Cool News
Capone goes on Ebert and Roeper Film Cruise: ONE HOUR PHOTO, REAL WOMEN HAVE CURVES, THE KID STAYS IN THE PICTURE +
Hey folks, Harry here with the dear Mr Capone reporting from the Cruise Ship that Ebert took over for his own mini-version of the FLOATING FILM FESTIVAL (ie the best Film Festival on a Cruise Ship anywhere!!!) Frankly, having spent days on a cruise ship with Roger before I can tell you... It is great. If you ever find yourself with the extra moola to join Roger on one of his Cruise fests or the great FLOATING FILM FESTIVAL I can't recommend it enough! Now, here's Capone who happened to have the hold of the ship stocked with Canadian Whiskey in a real roundabout smuggling operation. Here ya go....
Hey, Harry. Capone in Chicago here, still a bit wobbly after my four-day
excursion on a Disney cruise liner as a part of Roger Ebert and Richard
Roeper’s Film Festival at Sea, or as I like to call it “Sundance Jr.” since
4 of the 5 film selections this year were introduced to the world at last
month’s Sundance Film Festival.
I’ll confess something here: if there is any one person, living or dead, who
I consider a role model for my professional life (or at least the
professional life I’d like to have), it’s Roger Ebert. Since I was old
enough to change the channel on my family’s 13-inch television, I was
watching Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel review movies together. I remember the
WTTW Channel 11 logo before each show when they were on PBS together, and I
continued to follow them through one syndicated show after another until
they landed with the Buena Vista Television people. I loved the genuine
tension the two generated as their off-camera, rival-newspaper
competitiveness bled onto the screen each week. Even when the agreed that a
film was good or bad, they’d find reasons to disagree about why it was. This
is my long-winded way of saying that Roger Ebert has been a part of my life
for as long as I can remember, and he and Gene inspired me to see as many
films as I could, think about them in new ways, and attempt to put a few of
my thoughts down on paper or up on my computer screen.
Over the last few years, I’ve certainly seen Roger many times at screenings
in Chicago, although it really wasn’t until recently that I’ve started
talking to him. This wasn’t an issue of gathering up my nerve or anything
like that; I just kind of liked doing my thing and getting into screenings I
wasn’t supposed to and not calling too much attention to myself. Capone’s
true identity must remain a secret. But for no particular reason at a HEARTS
IN ATLANTIS screening last September, Roger was just sitting there all by
his lonesome, so I went up and introduced myself. He said a lot of nice
things about the Ain’t It Cool family and my work (I doubt he actually
remembered any specific thing that I’d written, but it was a nice gesture
and I appreciated it).
Flash forward a couple of months. The Ebert & Roeper show has started to
promote the 2nd Film Festival at Sea aboard the Disney Wonder cruise liner.
A friend of mine (who I’ll refer to as Gotti) had gone the previous year
(when IN THE BEDROOM, THE CLAIM, and THE DISH were screened) and had a great
time. For some reason, I was dying to go this year and I’m so glad I did.
Not only did we screen two more films than last year the mood was more
celebratory. Less than a week before we boarded the ship, Roger had gone
under the knife to remove a cancerous growth on his thyroid gland. The way I
heard the story, he went in for the procedure on a Friday, was released on
Sunday, was back in a screening room Monday, and flew down to Florida a day
or two after that. He was in great shape, his voice was strong, he was happy
to see and talk to everyone, and other than an oversized bandage on the side
of his neck, he looked like the Roger we know and love to disagree with.
I’d guess that there were about 250 people as part of our "movie group."
There was a Thursday pre-dinner cocktail reception, where I reintroduced
myself to Roger (we had a brief conversation about Moriarty attending his
Overlooked Film Festival and a few other things) and met Richard Roeper for
the first time. Before I go into the movie we viewed, I should say that
during almost every Q&A session after each screening, Ain’t It Cool, Harry
Knowles, and even Butt-Numb-a-Thon were mentioned at some point, usually by
Roger and never having anything to do with me or question/comments that I
had. The subject of the internet’s influence on movie making came up
repeatedly, but it wasn’t until the last night on the ship that the tables
were turned on yours truly. More on that in a minute. Here are the films we
saw:ONE HOUR PHOTO
Holy crap, what an opener! Director Mark Romanek has crafted one of the
creepiest films I’ve ever seen. And no one else could have played Seymour
"Sy" Parrish but Robin Williams. The role is all the more effective and
devastating because it’s Williams, an actor who we’ve seen do nothing lately
by sappy sentimental films that he could take his children to. No more.
