IC Forum Archive

Mr. Mechanical · Posts: 1890

I don't always agree with him but damn, does he know how to slam a movie that deserves slamming. Like the new Deuce Bigalow. Go on, read it, it's funny. We should post our favorite Roger Ebert reviews or something.

aderack · Posts: 5018

That one meandered a bit; it was setting up something special, though.

I sort of liked my livejournal feed. It listed such-and-such a movie, **** , such-and-other, ****, Deuce Bigalow: NO.

icycalm · Posts: 442

OMG that's so funny.

fuck.

evnvnv · Posts: 333

I feel like roger ebert is only valid these days in the rare situations in which he dislikes a movie. But he is much, much more tolerable in writing than on TV, that's for sure.

Still, he recieves undying affection from me for "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls." I like imagining that his every criticism is secretly just his desire for all movies to be more like his masterpiece.

Which wouldn't really be that bad...

thatbox · Posts: 816

aderack wrote:

That one meandered a bit; it was setting up something special, though.

I sort of liked my livejournal feed. It listed such-and-such a movie, **** , such-and-other, ****, Deuce Bigalow: NO.

I said that exact same thing in #insertcredit that day! I hadn't seen a 0 star movie in my feed before, and so I didn't immediately take it to mean NO STARS. Instead, I immediately took it to mean NO.

DonMarco · Posts: 565

I really. really. really hate his Charlie and the Chocolate Factory review.

Read the last line of the review. Read it twice, if you need to.

dessgeega · Posts: 3317

Roger Ebert wrote:

...can anyone look at Willy Wonka and not think of Michael Jackson?

Mister Toups · Posts: 4943

Roger Ebert wrote:

...can anyone look at Johnny Depp and not think of Michael Jackson?

Fixed.

Am I the only one who's fucking tired of the Burton/Depp dream team? Or just tired of Johnny Depp in general?

Mister Toups · Posts: 4943

And my favorite line from the Bigalowe review:

George · Posts: 1656

Mister Toups wrote:

Am I the only one who's not fucking tired of the Burton/Depp dream team? Or just tired of Johnny Depp in general?

I have no problems with Johhny Depp (Finding Neverland was good). But Burton? Has this guy made any good movies besides Nightmare Before Christmas? I know some people like Edward Scissorhands, but wasn't that like... twenty years ago?

DonMarco · Posts: 565

Planet of the Apes was a bad movie based on a terrible scifi premise.

Sleepy Hollow was based on a script 15 pages long based on a spooky legend that can be explained in 2 minutes.

Edward Scissorhands is the tragic child with horrible, life-damaging disfigurement. You don't see those too often. Not outside of anime! Hahaha!

The fourth movie I was going to mention was Grave of the Fireflies. But right now, I'm half-way through Giant Robo, and digging the corrupt justice/humanity of it all.

George · Posts: 1656

DonMarco wrote:

Planet of the Apes was a bad movie based on a terrible scifi premise.

Too bad the original still kicked ass. Sure, it had apes that spoke 20th century English millions of years in the future. But Charlton Heston! And the Statue of Liberty!

That's all it really needed.

Swimmy · Posts: 147

George wrote:

Mister Toups wrote:

Am I the only one who's not fucking tired of the Burton/Depp dream team? Or just tired of Johnny Depp in general?

I have no problems with Johhny Depp (Finding Neverland was good). But Burton? Has this guy made any good movies besides Nightmare Before Christmas?

That's what I was going to say. All style, no substance.

DonMarco · Posts: 565

George wrote:

DonMarco wrote:

Planet of the Apes was a bad movie based on a terrible scifi premise.

Too bad the original still kicked ass. Sure, it had apes that spoke 20th century English millions of years in the future. But Charlton Heston! And the Statue of Liberty!

That's all it really needed.

YEAH IT WAS THE SEVENTIES!!!! THE NINETEEN SEVENTIES!!! They sold movie tickets for 50 cents and you got popcorn for free and shit! If you're going to keep commenting on the FUCKING OBVIOUS (Planets of the Apes had apes speaking english 20 million years in the future??!??! Charton Heston was in it?!!?!?!!?!??!?!!??! The statue of liberty!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!! OMG!!!?!?!?!??!?!) then just go back to LPN's movie forum and leave us be.

Swimmy wrote:

That's what I was going to say. All style, no substance.

Holl-lee-wood. Moo-vies. Acktors.

special blend · Posts: 154

He's all about the MOVIE MAGIC, dude.

Mister Toups · Posts: 4943

DonMarco wrote:

Read the last line of the review. Read it twice, if you need to.

I don't think I see your point. Could you explain with minimal sarcasm/caps lock?

Swimmy · Posts: 147

DonMarco wrote:

Holl-lee-wood. Moo-vies. Acktors.

