Connect with us

Movie Reviews

Roger Ebert Had An Extremely Harsh Review For A Classic Kurt Russell Sci-Fi Movie – SlashFilm

Published

on

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.”

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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. 

Advertisement



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Movie Reviews

‘Balaramana Dinagalu’ review: A restrained look at the gangster mind

Published

on

‘Balaramana Dinagalu’ review: A restrained look at the gangster mind

In K M Chaitanya’s Aa Dinagalu (2007), actor Atul Kulkarni, playing gangster Agni Sreedhar, says man is the biggest weapon in the underworld. “The rest are just properties,” he adds. The yesteryear Kannada crime drama, based on the real incidents from a big chapter of the Bengaluru underworld, stood out for its understated storytelling.

In Balaramana Dinagalu, which has the skeleton of a sequel to Aa Dinagalu, weapons are seen in the first scene. As the film progresses, we encounter an arsenal of knives, razors, machetes, and guns — each an extension of the gangsters’ identities and an indispensable tool in their quest to remain feared and lethal. Chaitanya attempts to make the movie a mix of reality and entertaining tropes.

Balaramana Dinagalu (Kannada)

Director: K M Chaitanya

Cast: Vinod Prabhakar, Priya Anand, Atul Kulkarni, Ashish Vidyarthi, Ramesh Indira

Runtime: 151 minutes

Advertisement

Storyline: Balarama, an ordinary young man from a remote village in Karnataka, becomes a dreaded gangster who rules Bengaluru

The director has roped in the same cast, who played the dreaded gangster trio of Kotwal Ramachandra (essayed by Sharath Lohitashwa), Jayaraj (Ashish Vidyarthi), and Agni Sreedhar (Atul) in Aa Dinagalu. That’s what makes one instantly curious about Balaramana Dinagalu. The only difference in the latest movie from the previous one is the fictionalised names of the real dons. Jayaraj becomes Jayaram, Sreedhar is Shashidhar, and Muthappa Rai is called Monnappa Rai (played by Ramesh Indira).

Even if these characters are the big draw in the movie, the plot revolves around the journey of Balarama, a character with a small yet significant presence in Aa Dinagalu. Vinod Prabhakar’s portrayal of the titular role is the film’s biggest takeaway. He makes us feel for the character, and is quite impressive in the final portions of the movie, where Balarama struggles to break free from the underworld’s trap.

Balaramana Dinagalu is impressive when it reflects the psychology of a gangster. Jayaram is shown helping the needy while Balarama urges young boys to focus on education. It’s as if these men who commit heinous acts, have a heart as well. Shashidhar is often called “intellectual gangster”, as the film reflects how the underworld fears well-read men in the field. Politicians and policemen, the supposedly the protectors of people being part of the crime nexus, strengthen the movie’s world-building.

The film falters in its inability to rise above the plot’s predictability. Balarama’s journey is no different from the often-seen life of an innocent man from a small town who becomes a gangster owing to uncontrollable circumstances. I wish the film had delved a bit more into Balaram’s personality. Why does he not resist becoming a gangster? What dreams did he have when he moved to Bengaluru from a small town?

Advertisement

“My hands speak louder than my words,” says Balarama. This signals that he is someone who settles conflicts with fists rather than conversations. Despite this detail, Balaram’s entry into the underworld feels too sudden. The predictability strips the sheen away from the well-shot action sequences, as the result of every fight is known beforehand.

Chaitanya is careful not to glorify the act of violence. He wants to portray the negative effects of violence on the children in a family, as the movie ends with a hard-hitting frame. It’s impressive that the actor-director duo has delivered a non-hero-worshipping gangster saga.

That said, the movie could have benefited from a couple of gripping episodes. While it’s important not to romanticise the life of a gangster, there is no harm in delivering moments of peak tension, the biggest plus of the genre. 

The assassination of Jayaram, the impact of Kotwal’s elimination on the underworld, or the Sakleshpura incident involving Monnappa Rai, had the potential to offer edge-of-the-seat, high-stakes portions, but they are rushed. The love story is simple, but it lacks emotional intensity between the lead couple. Santhosh Narayanan’s dance numbers are forgettable (despite it being his forte) while his montage melodies are beautiful.

Balaramana Dinagalu adopts a restrained, almost clinical approach to the gangster genre. While that keeps it from glorifying violence, it also leaves the narrative feeling a touch too neat and emotionally muted.

