"The Fahrenheit 9/11 of its time"

Which re-released and restored classic could Roger Ebert possibly be talking about?

Comments

[garym]

Here’s a link to my own review:

http://mcgath.blogspot.com/2004/06/gojira.html

Aside from the primitive special effects, I thought it was a reasonably good movie, and certainly an enjoyable one. Ebert makes at least one significant error in his review:

When Dr. Serizawa demonstrates the Oxygen Destroyer to the fiancee of his son, the superweapon is somewhat anticlimactic. He drops a pill into a tank of tropical fish, the tank lights up, he shouts “stand back!,” the fiancee screams, and the fish go belly up. Yeah, that’ll stop Godzilla in his tracks.

But the fish don’t “go belly up”; they turn instantly into skeletons, which is certainly more impressive. I probably wouldn’t have cared about the error, except that Ebert was so damn sarcastic while getting his facts wrong.

[Warren]

“Ooooooh NO they say he’s got to go
GO GO GODZILLA”

Soft White Underbelly

[Dan]

I probably wouldn’t have cared about the error, except that Ebert was so damn sarcastic while getting his facts wrong.

It’s pretty rare for Ebert to review a movie without some sort of fundamental screw-up. At least this time he managed to figure out what the plot of the movie was; he got hopelessly lost during “The Usual Suspects”, a film nobody I know had any trouble following.

Hell, this is the guy who called Fight Club “fascist”, which is about the single stupidest and least-appropriate adjective you could possibly apply to that film. Ebert’s stuff is only worth reading if you like his writing style. If you want to find out about that actual movies, you’re better off using a Ouija board.

[Sam Grove]

Ebert was also puzzled about Predator regarding the motivation of the alien in hunting men.

[Paul Z]

What the f**k? I read Ebert’s review three times and still can’t get the connection between Godzilla and Fahrenheit 9/11. What is the “urgent warning” in Moore’s movie? That Cheney will morph into a radioactive monster and begin stomping around on major U.S. cities? (Now that I think about it, he probably does believe that.)

Sounds like Roger is as interested in continuing the hype for Fahrenheit 9/11 (“Two Thumbs Up!”) as in reviewing Godzilla.

[nick]

I was expecting D.W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation. Both were praised by powerful members of the Democratic Party for accurately portraying their respective events, despite being guilty of some embellishment of the facts, to put it mildly.

[garym]

Dan: Actually, I find Ebert’s recommendations better than any other critic’s as a predictor of whether I’ll like a movie. (There are so many movies these days that everyone recognizes are bad that none of the critics make good negative predictors any more.) This is a “sense of life” thing, and a such a separate issue from whether he describes movies accurately.

[Ruthless]

What Paul Z. said.
But it would be interesting to know what Ebert or someone like him could come up with in the way of movies that really have expressed our mass post traumatic stress.
More likely, they haven’t been made yet.

[Lil' Jon]

So, Michael Moore is really a dwarf inside a foam rubber suit? Is that what Ebert’s saying?

[Paul Z]

Wow . . . Mona! That’s exactly right.

[Call me snake]

But remember, without the original we could not have had Godzilla, Rodan and Mothra vs. Ghidra, and also “Terror of Mechagodzilla,” without a doubt the finest of the series.

“Ha Ha Ha…your Godzilla is no match for our MechaGodzilla…”

[Mona]

Myself, I’d classify F 9/11 as in the same genre as Mission to Moscow. Both are propaganda pieces that greatly pleased the murderous, anti-American regimes they pander to, in large part because they are replete with lies and half-truths. MtoM caused Stalin to reintroduce select Hollywood movies in the USSR, and various Muslim fanatics in the Middle East are delighted to contemplate Moore’s effort showing in their venues, notwithstanfding how “decadent” they usually consider Western media to be.

–Mona–