tag:www.rogerebert.com,2005:/answer-man/feed Movie Answer Man 2011-12-21T00:00:00-06:00 tag:www.rogerebert.com,2005:BlogPost/50cbae1bf3b43b81e70001c6 2011-12-21T00:00:00-06:00 2019-08-02T08:02:09-05:00 Do we NEED to see "Tintin" in 3D? Roger Ebert Thumb eb20111221answerman111229982ar


A. The 3D is not necessary. I wonder if exhibitors schedule so few 2D screenings in order to force customers to pay the surcharge? They've got people over a barrel--a Spielberg family film at holiday time! Makes no difference whether or not you like 3D. Spielberg uses it well--which is to say, in a minimal and controlled fashion. Fine. But it's not necessary to enjoy the film.

Q. On Tuesday I was at the Navy Pier IMAX theater for the new Batman and saw Mr. Roger Ebert there and was wondering if he had any comments on the prologue. More specifically perhaps what he thinks of Bane's voice. I looked on his site and couldn't believe he didn't remark about it. (Scott Durso)

A. That was me you saw after the IMAX preview of "Mission Impossible -- Ghost Protocol," hurrying home to write my review. And that must have been you lined up outside for the late-night promo of "The Dark Knight Rises." That's a big screen, eh?

Q. In your opinion, if movies (from 1980 or so) were re-rated (by today's standards) such as "Porky's," "Animal House," etc., do you think they would still get the "R" rating? Also, on the same line, do you think PG-13 (some places PG-14) is the "new" R rating for (2011) standards? I wonder what the rating system of 1980 would think of movies like "American Pie," "The Hangover," or more recent horror movies. (Deejay Eric Vee, Niagara Falls, NY)

A. The ratings system of 1980 would clap its hands over its eyes in horror. The level of sex and violence in PG-13 would have often gained an R in those days. For that matter, a lot of current television is R-rated.

Q. With your clout in entertainment, couldn't you mention the idea of Olivia de Havilland and Joan Fontaine presenting together at this years Oscars? Surely if they could make peace there might be hope for world peace. (Jim Holt, Buffalo, NY)

A. Sure. It doesn't take much clout to mention it. It would take a hell of a lot to bring it about.

Q. Just watched "Captain America." Do you think Hollywood will ever get over its obsession with the Nazis? If you were to look at 20th century history through the prism of Hollywood you would think the only evil regime was that of Hitler's Germany 1933-45. Seventy years later and we're still seeing movie after movie featuring Nazis as the bad guys. Why does Hollywood rarely, if ever, pick any other evil regime from which to draw its bad guys, like Lenin, the Soviets, Mao, Pol Pot/Khmer Rouge, Suharto, Mussolini, etc? (Jim Walker)

A. In my deepest cynicism I suspect it has something to do with costume design.

Q. I will keep this short. Please explain something to me and a friend who doesn't understand why this is important. Why do film critics and audiences so often disagree? (Luke Drake, Naples, Florida)

A. Because their expectations are different, and audiences set the bar lower. Critics see just about all the movies, and for that reason are less (or more) easily satisfied. I'm sure you're pleased with my answer.

Q. Do you ever have a hard time appreciating actors who are talented at their craft but unlikable as humans? Whether they are jerks (Mel Gibson), crazies (Tom Cruise), or whatever else the case may be, does this get in the way of your enjoyment of a film when they appear on screen? Quite a few years back, I was a great fan of the movie "The Color of Money," but now I can't stand to look past Tom Cruise the insane person to appreciate his genuinely good performance in the film. Does this happen to you? (Eric Ransom, South Korea)

A. Both Mel Gibson and Tom Cruise, to use your examples, have done things they may have reason to regret, as have we all. I've met them and sensed they were nice people. What I require of a actor while I'm watching a movie is that the actor be good. Considering the recent fuss about Hollywood child sexual abuse and the victims who aren't naming names, what do we really know about anyone's private life?

Q. In your "Muppets" review you state the relationship between Jason Segel (Gary) and Walter as "best friends." They were actually brothers which is referenced repeatedly in this movie. Please take better care. (Janis McGlone, Albuquerque, NM)

A. Oh, I will, I will. This is the kind of error that inspires people to write me snarky messages asking, "Did you even see the movie?" I registered that they were raised as brothers and considered themselves brothers, but can you forgive me if I instinctively assumed they were not biological brothers? That was my mistake right there. In a Muppets movie, a Muppet can theoretically do anything a human can do. Well, almost anything. Can they reproduce with each other? Are Gary and Walter the biological children of the same parents? At his birth, did the doctor say, "It's a Muppet!" and then sever an umbilical cord of felt? These are mysteries I believe could inspire several sequels.

Q. You keep complaining like this: "As for star ratings, as I have often written, they're silly, useless, and relative, not absolute." So why not just ditch the star rating system altogether? It would certainly save you a lot of headaches from observant readers who require consistency. I know speaking for myself, I would rather do without them. I prefer to read a movie review fresh and focus more on what a critic is trying to say about a movie rather then seeing how well he or she justifies the rating given beforehand. (Michael Zey)

A. I had the Sun-Times convinced to drop them and then Siskel was made film critic of the Tribune and I had to keep them for "competitive reasons." Now I've rated about 10,000 films and it's too late to stop. By "Not absolute," I mean don't come asking me why a film got four stars and another three and a half stars. It involves things like genre, the film's intention, and so on. Also, the purpose of a list is to allow a critic to look back and reevaluate a film.

Q. I appreciate you making a Best Film list, but I feel as though you did this one too early. Did you see the other films that will be released later this month? Did you see "We Bought a Zoo," "War Horse," "In the Land of Blood and Honey" or "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close"? Those all look like very good movies. (Benjamin P Weaver)

A. Yes, it was a bit early. That was because of space limitations and production deadlines at the paper. If you've noticed, I've added more titles in the list at the bottom. As I say about those additions, "There were many other excellent films in 2011, some fully the equal of some of these."

tag:www.rogerebert.com,2005:BlogPost/50cbae1bf3b43b81e70001c5 2011-11-05T00:00:00-05:00 2019-08-16T12:00:37-05:00 Holding off on showing the monster Roger Ebert Thumb eb20111105answerman111109985ar


A. In terms of big studio films, I've seen most of them in real Chicago theaters, usually the AMC River East, Kerasotes Icon Showplace, Regal Webster Place or Landmark Century. I see most art, indie and documentary films and some big studio pictures at the flawless Lake Street Screening Room, which seats about 60. Believe me, when it's filled with Chicago film critics, that's a real audience.

