Okay, here’s a breakdown of the provided text, summarizing the key points:
Main Idea:
The article discusses the 1985 film adaptation of Stephen King’s novella “Cycle of the Werewolf,” titled “Silver Bullet,” and focuses on the surprising positive review it received from the usually critical Roger Ebert. While Ebert acknowledged the film’s many flaws, he found it hilariously bad and gave it a 3-out-of-4-star rating.
Key Points:
* Ebert’s Review: Ebert described “Silver Bullet” as either the worst adaptation of a Stephen King story or the funniest. He viewed it as an unintentional parody of the horror genre.
* Troubled production: The film experienced problems during production, including the original director, Don Coscarelli, leaving due to the producer ignoring Stephen King’s notes.
* Narrative Issues: The movie is criticized for being incoherent and relying on monster movie clichés.
* Ebert’s Justification: Ebert appreciated the film’s “awesomely tasteless and bubble-brained” quality and felt the laughs were intentional (or at least lovingly placed). He recommended it to those weary of horror and King’s works.
* Cheesy elements: The article points out Silver Bullet’s tone and costuming can be really fun.
In Essence:
The article frames “Silver Bullet” as a “so bad it’s good” movie, highlighting how its flaws inadvertently made it enjoyable for Roger Ebert, a renowned film critic.
What were Roger Ebert’s main criticisms of the special effects and pacing in his “Silver Bullet” review?
Table of Contents
- 1. What were Roger Ebert’s main criticisms of the special effects and pacing in his “Silver Bullet” review?
- 2. Roger Ebert’s “Silver Bullet” Review: A Masterclass in Backhanded Compliments
- 3. The Plot & Initial Reception of Silver Bullet
- 4. Ebert’s Core Complaints: Pacing and Practical Effects
- 5. The “Unintentionally Hilarious” angle
- 6. the Impact of Ebert’s Review on the Film’s Legacy
- 7. stephen King’s Reaction & Subsequent Commentary
- 8. Silver Bullet and the “So Bad It’s Good” Phenomenon
- 9. The Enduring Appeal of flawed Horror
Roger Ebert’s “Silver Bullet” Review: A Masterclass in Backhanded Compliments
Roger Ebert, the famously insightful and often blunt film critic, didn’t pull any punches. and when it came to Stephen king’s Silver Bullet (1985), he didn’t try to. His review, published in the Chicago Sun-Times, is a fascinating case study in how a film can be deemed “bad” yet simultaneously…entertainingly so. It’s a review that’s garnered a cult following of its own, frequently enough quoted and dissected by horror fans.
The Plot & Initial Reception of Silver Bullet
based on Stephen King’s novella “Cycle of the Werewolf,” Silver Bullet tells the story of Marty Coslaw, a young boy confined to a wheelchair who suspects a local man is a werewolf terrorizing their small town. The film, directed by Dan Attias, aimed to capture the classic werewolf horror vibe, leaning into practical effects and a suspenseful atmosphere.
Initial reception was mixed. While some appreciated the film’s commitment to the source material and its genuinely creepy moments, many critics found it slow-paced and lacking in genuine scares. Ebert fell firmly into the latter camp, but his critique went beyond simple dismissal.
Ebert’s Core Complaints: Pacing and Practical Effects
Ebert’s primary issue with Silver Bullet wasn’t the premise itself, but the execution. He argued the film dragged, spending too much time establishing the small-town setting and not enough time building genuine tension.he wrote that the film felt “padded,” with scenes that didn’t contribute meaningfully to the plot.
He also took issue with the werewolf conversion effects. While acknowledging the effort put into the practical effects – a hallmark of 80s horror – he found them unintentionally comical. The transformation sequence, intended to be terrifying, came across as awkward and unconvincing, diminishing the impact of the horror. He specifically noted the werewolf’s appearance as resembling a “dog in a suit.”
The “Unintentionally Hilarious” angle
this is where Ebert’s review truly stands out. He didn’t simply say the effects were bad; he said they were unintentionally hilarious. He described scenes meant to be frightening as eliciting laughter rather of screams. This wasn’t a condemnation of the filmmakers’ effort, but rather an observation that the film’s shortcomings resulted in a uniquely amusing experience.
This observation resonated with many viewers.Silver Bullet has as become something of a “so bad it’s good” cult classic, precisely as of its flawed execution. The awkward effects and slow pacing, initially criticized, are now celebrated as part of the film’s charm.
the Impact of Ebert’s Review on the Film’s Legacy
Ebert’s review, while initially negative, arguably contributed to Silver Bullet’s enduring appeal. It framed the film not as a failed horror attempt, but as a fascinating example of how good intentions can go awry, resulting in something unexpectedly entertaining.
The review’s longevity is also a testament to ebert’s writing style. He wasn’t afraid to be critical,but he always did so with intelligence and wit. His ability to articulate why a film failed, and to find humor even in its failures, made his reviews consistently engaging and thought-provoking.
stephen King’s Reaction & Subsequent Commentary
stephen King himself has acknowledged the film’s flaws, but has also expressed affection for it. He’s noted the challenges of adapting “Cycle of the Werewolf” to the screen, and has praised the film’s atmosphere and performances, despite its shortcomings.
Over the years, many horror fans and critics have revisited Ebert’s review, frequently enough agreeing with his assessment of the film’s unintentional humor. It’s become a touchstone for discussions about cult horror films and the subjective nature of cinematic quality.
Silver Bullet and the “So Bad It’s Good” Phenomenon
Silver Bullet exemplifies the “so bad it’s good” phenomenon. This occurs when a film is objectively flawed – poor acting, weak script, cheesy effects – yet manages to be thoroughly enjoyable due to its earnestness or sheer absurdity.
Other examples include The room (2003) and Troll 2 (1990), films that have gained massive cult followings despite (or as of) their numerous flaws. These films often inspire audience participation screenings, where viewers actively engage with the film’s shortcomings, turning them into a source of entertainment.
The Enduring Appeal of flawed Horror
There’s something undeniably appealing about flawed horror films. They offer a different kind of experience than polished, mainstream horror. They’re often more unpredictable, more creative, and more willing to take risks.
Silver Bullet,as highlighted by Ebert’s review,is a prime example of this. It’s a film that doesn’t take itself too seriously, and that’s ultimately what makes it so endearing to its fans. It’s a reminder that sometimes,the most memorable films are the ones that stumble along the way.
