Beginning Of The End For Ebert? (1 Viewer)

[Andrew 'Ange Hamm' Hamm]

Wow, Bergan. What an insightful and well-thought-out remark.

 

[bill lopez]

Or better yet imangine if Ebert teamed up with a inner city Hip-Hop guy to review movies. Think of the comedic possibilaties!

 

[Walter Kittel]

Robert - ROTFLMAO
- Walter.

 

[Jim_C]

>>PS LOTR sucked

 

[Jim_K]

I actually respect Ebert's reviews even when I don't agree with them. Roeper on the other hand I have no respect for which is why I don't watch their program anymore. The last straw for me was about a year ago when the idiot gave away the ending to Hannibal.

 

[Tom-G]

Ebert's opinions over the last two years have become incoherent at best and a total sell out at worst.

Care to provide some examples?

 

[Chucky P]

Well at least he has Roeper as his sidekick and not Todd Newton who is Leonard Malton's sidekick on that unwatchable Hot Ticket show. I don't trust any one who dosen't like The Royal Tenenbaums and A Beautiful Mind.

 

[Seth Paxton]

He just felt that the film needed some closure at least

Yeah, cause a film about the Fellowship of the Ring would not get closure by the breaking of said Fellowship. He was probably more confused by all that dialog specifically discussing the breaking of the Fellowship right at the end.
Or maybe he was secretly one of those people who stood up and yelled "What?!? That's it!?! You can't end it on that!?!....oh, there's 2 more...hmm". I saw one of these people so I know they exist.

 

[Bergan Peters]

Wow, Bergan. What an insightful and well-thought-out remark.

I dont need a long and inciteful post to defend Ebert's honor. It's widely accepted that his reviews are pretty on, aside from that fact that even if you disagree with him, he IS well spoken, he is a good writer, and he is a film reviewer for a major newspaper, which gives him more respectability than most.

 

[Robert Crawford]

This is a thread about Ebert and not one to discuss the film virtues of LOTR and Star Wars films. If discussing those films are your desire then do so in the appropriate threads. Also, Bergan you're coming across as somebody that has an axe to grind with members that love and support LOTR, if that's the case then maybe you should temper your way with words, otherwise you'll find yourself involved with unpleasant arguments which eventually will lead to my involvement as a Moderator. Which means if that happens, it is not a good thing!
I don't want any further responses to my post, however I expect reasonable people to heed my warning and let's move forward from here.
Crawdaddy
Edit: Bergan, thanks for editing your post.

 

[Ryan Peter]

I just thought of something, perhaps our very own Internet critic, Scott Weinberg, should co-host instead of Roeper. He could also make inside jokes about the HTF, and give mad, phat shouts-out to his HTF homies.
Scott, are you up for it? How's your and your ?

 

[Graeme Clark]

He needs to get rid of Ernie.. I mean Roeper

Ernie was the round jovial one, Bert was the thin uptight annoying one.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

I'm all for it! I'd be so entertaining that people would smack Roeper daily for ever wasting their time!
Thanks for the vote of confidence!

 

[Peter Kim]

I greatly respect Ebert's critiques. And I don't agree with a vast many of them. However, he is the most insightful and analytical critic out there. Perhaps given he's the most influential and popular, people come down on him for being a sellout even more. I also respect Janet Maslin, Kenneth Turan, and Peter Travers, but since Ebert's got his own tv show, he's an easier target?

I fuzzily recall Ebert being deigned with an award for film critics (not sure if it's an award or some kind of prestigious designation)? Can someone (Scott W.) shed some light on this? I know it's a very substantial and academic recognition of film criticism voted on by peers.

Ultimately, what I enjoy and admire most about Ebert is role as a critic who champions film. AFAIK, he introduced and lauded Miyazaki to the mainstream US. His derision of P&S and education on OAR is well know within this forum. I know of no other critic than attends more obscure film festivals, and organizes and presides over them to boot.

This underlines what is most important and that which drives this man - he loves film. He can, and has, filled tomes with his highly structured analysis. This in an era increasingly burgeoning with "critics" who aim to garner the one line, if not one word, appearance in the Sunday ad.

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

He won the Pulitzer Prize. Only film critic to do so, I think.

 

[Jack Briggs]

That's correct, Mark. He is a fine critic. Also, being human, Mr. Ebert can't be expected to "get it right" all the time. He has made some calls that have raised my eyebrows. But the depth and breadth of his film knowledge command my respect.

 

[Rob Willey]

perhaps our very own Internet critic, Scott Weinberg, should co-host...

I'd tune in this week to see the Chicagoan and the rabid Eagles fan debate. Something tells me they wouldn't stay on films very long....
Rob

 

[Paul Jenkins]

That's correct, Mark. He is a fine critic. Also, being human, Mr. Ebert can't be expected to "get it right" all the time. He has made some calls that have raised my eyebrows. But the depth and breadth of his film knowledge command my respect.

I agree, he (Ebert) is a very fine critic.
And there is no such thing as "getting it right" w.r.t. movie reviews, they are one person's opinion of a film, opinions can not be wrong about a subjective medium like art, as that is what that person though, and you can't tell him/her that his thoughts are wrong. IMHO

 

[Brian Lawrence]

Believe it it or not this weekend was the first time I saw the show since Siskel passed away. I can see where the complaints are coming from. This week was their Worst films of the year show. Although I happened to agree with Roeper on all but one film (He liked 3,000 Miles to Graceland) I found myself getting annoyed with this guy even when I thought his comments where on the mark. He just comes across as having this smug pompous attitude. Plus he seems to have more concern about coming up with "witty" insults about the films rather than actually attempt to discuss them.

I can't really put my finger on it, But something about this guy just seems kind of artificial.

 

[Carlo_M]

I echo Jack's comment. I surely do not always agree with Ebert. But I do respect the man's knowledge of film. All you have to do is listen to his commentary on Dark City to be impressed.