Ebert's review of "Wolf Creek"

[Gary Floyd 0]

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...EVIEWS/51220004

 

some choice quotes. Remember that this man liked "The Ringer".

 

A "misogynist" is someone who hates women. I'm explaining that because most people who hate women don't know the word. I went to the Rotten Tomatoes roundup of critics not for tips for my own review, but hoping that someone somewhere simply said, "Made me want to vomit and cry at the same time."

 

If anyone you know says this is the one they want to see, my advice is: Don't know that person no more.

[Damaramu 0]

He actually said "don't know that person no more"???? How long has this man been writing?

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Ebert does stuff like that, playing with words and syntax. It'd obviously deliberate.

 

I see no problem with the review. He made clear that he was shirking what are seen as his typical responsibilities to point out that he found the film worthless and deplorable, while simultaneously noting what he considers example of good horror to be (i.e. his reference to Three Extremes). Overall, I think Ebert's far and away the best film critic in the country, whether or not you agree with his star ratings. Always justified, and even in the case of a film like this--one he's not interested in discussing--he'll still find something in it or about it to examine. Dig it.

 

There is a role for violence in film, but what the hell is the purpose of this sadistic celebration of pain and cruelty?

This is a fairly common refrain of his, too. His reviews for the TCM remake and Chaos say essentially the same thing.

[Gary Floyd 0]

I remember "Chaos". Everyone hated that, even hardcore horror fans.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

The pictures of the guy who directed it were hilarious. He wore white contacts and no shirt at test screenings, was roided up, and went around threatening people who didn't like his movie. Fucking great.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

I have to say, I love it when Ebert absolutely loathes a movie. His zero and 1 star reviews are always without exception hilarious.

[Sideburnious 0]

The movies alright but nothing amazing. I think he's going a bit overboard in that review too, as the movie is supposed to be based on actual events that took place in Australia. I've been finding recently that Ebert seems to be more entertained in dissing/ making movies look bad then their good points with some of his reviews i've read.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Maybe if there were some "Bush suxs" lines, or perhaps if Spike Lee directed it, Ebert would give it the ***/**** treatment...

Edited December 25, 2005 by kkktookmybabyaway

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I have to say, I love it when Ebert absolutely loathes a movie. His zero and 1 star reviews are always without exception hilarious.

His review of Just Friends was one of his recent best in that vein. Spends almost no time talking about the movie and most of it talking about other movies he hated.

Sam is played by Anna Faris, who in "The Hot Chick" played the best friend of a character (portrayed by Rachel McAdams) who is magically transported into the body of Rob Schneider, causing the audience to urgently desire that he had been transported into her body instead, because then he would look like her. Actually, they do trade bodies, but the plot follows the Rob Schneider body, which is like taking the Gatorland exit on your way to Disney World. The assignment of Anna Faris is to relate to Rob Schneider's body as if it contained Rachel McAdams, a challenge I doubt even Dame Judi Dench would be equal to.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

I dislike Ebert. That said, he's a good critic in that he usually does give good reason as to why he rates a film as high/low as he does.

[SuperJerk 0]

No movie review will ever be as retarded as the New York Post's review of "X2".

[Justice 0]

Post, if possible, please.

[Ravenbomb 0]

His review of North is still my favorite review of any movie ever

 

I remember "Chaos". Everyone hated that, even hardcore horror fans.

Yeah, I was thinking about seeing this just to see how bad it is, but then I did the same thing with Caligula...*shudder*

[NoCalMike 0]

I don't even get his review. So it's a bad horror movie because it crosses the peverbial "line" Well ok, was the acting bad, was the script awful.....huh? I hate these types of reviews that don't really explain why the reviewer thought it was bad. Basically it crossed Ebert's interpretation of "the line" so it gets no stars, meanwhile HORROR FANS are loving the shit out of it. and I see on www.mrqe.com (movie review query engine) that most articles are rating it well.

[SuperJerk 0]

Post, if possible, please.

The New York Post took it down, unfortunately, but I know I've posted it here before. Basically the guy had no clue what the movie was about and spent the entire article mocking the concept.

