# 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:** 8\ **Page:** 4
**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 19, 2011, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/61 "2011-04-19T19:59:43Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > The problem with Kickass had nothing to do with the violence and everything to do with it being idiot fanboy porn. Darn, you could probably apply the very same label to “Wanted”. ---
**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 19, 2011, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/62 "2011-04-19T20:43:25Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > 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. I’m sorry if I it seemed I was suggesting otherwise, but I definitely don’t consider _Kickass_ science fiction. My comment re: sci-fi was meant to be a separate critique than his opinion of _Kickass_. I’ve just seen him pan a lot of sci-fi stuff lately so I assumed he hates it all. Your explanation makes more sense. I basically agree with you that sci fi is about ideas, but we might not agree on which particular works actually meet that standard. As for _Kickass_, I’m still pissed off about how narrow-minded that review was. [QUOTE=Ebert] Will I seem hopelessly square if I find “Kick-Ass” morally reprehensible and will I appear to have missed the point? Let’s say you’re a big fan of the original comic book, and you think the movie does it justice. You know what? You inhabit a world I am so very not interested in. This isn’t comic violence. These men, and many others in the film, are really stone-cold dead. And the 11-year-old apparently experiences no emotions about this. Many children that age would be, I dunno, affected somehow, don’t you think, after killing eight or 12 men who were trying to kill her? I know, I know. This is a satire. But a satire of what? The movie’s rated R, which means in this case that it’s doubly attractive to anyone under 17. I’m not too worried about 16-year-olds here. I’m thinking of 6-year-olds. [/QUOTE] He gave it one star entirely based on the fact that _children might see it_. ---
**Author:** ![Baal\_Houtham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baal_houtham/32/13604_2.png) [@Baal\_Houtham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baal_Houtham)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/63 "2011-04-19T20:59:22Z")
And speaking of cranky old-line sf fans, **Star Wars** wasn’t any sort of ‘quantum leap’ compared to **2001**. The effects were only marginally better, and the story was unremarkable. I’d say that after **2001** you can’t talk about quantum leaps in special effects until digital takes a major role. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/64 "2011-04-19T22:58:18Z")
> [@Justin\_Bailey](#): > > Roger Ebert’s review of **Resident Evil** is practically legendary among video game fans for its badness. Not to defend Ebert all that much, because others have cited glaring badness, but this one I did have some comments on: > [@](#): > > He follows that up by sarcastically asking if the zombie lab’s security system is supposed to have a sense of humor even though the computer’s sentience (and sense of humor) is actually confirmed on screen. I think you missed the point of his comment. There is no explicable reason to him why the laser security system starts with single lines of laser, and works up to the grid, when it could have started with the grid and been done. The reasons it is in the movie is to (a) be cool, and (b) build up time for the hacker to try to save them and then fail. It’s to build suspense and be gross. But yes, that snark about the computer having a sense of humor fails because we later find out the computer is sentient and has a personality. > [@](#): > > He complains about the dialogue during the small talk between characters. Then he follows that up with a complaint that none of the characters partake in any small talk. I don’t think the dialogue he critiques is his definition of “small talk” - it fits under the rubrik of explanations. And his complaint about the dialogue is that he feels the comments should be obvious to them and thus not need to be explained to each other. However, he does make an error here, because he says > [@](#): > > Alice/Janus Prospero/Marsha Thompson and her colleagues are highly trained scientists, Um, no. Alice and Spence are security agents who guarded the back door to the complex. Matt is a “cop” caught on the premises of the back door. The others are security agents sent to infiltrate and deactivate the hive computer. None of them are trained scientists. > [@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? Don’t know about the movies you cite, but the Shelley novel has a blind man in a house that the Monster interacts with. It’s how he learns to speak and who he first talks to. ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2011, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/65 "2011-04-20T00:30:21Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > I think you missed the point of his comment. There is no explicable reason to him why the laser security system starts with single lines of laser, and works up to the grid, when it could have started with the grid and been done. The reasons it is in the movie is to (a) be cool, and (b) build up time for the hacker to try to save them and then fail. It’s to build suspense and be gross. But yes, that snark about the computer having a sense of humor fails because we later find out the computer is sentient and has a personality. Oh yeah, the laser room is totally pointless. But that still doesn’t change the fact that we’re given onscreen confirmation that the security system AI does have a personality and used the lasers that way because it was amusing. No matter how you slice it, his complaints are wrong. > [@](#): > > I don’t think the dialogue he critiques is his definition of “small talk” - it fits under the rubrik of explanations. And his complaint about the dialogue is that he feels the comments should be obvious to them and thus not need to be explained to each other. Yeah, but the characters getting things explained to them either a) have amnesia b) aren’t involved in The Hive/Umbrella at all or c) are just grunts who wouldn’t know what’s going on anyway. ---
**Author:** ![shy\_guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a6a055/32.png) [@shy\_guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shy_guy)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2011, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/66 "2011-04-20T01:42:21Z")
I generally like Ebert as a person, but he’s too old and close-minded for me to take him seriously. His hilarious, block-headed stubbornness in regard to his stance on video games is all it took for me to stop thinking of him as any kind of serious critic, or capable of applying any kind meaningful artistic judgment on anything. That said, he’s an entertaining and capable writer, and generally seems to be a good person. When I see a movie I like, I typically check to see if he reviewed it positively; if so, I read it. Likewise, his reviews of movies I don’t like are fun. But when it comes to anything nerdy, I just don’t bother. He has no idea what he’s talking about, and that’s when he bothers to watch the movie in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/67 "2011-04-21T19:15:55Z")
> [@Justin\_Bailey](#): > > Yeah, but the characters getting things explained to them either a) have amnesia b) aren’t involved in The Hive/Umbrella at all or c) are just grunts who wouldn’t know what’s going on anyway. Agreed, and I said he was wrong about that. ---
**Author:** ![Renifer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@Renifer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renifer)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2011, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583/68 "2011-04-22T03:42:58Z")
When Tim Burton’s Sweeney Todd came to theaters, there were a few complaints about it being (gasp) a musical. I suppose Tim Burton could have chosen to make a nonmusical version – it’s been done before. But I thought the music was very well done. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-by-the-clueless/565583.md?page=3)