Ebert actually kind of likes Hitman (the movie)
by Justin McElroy 
{ Nov 27th 2007 at 10:28AM }
Ebert even goes so far as to give the movie, which earned $21 million in its first five days, 3 out of 4 stars, which is, admittedly, the same score he gave to Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties. (In other news: Why do we still pay attention to a man who gave three stars to Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties?)
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Fernando Rocker @ Nov 27th 2007 10:34AM
I think that a game like Okami, Zelda, Final Fantasy or many other games, are more artistic and require more dedication and creativity than for example, the Campbell's Soup Cans rom Andy Warhol.
copa @ Nov 27th 2007 10:41AM
Of course. Andy Warhol's avant-garde stylings have nothing on the visionaries who brought us this memorable dialogue:
Barrett: Whatchoo talkin' about, Cloud? I pity da fool dat messes with AVALANCHE. Dyn-o-mite!
Cloud: ...
danny. (fdf.) @ Nov 27th 2007 10:44AM
I don't pretend to get pop art (you kind of had to be there in the time period, it's not meant to be timeless), but I think it's safe to say you do not know what you're talking about.
Shagittarius @ Nov 27th 2007 11:24AM
The Art of a game has nothing to do with its actual art.
comtar @ Nov 27th 2007 10:37AM
I liked the movie, it wasn't bad... Really it wasn't, if you want an example of bad video game movies, go see Street Fighter.
Seriously, it's the poor mans Bourne Identity kinda movie. It had scenes that borrowed from alot of good movies, and it borrowed it well. Problem is, because it borrowed so much, it had nothing really unique to make it memorable.
gonk @ Nov 27th 2007 5:28PM
Street Fighter is AWESOME
and ebert is senile
zelderman @ Nov 27th 2007 10:40AM
I like both movies. Oh wait there's my brain. Let me put it in. Now I don't.
Hitman wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. I liked Garfield back in the day, but the movies don't look fun.
Jack @ Nov 27th 2007 10:46AM
Read the review; it's less a critique of the film than Ebert slamming video games without provocation. He's permanently out of touch. I used to respect him, but his complete ignorance regarding video games and his complete inability to TRY and experience "artistic" games is ridiculous.
And yet, he sits on his high horse and shoots his mouth off on a topic he has absolutely no grasp of. It would be like if some fancy European came to America for the first time and only went to strip clubs and McDonald's. They might, dare I say, get the wrong impression; the frame of reference is permanently skewed. Ebert, like every other fifty-plus fuddy-duddy, only thinks GTA and Halo when he thinks of video games.
In conclusion: breakfast is called "the most important meal of the day" for a reason. Don't skip it!
Brad Lee @ Nov 27th 2007 11:42AM
And your comment is more of a slam against Ebert than it is a critique of his review.
Seriously, did we even read the same review?
He didn't mention video games at all until half-way through. And after that, he only mentions video games a few more times, and it hardly interupts the flow of the review.
Has anyone wondered why video game to movie translations fail so horrendously? It's because there's really not much there to work with. The majority of any video game is repitition. Shooter games you shoot. Driving games you drive. There is variation, sure, but you're still doing the same thing over and over again. Video games are more mental exercise than they are storytelling or art forms. How could you possibly translate that into a movie?
And don't even say the storyline. Most video games are b-rate movie storylines (if that). Resident Evil: a bunch of corpses wake up and start eating the flesh of the living, oh I can see an oscar coming on this one! Final Fantasy 7: a big bad baddie wants to destroy the universe because he has a severe oedipus complex, melodrama is so artful! Metal Gear Solid: There's like 10,000 intertwining storylines, and each one is super dramatic, making it more a soap opera involving nucular weaponry than art.
I think we have this all wrong here. Instead of video games becoming movies and inevitably failing, they should just base video games off B-rate movies. I'd so buy Black Sheep the minute they made a video game translation. Chainsawing hordes of undead sheep would be incredibly satisfying.
Antonio @ Nov 27th 2007 1:12PM
I think the quality of video game movies has more to do with the talent working on the films and the attitude studios have towards their potential. When the most well-known video game film director is Uwe Boll, you have a real problem. Writers and directors have to effectively translate the key elements of a game to a screen. They also have to improve on things like character development, acting, and plot, preserving enough of the game to keep fans satisfied while still making a good film. Not exactly an easy task I admit.
Meanwhile, studios have to see enough potential box office to allocate the budget necessary to pull the film off. Studios also should refrain from interfering with the filmmaking process, as a studio might try to pair down the running time or trade a familiar face with a hot body (Milla Jovovich) for a more talented actor.
Brad Lee @ Nov 29th 2007 11:28AM
Yeah, those are all very good points as well.
My point though, is that the main reason why video game to movie translations don't work that well is because most video game storylines are pretty awful.
I mean, as critical as I am now of Metal Gear Solid's storyline, I found it quite engrossing when I first time I played the game through. But after I found out that they might be making a movie of it, I returned to the game for a little while and when I did I thought, "Man, this storyline kind of sucks."
