Ebert and Roper clueless as usual

[Pen Dragon]

Talking about Four Brothers tonight: "You know, this really feels like a western in its tone and structure"

It took me half of one trailer to identify this is a remake of The Sons of Katie Elder over a month ago. No one seems to have picked up on it anywhere I've read. Now even Ebert and Roeper are oblivious. Geezus, it's getting easier to rip off older films and never have to admit it's a remake. No one knows what they're looking at anymore

[Authorized]

Pen you're right, the Sons Of Katie Elder with some 21st century diversity built in...

[BottomlessCup]

Are there any good critics out there?

The only ones I even vaguely trust are the guys at The Onion AV Club. And that's a free comedy rag for crissakes.

[English Dave]

Geezus, it's getting easier to rip off older films and never have to admit it's a remake. No one knows what they're looking at anymore

My Latest is called ''The Big Sting'' starring Sting, and is about a sting on a crooked record producer carried out by a young rapper and an ageing pop star who wants to retire.

It's nothing like ''The Sting'' though. It's contemporary!

[English Dave]

My Latest is called ''The Big Sting'' starring Sting, and is about a sting on a crooked record producer carried out by a young rapper and an ageing pop star who wants to retire.

It's nothing like ''The Sting'' though. It's contemporary!

[Sh!t, actually I think I Will write this!]

[refriedwhiskey]

Even if it's not exactly like The Sons of Katie Elder, it does seem bizarre that they'd mention it was like a western and not mention the similarities to the John Wayne movie.

[refriedwhiskey]

Dave, just to avoid any accusations of ripping off The Sting, you should change the name of yours to The Big Gordon Sumner.

[English Dave]

Dave, just to avoid any accusations of ripping off The Sting, you should change the name of yours to The Big Gordon Sumner.

Good idea. And as the record producer is cloning humans for body parts, how about ''The Island of Gordon Sumner''

[Joaneasley]

Four Brothers SPOILERS

I heard the Four Brothers writers speak at a screening. They acknowledged it's a Western, and they named some of the ones that influenced them, but I don't think they mentioned that one. I believe they mentioned The Outlaw Josie Wales.

If I remember correctly, they said they were assigned to write a script about a team of characters of several races, but they were worried it would seem cheesy and forced. Thus they came up with the idea that they were all adopted by a woman who worked for social services -- (she adopted the ones who were too bad to place) -- so that's how they made it more credible that these guys would be brothers.

[joe9alt]

Ebert and Roeper ARE clueless. I agree there.


I was reading an article on Four Brothers not to long ago, before it was released of course, and it plainly referred to by John Singleton as a "modern day, urban Sons of Katie Elder."

So i don't think it is an influence the fimmakers are denying or running from.
Of course i forget where the article was....a generic site like Yahoo or something i think.

[prescribe22]

[Sh!t, actually I think I Will write this!]

I was going to say that was the best BS concept I'd ever seen.

You accidentally came up with an Elmore Leonard novel. :D

[cmmora]

Are there any good critics out there?


Ebert tried to redeem himself with his newspaper review. I'm not a big fan of his, but I can respect that he can admit that he doesn't know everything.

"This story is inspired by Henry Hathaway (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/classifieds?category=search1&SearchType=1&q=Henry%20Hathaway&Class=%25&FromDate=19150101&ToDate=20051231)'s "The Sons of Katie Elder" (1965), unseen by me but cited by my fellow critic Emanuel Levy. (I am awed by the number of films I have seen, and awed by the number I have not seen.)"

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050811/REVIEWS/50727006

[Jordan Rivers]

A critic for THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER mentions the source material.

And it's not a ripoff to make such films. It's not a ripoff to perform differently an old song. This goes on all the time. Shakespeare borrowed plots from different sources, and no one claims he ripped people off.

[Pen Dragon]

i heard he ripped off Titus from Tarantino

[refriedwhiskey]

Sharespeare was great from a technical standpoint, but everything he ever did he stole from Scorsese and Altman.

[Biohazard]

And it's not a ripoff to make such films. It's not a ripoff to perform differently an old song. This goes on all the time. Shakespeare borrowed plots from different sources, and no one claims he ripped people off.

That's because most people don't know.

And since when were there copyright laws in Shakespeare's time? You're going off the subject of illegal and into the subject of immoral. Regardless, both are wrong and I see no reason why anybody would copy someone else's work and try to pass it off as their own. That is the opposite of respect.