I
felt dirty (the good kind of dirty) watching this movie on a Disney ship. Sy
is the head of a one-hour photo section of a Wal-Mart-like department store.
Through the photos he’s developed, he formed an unhealthy attachment to one
family in particular, the Yorkins, with husband Michael Vartan (NEVER BEEN
KISSED and T.V.’s "Alias"), wife Connie Nielsen (GLADIATOR), and young son
Dylan Smith. In fact, Sy has plastered an entire wall of his home with
hundreds of pictures of the family taken over the years, and when he
discovers that Michael has not been faithful to his wife, he takes matters
into his own hands.
Romanek lays on the symbolism pretty thick but always in
just the right way. His camera work and use of color here is extraordinary,
and Williams has never put forth such a memorable performance. He’s not
using any of the usual techniques that any less capable actor would use to
make us nervous about a character who is obviously a time bomb. Gary Cole
(playing a variation of his role in OFFICE SPACE) is also on hand as Sy’s
ever-watchful boss, as is Eriq LaSalle as a detective investigating a crime
that Sy has committed. Since most of the film is told in flashback, we don’t
know exactly how horrible Sy’s actions are until the very end. Sy’s level of
perfection in both his work and in the way to watches over the Yorkin family
is both touching and frightening.
ONE HOUR PHOTO is clearly Williams’ next
shot an an Oscar, and boy is he good. And he’s nearly unrecognizable as a
man who probably looks a lot older than he is. People will inevitably
compare this to PSYCHO, and that would be unfair. Other than a slightly
chatty third act, there are few similarities. ONE HOUR PHOTO will make you
look a lot closer at the people you come into contact with in your
day-to-day life but pay little attention to. Hey, did that grocery store
clerk hold his glance a little too long? Maybe.MONSTERS INC.
I smelled the Disney influence when I saw that this film was on the schedule.
MONSTERS INC. is a good movie, and I was particularly excited to see a print
of this film with the "outtakes" and "theatre production" tacked on to the
end (if you saw the film early in its run, you probably didn’t see these;
they are tremendous). But the real reason for the screening of an
already-released film was that director Peter Docter was aboard the ship and
did a great Q&A after the film.
He brought along with him a great video
tape, which he narrated, that showed the process by which the characters
were assembled, including great animated sketches, early test workings of
the various character designs, storyboards, a demonstration of how they
placed the 1.2 million hairs on the Sulley character, recording the voices,
etc. I’m assuming most of this stuff will be on the DVD, but it explained
the process of creating such an imaginative film from nothing better than
I’ve ever seen it done.
I ran into Docter the day after his presentation,
and we talked a bit about the future of Pixar (not about their recent legal
troubles, however). He even remembered that I did what he believed to be the
first review of the finished MONSTERS INC. at a Chicago-area Disney trade
screening and being amazed that a spy had gotten in.
Naturally, he was also
very excited about Pixar’s Summer 2003 released FINDING NEMO, but what he
really wanted to talk about was Brad (IRON GIANT) Bird’s as-yet-untitled
project. We spent a lot of time talking about the failure of IRON GIANT to
make a dent at the box office, and he indicated to me that if Disney had
owned that film, they would have given it the four-star marketing treatment
instead of burying it like Warner Bros. did. Docter is the friendliest guy
in the world, and it was a lot of fun talking to him.STOLEN SUMMER
I was really hoping that the film would be featured as part of this festival.
I watched with a religious conviction the "Project Greenlight" series on
HBO. My stomach would regularly ball up into knots with each episode as I
waited to see who producer Chris Moore would yell at next, to see how drunk
Ben Affleck was in early, pre-rehab episodes, to see how devious and
backstabbing everyone was, including newbie writer-director Pete Jones.
