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.
Desert Warrior, 2026.
Directed by Rupert Wyatt.
Starring Anthony Mackie, Aiysha Hart, Ben Kingsley, Ghassan Massoud, Sharlto Copley, Sami Bouajila, Lamis Ammar, Géza Röhrig, Numan Acar, Nabil Elouahabi, Hakeem Jomah, Ramsey Faragallah, Saïd Boumazoughe, and Soheil Bostani.
SYNOPSIS:
An honorable and mysterious rogue, known as Hanzala, makes himself an enemy of the Emperor Kisra after he helps a fugitive king and princess in the desert.
With aspirations of being a historical epic harkening back to the sword and sandal blockbusters of yesteryear, Rupert Wyatt’s seventeenth-century Arabia tale is about as generic and epically dull as one would expect from a film plainly titled Desert Warrior. Yes, there appear to be real locations here, and there are some admittedly sweeping shots of various tribes storming into battle on horseback and camels, but it’s all in service of a mess that is both miscast and questionable as the work of a filmmaking team of mostly white creatives.
The story of Emperor Kisraa (Ben Kingsley, a distracting presence even with only one or two scenes) rounding up women from other tribes to be his concubines, which inevitably became the catalyst for a revolution led by Princess Hind (Aiysha Hart), uniting all the divided clans and strategizing battle plans for flanking and poisoning, is undeniably ripe for cinematic treatment. The problem is that what’s here from Rupert Wyatt (and screenwriters Erica Beeney, Gary Ross, and David Self) is less than nothing in the primary creative process; no one seems to have a connection to Arabic heritage or culture, but they have made a flat-out boring film that is often narratively incoherent.
Following the death of her father and escaping the clutches of oppression, the honorable Princess Hind joins forces with a troubled, nameless bandit played by Anthony Mackie (he totally belongs here…), who seems to be here solely to give the movie some star power boost without running the risk of white savior accusations. Whatever the case may be, it’s jarring, but not quite as disorienting as how little screen time he has despite being billed as the lead and how little characterization he has. It is, however, equally disorienting as some of the other names that show up along the way.
As for the other factions, Princess Hind talks to them one by one, giving the film an adventure feel that fails to capitalize on using beautiful scenery in striking or visually poignant ways at almost every turn; the leaders of these tribes also often have no character. There also isn’t much of an understanding of why these tribes are at odds with one another. This movie is filled with dialogue that consistently and shockingly amounts to vague nothingness. Nevertheless, each tribe doesn’t take much convincing to begin with, meaning that not only is the film repetitive, but it’s also lifeless when characters are in conversation.
That Desert Warrior does occasionally spring to life, and a bloated 2+ running time is a small miracle. This is typically accomplished through the occasional fight scene between factions that also serves to demonstrate Princess Hind coming into her own as a warrior. When the tribes are united in a massive-scale battle, and that plan is unfolding step by step, one certainly sees why someone would want to tell this story and pull it off with such spectacle. However, this film is as dry as the desert itself.
Flickering Myth Rating – Film: ★ ★ / Movie: ★ ★
Robert Kojder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=embed/playlist
‘4’, the opening track on Richard D James’ (Aphex Twin) self titled 1996 album is a piece of music that beautifully balances the chaotic with the serene, the oppressive and the freeing. It’s a trick that James has pulled off multiple times throughout his career and it is a huge part of what makes him such an iconic and influential artist. Many people have laid the “next Aphex Twin” label on musicians who do things slightly different and when you actually hear their music you realise that, once again, the label is flawed and applied with a lazy attitude. Why mention this? Well, it turns out we’ve been looking for James’ heir apparent in the wrong artform. We’ve so zoned in on music that we’ve not noticed that another Celtic son of Cornwall is rewriting an art form with that highwire balancing act between chaos and beauty. That artist is writer, director and composer Mark Jenkin who over his last two feature films has announced himself as an idiosyncratic voice who is creating his very own language within the world of cinema. Jenkin’s films are often centred around coastal towns or islands and whilst they are experimental or even unsettling, there is always a big heart at the centre of the narrative. A heart that cares about family, tradition, culture, and the pull of ‘home’. Even during the horror of 2022’s brilliant Enys Men you were anchored by the vulnerability and determination of its main protagonist.
This month sees the release of Jenkin’s latest feature film, Rose of Nevada, which is set in a fractured and diminished Cornish coastal town. One day the fishing boat of the film’s title arrives back in harbour after being missing for thirty years. The boat is unoccupied. And frankly that is all the information you are going to get because to discuss any more plot would be unfair on you and disrespectful to Jenkin and the team behind the film. You the viewer should be the one who decides what it is about because thematically there are so many wonderful threads to pull on. This writer’s opinions on what it is about have ranged from a theme of sacrifice for the good of a community to the conflict within when part of you wants to run away from your roots whilst the other half longs to stay and be a lifelong part of its tapestry. Is it about Brexit? Could be. Is it about our own relationships with time and our curation of memory? Could be. Is it about both the positives and negatives of nostalgia? Could be. As a side note, anyone in their mid-40s, like me, who came of age in the 1990s will certainly find moments of warm recognition. Is the film about ghosts and how they haunt families? Could be…I think you get the point.
The elements that make the film so well balanced between chaos and calm are many. It is there in the differing performances between the brilliant two lead actors George MacKay and Callum Turner. It is there in the sound design which fluctuates from being unbearably harsh and metallic, to lulling and warm. It is there in the editing where short, sharp close ups on seemingly unimportant factors are counterbalanced with shots that are held for just that little bit too long. For a film set around the sea, it is apt that it can make you feel like you’re rolling on a stomach churning storm one minute, or a calming low tide the next. Dialogue can be front and centre or blurred and buried under static. One shot is bathed in harsh sunlight whilst the next can be drowned in interior shadows.
Rose of Nevada is Mark Jenkin’s most ambitious film to date yet he has not lost a single iota of innovation, singularity of vision or his gift for telling the most human of stories. It is a film that will tell you different things each time you see it and whilst there are moments that can confuse or beguile, there is so much empathy and love that it can leave you crying tears of emotional understanding. It is chaotic. It is beautiful. It is life……
Rose of Nevada is released on the 24th April.
Mark Jenkin Instagram | Threads
Released through the BFI – Instagram | Facebook
Review by Simon Tucker
Keep up to date with all new content on Joyzine via our
Facebook | Bluesky | Instagram | Threads | Mailing List
Related
-
World4 minutes agoMexico pyramid shooter who took hostages and killed 1 is identified
-
Politics10 minutes agoByron Donalds cracks down on persistent border blind spot leaving US vulnerable to overstays
-
Health16 minutes agoHealthy diets spark lung cancer risk in non-smokers as pesticides loom
-
Sports22 minutes agoPGA Tour signals new era with axing of Hawaii events from schedule
-
Technology28 minutes agoAlexa+ lets you order food like a real conversation
-
Business34 minutes agoNew lawsuit alleges Uber is violating drivers’ rights. Here’s how
-
Entertainment40 minutes agoReview: Trigger warning? ‘For Want of a Horse’ gives new meaning to the term ‘animal lover’
-
Lifestyle46 minutes agoMore is more in this L.A. ‘barn’ exploding with thrifted finds and maximalist flair