Is Ebert losing it? (1 Viewer)

[JeremyErwin]

I'm thinking of starting up a new thread:

Jean Renoir: The Return to Naturism

 

[Stephen_L]

Like most responding to this thread, I really enjoy Roger Ebert's writing and opinions, even though I'm often strongly at odds with them. I've watched him since his Sneak Previews days on public television with Gene Siskel, and more often than not I agreed with Gene more than Roger. Still the man knows movies and is not afraid to champion eclectic fare like anime, even old schlocky Japanese man-in-monster suit flicks.

I'm amused by the folks that assume because they don't like a film, it can't be a classic. Many classics I love, many don't resonate with me but I can admire their skill and craftmanship. On the other hand, I have many guilty pleasures; low budget, derivative, cheesy, trashy pics that I love hopelessly. (for example, Reign of Fire) However I would never extoll them as 'classics' or pretend they are great cinema just because I like them.

A last point. Ones taste in movies like anything else can be improved by educating yourself on films. Watch eclectic, independent, animated, or foreign films even if they aren't automatically your cup of tea. Some films are not instantly accessible but will reward you if you invest the effort to understand them. Make the effort to explore older films; don't just feed yourself with current fare.

 

[Christ Reynolds]

i agree with ebert more often than not, and i enjoy listening to him. i try not to look at how many stars a film gets, because i don't believe the ratings system is supposed to let us know which movies are "better" than others, it's not an absolute scale. but nothing will convince me that repo man, barton fink, and a clockwork orange are not 4 star films, although ebert disagrees.

i may disagree with the ratings he gives, but i still enjoy what he has to say. he and roeper thought crash was one of the best films of the year, and i thought it was good, but forgettable. nobody is going to agree with your tastes all the time. i just love the way he sums up his review of fargo. i couldn't possibly agree more.

CJ

 

[Dick]

I used to think that also. It is even now not my favorite film (BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI is), but time, maturity and the experience of having seen thousands of movies in my fifty+ years has given me a completely new perspective on films like KANE, and I now find them eminently enjoyable on numerous levels.

Critics (even Ebert) have been known to change their minds as well, and have occasionally published their modified opinions. I think having an open mind is very important, especially to offset the snobishness that's been mentioned.

 

[Dick]

Not if this particular shot-by-shot remake is much better (i.e. better cast, better directed) than PSYCHO's was.

 

[Mark Kalzer]

Also have to understand that Ebert and well, any other critic has a different perspective on film, even from the most die-hard of us film buffs. For them, film reviewing is their line of work. Us die hard film buffs still only watch films when it is convenient to us. Me personally I wish it was far more convenient to work in a 2 hour film every day, but it is not.

To film critics, its a day job. Whether or not they feel like it, they have to go see a movie and write on whether they liked it or not. I'm sure we all have those work days where we don't really feel into it, and having been forced to sit through many long, boring, experimental art films that do absolutly nothing for me in various film classes, I can understand how grating it can be on film critics to not have the freedom to skip past the weak films. I don't even bother with the vast majority of the stuff in theatres, critics do not have that option.

 

[Seth Paxton]

no, I think it's at least once a year over the last 5-6 years. When he's throwing out compliments to stuff like Tomb Raider and Van Helsing its bound to happen. But its how his own reasoning seems to contradict itself that now makes his reviews utterly worthless to me. He's not Newsweek shill just yet, but I can certainly understand why some would wonder.

There is a lot of money to be made off of buying off the top critics. Even a dog can clean up on a big summer weekend before WOM spreads. And then if a ton of apologists allow reviewers to burn them over and over there really isn't a repercussion for such action (if it exists, right now we assume Ebert is just...off).

I really ignore his overall opinion on films, but I do still listen/read his discussion of films in general. In that case it doesn't matter if I agree or not, it just brings up the questions and theories that I also like to think about regarding a film.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Anyone who thinks Ebert is some sort of elitist snob hasn't read many of his reviews. Check out his comments on Scary Movie or something.

 

[Mark Kalzer]

Your opinion is valid Seth, but I think suggesting that Ebert is being payed off to give good reviews is ridiculous.

We just need to accept that there is now quantifiably accurate way of reviewing movies. It isn't some perfect formula, it is human reaction to a moving picture.

I've always interpreted the star ratings as a guage on how well the film accomplishes what it sets out to do. A four star rating doesn't mean Spiderman 2 is better then everything else, it is just a really good superhero movie. As well, Ebert has repeatedly stated his objection to the star rating system in general. Indeed, with only nine actual ratings available, it doesn't provide too much range for us to produce any kind of accurate ranking.

Movie reviews should be taken as what they are, opinions, and little is more subjective then film opinions. This talk about film critics being bought off to write good reviews is nonsense. If anyone is actually swayed by all the 'quotes' TV ads that always play, I have not met that person.

 

[DaveB]

If Ebert is "losing it," does that imply that he once "had it"?

 

[RobertR]

Excellent post, Seth!

I always had the impression that Gene Siskel had the effect of forcing Ebert to think through his reviews and rationally justify them. Siskel was too smart for Ebert to get away with random scale nonsense, as Seth put it.

 

[JeremyErwin]

Ebert explains the stars

 

[Edwin-S]

So he's a paid off shill because his opinion of a movie doesn't match yours? He saw something he liked about "Van Helsing" and "Tomb Raider" and gave them a good rating, so now he is insane or a lousy critic because you vehemently disagree with him? That doesn't make sense to me. If people don't agree with a critic's opinions the solution is to find a critic whose opinions coincide with theirs. I've listened to Ebert's reviews. Sometimes I agree with him and sometimes I don't. If I found that I was disagreeing with him more often than not, then I would stop listening to him and find someone who I did agree with.

I didn't care for "Van Helsing" and I thought "Tomb Raider" was poorly executed, but if Ebert saw something he liked in those films and gave them good ratings then who would I be to say that he has "lost it" or is a "paid shill". All I could legitimately say is that his opinion doesn't coincide with mine for those particular films.

 

[Greig Forbes]

I'd prefer a critic to be honest, rather than consistent, and on that basis Ebert remains my favourite movie critic to read. He'll give you reasons why he liked or disliked a particular film. If you don't agree with the reasons or his conclusion, so what? He's NOT telling you what to think or feel, he's telling you what he thought or felt and then you're on your own. And he'll even say from time to time that there's not much to be said in defence of a particular film and yet he hugely enjoyed it. What could be more honest?

Consistency is wildly overrated. Is there anyone who loves movies who doesn't have a soft spot for a piece of trash or a blind spot about an acknowledged classic? Or has a favourite actor or director while others leave you cold? Why should he be any different? How could he be? He gives you a well-written, well-informed, personal response to the films he sees. He has his quirks, but again I don't see this as a negative. And his reviews are peppered with very interesting insights, which seem to me to be informed by his life experience (including his health problems) rather than diminished by it.

Looking forward to next year's annual "Ebert's lost it" discussion.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

It's impossible to be completely consistent and objective when reviewing movies because no two are exactly the same. It's not like they're made of 0s and 1s - even really similar movies still aren't identical. This means that while it may not make sense some times for a critic to hate "Movie A" and like "Movie B" when the two are very similar, it's not out of the question.

That's the beauty of movies or any art form: they're not made by machines, so they're always open to interpretation in various ways...


This is the same train of thought that DVD critics give good reviews to keep the free DVD gravy train rolling... :rolleyes

 

[RobertR]

So articulate WHAT'S different, instead of saying "I 'felt" differently". If he CAN'T articulate it, then it's NOT "well-written and well-informed" criticism.

 

[Greig Forbes]

I agree that they're not mutually exclusive, and funnily enough I never said they were. It's just that for me, at least in terms of Ebert's reviews, one of them isn't even particularly relevant. If we can find a reviewer who 100% adheres to logical consistency and approaches all films under laboratory conditions, remind me not to read his reviews. (And maybe check him for a pulse.)

As for Ebert failing to clearly articulate his thoughts about the films, I couldn't disagree more. Different strokes, eh?

 

[RobertR]

I didn't say "articulate thoughts", I said "articulate reasons", and do it consistently.

 

[Walter Kittel]

" consistently " He's not a frickin' robot.

- Walter.

 

[RobertR]

He doesn't need to be. Just an intelligent, articulate, rational human being.