For
fans of the T.V. show, the movie will let you down; there’s really no way it
couldn’t. The drama of "Project Greenlight" was real and exciting. The drama
in STOLEN SUMMER is canned and uninspired. Would people who never saw the
television show like the film better? I don’t think so. The child actors are
pretty bad (and make you appreciate Haley Joel Osmont) and their dialogue
doesn’t elevate them in any way. What actually worked for me were the family
scenes, especially the O’Malley family headed by Aidan Quinn and Bonnie
Hunt. Also, there are some terrific scenes between Quinn and Eddie Kaye
Thomas (Finch from the AMERICAN PIE films) as the oldest O’Malley child who
wants to go to college but whose father won’t take charity to make that
happen. Also good is Kevin Pollak as Rabbi Jacobsen, whose son firefighter
Quinn saves early in the film.
The problem with STOLEN SUMMER is the the
"quest" young Pete O’Malley sets himself out on to convert Jewish people to
Catholics so they won’t go to hell isn’t funny, cute, or compelling. And
having seen the documentary, you know how much is missing. There are at
least three major scenes covered substantially in "Project Greenlight" that
never make the film, and some of them are key moments that answer a lot of
confusing points. And the whole film just feels rushed with very little time
to linger and get to know characters. This was the film I was most
anticipated about seeing at this festival and least excited by after having
seen it.THE KID STAYS IN THE PICTURE
Based on his best-selling autobiography (and on his legendary audio version
of that book), THE KID STAYS IN THE PICTURE documents the career of leading
man turned notorious producer, studio head, and ladies man Robert Evans, who
also narrates this film. And its his narration that makes this film.
The
film opens with a red velvet curtain opening to reveal a quote from Evans
saying that there are three sides to every story: your version, his version,
and the facts; and all three are true. And that exactly captures how I feel
about this wonderful look at Hollywood in the glory days of the late 1960s
through the early ‘80s. I believed every word of what Evans said, while
taking none of it literally. His recites his version of the story as if
reading a trashy novel about Hollywood.
This is the BOOGIE NIGHTS of
behind-the-scenes of Hollywood documentaries, complete with a funky
soundtrack and all the sex and drugs you can stomach. Evans slept with every
major starlet, model, and then some; he had a hand in the making of THE
GODFATHER; ROSEMARY’S BABY; CHINATOWN; MARATHON MAN (in fact, it’s pretty
obvious that Dustin Hoffman based his character in WAG THE DOG on Evans,
complete with the oversized glasses); and BLACK SUNDAY, as well as disasters
like THE COTTON CLUB and POPEYE. He was married to Ali MacGraw for several
year until Steve McQueen stole her away while the two were making THE
GETAWAY. He’s not particularly polite toward MacGraw for doing this, but in
a strange way he understood the appeal that the number one box office
attraction in the world at the time would have to any woman.
If you believe
Evans stories, he made Coppola extend his two-hour-plus cut of THE GODFATHER
to three hours; he single-handedly broke up marriage of Mia Farrow and Frank
Sinatra; and he made CHINATOWN despite the fact that almost no one connected
with the film understood Robert Towne’s script.
Roger Ebert told us the
Evans is his own best character, and this film proves that. Even the style
of the documentary is original using hundreds of black-and-white stills
(along with film clips, obviously) and digitizing them to manipulate the
images. The result is an almost three-dimensional treatment of the images
that is hard to explain but really beefs up the other worldly feel of the
subject matter. THE KID STAYS IN THE PICTURE will go down in my mind as one
of the classic films about Hollywood from a man who has seen the best and
worst in his life played out on this very public stage.
REAL WOMEN HAVE CURVES
Winner of both the Audience Award at Sundance, as well as a special jury
prize for its two lead actresses (America Ferrera as Ana and veteran Lupe
Ontiveros as her mother Carmen), REAL WOMEN HAVE CURVES is a celebration of
being who you are. Despite the title, this is not a film about overweight
women loving themselves.