The biggest problem is that when we're playing the game we have a fairly direct role in the story. The gameplay immerses us into the world and the story, and because of this we are able to forgive video games for their oftentimes extremely lackluster stories.
So while the quality of the production and the talent of those working on video game to movie translations are often suspect, I think the whole concept of making video games into movies is flawed in the first place. The best part of video games is the interaction: the gameplay. Why take that away?
Todd @ Nov 27th 2007 10:51AM
Final Fantasy did not do well at the box office, fyi.
I wonder if he will be so generous with "Metal Gear Solid: The Movie" or the "Prince of Persia: A Jerry Bruckheimer Production" movie.
Phranctoast @ Nov 27th 2007 11:12AM
I have faith in the prince of persia movie. I remember when pepole said that pirates couldnt be done.
"Are they serious about making a ride into a movie?";)
gonk @ Nov 27th 2007 5:32PM
well the first one was great
the sequels were almost as bad as the matrix sequels *shudder*
Brad Lee @ Nov 27th 2007 11:15AM
To answer Justin McElroy's question, the reason why people still respect Ebert is because he's an excellent writer. By reading his reviews, in most cases anyway, I can tell if I will personally enjoy the movie, even if my opinion differs with his. The star rating is just as pointless as the numerical rating given to video games, you have to read the review to tell if you'd like it.
WiNG @ Nov 27th 2007 11:24AM
Ever since Siskel died this guy's been off a bit.
Noshino @ Nov 27th 2007 11:34AM
Actually, I DID like the movie, it was so fast that the almost 1hr45mins felt like freaking 30 mins...
also, I sorta liked the jokes...
Negativecool @ Nov 27th 2007 11:41AM
As a gamer...My first thought was, "who gives a shit about what Ebert thinks?" That was also my final thought on the subject.
James @ Nov 27th 2007 11:44AM
I can't imagine it being any worst than the movie Crank even though it's getting worse reviews. Crank is the worst movie I've seen in years.
Ocho @ Nov 27th 2007 12:00PM
I thought it was interesting that Ebert simply assumed that the over the top action and body count was taken from the game. Anyone who really appreciates Hitman knows it's about hitting your target and slipping away as low profile as possible.
In fact, that's what makes it different from other games. That's why it's popular. And that's why it was made into a movie. And not surprisingly, the movie missed the point.
I'll just go watch some Dexter, thanks.
GRANTED @ Nov 27th 2007 2:54PM
dexter ftw
Gunner McGrath @ Nov 27th 2007 12:04PM
I remember a time when I decided to go read old Ebert reviews of my favorite movies.. and with the exception of Pulp Fiction, he hated every single movie I consider classic and exciting; and time and time again, he raves over movies I've hated. The fact that he gave it a good review is just one more confirmation that it probably sucks.
hvnlysoldr @ Nov 27th 2007 12:11PM
They should make a Super Mario Bros. movie. Bow.. I mean King Koopa err President Koopa could be a dinosaur from a parrallel world caused by the meteorite that struck New Jersey.(?!) Princess Daisy is not like Peach and has the hots for Luigi. Mario could be played by Bob Hoskins and not some wrestler like Captain Lou Albono. Goombas and Koopas are scary as heck get out. Super Scope 6's could be weapons of mass destruction. Yoshi is a little dinosaur incapable of being ridden. A mushroom actually acts as a shield. The music box that make Hammer Bros. sleepy would make good elevator music. And the climax could be a Reebok wearing small Bob-Omb!
Edog Lost @ Nov 27th 2007 12:18PM
He also liked that movie where all the kids run wild in the air port.
Unaccompanied Minors
http://imdb.com/title/tt0488658/
That movie was straight garbage.
The real test is going to be the gaming community, but...
WE HATE EVERYTHING. I can't think of one video game to film adaptation that was university accepted by the gameing community. Why would this be any different?
David @ Nov 27th 2007 1:32PM
Ebert liked Unaccompanied Minors, eh?
"'Unaccompanied Minors' may not be the worst holiday comedy ever made, but frankly I can't think of something from that genre that sinks lower than this frighteningly bad movie." - Roger Ebert.
Yup. Talk about a ringing endorsement.
David
Edog Lost @ Nov 27th 2007 1:48PM
I watched Ebert argued with Roper on their show about this movie. Ebert was trying to explain that it wasn't that bad.
As for Hitman, I think Variety has a great description.
"Hitman" is a Eurotrashy vidgame knockoff that misses its target by a mile. Numbingly unthrilling as it lurches from one violent encounter to another, the pic's dark roots in an electronic, non-dramatic medium are plain to see, and unsuspecting gamers lured to theaters will soon wish they were back home participating in the action themselves. Theatrical playoff will be so quick that the DVD could serve as a stocking stuffer.