Q. In his essay "What We Don't Talk About When We Talk About Movies," Armond White had this to say: "Permit an insider's story: It is said that 'At the Movies' host Roger Ebert boasted to Kael about his new TV show, repeatedly asking whether she'd seen it. Kael reportedly answered 'If I want a layman's opinion on movies, I don't have to watch TV.'" Any truth to this anecdote? Something tells me that the way Kael meant it was probably more innocuous than White makes it sound. Also I love how White describes it as an "insider's story" and immediately after refers to it as hearsay. (Nicholas Bernhard)

A. There seems to be a logical problem here: In White's hearsay version, Pauline allegedly said this to me. Therefore, who did he hear it from? I never, ever "bragged" about our show to Kael or "pressed" her to watch it. I didn't have the chutzpah. On one occasion, when there were three different movie review shows on TV, Pauline was quizzed about them on a talk show and said, "At least Siskel and Ebert know what they're talking about."

Q. I rely on your reviews to help me decide whether to see a film. You used to review all movies. Lately, I can't find a number of the newly released movies reviewed by you. I am in Baltimore, MD and we don't get the newly released films as fast as NY, Phillly or Washington. Therefore, I don't think that you have not had the time to review some of these new movies. I am curious to know why you stopped reviewing all movies. (Diana Feldman)

A. Sigh. I never reviewed "all" movies. I try to review most of the major releases, and also as many art and indie films as possible. These days the studios don 't always screen new movies for critics, because they suspect the reviews will be negative. Sometimes I go to see those in theaters; sometimes the word is so negative about them I start focusing on next week. I'm not lazy; so far in 2011 I've reviewed 249 new films.

Q. I belatedly read your review of "Transformers: Dark of the Moon," and I was confounded by the cast list. Shia LaBeouf? Sure. Frances McDormand? Hang on. JOHN MALKOVICH? What the...? My question: is there a point where actors, great ones, just don't see the point of passing up a million dollar check? Should we hold it against them for doing so? I would love to hear your thoughts. Steve Martin springs to mind. (Matt Loehrer)

A. Yes, there often come such points. One actor told me why he made an especially stupid movie: "The pay was right, I wanted to spend a month in Paris, and no one I know will ever go to see it."

Q. If you hated the first "The Human Centipede" movie so much, then why did you watch the second one? (Yu Sheng Wu)

A. That's what I get paid for. I'd have a perfect job if I only went to movies I thought might be good.

Q. Do you believe that our cinema is losing its artistic integrity and originality in favor of rehashed ideas, contrived formulas and the fixation of remakes, prequels, sequels and reboots? (Cody Nelson)

A. Now that you ask, yes.

Q. When adapting a screenplay from something that has already been created, i.e., a play, comic book, anime series, TV series, or book, do you think it is better to have the script go closer to the source material, put more emphasis on character interaction and development, or go down the middle road and do both? (John M Parrinello Jr, Dayton, NJ)

A. The only responsibility of the script is to produce the best possible film. Those who think it must be "faithful" seem to treat adaptation like marriage. Fans of some sources, like a comic book or a TV series, will be outraged by any changes, but adaptation can also mean improvement.

Q. I read your review of the current version of "The Thing." It seems to me that modern horror films depend more on the "gross-out" than on genuine suspense. You mentioned the film "Alien." To me, the most frightening scene was the one where Captain Dallas goes looking for the creature in the air shaft. We see two dots (Dallas and the creature) slowly approach each other on the sensor screen. The crew screams through the radio for Dallas to get out now! but he can't see anything. The dots get closer... closer... closer... and then vanish. The first time I saw that scene I was practically climbing up the back of my chair, the suspense was so intense. My question is this: in today's climate of going for the gross-out instead of building suspense, do you think that a young director (like Steven Spielberg was when he filmed "Jaws") would today be allowed to not show the monster until an hour or so into the movie? (Juanne via bell.net)

A. His producers were opposed to it even then. He knew that the better set-up he provided, the better pay-off he'd get. It helped him make the film his way because they had enormous difficulties controlling the mechanical shark, and so it was helpful to delay its entrance.

tag:www.rogerebert.com,2005:BlogPost/50cbae1bf3b43b81e70001c4 2011-03-28T00:00:00-05:00 2019-08-11T12:56:26-05:00 Black and White in color? Or vice-versa? Roger Ebert Thumb eb20110328answerman110329986ar

Q. Just read your lousy review of the wonderful movie "Battle: Los Angeles" and the first thing that came to my mind was jawbone of an ass. Fits you perfectly. Grow up! (Anonymous)

A. What was the second thing that came into your mind?

Q. I agree with you about how pointless and annoying 3D is.  I was happy to learn in your review that "Rango" was not in 3D, and that alone was enough to make me go see it, my first animated movie in a few years.

But the relationship between "Rango" and 3D is more interesting and complicated than it first appears.  As you watch the movie, clearly "Rango" was intended to be in 3D. The characters are constantly thrusting their faces and their implements into the camera.  The real question is, why then did the studio decide NOT to release it in 3D? (Gregory Berry)

A. Of course you can have 3D-like shots without the process. On Isla Fisher's web site I found this quote by director Gore Verbinski: "I don’t think there’s a dimension missing. I don’t watch it and go, you know, 'It’s flat,' or it’s, you know, missing anything. So you know, we talked about it early on and it just didn’t seem like we needed to go there."

Q. My wife and I made the mistake of taking our 7-year old daughter to see "Rango."  I think it should have had a PG-13 rating for the over-the-top sexual innuendos pervasive throughout the movie.  The very comparison you made to "Blazing Saddles" would qualify  this movie being inappropriate for my daughter.  I found "Blazing Saddles" to be funny, though.  I guess the difference between G and PG is the adult humor.  I guess the smart comment indicates whether you get it or not.  Well, in this case not only did we get it, but were saturated with it and finally decided to leave because our annoyance with it.  I agree with Bruce Miller of the Sioux City Journal that it is not a movie for the whole family. (Andrew Reading, Pittsburgh, PA)

A. It's a film adults enjoy more than kids. I mentioned that in the review. I believe the sexual innuendos probably went over the heads of many children. Lots of animated films sneak in winks for the grown-ups. It all depends on how much are you afraid your daughter picked up on. The "Blazing Saddles" farts seemed to be much appreciated by kids, and didn't offend me.

Q. I'm a 15-year-old who has been reading your Great Movies series for a few years now, but have never had many of the classics at my disposal. However, my family recently got Netflix, and I must say I'm overwhelmed by everything available. Where should I begin? And, if I'm trying to foster an appreciation for classic film in my family, where should they start? Are there any particular directors or titles you would recommend? (Zachary Trail)

A. I could name specific films or directors, but I'd rather encourage you to turn on Netflix, go to Watch Instantly, choose "Bonnie and Clyde" (1967), "Laura," "Great Expectations" (1946) and "The Third Man." Then what happens is, you find a director you like and start rummaging around in his work. As to fostering the appreciation of your family for classic films--well, good luck. When it comes to taste, many people are foster-proof. One nice thing about Netflix is, if you've given a film a good chance and it's still not working for you, you don't need to feel bad when you stop watching.

Q. You were critical of e-books a  while back. Here's one point in their favor -- ever since I was gifted a Kindle a month ago I've read 8-10 books (including one of yours), and probably hadn't read that many the entire previous year. Just having so many different books accessible all the time has made the difference. I still read the paper kind, too, but they take longer (they sit on the nightstand).  (Mary Burns, San Mateo)

A. Reading is an admirable thing to do no matter how you do it. I remain in love with the tactile pleasures of physical books. I've read in a Kindle, and on my iPad, but it's a little like walking on a treadmill: You keep up the pace but don't seem to be getting anywhere.

Q. After the death of Elizabeth Taylor, I read your review of "Reflections in a Golden Eye" again, and noted your comment on the washed-out color palette.  It's been years, but I remember John Huston saying in his autobiography An Open Book that Aldo Tonti shot the film through a golden filter, the idea being to really give it that golden haze implied by the title. I've never found it on video with the original golden/sepia tone print, but John said it looked better, and who am I to argue? (Michael Harper)

A. I saw the movie in first run as Huston intended. It wasn't quite in b&w; you could see faint greens, golds, reds and blues. That was unsuccessful at the box office. Audiences saw it as a mistake and not an artistic decision. Since the film was photographed in full color and the "fading" was done in post-production, most of the video versions have simply restored the color. That's not what Huston intended, and the thing to do is to use your color adjustment to fade the color to almost but not quite b&w. Does it work? That's for you to decide.

Q. I had a facepalm moment tonight and I need commiseration. I loaned my friend and his wife "L.A. Confidential" on Blu-ray a week ago. He returned it tonight and said his wife didn't want to watch it because it was an "old movie." Now, I don't know whether or not that means she didn't like the idea that it took place several decades ago, or that 1997 is "old," but either way I wanted to yell at her. The kicker? They watched "Dance Flick" instead. (Joseph O'Driscoll, Salt Lake City)

A. He should have said, "Old? How can it be old? It's in color!"

Q. Once you and Gene Siskel did a show on black & white films, and how they should've been preserved back then and forever. You argued the value of the significance of B&W as an added layer that movies can only gain from it.

What I would like to ask is, what is your opinion of color films, all of which are created with color in mind, being changed into B&W? Would, for instance, big musicals like "Wizard of Oz" or big epics like Gone with the Wind and even contemporary films like "Reservoir Dogs, "Forrest Gump," "Being John Malkovich, or even the Batman films have benefited from that treatment? Would B&W really add something new or interesting in the process? Or should color films not be tampered with? (Alexander Chatzipantelis)

A. The film should be seen as it was originally made. This includes many b&w films of the silent era where some of the scenes were tinted. Of course you can easily watch a color film in b&w simply by adjusting a television, and I did that once as an experiment with "L.A. Confidential," a film whose noir qualities have me the notion. It actually looked quite good. I've only tried that two other times, however, with color films whose videos were made from badly-faced prints that had turned pink. Then b&w was just making the best of a bad thing.

tag:www.rogerebert.com,2005:BlogPost/50cbae1bf3b43b81e70001c3 2010-12-08T00:00:00-06:00 2019-05-24T08:27:21-05:00 Power to the people Roger Ebert Thumb eb20101208answerman101209979ar


A. And they were directed one after the other by Darren Aronofsky. They're both powerful movies.  It's hard to say. The star rating system is the bane of critics because of questions like yours. How's this for an answer: The half-star difference was accounted for by an ineffable difference in the intensity of my emotions.

Q. I just this weekend watched Leo McCarey's "Make Way for Tomorrow" (1937), which you wrote a Great Movies article about. That may be the best 1930s movie I've ever seen. But it's so unbearably sad. Do you think that's maybe why it's relatively obscure? I mean, I've never seen "it" stated like that, not even by Ozu. My question really is: why the heck do some of us respond to "really sad" movies so strongly, while others would rather steer clear? I mean, as sad as it was, the movie made me extremely happy, in awe at its wisdom. (Yancy Jack Berns, Los Angeles)

A. "It" refers to the way some younger people put old people like their parents on the shelf and consider them a nuisance. Ozu's masterpiece "Tokyo Story" (1953) told a similar story set in Japan. His screenwriter, Kogo Noda, saw McCarey's film and said he was influenced by it. There's a lot of sentimentality about old folks, but if they fall into sickness or poverty not a lot of modern young couples want to let them move in. They'll be "happier" elsewhere. Regarding your second question: In thinking about "depressing movies," many people don't realize that all bad movies are depressing, and no good movies are.

Q. It has always puzzled me how a film director can take the complete title credit for directing a film, when it is common practice to employ second unit directors who contribute their own unique vision to complete the shoot. If the director goes on to win a major award such as a Director's Guild Award or ultimately an Academy Award, isn't it a bit of a cheat to take the sole credit without also including the other director's efforts? (Kevin Fellman, Phoenix, AZ)

A. True, and Riccardo Muti doesn't play all the instruments in the Chicago Symphony. But the director is responsible for selecting and supervising his team, and many work with the same second unit directors over time. This is well understood. As a general rule, second units don't handle dialogue scenes.

Q. Many of my friends and I are anticipating the release of "Black Swan" in our town or even close by. Why would such a popular movie restrict its release to only a few theaters? After all, the budget for the film was about $9-16 million, is this a wise move? (Aviya Ilia,  Laredo TX)

A. Apparently it was. The film racked up the second highest per-screen average of the year in its limited opening weekend (slightly behind "The King's Speech") and benefited from a lot of publicity. Some films are designed to open wide and make a quick killing. Oscar contenders are designed to open gradually, build an audience and have staying power. They appeal to a different audience, somewhat older, that thinks it over before going to a movie.

Anyway, "Black Swan" is opening wider on Friday, Dec. 10.

Q. In "Love and Other Drugs," I was flabbergasted at the way James and Maggie meet.  Not only is it wrong, but violating and upsetting. As a woman who has had many creepy doctors from adolescence to adulthood, I would like to share my opinion that it is not acceptable in a romantic comedy. I doubted what I saw. Surely the public would be angry with something like this so it can't be real. When your review of the film came out I thought, at least Roger Ebert will be angry like me!

Sure, you commented, "doctors aren't supposed to do that," but I didn't find the passion I was hoping for. This film uses a lighthearted romantic comedy setting, and pairs it with the violation of Maggie's body and rights as a human being.  It is treated like something cute -- as if Jake Gyllenhaal's blue eyes erase something that is not only illegal, but an assault to Maggie's privacy. Then it rewards the "lovable scamp" with sex from the woman he violated. What I find scary is the lack of waves this has caused. (Megan Coker)

A. Jake Gyllenhaal is a drug salesman and the pal of a doctor (Hank Azaria) who disguises him in interns' scrubs and brings him into a private room to observe as he examines Anna Hathaway's breasts. This might be grounds for losing his license. Yes, it was offensive. Yes, perhaps I should have been more angry. So much is permitted in modern movies that sometimes we get desensitized. These days we are desensitized to a lot of things. At the risk of sounding political, I'll ask: If America now feels it can legally commit torture, how much is left?

Q. What do you think about ABC's latest "Best in Film" series? I hate best film lists because they always leave out some of the best films that other people don't think are great. But then again, who can really define the best film? According to ABC, the American public is about to. And this isn't even going to come close to correlating with the Internet Movie Database, and those results are skewed as well. Will there ever be an end? (Richie Starzec, Middletown CN).

A. It might help if you thought of it this way. ABC is using a formula to create a bogus "awards show" with no credibility, on a small budget, and depending on lots of film clips to carry the day. All "Best Films of All Time" lists are meaningless and all internet polls are meaningless, because there has never been a single list to satisfy everyone, or even most people.

In this case the short lists of finalists in several categories were selected, I understand, by various critics and "experts" who made nominations. (Between them, all of those authorities were unable think of a single silent film that qualified.) The finalists were such suspiciously popular mainstream titles that one wonders how expert the experts were, or how ABC selected from their recommendations.

Let me complain about something, and then explain why complaining is useless. In the category of "Best Kiss," one of the nominees was not the most famous kiss in movie history, between Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman in Hitchcock's "Notorious" (1946). That was also for many years the longest kiss in movie history. How a list of finalists could forget it is inexplicable.

But that's just me. And that's the flaw. The moment a list is announced, everyone like me works up a lather complaining about what's on it and what got left off. And then when the votes are announced by ABC, there will be learned analysis of the winners and losers and the meaning of it all. All of the analysts will begin with the assumption that they know best, and everybody else is wrong.

Of course, most of the votes will have been cast by the kinds of people who vote in online polls. Those who engage in such a futile enterprise aren't always the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree. You know what would amuse me? If real movie buffs (like you and me) went online and simply voted for the best films in every category. Then ABC would be stuck with a lot of truly good choices, and its ratings might suffer. Heh, heh.

tag:www.rogerebert.com,2005:BlogPost/50cbae1af3b43b81e70001c2 2010-11-30T00:00:00-06:00 2019-07-22T08:23:49-05:00 Now you see 'em, now you don't Roger Ebert Thumb eb20101130answerman101139998ar


A. We are drowning in idiotic medical dramas, and "Red Beard" is a rare film that seriously considers a doctor's philosophy about life, death and health care.

Q. Regarding the latest "Harry Potter" movie, I was surprised that you didn't mention the fight scenes.  This movie and most of the recent movies are seeming to trend to more, louder, faster, blurrier fight scenes.  Is it just me or do the scenes get so confusing that we cannot keep up and give up on trying to follow the action. I find myself saying, "OK, fine, I'll wait until it's all over and see who wins."  It is wasted film time that could be better used to fill out the story. (Joel Michello)

A. Back in the years when fight scenes were staged using real actors and stunt men, they were choreographed to make sense. Now that they're largely manufactured with computers, they approach abstract art: assemblies of images and sound cut together so quickly, and with so little attention to angle and POV, that no coherent understanding of them is possible. This is a great loss.

Q. Since 2001, The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has held their Oscar ceremonies at the prestigious Kodak Theater located in Hollywood.  Since the creation of AMPAS, for 78 consecutive years, every single Best Picture has allegedly been shot on Kodak film, thus the chosen name of the venue.  Just curious if anyone ever bothered to inform them that last year's Best Picture Winner, "The Hurt Locker," was shot on Fuji film? (Kevin Fellman, Phoenix, AZ)

A. Gee, it turned out all right. That detail escaped my attention. Actually, the Kodak Theater was not named because of all the films shot on Kodak, but because Eastman Kodak generously helped support its construction.

