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
Movie Review – Reminders of Him (2026)
Reminders of Him, 2026.
Directed by Vanessa Caswill.
Starring Maika Monroe, Tyriq Withers, Rudy Pankow, Lainey Wilson, Lauren Graham, Jennifer Robertson, Zoe Kosovic, Monika Myers, Sindhyar Baloch, Bradley Whitford, Nicholas Duvernay, Jillian Walchuck, Hilary Jardine, Skye MacDonald, Rick Koy, Susan Serrao, Anne Hawthorne, Laird Reghenas, and Kevin Corey.
SYNOPSIS:
After prison, a woman attempts to reconnect with her young daughter but faces resistance from everyone except a bar owner with ties to her child. As they grow closer, she must confront her past mistakes to build a hopeful future.
Given that Maika Monroe’s just-released-from-incarceration Kenna immediately desecrates the gravesite of her love Scotty (which is unintentionally hilariously on the side of the road where a tragic car accident took his life) by stealing the wooden cross (with an inner voice muttering that he hated memorials anyway), tells another character she doesn’t like cats, and complains to someone else that all music is sad and that she doesn’t like it, it’s reasonable to get the impression that the latest adaptation from Colleen Hoover, Reminders of Him, is intentionally aiming for an unlikable lead. Nothing says “get the audience on the side of our protagonist” like all of the above.
The reality is that Maika Monroe is capable enough to inject a modicum of emotion and grounded sincerity even into a Colleen Hoover character, but that, directed by Vanessa Caswill (with Lauren Levine writing the screenplay alongside the author), these are all characters stuck reaching for depth far out of grasp in a hollow romance that is less about someone with a criminal record ingratiating themselves back into society after a seven-year vehicular manslaughter sentence and earning the trust of her dead boyfriend’s parents (Bradley Whitford and Lauren Graham), now the legal guardians of her five-year-old daughter, for visitation rights or anything that would force the novelist (this is her third book translated to screen in as many years) to write an actual character, and more a dull push-pull possible relationship with the former NFL star best friend picking up the pieces, living next door to those grandparents, and assisting taking care of the young girl.
Asking the question “what would it be like to fuck your dead boyfriend’s best friend” should be a hell of a lot more morally thorny and emotionally charged than this. Rather than engage with that, the filmmakers need to dedicate 70 minutes to an outrageously contrived setup in which Kenna and that best friend, Ledger (Tyriq Withers, also visibly trying to express some personality and humanity, but is left hanging by the script), have never met before. Yes, you read that right (and yes, those are the real ridiculous names of these characters, although the latter is presumably intended to honor the late great Heath Ledger, who once starred in romantic dramas and made them a hell of a lot more watchable).
Despite being best friends, Ledger not only never met his best friend’s girlfriend, but he apparently had never even seen a picture of her until her mugshot (which he conveniently forgets, never mind that Maika Monroe looks mostly the same seven years removed) following the car accident on Scotty’s (Rudy Pankow) birthday, which he bailed on for fitness exams in preparation for the NFL draft. In the present, he no longer plays, having “blown out a shoulder”, yet appears physically fine and in no pain during the numerous shirtless scenes and a couple of sexual ones. Before the film gets there, he is skeptical of going anywhere near Kenna once he discovers her identity. Of course, that doesn’t last long because these two hot leads are gravitating toward spending time together.
Much of this is, to put it bluntly, airless and lifeless despite an ensemble trying their best to elevate the proceedings, with what feels like significant chunks of the novel cut out; there is a single flashback to Kenna’s time in prison – being taken under the wing of a mentor of sorts on how to survive – and Scotty is allocated such a minimal screen time that he hardly feels like a character and is never allowed to feel like a presence looming over the story and the choices these characters make. For some reason, there is also a friend Kenna makes here with Down syndrome (Monika Myers) who seems to exist as a vessel for comedic relief, which might have sat better if, once again, there were actually a damn character behind that.
One waits and waits for the inevitable moment where, after snowcone dates and playful arguments about music, there is a release of sexual tension. However, the drama resulting from this is childish, dumb, and resolved about three scenes later. You won’t need a reminder that Reminders of Him, like all Colleen Hoover adaptations thus far, is bad, once again searching for a romantic pulse and eroticism at the expense of characters who feel like actual people or anything that gives weight to the attempts at thorniness.