This is a film about a girl who has just graduated
from high school trying to find herself. She’s very smart, but her family
has no money to send her to college. Immediately after graduation, her
mother forces her to work in her older sister’s sweat shop sewing fancy
gowns for department stores for very little money. In terms of a traditional
narrative, not a lot happens to anyone in this film, but this is more a
movie about a turning point. Ana hates working in a factory and knows that
her future lies outside of her Mexican-American community in California.
Her
manipulative mother is constantly putting her down because of her weight and
her desire to leave the family. Director Patricia Cardoso has put together
some of the most believable and beautifully flawed characters I’ve seen in a
while. Ana is dealing with pressures at home, a budding romance with a
fellow student, and a teacher who insists she apply to colleges and helps
her find scholarships to make this possible.
REAL WOMEN is a special film
that has what will undoubtedly be one of the most unforgettable sequences in
film history: the five women who work in the factory all strip down to their
underwear because of the heat, and they start comparing cellulite, almost
turning it into a competition. Someone turns some music on and everyone
starts dancing. I’ve never seen anything like it, and it is a cause of
celebration. From the looks of the opening credits, it appears that REAL
WOMEN HAVE CURVES will premiere on HBO in the near future. Seek it out.
Just before the late-night screening of REAL WOMEN HAVE CURVES, Roger and
Richard broke form and held a Q&A before the screening. Since we hadn’t seen
the film yet, most of the questions focused on more general topics regarding
their show, how Richard was selected for his seat, and movies in general.
One question that came up had to do with the internet’s influence on movies
and movie marketing. Roger answered that the influence was two-fold: one,
that audiences in general know more about a film before its release.
Everything from casting news, effects previews, trailers, to fights on the
sets are chronicled on various movie-related sites on the internet. Second,
a whole crop of "young, talented critics" has arisen, many of whom have a
larger reading audience than most print critics. They have a different
agenda for liking or disliking a film, and are not shy or polite about
expressing their opinions. [I’ll try and quote as accurately as my memory
serves from this point on.]
Ebert: In fact, there’s someone here from Ain’t It Cool News who writes
under the name Capone. Where are you? [I tentatively raise my hand.] Stand
up for a second. [I do so.]
Roeper: They write under assumed names at that site, but there’s what he
looks like! [I quickly cover my face and apply for witness protection.]
Ebert: And he’s a good example of one of these up-and-coming critics whom
the movie studios dislike, but are becoming more and more a part of the
process and the mainstream. His reviews are funny but still manage to make
their point as well, if not better than, any "legitimate" film critic.
I swear this is what happened, and I have about 250 witnesses to back my
story. Clearly, I was mortified by this experience, but I won’t lie. Being
singled out in a positive way by a man who I’ve considered a roll model for
my life as a film critic was a moment I will never forget. Forgetting this
momentary head rush, the rest of the festival was great, and I’d do it again
without even thinking. I love this job. Mmmmm, Ebert & Capone... And no, I
did not see Roger poolside in a Speedo; not that I didn't want to.
Capone
"...Better Than, Any 'legitimate' Film Critic" -- Roger Ebert
-
+ Expand All
-
Mar 07, 2002 5:39:22 AM CST
I saw "Real Women Have Curves" on the stage several years ago
by st buggering
It was a great play, and I was excited to hear that it was being filmed. I wonder if the cast is the same. And Capone, your description of your lifelong experience of watching Ebert mirrors my own. I watched Siskel and Ebert from the very first incarnation of their show. When Siskel died, I felt like he'd left a little hole in my life. When you listen to a critic long enough, you learn to guage the likelihood of enjoying a film based on what they say, even if you know you'll disagree. Roeper hasn't filled that hole for me yet, but I'm still getting to know his opinions. I think he could be a little less extreme (he tends to thoroughly dismiss films that, for whatever reason, strike him the wrong way), but all in all, he's doing okay.
-
Like Capone and I'm sure many others, Roger has been my ambassador to the cinema. Growing up in Chicago, I watched him on TV, read his reviews, and read some of his books. By his example, he has taught me to be a more active and analytical participant in the realm of artistic observation. This has influenced the way I look at cinema, for sure, but also has influenced the way I read literature, listen to music, and look at paintings. His influence on me has been equal to the two or three great teachers I've had in my life. And he's had this kind of influence without ever meeting me. That is a hell of worthy achievement and to him I'm forever gratfeul.