Q.  I have the utmost respect for your reviews Mr. Ebert. Frankly, I think you are brilliant in a lot of ways! On the other hand, I cannot and will not support anyone (buying books, etc.) who stands against Intelligent Design! (Mark Cooper)

A. You may run out of reading material, and have to turn to video games.

Q. Russell Crowe's character in "The Next Three Days" couldn't really be a schlepp, because that's a verb of motion. But he could be a schlub, at least to start. Still, the movie lacks credibility because whoever heard of a schlub who 

A. Now I feel like such a putz.

Q. I love film. All I have wanted to do was become a film critic. I thought I'd just go for it and ask if you could offer advice. I have a B.A. in English. I am a very good writer, or so I've been told. I was just hoping that maybe, just maybe, you'd read over this and throw a poor dog a bone. Any advice or tips, you could give would be expected.  I just want to know what I need to do, what steps to take, how to get there. I've thought about a masters in film studies, but is it necessary? (Arthur Gordon)

A. There's no easy answer, and not many salaried jobs. Many critics simple open their own websites, or contribute to others. I think the degree in English is invaluable. Further study is valuable for its own sake, but may not lead any more quickly to work. It would be for your own good, as it should be. Perhaps it might be wise to redefine yourself as a writer and not narrowly as a movie critic. Take someone like George Orwell as a role model.

Q. As I recall from all those years when you and Gene did your Top 10 special at the end of the year, you'd have many films in common, but never all. I was wondering if the two of you also shared notes beforehand -- and, if so, whether one or both of you ever made changes to your lists so they wouldn't be that similar? Or are you of a mind that a critic's list should be his list, regardless of what anyone else is going to have on his or hers, and that it's no sin if two guys writing for the same place, doing a podcast together, etc., have that much overlap on such a thing? This is why lists are frustrating. You want to be able to celebrate the best work of the year, but then you start contorting yourself to figure out what goes in and what stays out, how to rank things (if you don't want to just go alphabetical), whether to consider a colleague's rankings, etc. (Alan Sepinwall, Newark, N.J.)

A. You and a colleague are dealing with the problem of possible list overlap on your webcast. Gene had an iron-clad rule that we never discussed movies or lists in advance. We would send our lists to the producers, who would contrive a show rundown and give us each only the show segments we would be writing.

Q. In all the giant monster movies I've seen ("King Kong," "Godzilla," et al.), the monsters never have the urge to urinate and/or defecate. Even after eating people. Why is that? Do you know of any movies where they do, barring "Jurassic Park?" (Eric Hodek, Itasca, IL).

A. Obviously, they must be constipated. That's why they're so short-tempered.

Q. I've noticed that the official "At the Movies" website has been down for some time.  Is this somehow related to your upcoming show? (Kevin Klawitter, Wadena, Minn.)

A. Buena Vista Television took down the site when it stopped producing "At the Movies."  That was fair enough. It contained all the show's reviews over the years -- everything by Siskel, myself, Richard Roeper, Michael Phillips, A.O. Scott, Ben Mankiewicz, Ben Lyons and various guest critics. I understand the archive has been preserved, and I hope it will find a new home somewhere on the web.

Q. It's probably a coincidence, but I thought I'd check. In your review of "Burlesque," you ask, "Where did they come from? Where will they go?" about the male dancers who suddenly appear. This isn't an arcane reference to the title of Kitty Carlisle's opening number in "Murder at the Vanities" (1934), which asks the same question about the dancers there? (Garry Koenigsberg, San Francisco CA)

A. I'm afraid not. Great minds think alike.

tag:www.rogerebert.com,2005:BlogPost/50cbae1af3b43b81e70001c1 2010-11-10T00:00:00-06:00 2019-08-18T16:22:27-05:00 The great unseen Jill Clayburgh performance Roger Ebert Thumb eb20101110answerman101119992ar


























tag:www.rogerebert.com,2005:BlogPost/50cbae1af3b43b81e70001c0 2010-10-27T00:00:00-05:00 2018-06-14T11:36:32-05:00 Ebert vs. Scott Pilgrim vs. the world? Roger Ebert Thumb eb20101027answerman101029974ar


It really is a wake-up call for me. All of the independent video stores are shutting down, and soon it's just going to be Netflix and Redbox. It's chilling and it really makes me want to cancel my Netflix membership, rather than have them try to keep a film away from me which has been to the Toronto Film Festival, New York Film Festival, London Film Festival, among others. It's worth mentioning that I had no desire to watch "Trash Humpers." I don't particularly enjoy the work of Harmony Korine but I certainly support his right to make his films. (Ryan Sartor, Fairfield, CT)

A. The Netflix decision is creating quite a stir. I haven't seen "Trash Humpers," and it's unlikely to open soon at a theater near you, so video is its only outlet. It doesn't seem to be pornographic. It does appear to be offensive. Is that why Netflix said no to it? A learn it's about a group of actors wearing the masks of old geezers wandering the alleys of Nashville and, according to Rob Nelson of Variety, "bashing TVs with sledgehammers, blasting an empty wheelchair with a self-serve car-wash gun, 'killing' various plastic dolls, spanking a trio of women in lingerie, lighting firecrackers, singing, cackling incessantly and other taste-challenged ephemera. The result, riveting beyond all rationality, is something like 'Jackass,' except that here the stunts are dangerous only to standards of good taste -- which, of course, is precisely the point."

The statement by Drag City is precisely to the point. The role of Netflix is as a conduit between filmmakers and film viewers. I can understand why they don't handle hard-core pornography. But "Trash Humpers" seems to have merely offended someone's taste. I'm not a member of Netflix for their taste, but for their movies.

Q. From your review of "Secretariat": "Nor did Penny Chenery, Secretariat's owner, 'luck into' the horse. As the film spells out, she won the horse by losing a coin toss, which she wanted to lose..." Did you not just describe luck?  Did Chenery somehow master the skill of engineering coin tosses to fall the way she desired? (tigertooth)

A. It wasn't all luck. She counted on her knowledge of blood-lines to know which mare she wanted. She guessed (perhaps luckily) that the millionaire would know less, and choose the wrong mare. Therefore: (1) She wins, and chooses the mare she wants, or (2) She loses, and the millionaire chooses the mare she doesn't want.

Q. Are you looking forward to revisiting the Star Wars films in 3D? (Ronald Z. Barzell, Los Angeles)

A. How many different restorations, revivals, refurbishments, retreads and renovations are we expected to endure? The Star Wars are terrific movies. Why is George Lucas wearing out their welcome?

Q. In your  review of "Hereafter," you state that you do not believe in "Woo-Woo." What does this mean, Woo-Woo? (David Slater, Nashville, Tennessee)

A. Man, did that stir up people. Carol Miller of Fargo, ND wrote: "Come on, you don't believe in 'woo-woo?'  Is that a technical word for something?  A belief in God?  I'm not as concerned if you believe in the afterlife, I want a review of the technical aspects of a film, the acting, story, etc.  It's a little condescending though to call it 'woo-woo.'  Really." And a reader signed AnyEdge wrote: "I would like to register that I find the phrase 'woo-woo' to be very nearly hate speech. I am a functional skeptic (but not a member of the movement), and have deep concerns with people who believe in disproven things, like homeopathy.  But to use a derisive, derogatory term like this to describe other people's beliefs, even those beliefs we know to be false is beneath the dignity of reasonable discourse."

Isn't woo-woo pretty general usage?  I'm using it in the review to refer to mind-reading and psychics in general. Wiktionary.com has two definitions: (1) Supernatural, paranormal, occult, or pseudoscientific phenomena, or emotion-based beliefs and explanations; (2) An alcoholic cocktail consisting of peach schnapps, vodka and cranberry juice. It is not to be confused with Woo Hoo, which means (1) great excitement, or (2) In the game Sims 2, sex.

Q. Regarding "Hereafter": Neither telepathy nor life after death have been proven by science but you seem to be saying that you and Clint believe in one but not the other. If you are going to make a leap of faith and believe in one, why not believe in both? (Brian Mier)

A. I don't know what Eastwood believes. I don't believe in telepathy, but I think it might theoretically be possible in the physical universe. I don't believe life after death is possible in the physical universe, nor do most believers in it.

Q. I read your review of "I Spit on Your Grave" ( a remake of a movie I am familiar with but purposely have never seen.  I don’t plan on seeing the remake either.  However, I found your comments about revenge interesting and shared them with my dues-paying feminist wife. You wrote: “First, let’s dispatch with the fiction that the film is about 'getting even.' If I rape you, I have committed a crime. If you kill me, you have committed another one.”

She quickly pointed out the oversight in your comment.  If we understand you, rape is a lesser offense than murder therefore if you rape someone and that person murders you, what they have done is escalation which isn’t equal and can’t be “even.”  My wife, having extensively studied violence against women, will point out that a women who are raped are often psychologically damaged for life and if given the option, would have opted for death.  If anything, by murdering her offenders, Jennifer let them off easy.  They won’t spend the rest of their lives in fear of dark parking lots, empty homes and being alone with members of the opposite sex. (James Ford, Ocala FL)

A. I understand your wife's point, but I was not equating rape and murder or even comparing them. I only used them as an example. If I am harmed, a hurt has been caused me. If I harm in revenge, a hurt has been caused to another. Philosophers have been discussing the moral issues involved for centuries. But in the case of "I Spit on Your Grave" (2010), the film depends on the revenge theme to conceal its real content.

Yes, men rape the heroine. Yes, she devises elaborate and sadistic ways to torture and murder them. So now are they even? No, because in the first half of the film the psychological goading of the women is deliberate and realistic, and for me expresses true hatred of women. In the second half, the woman enacts unlikely and "entertaining" variations on violence that most horror movie fans will feel at home with. So the movie isn't about a woman getting even. It's about a woman horribly mistreated, and then put to work to entertain the goons in the audience who didn't walk out during the first half. The mystery to me is: Why do women watch this movie? Or men who love women?

Q. Why haven't you reviewed "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World?" While it certainly underperformed at the Box Office, given your (embarrassingly) tumultuous relationship with Video Games, it would seem like fertile ground for a nuanced and controlled critique of video game culture and its effects on other forms of media. (Christian Russo) 

A. Video games rank low on the list of tumultuous relationships I feel embarrassed about, but I've been amazed how often I've been asked your question. I took a month's leave to work on my memoirs, and alas didn't see "Scott Pilgrim." I still sleep nights.

tag:www.rogerebert.com,2005:BlogPost/50cbae1af3b43b81e70001bf 2010-08-18T00:00:00-05:00 2019-08-06T07:56:19-05:00 "You do not get that???????" Roger Ebert Thumb eb20100818answerman100819986ar

Q. Today was a very discouraging day for me.  With a group of intelligent friends, I started watching "Annie Hall" at my home.  Unfortunately, as the movie started, people began talking.  This continued throughout the movie, much of the conversation unrelated to the movie.  Then there was the texting, the visits to the bathroom, the talking to the dog, and so on.  I considered walking away or saying something abrupt, but I didn't want to be rude.  That's truly ironic, as I've always considered talking during movies to be rude. When it was over and I was thoroughly annoyed with my friends, one of them told me it was boring.  The other said she really liked it.  It's hard to trust either opinion as it didn't seem they really watched it. I've noticed similar habits in movie theaters too: people texting despite the warning before the movie not to so, people talking, people going in and out, and the not so new problem of the rustling of candy bags. I'm 35 and it sometimes surprises me when my peers can be so obtuse in their movie watching habits.  How can anyone appreciate greatness if they aren't really looking for it? (Christopher Willson, Carson City, NV)

A. You've heard about people being killed in car crashes while texting? Some people's attention spans are being killed in the same way.

Q. I watched the movie "The Wild and Wonderful Whites of West Virginia" last night at a theatre. The previews had the Apple logo in the corner from iDVD, and the movie itself was YouTube quality. The frame rate stuttered, and it was heavily pixelated and compressed. Was this movie distributed everywhere that way? When I see places that aren't movie theaters screening older movies, I expect it to just be a laptop hooked up to an office projector, but this was a first-run theater. (Drew Zipp, Louisville, KY)

A. The picture quality of the trailer is fine. The movie hasn't played here yet, but it was reviewed by A.O. Scott in the New York Times, and if I know Tony, he would be inclined to mention an Apple logo from an iDVD. There's your smoking gun right there.

Q. I read your review of "Winter's Bone," saw the movie and know the answer to your unanswered question about Ree Dolly (how did she become the person she is?). It's actually pretty simple.  She decided.  There are many of us out here who have done the same thing. (Jim Boulton, Albuquerque, NM)

A. Think you could offer counseling to Dustin Dear?

Q. In your review about "Best Worst Movie," which was "Troll 2," you said there is no original "Troll." Actually, there is. It stars Sonny Bono, Michael Moriarty, Noah Hathaway, Julia Louis Dreyfuss, June Lockhart and Phil Fondacaro.  I've seen it dozens of times. It's technically not good at all, but has a bit of style and an occasionally interesting score. "Troll 2" has nothing to do with it though. Side note, the main character in the film is named Harry Potter, and he encounters a world of magic. Hmmmm. (Dustin Dear, Austin,Tx)

A. Not good at all. Bit of style. Score occasionally interesting. Watched it dozens of times. Does that have anything to do with specials on pitchers at the Alamo Draft House?

Q. Have you listened to Armond White's criticism of your career? It's quite astounding and elitist. It's at: http://j.mp/diVOxc (Nathan Kuhl, Bear Creek, PA) 

A. Yes, he says, "I do think it is fair to say that Roger Ebert destroyed film criticism." I was actually quite chuffed to read this. He's the only one of my colleagues willing to admit the power of my influence.

Q. Do you remember the audio industry's brief and unsuccessful flirtation with four channel "quadraphonic" sound? It was a technology that was supposed to deliver surround sound; unfortunately it appeared to have been created by people who knew everything about audio electronics, but nothing about how people hear. Similarly, 3D movie technologies (which properly speaking are merely stereoscopy, like an old View-Master) appear to have been created by people who know everything about digital projection, but nothing about how people see. In particular, stereo image separation is only one cue that people use to infer depth, and when that cue is inconsistent with other cues -- as it often is with 3D movies -- what you get is a headache or, if you're really unlucky, motion sickness. (Carl Zetie, Waterford, VA)

A. Man, I've been saying this since Day One. 3D is the waste of a perfectly good dimension. It's been interesting to read several articles in trade publications recently speculating that the latest version of 3D is already on terminal support. Public acceptance seems to be fading,  and the higher prices are causing sticker shock.

What do you really get for the several dollar surcharge on 3D? Look at it this way. When toll roads open, the theory is that the tolls are to "pay for the road." Years go by, the roads are paid for, and the tolls go up. Are you "paying for the 3D projection?" A projector costs maybe $120,000. With a $3 surcharge, that's covered by 40,000 admissions. The projectors are paid for. What's more, because they're digital, they allow much lower print costs. There is also the problem that 3D delivers an inferior picture, noticeably dimmer, not to mention occasional headaches, nausea and dizziness.

I've argued this year after year after year. Armond, if I can destroy film criticism? why can't I destroy 3D? What am I doing wrong?

Footnote: There have been fewer Answer Man columns recently because I'm on leave to write my memoirs. Be full time again soon.

Q. I have watched and read your reviews for years with great honor.  I disagree so strongly with your review of "Eat Pray Love" that it makes me sick.  You just don't get it, and many others like you don't get it. You do not know at all what it is like being a woman in this day and age (or previously) who did not want to be defined by a man or married off to one. If you think Stephen in the movie was an OK husband, you are out to lunch.  He was horrible!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (except on paper to people who do not need emotional sustenance). David was the narcissist from hell that  many of us have fallen for… do you not get that??????????? Many of the males of the species are frankly overrated and the women's movement has proven this (or frankly not sufficiently). I hope your wife will bring you up to speed. (Jeanine Carlson, Ph.D., Licensed Clinical Psychologist)

A. Here is what I wrote about Stephen: "Her first marriage apparently broke down primarily because she tired of it, although Roberts at (a sexy and attractive) 43 makes an actor's brave stab at explaining they were 'young and immature.' She walks out on the guy (Billy Crudup) and he still likes her and reads her on the Web." Here is what I wrote about David: "She meets a man played by James Franco, about whom, enough said."

My wife???????? She already has me up to speed!!!!!!!!

tag:www.rogerebert.com,2005:BlogPost/50cbae19f3b43b81e70001be 2010-06-24T00:00:00-05:00 2019-08-06T07:56:19-05:00 'Toy Story 3' and the extra dimension Roger Ebert Thumb eb20100624answerman100629990ar

Q. I have seen "Die Hard With a Vengeance" an embarrassing amount of times (not as many as "Die Hard" though) and I have never been able to spot Dick Cheney. He's listed in the movie's credits and it's on his IMDb page. (Cory B. Wingerter)

A. It is said he "plays a cameo as an NYPD police official." You know what? I seriously doubt it. My best guesses: (1) It was another Dick Cheney; (2) Somebody hacked IMDb.

Q. In your review of "Winter's Bone," you wrote: "Ree's travels in search of her father lead her to his brother, Teardrop (John Hawkes), whose existence inflicts a wound on the gift of being alive." That last phrase, what the heck is that supposed to mean? (Mark Pool, Crown Point, IN)

A. Just some fancy writing. Roughly, "who is an insult to the human race."

Q. I am concerned with the future of horror movies. I recently saw two fantastic, yet different films: "Orphan" and "Let the Right One In." In "Orphan," the film was filled with countless horror movie cliches. Why do so many movies, and more specifically horror movies, continue to use "the formula" and get away with it? I'm 32 and I know I'm outside of the demographic, but I know teenagers still cannot be truly happy with the same scenarios and gimmicks as you suggest in your review. I've been tired of these for years, yet I still find myself drawn to watch the movies even though I haven't been scared since I was a teenager. In the film "Let the Right One In," "the formula" wasn't used as directly as in "Orphan," but I think that's because it was a foreign film. Now, I'm frustrated to hear that there will be a US remake of this one! Here we go again! So sad. (Samuel Mills, Woodstock, Georgia)

A. Of course you picked two good movies, one very good. In "Let the Right One In" Lina Leandersson was unforgettable as Eli, the vampire. The role is played in the remake (called "Let Me In") by Chloe Moretz, who certainly displayed a lot of confidence in "Kick-Ass" and was good in "(500) Days of Summer." It will be a test of the Hollywood remake to be as effective and chilling as the original. Will it dilute the truly disturbing implications of the story?

Q. What makes a movie a bad movie? Do you ever like a movie that the critics just dislike? In the era of "we've seen it all," is it more difficult to make a movie that pleases both critics and audience? How about foreign movies? Are they likable because they're foreign? (Alex Tho, Jakarta, Indonesia)

A. Yeah, I've been in the minority. There's no checklist of what makes a movie bad, but one thing that bothers me is when it seems content to grab some quick profits from a marketing campaign and not really care about word-of-mouth. "The A-Team" was a "hit," for example, before the word got around. It dropped off quickly, but not quickly enough to spare its victims.

