We can't exactly say that film critics are always right. But they're not usually THIS wrong. This is especially true of Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times. When it comes to film analysis and critique, there may be no more famous of a name than 'Roger Ebert'. Of course, that is with the exception of Gene Siskel, who co-hosted "At The Movies" with Roger from 1986 to 1999. After Gene suddenly passed away, Richard Roeper was brought in to co-host with Roger, who we lost in 2013. It was during this time that the two critics reviewed all three Lord of the Rings movies.
Not only are die-hard fans of Peter Jackson's trilogy absolutely obsessed with every single epic story about the making of these movies, but the movies are generally regarded as the best fantasy films ever made... All three were showered with Academy Award nominations and the final film, The Return of the King, took home a whopping 11 Oscars including 'Best Picture of the Year'... So, what was Ebert and Roeper's deal?
'The Fellowship Of The Ring' Was Repetitive And Too Violent
Fans are already clamoring at the bits to see what filmmakers will include in the upcoming Lord of the Rings Amazon series, but back when The Fellowship of the Ring was first released in theaters, it hadn't built up quite the fanbase. And the truth is, neither Roger Ebert nor Richard Roeper quite got it.
"The Fellowship of the Ring, the first installment of the J.R.R. Tolkien trilogy, is an epic in every sense. It's a marvelous-looking movie with jaw-dropping sets and impressive special effects," Richard Roeper said on At The Movies. "But it repeats itself too often and drones on for nearly three hours."
Richard went on to acknowledge just how beloved Tolkien's books were... But just didn't think it worked as a movie:
"Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" books have enchanted tens of millions of readers. But as a movie, Fellowship of the Ring gets bogged down and under the weight of ALL those mystical speeches and self-consciously quirky characters. You've got nine members of the Fellowship, dueling wizards, you've got an elf princess, played by Liv Tyler, an elf queen, played by Cate Blanchett. Just too many characters for me to care about. On and on it goes, only to reach an abrupt NON-ending, straight out of a Saturday afternoon serial."
Richard Roeper then gave the film a thumbs down...
This shocked Roger Ebert, who did end up giving the movie a thumbs up... However, it was not without the criticism that the film was too violent and action-packed. Instead, Roger missed the charm of Tolkien.
"I thought it was a visually powerful epic, and I enjoyed it," Roger told Richard. "But I gotta say, my enjoyment was tempered by a little sadness that the innocence or the naivete of the original books has kind of been lost in the middle of a high-tech special effects adventure picture."
Roger then added that the film was a return to the "old-Hollywood" epic... But Richard completely disagreed.
However, both of their criticisms began to alter come the release of the second movie...
'The Two Towers' Was A Full-On Action Picture That Was Aided By The First Film
Roger Ebert seemed somewhat disappointed when he called The Two Towers "an action picture". In his review on At The Movies, Roger claimed that the Hobbits had been "sidelined" for the action stars of the flick. In short, it wasn't in keeping with what Tolkien had intended.
"The film is certainly a technical masterpiece with a closing battle of amazing visual splendor. And Viggo Mortensen emerges here as a swashbuckling hero with real screen presence. So, I like the movie but I think they kind of misplaced Tolkien somewhere along the way," Roger reviewed.
Richard Roeper had a slightly different take come the second movie.
"Well, although I appreciated the epic visuals of the first Lord of the Rings, I was underwhelmed by the pacing and overwhelmed by the sheer number of characters," Richard began. "But I have to admit that the very thorough nature of that setup made it easy for me to rejoin the story in part 2 and get really involved in the fates of the main characters."
Richard gave the movie a thumbs up and then went on to say that The Two Towers didn't change his review of the first movie, but that he was eagerly looking forward to the final film.
They Finally Liked 'Lord Of The Rings' Due To 'The Return Of The King'
...And the fact that they viewed the three movies as one epic story, versus three individual works of art. That's one of the most important aspects of the series, and yet it took three films for these two reviewers, particularly Richard Roeper to get it.
"[The movie] is Peter Jackson's crowning achievement," Richard Roeper said about 'The Return of The King' as if he loved all three movies. "[It's] the most emotionally involving and satisfying leg of the trilogy with resolutions coming one after another after another."
Richard went on to say that he wasn't the biggest Tolkien fan and that it took him about half-way through 'The Two Towers' to actually care about what was going on. But by 'The Return of the King', he was fully invested.
As for Roger Ebert, well, he maintains that the sheer amount of action and violence wasn't in keeping with the naivety and whimsy of J.R.R. Tolkien's books. However, he too thought it was a great film.
"Having seen the whole sweep of the three films, I admire it more as a whole than any of the parts," Roger said.
While both Richard Roeper and Roger Ebert finally praised Peter Jackson and his trilogy, they still criticized the film for a lack of an engaging villain... Guess, you just can't please everyone.