Roger Ebert is a famous critic who has done much to turn people on to good films in his storied career. He's also a madman who seemingly writes about the films he saw in his head and not the ones projected for him on a movie screen. Time and time again I've read his reviews in utter bafflement, astounded as he complains about things that never took place in the film in question. Often his winging boils down to the film not being about what he thought it should have been about. Generally this is understood to be a lazy form of criticism. I enjoy his reviews and still read them from time to time, but I wonder why no one ever calls him out for his sloppy work which happens more frequently than you might imagine. I know that he's a beloved figure in the film community, but I don't call his reviews sloppy for no reason. Basic details of plot often go right over his head, only for him to fault the film when he can't then understand the story. He'll get character names and facts wrong, and then complain that the characters had silly names. It's kind of mind boggling that he gets away with it year after year. The other night I was rereading his GLADIATOR review after having recently rewatched the film, and frankly I was taken aback. GLADIATOR is not a perfect film by any means. Several of his complaints ring true (when he criticizes the color pallet as consisting entirely of muddy earth tones and says that the action consists of "fearsome but indistinct events"), but others are so far out of left field I can't even be certain that the correct film was screened for him
(The) darkness and a lack of detail in the long shots helps obscure shabby special effects (the Colosseum in Rome looks like a model from a computer game)
The special effects are just fine for the year 2000. The interiors of the Colosseum look fantastic, and the exteriors look like CGI circa 2000. Obviously it's less impressive than the CIRCUS MAXIMUS set from BEN HUR or the FORUM from HBO'S ROME, but that's just the way it is. It's certainly not a "shabby" looking film. Additionally, no game from 11 years ago had graphics anywhere close to the CGI in GLADIATOR
By the end of this long film, I would have traded any given gladiatorial victory for just one shot of blue skies. (There are blue skies in the hero's dreams of long-ago happiness, but that proves the point.)
There are plenty of blue skies in the film that take place outside dream sequences. The scenes filmed in Morocco all are under a blue sky, as is the first Colosseum fight, where the camera pans up to show a blue sky
After Maximus defeats the barbarians, Marcus names him protector of Rome. But he is left for dead by Marcus' son, a bitter rival named Commodus (the name comes from the Latin for "convenient" and not what you're thinking).
This is a very confusing way to describe the plot, and it's not really true. Commodus didn't "leave Maximus for dead", he ordered his execution
Commodus has unusual vices even for a Caesar; he wants to become the lover of his older sister Lucilla (Connie Nielsen)
.... that is not unusual for a Caesar...
The Colosseum productions play like professional wrestling. Events are staged to re-create famous battles, and after the visitors wipe out the home team, a puzzled Commodus tells his aide, "My history's a little hazy--but shouldn't the barbarians lose the battle of Carthage?"
In the context of the review, it would seem he's complaining that the fights were staged to recreate historical battles. This is one of the first things you learn actually happened in the Colosseum if you do any research
Later, an announcer literally addresses the crowd in these words: "Caesar is pleased to bring you the only undefeated champion in Roman history--the legendary Titus!"
1) This is a great moment in the movie
2) That is not "literally" what anyone says. The line is - in fact ---- "Caesar, is pleased to bring you the only undefeated champion in Roman history, the legendary...Tigris of Gaul!"
The crowd cheers, although those in the cheaper seats are impossible to see because of the murky special effects.
.... The digital doubles are actually very well rendered. The people in the "cheap seats" (seating had to do with your station in life, not ticket price) are "murky" because they're in the shade of a massive awning. See photo below:
When Maximus wins his first big fight, it's up to Commodus to decide whether he will live or die. "Live! Live!" the fans chant, and Commodus, bowing to their will, signals with a "thumbs up." This demonstrates that Commodus was not paying attention in Caesar School, since the practice at the Colosseum at that time was to close the thumb in the fist to signal life; an extended thumb meant death. Luckily, no one else in the Colosseum knows this, either.
Reading the review the other night, this is where I started to become fairly pissed off. As anyone with an actual background in classics knows, no one is certain about the particulars of how the thumb gesture was used. There are different accounts that state various options, and then there is also alot of scholarly debate. Thumbs up may have meant a knife to the throat, and down may have meant to sheath your sword, or it could have been the reverse, or something else entirely. There is certainly no explanation official enough as to invite Ebert's snide, mocking attitude. IMHO, since no one really knows, I think it was perfectly appropriate for Ridley Scott to use a modern western style "thumbs up/down" method for those scenes. It may have been that way in real life, and it will make more sense for the audience
His closest friend among the gladiators is played by Djimon Hounsou, who played the passionate slave in "Amistad." Since protocol requires him to speak less than Maximus, he mostly looks ferocious, effectively.
Juba mostly smiles throughout his non fight scenes in the film, and actually has more dialog than Maximus during their scenes together
It's only necessary to think back a few months, to Julie Taymor's "Titus," for a film set in ancient Rome that's immeasurably better to look at. The visual accomplishment of "Titus" shames "Gladiator," and its story is a whole heck of a lot better than the "Gladiator" screenplay, even if Shakespeare didn't make his Titus the only undefeated champion in Roman history.
This is absurd. First off, this is TITUS:
It's a Shakespearian fantasy movie that is a mishmash of time periods
Second, Ebert is again going on about the "Titus" thing from that line he misquoted when the character in question was named TIGRIS!
Perhaps you now can see why I called his reviews sloppy and lazy. There are countless more examples and this is but one. Alright, you'd like more evidence before making up your mind?
More bizzare lapses in logic from EBERT:
OK, this is from his INGLORIOUS BASTERDS REVIEW
Keep in mind that he specifically mentions the fact that he's seen the film twice and waited to review it until he had time to digest what he'd seen
After I saw “Inglourious Basterds” at Cannes, although I was
writing a daily blog, I resisted giving an immediate opinion about it. I
knew Tarantino had made a considerable film, but I wanted it to settle,
and to see it again
Ok, so, clearly he's had a chance to follow the plot of the film and get it straight in his head. And yet.....
A character at the beginning and end, not seen in between, brings the story full circle
I can only think it's Landa, since Shoshana is present throughout the film and then dies long before the movie ends. Yet he specifically makes mention of the fact that this mystery character is "not seen in between" the films beginning and it's end. Nothing wrong with that I guess, I mean, it's not like Landa shows up for a lengthy scene precisely in the middle of the film or anything, right?
Oh, wait, nevermind..
Can someone please explain to me how he's coming up with this stuff? Are these innocent errors or part of a larger pattern? Keep in mind we're talking about a man who once reviewed a film after having walked out eight minutes in. The critical community then proceeded to shame him, and only then did he apologize and admit his reviewing practices are not always the best. If he's OK with walking out on a movie and then reviewing the film despite never having seen it, that says to me that he might not be paying much attention to other films. Perhaps he's taking lengthy bathroom breaks or something?
We're not done yet!
Let me start off by saying I definitely enjoy BATTLE: LOS ANGELES. It's telling a very familiar story in a way it's not been told before, and it succeeds on the strength of the performances. The characterization is extremely light to non existent, and Jonathan Liebesman is no Ridley Scott (so his attempted pilfering of the BLACK HAWK DOWN aesthetic is only partially successful), but still, I was moved. In what has to be one of the most horrific situations imaginable, we follow a small team of humans defined by their professionalism and commitment to duty and country. In plenty of films that would be hokey, but here, with Eckhart selling it, it rings true. It's a movie about doing Americans doing their job and giving their all even when the plight seems hopeless
Anyway... on to Ebert's take
Suffice it to say I disagree with most everything he has to say about the movie, so I'm only going to deal with the parts of his review I think are simply objectively way off base
"Battle: Los Angeles" is noisy, violent, ugly and stupid. Its
manufacture is a reflection of appalling cynicism on the part of its
makers, who don't even try to make it more than senseless chaos.
As I've stated, I think it's about bravery, duty and professionalism. You can argue that is a trite message or whatever, but that is clearly what the film is about
Here's a science-fiction film that's an insult to the words "science"
and "fiction," and the hyphen in between them. You want to cut it up to
clean under your fingernails.
