
Roger Ebert is a sick man and we should respect his words. But we’re not. And lately a new wave of young reckless CGI mongers and their hordes of sugar-charged fans are making Ebert’s last years an uphill slog against seemingly insurmountable forces. Between G.I Joe, Transformers II, and cancer, our elder statesman of movie reviews has born a tremendous burden. And Gamer might be the deathblow that finally breaks his back. I haven’t seen any of his comments regarding its release, but I am going to venture a few guesses here.
Ala G.I. Joe, it’s almost guaranteed that Gamer’s producers will not allow screenings before it comes out. The logic behind this approach is simple: film critics have all these bad things like educated opinions and an appreciation for subtletly, plot, and dialogue. As Rob Moore, the vice president of Paramount Pictures put it, “G.I. Joe is a big, fun, summer event movie — one that we’ve seen audiences enjoy everywhere from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland to Phoenix, Arizona. After the chasm we experienced with Transformers 2 between the response of audiences and critics, we chose to forgo opening-day print and broadcast reviews as a strategy to promote G.I. Joe. We want audiences to define this film.”
This is straight out of the McCain/Palin straight talk playbook. Besides the obvious pandering to military families and the disgruntled flag wavers in McCain’s home state, this approach virtually ensures that movie criticism, like any form of non-Fox and Friends criticism, is marginalized, perhaps permanently. Consider how well other important things that were not screened turned out, like the Iraq War.
That Gamer’s premise is idiotic is a truism. What’s more interesting is that it is co-directed by the folks who brought us Crank 2: High Voltage. Their CVs start there. I imagine that before this, Mark Nevildine and Brian Taylor were making battle bots, or maybe driving the RedBull truck. That these two are cashing checks from Lionsgate is even more frightening.
Gamer promises to be a perfect storm. Consider it: Gerard Butler, whose career is permanently tied to his overwrought role as King Leonidas, lives in a world that is kind of sort of exactly like a multiplayer game. Already they’ve preemptively avoided potential critiques of verisimilitude: “It’s just a game, Roger, nougattaboutit!” Secondly, it is guaranteed to attract the best and brightest demographic this country has to offer: the same folks who squeezed their fat asses into Muvicos to drown out their weekend with Jamaican space robots and G.I. Wayans.
Next, by recycling the same “is it virtual or is is real?” trope we were glad to see die with Matrix 3 and Stay Alive, it indefinitely extends a bankrupt genre and paves the way for yearly sequels in the grand tradition of the Saw franchise: Gamer, Gamer II, Gamer XI. And why not? Without fail, every time a new Saw comes out it immediately becomes the top grossing film in the nation and ensures that anything not involving reverse bear traps and immolation is drowned in the slimy liquid viscera of rotting pigs.
By basing its story on an online game, Gamer forgoes the question of whether an extremely profitable, multiplayer online game featuring Gerard Butler as a man trapped in a multiplayer online game, will be released within weeks of its premier, completing the MakemoneyMakemoneyPutItInTheBank trifecta that G.I. Joe and company set up. All the ingredients are there. You’ve got an unforgettable strong man, you’ve got the collective fan base of every Gears of War/Halo shoot-em-up champing at the bit, and more importantly, you have Hollywood’s solemn promise that critics and their big words can suck the computer generated dick of modern American action cinema.