[Jordan Rivers]

Well, screenplays are adaptations of other material. Given your "moral" stance, then adapting a novel to film would be wrong. Boy, that would cut out a lot of assignment opportunities

Your "moral" stance against borrowing plots from previous sources is naive and simply wrong-headed. Copyright law has nothing to do with it. Re-working plots and concepts is part of the literary tradition. How many versions of FAUST have been written? Would you call that a violation of copyright law? Shoud DEVIL'S ADVOCATE, which is a modern filmic version of Faust, be dragged into a court of law?

[refriedwhiskey]

If only Shakespeare had had the benefit of Bio's moral counseling. Then we wouldn't have had to suffer through such terrible works as Romeo & Juliet, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Antony and Cleopatra....

[Timothy Miller]

Actually, I believe Midsummer Night's Dream and The Tempest were the only two NOT based on other material.

[refriedwhiskey]

Well, it's been argued that Midsummer Night's Dream was inspired in part by Chaucer (The Knight's Tale, with its account of the wedding of Theseus and "Ypolita") and by Plutarch. You could probably Google more details.

[Biohazard]

Well, screenplays are adaptations of other material. Given your "moral" stance, then adapting a novel to film would be wrong.

Only if the adaptation was done without the legal right to do so. How many films can you list that were adapted from a novel without first securing the right to do so? I'll bet then you can count them all on one fist.

[refriedwhiskey]

I'm betting there are way more than five movies based on novels that were in the public domain at the time they were made. No rights needed to be secured for those. But they're not ripoffs, either.

[insanegenius]

I thought most of us were wanna be writers. If this is true then most of you the know the first thing that they tell you. Every story has already been told it's up to you to tell the story differently. 8 mile was a rip off from Purple Rain. Waterworld was a rip off from The Road Warrior. I can't tell you how many Alien rip offs there are and so on. If you think somebody is coming up with something totally original in music or movies then you must be very young.

[Jordan Rivers]

"Only if the adaptation was done without the legal right to do so. How many films can you list that were adapted from a novel without first securing the right to do so? I'll bet then you can count them all on one fist."


All of the Jane Austen novels that were adapted to film. And many others.

My God. I agree with refried. He's not as dumb as I thought.

[refriedwhiskey]

He's not as dumb as I thought.
You, on the other hand, Jordy, have yet to prove you're not as dumb as I thought.

[Jordan Rivers]

You cannot prove a negative.

[refriedwhiskey]

You could at least try every once in a while.

[Biohazard]

I'm betting there are way more than five movies based on novels that were in the public domain at the time they were made. No rights needed to be secured for those. But they're not ripoffs, either.

If it's public domain, then it's not against the law. No harm, no foul.

[refriedwhiskey]

So if it's not a violation of the law, it's not a ripoff?

I happen to agree, but it's an interesting change of tune for you.

[whitenavel]

They gave 2 big thumbs up for The 40-Year-Old Virgin.

[dclary]

If you don't count Siskel, that's because Ebert still is one.

[roscoegino]

They gave 2 big thumbs up for The 40-Year-Old Virgin.

Yeah, Roeper esp. liked it alot. Def. check it out. Steve is funny.

[Adam Isaac]

Critics........just too damn lazy to put their great intellect into action.



Couple of my friends are journalists. Film critics if you will...good guys.....so long as 'movies' isn't a topic for discussion.

[Adam Isaac]

Would you call BROGDANOVICH, and the TCM 'critics' true critics? guess you'd have to, he writes a monthly column.

How much do you think these critics get served under the table by the studios?

[refriedwhiskey]

I doubt any major critic gets bribes from the studios -- and it wouldn't be worth the studios' time to bribe the minor critics.

I think when you see a critic express an opinion that greatly differs from your own, the simplest explanation is probably correct: he just has very different tastes from yours and had a very different reaction to the movie than you.

[AaronB]

That hasn't kept a publicist or two from inventing critics out of whole cloth, however. When you made up the name, you can give yourself whatever kind of quote you like. =]

[Jordan Rivers]

"I doubt any major critic gets bribes from the studios -- and it wouldn't be worth the studios' time to bribe the minor critics."

I doubt it also. Moviegoers don't read the critics anyway, although some will watch Ebert/Ropert. But those two critics are so arbitrary in their likes and dislikes, moviegoers take them with a grain of salt, and watch them mostly just to see what kinds of movies are being released. And to see if they get into one of those silly arguments. Siskel and Ebert did it much better.