I recently purchased the Ronin DVD, so after watching it again I decided to read the Ebert review. Uh, did he actually watch the movie? Here’s one excerpt:
Huh? First of all, Larry was already dead during the chase through the Pont D’Alma tunnel - it was DeNiro doing the driving. Secondly, even if Larry were the driver, where does he get the impression that he was a “showboat”?? He wasn’t exactly controlling the chase during his chase scene, nor was DeNiro “showboating” - he was just trying to keep up. A nitpicky thing, but it just seems like he threw that into his review for no reason and it makes little sense.
Plus, if you read the entire review, he seems like he’s ripping on it the whole time, but gives it three stars. He says things like “The movie is essentially bereft of a plot. There’s an explanation at the end, but it’s arbitrary and unnecessary.” I completely don’t agree - I thought the plot worked just fine.
It’s a strange review - if you know and like the movie, you truly get the feeling he was barely paying attention and decided to crack wise the whole time: " The screenplay credits conceal the presence of hired hand David Mamet, who reportedly wrote most of the final draft, and who gives the dialogue a deadpan, professional sound. For a little more, maybe he would have thrown in a plot."
I started a thread here a couple years ago about what an idiot Ebert is; specifically, that he seems to intentionally imbed a mistake in every single review. Like he misses a bit of every movie. FWIW, I’ve seen him in movie theaters twice, and BOTH times he got up in the middle of the movie to go back to the concession stand for SECONDS. And in one of those cases, missed a plot twist, and criticized the movie for not making that twist clear in his subsequent review.
I don’t always agree with Ebert, but I enjoy his writing. That’s why seeing a mistake like that is pretty bad. Sometimes I read his reviews before seeing the movie, then wait for the hilarious point he’s trying to make, but I don’t agree with him when I see it for myself. A recent example of that was Pitch Black. He was ranting on and on about how no life form could evolve on a planet that doesn’t have any sunlight / food for 27 years, but they made it pretty obvious in the movie that the bat things ate each other.
It’s like he thinks of funny things to write during the movie, and is hell bent on including them, veracity / star rating be damned.
lissenser, do you have a link to that thread? I can’t seem to find it doing a search. (I promise I won’t reactivate it).
I presume that he was going to eat more food, not that he had been gone momentarily. (Not that he should eat more food.)
I have a copy of his book “I Hated, Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie”, and I noted that, in a couple of the reviews, he comments about talking to fellow reviewers after the film, giving the subtle implication that he misses parts of films, and then uses other reviewers (whose notes/memories might not be all that good) to fill the blanks.
That was my first thought, but I think the implication here is that the colonies or whatever grow during the 30 year periods of sun, and then the creatures feed off of each other for the long dark periods, replenishing their numbers when conditions are more hospitable.
Dunno if you’ve seen the movie, but it remains sunlight for a few years (three ?)after the 27 year absence. No reason why they can’t store it up when there’s sunlight.
That post referring to joshmaker. It’s “pitch black” for 27 years and lit up by multiple suns for ~3 years.
I’d rather not discuss / defend the plot of that movie in this thread, since I didn’t even like it and I agree it’s mostly BS. (But the point is that Ebert’s review got all nitpicky b/c he probably was getting Goobers during the plot explanations that refuted his comments).
If you catch Ebert making a mistake, email him via the “email answer man” link on his web page. He does acknowledge mistakes and fix his reviews (at least some of the time).
While I respect him some, there are limits, such as his supposed review of “DysFunKtional Family.” Talk about rambling on about other things.