-
i cant think of it off the top of my head but it was the name of the family of superheroes. something like "The Impossibles"...or maybe i just think i read that somewhere.
-
No doubt, Ebert *used* to be great, but like Willie Mays, pal, your best days are far behind you. Maybe it's osmosis from sitting too close to a pylon like Roeper, but Ebert's getting dumber by the week. Maybe it's Alztheimers, who knows, it happened to Claude Jutra...
-
Sounds like a fun ride!
-
okay, Ebert is about the most overrated film critic ever. I got his movie guide FREE with my VCR, and I gave it too my parents and went out and bought a "Hallwell's Guide" instead. I live not far from his home town of Champaign, actually know some of his relatives. They say he's kind of a dick. I find more reliable reviews from Halliwell's, (although I have to interrept there odd system), the Onion, here, and in my hometown Newspaper, just to name a few.
I mean, I liked Hoop Dreams all right, but it was a better movie then Pulp Fiction, Forrest Gump or Shawshank Redemption? Pulp Fiction was highest on his list that year of those 3 at #4 if memory serves me correct. -
Stop picking on Roger--he is one of the most passionate, literate, and knowledgable filmgoers out there! Have you ever heard his commentaries on the Citizen Kane or Dark City DVDs? They are simply awesome!
Don't get me wrong--Ebert has pissed me off at points. His less-than-stellar LOTR review drove me into a rage, but at least he backs up his views with intelligent writing (unlike Roeper, who completely blows). Ebert is a true fan of the cinema, and he deserves a lot of respect.
So don't bash him just because he's famous, or because he disagreed with you on one film. -
...is that Doc, Gopher and Issac keep hitting on you. Julie wouldn't be bad but she's coked out of her mind. You tell Doc, Gopher and Issac that you're a guy and you're straight but they keep up the smooth talk anyway. Then there's the Captain and the glare from his bald head blinding you when you dine at the Captain's table. As for the so called "celebrity" guests, well I hardly consider the late Bert Convey, Deborah Lee Scott, Nipsey Russell and Kristy McNichol to be celebrities. I told Doc, Gopher and Isaac ,"Hey, why don't YOU go help some sick people? And YOU go clean up some vomit? And you go mix me a daiquiri?" But they said all they did was screw the passengers.
-
Mar 07, 2002 12:42:42 PM CST
Ebert is a great reviewer, even though he seems to be on crack a
by minderbinder
Sure, he seems to lose his mind on a few movies (zero stars for Rosencrantz and Guildestern?). But his reviews are always worth reading, and even when you disagree you can see his reasoning. His "Great Movies" columns are a must read, even his letters column is funny. It's truly a shame he doesn't have someone like Siskel to face off against. (I saw Siskel in person less than a week before his surgery and was shocked at how pale and sickly he looked) And of course it can't be said enough, Roeper is a complete fool, he should be sacked ASAP. (Just for the record, my favorite movie critics are The Regular Guy and Nick Digilio, both Chicago radio folk)
-
Mar 07, 2002 1:18:45 PM CST
Would I spend the money for a cruise to watch 4 new movies, and
by otis von zipper
Seriously, they were advertising this thing on their show forever. If I decided to go and found out I would be seeing 4 (FOUR!!??) new movies in 4 days, I would have plotzed. "OK, here's the film schedule...Monster, Inc.!!?? What the @*$& Where's the lost/seldom seen classic? Where's the dazzling film from some country I've never heard of? Where's the risky edgy indie that will cause a stir? Where's the overlooked gem from the 70's?" This is the film fest they want you to shell out I don't even want to think how much for? Hell, if I wanted to go on a cruise, I'd go on a cruise. It's nice that you all had a good time, and thanks for the nice write up. I'm gonna remember to save my dough and stick with the little San Francisco Film Fest (last years highlights, Hedwig, Deep End, Brother, Unknown Code, Kubrick Life in Pictures, The Endurance, Princess & Warrior, and some others I can't remember at the moment)
-
I too was on the cruise and had the time of my life. Ebert was as sharp as ever, even recovering from surgery. While I stayed quiet during the Q&A sessions, I did get a chance to talk to Ebert a few times before and after the screenings. On two of these occasions I happened to mention AICN and Harry. The first time I told Rog how much I liked the show he did with Harry on cult videos and asked him if he would ever replay it (He said no.) The next time I asked him if he had ever seen Battle Royale, the DVD of which I had with me, and he hadn't even heard of it! The next time he was on stage, which happened to be on the last night, he mentioned having talked to a "friend of Harry's" who was "touting" Battle Royale. This was my moment of glory. Anyway, I had a great time. Real Women was the best film shown, with One Hour Photo coming in at a close second. By the way, has anyone seen my dad?...
