MovieChat Forums > Hiding Out (1987) Discussion > Ebert Review

Ebert Review

posted 21 years ago by CleverTitania
18 replies | jump to latest

Ok, I was checking out some stuff on Keith Coogan, because he's yet another in the string of interesting teen actors from the 80s/90s who just seemed to dissipate later in life. During this I came across a review by Roger Ebert about this movie. You can check out the review here...
http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/1987/11/262040.html

Now I've probably seen this movie over a dozen times. It's always been one of those movies major cable picks up for a month or two and runs a lot. So I think I'm pretty well up on the film. Can someone please explain to me why Ebert thinks Ryan(Annabeth Gish) is 15 years old?! Am I nuts here or wasn't she also playing a senior, dating a boy running for senior class president (before Cryer's character), and graduated a few months after Cryer's character is revealed and taken back to Manhattan for the trial? That would make her 17/18 right?

Beyond the age issue, there are other noticable flaws in the review. For instance this quote, "Take a second to think of what you would do differently, if you had your high school years to live over again. Cryer does none of those things in "Hiding Out," and the movie blows lots of opportunities for him to have his revenge against the kinds of teachers and students who no doubt made his life miserable the first time around." Well let's see, he totally rips up the history teacher giving the students and insane angle on the Watergate incidents. He also takes on the school's most popular student, who seems to think the world is there for his benefit (didn't we all know one of him), and manages to steal both his girlfriend and the senior class presidency. Did Ebert sleep through these sections? There's also Ebert's inaccurate description of how Cryer's character ends up staying in the High School at night.

This btw, is one of the things that I get furious for when it comes to reviews. In my opinion no one should even review a film until they've seen it at least twice. Or at the very least they shouldn't make comments in their review (such as "jail bait") which speak directly to facts in the movie without at least two viewings and maybe a copy of the script on their desk. Comment on the overall feel of the movie, the cinematography, or the performances, but don't bother to say anything specific about the plot. As Roger Ebert is a well known professional reviewer these mistakes are even more unforgiveable. It's bad enough that many reviewers today seem to see only the negative, but I think it's time we all started writing to these hacks and telling them that their reviews are worthless if they can't at least get their facts straight.

The less a man makes declarative statements the less apt he is to look foolish in retrospect.

[–] audonamission 20 years ago

I feel your pain, Yliandra. I don't like Roger Ebert very much either. He tends to write more about his personal opinions rather than being objective, which is what a reviewer should do. *shrugs* Oh well...nothing I can do about it.

What Would Leatherface Do?

[–] chiefbrody2001 20 years ago

I'm not saying I agree with Roger Ebert about his feelings on the film but I do find your comments surprising regarding the way critics should be 'objective'. If critics were objective there would be no point in them writing in the first place, and of course a reviewer must only express their 'personal opinion' because it's all they've got going for them.

[–] DioCassius 20 years ago

"In my opinion no one should even review a film until they've seen it at least twice."

I agree, and I would like to take that statement one step further. I personally feel that no one should review or criticize a film unless they have successfully made a film of their own.

That would leave the world with a helluva lot less film critics, but wouldn't that be a good thing?

How could you possibly understand why a screenwriter or a director made the decisions that they did without firsthand knowledge of the process? If Tarantino or Scorsese wrote film criticism - I'd read it. I'd enjoy their insights. But some slob who couldn't get past page six of their own personal "masterpiece" screenplay? Why bother? Most critics are failed writers to begin with.

You may argue that what they're doing now is successful writing, but to me, slamming some one else's hard work in print is easy. Actually going out and producing worthwhile cinema or literature is difficult.

I'm sure the reason that people like Scorsese and Tarantino don't take the time to write film criticism is because they're too busy making phenominal movies...

