Roger Ebert's "Best / Worst Movies of 2004" list! (1 Viewer)

[John_Lee]

Toyed with making a separate thread on this issue, but has anyone read Ebert's review of "The Phantom of the Opera?"
OMFG!!!
The source material sucks arse, but the director brought the same magic he displayed in Batman Forever [The BEST of the Batman movies!!!!] to render a watchable, if not listenable, movie!!!!


http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/.../41201007/1023

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Wow! I disagree with Ebert's hatred of the ALW stage musical, so I thought I would like this film. But now he says the best thing about it is Joel Schumacher's expertise (uggh!), similar to what he did in "Batman Forever"??? Mesa all confused!?! Mesa thinks I wait for the DVD!?!

 

[John_Lee]

I have to say, I was reluctant to see Schumacher helm the film, but the clip I saw of the 'Masquerade' number was beautiful. I'll probably see this one on the big screen.

But yep.

Money quote]

 

[Ernest Rister]

Ebert did not like any of the Batman movies. Ebert saying Batman Forever was the best of the Batman movies is like you or I saying "New York Minute" is the best of the Mary Kate and Ashley movies.

Read his reviews of Batman, Batman Returns, and Batman Forever and you will see exactly what he's talking about.

 

[John_Lee]

Saying that the music is the drawback to the 'Phantom' and that Batman Forever is the best of the Batman movies are two of the most wrongheaded things I've seen in a review in a while.

 

[AlexCremers]

See here another example why I find it hard to put any value in his film reviews. Also, 'The Elephant Man (1980)' is yet another critically acclaimed movie which was gunned down by America's greatest film critic.
Thanks! I know there are more Ebert blunders out there!

 

[Seth Paxton]

Haven't seen Village yet, but I strongly disagree with Dogville and Girl Next Door.

Heck, in both those cases I can't even see a person that disliked the style or genre of the films not appreciating the craft with each of those films. At the worst Girl Next Door could be faulted as being a Risky Business clone.

As Ernest said "what, no Catwoman?"

 

[Ernest Rister]

"Saying that the music is the drawback to the 'Phantom' and that Batman Forever is the best of the Batman movies are two of the most wrongheaded things I've seen in a review in a while."

a) You'll find plenty of people not enamored of Andrew Lloyd Weber's music. That's not a slight of ALW in the bigger scheme of things, because you'll never find a musical artist or group who is liked by everybody. Musical taste is as personal as an individual's taste in food -- maybe even more so. Ebert doesn't dig the music. I like it just fine, it's JC Superstar abd Cats that I can't stand.

b) If you actually take the time to read Ebert's reviews of the Batman films, you'll see that he doesn't really like any of them. The Burton Batman films, in particular, he felt were simply too bleak, too cold, and mean-spirited. He thought Batman Forever was an improvement because it was a bit lighter in both spirit and look, but overall he wasn't fond of that film, either.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Give it up Ernest, it just keeps getting worse!

 

[Jeff Gatie]

OK, as an example of how I would use Ebert's review -

If I read that he considered the Burton Batman films cold, dark and depressing, I'd be buying my tickets right there (Tim Burton dark, who'd a thunk it?). I subscribe to the Dark Knight version of Batman, as much as I grew up on the TV series, cold and dark is how Batman should be portrayed. To be honest, I did not like any Batmans due to what I consider bad casting, but dark and cold was the highlight for me, not the downfall. Does this make Ebert wrong and me right? Nope, we're both right, we just like different things in a Batman flick. Now if Ebert said the Burton's were light hearted and the Schumacher mess was deep and dark, I'd have a problem (and so would Ebert) with credibility.

 

[Ernest Rister]

"I subscribe to the Dark Knight version of Batman, as much as I grew up on the TV series, cold and dark is how Batman should be portrayed."

As do I, however, in Frank Miller's work, Batman was a sympathetic character. While complicated and conflicted, we were on his side. We don't have much to go on in the Burton films, as they seem to be all about the villains and the sets, with little actual interest in Batman.

 

[Greig Forbes]

Wow. So now this is the Conformists Club? Differing in opinion from the majority is a blunder? If the list of good and bad films is so definitive and set in stone, why do we have any critics at all?

The ultimate destination of this line of thinking is disturbing.

 

[Shawn_KE]

Oceans 12 and The Grudge are the worst movies I saw this year.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Oh, I'm with you here Ernest. Besides casting, the extensive background needed for a true Miller characterization of Batman is totally void in the Burton films. Dark and brooding were the high points of what I consider the failed (on many counts, not just casting) Burton Batman films. They just are not as bad as Schumacher (blech, ptui).

 

[AlexCremers]

Does the gunning down of movies that turn out to be classics afterwards, or putting MTV-ish turkeys like 'The Cell' over the provocative and controversial 'Dogville' make him the "greatest"? What is the value of his review if he keeps altering it? With the influence that Ebert has over hundreds of thousands of film-goers, I think it safe to call it blundering. Why do we have critics? They're here to make sure we stay away from the baloney and guide us the movies that are worthwhile. Just as there are people who say Ebert is the only critic they listen to, I believe it's my right not to choose him as my object of worship.

------------
Alex Cremers

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Absolutely. But I would suggest you not choose any person as your object of worship. That usually ends up with cyanide laced Kool-aid, big FBI fireballs or head shaving and begging at airports. Not pretty by any standard and certainly not a way to judge what movie to see!

 

[AlexCremers]

Hahaha.

What if I told you I have a stuffed Ebert? I think most people would be impressed if they saw me sitting with "it" in the theatre.

------------
Alex Cremers

 

[Steve Christou]

Nobody worships film critics, but from all the cynical jaded seen-it-all film critics out there (inc our own Scott Weinberg) Roger Ebert comes closest to my taste in movies.

Btw Return of the Jedi is Eberts favorite Star Wars film and Temple of Doom his favorite Indy, I told ya, the man has taste.

 

[Matt Stone]

Yah, bad taste

 

[Daniel J.S.]

Still, when Ebert writes in his review of Batman Returns that he always thought it would be "fun to be Batman," he reveals a deep misunderstanding of what Batman is all about. Although the criticisms of the storytelling faults are on target (you have a film called "Batman" and the story is the origin of the villain? WTF?)

His recommendation of "Phantom" is rather bizarre: a musical or opera sinks or swims on the quality of the music. If he doesn't like the music, shouldn't that have a deleterious effect on his view of the film? BTW, I also consider "Phantom"'s music "meretricious rubbish", to use a Wagner-ism, and Lloyd-Webber a pox on music in general. Thus, I have no intention of finding out if I agree with Ebert's review.

I have something of a love-hate view of Ebert: at times I find him quite trenchant. Other times I see his three stars for just about everything style of reviews and think he's been on a long decline into irrelevance. It doesn't help that I sometimes find his reviews (particularly the negative ones) come from a lack of adequate analysis and insight. I did appreciate his "Team America" pan though, so whatever.