What on earth does that mean? What is he talking about, cleaning your finger nails? It's a statement that I can't make heads or tails of
Anyway,
It's a war movie that happens to involve a science fiction enemy. To me at least, the science of BATTLE: LA never seemed particularly outlandish compared to the rest of Hollywood's usual "fantasy with lasers = sci fi" output
Meteors fall to Earth near the coasts of the world's major cities
(and in Ireland's Dingle Bay — that meteor must have strayed off
course)
I've seen the film three times now. There is no mention of "DINGLE BAY" on a single news report we hear. I specifically was listening for it last time I watched the movie. There is no "DINGLE BAY" that appears on any map seen in the film
This is another instance where Ebert seems to have seen some other film than the rest of us. And even if one did land in Dingle Bay, they're aliens, who knows what their plan is or where their troops would be best placed?
No reason is given for this, although it's mentioned they may want our water.
If we were invaded by aliens intent on stealing our resources, we'd probably seem like ants to them, and the wouldn't bother to say word one before they began attempting to exterminate us. In short, they'd not give us a reason for their actions. This one of the most frightening aspects of the film. They land, start killing people and sucking up our water. A bunch of tedious scenes detailing why the aliens are doing what they're doing, where they come from ETC? It would have ruined that
Since all of Los Angeles is frequently seen in flames, it's not entirely
clear how the Santa Monica action is crucial, but apparently it is
For crying out loud... it's not. It's not crucial. That's the entire point of the film. Until they stumble onto the communications ship at the end, they're just a company of soldiers trying to evacuate civilians from one small map grid in the midst of a conflict global in scale. We see other soldiers assigned to other evacuation points, and Eckhart's team is the one we just happen to be following. It's about them doing their job against all odds, not a strategically important strike against aliens
Do they give Razzies for special effects?
The effects in the film are rarely photo real. To suggest they're deserving of a razzie though seems unduly harsh given the impressive scope of the action
They seem to be animal/machine hybrids with automatic weapons growing
from their arms, which must make it hard to change the baby.
Hard to change the baby? They're machine animal hybrids, probably grown rather than born. That is a not a legitimate complaint about their design, that they'd have difficulty holding an infant. Why would he assume that an alien species parents it's young? Talk about a poor understanding of sci fi. IMHO while they lacked a strong outline or iconic form (a valid complaint), in close up they're pretty unsettling. They're like steam punk sea anemones, and their incomprehensible biology serves to make them seem disturbingly alien, IMHO
Aaron Eckhart stars as Staff Sgt. Nantz, a 20-year veteran who has something shady in
his record, which people keep referring to, although screenwriter
Christopher Bertolini is too cagey to come right out and describe it
...... The specifics of the Eckhart's "shady record" are expressly made clear within the first 20 minutes of the film, and then they're the subject of two lengthy dialog scenes later on.
Again, I think this guy is taking bathroom breaks during the films he reviews and then complaining about the resulting gaps in logic he encounters
Although these ships presumably arrived inside the meteors, one in
particular exhibits uncanny versatility, by rising up from the Earth
before the very eyes of the startled Marines. How, you may ask, did it
tunnel for 10 or 12 blocks under Santa Monica to the battle lines at
Lincoln Boulevard?
Another bathroom break, clearly. There are several shots of the large communications ships from other meteor crash sites being towed through the air by drones. Michelle Rodriguez states that she was following one in a helicopter. It was dropped into a collapsed sewage system, it didn't tunnel. If you were watching the movie with only one eye open, at the very least that much should have been clear
He's complaining about things the movie deliberately went out of it's way to make clear, and his criticism is either deranged or dishonest
When I think of the elegant construction of something like "Gunfight
at the OK Corral," I want to rend the hair from my head and weep bitter
tears of despair. Generations of filmmakers devoted their lives to
perfecting techniques that a director like Jonathan Liebesman is either
ignorant of, or indifferent to. Yet he is given millions of dollars to
produce this assault on the attention span of a generation.
