MovieChat Forums > Young Sherlock Holmes (1985) Discussion > Bizarre error in Roger Ebert's review

Bizarre error in Roger Ebert's review

posted 15 years ago by IceboxMovies
11 replies | jump to latest

Ebert's old review reads at the end:

"The effects were supplied by Industrial Light & Magic, the George Lucas brain trust, and the best one is a computer-animated stained glass window that fights a duel with Holmes.

I liked the effect, but I would have liked it more if, at the end of the movie, Holmes had drawn Watson aside, and, using a few elementary observations on the apparent movement of the stained glass, had deduced the eventual invention of computers."

The part about deducing computers is pretty funny, but... WTF? The stained glass window "fights a duel with Holmes"? Last I checked, the only thing the stained glass window does in the movie is drive a poor old priest to death.

Guess Ebert's memories were playing tricks on him, eh?

"What I don't understand is how we're going to stay alive this winter."

[–] mikekaraoke23 15 years ago

yea your right that makes no sense movie critic's think they are always right lol

[–] doctorcrimedog 14 years ago

On the other hand, at least Ebert can speak coherent English.

-There is no such word as "alot."

[–] There_Is_No_Sayid 14 years ago

I don't know that he's a moron but sometimes he does seem to either not noticed things that are in the film or imagine things that weren't there.

"Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything."

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] stevenackerman69 14 years ago

Don't call him that. His reviews are sometimes different. He'll admit that. But they are always interesting to read. Let's see you write something.

[–] stevenackerman69 14 years ago

Yeah, it was an error. He corrected it though, in later editions. It was corrected to "a priest". Hey, look, Roger isn't perfect. He makes mistakes.

[–] kylopod 14 years ago

Good catch. I'm a big fan of Ebert, but I have noticed that he often gets the details of movies mixed up. One of my favorite examples was from his review of Superman III, where he states that in the first film Superman "turned back time to save humanity." (Superman actually turned back time only to save Lois Lane.) His mind works in funny ways. Oh, well.

[–] There_Is_No_Sayid 14 years ago

I think with some of the critics the thing is that they watch so many movies it must be hard to keep small plot details straight. So Ebert remembered that there was a stained glass knight but forgot that only the priest saw it.

I'm reminded of one review where they criticized Oceans Twelve for the nonsense talk scene with Robbie Coltrane stating that it wasn't insteresting because it was just meaningless nonsense as opposed to the first film where the (invented) terms like "an ella fitzgerald" actually meant something. What they missed in the film is the later explanation from the Cherry Jones character that the nonsense talk was SUPPOSED to be nonsense in the film and was all part of a gag that they were playing on Linus.

"Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything."

[–] smoko 11 years ago

@IceboxMovies It seems that Ebert was having a hallucination about the hallucination. HOLMECEPTION.

[–] HelpMeRhonda (1158) 4 years ago

Yeah he makes mistakes like that every now and then.

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

Ebert was notorious for tuning out while he masturbated during movies that didn’t interest him.