Flickering Myth Rating – Film: ★ ★ / Movie: ★ ★
Robert Kojder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=embed/playlist
Movie Reviews
“Resurrection” Movie Review: To Burn, Anyway
“What can one person do but two people can’t?”
“Dream.”
I knew the 2025 film “Resurrection” (狂野时代) would be elusive the second I walked out of Amherst Cinema and into the cold air, boots gliding over tanghulu-textured ice. The snow had stopped falling, but I wished it hadn’t so that I could bury myself in my thoughts a little longer. But the wind hit my uncovered face, the oxygen slipped from my lungs, and I realized that I had stopped dreaming.
“Resurrection” is a love letter to the evolution of cinematography, the ephemerality of storytelling, and the raw incoherence of life. Structured like an anthology film and set in a futuristic dreamscape, humanity achieves immortality on one condition: They can’t dream. We follow the last moments before the death of one rebel dreamer, called the “Deliriant” or “迷魂者,” as he travels through four different dream worlds, spanning a century in his mind.
Being Bi Gan’s third film after the 2015 “Kaili Blues” (路边野餐) and the 2018 “Long Day’s Journey Into Night” (地球最后的夜晚), “Resurrection” follows Gan’s directorial style of creating fantastical, atmospheric worlds. Jackson Yee, known for being a member of the boy group TFBoys, stars as the Deliriant and takes on a different identity in each dream, ranging from a conflicted father-figure conman to an untethered young man looking for love to a hunted vessel with a beautiful voice. His acting morphs unhesitatingly into each role, tailored to the genre of each dream. Of which, “Resurrection” leans into, with practice and precision.
Opening with a silent film that mimics those of German expressionist cinema, “Resurrection” takes the opportunity to explore the genres of film noir, Buddhist fable, neorealism, and underworld romance. The Deliriant’s dreams are situated in the years 1900 to 2000, as we follow the evolution of a century of competing cinematic visions. The characters don’t utter a single word of dialogue in the first twenty minutes, as all exposition occurs through paper-like text cards that yellow at the edges. I was worried it would be like this for the whole film, but I stayed in the theater that Tuesday night, the week before midterms, waiting for the first line of spoken dialogue to hit like the first sip of water after a day of fasting.
Through a massive runtime that spans two hours and 39 minutes, this movie makes you earn everything you get. Gan trains the audience’s patience with a firm hold on precision over the dials of the five senses and the mind.
The dreams may move forward in time through the cultures of the twentieth century, but on a smaller temporal scale, the main setting of each dream functions to tell the story of a day in reverse. The first dream, being a film noir, is told on a rainy night. Without giving any more spoilers, the three subsequent dreams take place at twilight, during multiple sunny afternoons, and then at sunrise. “Resurrection” does not grant sunlight so easily; we are given momentary solace after being deprived of direct sunlight for a solid 70 minutes, until it is stripped from us again and we are dropped into the darkness of pre-dawn – not that I am complaining. I love a movie that knows what it wants the audience to feel. I felt a deep-seated ache as I watched the film, scooting closer to the edge of my seat.
“Resurrection” is a movie that is best watched in theaters, but a home speaker system or padded headphones in a dark room can also suffice. Some of its most gripping moments are controlled by sound. Loud, cluttered echoes of the world, whether from people chatting in a parlor or anxiety in a character’s head, are abruptly cut off with ringing silence and a suspended close-up shot. We are forced to reckon with what the character has just done. I knew I was a world away, but I was convinced and terrified at my own culpability and agency. If I were him, would I have done the same? I could only hear my thoughts fade away as we moved onto the next dream.
Beyond sight and sound, the plot also deals intimately with the senses of taste, smell, and touch, but you will have to watch the movie yourself to find that out.
My high school acting teacher once told us that whenever a character tells a story in a play, they are actually referencing the play’s overall narrative. This exact technique of using framed narratives as vessels of information foreshadowing drives coherence in a seemingly ambiguous, metaphorical anthology film. Instead of easy-to-follow tales that mimic the hero’s journey, we are taken through unadulterated, expansive explorations of characters and their aspirations. We never find out all the details of what or why something happens, as the Deliriant moves quickly through ephemeral lifetimes in each dream, literally dying to move onto the next, but we find closure nonetheless through the parallels between elements and the poetry of it all.