Libb @ Nov 27th 2007 1:33PM
Someone needs to hold Ebert at gunpoint and make him play Bioshock, then honestly say that video games are not an art form and that Bioshock is not an artistic achievement. The man is off his rocker. Fortunately, he tends to have horrible taste in movies anyway, so I really don't pay attention to him beyond his absurd babbling about video games ruining art or some horse manure like that.
RogueJedi86 @ Nov 27th 2007 2:20PM
More like make him play ICO, and maybe "Shadow of the Colossus" too. ICO isn't full of any sort of real violence, it's all about the art of the very realistic world. The game has a fairy tale vibe, with a childish innocence, so I don't think he could hate it. Not to mention it has simple controls, so he could actually play it, not like BioShock or any other shooter.
Elan @ Nov 27th 2007 2:52PM
I love how he judged video games without even playing them. He assumes everything he doesn't like about the movie is from the games, and therefor judges them incapable of becoming art, without realizing that it, GASP, might be the person who wrote/directed it, rather than the video game itself!
And, no, Ebert, it ISN'T a smart move to not consult the creators of a video game before you write the movie. Video games have moved up quite a bit since you played Pitfall on your Atari. A lot of them now have intricate plotlines, and fleshed out characters. Moreso than most movies do, nowadays. Maybe, instead of reviewing the next Fantastic Four movie, you could sit down with a copy of, say, Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, or Zelda and experience a video game that truly IS an artform.
Bryan @ Nov 27th 2007 4:27PM
I still sort of think the Tale of Two Kitties review was sarcastic. At least that's the vibe I got - I could be wrong.
And Hitman is still probably the best game movie I've seen, though this is by no means a wholehearted endorsement.
Pendras @ Nov 27th 2007 5:51PM
Not to be a buzzkill on all this Ebert bashing, but have you guys seen the guy lately? I caught a blip on some Entertainment/Access show, and the guy's using a computer to talk because of that cancer he had...
Anyway, I don't base my movie watching off of what the critics say... and I kinda enjoyed Hitman. Might be because I've never played any of the games.
I will say that Ghost Rider seemed like it came from a video game... kill 4 lieutenants before killing the boss... ugh.
Nicholas Muldoon @ Nov 29th 2007 5:36AM
The gaming press is awful and needs a fuckin leash including Joystiq. It's easy to attack someone who's opinion is as highly regarded as Ebert just because he doesn't appreciate games as art.
The thing is he's in his late 70s and clearly isn't a gamer. You people might not realize it but most of us grew up with games, he did not, so simply saying he should play this and that isn't going to happen.
There are most certainly games out there that can be regarded as art I believe but that margin is so very narrow, as slim as say 3% or 4% of all games released. Games like Bioshock, Mass Effect, Okami, Rez, Shadow of the Colossus. These are games that are art. The thing is that these aren't the most popular while they do finacially quite well.
The entire attitude of the gaming press, many designers, and the gamers is to immediately get defensive but most of them honestly don't understand art. Only very few game designers actually intend to make something of an artistic nature rather than something ultra competitive. You can make a game that's art but it's rare that it's fun, you can make a game that's quite fun but it's rare that it's art, it's a paradox right now that only very few designers have cracked.
The worst of this situation is the image we're portraying to people who don't "get" games because mostly everyone is acting like immature children, worst of which is that idiot Clive Barker. The man is a moron who's spent his life making ultra disturbing monsters and creatures, is there a level of creativity in it's execution, sure? but it has the maturity of a pissy 14 year old who loves death metal, black clothes and hating his parents. Roger Ebert while writing even if uninformed stated an opinion of his with criticisms that are accurate to most games. Clive Barker responded with a personal insult acting like a posterboy for the industry and the gaming press jumped behind him.
You want people who don't get games to see something different, help them, even if they can't get into the artsiest of games try to find something that they can play and have fun with, want them to see it as art, encourage someone in the room to participate as you play through a game like Mass Effect to help make decisions and get them enganged in it. Perhaps have someone like Will Wright or Bioshock's writers/developers actually have a sitdown and discuss some things Ebert would be surprised can be done through games as a medium. What you DON'T do is jump behind some idiot who's gonna make the rest of you look just as stupid.
Roger Ebert makes decisions people might disagree with but he recommends movies based on their genre and audience and has always been a talented writer, fair critic, and honestly a very kind and good natured person. He's the only critic in history to win a Pulitzer prize. He doesn't deserve to be demonized, he deserves to be educated. He has an opinion right now but only because the industry and consumers aren't helping to change the perception of those who aren't gamers. When the industry changes and as more generations and more women get into games and more developers focus on the artistic aspect as the technical and focus on making games that are competitive will see more gamers and a shift in public perception. Is it fine to have competitive games of course, they're the summer blockbusters of gaming, they're fun and can often even be very good but they don't ascend to the level of art.
The industry needs to change before society does.
P.S. If someone actually took the time to read all this I thank you greatly, specially anyone who gives it thought. Thanks