MovieChat Forums > Shun liu ni liu (2000) Discussion > Look what Roger Ebert thought of this mo...

Look what Roger Ebert thought of this movie

posted 19 years ago by Thespin
9 replies | jump to latest

This is a funny extraction from his review, look at this

"Certainly my eyes, ears and skin were more involved than my brain as I watched "Time and Tide," and that explains why I liked it more than "The Mummy Returns," even though both films could be described as mindless action adventures. With "The Mummy Returns," I was repeatedly reminded that one extravagant visual sequence after another was being tied together with the merest of plot threads, which even the actors treated in a semi-ironic fashion. With "Time and Tide," the plot might be as tenuous, but the actors treat it with ferocious seriousness (whatever it is), and the presence of flesh-and-blood actors and stunt people create an urgency lacking in the obviously fabricated "Mummy" effects."

Time & Tide and Mummy Returns??? huh? gimme a break!
If he sees Time & Tide as a mere "mindless" action adventure then i wonder how he would criticize Double Team. I bet he would describe this as a bullet in the head and i mean literally (not that film). Jeez, Ebert is a jerk, he should watch this film twenty times at the very least AND yet i‘d strongly doubt he understood this film properly, especially the contemplations, changes and vicissitudes of people's lives in Time And Tide. That's what this whole movie is mainly about, this is directed more at your brain than anything else, but i guess idiocy will always prefer eyes, skin and ears, nothing personal Roger!

[–] fireyhope 19 years ago

he gave the movie 3/5 stars dumbass.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20010518/REVIEWS/105180306/1023

he was also saying how good the movie was in some ways, gee it's like some people who take apart one point of what a critic said and think it's bad.

[–] fireyhope 19 years ago

I denounced "The Mummy Returns" for abandoning its characters and using its plot "only as a clothesline for special effects and action sequences." Now I recommend "Time and Tide," which does exactly the same thing. But there is a difference. While both films rely on nonstop, wall-to-wall action, "Time and Tide" does a better job, and plugs its action and stunt sequences into the real world with everyday props, instead of relying on computers to generate vast and meaningless armies of special effects creatures.

[–] Thespin 19 years ago

You obviously didn't understand what i criticized in Ebert's review. It was more his attitude and how he was watching Time & Tide only as a non-stop action movie, which is not at all. This movie is as dramatic as action oriented. So don't call everyone dumbass if you don't know for what reason. I don't care if Ebert gave this high rating, i just hated his viewpoint that gives me a feeling that he didn't get this film...and that he just gave such rating only for its action. And when you come to think of it, Time & Tide doesn't even rely on as you say "non-stop action". It's beautifully balanced movie with little aspects of comedy and drama and then action. Let's be honest, picking up Mummy Returns as an example how to compare that film with Time & Tide is utterly stupid! That's what my post was about, about Ebert's way how he's criticized this film.

[–] Lidocaineus 18 years ago

While the movie is way better than Mummy Returns, T&T doesn't have that much drama either. Most of it is cliched (the group only wants him back in or to kill him - talk about old rehashed unoriginality in a bottle) or completely hackneyed (mother protecting newborn baby! sheesh), and *none* of the characters are more than skin deep. We get little to NO background on most of the characters, and the motivations of half the characters are muddy at best.

T&T is definitely a good movie. A deep movie it is not, and that's what Ebert was getting at.

[–] Thespin 18 years ago

In fact, you're completely wrong!! it's extremely deep movie but in a philosophic and idealistic way. That's what's really original about this film, i have never ever seen in my life such idealistic action film, let alone HK film. We get sufficient backgound on those characters - only what we need to know and what is related to the messages of this film! When i'm thinking about it, it's really more drama than action film after all.

[–] Lidocaineus 18 years ago

Really? What can you tell me about the dude with the dreads? What are his motivations besides revenge and/or having the guy rejoin? Why is he so obsessed with this idea? Just because they screwed up a job?? And what about the guy who can feel no pain? What's THAT all about? We know NOTHING about him. or why is the main character bending over backwards for a girl that tells him to leave him alone? What in his character is telling him to do that? It may be the right thing to do, but we're never told WHY he wants to do that! I can give a character the benefit of the doubt (ok, so he's a decent guy), but this movie takes it FAR beyond that point. Which is fine - because this movie was never meant to be a deep, drama movie. It's meant to be thoughtful action, which it delivery extremely well.

There are so many more examples... please expound on SPECIFICS; I've given you examples of where the development is poor or nonexistant. If you want to see real character development, watch Shichinin no samurai. Hell Chong qing sen lin had better character development - now THAT's a good drama ridden movie.

[–] Thespin 18 years ago

Wait a minute, you're telling me what this movie is meant to be, you, who quite didn't get what i've already stated, which you obviously overlooked, exactly as you overlooked what this movie was about; i stated: this movie is extremely deep movie (that would work easily without any action) BUT deep in a philosophical and idealistic way!! That's no bullsh*t, that's true! (exactly like in the masterpiece "Seven Swords") If there's been explained each character's background it would lost any meaning, and i really don't feel like giving you some analyses of this movie either. WHY you're asking about all of these details, why we should know more about that guy who can feel no pain. You're actually getting off the main topic of what we're discussing here - a "dramatic element" of this film that actually has just restrained point of views that are even blurred (imo) in order just to show the audience the confusion or lack of understanding of the world depicted in the film (remember? that's the main theme even discussed a bit by A.Wong and N.Tse). As i said, the narrative is so perfectly elaborated that from the film's get-go you are surrounded by such an amount of dramatic moments involving these two main characters withing the first a couple of minutes that you can get a real feeling that all of these moments are leading and will end only in the action.

btw, "drama" means a certain conflict or opposition between the characters and that's especially what's happening all the time in the film. It's a profound and also subtle drama, and action too - i don't deny that, i'm not blind. But the action is not there just for the sake of action (like in The Killer), every little dramatic plot point is leading to it.

[–] Lidocaineus 18 years ago

I'm sorry but there is no deep philosophical conundrum being explored in any of this. The theme of the movie revolves around basic needs and wants. It did not expound in them in ANY way.

Your whole argument is flawed. If he wanted to portray confusion and lack of coherence in the everyday world, you do it by showing the differences between the two. And how do you do that? By characterizations. By emotional connections. By backstory and examples. You show confusion by showing what ISN'T confusing, and then dumping the craziness on us. WE GET NONE OF THAT.

If there's been explained each character's background it would lost any meaning, and i really don't feel like giving you some analyses of this movie either. WHY you're asking about all of these details, why we should know more about that guy who can feel no pain.

Huh? I'm asking because by knowing about a charcter, you actually CARE about what happens to them. If they're meant to be bad, or good or somewhere in between, you make a case in your head for them to live or die, or to come out of a situation changed. But with no characterization, you don't care; the character is just someone to be killed off. The ONLY way for a filmmaker to explore philosophies and themes without deep characterizations is to use very easy and typical examples in a vacuum; almost impossible in a movie.

Why is this important? Because if the movie is going to say something profound (like you allege it does), you need to understand character motivations and the things that drive them. Through their actions, you can see what the underlying philsophy and/or theme of a movie is.

PLEASE say something meaningful. You have not even stated what the examples of a confusing philsophy this movie supports. The lack of character is not an example - it's a fault (which is overlooked because this movie is good despite that).

btw, "drama" means a certain conflict or opposition between the characters and that's especially what's happening all the time in the film. It's a profound and also subtle drama, and action too - i don't deny that, i'm not blind.

OF COURSE there's conflict in the movie. However there is no reason - WHY is there conflict? That is never explained in much detail - you get the barest sketch of a plot. I DARE YOU to give specific examples of these subtleties and explanations.

And take away the action? HAHAHA. You would have NO MOVIE.

I'm glad you like the movie. So did I. But let's try to not pretend it was more deeper than it really was, eh?

PS - I suggest you take a film theory class so you can learn to properly dissect a movie.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]