Ebert & Roeper give AMITYVILLE the finger

[Menard]

I do not get to see Ebert & Roeper very often as the local station which shows it on Saturday preempts it with sports frequently. This week, however, I did get to see it.

They apparently have a rating they give to studios which do not release a movie for critical reviews before they are released to the theatres, and that is 'The Wagging Finger', which is Ebert waving his finger as to say naughty, naughty.

The studio which has remade THE AMITYVILLE HORROR did not release it for critics to be able to review before it is released to the general public.

As movie reviews, whether bad or good, do help to get people in to see a movie, and particularly in the case of horror movie fans who anticipate bad reviews from critics but would like to have a little preview, is this a good decision on the part of the studio or not.

Are they trying to prevent bad reviews or are they trying to prevent comparisons to the original?

Or, perhaps, are they so satisfied with their result that they don't want to give anything away about the movie before people see it?

Whatever their reason, Ebert gave it 'the wagging finger'. While Roeper specifically chimed in by saying he had another finger he would like to give it. Ebert responded by giving Roeper a wagging finger.

[h.p. Love]

I think I heard that the guy who wrote the book about his experience is p**sed and sueing the production company for making too many changes. Anyone know about this too?

[Alan Smithee]

Ebert & Roeper crack me up. I like those guys..

[Mr Hockstatter]

Siskel and Ebert were actually trying to get slasher movies banned back in the '80s.  I always find Ebert's reviews of anything in the horror genre soooooo useful [/sarcasm]

[Menard]

Well, Siskel & Ebert were not wrong that the majority of slasher movies were not good movies, but this did not stop me from seeing the majority of them during the 80s, and enjoying quite a few of them. Siskel & Ebert probably contributed to the success of many slasher films when they panned them. (:

[Ozzymandias]

Maybe Siskel was trying to ban them, Ebert has written really good reviews of Last House on the Left and Peeping Tom . Siskel always seemed to be lacking a sence of fun and humor.

[Menard]

Siskel did give a thumbs-up to HALLOWEEN 3 for which Ebert continually reminded him of that. But with Ebert's recommendation of THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT he has no room to speak.

[Mr Hockstatter]

Siskel and Ebert declared slasher movies to be "absolutely beneath contempt", and then tried to screw over Friday the 13th by giving away the ending in their review.  They started a letter writing campaign against Paramount Pictures, and started another one against Betsy Palmer for playing Mrs. Vorhees.

Just a little something I like to keep in mind when Ebert starts giving his opinion of anything horror related.

[Menard]

Here is the page of reviews from Rotten Tomatoes for THE AMITYVILLE HORROR. It appears as though Ebert & Roeper aren't the only ones giving this movie the finger.



Post Edited (04-17-05 20:16)

[JR ORTIZ]

Amityville is a good example of how rotten is today movie industry. Better watch "Casablanca" or "The Third Man" than these junks made today.

[ulthar]

Ozzymandias wrote:

> Siskel always seemed to be lacking a sence of fun and
> humor.

Siskel seemed to require "social commentary" or some great pious purpose to a movie in order to like it.  He seemed to neglect ANY genre that was just for fun.  I remember watching his reviews and thinking 'if Gene Siskel likes it, avoid it; it's probably boring.'

Nothin' personal, Gene.  RIP.

[ulthar]

Or Plan 9 From Outer Space....oh, the good ole days of Hollywood's heyday.

[raj]

The ad for Amityville says "from the director who brought you The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. . ."
No, Michael, you didn't bring us TCM, Tobe Hopper did.  You may have redone it, but only because a pathetic Pearl Harbor taxed what little imagination you have.  And Amityville Horror came out in 1979; don't go trying to claim credit for two influential horror movies when all you did is remake them (and not that they needed redoing.)

[Brother Ragnarok]

-Amityville Redux wasn't good, but it wasn't bad enough to deserve a new rating created for its badness.
-Ebert is a doorknob who apparently doesn't even watch half the movies he reviews, as he gave a glowing review to the Americanized Godzilla (1954) w/Raymond Burr, but viciously panned the uncut Japanese version released last summer as having no story and bad FX.  Shot his credibility in the foot with a f**king rocket launcher, there.
-Siskel gave thumbs up to Carnosaur, which makes him damn cool in my book.
-Starting a letter writing campaign to ban slasher movies and insult Betsy Palmer is f**king childish and stupid.

[Chris K.]

Brother Ragnarok wrote:

> -Ebert is a doorknob who apparently doesn't even watch half the
> movies he reviews, as he gave a glowing review to the
> Americanized Godzilla (1954) w/Raymond Burr, but viciously
> panned the uncut Japanese version released last summer as
> having no story and bad FX.  Shot his credibility in the foot
> with a f**king rocket launcher, there.

Yeah, I was pretty shocked by this too. I really enjoyed the original GOJIRA and was quite suprised by the amount of good reviews it recieved from today's critics. Only a small few didn't like it, but you could tell in their reviews that they hadn't a single clue to how the original was successful back in it's heyday nor their misunderstanding of the kaiju egia. Ebert was one of those fellows. Folks, if Ebert hated the original GOJIRA, that's fine. It's his opinion, oh well. But, Ebert's review was sloppily written and not too informative as to why it was 'bad'. Ne never said a word about the directing, production values, music, or the acting, just ragged on effects and the film's idea. Nor did he mention the fact that legendary actor Takashi Shimura is in the film at all! Plus, his knowledge of being a "film historian" when it comes to his review of GOJIRA are filled with horrid inaccuracies that made me cringe (i.e., he claims that the inside of the Japanese Diet building looked like a school room, despite the fact that that's what the Japanese Diet building looked like back in 1954!). And I literally laughed myself to death when Ebert attempted to make similarities between GOJIRA and FAIRENHEIGHT 9/11-a movie that Ebert just happened to give 3 stars (hint hint, nudge nudge). Seriously, I like Ebert's reviews as he is a good writer, but his review of GOJIRA is just abysmal. As Brother Ragnarok wrote, Ebert shot his credibility rate in the foot because of this review. However, his damning review of Lucio Fulci's THE BEYOND back in 1997 already proved that to me.

However, let me move on to THE AMITYVILLE HORROR for a moment: you know, it was quite obvious that this new version wouldn't have anything worthwhile. I saw a bootlegg of it; it's pretty damn awful. But then, the original 1979 film wasn't to good to begin with either. Sure, James Brolin was good in it, but I just can't believe that it was produced by Samuel Z. Arkoff and his American International Pictures, a company that delivered monsters a plenty! If this was an attempt at trying to make a high-profile film, mission acomplished, Arkoff because it was a box-office success. But today, it's pretty lame and uneventfull. Oh well, at least Arkoff would redeem himself with Larry Cohen's Q-THE WINGED SERPENT, a film that DELIVERS gore, shocks, a fun story, and a monster! But looking at both the 1979 and 2005 versions, the reason why both are just pathetic films is because they never follow the source material, like the original book. Had a scriptwriter read the book and used it's themes instead of sticking to the typical "a house is posessed" storyline that the 1979 film did, the remake could have been a blessing.

As it stands, it seems like we will never get a good adaptation of THE AMITYVILLE HORROR.