# Movie reviews by the clueless... **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [December 28, 2010, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583 "2010-12-28T06:59:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Baine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Baine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baine)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2010, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/21 "2010-12-30T23:59:42Z")
Not quite the same thing, but the Nostalgia Critic, in a review comparing “The Prince of Egypt” and “The Ten Commandments” makes a big deal about Moses and Ramses being like brothers, and wonders why “The Ten Commandments” doesn’t emphasize this. Moses and Ramses seeing each other as brothers was a particular characteristic from the plot of “The Prince of Egypt” and not from the original story. ---
**Author:** ![Tangent](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tangent/32/3098_2.png) [@Tangent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tangent)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2010, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/22 "2010-12-31T01:17:04Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > Ebert makes lots of mistakes like that. He often confuses minor details (which is no big deal) but sometimes misses entire plot points and then complains about them. One I remember is for the remake of _The Italian Job_, where he points out the implausibility of getting some loot from here to there, apparently having gone to the bathroom during the very scene where they show how that was done. Yep, I don’t even remember which movie it was now, but I once read a review of his where he spent the majority of the article criticizing certain plot points in a movie that he said made no sense. It was clear that he had missed crucial elements of the plot that had actually been spelled out clearly in the film, and he had also dreamed up some “bad” plot points that were actually not in the movie at all! Ebert wasn’t just confusing minor details, he was clearly entirely wrong on many major parts of the story, and his harsh criticism was based entirely on his own ignorance of the movie. I completely lost respect for him after that and haven’t read his reviews since. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2010, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/23 "2010-12-31T10:26:32Z")
> [@Capitaine\_Zombie](#): > > Too bad Alatriste’s movie adaptation royally sucked. I disagree: they took a dozen books and extracted them, the extract was good. The books are a lot better because they have more space to expound, saying that the adaptation is bad doesn’t make it justice. ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2010, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/24 "2010-12-31T11:06:53Z")
Every Ebert review I’ve read of a film I’ve seen has had at least one glaring error. I’ve begun to think he does it deliberately. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2010, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/25 "2010-12-31T12:38:13Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > The scene with the blind man was in **Bride**. It doesn’t appear to be in the book, either. So what was wrong about that statement? It _is_ in the book (chapter 15). ---
**Author:** ![joebuck20](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/74df32/32.png) [@joebuck20](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joebuck20)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2010, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/26 "2010-12-31T16:03:08Z")
Even when I disagree with Ebert, I can usually see where he’s coming from. But I thought he was _way_ off base on The Lovely Bones. Though, I really liked the movie, I can understand why a lot of people wouldn’t. But Ebert was basically accusing Peter Jackson of celebrating a little girl’s death because they get to go to heaven and play all day. I was wondering if he saw the same movie I did. > [@](#): > > “The Lovely Bones” is a deplorable film with this message: If you’re a 14-year-old girl who has been brutally raped and murdered by a serial killer, you have a lot to look forward to. You can get together in heaven with the other teenage victims of the same killer, and gaze down in benevolence upon your family members as they mourn you and realize what a wonderful person you were. Sure, you miss your friends, but your fellow fatalities come dancing to greet you in a meadow of wildflowers, and how cool is that? ---
**Author:** ![iftheresaway](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ecae2f/32.png) [@iftheresaway](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iftheresaway)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2010, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/27 "2010-12-31T20:45:41Z")
> [@joebuck20](#): > > Even when I disagree with Ebert, I can usually see where he’s coming from. But I thought he was _way_ off base on The Lovely Bones. > > Though, I really liked the movie, I can understand why a lot of people wouldn’t. But Ebert was basically accusing Peter Jackson of celebrating a little girl’s death because they get to go to heaven and play all day. I was wondering if he saw the same movie I did. Aside from being incorrect, what exactly is his point? Is he concerned that hordes of teenage girls will going running out looking for someone to brutally rape and murder them so they can play in a field? That seems a tad on the unrealistic side. ---
**Author:** ![Katriona](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/katriona/32/113_2.png) [@Katriona](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Katriona)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2010, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/28 "2010-12-31T22:50:46Z")
A local reviewer for my podunk hometown’s paper was terribly upset about the casting of Daniel Day-Lewis as Hawkeye in Last of the Mohicans. He didn’t seem to realize that the character, although raised by the Mohicans, wasn’t actually a Mohican, and so was offended that a Native American wasn’t cast in the role. He was an idiot who generally didn’t like anything more “cutting edge” than the latest Disney dreck. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2011, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/29 "2011-01-01T00:04:17Z")
I remember hearing Rush Limbaugh complain about _Independence Day_ because Jeff Goldblum’s character went out of his way to save a homeless person with whom he once played chess. :rolleyes: Then there was the great _Forrest Gump_ debate where Rush was convinced that it was a liberal message movie and his callers ceasingly calling him to debate his position, saying instead that FG was full of good ol’ American values. I think they finally got him to concede the point, but it took a good month. I’m sure he’s made gaffes like this since '96, but I stopped listening to him then. ---
**Author:** ![Capitaine\_Zombie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e95f7d/32.png) [@Capitaine\_Zombie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capitaine_Zombie)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2011, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/30 "2011-01-01T00:50:11Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > I disagree: they took a dozen books and extracted them, the extract was good. The books are a lot better because they have more space to expound, saying that the adaptation is bad doesn’t make it justice. THAT was precisely the point of why it sucked. When you already have problems laying out one story stay off trying to adapt the whole series in a single movie. To make that choice definitely reveals your cluelessness as a director. Too bad, Mortensen is one of the best, if not the best actor in the world, beginning of the movie was cool, but after fifteen minutes you could already feel the cramming in of one too big story to tell. ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2011, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/31 "2011-01-01T17:10:48Z")
Damn! I often come across these, but I’m having trouble thinking of specific examples. But yeah, I will often read a review and think to myself “either they didn’t actually watch the movie, or else they missed or didn’t understand a crucial part.” ---
**Author:** ![MovieCriticNextDoor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85e7bf/32.png) [@MovieCriticNextDoor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieCriticNextDoor)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2011, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/32 "2011-01-02T16:16:59Z")
Well, I’m clueless (that is, just a random moviegoer with no formal training), and I write movie reviews all the time. Heh. But I _don’t_ mess up major plot points, or at least if I have, no one else has ever spotted it. (Granted, it is hard to take notes in the dark, but I always imagined the pros had ways around that little problem.) My whole idea was to take away all the “movie speak” from the reviews – yes, some people do want to hear all about this person’s expert opinion on the cinematography or discuss a director’s influences in-depth; but most of the time people just want an easy-to-read, informative, and, yes, accurate sort of review so they can decide if they want to pay eight bucks for the early showing of the latest Natalie Portman flick (since she’s been so busy lately). I like Ebert’s tweets a lot, but frankly, I avoid other people’s reviews so I’m not influenced by them beforehand, and I don’t always remember to go back and read them after my review is done. Perhaps this is one of those cases where doing something professionally, and under a good deal of pressure, takes away a lot of the original love and fascination that professional might originally have had… ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/33 "2011-01-03T07:29:43Z")
> [@MovieCriticNextDoor](#): > > people just want an easy-to-read, informative, and, yes, accurate sort of review so they can decide if they want to pay eight bucks for the early showing of the latest Natalie Portman flick Yeah, I guess there are really two different sort of reviews - 1) Serious analysis of a film and 2) Consumer guide for deciding whether to see it. I think there’s something to be said for having a review column that is always positive - the idea is not to decide whether a movie is good or bad, but in determining which type of movie goer the film will appeal to or cause dismay for. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/34 "2011-01-03T07:50:11Z")