Eh. Sometimes it works. I love Edward Scissorhands, and despite Batman's many flaws I appreciate it just for the wonderful set design. Maybe it's his actor choice. Sleepy Hollow, for instance. That woman who played the real villain? Made me cringe with every line. Her screen presence was just painful on every level. Or how about the son in Big Fish? Stiff, constantly awkward, and his I'm Emotional! face makes me want to punch him. There seems to be at least one person in most of his movies that I just hate.

Edit: Motherhell, I forget about Ed Wood every time. Nothing wrong with that movie: thumbs up and shit!

Kurenai · Posts: 44

Yep, not much wrong with Ed Wood. Mars Attack!! is dreadful.

Also, he didn't direct Nightmare before Christmas. Yeah it was all his imagery and whatnot but it has solid pacing and structure, and I think that's Selick's doing.

I hated Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Way to miss the point, Burton.

--Kurenai

dark steve · Posts: 3002

Frankenweenie was pretty sweet. Or that's how I remember it, anyway.

Sawtooth · Posts: 2350

I first watched Batman, The Nightmare Before Christmas, and Edwards Scissorshands when I was 10-12. The Nightmare Before Christmas still holds up today, but the other two not as well. For the time when I saw it, Batman was perfect. I didn't think it would work before I saw it, but I thought it was the perfect interpretation of Batman (I never saw the sequels).

I like it when Ebert hates the same movies that I do, but I really enjoyed Team America a whole lot more than he did.

BalbanesBeoulve · Posts: 2126

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020315/REVIEWS/203150304/1023

That's the resident evil review. It's another classic. Best part:
The characters have no small talk. Their dialogue consists of commands, explanations, exclamations and ejaculations. Yes, an ejaculation can be dialogue. If you live long enough you may find that happening frequently.

I love reading his reviews, doing searches for movies he gave 1 star or less is a nice way to spend a couple of hours.

veen · Posts: 131

my vote for best hilariously negative review still goes to Anthony Lane's review of Episode III.

I can't say I like Ebert. I'm not exactly well read of his stuff, but whenever I have sought out his review of a particular movie, his opinion seems to be motivated more by his being an old pudgy film nerd with no sense of humor, rather than any legitimate critical perspective. I remember his review of Fight Club being an exercise in hilariously reactionary missing-of-the-point.

killy · Posts: 162

He was more or less right, as was proven by the torrents of idiotic forum sigs and livejournal posts that occurred for years after that movie hit.

veen · Posts: 131

I think it's more that he was just as wrong as those people you describe, but in the opposite direction.

FocusRambo · Posts: 829

Kurenai wrote:

I hated Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Way to miss the point, Burton.

It pissed me off to no end when I realized there WAS no gobstopper scene between Charlie and Willy Wonka.

And all of this Corpse Bride hoo-hah. Christ, don't get me started. Hot Topic is going to fare well, though.

killy · Posts: 162

veen wrote:

I think it's more that he was just as wrong as those people you describe, but in the opposite direction.

I don't think so. I don't particularly hate the movie, but there really isn't anything to it. If you've never read the book, you watch it once for the surprise, then you watch it again to see the little hints. After that, the movie's pretty much spent, and there's no reason to ever watch it again.

DonMarco · Posts: 565

Mister Toups wrote:

DonMarco wrote:

Read the last line of the review. Read it twice, if you need to.

I don't think I see your point. Could you explain with minimal sarcasm/caps lock?

Roger Ebert wrote:

Bad luck that the movie comes out just as the Jackson trial has finally struggled to a conclusion.

The whole review is peppered with Jackson references.

Ebert wrote:

The problem is that this time, he finds Neverland. Johnny Depp may deny that he had Michael Jackson in mind when he created the look and feel of Willy Wonka, but moviegoers trust their eyes, and when they see Willy opening the doors of the factory to welcome the five little winners, they will be relieved that the kids brought along adult guardians. Depp's Wonka -- his dandy's clothes, his unnaturally pale face, his makeup and lipstick, his hat, his manner -- reminds me inescapably of Jackson (and, oddly, in a certain use of the teeth, chin and bobbed hairstyle, of Carol Burnett).

Can you read this ENTIRE paragraph and think, perhaps, Ebert went a litle overboard? No where in my brain rattle images of MJ acting like Depp did. Or wearing clothes like Wonka's, which were retro-70's meets corrupt Korean fashion baron?

Ebert, so I'm told is a movie critic. He looks at a movie and objectively reports on what the movie is. Bad, good, artsy, boring, romance, drama, etc. The second he dragged Michael Jackson, which Depp's character is not based on or ever claimed to have been based on in fucking insulting. On top of that, the film was shot before Jackson came back into the spotlight last year. It's not like Depp and Burtons sat around saying:

Burton: "Hey, let's make Wonka's character quirky and dark. Not enough to scare children under 10 but enough to make their parents feel uncomfortable leaving children around them!"
Depp: "Oh, you mean like Edward Scissorhands, Jack Skellington, and the Keaton Batmans?"
Burton: "Holy shit, Michael Jackson is being convicted of pedoplilia again! If we make Wonka look something maybe sorta resembling a Bizzaro Jackson, then the trial will be like free PR!"
Depp: "But I'm white, a former pretty boy, beloved by millions around the world and I was nominated for two accademy awards! What's Michael done lately besides dangle babies and avoided the media"
Burton: Side note: I have four oscar nominations.
Depp: I know!
Burton: "I see Pirates of the Caribbean 2 and 3 going to begin filming after this. Big name blockbusters for sure. Disney-approved family fun with bloodless battles and pirates. Everyone loves pirates. Hey, did I mention I'm doing a stop-motion feature again called The Corpse Bride?"
Depp: "Holy shit, you have to let me do a voice in that!"
Burton: "Deal! Best friends forever!"
*Depp and Burton giggle happily*
*FADE OUT*

Both Wilder and Depp pull off a good Wonka, and the newer movie is more faithful to the book. It's a good book.

Mister Toups · Posts: 4943

I don't know. Johnny Depp's always reminded me of Michael Jackson. Regardless of his intent I think it's a fair comparison.

DonMarco · Posts: 565

Mister Toups wrote:

I don't know. Johnny Depp's always reminded me of Michael Jackson. Regardless of his intent I think it's a fair comparison.

I gathered that from your avatar.

Hey, Persona, I think Toups might be trying to hard.

Mister Toups · Posts: 4943

DonMarco wrote:

I think Toups might be trying to hard.

Trying to hard what? Or whom?

DonMarco · Posts: 565

Mister Toups wrote:

DonMarco wrote:

I think Toups might be trying to harem anime.

Trying to hard what? Or whom?

This worked better when mods roamed freely and moderhated in broad daylight.

Now you're just desperate for attention, aren't you?

Mister Toups · Posts: 4943

I am undone, Marco. You have cut me to my core.

DonMarco · Posts: 565

Mister Toups wrote:

Post count +1

Indeed.

Mister Toups · Posts: 4943

Right now I'm like a bear filling his stomache with grass before the winter's hibernation.

aderack · Posts: 5018

FocusRambo wrote:

It pissed me off to no end when I realized there WAS no gobstopper scene between Charlie and Willy Wonka.

Which was, you know, a subplot added to the previous movie that wasn't in the book. Granted, it was a nice subplot. This was a lot closer to the book, though.

winkerwanker · Posts: 2414

Was this version neccesarry though?

veen · Posts: 131

I'd like to add that, beyond the silly MJ comparison, when I read the book a few years ago, I got a strong impression of the author being a bit too interested in little boys. there were superfluous, redundant descriptions of charlie's physical appearance, and a worshipful idolization regarding him, while the other four children (fat boy, bratty girls) existed only long enough for their flaws to be attacked, before being carelessly discarded, perhaps killed.

so perhaps ebert touched on some truth, though only by accident. I don't think it's really a book that demands a faithful adaptation.

Rud13 · Posts: 3277

Neither did the Scarlet Letter.

then again, the Scarlet Letter doesn't deserve much of anything.

Dark Age Iron Savior · Posts: 3148

veen wrote:

I'd like to add that, beyond the silly MJ comparison, when I read the book a few years ago, I got a strong impression of the author being a bit too interested in little boys. there were superfluous, redundant descriptions of charlie's physical appearance, and a worshipful idolization regarding him, while the other four children (fat boy, bratty girls) existed only long enough for their flaws to be attacked, before being carelessly discarded, perhaps killed.

it's called idealization

bitch

FocusRambo · Posts: 829

aderack wrote:

FocusRambo wrote:

It pissed me off to no end when I realized there WAS no gobstopper scene between Charlie and Willy Wonka.

Which was, you know, a subplot added to the previous movie that wasn't in the book. Granted, it was a nice subplot. This was a lot closer to the book, though.

Still, I found the first movie to be more enjoyable, in the sense that it was out trying to make more of a point (I've never read the book, either, so nullify what I'm saying if that is the case.)

So, is it better to have something tacked on and augment the experience, or go for more purity and faithfulness to the original?

