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.
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.
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.
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.
It is in the book (chapter 15).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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…
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.
I just spotted another one, from his surprisingly positive review of the thoroughly mediocre Gulliver’s Travels:
King Theodore is the princess’s father! :smack: The General’s romantic rival is commoner Horatio, played by Jason Segal.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Technology not a review, but a commentary on movies in the Sunday Times Magazine of March 18, 2011. Talking about Limitless, Carina Chocano wrote:
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.
Quoth Katriona:
Not even raised by them: He was just good friends with a couple of them.