- Roger Ebert on The Green Hornet:
Casting about for something to praise, I recalled that I heard a strange and unique sound for the first time, a high-pitched whooshing scream, but I don’t think Gondry can claim it, because it came from the hand dryers in the nearby men’s room.
- At first I thought it was like that urban legend about the ghost on the set of Three Men and a Baby, but apparently this one’s true: Han Solo does appear in many, if not all, episodes of Firefly.
If you’re wondering, Mal shot first.
- Alex Beam of the Boston Globe wonders — or maybe wondered back in November when I first saw this link — are new translations necessary? It’s an interesting question, but there’s no mention of instances when newer translations get things right, or make necessary corrections, or significantly change our understanding of a text. Proust’s famous novel is better translated as In Search of Lost Time, for instance, and newer translations of Camus’ The Stranger have called into question earlier readings of its famous opening lines.
So, short answer? Yeah, I think they’re still necessary. [via]
- Speaking of translations, the surprisingly intriguing story of why Uncle Scrooge McDuck is called “Dagobert” in Germany. [via]
- And finally….
The Justice League, re-imagined as a 1977 punk rock movie, based on an art challenge posed by Warren Ellis and by the exceptionally talented Annie Wu.
3 thoughts on “Monday various”
Comments are closed.
I think Roger Ebert needs to stop reviewing movies in 3D. I think his hatred of 3D is souring him on the movie as a whole.
Don’t get me wrong, Green Hornet wasn’t True Grit or anything, but it was hilarious, and the action was entertaining. I refuse to believe that Gulliver’s Travels was a better movie, much less two stars better.
In his defense, most 3D is pretty abysmal. I’d much prefer studios abstain from making movies using the format — or, rather, pretending to use it, by running films that weren’t originally shot in 3D through a computer process after the fact — than Ebert abstain from reviewing them. He writes intelligently and knowledgeably about film, and for a major newspaper, and for that latter reason he can’t simply skip a big studio release like this. And he shouldn’t neglect to raise the issue of the 3D, if he thinks (as he does here) it seriously de- and distracts from the overall film.
Which is not to say — at all — that I always agree with him. I may not even agree with him here; I couldn’t say, since I haven’t seen The Green Hornet. But I don’t think I’d want him to stop reviewing movies even if I disagreed with him all the time.
He’s often said it’s important to review the movie as the film it’s trying to be, judge it on its own intentions, rather than review it as the movie you want it to be. Which I think, for the most part he does. I think he doesn’t like 3D, but I do think he went into Green Hornet with an open mind.
No, no, I think you’re misinterpreting me. I meant he should review the 2D prints of these movies, instead of the 3D prints, not not review them at all. I think his annoyance at the shitty 3D transfer process (while valid) bleeds over into his impression of the movie as a whole, which isn’t necessarily fair.
And believe me, if Hollywood never made another 3D movie again, I wouldn’t complain.