> [@gaffa](#): > > Every Ebert review I’ve read of a film I’ve seen has had at least one glaring error. I’ve begun to think he does it deliberately. I just spotted another one, from his surprisingly positive review of the thoroughly mediocre _[Gulliver’s Travels](http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20101222/REVIEWS/101229992)_: > [@](#): > > The kingdom centers on the beloved and beautiful Princess Mary (Emily Blunt), and the rivals for her affection: King Theodore (Billy Connolly) and Gen. Edward (Chris O’Dowd). King Theodore is the princess’s father! :smack: The General’s romantic rival is commoner Horatio, played by Jason Segal. ---
**Author:** ![expectopatronum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/expectopatronum/32/173_2.png) [@expectopatronum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/expectopatronum)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/35 "2011-04-12T17:13:30Z")
> [@Baine](#): > > Not quite the same thing, but the Nostalgia Critic, in a review comparing “The Prince of Egypt” and “The Ten Commandments” makes a big deal about Moses and Ramses being like brothers, and wonders why “The Ten Commandments” doesn’t emphasize this. Moses and Ramses seeing each other as brothers was a particular characteristic from the plot of “The Prince of Egypt” and not from the original story. that was exactly his point- in the prince of egypt, the heart of the story revolves around the fact that the two are brothers. in the ten commandments, you might not even realize that aspect of their relationship. he wasn’t saying the ten commandments was incorrect in their approach, he’s saying he feels the prince of egypt is overall a stronger film because it focuses on moses and ramses as brothers. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/36 "2011-04-12T17:29:09Z")
It was pretty clear to me that many of the reviewers of David Lynch’s 1980 movie **the Elephant Man** were pissed because it wasn’t a film version of Bernard Pomerance’s play of the same name, which was still playing on Broadway. Tough. There was no reason to expect it to be. Also, I got the impression that some reviewers thought that **Predator** was going to be some non-fantastic film about Central American mercenaries. Again – why would they think so? It had Arnold in it, and the previews – which ran for months before the release – should have made the genre nature clear. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/37 "2011-04-12T17:33:03Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > And finally the Louisville Courier-Journal for the Coppola-Branaugh-DeNiro “Frankenstein”- this is much more paraphrased but the essence of the review was this- “This is relatively faithful to the novel but who wants to see a Frankenstein movie which reflects a teenage girl’s anquished feelings on childbirth and loss? These movies are supposed to be scary and fun!” Even worse was the critic who couldn’t figure out why the movie – which was billed as being the most faithful adaptation so far – started out in the Arctic. I find most critics misunderstood Woody Allen’s **A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy** by assuming, wrongly, it was a comedy. It was actually a fairly serious rumination on the impermanence of relationships. ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/38 "2011-04-12T18:00:13Z")
The passage of 30 years may have clouded this memory, but ISTR that Rex Reed’s review of _Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan_ complained about the casting choice of Ricardo Montalban as Khan. Ummm, Montalban originated the role in the TV series, 15 years earlier! ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/39 "2011-04-12T18:02:54Z")
Technology not a review, but a commentary on movies in the Sunday Times Magazine of March 18, 2011. Talking about Limitless, Carina Chocano wrote: > [@](#): > > After he takes the pills, though, all the big questions melt away, and Eddie can finally focus on the practical ones. So what does this modern man do when he suddenly discovers he can do anything? Does he cure cancer? Retreat to a Tibetan monastery to contemplate the mysteries of existence? Reduce carbon emissions to zero? Broker world peace? No. He knocks out the novel, then does himself a real favor. He gets into shape, buys himself a new wardrobe, becomes a day trader, figures out how to game the system, gets rich, learns Italian in order to impress girls in restaurants, holds court at parties, drives recklessly through picturesque Mediterranean villages, does all his dishes and organizes his books and CDs in alphabetical order. Not only is this a particularly bad rendering of what objectively happens in the movie, but the ending is the exact wish fulfillment of what she wants to happen. and she never mentions it. The whole article is stupid almost beyond belief, though. It confirms whatever bad thoughts you have about mainstream publications, though personally I’ll just avoid whatever Carina Chocano writes forevermore. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/40 "2011-04-12T20:16:03Z")
Quoth **Katriona** : > [@](#): > > A local reviewer for my podunk hometown’s paper was terribly upset about the casting of Daniel Day-Lewis as Hawkeye in Last of the Mohicans. He didn’t seem to realize that the character, although raised by the Mohicans, wasn’t actually a Mohican, and so was offended that a Native American wasn’t cast in the role. Not even raised by them: He was just good friends with a couple of them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583.md?page=3)