Though he was perhaps trying to cloak the movie's solution, Ebert writes in his review that Clinton knows who the killer of Sheila was. I don't see how that's possible, unless Tom told him about Harry's Rent-a-Car in a moment of passion.
shareLOL!!!!
shareLooks like he got lost too and couldn't be bothered to have a second viewing then?
__________
Last movie watched: The Last Of Sheila (7/10)
I know it seems like he has the cushiest job in the world - watching movies on the big screen on opening weekends (or before) for free and reviewing them with impunity - but he has one shot at understanding the movie without benefit of second viewing before he dashes off to write the review. He can do a little bit of background research but I think he only does one viewing.
I've read other reviews of his where he has been wrong about a plot point or key fact.
Billy Wilder Page, Play the Movie Smiley Game
www.screenwritingdialogue.com
Roger Ebert is a fountain of misinformation. My proof on this is in his essay that accompanied The special edition DVD of Doctor Stangelove. In it he mentions a story that happened to jack lemmon on Some Like it hot, He mentions that Lemmon's first take Billy Wilder told him to do less, so after then next take Wilder said give me less, so lemmon gave him even less, this kept going on take after take tiull Lemmon said, "if I give any less I won't be acting at all". To which the sdirector exclaimed, "Thank God" But that didn't happen on Some Like It Hot. By some Like It Hot Lemmon was not only an established film actor with many credits he already won his first Academy Award for supporting Actor in Mr. Roberts. This incident happened on Lemmon's first film, "It Should Happen To You", and the director in question was George Cuckor. I know this as I saw Lemmon in more than one interview tell this story. But to the great Ebert it was Wilder and on Some Like it Hot. I wish that Ebert would do some research.
shareYes, if I had a dime for every time Ebert mistated or misquoted something, I could buy a movie theater myself.
And let's not defend him. Besides being one of the most overrated attention seeking pseudo journalists, the guy's just a plain nasty piece of work.
What goes around comes around.
Got to agree with this. And the hype his reviews get is baffling.
shareEbert is not particularly qualified to do what he does. He had no real background in the arts or film-making before he got the job as "film critic". He gave "Speed 2" a positive review which is all you really need to know about him.
If he was on the take at least his ridiculous reviews could be explained. I think in the end he is just another idiot with an opinion. He also suffers from an inflated opinion of himself which makes it even more amusing.
Bull, Kroyall. Ebert is qualified to be a movie reviewer by his considerable intelligence, humanity, and (most important) his impressive abilities as a writer. He is often off base with his reviews, but so was Pauline Kael, Otis Ferguson, and even Graham Greene. If you think Ebert is an "idiot," maybe you think Glenn Beck is a genius.
shareSorry fella but Roger Ebert is nothing but a Fat, Arrogant, Hard-headed, Pretentious smuck
shareI'd also recommend NOT reading Ebert's review before viewing the film (as I did). He gives away two giant plot points, one of which occurs midway through the film, while the other reveals who solves the mystery, this eliminating that person as a suspect.
shareI think all movie reviewers fall into this trap in reviewing films. They just tell you what happens in the film anyone can do that.
shareSPOILER ALERT:
That's the point - Clinton did NOT know.... there never was a HIT-AND -RUN KILLER card (made by Clinton)...that card was made by the killer.
[deleted]
That wasn't Clinton speaking to Lee, he was already dead. That was her husband Tom imitating Clinton, goading her into snapping. We know that Tom knew, he admits later to Philip that he figured it out when he got the bill from Harry's rent-a-car. Clinton was portrayed as being pretty cruel and manipulative, hence the game, but I am not sure that he knew for sure who killed Sheila.
sharePhilip has a line of dialogue, I'd have to watch the film again to know what it is exactly, but it confirms that Clinton knew nothing about Sheila's killer and that it was all on Tom.
It goes like this.
Philip: "The Last of Sheila should be an A. Hit and Run doesn't begin with an "A", does it, Tom?"
Tom: "A mistake?"
Philip: "Not Clinton's.......I remember something else about the first night. You started to crumple you card....This one is smooth. That was dumb, Tom. What was your original card?"
*Tom doesn't answer*
Philip: "Alright, let me make an educated guess, something to do with Lee...Arsonist? No, that doesn't sound like Lee. Adulterer? No, that's you. A....A....Alcoholic? That's a secret...Like the others...Not too heavy, not too light, after all, Clinton was only a minor-league sadist. His aim was to make us uncomfortable...Not violent. He kept saying over and over it was only a game. You made it more than that. You killed him."
Clinton gave Tom an "Alcoholic" card to represent Lee for the game. Tom switched it, then killed both Clinton and Lee. Clinton never knew Lee killed Sheila.
I love to love my Lisa.
Mr_Blonde3; I must disagree, and here's why; Probable Spoiler!!! It's been a while since I've seen this great movie, but my recollection is that the photo in the "Last Of Sheila" is a clue as well. If I'm not mistaken, Tom is under the "A" in the name Sheila. Thus, the Last of Sheila is the killer!
shareYes, Tom was under the A... everyone was under the card letter that they actually received..not of who they were suppose to be.
I just saw the film.
And in memory of Roger Ebert I'd like to say that he was a wonderful reviewer and had a poignant eye for detail like no other. I will miss him and his take on the latest films.
My biggest gripe with his reviews that it was better to read them after you've seen the film than before. He often gave too much away. But he wrote with a great sensitivity. Not enough like him.
[deleted]
Spoilers below.
What? Tom's first murder in the film's scope was the murder of Clinton. How would Clinton know prior that Tom would kill him or that Tom would be the killer for subsequent murders? The original hit and run was by Lee and there's not much in the movie to suggest Clinton was aware of who did the hit and run. In fact there's enough to suggest the opposite.
The photo is a clue in the sense, it gives the first letter of the cards assigned to each of them respectively. Nothing more.
The photo is the entire game. Clinton tells them they can solve the game without moving if they're smart. If they look at the picture, they'll be able to figure out who's "guilty" of having that card/secret.
**********
http://37.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9pd28IfFT1qm6sfao1_500.gif
[deleted]