 

edit: found it on another thread

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p...1&notFound=true

 

washingtonpost.com

'X-Men United': Missing a Why, It Spawns Zzzzs

 

By Stephen Hunter

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, May 2, 2003; Page C01

 

If you dream in the language of X, if your very being is wound up in X, if you're a secret mutant who yearns to be welcomed to the tribe of X, if you'd rather X than sex or X than cash checks, then "X2: X-Men United" is for you.

 

Alas, for the rest of us, it's pretty much a "What's that all about?" experience.

 

Of the many comic book superhero movies, this is by far the lamest, the loudest, the longest. Good Lord, what an epic sit. My rear end deserves a medal.

 

"X2" lacks the playfulness of the witty "Spider-Man," it lacks the brooding Gothic intensity of the "Batman" movies (particularly the first two), it lacks the gorgeous stylizations of "Daredevil" and "Blade," it lacks the innocent sense of pure flight of "Superman." Its fights and settings are banal, its characterizations thin and its art direction nondescript. It lacks just about everything except Ian McKellen and Hugh Jackman.

 

The primary deficiency might be called a lack of narrative clarity. Literally, for the first hour of this movie, you have no idea what it's about or what's at stake, unless you're so of X you carry the X-cosmology around in your subconscious, next to the remember-to-breathe program. This is what happens: First they run over there, then they run over here.

 

Patrick Stewart, as head X Charles Xavier, is called upon to issue the necessary exposition to hold all the scenes together, but the fundamental conspiracy plot underneath it all is so bland that it's difficult to work up the concentration to keep it straight. And the characters: Sorry, X-fans, but they're really losers. I mean, none of them has any particular level of attractiveness. (I know how much that hurts -- but you can get through it, I know you can.)

 

One can certainly see the appeal of the conceit to the adolescent mind. Most teenagers, their hormones aflame, their imaginations aflame, their skins aflame, see themselves as outsiders in the key of self-pity, the melody of self-dramatization. They're so alone. Waaaaah! But beneath all the self-loathing, there's also a kind of narcissism: They're so damned special.

 

And that's your typical X-Man to a T, a spectacular misfit utterly misunderstood yet wondrously special, hated by a larger society he is, nevertheless, obligated to protect. Yet again, for us rationalists, the nature of the mutations that characterize them seems somewhat unrigorously thought out. The moody Wolverine (Jackman, a little old for this kind of silliness) can flash blades out of his wrists. Okay, but, really, how useful is that? He's no better armed at that point than a man with a bayonet. Then there's a kid who can flip fireballs across the room and another who appears to be able to shoot fire out of his sunglasses.

 

On the other hand, Storm (Halle Berry) can control weather, Jane Grey (Famke Janssen) can part the waters like Moses, and Dr. Xavier appears to be literally able to stop the universe -- that is, halt time. So what would a knife fighter have in common with God? Or possibly I'm thinking too hard about this stuff.

 

Anyhow, in the practical world of the movie, the big news is that the two schisms of X unite in this film, at least for a time. Good X, led by Stewart's Dr. Xavier, and Bad X, consisting primarily of Sir Ian, must join together to prevent a plot to destroy all mutants by Stryker, a sociopathic general (oh, there's a novel touch!) played by Brian Cox. So, for a brief, shining moment, all X is on the same page.

 

Each X is given a moment, but fortunately Wolverine and Magneto (McKellen) predominate. Both actors have star quality, and although Wolverine doesn't really do much in this film (Jackman is so much better in any movie that doesn't require hair gel, mutton chops and switchblades), his charisma draws you to him, except when McKellen's draws you to him.

 

The rest remain ciphers, the saddest being Anna Paquin, whose character's mutant talent, other than ugly mall-droog hair, appears to be to make things happen backward. I guess. She's some kind of Mistress of Rewind. No one in the movie could really be said to act, or if they do, the director, Bryan Singer, shunts them aside so fast it doesn't register.

 

The newest X is the Brit dervish Alan Cumming, who has yet to find a home outside of the Broadway "Cabaret" that made him a star. Here, he's the Man of Naugahyde with the gift of disappearing in a cloud of smoke and reappearing somewhere else a nanosecond later. He looks like a human bat, but somehow he's transformed into the cuddly cute one by movie's end. I never figured that out. But then I never figured anything out!

 

For the non-cognescenti, the movie doesn't cash in on any obligations of the genre. No effect stirred me, no set dazzled me, no fight jazzed me. A big magic jet plane that flies the X'ers here and there was crudely imagined, poorly integrated into shots, and laughingly hollow inside -- the real things are jammed with gear. In the finale, the X folk must seize a certain secret installation to preclude Stryker from using the hyp-mo-tized Xavier as linchpin in his GenXocide. This sequence plays out in the interior of a dam, for no other reason than if you have a dam, you know it's going to burst sooner or later. But it's a familiar movie place, full of hydraulic doors with jagged edges, pipes, chambers and tunnels. Didn't they film "Lara Croft: Tomb Raider" there?

 

I wish I could say it wasn't so, but for most of us, this "X" marks a splat.

 

X2: X-Men United (135 minutes, at area theaters) is rated PG-13 for some sexuality and profanity.

 

 

 

Probably the gayest movie review I've ever read. The guy's so obsessed with making bad puns, he projects his own lameness onto the movie.

Edited December 25, 2005 by Mr. Jerk

[Sideburnious 0]

I don't even get his review. So it's a bad horror movie because it crosses the peverbial "line" Well ok, was the acting bad, was the script awful.....huh? I hate these types of reviews that don't really explain why the reviewer thought it was bad. Basically it crossed Ebert's interpretation of "the line" so it gets no stars, meanwhile HORROR FANS are loving the shit out of it. and I see on www.mrqe.com (movie review query engine) that most articles are rating it well.

 

It really isn't that bad of a film. It takes a while to build up at the beginning but once it gets going its alright. On that site at the top link the users were giving it ***/***1/2 which is fair enough for the film. Its a bit gorey, but I never felt it was that excessive. I think he just became offended by the violence so he decided to trash the whole film because of it. He should of also taken into consideration that it was based on actual events. It's not like some "misogynist" (as he likes to try and brand this move) came up with aload of sick and twisted ideas and made a movie with it. Or maybe he just hates Austrailians.

[Anya 0]

The bit about Cyclops apparently shooting flames from his sunglasses is the greatest thing I have ever seen in a review. I can sort of see where he's coming from though. If you didn't know anything about X1 you'd be totally lost.

 

Ebert saying this movie crosses the line makes me want to see it just out of curiousity.

[Vyce 0]

They're so alone. Waaaaah! But beneath all the self-loathing, there's also a kind of narcissism: They're so damned special.

 

This guy inadvertently summarized the last 30 years of X-Men comics.

[Bruiser Chong 0]

I don't even get his review. So it's a bad horror movie because it crosses the peverbial "line" Well ok, was the acting bad, was the script awful.....huh? I hate these types of reviews that don't really explain why the reviewer thought it was bad. Basically it crossed Ebert's interpretation of "the line" so it gets no stars, meanwhile HORROR FANS are loving the shit out of it. and I see on www.mrqe.com (movie review query engine) that most articles are rating it well.

Maybe he dislikes "horror" movies that rely on blood and guts to provide the scares. I don't put much stock into most self-proclaimed horror buffs, anyway. You'll find there's a surprisingly high number of them that completely write off any classic horror, which would seem to cancel out their opinions on the genre.

 

It's not like some "misogynist" (as he likes to try and brand this move) came up with aload of sick and twisted ideas and made a movie with it.

What are you basing that on? From the sounds of the movie, that's exactly what he did.

[Ravenbomb 0]

I don't even get his review. So it's a bad horror movie because it crosses the peverbial "line" Well ok, was the acting bad, was the script awful.....huh? I hate these types of reviews that don't really explain why the reviewer thought it was bad. Basically it crossed Ebert's interpretation of "the line" so it gets no stars, meanwhile HORROR FANS are loving the shit out of it. and I see on www.mrqe.com (movie review query engine) that most articles are rating it well.

 

It really isn't that bad of a film. It takes a while to build up at the beginning but once it gets going its alright. On that site at the top link the users were giving it ***/***1/2 which is fair enough for the film. Its a bit gorey, but I never felt it was that excessive. I think he just became offended by the violence so he decided to trash the whole film because of it. He should of also taken into consideration that it was based on actual events. It's not like some "misogynist" (as he likes to try and brand this move) came up with aload of sick and twisted ideas and made a movie with it. Or maybe he just hates Austrailians.

 

I doubt he was really offended by the violence. Hell, Last House on the Left was violent, and he gave that ***1/2 (although he said **** in a fairly recent Answer Man)

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

It's not like some "misogynist" (as he likes to try and brand this move) came up with aload of sick and twisted ideas and made a movie with it.

What are you basing that on? From the sounds of the movie, that's exactly what he did.

Guess ya missed the "based on actual events" line...that is assuming it actually IS based on actual events, and not just in the TCM way.

[spiny norman 0]

It's not like some "misogynist" (as he likes to try and brand this move) came up with aload of sick and twisted ideas and made a movie with it.

What are you basing that on? From the sounds of the movie, that's exactly what he did.

Guess ya missed the "based on actual events" line...that is assuming it actually IS based on actual events, and not just in the TCM way.

 

The movie is fiction.

[Guest JMA]

Ebert's biggest flaw is his extreme dislike of nihilistic violence. He doesn't seem to think that any movie that features it can be good, which is entirely wrong. His idea of what horror movies "should be" is something that I strongly disagree with.

 

Still, he IS a good critic (though not the best in the country).

[Bruiser Chong 0]

It's not like some "misogynist" (as he likes to try and brand this move) came up with aload of sick and twisted ideas and made a movie with it.

What are you basing that on? From the sounds of the movie, that's exactly what he did.

Guess ya missed the "based on actual events" line...that is assuming it actually IS based on actual events, and not just in the TCM way.

Every movie is based on actual events in some capacity. And just because something claims to be heavily based on actual events doesn't mean it needs to be a movie. I could go eat a sandwich and then smack Czech upside his head with a Zappa album. It'd be unusual, but probably wouldn't make a very good movie.

[MDH257 0]

Ebert gave Thumbs Up to The Devil's Rejects.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

Which he defended, more or less, by saying Rob Zombie accomplished what he set out to do: make a movie that pulled no punches. He also said that the acting was heavily factored in, specifically Forsythe, Haig, and Moseley (since, let's face it, Sheri is charismatic and sexy as sin, but she's not a great actress by any stretch). That, and Devil's Rejects isn't nearly as violent as a lot of people make it out to be. It's a great homage to 70's exploitation: just enough gritty violence to make it disturbing to those not used to it at all, but not so much that the movie's plot is lost in it.

[RedJed 0]

I was just going to say Ebert actually IS fair to most good horror. Case in point Devils Rejects.

 

Anyway I went to this yesterday and I gotta say, be careful of the commercials praising it as "one of the best horror films of the blah blah blah." This was not very good stuff when all was said and done. Seemed to have that gritty dirty style of filming almost like High Tension, with concepts from TCM intertwined. With that said, I really didnt want to see a TCM redux (and a badly put together one at that), and this is what it ended up being for the most part. Some occaisional gorey spots, but not nearly as much as you would think from the Ebert review, where he kind of emphasizes a line was crossed in this film, and I didnt see that at all. The three main characters, who are on a provervial road trip and end up in the middle of nowhere, were very hard to draw sympathy upon since, especially the two girls, were making really stupid decisions in trying to survive - I think someone pointed upon this already. Didnt really get much of anything out of the killer either, as he seemed like a fucked up Crocodile Dundee or something, most of the time someone to laugh at because he's so out of touch with society. Just was not a very put together movie at all, and took a good while to even get anywhere, a good halfway through the movie. The ending was something of a very anticlimatic finish to the mess, but I suppose tried to play into a "true story" (hard to explain without spoiling the movie) feel for it. But why they even had to put that "based on true events" tagline into this was kind of absurd - you'll see what I mean, assuming this actually ISN'T the case that it's a true story or based on actual events, etc. All in all just didnt like this much at all and I'd suggest to everyone to avoid this, as it's probably not as good as you would think.

[SuperJerk 0]

The bit about Cyclops apparently shooting flames from his sunglasses is the greatest thing I have ever seen in a review. I can sort of see where he's coming from though. If you didn't know anything about X1 you'd be totally lost.

 

Yeah, I hate it when filmmakers don't include redundant exposition to cover everything from a previous movie that 99% of the audience would've already known.

[Anya 0]

I didn't say they should have.

[NoCalMike 0]

Just got back from it, it was pretty good, tolerable, but I do agree that the ending was very anti-climatic. More thoughts later.