![]() While I've, admittedly, got a bit of a soft spot for it, Junior didn't reach its potential. Nevertheless, Junior finds a way to take an extremely ludicrous premise and turn it into something that's. Granted, there aren't many movies where Arnold Schwarzenegger gets pregnant. You've got to like a film where a lustful couple sneaks out into the dangerous jungle at night and suddenly the guy whispers, 'Wait - did you hear that? Silence!' It has the effects and the thrills, but it also has big laughs, quirky dialogue and a gruesome imagination. Anaconda is an example of one of the hardest kinds of films to make well: a superior mass-audience entertainment. It's a slick, scary, funny Creature Feature, beautifully photographed and splendidly acted in high adventure style. Here's a snippet:Īnaconda did not disappoint me. While there are folks who can only enjoy Anaconda with fine hints of irony, Ebert seemed to fully embrace its foolishness. He greatly enjoyed the film's look, courtesy of the cinematography, as well as the creature effects and the performances. Sure enough, as the movie continued to build up its goofy moments, Ebert found himself engaged ever more with the ridiculousness displayed on the screen. In the critic's surprising 3 and a half/4 star review, Roger Ebert claimed he was chuckling with Anaconda from the very beginning. Rather, in his effusive review of the not-well-received movie, Ebert thought Anaconda was a sizzling success. While there are some who don't like it and a few others who appreciate it only on ironic circumstances, Roger Ebert didn't fall into either category. ![]() It is absurd and preposterous, and proud of it.Īdmittedly, 1997's Anaconda is the type of movie that fits comfortably in some definitions of "so bad it's good." The schlocky snake movie is ridiculous and not filled with awards-worthy moments (outside of the Razzies, where it secured six nominations). Now why did I like this movie? It was just plain dumb fun, is why. While Ebert acknowledged it was "preposterous" and "dumb," these are the qualities he liked in it. So much so that he considered it "the best in the series," which is a sentiment not shared by many. ![]() While he didn't care for The Mummy Returns, Ebert found Tomb to be a return-to-form for the franchise. While many moviegoers consider The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor to be the weakest installment in this franchise, before 2017's ill-fated reboot, The Mummy, crypt to undead life, Roger Ebert noted in his 3/4 star review that viewers will get "exactly what they expect" from this Brendan Fraser sequel. But not for Roger Ebert, who found himself amused by this special effects-heavy sequel. The Mummy Returns and its spin-off, The Scorpion King, saw the franchise deteriorating quicker than an actual mummy, and it was 2008's lackluster, late-in-the-game sequel, The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, which put the final nail in the tomb for many folks. While 1999's The Mummy was a fun adventure blockbuster with likable leads, exciting action sequences, and a good bit of humor to boot, the series faced diminishing returns as it progressed forward. The Mummy: Tomb Of The Dragon Emperor (2008)
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |