Errors in Roger Ebert's reviews. How many are there?

[ftg]

I was channel surfing recently and saw The Godfather was on HBO, so I started watching it. (Have a DVR so I would watch a little, watch something else, come back and watch some more.) Picked up late in the movie when Tessio and Clemenza were trying to persuade Vito to overrule Michael’s decisions.

When I got to the graveyard scene I wanted to show Mrs. FtG the weird reflection that Ebert had trouble seeing. But it wasn’t there! It’s been cleaned up. Aggh.

It’s surprising what gets cleaned up sometimes years later. E.g., in The Zero Effect there used to be some shots in the diner where the printing on windows flipped. I.e., facing the street at times and facing in at times. That’s gone on the cable version now.

[SlackerInc]

@Tim_R.Mortiss

Yes, his reviews are full of errors, but I still liked reading them. I think of Ebert as a “big picture” kind of guy, but not too accurate with details.

Oh, I am definitely a big fan. I was a charter member of his club, even. But I don’t understand why he recapitulated so much of the plot of movies in his reviews, when he made so many errors.

BTW I don’t accept the premise of “zombie” threads: they should be made read-only if responding isn’t kosher.

[Siam_Sam]

As for whether a thread is a zombie, my understanding is it’s one that’s been six months since the last post.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Ebert liked Predator but had some observations:

And the action moves so quickly that we overlook questions such as (1) Why would an alien species go to all the effort to send a creature to Earth, just so that it could swing from trees and skin American soldiers? Or, (2) Why would a creature so technologically advanced need to bother with hand-to-hand combat, when it could just zap Arnold with a ray gun?

I gather he completely missed the point of the film. The Predator wasn’t interested in killing humans efficiently, he was killing them for sport.

[SlackerInc]

Ah, so like a bowhunter. (I haven’t seen it.)

[Bryan_Ekers]

I recommend it highly, myself. The characters, including Arnold’s, are actually somewhat nuanced, by the standards of 1980s action flicks.

[Evil_Captor]

@Doug_K

I don’t think he reviews too many movies now.

Like Dale Sams’ example this is also not Ebert, but when Flashdance first came out Wichita’s movie critic referred to the main character as an “exotic dancer”. The closest thing the movie had to a major plot point was that she refused to be an exotic dancer, repeatedly turning down offers from a nearby strip club owner.

Reminds me of all those reviewers who talk about Ana signing Christian Grey’s sexual contract in “Fifty Shades of Grey.” The whole relationship between Ana and Christian hinges on the fact that she refuses to sign the contract.

[EllisDee]

@Bryan_Ekers

Ebert liked Predator but had some observations:

And the action moves so quickly that we overlook questions such as (1) Why would an alien species go to all the effort to send a creature to Earth, just so that it could swing from trees and skin American soldiers? Or, (2) Why would a creature so technologically advanced need to bother with hand-to-hand combat, when it could just zap Arnold with a ray gun?

I gather he completely missed the point of the film. The Predator wasn’t interested in killing humans efficiently, he was killing them for sport.

That’s pretty egregious, bordering on “How do you call yourself a movie reviewer?” Being serious, how could he possibly not understand that point?