That is why I like to think of “Resurrection” as pure art. It is not bound by structure; it osmoses beyond borders. It is creation in the highest form; it is a movie that I will never be able to watch again.
Perhaps because the dream worlds are so intimate and gorgeous, the exposition for the actual futuristic society feels weak in comparison. We learn that there is a woman whose job is to hunt down Deliriants, but we don’t see the rest of the dystopian infrastructure that runs this system. However, I can understand this as a thematic choice to prioritize dreams over reality. Form follows function, and these omissions of detail compel us to forget the outside world.
What it means to “dream” is up for interpretation, and we never learn the specifics of why or how immortality is achieved. Instead, “Resurrection” compares dreaming to fire. We humans are like candles, the movie claims, with wax that could stand forever if never used. But what is the point in being candles if we are never lit?
The greatest reminder of “Resurrection” is our own mortality. Whether we run from the snow-dipped mountaintops to the back alleyways of rain-streaked Chongqing, we can never escape our own consequences. “Resurrection” gives me a great fear of death, but so does it reignite my conviction to live a life of mistakes and keep dreaming anyway.
Dreaming is nothing without death. Immortality is nothing without love. So, I stumbled back to my dorm that Tuesday night, the week before midterms, thinking about what I loved and feared losing. So few films can channel life and let it go with a gentle hand. I only watch movies to fall in love. I am in love, I am in love. I am so afraid.
Movie Reviews
‘Project Hail Mary’ Review: Ryan Gosling and a Rock Make Sci-Fi Magic
In contrast to other sci-fi heroes, like Interstellar’s Cooper, who ventures into the unknown for the sake of humanity and discovery, knowing the sacrifice of giving up his family, Grace is externally a cynical coward. With no family to call his own, you’d think he’d have the will to go into space for the sake of the planet’s future. Nope, he’s got no courage because the man is a cowardly dog. However, Goddard’s script feels strikingly reflective of our moment. Grace has the tools to make a difference; the Earth flashbacks center on him working towards a solution to the antimatter issue, replete with occasionally confusing but never alienating dialogue. He initially lacks the conviction, embodying a cynicism and hopelessness that many people fall into today.
The film threads this idea effectively through flashbacks that reveal his reluctance, giving the story a tragic undercurrent. Yet, it also makes his relationship with Rocky, the first living thing he truly learns to care for, ever more beautiful.
When paired with Rocky, Gosling enters the rare “puppet scene partner” hall of fame alongside Michael Caine in The Muppet Christmas Carol, never letting the fact that he’s acting opposite a puppet disrupt the sincerity of his performance. His commitment to building a gradual, affectionate friendship with this animatronic creation feels completely natural, and the chemistry translates beautifully on screen. It stands as one of the stronger performances of his career.
Project Hail Mary is overly long, and while it can be deeply affecting, the film leans on a few emotional fake-outs that become repetitive in the latter half. By the third time it deploys the same sentimental beat, the effect begins to feel cloying, slightly dulling the powerful emotions it built earlier. The constant intercutting between past and present can also feel thematically uneven at times, occasionally undercutting the narrative momentum. At 2 hours and 36 minutes, the film feels like it’s stretching itself to meet a blockbuster runtime when a tighter cut might have served better.
FINAL STATEMENT
Project Hail Mary is a meticulously crafted, hopeful, and dazzling space epic that proves the most moving friendship in film this year might just be between Ryan Gosling and a rock.
-
Wisconsin1 week agoSetting sail on iceboats across a frozen lake in Wisconsin
-
Massachusetts1 week agoMassachusetts man awaits word from family in Iran after attacks
-
Detroit, MI6 days agoU.S. Postal Service could run out of money within a year
-
Miami, FL1 week agoCity of Miami celebrates reopening of Flagler Street as part of beautification project
-
Pennsylvania6 days agoPa. man found guilty of raping teen girl who he took to Mexico
-
Sports1 week agoKeith Olbermann under fire for calling Lou Holtz a ‘scumbag’ after legendary coach’s death
-
Michigan2 days agoOperation BBQ Relief helping with Southwest Michigan tornado recovery
-
Virginia1 week agoGiants will hold 2026 training camp in West Virginia