My favorite Movie critic has been out of commission for the past month. He has recently undergone surgery for cancer and I have this grim feeling that he won't be returning any time soon, if ever. I have come to realize that for me, reading his movie reviews has become like reading a regular paper or one of my favorite blogs. I even have my own personal favorites when it comes to Ebert's reviews. He is such a terrific writer and it is a little known fact that he was the first filmi critic to win a Pulitzer prize. As a tribute to one of my fav. writers and by far my favorite columnist I am posting my favorite review of a movie. The film is quite possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. It is called "The Ghost And the Darkness" It stared Val Kilmer and Michael Douglas. It is wretched. One should watch it just to observe just how crappy a movie can be. Roger Ebert ladies and gentlemen:
The Ghost And The DarknessBY ROGER EBERT / October 11, 1996
`The Ghost and the Darkness'' is an African adventure that makes the Tarzan movies look subtle and realistic. It lacks even the usual charm of being so bad it's funny. It's just bad. Not funny. No, wait . . . there is one funny moment. A bridge-builder takes leave of his pregnant wife to go to Africa to build a bridge, and she solemnly observes, ``You must go where the rivers are.'' The bridge man, named Patterson, is played by Val Kilmer in a trim modern haircut that never grows an inch during his weeks in the bush. He soon is joined by a great white hunter named Remington (Michael Douglas), whose appearance is that of a homeless man who somehow got his hands on a rifle. If this were a comic strip, there would be flies buzzing around his head.
The men meet up in Uganda, where a big push is on to complete a railroad faster than the Germans or the French. The owner of the rail company is a gruff tycoon who boasts, ``I'm a monster. My only pleasure is tormenting those people who work for me.'' He is too modest. He also torments those who watch this movie.
Work on the railroad bridge is interrupted by a lion attack. Patterson spends the night in a tree and kills a lion. There is much rejoicing. Then another lion attacks. Eventually it becomes clear that two lions are still on the prowl. They are devilishly clever, dragging men from their cots and even invading a hospital to chew on malaria patients. ``Maneaters are always old, and alone, but not these two,'' Remington intones solemnly.
The rest of the movie consists of Patterson and Remington sitting up all night trying to shoot the lions, while the lions continue their attacks. At the end we learn that these two lions killed 135 victims in nine months. The movie only makes it seem like there were more, over a longer period.
Many scenes are so inept as to beggar description. Some of the lion attacks seem to have been staged by telling the actors to scream while a lion rug was waved in front of the camera. Patterson eventually builds a flimsy platform in a clearing, tethers a goat at its base, and waits for the lions. Balanced on a wooden beam, he looks this way. Then that way. Then this. Then that. A competent editor would have known that all this shifting back and forth would become distracting. Then a big bird flies at him and knocks him off the beam, and right into a lion's path. Lesson No. 1 in lion hunting: Don't let a big bird knock you into the path of a lion.
A narrator at the beginning of the film has informed us, ``This is a story of death and mystery.'' The mystery is why these particular lions behaved as they did. I don't see why it's a mystery. They had reasons anyone can identify with: They found something they were good at, and grew to enjoy it. The only mystery is why the screenwriter, William Goldman, has them kill off the two most interesting characters so quickly. (They are Angus, the chatty man on the spot, and an African with a magnificently chiseled and stern face.) In the old days this movie would have starred Stewart Granger and Trevor Howard, and they would have known it was bad but they would have seemed at home in it, cleaning their rifles and chugging their gin like seasoned bwanas.
Val Kilmer and Michael Douglas never for a second look like anything other than thoroughly unhappy movie stars stuck in a humid climate and a doomed production.
I hope someone made a documentary about the making of ``The Ghost and the Darkness.'' Now that would be a movie worth seeing.
10 comments:
wow, he really hated that movie. where do you read his reviews?
speaking of cancer. i just found out that Richard aslanian has pancreas cancer. it is supposedly very deadly. please pray for him. good man.
It was bad. I love an accurate scathing review. The bad reviews for the sake of hating something suck. Ebert never goes there. Honesty rules.
If you see this movie then you are overjoyed when you read the review. The movie actually angers you while watching it. Your thinking "how can this be THIS bad? It has Val Kilmer and Micheal Douglas??? These guys NEVER play in bad movies. Ice Man? Romancing the Stone??"
I chose this review because in a strange way it made you feel really GOOD about noticing the badness of the film. The lion Scene really did look like a lion rug had been waved in front of the movie. The plot was stupid. The acting was bad. The directing was bad. The production, down to the Lions. All bad.
Reading Ebert's review of this actually made you glad you saw it so you could laugh out loud about its badness.
When he gives a good review of a movie it is amazing as well. Good reviews are never as fun to read.
I remember watching that movie then wondering, "Why did I just watch that?"
Um . . . I kinda liked it. (Picture me ducking the rotten tomatoes you are now throwing my way.) I mean, come on; based on a true story, terror in the night (okay, so Val really isn't a good actor, but still).
But then, I like Big trouble in Little China, too.
Now big trouble was a pretty good campy 80's flick. I mean, I could still sit through that one today on a sunday afternoon heavily sedated.
You should go back and watch it now. Older and wiser with a few more great films under your viewing belt. I know you'll come to the light Euphrony...come on. Just take that step. Can you hear the piano playing softly?
I didn't mean to make Val Kilmer out to be a bad actor. I think he can be pretty great in some things. Tombstone???? He was AWESOME as Doc Holiday. "I'm your Huckelberry... Why Jonny Ringo... you look like somebody just walked over your grave.."
my magic word is ysexfq.
Is that a question?
Ebert is one of the few movie reviewers whose opinion I hold in high esteem. Sometimes it seems as if reviewers live on a different plane than the rest of the world. Ebert, however, seems to have a finger on the public pulse. I hope he is better soon.
I always enjoyed listening back when he had his show with Siskel. (Yes, I'm dating myself a bit.) They could get in some really good arguments.
Have you seen these clips with Siskel and Ebert? They were taping T.V. commercials, and in between takes cussing each other out and complaining about communists, the vatican, and the "protestants - people who sorta want a religion". Ebert also says "protestants - the biggest thing that happens for them on a Sunday is a bake sale", and Siskel says "No, they've gotta decide what color yellow *** tie they're going to buy". And Ebert: "The only time protestants get on their knees is to adjust the t.v. set.".
My p's graduated high school with Ebert.
I looked in the yearbook, and beneath his picture, the editors included the quote, "Here's a self-made man who loves his creator."
I thought that was rather brilliant. His fondness for his own opinions apparently goes back aways, but he is a terrific writer.
Brant
Stephen. Those vid clips were awesome. I wouldn't suggest them to the more "tender eared" but I thought they were extremely entertaining. Thanks for sharing those. That might make me a big pagan.
You have to admit; the protestant wise cracks were kind of funny.
Brant, I don't doubt his self-love one bit. It is common among people who like to hear themselves talk. However, in his case, he is fortunate enough want to be heard by others as well. I always get a kick out of his reviews, even if I disagree. Garfield sucked.
Post a Comment