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??
shareI am just confused!....Seriously,I have watched far worse movies than this!...Ain't zero stars just a little tooooooo harsh??
share0 != 3.5
shareIt's obvious that his website was in error previously and it has since been corrected. This has been covered - a 7 page thread isn't too much to read.
I remember seeing the review when it had zero stars - I was surprised because I'd heard good things about the movie. After finally having seen the movie I figured I'd re-read his review and noticed that it was now 3.5 stars. Good movie.
highlight of this thread: that one imbecile who thought using "ad hominem", or any latin(as if it's avoidable in the english language) was somehow incorrect.
the rest is just a battle of opinions, which is absolutely meaningless. my opinion>your opinion arguments are for morons.
[deleted]
Really, don't bother reading reviews from movie critics, it's a big waist of time...They are a bunch of idiots who failed in the movie profession, so they make a living spitting on other people's work. It may be simple what I'm saying, but it's true. Ebert is the living proof of it, he wanted to be a screen writer, cowrote "Beyond the valley of the dolls" wich is one of the few Russ Meyers' failures( I love Russ Meyers and his take on sexuality). Evidently he couldn't do it, so he turned critic.
shareI don't know where all you people got your information but in his review dated Feb 26th 1968 Ebert gave Wait Until Dark 3.5 stars out of 4. Seriously, do you folks check on anything, especially something as inexplicable as this claim?
shareDamn; I miscounted the stars. I did check Ebert's review because I knew he did not give the movie zero stars, but I glanced at it and counted it as four and a half rather than three and a half...
This is what happens when one does research before coffee.
Never mess with a middle-aged, Bipolar queen with AIDS and an attitude problem!
><
Ebert's assessment of the plot as "idiot" drives me crazy too. To be fair, though, I think he has made separate assessments of the overall film, and individual elements, and has recommended it as worth seeing; nonetheless, this bugs me, because I think that Ebert just doesn't know how the lock to the basement apartment door works. Ebert seems to think the lock is a deadbolt, the sort of lock that would only be locked if Susy followed everyone to the door, and locked it behind them. For a great deal of the time, Susy THINKS the door is locked, but in fact, it isn't.
The way this kind of lock works, you set it once, then it locks every time the door closes. In the beginning of the film, Sam and Susy have it set to stay open, so Gloria can get in, I guess, although when Susy takes the trash out, she walks in without needing a key, and she'd need a key to get in every time if the lock were not open. Susy does in fact lock it at some point, because Gloria needs to use a key to get in later-- she calls it "mother's key"-- this sort of lock with a spring latch was infamous for getting you locked out of your apartment, so you always gave a neighbor a copy of the key, and Carlino has to knock on the door when he comes by himself. Carlino is quite annoyed when he can't get in, and bangs and threatens Susy over not letting him in immediately. It's after this that he rigs or breaks the lock, or whatever he does. He may remove the spring, or even the bolt itself, but at that point Susy CANNOT lock it. Those locks were flimsier than deadbolts, and you could break or rig one not to catch fairly easily. Anyway, it is after this that Susy thinks the door is locked, but it isn't.
Now, I suppose Ebert could be referring to the OUTSIDE door, the one that Susy and Sam share with Gloria and her mother (and maybe with the upstairs neighbor, Shatner; we don't get a floor plan of the building), but he is pretty specific in the original Sun-Times review that "The bad guys come in and out of the apartment," so I'm going to assume he doesn't mean the outside door, which probably does have a deadbolt.
[deleted]
Roger Ebert is known to made ridiculous claims. The reason that he is so praised for this is that humans are stupid.
---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.
I have to sympathise with Ebert's views. She does not shout for help, lock the door. When the lights came back on she throws down the knife and matchbox. Arkin is covered in petrol, just light a match!
Its that man again!!
I haven't checked thru the 80 comments in this thread, so I don't know if anyone else posted this, but I checked Ebert's original review. It did call it an idiot plot and gave it 3-1/2 stars anyway. OP should have done a little research.
shareI'm confused about this, too. Was that an edit made to the site or what? Reading through the review, it clearly comes off as a 2 1/2 - 3 star review anyway, so I'm unsure where all the controversy came from. Especially all of the typical "Ebert is a dumbass" lines.
sharePeople love to believe lies that suit their own beliefs. Someone said Ebert gave it 0 stars (something he rarely did and that becomes the story.
Even if the star rating was changed from the original review, they would have had to totally rewrite the original review. He calls it an idiot plot, but said he was highly effective and well done. And he's right - basic plot was stupid (why not just give the damn doll back?) but I watch it whenever it's on. She's beautiful, Richard Crenna's terrific, Alan Arkin is wonderfully creepy - what's not to love?
Ebert was a humanist, liberal politically - beliefs many people hate. So "Ebert's a dumbass becuase he gave this 0 stars" fits into their preconceived notion of Roger Ebert.