Saw Immortals last night. Eh - I enjoyed it for what it was. So then I read Ebert’s review, and I was kinda surprised that he didn’t like it, since he’s been a fan of Tarsem Singh’s movies.
But once again, like when he thought the safe landed in the boat in The Italian Job, he totally missed a key scene:
Uh, that was Poseidon in that scene. Did he really not realize that? He was wearing his golden outfit and slicing up Titans with his Godly Trident. Kinda impossible to mistake Theseus for Poseidon.
And then this:
Not puzzling at all. That was the whole point of that wall. They only got through the gate b/c of that bow.
And finally:
Are you fucking kidding me? He didn’t know who they were? They were the Oracle decoys, you know, from 30 minutes earlier? When they were captured and Pheadra got away? He didn’t hear them moaning “I’m the Oracle!” ala “I’m Spartacus?” How the hell could he not know who they were? There were only five women in the whole damn movie.
These are the kinds of mistakes that Ebert has been making for 30 years. I honestly don’t know if I’ve ever read one of his reviews that didn’t contain such a glaring who/what/when mistake that I wondered if he actually saw the movie himself. But then, it’s been a very long time since I have read one.
Ebert is my go-to guy for movie reviews. I’ve noticed instances where he has missed or misinterpreted a key event in a movie but overall I get more useful info from his reviews than any others. Using his reviews I have rarely seen a movie I didn’t enjoy in the last twenty years or so.
The best part is that every scene of the enemy camp takes time out to foreshadow the bull, so that when you see the Oracle decoys get identified as decoys, and thus no longer useful to the sadistic enemy faction, you immediately knew what their fate would be. It’s a Chekov’s gun even to people who aren’t familiar enough with Greek myth to identify the bull right away.
I find at best, movie reviews are fun to read for the more curious type. However, I would never determine what I watch based on some other person’s opinion. Everyone’s a critic, they don’t know anything we don’t know so why should I even care what they say about a movie?
The thing about Ebert is that he insists on reviewing every single movie himself. That means he sees something like 10 movies a week, in the theaters. Very few critics do this. You can’t blame him if some of the details start running together, especially considering the state of the man’s health.
a) Ebert’s been doing that for 30 years, so that’s what you get for reading him,
b) Screw your criticism; Ebert RAWKS and so do his reviews!
c) It’s not Roger’s fault he screwed up, it’s the movie’s fault,
d) Ooh, an opportunity to refer to Chekov’s gun!
e) You’re reading Ebert wrong! It doesn’t matter if he’s incompetent because he’s so entertaining. Why even BOTHER, I sneer in a totally non-snarky way,
f) no u,
g) I pity the Philistines who need the opinions of CRITICS to make up their minds <sniff>,
h) OK, he messed up, but that hardly ever happens,
i) My God, the man’s sick… every review is a GIFT! Count your blessings!
This is not a new thing for Ebert. I know he’s been bad about getting key scenes wrong since at least Parenthood (1989).
He also doesn’t seem to publish errata or anything unless it’s unusually glaring.
I think he gets fully absorbed in watching a movie. Details and such just don’t stick. But then he writes about details. He should be aware of his problem by now and avoid putting in details without double checking. (He’s been watching many movies on DVD since he got sick, rather than going to critics’ screenings.)
One of my favorite examples of how he really doesn’t pay attention is the reflection on Mama Corleone during the funeral scene in The Godfather. Someone wrote in and asked him about it. He rewatched the scene and didn’t see it. Told the reader it wasn’t there. Then many people wrote in and told him the exact moment to look at. Then he finally saw it.
I saw it the first time I watched the movie on TV. And this guy has watched the movie over and over. He even does scene-by-scene days long presentations on it. He still didn’t see it when it was first pointed out to him!
The guy doesn’t watch movies like regular people. His mind is processing the movie differently.
As to details: He hasn’t lost it. He never had it.
Movie reviews are amusing, but you shouldn’t base your habits on them.
I’ve seen critically panned movies that I loved, and missed out on some great movies that were ahead of their time.
Ebert is a nice touchstone to weigh your opinions against, simply because he’s one of the few that’s been doing this for decades (Pauline Kael was another, and Joe Baltake of the Sacramento Bee).
Still, Ebert annoyed me when he pissed on “Zoolander” because they had the temerity to use as the Fashionista’s target for assassination the prime minister of Thailand. This gets my award for Missing the Point.
Malaysia, actually, but you’re right. What a boneheaded review.
To the OP’s point, is it possible Ebert is erring on the side of caution or attempting to absolve past sins, specifically when he gave The Cell—a surprisingly awful movie, IMO—a four-star rating?
I do like reading his reviews - his reveiws of bad movies have given me lots of laughter over the years. That’s what makes his discussion of details that he gets wrong so irritating.
His review of Ronin is another example, which I’ve brought up before - he gets on his high horse about something he completely got wrong.