Roger Ebert Review
Sgt Spanky
MARS ATTACKS!
** (PG-13)
President James Dale/Art Land: Jack Nicholson
First Lady Marsha Dale: Glenn Close
Barbara Land: Annette Bening
Prof. Donald Kessler: Pierce Brosnan
Grandma: Sylvia Sidney
Byron Williams: Jim Brown
Nathalie Lake: Sarah Jessica Parker
Jason Stone: Michael J. Fox
Gen. Decker: Rod Steiger
Tom Jones: Tom Jones
Directed by Tim Burton. Produced by Burton and Larry Franco. Written by
Jonathan Gems. Based upon the ``Mars Attacks!'' trading cards by Topps.
Running time: about 100 minutes. Rated PG-13 (for sci-fi fantasy violence
and brief sexuality).
By Roger Ebert
First he made ``Ed Wood,'' a tribute to the man fondly recalled as the
worst movie director of all time. Now Tim Burton seems to have made a
tribute to Wood's work. ``Mars Attacks!'' has the look and feel of a
schlocky 1950s science-fiction movie, and if it's not as bad as a Wood
film, that's not a plus: A movie like this should be a lot better, or a
lot worse. ``Mars Attacks!'' plays like one of those '50s movies that are
*not* remembered as cult classics.
The movie opens with an image worthy of Luis Bunuel: A herd of flaming
cattle, running down a country lane.(+) What set them afire? We see the
first of the movie's many flying saucers, designed in perfect imitation of
those fuzzy photos in old UFO books--the ones that looked like either
alien spacecraft or anodized aluminum ceiling light fixtures, take your
pick.
Earth is soon under attack from a vast fleet of martian invaders, and the
President (Jack Nicholson) takes advice from a few of the many big stars
in the film: Martin Short as his staff spin doctor, Rod Steiger as his
nuke-'em military adviser, Pierce Brosnan as a scientific adviser, Glenn
Close as the first lady and Paul Winfield as a Colin Powell look-alike who
runs the Joint Chiefs.
Watching Nicholson deliver his televised fireside chat with the nation
about the impending saucer attack, I wondered, why is this supposed to be
funny? Burton has made a common mistake: He assumes it is funny simply to
*be doing* a parody, when in fact the material has to be funny in its own
right. It isn't funny *that* Jack Nicholson is the president--it's only
funny if the writing makes the role comic. Peter Sellers was funny in
``Dr. Strangelove'' (one of this movie's many inspirations) because the
story was funny. ``Mars Attacks!'' is not so much a comedy as a replica of
tacky old saucer movies--not so much a parody as the real thing.
The action also takes place in Las Vegas, where Nicholson, in an
unsuccessful and unnecessary dual role, plays a casino owner with a boozy
wife (Annette Bening). Also in Vegas, we meet Jim Brown as a former
heavyweight champion, now dressed like a gladiator and employed as a
casino greeter. He has many telephone conversations with his estranged
wife, played by Pam Grier as a character so realistic and plausible that
apparently Burton forgot to tell her she was in a comedy. Also in Vegas:
Danny DeVito, playing a gambler in a role of complete inconsequence. And
Tom Jones, playing himself and thus impossible to parody.
The third locale is a trailer park in rural Kansas, where gun nut Joe Don
Baker presides over a brood including his mother (Sylvia Sidney) and his
son (Lukas Haas). Many of these people are eventually fried by the
martians, whose ray guns look suspiciously like the high-volume water guns
you can buy in upscale toy shops. Their victims look briefly like X-ray
pictures of themselves, which is funny one (1) time, but is used as a
visual gag many (many) times.
The movie was obviously expensive, and Burton lingers too long on the
dollars onscreen. The massing of the martian fleet continues long after
we've gotten the point, for example, and the animated martians would be
funnier if we saw a lot less of them. Later, when mankind discovers a
secret weapon against the martians, it's amusing to see one of the
eggheaded creatures pop his skull and coat the inside of his space helmet
with green slime. But it happens again and again. The martians, supplied
by animation, have laughter possibly inspired by Beavis and Butt-Head.
They're so stupid it's hard to figure out how they achieved space travel,
but that's not the kind of question one is supposed to ask during a movie
like this.