Advertisement

Balaramana Dinagalu is currently running in theatres

Published – June 28, 2026 07:58 pm IST

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

A New Dawn Anime Film Review

Published

on

A New Dawn Anime Film Review

Perhaps there’s a certain irony in a story about a fireworks factory mostly keeping away from explosive drama. Yoshitoshi Shinomiya‘s lowkey feature directorial debut A New Dawn is at the very least visually captivating, comprised of lush and rather hypnotic production design. The story is small scale focusing on a trio of friends who try to save a fireworks factory in their hometown, but the imagery feels expansive and lush. A New Dawn begins with a beautiful and vaguely familiar display of this beauty: the flowing, painterly imagery of its opening sequence recalls Shinomiya’s work on the flashback sequence in Makoto Shinkai‘s your name., immediately showing that the film’s visuals might transcend its small town drama.

A background artist himself on films by Makoto Shinkai as well as the similarly resplendent Pompo: The Cinéphile, it makes sense that this history would be felt in the background works of A New Dawn. They’re dense with detail, rich with almost luminous color and illustrative texture. Shinomiya, who also wrote and storyboarded the film, veers away from the photorealism associated with someone like Shinkai through some impressionist touches – like the splotches of green paint which represent treelines – which sometimes turns into outright abstraction like when a character begins to run through the space. Sometimes there are swaying, morphing textures in the background as splotches of paint subtly shift around. On a more intimate level, the cluttered and characterful interior spaces tell a story too. This is a long-winded way of saying A New Dawn looks really, really good.

It’s not just in the tableaux of its countryside habitats and ramshackle living spaces carved out of abandoned warehouses, but there’s a sense of invention permeating through A New Dawn‘s various experiments with visual languages of animation. The most prominent is an incredibly charming stop motion animated sequence using a cardboard diorama and real human hands invading the shot in a creative reflection of a drunken character’s perspective. Even though it broadly still looks “anime” through its character design, there are also smaller details which work to set A New Dawn apart from its contemporaries, touches like its occasional lineless artwork or the way rain is defined through smudged black brushstrokes.

It’s in the screenwriting where A New Dawn begins to feel more run of the mill. Its story about the constant chasing of the majesty of a fabled firework “Shuhari” feels both familiar in its premise but also a little bit alienating in its structure. The importance of the firework itself never feels clear – the moment its mystery is unravelled hardly feels like a revelation as a result, something amplified by how the writing often obfuscates what anyone is talking about. The whole story feels a little distancing, and despite the allure of the background art and design of the spaces the characters inhabit, the people themselves feel constantly at arms length.

It almost pulls things back with its climax – the detonation of the “Shuhari” goes a long way in justifying the circular conversations about its nature and origins – a painted streak of light launches into the sky before turning into something otherworldly, suddenly tripling down on the film’s captivating exaggerations.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Hollywood Pariah Kevin Spacey Opens in a Straight to Video Movie with 25 Producers, 1 Review, No Theaters, No Press – Showbiz411

Published

on

Hollywood Pariah Kevin Spacey Opens in a Straight to Video Movie with 25 Producers, 1 Review, No Theaters, No Press – Showbiz411
★ Make Showbiz411 your Preferred Source on Google

As we know, Kevin Spacey is a pariah in Hollywood.

He’s in a rare club with Mel Gibson, Armie Hammer, Nate Parker, Jonathan Majors, and James Franco.

Spacey has managed to avoid jail time by reaching settlements with various accusers of sexual malfeasance, all men.

His film career — which included two Oscars and a Tony Award — has been destroyed.

Advertisement

Spacey has been reduced to appearing in straight to video films, made for whatever reason the various producers involved know only to themselves.

On Friday, a new Spacey movie surfaced against its will, but not in theaters. It also went straight to video. “1780” is a period piece set during the Revolutionary War. Spacey plays a toothless Pennsylvania country trapper.

There is no rating on Rotten Tomatoes, largely because there is only one review. The review by Alan Ng of Film Threat is positive. Ng recently reviewed “World War Bigfoot,” which he also liked. He seems to specialize in reviewing films no one has heard of.

“1780” does boast 25 producers who will probably not see a return on their investment. But they can say they made a movie with Kevin Spacey.

Advertisement

Donate to Showbiz411.com

Showbiz411 is now in its 13th year of providing breaking and exclusive entertainment news. This is an independent site, unlike the many Hollywood trades that are owned by one company. To continue providing news that takes a fresh look at what’s going on in movies, music, theater, etc, advertising is our basis. Reader donations would be greatly appreciated, too. They are just another facet of keeping fact based journalism alive.
Thank you

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending