# 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:** 3
**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, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/41 "2011-04-12T20:26:59Z")
Years ago, I remember a review of the TV show **The Avengers** where it was clear that the reviewer had only seen one episode – the one where Mrs. Peel leaves and Tara King arrives. They said that Steed had two female sidekicks. ---
**Author:** ![Morbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/morbo/32/389_2.png) [@Morbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morbo)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/42 "2011-04-12T21:28:48Z")
I first noticed Ebert doing this sort of thing with [Ronin](http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19980925/REVIEWS/809250303/1023): > [@](#): > > And there’s another American, Larry (Skipp Sudduth), who is supposed to be a great driver but is too much of a showboat, choosing as he does to replicate the Diana death chase (actually, that’s just the movie’s in-joke, if it’s a joke at all). Uh, yeah, great characterization there, and what a scolding finger ye doth wag. Except that they were madly chasing Dierdre, Seamus and the case in another car, so nobody was “choosing” anything. Oh, and Larry was **already dead** during the chase through the Pont D’Alma tunnel - it was DeNiro doing the driving. > [@friedo](#): > > 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. > > The current review on his site has removed the mistaken part. He talked about how they cut holes in the floors of the building so the safe would fall through to a waiting boat below, and bitched and moaned at the notion that the safe would fall onto the boat below and not through it. Which of course didn’t happen - the safe landed in the water; the fleeing boat was deliberate misdirection so the police would chase it. This wasn’t a blink-and-you-miss-it scene - the movie then spends about four minutes showing them SCUBAing down to the safe, breaking in, extracting the gold, then sneaking away in an underwater sub thingy. ---
**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:** [April 13, 2011, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/43 "2011-04-13T07:22:11Z")
If you think that **Ebert** ’s reviews are bad, you should check **Ben Lyons**. There are a few of his reviews on youtube, watching them you cannot help but wonder how an idiot of that caliber ever got such a job (ha, his dad is himself a famous movie critic? That might help…). ---
**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/44 "2011-04-13T12:43:04Z")
Philip Norman’s [piece](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1348103/What-Sooty-doing-The-Kings-Speech.html) on _The King’s Speech_ in the _Daily Mail_ is spectacularly dumb. The central thrust of his article, and the headline, was entirely based on a mishearing of a line in the film (“Do you like sweeties?” as “Do you like Sooty?”). He also misidentified the child in question. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/45 "2011-04-13T13:07:54Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Even more beautiful because both words are misused. Quasar, obviously, quantum since he is using it in the scientifically illiterate sense of a major movement instead of the tiniest possible. No, “quantum” can metaphorically mean a large movement as well. The key point is that it’s a _discontinuous_ movement. ---
**Author:** ![well\_he\_s\_back](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/3ab097/32.png) [@well\_he\_s\_back](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/well_he_s_back)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/46 "2011-04-13T13:18:07Z")
I always thought Roger Ebert was clueless about the story in the Lord of the Rings movies. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/47 "2011-04-13T14:07:27Z")
Wow, all of this Ebert bashing. I like his reviews! Except his review of _2010_ complained that it explained too much. He praised _2001_ for leaving things purposely ambiguous and letting the audience use its imagination. But in his review of _Agnes of God_, he complains about the ending being ambiguous! ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/48 "2011-04-13T14:14:41Z")
**tdn** , sometimes ambiguity is good, sometimes not so much. Sometimes it’s hard to tell. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/49 "2011-04-13T19:59:07Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > **tdn** , sometimes ambiguity is good, sometimes not so much. I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say, here. The only really clueless movie review I remember is a guy on the TV news reviewing _The Empire Strikes Back_. He hadn’t seen _Star Wars_, but must have seen all the bad knockoffs it inspired in the next couple years. He liked _Empire_, but felt that the humorous robot thing had already been done to death. I remember a review of _Moon_ by someone (maybe Ebert) who hadn’t figured out how many clones of Sam there were, or what happened to the original. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/50 "2011-04-13T20:20:25Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > **tdn** , sometimes ambiguity is good, sometimes not so much. Yeah, I know, it just struck me as oddly inconsistent. I think his problem with _Agnes_ was that we never found out who got her pregnant, and it’s Very Important that that loose end get tied up. Personally I liked not knowing better. It really didn’t matter to the story. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/51 "2011-04-13T20:26:22Z")
Chris Tookey’s Daily Mail review of _Kick Ass_, entitled [“Don’t be fooled by the hype: This crime against cinema is twisted, cynical, and revels in the abuse of childhood”](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-1262948/Kick-Ass-Dont-fooled-hype--This-crime-cinema-twisted-cynical-revels-abuse-childhood.html) must surely tower above all others in the “missing the fucking point” stakes. Really, really astonishing (and should serve as a big neon sign to anyone who ever wishes to cite the Daily Mail in a debate on the SDMB). ---
**Author:** ![Small\_Hen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ad7895/32.png) [@Small\_Hen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Small_Hen)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/52 "2011-04-13T20:36:27Z")
I’m reminded of a review for Shaun of the Dead which complained that the film plays well for Brittish audiences, but that Americans would fail to understand the metaphor of a man sleepwalking through life and missing the world around him - not to mention that the soundtrack is mainly performed by Queen, “a band most Americans probably haven’t heard of.” :eek: This was an American film critic, btw. I forget who. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/53 "2011-04-14T16:38:59Z")
> [@Small\_Hen](#): > > I’m reminded of a review for Shaun of the Dead which complained that the film plays well for Brittish audiences, but that Americans would fail to understand the metaphor of a man sleepwalking through life and missing the world around him - not to mention that the soundtrack is mainly performed by Queen, “a band most Americans probably haven’t heard of.” Wow. Many years ago a local paper had a review of _Flash Gordon_. I didn’t read it, but someone sent a letter to the editor explaining why the reviewer was wrong. I don’t remember much, but the reviewer complained that the title character spent most of the film traipsing around in nothing but a jockstrap. The letter writer said that it was a 2-minute scene, tops. She really dressed the guy down and made him look like an idiot. The letter writer was an 11 year old girl. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/54 "2011-04-14T17:21:50Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > No, “quantum” can metaphorically mean a large movement as well. The key point is that it’s a _discontinuous_ movement. Only because the scientifically illiterate use of the term is so prevalent. (I wonder if there were any dumb reviews of **Night of the Living Dead**? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/55 "2011-04-14T20:42:31Z")
> [@Colophon](#): > > Philip Norman’s [piece](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1348103/What-Sooty-doing-The-Kings-Speech.html) on _The King’s Speech_ in the _Daily Mail_ is spectacularly dumb. The central thrust of his article, and the headline, was entirely based on a mishearing of a line in the film (“Do you like sweeties?” as “Do you like Sooty?”). He also misidentified the child in question. That’s a good one: not only does he screw up details of the movie he’s reviewing, his attempt to throw in a dig at an entirely unrelated movie also falls flat when he criticizes _Kill Bill_ for the scene where Uma Thurman takes her new katana as carry-on luggage for the flight home, completely missing one of the best jokes in the film: the Japanese airplane actually has sword-holders attached to each seat. You can see at least two other passengers with their swords neatly racked next to them. ---
**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:** [April 15, 2011, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/56 "2011-04-15T05:54:45Z")
> [@Overly Pedantic Voyager](#): > > Only because the scientifically illiterate use of the term is so prevalent. :rolleyes: It’s not a scientifically illiterate usage, it’s a metaphorical one. You might be confused by the scale. Surely an electron transition is very tiny. Well compared to people yes. The point is, it’s discontinuous. It’s large _relative_ to it’s own scale. It’s not a big distance, but it _is_ a big change. And that’s what matters. Or shall we start complaining that technically speaking, the minutes in New York are pretty much the same length as they are everywhere else? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/57 "2011-04-15T09:07:53Z")
> [@jackdavinci](#): > > :rolleyes: > > It’s not a scientifically illiterate usage, it’s a metaphorical one. > > You might be confused by the scale. Surely an electron transition is very tiny. Well compared to people yes. The point is, it’s discontinuous. It’s large _relative_ to it’s own scale. It’s not a big distance, but it _is_ a big change. And that’s what matters. > > Or shall we start complaining that technically speaking, the minutes in New York are pretty much the same length as they are everywhere else? Exactly. A quantum leap means something went from one state directly to a completely different state. So somebody saying that _Star Wars_ was a quantum leap from _2001_ was making a valid point - _Star Wars_ completely changed the SF movie genre. The reference to a quasar leap on the other hand was just stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/58 "2011-04-15T13:19:13Z")
> [@Justin\_Bailey](#): > > Roger Ebert’s review of **Resident Evil** is practically legendary among video game fans for its badness. > > [http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020315/REVIEWS/203150304/1023](http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020315/REVIEWS/203150304/1023) > [@iftheresaway](#): > > 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. I think Ebert’s a great writer, but his reviews are much easier to swallow if you accept that he’s really a crotchety old man. He hates science fiction, refuses to acknowledge the artistic merit of video games, and seems to apply his own moral framework to films rather than taking them on their own turf. I was beyond furious when he panned _Kickass_ because it featured violence involving children and therefore may be a bad influence. He judged the entire film based on his moral outrage about children being portrayed as violent superheroes. Give me a fucking break. ---
**Author:** ![a35362](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3da27b/32.png) [@a35362](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/a35362)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/59 "2011-04-19T18:11:28Z")
> [@olivesmarch4th](#): > > I think Ebert’s a great writer, but his reviews are much easier to swallow if you accept that he’s really a crotchety old man. He hates science fiction, refuses to acknowledge the artistic merit of video games, and seems to apply his own moral framework to films rather than taking them on their own turf. I was beyond furious when he panned _Kickass_ because it featured violence involving children and therefore may be a bad influence. He judged the entire film based on his moral outrage about children being portrayed as violent superheroes. Give me a fucking break. Oh, Ebert’s been a longtime fan of SF. I think he’s just… getting older, and of course (and I hate to say it) his illness probably puts him in a less tolerant frame of mind. He is less patient than he used to be – and remember, compared to Siskel, Ebert was the “nice” one. He has been pretty clear over the years that his reviews are meant to be him saying, “I saw this movie, had a completely subjective experience with it, and I’m going to share it with you.” I suppose he is more sensitive to, say, violence in movies or stupid stuff in movies than he used to be. But I don’t really know, because I don’t read him regularly any more. He’s changed too much. ---
**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 19, 2011, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/60 "2011-04-19T19:51:17Z")
Ebert is an old-line sf fan. He wrote for sf fanzines as a teenager. What that probably means is that like me, he hates the utter crap that is marketed as sf in the movie world but bears no resemblance to good science fiction. It’s the stuff that used to be denigrated as sci-fi and is now proudly proclaimed to be sci-fi. It’s still crap. I’m fond of saying that sf is about ideas, not about spaceships. You can combine the two but 99% of sci-fi movies leave out the idea half. Star Trek and Star Wars may have had some virtues, but those pale to their legacy, which is blowing up stuff in stuff. The problem with Kickass had nothing to do with the violence and everything to do with it being idiot fanboy porn. That people are now calling stuff like Kickass science fiction is a real problem. And whatever reason Ebert may have had with hating it is irrelevant to his liking or not liking science fiction. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583.md?page=4)