made.
After The Two Towers Roeper did the biggest critic 180 in history.
While I get someone not getting into Tolkien and especially if your first exposure is through the films, Roper sounds like one helluva Scrooge, very tone deaf and I wonder if he felt like wiping the egg off his face when ROTK took the Academy Awards by storm.
Even as I saw it in the theater giddy with excitement when it came out, the problems in the script and the movie were apparent to me as a lover of the books... but the items on the plus side FAR outweighed any negatives. This was a world I wanted to be immersed in for far more time, so I gobbled the extended editions as well and wanted even more.
But then, the Hobbit trilogy came out and I lost all interest in that trilogy. Something about FOTR and the LOTR trilogy in general clicks and works magnificently on all levels and cylinders.
Roeper is insane, here with his review.
I cannot fathom a thumbs down. I cannot process it. It doesn't make any sense.
"Harry Potter is a better movie."
...Sorry, what? I happen to be sort of a Harry Potter fan, but the Lord of the Rings movies are cinematic poetry, high art.
film critics never dislike or like for the right reasons.
I thought it was too long my first time...BUT LOTR is now in my top 100 movies. :)
Love watching two guys argue about a movie that they don’t really understand. Pretty comical
Just because they don't like it doesn't mean they don't understand it.
Roeper is clueless here by giving this movie a thumbs down, and Ebert kinds too, since he only gives this and the rest of the trilogy a mild recommendation. These are some of the best fantasy movies ever made and arguably the greatest trilogy of all-time. They thought Harry Potter was better than this? I can’t say I was ever the biggest fan of Harry Potter, but I’d watch this trilogy over and over again.
I actually don't blame Roeper initial reactions. For one, he gave positive reviews to the sequels, and acknowledged he was glad to have seen Fellowship beforehand. Secondly, as much as I love Fellowship, I initially had a tough time accepting it as its own movie because the story isn't "finished".