Roger Ebert gave this ZERO stars?!!?!?
I am just confused!....Seriously,I have watched far worse movies than this!...Ain't zero stars just a little tooooooo harsh??
shareactually Roger Ebert gave this film 0 stars due to the fact that it contains an "idiot plot" as he so calls it. The fact that Audrey Hepburn realizes she is in danger and is blind and still neglects to lock her front door, apparently bothered Mr. Ebert and because of this he decided to give the film 0 stars. To confuse you even more, Mr. Ebert claims the movie is by no means a bad film but based on this "idiot plot" scenario he cannnot give it a star rating and therefore he gave it no stars. Hope this helps you out!
shareEbert is a dumb@$$.
share"Ebert is a dumb@$$."
Why? Because you disagree with him about something? Way to spew ad hominems.
There's something different about you today, Mr. Laurio.
for the record, Ebert IS a dumb@$$.
shareFor the record, Roger Ebert is a movie critic who has been at it for three and a half decades, has won a Pulitzer prize, and disagrees with me about this movie. None of that makes him a dumbass. Now, if he spewed ad hominems, he'd be a dumbass.
There's something different about you today, Mr. Laurio.
but you must admit its ridiculous to give a movie zero stars, not because you didn't like the movie but because one part of the plot bothered you.
"Tara: Stop with that treachery! I told the cat. And now I beg my mother sitting all alone."
I never understood why Roger Ebert is so admired by the internet. I don't particularly hate him as I find him so insipid, so I just ignore him.
shareWell, I admire him because he writes well, he describes what he does (or does not) like about the movies he reviews, and he champions good movies that I otherwise would probably not discover.
The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me.
Agreed, but to give this a 0 is saying that the film is absolute garbage. Thats saying it is of similar quality to that Justin Beeper doc.
It's sad how his film is VERY underrated. This should be in place of 12 Angry Men in my opinion (a similar themed movie from the same time period)
How is Twelve Angry Men similarly themed to Wait Until Dark?? One is a thriller, well cast, and well paced, but not an extraordinary film, while the other is a virtually unique plot, superlatively cast and filmed, that is consistently ranked in the IMDB Top Ten despite being in black and white, more than fifty years old, shot almost totally in one room, and not relying on explosions or special visual effects (other than the constantly descending camera angles that make the jury room more and more claustrophobic). I guess your point is that both are "one room plays", but the similarities end there.
The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me.
Both are crime-thrillers that rely mainly on dialogue. Both are based from pre-existing plays. Both build suspense with the subject of a murder from stabbing. Both films have great leading and supporting cast members who drive the action. Same time period. But the real similarity is that both are filmed almost exclusively in one room.
Wait Until Dark also has more drama, emotion, and a better written plot. It's astonishing to think this could ever get a zero from anybody who wasn't an absolute dumb@$$.
Strongly disagree. WUD is a crime thriller; 12 Angry Men is a drama. In the former, you're watching a crime being planned and committed; the latter is the conflict of emotions, beliefs and prejudices by a jury. Nothing alike.
shareGenre, plot and theme are different things. Movies can be about similar things in the grand scheme (theme) and still focus on different aspects of those things (genre and plot). What you're saying is that WUD is a different genre than 12 Angry Men and has a different plot, which doesn't necessarily preclude it having similar themes- to debunk the assertion that it has similar themes, you'd have to read the film a little deeper and figure out what it's fundamentally trying to say.
For example, let's take Drive (2011) and Fury (2014). Two movies that seem vastly different at a first glance, and indeed are in different genres and have significantly different plots. However, the fundamental question both films ask is: what exactly does it mean to be a "hero?" Is being a hero worth losing your humanity? In this regard, they have similar themes.
Not trying to rag on you or *beep* up the argument or anything, just figured this might be helpful to you in the future. :)
Well, I admire him because he writes well, he describes what he does (or does not) like about the movies he reviews, and he champions good movies that I otherwise would probably not discover.
Get off Ebert's (now-embalmed) penis, Cue-ball. share
Um, actually he has a point. Speaking well of somebody isn't necessarily kissing ass, you idiot.
----------------------
http://viverdecinema.blogspot.com.br/
Fisrt of all, dropping Latin like you're some kind of genius is moronic in itself. BTW it's "argumentum ad hominem" (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man"). I'm not impressed, at all. Maybe instead of being stupid on here, you could get a job at McDonald's and be stupid there.
Ebert is a pompous assbag. The building of anxiety and drama until the final showdown (in the dark, no less) is what film is about. What a trip the audience takes. Audrey Hepburn's performance was timeless. Eggbert dropped the ball on this one. I know you agree, but seriously lose the latin. Not so cool when someone dumps on you is it?
Gosh golly, you can read the first sentence of a Wikipedia article, that's fantastic. 'Ad hominem' is actually a correct shorthand, since the 'argumentum' part should be obvious simply from context, much like you don't say 'look at the car that is red' if the only things in the room are cars. It refers to a particular type of logical fallacy, and anyone who is even remotely familiar with basic debating will understand what it means. Telling someone to 'lose the Latin' as if it isn't the name of the thing they're talking about just makes you look like you're angry that other people are smart.
You then go into non sequitur mode [oh hell, there's that Latin again]. Oh no, someone's using Latin correctly, they must be secretly stupid!
Haven't read the whole thread, but Ebert gave it 3 and a half stars.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19680226/REVIEWS/802260301/1023
That was a great comeback. And you are completely right. When I come across a word I don't know when I'm reading, I usually grab the dictionary and look it up. That's how to learn new words, after all. There are plenty of commonly used phrases in Latin, French, German, and other languages, many of which are used in law.
It's too bad that there are so many angry little turds around here.
But again, bravo on your reply. Or should I say "Vectis!"
Your reply is ironic because it is full of arguments against the man. In my country (Portugal) every book has just "ad hominem" or "Argumento contra o homem" and in my opinion he said the true, but If I didn't agreed with him I wouldn't start calling him stupid and say that Ebert was poumpous assbag. We live in society, there is no need to offend.
"I am big. It's the pictures that got small."- Norma Desmond
I agree with you about Roger Ebert, Cue-ball. Reviewing movies is a combination of expressing opinions and expressing an understanding of how a particular movie fits into the context of the entire art form--a balance which Ebert achieves quite well, I think, whether I agree with his opinions or not.
As for Ebert's take on "Wait Until Dark", in his review, he does call it "superior" in spite of his criticism of what he calls an "idiot plot". That doesn't mean he thinks the plot is idiotic; it means the plot depends on someone being an idiot. In this case, it's Suzie's failure to lock the door. He also writes, "Otherwise, it's a good movie. I don't want to give the impression that it isn't. Miss Hepburn is perhaps too simple and trusting, and Alan Arkin (as a sadistic killer) is not particularly convincing in an exaggerated performance. But there are some nice, juicy passages of terror ... and after a slow start the plot does seduce you."
With regard to the comment about the zero rating, at present his website gives it 3.5 stars out of four.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Ebert was a great critic who loved cinema. But even he can be wrong once in a while.
shareMe too... R.Ebert is an idi+@$##?¡
"Over my dead body!" (Audrey Hepburn).
Ebert must have chnaged his policy on the idiot plot because most movies he reviews today have the idiot plot. He was younger then and may have chnaged his prespective.
shareIn at least one scene it shows "Mike" picking the lock so she did have it locked, at least at one point.
shareMike picks it with a piece of glass or something.
All the other chances she has to lock the door she either didn't think she was in danger or else things happened too quickly for her to lock it.
But she did lock the door. As others have mentioned, Mike had to use a piece of plastic on the lock to get in. Also, Carlino broke the deadbolt on his way out the last time he talked to Susie. There's a closeup of his hand fiddling with the deadbolt as he backs out of the apartment. After Susie realizes Mike is in on the plot, she rushes to the door and pauses, and you hear her say, "Carlino!" I assumed that was because she realized the deadbolt didn't work anymore.
shareI think Mr Ebert failed to notice that at one point Susy does indeed lock the door, only to have Mike Talman jimmy the lock with a piece of plastic without her knowing. And the reason she sent the girl to the bus station and not to the police is that at this point in the play she still thinks her husband might be in trouble if she goes to the police. It is only after Gloria leaves and she is alone that she discovers the true nature of her predicament, and by then the phone cord has been yanked from the wall.
At any rate, he still said WAIT UNTIL DARK was a good movie despite what he called "idiot plot points," and his review has four and a half stars at the top.
Never mess with a middle-aged, Bipolar queen with AIDS and an attitude problem!
><
[deleted]
My caveat: I love this film. I have loved it since I first found it on cable back in the day. I watch it a lot and own it. It has serious problems though. First, the premise would never fly now, or shouldn't. There is nothing to make Audrey Hepburn keep the doll. Why not hand it over? There is no compelling reason for her to go along with the cloak and dagger. Very flimsy plot. Second, I concur with others about the ending. Anyone who has been traumatized does not need to prove their salt in walking across the room. The husband should have raced to her. That was not at all heroic on either characters. I really hate that ending scene.
share