-
No wait...that's just the plot of that upcoming Cuba Gooding jr. film.
-
is when Roeper says something even more spectacularly idiotic than usual and Ebert looks horrified -- you see his spine stiffen then shudder, and the eyes roll back into his head. How the hell Roeper ever got *any* reviewing gig, let alone an aisle seat next to Ebert, is laughable in the extreme. Maybe Ebert thought it was a no-brainer, that he could fart in a bag and his review would still be pitching a no-hitter at Roeper, but I swear, it's making him lazy having such a dumb-ass foil. Out.
-
I would love to check out this crusie one year, I'm a huge fan of Ebert and would love more information for next year....
-
I used to LOVE reading Ebert's reviews. Every Friday I'd go to his site(still occassionally do) and check it out, all the while trying to avoid his drawn out, spoiler filled plot summaries. *** Now, forget it. Like a few other TBers have said, there's a definite change over the past few years. For me, it started with some very odd reviews. First and foremost - The Phantom Menace. Second - Toy Story 2 and the Iron Giant. Third - Fight Club. Fourth(and the biggest one) Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. Maybe it's just my own subjective opinion getting in the way, but I could have sworn there was something else going on with those reviews. And those are just the bigger examples, almost everything all of his reviews now have something that make you go, 'What the f--k is that about?' One thing that made me see Ebert as a little close-minded was his review of A.I. From reading it, I can sort of tell that he doesn't understand the concept of Artificial Intelligence. I didn't think the filmmakers totally understood it either, but that's a whole other talkback. Ebert said something to the effect of - The robots don't really feel, they're just programmed to respond that way, they only have what we give them... that's a bunch of horseshit. It would be impossible for an A.I to be programmed to have a line of code for every possible situation they could find themselves in, including having even a limited range of emotions. Just a human being sitting in a room with another human being is subject to an infinite number of scenarios, and the code for a robot to respond to so many different things(i.e. not acting out of free will, but out of programming) would have to stretch from here to the other side of the universe. It would be harder than just replicating the human brain. The whole point of A.I. is that they don't do as they're programmed. In fact, they're not really programmed at all. Scientists are trying to replicate the human brain by using neural net processors. To Spielberg and the makers of A.I. love is a purely human concept and is what truly separates our race. For me, that's not it either, because I believe that animals feel some sense of love. What, at least in my opinion, separates us is the ability to question our own existence. To just look up at the stars and ask, Why? How? When? What? For me, A.I. would be a combo of the speed, accuracy and almost unlimited storage of a computer with the reasoning and logic capabilities of the human brain. Self-aware, I guess you could say. HAL 9000 showed a lot better the problems of A.I. than the film A.I. It had some great moments though, like when Jude Law says, 'I am, I was.' That summed it all up, really, simple but great bit of dialogue. Well, I'm getting too off topic. *** Anyway, I just think Ebert spends too much time in his reviews rehashing the story, and he also just doesn't seem to 'get' a lot of films. Just sort of hit or miss. I used to find myself agreeing with him all the time, now it's dropped to like 40 percent of the time. *** That's what was great about Siskel, he verbally kicked Ebert's ass a lot of the time, and it was fun to see the big man deflated. Siskel could be a dick, but he always had a point. Ebert and Roeper(especially Roeper) sound like two idiots discussing the finer points of Jennifer Lopez's ass. *** Also... the guy writes a piece on every half-ass cinema icon that passes away. Where the hell is his piece on Chuck Jones? He was a REAL artist, in every sense of the word, and there's not many people on this planet who haven't seen or been brought to a state of gut-busting laughter by Chuck Jones. So where's Ebert's piece on him? I could have sworn he wrote one on Aaliyah(sp?). *** Lastly, check out his recent review in the classic films section of his site on Fall of the House of Usher. I could be wrong, but wasn't the whole point of that story that they were brother and sister? And didn't the house 'fall' because of the years of incest, sorta like a royal family? Coming at the end of the Victorian era, wasn't incest beginning to become looked down upon? And Ebert questions why the woman just doesn't leave, but isn't the whole point that they can never get out of their bloodline? That they are doomed to the confines of the 'Usher' House, just like they're doomed to it's own blood lines? Like the Sam Shepherd play 'Buried Child'? where the guy looks in the mirror and sees himself melting away and his face just keeps becoming past members of his family, sort of showing that their family tree doesn't branch, if ya catch my drift? Ebert seems to miss all that, and being that the makers of the original silent film took the brother/sister thing out, maybe they were just interested in making it a Gothic horror story. I say leave the incestual relationships in! That's scary! If I'm correct about the real meaning, that is. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm sure someone will me flame me to high hell if I am. Well... that's enough rambling.
-
Just wanted to add two more things, cause I find this subject interesting. I do not HATE Ebert, I just noticed that he seems to be moving in another direction lately. Like an unexplained phenomenon. I never doubt that he is a TRUE lover of cinema. When Siskel died, that really sucked. I loved watching those two, they were perfectly matched. And lastly, for whatever you may not like about his latest reviews, Ebert's commentary on the Citizen Kane DVD is AWESOME. If you haven't heard it, I must demand that you drop everything and go out right now and buy it at your local video disc retailer, it is a DEE-LIGHT. Tell your clerk James Lipton demands it be seen by every customer in the store.
-
If you think about it, movie critics are useless. That doesnt' mean that I can't enjoy them though. I tune into E&R every week, if only to get information on new movies coming out. Ebert and his Chicago tribune rival Michael Wilmington are the only critics I trust. Of course, I did disagree with ebert on LOTR, but at least he acknoledged that the movie had vision (Wilmington loved it). Roeper has an interesting column in the Chicago Sun-times, and it's usually the first thing I turn to, but the man is a fucking idiot. And he wouldn't know a good movie if it slapped him on the ass. Wilmington would have been a much better choice.
-
That's so great for you, Capone. I love Roger's reviews. Even though I do not always agree with them, I love the way he writes and the way he incorporates film history into a lot of what he says. And you were singled out, too. That's awesome!
-
Come on, stop being such wussy fan boys...Ebert is flattering to AICN reviewers because they have power (whether they fully understand this or not), not because they are as good as legitimate reviewers. I like this site because people here are enthusiastic and because you can get the inside dope on films, not because of the stellar reviewing skills of the AICN crew...Don't get me wrong, I like the people here, but few have any ability approaching a good professional (save perhaps Moriarity, who is a good writer)...this is still an amateur site in terms of movie reviews..in terms of power, though, it is significant, and I think that Hollywood is a bit scared of you all, and is afraid to insult you, thus they are prepared to butter you up..you should recognize this and not get all wet over Ebert or someone else in the industry giving you a compliment...read between the lines, and stop being such fan-boys..furthermore, stop being such pusses..who cares if Ebert or someone else in the industry likes you..to paraphrase Chazz Palminteri, it is better to be feared than liked...
-
but I'm surprised too if he hasn't done one on Chuck Jones, considering what an animation fan Ebert is. Maybe it's because Jones' death came around the time Ebert was having medical problems.
-
It's amazing how all the Lord of the Crap fans just can't deal with anyone who even criticizes their dreck movie. Ebert gave it a good review. Not great. Just good, which should be enough to appease anyone. But because he didn't give Peter Jackson fellatio, you jump all over him. Stupid. If anyone's really interested in checking out Ebert's highlights, look at his excellent commentary on the Citizen Kane DVD. And he has a new book out that collects 100 essays on the 100 most important films. NOTE: Star Wars is on the list, not Lord of the Crap.