BalbanesBeoulve · Posts: 2126

I heard an interview on NPR, i can't remember if it was Johnny Depp or Tim Burton, but they specifically talked about the MJ connection and totally denied creating any similarities on purpose.

veen wrote:

I'd like to add that, beyond the silly MJ comparison, when I read the book a few years ago, I got a strong impression of the author being a bit too interested in little boys. there were superfluous, redundant descriptions of charlie's physical appearance, and a worshipful idolization regarding him, while the other four children (fat boy, bratty girls) existed only long enough for their flaws to be attacked, before being carelessly discarded, perhaps killed.

so perhaps ebert touched on some truth, though only by accident. I don't think it's really a book that demands a faithful adaptation.

This is another thing they talked about. Not exactly Dahl, but that Willie Wonka is not like MJ because Willie Wonka HATES children. He absolutely abhors them, with Charlie being the only one that isn't absolutely repulsive.

Kurenai · Posts: 44

Well, in both movies it would seem so, with Gene Wilder being a little more humorous about it, but in the book there's no hate towards children.

My main complaint towards this movie is that it is a faithful recreation of the events of the book, while changing completely the point of the story. In the book, Dahl tried to convey a simple, horrific truth: rotten kids will go to hell, good kids will get their reward. In Burton's movie this is way downplayed in favor of a "family is the best treasure" message. As such, the chocolate factory is nothing but a way of Wonka to compensate for his lack of daddy love, so it'ss no surprise that Charlie doesn't want the factory when it is given to him: he already has the real thing, he doesn't need a fancy substitute.

The thing is, this whole subplot about how papa Wonka messed little Charlie's mind is not in the book, but is based on Burton's childhood. I was loving the movie up until the moment the children meet Willy Wonka. The movie is... awkward, from that point on. I didn't know why or how (I only read the book and watched the other movie until last week), but I began to lose interest. It just wasn't a comfortable experience for me.

The Michael Jackson is a warranted comparison, not because I thought "oh my god, he's going to rape them", but because the movie is about a talented, emotionally-stunted, socially unskilled, reclusive man who tried to compensate in his adulthood for all the things he didn't have when he was a child. The tour of the factory is the highlight of the book, a parade of wonders; in this film, it's a cold testament to a man's loneliness.

They pulled something similar in The Grinch film, which I didn't watch because I hate Jim Carrey, where they also explained how something in the Grinch childhood turned him bad. I just don't get it. Why try to push Freud into children stories, which are really about conquering wretched, scary, unexplainable evil?

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory was more in tune with Dahl's vision (yes, I know he dissed it later), it's really funny ("Is this some kind of funhouse?""Why, are you having fun?") and the changes were more because of technical limitations (giant geese where easier to show than an army of trained squirrels), so the spirit of retribution remains the same. Hell, even if the Oompa Loompas songs weren't Dahl's, at least they retained the "don't watch TV, instead read a book" message that Roald Dahl just ranted about, when Mike Teavee gets what's coming to him. Good luck finding that in the new movie.

(Having said that, as a big fan of Oingo Boingo, I liked the new songs a lot).

So no, I don't think this remake was necessary. If you are going to give new life to a classic, you can make all the changes you want but at least try to keep the point, like the LOTR movies. Otherwise, just make whole new, original movie.

--Kurenai

aderack · Posts: 5018

winkerwanker wrote:

Was this version neccesarry though?

It's an intereting comparison. I actually enjoyed it almost as much as the original, albeit for slightly different reasons. And I think it's almost as effective, in its particular way. Having the two out there allows a good deal of discussion about the nature of adaptation.

I admit I didn't really make the Michael Jackson connection either. Except for that one weird moment near the end.

Shapermc · Posts: 2450

His Constantine review is pretty good:

Legal Step · Posts: 1030

I quiet like Ebert too, his Great Movies books are cool as can be.

George · Posts: 1656

Shapermc wrote:

His Constantine review is pretty good:

Since he was a child, he has been able to see that not all who walk among us are human. Some are penguins. Sorry about that. Some are half-angels and half-devils.

Except he forgot to mention that Constantine was a good movie.

Waffen · Posts: 1638

I for one absolutely loved the first "Duece" and think its one of the funniest movies of all time.
guess the second one is too "immature" for old Eggbert. I haven't seen it yet. maybe it does suck.... but I like the line in the ads though- "what kinda world we live in where the streets aren't safe for male prostitutes?"

special blend · Posts: 154

George wrote:

Shapermc wrote:

His Constantine review is pretty good:

Since he was a child, he has been able to see that not all who walk among us are human. Some are penguins. Sorry about that. Some are half-angels and half-devils.

Except he forgot to mention that Constantine was a good movie.

Yeah, I was disappointed when I went to read his review after seeing the movie.

dessgeega · Posts: 3317

his review of constantine isn't even...a review. it's a plot summary, with brief asides about how silly it is that demons can be trapped in mirrors.

um?

Mister Toups · Posts: 4943

Maybe that tells you more about what the thought of the movie than an actual review would?