Has Ebert Lost it? (1 Viewer)

[Seth Paxton]

A little late to the party, but I will back up Matt as a friend.

Honestly, I agree with what Matt is saying and I thought it was one of the most REASONABLE opinions in the whole thread. I was surprised that another person I consider a friend, Jack, was put off by it.


The LEGITIMATE complaints are that Ebert has not been writing as many thoughtful film reviews as of late. I think that I agree with that honestly. And it does seem tied to the death of his friend.


Look, I (and Matt for sure) am not knocking Ebert for WHAT he likes, but if we can rip Harry Knowles for his PRESENTATION and METHOD then certainly Ebert must be subjected to the same constraints.

Pointing out that more than half a film review was about the TECHNOLOGY is the same as disliking a DVD REVIEW that knocks a disc based on the film itself while barely touching on the quality of the disc itself.


Eberts methods of film evaluation have seemed to change recently to me. He has begun to QUALIFY his reviews more - like Tomb Raider is good because it's supposed to be bad, but some other film is bad because it's supposed to be great???

This is not the approach he used to take. It's one thing to appreciate different genres but bad is bad, no matter what the expectations. He still produces good work in other formats (like his commentary tracks and books) but his current film reviewing seems to have suffered to me as well. It's just like your favorite band putting out a bad album, they can still jam in concert but you just don't dig the recent songs and the change bums you out. It happens, all I hope for is that it reverses itself.


On another note, it is one of the most banal arguements to slam critics on the "those that can, do" philosophy. First of all IT'S WRONG. I can DO several things that I prefer to TEACH. IT IS MORE REWARDING. Do you understand that concept?!?! Personally this attitude makes me puke and to go on further would make this post uglier than it already is. I admire John's restraint earlier.

Pauline freaking Kael, okay. Get a freaking clue before you spout off about things you know little of. Perhaps film critics prefer the medium of WRITING themselves, specifically social arts commentary.

Sometimes people don't WANT to be on the inside as it would ruin the art for them. They have different interests in the subject.

"Those that can, do" basically says that every cinematographer really is trying to become a director, and every director wants to be a producer, and every producer wasnts to be an actor...or whatever skill chain you want to put together. The point being that each job in the biz is just the only one you can achieve, rather than saying maybe, just maybe, it's what you REALLY WANT TO DO.

Kael did not CARE for the business and had a limited stay with it because of it. There are plenty of things in Hollywood that are unappealing outside of "can you actually do the job". Like Kubrick not being good at, nor wanting to, have to scrounge up the money for a film. That's where James Harris made Kubrick's career better. Harris had a different interest in the process.

So maybe a grip grips because he/she LIKES THE WORK, a teacher teaches because they like the work, and a critical writer LOVES to do critical writing.

 

[Anthony Thorne]

Interesting thread. Ebert is one of the few online critics I make a point of reading each week. He's a terrific writer, and I probably agree with 80%-90% of his assessments. I've also learned to keep an eye on his occasionally eccentric viewpoints (i.e the one review every few weeks or so that makes me scratch my head a little) and just generally go with the flow.

I was puzzled a little by his reviews for SPAWN and FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, but thought his CLONES commentary was fairly spot-on, pinpointing exactly the same problems I had with the movie. Additionally, there can't be too many critics that continually return to pesky topics to investigate them further, as Ebert did with CLONES after he saw it digitally, and as he does every week or so with his 'Movie Answer Man' column. His SCOOBY DOO review seemed typical of his honesty, and the fact that he made a point of indicating it was alien to his sensibilities seems like a fairly telling review in itself. I've seen the trailer, and after watching most of the cast bail out of their scheduled Oz promotional tour for the movie, I can't say that I'm in much of a hurry to see the whole movie.

I had to laugh at the earlier post suggesting that Ebert was a critic because he couldn't make it in the movie industry himself. Russ Meyer admitted a few years ago (in issue #12 of the British magazine HEADPRESS, interviewed by Anthony Petkovich) that Ebert had actually written every single theatrical film Meyer had directed after their initial BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS collaboration. If I could write a half-dozen films that received successful theatrical releases internationally (and which continued to sell on VHS and LD formats) I think I'd be fairly happy. Perhaps when his daily review workload hits its nadir (as it evidently did when he endured SCOOBY DOO) he subconsciously drifts back to happier days working for old Russ, which is why Meyer gets a pointed reference in the closing paragraphs of his SCOOBY DOO review. Other days, and other films, are probably more satisfying.

Anyway, for what it's worth, I don't think Ebert has 'lost it' at all. I mightn't agree with every sentence he writes, but I probably trust him more than any other critic out there.

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

Before you say Ebert's slipping, I'd be curious to know if you're reading all of his reviews and not those for the big film or films each week. I don't notice any drop-off. Maybe there are some differences in how he's writing, and maybe even in evaluating, but one's perspective changes over time.

I have some experience, although not nearly equivalent to Ebert's, in writing reviews, and there's always the challenge of trying to write in different and interesting ways. This is as valuable for the writer as it is for the reader. Excluding the stuff I have online, I've reviewed over a thousand films in the last five years. Let me tell you, after awhile you feel like you're treading the same ground in phrasing, approach, etc. He tried a different tack for his Scooby Doo review. So be it.

That said, I was pretty surprised to read that review this morning. While I think the sentiment has some validity (as Rich Malloy pointed out), not being able to review it properly because of unfamiliarity with the source material opens up a veritable Pandora's box. If I didn't read Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood, am I suddenly unqualified to review it? If that example doesn't work for you, how about if I've never read or seen another production of The Importance of Being Earnest? Should I then not bother to see Oliver Parker's new film of it? I think you understand where I'm going. We all have limitations in what we know or are familiar with. So he hadn't seen any Scooby Doo stuff, so what. Just review what's on the screen. In this case, what was on the screen he didn't care for and couldn't muster up much enthusiasm to go into great detail. I know the feeling.

As for what Ebert has done for film, he's certainly been a champion of a lot of movies and directors. While he may not have singlehandedly led to their successes, he has used his pulpit to push for them.

Ebert is on the receiving end of a fair share of badmouthing in this thread, and I think it's unwarranted. I've met him briefly on a couple occasions and observed him at his Overlooked Film Festival. At this time there couldn't be a greater, higher profile champion for movies than Ebert. He has a boundless passion for film that he freely shares with the people who want to talk to him about the movies. There have been more famous personalities at his festival, but he's the one people want to talk to (and can talk to) because, IMO, he's just a regular person who feels the enthusiasm for movies that a lot of us do. Late in the night and early into the next day he was the most popular guy in the room at the Steak & Shake when the festival was over for the day.

Ebert has taught some film classes, at the University of Chicago, I think, as well as at the University of Illinois.

Everyone's free to their own opinion, and critics deserve to be called out when they don't back up their opinions sufficiently, but one or two bad or inconsistent reviews out of probably three hundred a year doesn't mean he's lost it.

 

[Michael Reuben]

The LEGITIMATE complaints are that Ebert has not been writing as many thoughtful film reviews as of late. I think that I agree with that honestly. And it does seem tied to the death of his friend.

His own recent bout with cancer may also have something to do with it.

M.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

I agree that in the past few years, Ol' Ebe's lost a step. As some others have already said, he sometimes focuses too much on one aspect of a film. Sometimes this makes him give a film too much credit (the terrorist stuff making him thumbs-up Sum Of All Fears, which he didn't have much else positive to say about), and sometimes too little (the film projection of AOTC).
At any rate, he's still more intelligent and interesting than any other mainstream critic (only now that I've lost all respect for Scott over that white pizza crack! ). I've enjoyed his show for 25 years, and I'll continue to do so. (When Roeper annoys me, I just think about the other clowns he had on during the test period.)
As for Siskel, I always agreed with Ebert more until the last year or two before he passed away. Something in him clicked around that time, and we started seeing eye to eye. (That culminated in his best film of '98 award to Pig In The City!)

 

[Jason_Els]

The reason that Ebert has changed since the death of Gene Siskel is that there are no reviewers who are in the same class as he is. Siskel was to Ebert what Paul Allen was to Bill Gates: the one person who could stand up to him and still be respected by him. In case anyone has noticed there are very few reviewers out there who approach the critical depth that Ebert does. Most are of the People variety looking to pander to the masses and being more worried if they're "right" or not. Throw out a pithy negative review once in a while and your job is done. Ebert loves movies like Pauline Kael loved movies and that is no small love.

For Ebert, everyone after Siskel will be a mere sidekick. And he would be right. There are a few promising critics out there (David Denby of The New Yorker comes to mind), but nobody of his age and experience who also is a competent reviewer.

Also keep in mind Ebert's health has not been good of late and perhaps, as he recovers, he will hit his stride once again. You may not agree with his choices or his rankings but he is one of us; one of the wonderful people out there in the dark.

 

[Rob W]

Roger Ebert is one of the sanest voices writing about film today. He has a marvelous ability to see a film from both a populist & intellectual point of view.

Rich has hit the nail on the head. You must understand that Ebert has been working in film for decades now. He probably sees at least 5 - 10 films a week . Like Ebert, I see almost everything that comes out as part of my job with a major theatre chain. Do you have any idea how depressing it can get to see ( for example ) an assembly - line action film in which the female lead is introduced in the first reel so she can be kidnapped in he last ? There is a tremendous amount of crap being released with no real soul or passion, so how can you expect Roger to rally himself to get excited about these films? Every point Roger made about SCOOBY DOO makes perfect sense, and is a valid review of the film. ( This is one of the few films that I didn't see, so I am only looking at SCOOBY from Roger's point of view, which he communicated clearly. )

And please don't say we have lost our passion for films. We haven't - we can get just as excited about a well-made popcorn movie as anyone. Unfortunately there are more bad ones than good ones. When you see them all, the formulas become all-too apparent.

If these movies float your boat, that's great. But I think it's unfair to imply Mr Ebert has lost it . Perhaps you overlooked his reviews of several other, smaller films ( his full reviews are available on the Chicago Sun Times website. )

I wish we had more like him.

 

[Tom-G]

It seems as if everytime Ebert pans a movie with a large fanbase, accusations fly that Ebert is no longer what he once was or that he is a terrible reviewer.

I don't use a criteria of "does this critic agree with me?" solely as an indicator of how good the critic is. My three favorite critics are Roger Ebert, James Berardinelli and HTF's own Scott Weinberg. I guarantee you that I don't agree with each and every one of them every single time I read a review. It's impossible.

I'm a big Star Wars fanboy, but just because he gave AOTC a negative review doesn't mean that I have lost respect for him. Quite the contrary.

I think sometimes Ebert gets too hung up on the visual aspects of a film

Flms are a visual medium. I see nothing wrong with getting caught up in the visual aspects of any film.

 

[Rich Malloy]

It seems as if everytime Ebert pans a movie with a large fanbase, accusations fly that Ebert is no longer what he once was or that he is a terrible reviewer.

I agree, Tom, but do you think that explains the response to his review of Scooby-Doo? I mean, has anyone in this thread been anticipating this movie at all? Does it have anything resembling a "fan base"?

And, I guess most of all, does anyone think Ebert's wrong that the movie sucks?

If not, I just don't understand the point of this thread.

 

[Tom-G]

Rich,

The originator of this thread is entitled to his opinion, but what I don't agree with is that Ebert has somehow "lost it." Saying that implies that his intelligence has diminished. Roger Ebert is a very intelligent person and a wonderful writer.

If one wants to make the argument that Ebert has never had it, that's a different story. We have likes and dislikes, but Ebert has not changed in any way over the years that he has been critiquing films. Concluding that he has lost it by saying that he gave Film X three stars and Film Y only one star, is not accurate. Films must be judged on their own merits, not on the merits of other films that happen to be similar.

I suppose it all comes down to why one reads reviews as well. I read them after I see a movie to hopefully fill in gaps, or just to give me a different perspective. I don't use film reviews to judge whether or I'm going to plop down $8 for film.

 

[TheLongshot]

Flms are a visual medium. I see nothing wrong with getting caught up in the visual aspects of any film.

But the visual aspects aren't the only thing. There is such a thing as plot and acting as well in film. Calling The Cell one of the best films of 2000 solely on the visual aspects is just wrong. Take away Tarsem's visuals (which seem to be more "well, this looks cool".), and you get the same tired serial killer junk that Hollywood has been giving us since Silence Of The Lambs.

This is why Ebert isn't the only critic I listen to. Every critic has their own preferences of types of movies that they like. There are some movies, despite the merits, they won't like, just because they don't like the genre. That is why sites like Rotten Tomatoes are useful, because they give many reviews across the country, so that you can make an informed decision.

I don't think Ebert has lost it, tho he does write reviews that make me scratch my head sometimes. But that's true of a lot of critics.

Jason

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Now that's a nice compliment! You made my Saturday, Tom! Thanks for the kind words, and I'm thrilled you like my stuff.
Now, back to the Ebert debate!

 

[Tom-G]

Scott,
You are welcome! Keep up the good work.

Quote:

You cannot separate the visuals from that film or any film. That would be analogous to saying "take the great writing out of The Godfather and you get a made-for-TV mafia movie." If the visuals (or acting) propel a film to higher praise, then the film deserves such an honor.

 

[TheLongshot]

You cannot separate the visuals from that film or any film. That would be analogous to saying "take the great writing out of The Godfather and you get a made-for-TV mafia movie." If the visuals (or acting) propel a film to higher praise, then the film deserves such an honor.

But The Godfather isn't all just great writing. It is also great direction, cinematography, and acting. All of this comes together to make a great film.

The problem with The Cell is, I can remove the visual aspect. The information that they discovered doing the "mind probe" could have easily been discovered from some simple detective work. The whole thing was a vehicle for set design, and not what I consider a "great" film. A great film combines all elements together into a whole. Great visuals do not make a great film. (If so, Final Fantasy would have won far more awards.)

Jason
PS - I don't consider Kevin Smith films to be "great" either, tho I do enjoy them.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Boring for you, Jason. Not boring in and of itself. Otherwise, a thoughtful post.
For a thread that got to such a rocky start, this has panned out into a nice discussion about the nature of criticism. Enjoying all the comments here--even the ones I don't agree with (he said, eyeing the previous post ).

 

[Seth Paxton]

And I should come back to say that I think his quality of WRITING seems solid and interesting, thus he remains a good read. But the methodology of reviewing films the last few years seems suspicous.

Unable to review Scooby because it is alien to him but able to review Tomb Raider (and give it 3 stars). Come on.

I just find it unbelievable to think that he found TR far more watchable than Scooby. I simply can't fathom that. And of course the defense of his TR review is always "for that genre/expectation" yet he couldn't dial it down for Scooby this time around??

That seem inconsistent in philosophy to me. That is where I think something has certainly changed.

 

[Seth Paxton]

To back up what I'm saying, would this be any different...

Quote:

Good thing he was not yet "not the person to review" that movie and still felt it was his job to know those things.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

Ebert Really Slobbered all over Minority Report, saying that the digital Effects enhanced the story instead of being the story, and it's true the stuff I saw the CGI does'nt seem to stick out as it did in AOTC's but is this film the AMERICAN CLASSIC and A film that "Renews Eberts faith in Movie Making" that he leads it to be ? I have'nt seen such a Positive review from any movie from him in a long time. It either makes me really want to see Minority Report, or maybe slightly apprehensive.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

With such a positive review of Minority Report from Ebert - one has to wonder how many of those who thought he had lost it will now cry -'He's found it again!'

 

[Jack Briggs]

I was thinking the same thing, Lou.