What does a slow burn western have to do with a war movie? It's a bizarre complaint, to say that the movie wasn't enough like GUNFIGHT AT THE OK CORRAL. Even if you didn't think the movie did the BLACK HAWK DOWN thing very well, that's what it was trying to be. I don't know how you'd make an OK CORRAL version of the BATTLE: LA. I can't even picture what that would look like
Young men: If you attend this crap with friends who admire it, tactfully
inform them they are idiots. Young women: If your date likes this
movie, tell him you've been thinking it over, and you think you should
consider spending some time apart.
This is insulting, unnecessarily so. He doesn't even consider the possibility that action films can appeal to women, he just assumes that if we saw BATTLE LA someone must have dragged us there. He clearly didn't understand much of what he saw, so instead he's viciously haranguing those who had the decency to pay attention
Surely she's reached the bottom of the barrel, you're thinking. There can't be any more examples of Ebert blatently ignoring what's on screen only to complain about it in his reviews! You'd be wrong
What is obvious to audiences everywhere might as well be Greek to Ebert:
SPOILERS FOR THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU
So, most everyone who saw the ADJUSTMENT BUREAU seems to be pretty clear on what happened. Long story short, Damon was supposed to meet Emily Blunt once and only once, in the bathroom after he loses his senate election. She is there to inspire him to give a "from the heart" speech. Why is she in the bathroom? As she states when we first meet her, she's there to hide out from security since she'd just crashed a wedding. The scene ends with wedding security chasing after her
Later, the Adjustment Agents go through alot of trouble to prevent Damon from running into her on a bus, because we're told that meeting was not supposed to happen. They were supposed to meet in the hotel bathroom, and then never again
Devin Faraci clearly understood this
From Devin's review:
Matt Damon plays Good Will Hunting Goes Obama – a rough and tumble straight shooting politician whose antics got him where he is but are also keeping him from going any higher. Emily Blunt is the Manic Pixie Dream Girl who enters his life in a meet cute – he’s practicing his concession speech in the men’s room and she’s hiding out in the toilet after having crashed a wedding. Together they spark instantly, and she inspires him to deliver a from the heart concession speech that actually reignites his political career.
But they’re only supposed to have that one meeting, and never see each other again. We know that because the boys in the Adjustment Bureau tell us (and they tell us again and again. Nolfi, who also wrote the script, fears no exposition).
So, as Devin states, not only is that clearly the set up between Damon and Blunt.. the movie tells us it's the case again and again
And yet, once again, this all proves too much for Roger Ebert to wrap his head around. Was he checking his phone when these things were all carefully explained?
From Ebert's mind boggling take:
Random chance barges in, and its interference must be corrected. In "The Adjustment Bureau," Matt Damon plays a congressional candidate named David Morris, who walks into a men's room he has every reason to believe is empty, and who should emerge from one of the stalls but Elise Sellas (Emily Blunt). What was she doing there? You don't cross-examine a Meet Cute. The important thing is, these two people, who were never intended to meet, have that particular chemistry that means they're a perfect romantic match..
Wow, it's almost like he completely missed everything that happened in that scene or the lengthy explanations we're given for those events later in the film. "What was she doing there?" She tells us as soon as she appears!
It gets worse....
Remember how Devin along with the rest of us clearly understood that the first meeting WAS supposed to happen, but the one on the bus wasn't?
From Ebert...
OK, so this is where it gets intriguing. They do meet again, once again by pure chance. But this time, they recognize each other, you see, because they had met earlier. It is possible the second time they see each other was intended to be the first time, in which case (if you follow me) they would not necessarily even notice one another
Does anyone agree with me these errors are kind of bizarre?
Last but not least? REIGN OF FIRE:
It's a movie that I love without reservation or remorse, but I can see how it wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea. It's extremely grim and grey, and IMHO, while it plays with a unique setting and some interesting ideas, it's not for everyone
However, there are valid criticisms, and criticisms that come from not paying a lick of attention to the movie you're watching. As I've taken care to prove over the course of this thread, with Ebert, the later is often the case
On to the review....
One regards "Reign of Fire" with awe. What a vast enterprise has been marshaled in the service of such a minute idea.
Well, I think it's actually pretty interesting and has great character dynamics. The criticism above seems more suited to a title like DARK OF THE MOON, but since this is technically a matter of opinion, I'll move on to the parts where Ebert simply flubs it outright
The story: A tunnel beneath London breaks open an underground cavern filled with long-dormant fire-breathing dragons. They fly to the surface and attack mankind
That is not what happened. There was exactly one dragon in the tunnel. We only see one fly out. It was the male "bull" dragon, as is clearly explained later in the film. When he was unleashed, he fertalized eggs that had long been dormant the world over
Along comes Van Zan (Matthew McConaughey), the Dragon Slayer. He is bald and bearded, and his zealot's eyes focus in the middle distance as he speaks. He's the kind of tough guy who smokes cigar butts. Not cigars. Butts. He has a disagreement with Quinn (Christian Bale), the leader of the group. I am not sure why they so ferociously oppose each other, but I believe their quarrel comes down to: Van Zan thinks they have to fight the dragons, and Quinn thinks they have to fight the dragons but they have to look out real good, because those are dangerous dragons and might follow them home.
The disagreement between Quinn and Van Zan couldn't have been made clearer:
1) Van Zan sought to forcibly "draft" Quinn's settlers into his army at gun point
2) Fighting the dragons was an endeavor Quinn considered utterly suicidal. He felt that humanity's only chance was to hide and outlast the dragons in secret till they'd starved due to lack of ash
There's not much in the way of a plot. Alex (Izabella Scorupco) gets grubby and distraught while standing between the
two men and trying to get them to stop shouting so much and listen to her scientific theories.
::sigh:: Van Zan was already on board with her theories. It's the entire reason he flew to England from America, they'd traced the genetics of the dragons back to Europe
Meanwhile, dragons attack, their animated wings beating as they fry their enemies. Their animation is fairly good, although at one point a dragon in the background flies past the ruined dome of St. Paul's, and you can see one through the other, or vice versa.
Oh come on.. The bull dragon is so old and battled scarred that it has giant holes in it's wings. It's not an FX problem
I'm wondering, why, if civilization has been destroyed, do they have electricity and fuel?
Geothermal power at Quinn's castle, and Van Zann stated he was almost out of fuel. Ebert, I am beginning to think you paid no attention to the movie!
Van Zan figures out that the dragon's fire comes from the way they secrete the ingredients for "natural napalm" in their mouths. His plan: Get real close and fire an explosive arrow into their open mouth at the crucial moment, causing the napalm to blow up the dragon.
That was not his plan at that point in the film. Quinn just happened to kill the dragon that way with a lucky shot. Van Zan's initial plan was lacking in specificity
He has another bright idea. (Spoiler warning.) All of the dragons they see are females. Many of them carry eggs. Why no males? Because, Van Zan hypothesizes, the dragons are like fish, and it only takes a single male to fertilize umpteen eggs. "We kill the male, we kill the species," he says.
Yeah, but ... there are dragons everywhere. Do they only have one male, total, singular?
Yes. That was made explicitly clear, Mr Ebert
And also, after the male is dead, presumably all of the females are still alive, and they must be mad as hell now that they're not getting any action. How come they stop attacking?
They will starve to death, and be unable to replinish their numbers. The movie made this clear!!!
Mr Ebert closes with this charming remark:
I know I have probably been inattentive, and that some of these points are solved with elegant precision in the screenplay. But please do not write to explain, unless you can answer me this: Why are the last words in the movie, "Thank God for evolution"? Could it be a ray of hope that the offspring of this movie may someday crawl up onto the land and develop a two-celled brain?
Yes, you've been utterly inattentive and the screenplay explained everything you were confused about. Therefore your hyperbolic insults regarding the intelligence of the film only serve to make you look the fool, Mr Ebert
Edited by Princess Kate - 10/11/11 at 11:19am