Q. I wonder if you know what Douglas Pratt, the writer of DVD Laser newsletter, is up to lately. I was a big fan of his Laserdisc Newsletter in the 90s and thought he was, without question, one of the best reviewers of films and home video I have ever seen. But after the 90s, he seems to have vanished. His web site is now filled with broken links, and email sent to him is bounced. (Kevin Yip, New York, NY)

A. I agree with your high opinion. He is especially strong on the technical details of DVDs. You'll fine him writing at moviecitynews.com

Q. I gobbled up your "Now on DVD" review of “Matinee” today, having seen the movie when it came out in 1993. It brought back fond memories of Mants (as if there are any other kind of Mant-related memories). But afterwards, I got sentimental. Is there still room for a guy “with a few bucks and a big imagination” to make a movie nowadays? Has your opinion changed since 1993? (Geoff Hayward, Wakefield, RI)

A. Ah, yes. Mants: Men-ant mutants. They were featured in the horror film that hustling producer John Goodman was self-distributing in that very funny comedy. Can something like that happen now? An indie director with a few bucks and an imagination can still sometimes hit the jackpot, as in "The Blair Witch Project" or "Paranormal Activity." But a genuine sci-fi monster movie like "Mant" wouldn't be low budget anymore, because the major studios have grabbed that market; their summer releases are often essentially circa-1965 American-International exploitation movies with big star and $200 million budget.

Q. I was a little surprised by how your review of "Toy Story 3" was largely dismissive of the film as a derivative sequel, stating it is "happier with action and jokes than with characters and emotions." You say the first two films were about a boy and his toys, whereas this one leaves the toys to fend for themselves. On this point, I'd argue that there's more Andy in this film than any before. The earlier films were all about getting back to the house and facing the dangers of highways, a deranged kid, and worse in the process. Andy was rarely seen in his entirety save a few moments at the beginning and the end. Here the film follows the usual formula, yes, (toys get lost, toys get into trouble, toys find their way back home) but there is a heartbreaking coda that allows Andy to have the spotlight for the first time in the series. These ending scenes were, for me, the most emotionally involving of the series and an excellent example of a franchise that works hard to make the sequel enrich and enhance what came before it. On the topic of 3D, however, I heartily agree. (Steven Avigliano, Rockaway NJ)

A. I have to be honest with you. I fully believe if I could see the film in 2D, my opinion would deepen and improve. I realize I'm in danger of sounding like an obsessive on his topic, but I find 3D an annoyance and a distraction, and the light in the screen in invariably dimmer than it should be. The so-called third dimension is getting between me and the heart of the story.

tag:www.rogerebert.com,2005:BlogPost/50cbae19f3b43b81e70001bd 2010-06-09T00:00:00-05:00 2019-01-16T08:26:51-06:00 Can a man be a "sexaholic slut?" Roger Ebert Thumb eb20100609answerman100609971ar


A. Of course there can be dark scenes. If the whole movie looks noticeably dim, it’s probably not being projected at the correct level. As the AM has tirelessly explained: Some theater owners believe that if they turn down the power of the expensive projector bulb, the bulb’s life span will be lengthened. This is not true.

Steve Kraus of Chicago’s Lake Street Screening Room tells me: “A technician with a light meter can read the reflected brightness of the screen with the projector running without film. It should be 16 foot-lamberts.” Ask your theater if they’ve checked lately.

Q. Didn’t Shia LaBeouf break some sort of unwritten rule by criticizing Spielberg over the last “Indiana Jones” movie? He indeed put him down by stating he had long discussions with Harrison Ford about the poor job they both thought he was doing, all this while making the film. For starters, if I were Oliver Stone, I might be a little apprehensive about Shia’s opinion on my work in the coming “Wall Street” sequel. I know people do this all the time in everyday life but with the exception of Marlon Brando (someone known as a bit of an eccentric) with “The Freshman,” you don’t see this every day, especially concerning one of the most powerful men in Hollywood. Gerardo Valero, Mexico City

A. I imagine LaBeouf’s agent smacked his forehead with his palm when he read that — not because of Spielberg’s possible reaction, but because his client comes off looking negative. Other directors might consider that. Spielberg, I think, is beyond caring about LaBeouf’s opinion. I certainly don’t think LaBeouf should have betrayed a private conversation with Harrison Ford.




Q. For two years now, I have managed an eight-screen movie theater. For about six months, I have been writing movie reviews for our local paper. My question is: How do we not become repetitive after seeing so many common themes repeated ad nauseam at the cineplex? Today with so many movies being derivative of prior material, sequels, remakes and reboots ... how do we express to our readers the wonder of really finding something new?

It’s obvious to anyone who has seen more than a dozen movies that the romantic comedic female lead is not going to marry the guy she is engaged to at the beginning of the film. She is going to wind up with the awkward but charming stranger she can’t stand to be around at first. We know the girl in the sex scene is going to get murdered first. They’re going to manage to kill the shark. How do we write as to keep our material from being as derivative and repetitive as the movies? Aaron Lane Morris, Glasgow, Ky.

A. The hard part is expressing “the wonder of finding something really new.” Many moviegoers actually want to see movies that are already familiar. That’s why genres are popular. If a critic informs them of a “masterpiece,” their first reaction is, “that doesn’t sound like anything I’d like to see.” Your challenge is to evoke for them the experience you had.

As for the deadly predictability of some movies: In a way, that’s why I started the Little Movie Glossary, to have fun with cliches, archetypes, stereotypes and automatic plotting. But remember your readers haven’t seen everything you have. For instance, the new “Karate Kid” faithfully follows the original plot, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t entertaining.

Q. Would you please refer me to a review you have written where you refer to a man as a “sexaholic slut” because he has engaged in the same sexual behavior as Samantha’s [in “Sex and the City 2”]? No doubt you cannot refer me to any such review. I assume you get my point. Kathleen Dunham, Costa Mesa, Calif.

A. Damn! I received this too late to describe the Michael Douglas character in “Solitary Man” as a “sexaholic slut.” Of course the dictionary says “slut” is a word referring to a woman, but I am willing to bend the rules. Amazingly, according to the global word search on my computer, the “SATC2” review is the first time I have ever used the word “sexaholic.”