``Mars Attacks!'' was inspired by a series of old Topps bubble gum cards.
The art direction is first-rate in creating the kinds of saucers and
aliens that graced the covers of my precious old issues of Imagination
Science Fiction magazine (which was downscale and ran bug-eyed monsters
that Analog and F&SF would have never touched). But the movie plays more
like a series of pictorial representations of old sci-fi situations than
like a story. And the actors bring little joy to the material. Joe Don
Baker and Pierce Brosnan are the exceptions; many of the other actors
don't seem in on the joke, and Nicholson doesn't look like he's having a
good time.
Ed Wood himself could have told us what's wrong with this movie: The
makers felt superior to the material. To be funny, even schlock has to
believe in itself. Go to a video store and look for ``Infra-Man'' or
``Invasion of the Bee Girls,'' and you will find movies that lack stars
and bigbudgets and fancy special effects, but are funny and fun in a way
that Burton's megaproduction
never really understands.
(+) Special effects: No living animals were barbecued during the
production of this film.
Copyright Chicago Sun-Times Inc.
Lab Rat
sgts...@aol.com (Sgt Spanky) sez:
>MARS ATTACKS!
>** (PG-13)
>By Roger Ebert
>First he made ``Ed Wood,'' ...
[harsh review snipped]
>...that Burton's megaproduction
>never really understands.
Yeah, lemme say it again: "Return to the Valley of the Dolls."
:P
I'M A FIRE STARTER! TWISTED FIRE STARTER!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Should you a rat to madness tease?/Why, ev'n a
rat may plague you!"
-Samuel Taylor Coleridge
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Melody Womack
>
>sgts...@aol.com (Sgt Spanky) sez:
>
>>MARS ATTACKS!
>>** (PG-13)
>
>>By Roger Ebert
>
>>First he made ``Ed Wood,'' ...
>
>[harsh review snipped]
>
>>...that Burton's megaproduction
>>never really understands.
>
>Yeah, lemme say it again: "Return to the Valley of the Dolls."
>
>
I also remember his review of BEETLEJUICE where he complained that it
would have been a much better film if it had focused on the Maitlands
entirely and not included that "annoying" Michael Keaton character.
Considering that Betelgeuse was most people's favorite by far, this
kinda lets you that somehow Ebert doesn't quite get Burton's films.
Lab Rat
mwo...@ix.netcom.com(Melody Womack ) sez:
>I also remember his review of BEETLEJUICE where he complained that it
>would have been a much better film if it had focused on the Maitlands
>entirely and not included that "annoying" Michael Keaton character.
>Considering that Betelgeuse was most people's favorite by far, this
>kinda lets you that somehow Ebert doesn't quite get Burton's films.
Uh yeah, considering that Keaton was BRILLIANT in that part, I'd have
to say that a film called "The Maitlands" wouldn't have been quite as
cool...
Walter Ulrich
> mwo...@ix.netcom.com(Melody Womack ) writes:
[snip]
> I also remember his review of BEETLEJUICE where he complained that it
> would have been a much better film if it had focused on the Maitlands
> entirely and not included that "annoying" Michael Keaton character.
> Considering that Betelgeuse was most people's favorite by far, this
> kinda lets you that somehow Ebert doesn't quite get Burton's films.
>>>>
The Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum team's idee fixe is ranting on how
they'd would have written/directed a given film if they'd been in charge.
Well, that ain't film criticism, that's just the hubris if two frustrated guys
who never have directed a film. Well, who today remembers the names
of the film critics who reviewed D.W.Griffith, Eric von Stroheim, W.C.Fields,
the Marx Brothers....?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Montgomery
There is a quote that I've seen(not word for word), something like that
critics can criticize wonderfully, but they can't create anything
worthwhile.
--
---) "It isn't real!!!"
---) "Then WHY are you STILL BLEEDING?!?!?!"
(The Craft)
Kathryn Boschee
> There is a quote that I've seen(not word for word), something like that
> critics can criticize wonderfully, but they can't create anything
> worthwhile.
I don't know if that's what you mean, but it sure says it! ;>
... nfx v2.8 [C0000] BOO!
--
: Fidonet: Kathryn Boschee 1:203/126 .. speaking for only myself.
: Internet: Kathryn...@coconut.gigo.com
frank...@aol.com
In article <58qkt6$voj$1...@thor.atcon.com>, embe...@auracom.com (Lab Rat)
writes:
>Yeah, lemme say it again: "Return to the Valley of the Dolls."
Exactly. How could the genius who wrote Beyond the Valley of the Dolls
so obviously not understand Mars Attacks!?
Okay, so that's not what you meant, but that's what I wonder. He seems
to have gotten old and bitter and no longer likes imaginative movies.
Check out his one star review of The Frighteners if you don't believe me.
Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
-----------------------------------------
Bucketheadland Visitor Information Center
http://192.211.16.13/individuals/tdorm/BucketheadMain.html
Walter Ulrich
> frank...@aol.com writes:
> In article <58qkt6$voj$1...@thor.atcon.com>, embe...@auracom.com (Lab Rat)
> writes:
> >Yeah, lemme say it again: "Return to the Valley of the Dolls."
> Exactly. How could the genius who wrote Beyond the Valley of the Dolls
> so obviously not understand Mars Attacks!?
> Okay, so that's not what you meant, but that's what I wonder. He seems
> to have gotten old and bitter and no longer likes imaginative movies.
> Check out his one star review of The Frighteners if you don't believe me.
>>>>
Ah, but he gave Beavis and Butthead Do America a thumbs up!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peace Electric
frank...@aol.com wrote:
> Okay, so that's not what you meant, but that's what I wonder.
> He seems to have gotten old and bitter and no longer likes
> imaginative movies. Check out his one star review of The
> Frighteners if you don't believe me.
>
I think the reason Ebert gave 'The Frighteners' and 'Mars Attacks!'
poor reviews has something to do with the films that preceded
them. Before MA!, Burton made 'Ed Wood', which Ebert loved. So I
think that Ebert, through his review, is trying to tell Burton, "more
movies like EW, less like MA!". You see the same thing in his review
of 'The Frighteners'. What preceded that film? 'Heavenly Creatures',
which was, again, a film Ebert loved. I believe a line in the review
for 'Frighteners' read (more or less): "Less special effects. More story."
That line must've been directed right at Peter Jackson. It's like
Ebert sees a film-maker moving in a different direction (usually more
commercial) and uses his power as a critic to say, "Stop!" Ebert hated
'Raising Arizona' and loved 'Blood Simple'. If you look at his reviews
for films like 'The Color of Money' or 'Cape Fear' he says, point blank,
I'd have given this film a better rating if it hadn't been made by
Martin Scorsese. Both those films were commercial and designed to make
money. I figure Ebert liked 'The Frighteners' more than, say, ID4, he just
didn't care what direction Emmerich's career took. With Jackson, it was
a different story (as it was with Burton, Scorsese, the Coens, etc.).
Of course I could be wrong, it's not like I know the guy.
--
peacel
pea...@sk.sympatico.ca
"Cab thing is just part-time."
-Travis Bickle, 'Taxi Driver'
pflam...@aol.com
If anyone is interested,"The Frighteners" is out on video NOW! So go out
and see it.I did'nt realize that Danny Elfman did the score until I heard
about it on his webpage.I saw it at a discount theater & the sound was'nt
too great.The video has the coolest box art I've ever seen! Also,if your
interested in Peter Jacksons other work,"Meet the Feebles" should be
available at your local Tower Video.Also check out "Bad Taste" & "Dead
Alive".
Besides that,please forget about Ebert's review.He's paid to complain.Mars
Attacks is great fun,and I can't wait to see it agian.
Ron L.
"Are they dead?"
"They're not dead...exactly.They're just....Sort of
rotting."
frank...@aol.com
In article <19961223201...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
pflam...@aol.com writes:
>By the way,Ebert DID like "Evil Dead 2",which I found REALLY shocking.He
>gave the damn thing three stars!
Yes, he's one of the mainstream critics who championed Dawn of the Dead
and Evil Dead 2. But his horror record has gone downhill since then, not
only trashing The Frighteners but choosing Hellbound: Hellraiser 2 as one
of the ten worst movies of whatever year it came out.
Lowell Dow
Who listens to a guy that sits on his fat ass and watches movies all
day?
This guy berated ID4 on a show. That's fine. Then after it made soooo
much money, he came on again and re-reviewed the movie and basically
said, "I can't believe you people are going to see this movie! You are
all stupid!" I have hated that guy ever since. O.k. we got that you
didn't like ID4. But I thought that while it was simple and had a
stupid story, it was still FUN to watch. I mean c'mon, you have to
agree that seeing it in the theatre with a hundred screaming people was
fun. So Ebert, shut the hell up and eat your popcorn, and maybe next
season you can take up the whole balcony.
indigo
Lowell Dow wrote:
>
> Who listens to a guy that sits on his fat ass and watches movies all
> day?
> This guy berated ID4 on a show. That's fine. Then after it made soooo
> much money, he came on again and re-reviewed the movie and basically
> said, "I can't believe you people are going to see this movie! You are
> all stupid!" I have hated that guy ever since. O.k. we got that you
> didn't like ID4. But I thought that while it was simple and had a
> stupid story, it was still FUN to watch. I mean c'mon, you have to
> agree that seeing it in the theatre with a hundred screaming people was
> fun.
Personally, I didn't think it was that fun to watch. it was cool to see
the white house blow up but other than that i was bored. the plot was
40 years old, the only actor who was watchable was will smith and him
only because he was funny. in mho i don't think a movie like this
should be as funny as it was made. On top of that most of the jokes in
there were stupid. the last straw that made the movie really horrendous
was the ending. *spoilers*: i mean, come on, a computer virus? so
lame. what's worse is that was an attempt to be hip. it even used the
now popular cliche of area 51, which hurts the credibility of the
roswell incident, which has overwhelming evidence of happening.
imho it is a pretty sad commentary on the intelligence and taste of
americans that the movie was so popular. especially because for a movie
to do that well, it means people are seeing it 2 and 3 times. as for
what ebert did i can't pass judgement on him because i didn't see the
show. it is pretty lame to sink to the level of insulting him because
of his weight. i also doubt he said "u all are stupid." i have agreed
w/ ebert alot and disagreed some too(*coughlynchfilmscough*:-). i
respect his opinion tho and do not form opinions of him and others based
on their phys. appearance.
oh well, i guess "that's all i have to say about that."
c ya
jesse (indigo)
Colleen Reeks
well, I didn't like ID4 that much either, but I still hate Ebert.
He seems to have a good knowledge about movies, but certainly missed the
point of MA! (as did all the critics I read). The thing that got me the
most was that he said it was copying ID4 in many ways, and saying that
the movie was bad just because it had no central character. I've also
read his reviews for other movies on his homepage. some of them shows
that he has some very wrong stereotypes about certain subjects, specially
anime. I know this doesn't really belong in this newsgroup, but still...
He said that anime movies usually have a bunch of naked women, and are
filled with sex (this was the review for "Ghost in the shell"). I don't
know if any of you saw that movie, but it was not filled with sex (ok, so
it had nudity, but his idea of anime is still wrong). All I'm saying is
that he has some pretty weird ideas about certain movies, mostly the cult
stuff (you know, weird frech movies, Kubrick, etc.), and tends to not
like a movie just because it's of a certain genre, without really paying
attention to it.
Paulo Padilha cha cha cha
frank...@aol.com
It's odd, because Roger Ebert has championed offbeat films like Evil
Dead 2 and Dawn of the Dead, and as has been mentioned here many times
(albeit intended negatively), he did write the Russ Meyer classic Beyond
the Valley of the Dolls (among others). He is also a big fan of one of my
favorite movies, Infra-Man, which unfortunately he used in his attack of
MA! (I'm not sure what the connection is).
Still, not everyone is perfect and he's been known to hate a lot of
really imaginative movies. It should be noted that he has given mediocre
reviews to most of Burton's films, including Edward Scissorhands which he
hated mainly because of the death at the end (which he compared to a
conventional action movie ending).
On the other hand, he loved Ed Wood and, I believe, Nightmare. And
although it has little to do with Burton, he loved James and the Giant
Peach.