[–] ragreen259 19 years ago

I'm sitting here watching it, and I haven't seen/heard anything that would lead me to believe that she's supposed to be 15--however, her real life age when it was filmed was about fifteen or 16.
On the other hand, 17 is not <<18>>, and he's pushing thirty in the movie. Patrick even says, "Do the words 'statutory rape' mean anything to you?"

They could have very easily made her 18 at least (like many seniors are), then the point would be moot.

[–] pacem23 19 years ago

she does mention that she's going to college early...so i say she either skipped a grade or is graduating early so it's possible she could have been that young.

[–] pedrostl 16 years ago

She did not go to college early. She said that she got "Early Acceptance" from Iowa. That just means she was informed earlier than the standard time frame that she was accepted to the university, not that she entered early. It's a process that most universities used--at least when I was applying in the 80s--that would guarantee acceptance early in the process to students who met a strict set of criteria (grades, class rank, test scores)so they could relax and not stress so long about the application process (watch "How I Got Into College").

[–] scutfarcas 19 years ago

Just watched this movie again on DVD and figured out why Ebert thinks the girl is 15. There are two lines in the film he must have paid attention to make his point. Andrew/Max has the line "I'm almost 30 and I'm in high school." and Patrick's comment to Andrew/Max "Now, you're the average high schooler seducing a girl half his age." So Ebert puts these two quotes together and says eureka she's 15. She's supposed to be 17 like the other seniors, but is 18 at the end of the movie. Not going to spoil the ending. This movie is not designed for Ebert, so I can see why he wouldn't have liked it. For the rest of us that grew up with this gem, lets just enjoy it and forget what that windbag says.

[–] jlittlej 17 years ago

OK, this thread is years dead. I like Roger Ebert, but he consistently gets facts wrong in his reviews. I'm surprised it isn't mentioned more.

[–] danielcboyer 17 years ago

Andrew/Max is just exaggerating when he says she's twice her age; from all indications he's 29 and she's 17.

[–] juliet-farmer-1 17 years ago

i review films (granted, not on the level of ebert), and while i think reviews that are opinionated are fine (after all, otherwise it would just be a plot summary), it do think it's crucial that reviewers get their facts straight.

i adore jon cryer (DUCKIE!!!) and think he's underrated--in fact, i can't stand "two and a half men" because i think his talents are underutilized in it.

that being said, i'm a big 80s film fan, and i just blogged about hiding out @ 80sfilms.today.com.

http://80sfilms.today.com

[–] chicago85 16 years ago

Ababeth Gish made another movie at the same time of "Hiding Out" called "Mystic Pizza" with Julia Roberts and Lili Taylor. In this movie Anabeth Gish plays a high school student who baby sits for a handsome man with two small children. They have an affair until the wife comes back and then she feels rotten because the woman is so nice and the husband has played her.

Roger Ebert didn't have a problem with the age difference in "Mystic Pizza." I guess he must have got up on the wrong side of the bed the day he reviewed "Hiding Out.

[–] BoSoxRule 16 years ago

Well, I think the affair in Mystic Pizza is clearly shown as being "wrong", that's the difference.

I'm happiest...in the saddle.

[–] themightyperm 16 years ago

1987-1965= 22. Thats how old Cryer was when he did the movie, now im 25 and im thinking there is no way i could pass as a high school student. I'm betting he's closer to my age and he's just exaggerating his age as older as people 24-25 do(or do they actually say his age?)

[–] avnrulz 9 years ago

http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/1987/11/262040.html

BOHICA America!

[–] CleverTitania 9 years ago

That link doesn't work - just goes to the Sun Times home page.

[–] avnrulz 9 years ago

Yes, it is probably years old, etc., but I get annoyed when folks will paste a web address without making it a workable link (and yes, as I said, it is years old, IMDB wasn't as user friendly at the time, and so on), so my OCD got the better of me and I had to post it.

BOHICA America!

[–] CleverTitania 9 years ago

Actual OCD would involve getting the new link before you post it - an obsessive compulsive dislikes clutter.

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/hiding-out-1987

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]