RSS

Tag Archives: Roger's Worst

54. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)



Roger’s Rating :

Should be :

From that most irreverent of years, 1969, came the great Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. The movie starts with the intro : MOST OF WHAT FOLLOWS IS TRUE.
Roger in his stunning review (I was stunned when I read it) said “The problems are two. First, the investment in superstar Paul Newman apparently inspired a bloated production that destroys the pacing. Second, William Goldman’s script is constantly too cute and never gets up the nerve, by God, to admit it’s a Western.”
He went on to say “But unfortunately, this good movie is buried beneath millions of dollars that were spent on ‘production values’ that wreck the show. This is often the fate of movies with actors in the million-dollar class, like Newman. Having invested all that cash in the superstar, the studio gets nervous and decides to spend lots of money to protect its investment.”
Roger’s 2 1/2 star review means that he thinks you should take a pass on it. Wow!
Rotten Tomatoes has it at 91%. AFI has it listed in their Top 100 movies of All Time, 100 Best Thrillers, 100 Heroes and Villains and 100 Songs. They also had it listed as #7 Best Western of all time. It had The Searchers, High Noon, Shane, Unforgiven, Red River and The Wild Bunch listed above it. that is a pretty fast crowd to be running with.
IMDB has an 8.2 rating for this movie. In 2003, the film was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant”.
I loved this movie when I was young, and I still love it today. This is definitely a review that Roger needs to revisit.
 
Comments Off on 54. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)

Posted by on January 22, 2011 in Ebert's worst reviews

 

Tags:

24. Brazil (1985)


Roger’s Rating :

Should be :

T.V. Interviewer: What do you believe is behind this recent increase in terrorist bombings?
Mr. Helpmann: Bad sportsmanship. A ruthless minority seems to have forgotten certain good old-fashioned virtues. They can’t stand seeing the other fellow win. If they played the game, they’d enjoy life more.

Brazil is about a totalitarian society where following bureaucratic code is more important than doing what is right. The totalitarian state exists to protect itself. The movie has a great look and some great dialogue. I thought it worked as comedy, science fiction and drama.
Roger says in his Two Star Review :
“The movie is very hard to follow. I have seen it twice, and am still not sure exactly who all the characters are, or how they fit.
Perhaps it is not supposed to be clear; perhaps the movie’s air of confusion is part of its paranoid vision. There are individual moments that create sharp images (shock troops drilling through a ceiling, De Niro wrestling with the almost obscene wiring and tubing inside a wall, the movie’s obsession with bizarre duct work), but there seems to be no sure hand at the controls.”
The movie may be more style than substance but it has tremendous style. It also is a really funny look at the totalitarianism that can be caused by bureaucracy. Perhaps, not the most lucid of plots, but it is still tremendously entertaining.
Giving a movie that has an 8.0 rating on IMDB and a 98% rating on Rotten Tomatoes a 2 star rating has got to be a pretty big mistake on Roger’s part.
 
6 Comments

Posted by on January 29, 2010 in Roger's Worst

 

Tags:

19. Snatch (2000)


Roger’s Rating :

Should be :

The point of being a movie reviewer is to tell people whether they will enjoy a movie. By this standard Roger’s review of Snatch fails miserably. Roger says in his review “Ritchie is a zany, high-energy director. He isn’t interested in crime, he’s interested in voltage. As an unfolding event, Snatch is fun to watch, even if no reasonable person could hope to understand the plot in one viewing.” Roger feels it is too much style with too little substance. He says : “I just want him to get organized, to find the through line, to figure out why we would want to see the movie for more than its technique.” Roger only gave this very entertaining movie two stars.
The thing I liked best about this movie was just watching the cartoon like characters and listening to them talk. Turkish, Tommy, Brick Top, Frankie Four Fingers, Boris ‘The Blade’, Bullet Toot Tony and especially Brad Pitt as Micky O’Neil. It is a little hard to figure out what they are saying and it’s even harder keeping track of who is who, but this is a movie that demands repeated viewings and it does get better every time. Sometimes the style of a movie is more important than the plot. The bottom line is : ‘Was the movie fun to watch?’.
Sometimes it’s just fun to sit back and watch entertaining characters on the screen without worrying about where the plot is going. In that regard this movie has a lot in common with some of the Coen Brothers’ movies and also with the Marx Brothers, who Roger mentioned in his review. There wasn’t a lot of plot in their stories either, but they were always entertaining. Like Mark Twain said in his preface to Huckleberry Finn : “Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot.” I think he was telling us to  just sit back and enjoy it.
On IMDB this movie has an 8.2 rating and is ranked #136  all time. Not too bad for a 2 star movie.
 
Comments Off on 19. Snatch (2000)

Posted by on January 20, 2010 in Roger's Worst

 

Tags: