Movie Reviews
Roger Ebert Had An Extremely Harsh Review For A Classic Kurt Russell Sci-Fi Movie – SlashFilm
Throughout his illustrious career, Roger Ebert had several surprising takes on unlikely movies. He gave a perfect score to controversial sci-fi film “Prometheus” and bestowed a similarly flawless score on a mediocre Samuel L. Jackson crime thriller. On the other end of the spectrum were the films for which the critic reserved his most acerbic opprobrium. Ebert absolutely hated a forgotten Clint Eastwood gangster movie, which he labelled a travesty. Frankly, that assessment of 1984’s “City Heat” was probably a fair one, but he proved he could be equally as caustic ten years later when he took down Roland Emmerich’s “Stargate” movie.
Written by Emmerich and Dean Devlin, “Stargate” starred Kurt Russell as United States Air Force Colonel Jack O’Neill, who’s placed in charge of mysterious stones uncovered in Egypt bearing hieroglyphics that refer to the titular portal — a device that allows travel between two points in the universe. After Egyptologist Daniel Jackson (James Spader) figures out the meaning behind the markings, he, O’Neill, and a team of explorers pass through the Stargate to the desert planet of Abydos, where they end up trapped after Jackson fails to find the right markings to send them home. Making matters worse, their space excursion has led them to a world ruled over by the despotic Ra (Jaye Davidson), an alien who visited Earth during the time of the Ancient Egyptians, adopted their customs, and enslaved large swathes of their people. The rest of the film sees O’Neill and his crew fighting for their survival and a chance to return back through the Stargate to Earth.
Despite receiving mixed reviews from critics, “Stargate” was a commercial success, grossing $196.6 million worldwide on a budget of $55 million. Unfortunately, Roger Ebert liked the movie about as much as “City Heat.”
Even Kurt Russell didn’t want to star in Stargate at first
When Roland Emmerich signed on to direct “Stargate,” he likely had no idea it would create a sizable media empire. The “Stargate” franchise now comprises multiple TV series, direct-to-home-media movies, comic books, video games, and novels. But in the early ’90s it was just an idea in Emmerich’s head. Inspired by the 1970 documentary “Chariots of the Gods,” which suggested that aliens were responsible for creating civilization, Emmerich joined forces with Dean Devlin to develop the lore of the “Stargate” universe and write his movie. Eventually, the pair secured funding from Canal Plus and set about casting, but it took some time to get Kurt Russell onboard.
Devlin told Variety that the actor actually turned down the movie initially. It seems the “Escape from New York” star wasn’t a fan of the script, which, it was later revealed, was an early version that shouldn’t have been sent out. Once the producers sent Russell an updated screenplay and upped their salary offer, the movie had its Colonel Jack O’Neill (who would eventually be played “MacGyver” star Richard Dean Anderson in the TV series continuation “Stargate SG-1”). As Devlin recalled, “When he actually saw the shooting script he went, ‘Oh, this isn’t so bad.’”
Sadly, Roger Ebert didn’t feel the same. When the movie finally debuted in October 1994, the critic was merciless in his assessment, writing, “The movie ‘Ed Wood,’ about the worst director of all time, was made to prepare us for ‘Stargate.’” What was the critic’s issue with “Stargate?” Well, he has several, and kicked off a long-running feud between he and Emmerich with his review.
Roger Ebert thought Stargate was a series of action movie cliches
“Stargate” was by no means a critical disaster. At the time of writing, it has a 53% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and managed to impress several critics with its special effects. It was, on the whole, seen as a bit of mindless blockbuster fun, but Roger Ebert, wasn’t having any of it.
The critic didn’t let Roland Emmerich get away with anything, pointing out every single plot hole and inconsistency in his takedown of “Stargate.” According to Ebert, this was “the kind of movie where a soldier can be transported to ‘the other side of the known universe’ in a whirlpool of bizarre special effects, step into a temple on an alien planet, and say, ‘What a rush;’” “the kind of movie where the sun god Ra, who has harnessed the ability to traverse the universe at the speed of light, still needs slaves to build his pyramids.” Ebert wasn’t won over by any part of the movie, giving “Stargate” one star and proclaiming it to be “lacking in any sense of wonder” and “like a film school exercise. Assignment: Conceive of the weirdest plot you can think of, and reduce it as quickly as possible to action movie cliches.”
“Stargate” was the beginning of Emmerich and Dean Devlin’s working relationship, with the pair going on to collaborate on 1996’s “Independence Day,” 1998’s “Godzilla,” 2000’s “The Patriot” and 2015’s “Independence Day: Resurgence.” But “Stargate” also marked the beginning of an infamous feud between Ebert and Emmerich, with the former criticizing “Independence Day” leading Emmerich to take a swing at the critic by including a Mayor Ebert parody character in “Godzilla.” Ebert and fellow critic Gene Siskel then summarily trashed the film.
Movie Reviews
The Housemaid
Too good to be true? Yep, that’s just what Millie’s new job as a housemaid is—and everyone in the audience knows it. What they might not expect, though, is the amount of nudity, profanity and blood The Housemaid comes with. And this content can’t be scrubbed away.
Movie Reviews
Movie Review – Avatar: Fire and Ash (2025)
Avatar: Fire and Ash, 2025.
Directed by James Cameron.
Starring Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldaña, Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang, Oona Chaplin, Kate Winslet, Cliff Curtis, Joel David Moore, CCH Pounder, Edie Falco, Brendan Cowell, Jemaine Clement, Giovanni Ribisi, David Thewlis, Britain Dalton, Jack Champion, Trinity Jo-Li Bliss, Jamie Flatters, Bailey Bass, Filip Geljo, Duane Evans Jr., Matt Gerald, Dileep Rao, Daniel Lough, Kevin Dorman, Keston John, Alicia Vela-Bailey, and Johnny Alexander.
SYNOPSIS:
Jake and Neytiri’s family grapples with grief after Neteyam’s death, encountering a new, aggressive Na’vi tribe, the Ash People, who are led by the fiery Varang, as the conflict on Pandora escalates and a new moral focus emerges.
At one point during one of the seemingly endless circular encounters in Avatar: Fire and Ash, (especially if director James Cameron sticks to his plans of making five films in this franchise) former soldier turned blue family man (or family Na’vi?) and protector Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) tells his still-in-pursuit-commander-nemesis-transferred-to-a-Na’vi-body Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang) that the world of Pandora runs deeper than he or anyone imagines, and to open his eyes. It’s part of a plot point in which Jake encourages the villainous Quaritch to change his ways.
More fascinatingly, it comes across as a plea of trust from James Cameron (once again writing the screenplay alongside Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver) that there is still much untapped lore and stories to tell in this world. If this repetitive The Way of Water retread is anything to go by, more isn’t justified. Even taken as a spectacle, the unmatched and undeniably stunning visuals (not to mention the most expressive motion capture ever put to screen, movie or video game), that aspect is less impactful, being only two years removed from the last installment rather than a decade, which is not to be confused with less impressive. Fortunately for the film and its gargantuan 3+ hour running time, James Cameron still has enough razzle-dazzle to scoot by here on unparalleled marvel alone, even if the narrative and character expansions are bare-bones.
That’s also what makes it disappointing that this third entry, while introducing a new group dubbed the Ash People led by the strikingly conceptualized Varang (Oona Chaplin) – no one creates scenery-chewing, magnetic, and badass-looking villains quite like James Cameron – and their plight with feeling left behind, rebelling against Pandora religion, Avatar: Fire and Ash is stuck in a cycle of Jake endangering his family (and, by extension, everyone around them) with Quaritch hunting him down for vengeance but this time more fixated on his human son living among them, Spider (Jack Champion) who undergoes a physical transformation that makes him a valuable experiment and, for better or worse, the most important living being in this world. Even the corrupt and greedy marine biologists are back hunting the same godlike sea creatures, leading to what essentially feels like a restaging, if slightly different, riff on the climactic action beat that culminated in last time around.
Worse, whereas The Way of Water had a tighter, more graceful flow from storytelling to spectacle, with sequences extended and drawn out in rapturously entertaining ways, the pacing here is clunkier and frustrating, as every time these characters collide and fight, the story resets and doesn’t necessarily progress. For as much exciting action as there is here, the film also frustratingly starts and stops too much. The last thing I ever expected to type about Avatar: Fire and Ash is that, for all the entrancing technical wizardry on display, fantastical world immersion, and imaginative character designs (complete with occasional macho and corny dialogue that fits, namely since the presentation is in a high frame rate consistently playing like the world’s most expensive gaming cut scene), is often dull.
Yes, everything here, from a special-effects standpoint, is painstakingly crafted, with compelling characters that James Cameron clearly loves (something that shows and allows us to take the story seriously). Staggeringly epic action sequences are worth singling out as in a tier of its own (it’s also a modern movie free from the generally garish and washed-out look of others in this generation), but it’s all in service of a film that is not aware of its strengths, but instead committed to not going anywhere. There are a couple of important details here that one could tell someone before they watch the inevitable Avatar 4, and they will be caught up without needing to watch this. If Avatar: The Way of Water was filler (something I wholeheartedly disagree with), then Avatar: Fire and Ash is nothing. And that’s something that hurts to say.
Without spoiling too much, the single best scene in the entire film has nothing to do with epic-scale warring, but a smoldering courting from Quaritch for Varang and her army of Ash People to join forces with his group. In a film that’s over three hours, it would also have been welcome to focus more on the Ash People, their past, and their current inner workings alongside their perception of Pandora. It’s not a shock that James Cameron can invest viewers into a villain without doing so, but the alternative of watching Jake grapple with militarizing the Na’vi and insisting everyone learn how to use “sky people” firearms while coming to terms with whether or not he can actually protect his family isn’t as engaging; the latter half comes across as déjà vu.
The presence of Spider amplifies the target on everyone’s backs, with Jake convinced the boy needs to return to his world. His significant other Neytiri (Zoe Saldaña), with rage building inside her stemming from the family losing a child in the climax of the previous film, encourages a more aggressive approach and is ready to kill Spider if him being a part of the family threatens their remaining children (with one of them once again a 14-year-old motion captured by Sigourney Weaver, which is not as effective a voice performance this time as there are scenes of loud agony and pain where she sounds her age). The children also get to continue their plot arcs, with similarly slim narrative progression.
Not without glimpses of movie-magic charm and emotional moments would one dare say James Cameron is losing his touch. However, Avatar: Fire and Ash is all the proof anyone needs to question whether five of these are required, as it’s beginning to look more and more as if the world and characters aren’t as rich as the filmmaker believes they are. It’s another action-packed technical marvel with sincere, endearing characters, but the cycling nature of those elements is starting to wear thin and yield diminishing returns.
Flickering Myth Rating – Film: ★ ★ / Movie: ★ ★ ★ ★
Robert Kojder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=embed/playlist
Movie Reviews
Movie Review | Sentimental Value
Sentimental Value (Photo – Neon)
Full of clear northern light and personal crisis, Sentimental Value felt almost like a throwback film for me. It explores emotions not as an adjunct to the main, action-driven plot but as the very subject of the movie itself.
Sentimental Value
Directed by Joachim Trier – 2025
Reviewed by Garrett Rowlan
The film stars Stellan Skarsgård as Gustav Borg, a 70-year-old director who returns to Oslo to stir up interest in a film he wants to make, while health and financing in an era dominated by bean counters still allow it. He hopes to film at the family house and cast his daughter Nora, a renowned stage actress in her own right, as the lead. However, Nora struggles with intense stage fright and other personal issues. She rejects the role, disdaining the father who abandoned the family when he left her and her sister Agnes as children. In response, Gustav lures a “name” American actress, Rachel Keys (Elle Fanning), to play the part.
Sentimental Value, written by director Joachim Trier and Eskil Vogt, delves into sibling dynamics, the healing power of art, and how family trauma can be passed down through generations. Yet the film also has moments of sly humor, such as when the often oblivious Gustav gives his nine-year-old grandson a birthday DVD copy of Gaspar Noé’s dreaded Irreversible, something intense and highly inappropriate.
For me, the film harkens back to the works of Ingmar Bergman. The three sisters (with Elle Fanning playing a kind of surrogate sister) reminded me of the three siblings in Bergman’s 1972 Cries and Whispers. In another sequence, the shot composition of Gustav and his two daughters, their faces blending, recalls the iconic fusion of Liv Ullmann and Bibi Andersson’s faces in Persona.
It’s the acting that truly carries the film. Special mention goes to Renate Reinsve, who portrays the troubled yet talented Nora, and Stellan Skarsgård as Gustav, an actor unafraid to take on unlikable characters (I still remember him shooting a dog in the original Insomnia). In both cases, the subtle play of emotions—especially when those emotions are constrained—across the actors’ faces is a joy to watch. Elle Fanning and Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas (who plays Agnes, the other sister with her own set of issues) are both excellent.
It’s hardly a Christmas movie, but more deeply, it’s a winter film, full of emotions set in a cold climate.
> Playing at Landmark Pasadena Playhouse, Laemmle Glendale, and AMC The Americana at Brand 18.
-
Iowa2 days agoAddy Brown motivated to step up in Audi Crooks’ absence vs. UNI
-
Washington1 week agoLIVE UPDATES: Mudslide, road closures across Western Washington
-
Iowa1 week agoMatt Campbell reportedly bringing longtime Iowa State staffer to Penn State as 1st hire
-
Iowa4 days agoHow much snow did Iowa get? See Iowa’s latest snowfall totals
-
Cleveland, OH1 week agoMan shot, killed at downtown Cleveland nightclub: EMS
-
World1 week ago
Chiefs’ offensive line woes deepen as Wanya Morris exits with knee injury against Texans
-
Maine18 hours agoElementary-aged student killed in school bus crash in southern Maine
-
Technology6 days agoThe Game Awards are losing their luster