-
You American bastards. Just kidding. But seriously though, you bastard Americans should get your hands on some Crown Royal. That is some good fuckin' wiskey. I wonder if that is what Capone was drinking on the ship. Roeper sucks, how the hell did he get to be Ebert's sidekick. I'm not just talking about his LOTR review. He's always making some dumb comment about movies on the show. I think I remember him bitching about Jimmy Neutron, "Just not going anywhere interesting for him." Well no shit you moron. The movie was made for five year olds. And he always sounds like he's trying to live up to Ebert's reviews, but every time he tries sounding smart or insightful, it just falls the flat. He's a hack.
Oh ya, Gibson's Finest is some more good rye you bastards should look into. -
Mar 08, 2002 12:38:56 PM CST
Just curious, does anyone here think Roeper is anything more tha
by flim
His DVD comments have been interesting once or twice but his reviews are, quite honestly, no better than my local critic. When I see him reviewing, one word comes to mind; 'smarmy.' It gets under my skin to no end, almost to the point that I don't watch the show any more. Really, I'm just sad. To tell you the truth, I liked Ebert having a different critic on with him every week, it was diverse, and more or less (so it seems to me) gave him an intellectual challenge, arguing and discussing from many different points of view. I'll be the last one to disparage Roeper, because I am sure he is a great writer and does good work elsewhere, but I think eventually someone will have to realise the fact that no amount of coaching or tutoring will turn a mediochre critic into a bright, intelligent and strong one. All people are born with the ability to gain power, but only a few are born with the ability to exercise it.
-
I get so sick of defending Richard Roeper on this site. By and large, the dismissal of Roeper as a "hack" by the various hack posters on this site seems to be nothing more than a mean-spirited, knee-jerk way to get a laugh. I find Roeper to be an articulate, funny, thoughtful guy. I live in L.A., but I love his columns in the Chicago Sun Times, most of which have nothing to do with the movies. Roeper is a Generation X guy, and his opinions are fresh and contrast nicely with Eberts. People rail that he isn't a professional movie reviewer... but what is that? What qualifications do you need to review movies? Is there a degree or test you need to take? Anyone who watches movies and has an opinion to express can be a movie reviewer.
-
I agree with renata, probably the only intelligent poster on this talkback. The best 5 movies ever made are: (1) Star Wars 4: A New Hope. (2) Star Wars 5: The Empire Strikes Back. (3) Star Wars 6: Return of the Jedi. (4) Star Wars 1: The Phantom Menace. (5) Star Wars 2: Attack of the Clones. I am sure the list will grow exponentially as the Star Wars franchise expands. *ALSO* The Star Wars Christmas TV special was better than Bored of the Rings. Jackson is nothing better than a b-movie director, and George Lucas is a far more talented writer than Tolkin and has better imagination, he is more creative. The next two Frodo movies will suck, no question. Hah ha ha you insecure Tolkin fags. Me and Renata are smarter. Check out the box office if you don't think so.
-
Here's a suggestion for all the AICN critics: GET A COPY OF STRUNK & WHITE.
Or at least run the grammar check on Word. I counted 4 uses of 'great' in two sentences.
And further, USE THE RIGHT WORDS. I mean Holy Zombie Jesus, 'roll' model? The man is not a bun, though he may resemble one. It's a 'role' model. -
Mar 08, 2002 6:55:46 PM CST
Very funny, Jar Jar. Laughed my ass off. (you are kidding, right
by mr sinister
-
I guess you were being serious. Thanks for saying I know what I'm talking about, although I don't agree with that "Greatest List". I do like your "Bored of the Rings" comment. That was clever.
-
I laugh at anyone who actually thinks Leonard Maltin and Good Morning America's lapdog bitch Siegel are decent critics. Siegel names "THE BEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR" to at least 10 different movies throughout each year. And Maltin is just plain fucking scary, a pale clone of the once great Ebert. And Roeper is a piece of yuppie trash. Michaela Periera should have his job.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 419 total posts 209 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 131 total posts 129 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 123 total posts 122 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 124 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 191 total posts 47 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 43 total posts 43 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 42 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 27 total posts 27 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 506 total posts 26 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 77 total posts 24 posts