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

[Haggai]

Ah, ok, I see what you mean, Jeff.

 

[Brad E]

I've only seen 4 of the 20 films listed. So I don't have any comment on Ebert's list other than to say that it appears he picked the 20 most recognized films and then sorted them good to bad.
So I interpret it as more of a top 20 list rather than a best/worst list.
It's good to see that movies like Torque, and others of it's caliber are not even mentioned. Best forgotten.

 

[Greig Forbes]

There does seem to be a lot of the usual Ebert-bashing in here. Fair enough, he does seem to polarise opinion and here in the UK we don't see his TV show, so he's not on the radar as a personality. But his written reviews are really terrific - for the most part they are insightful, well-argued, intelligent and amusing. Sometimes he seems to get a bee in his bonnet about some film, but don't we all?

I sometimes shake my head in disbelief when he dismisses a film I love or raves about one I hate. But so many people seem to get enraged by someone having a different opinion. Amazing. Disagreeing with a critic is half the fun of reading them.

Unlike some critics, he clearly loves films AND movies. Unlike many critics, he brings a broader knowledge of life to his reviews and that greatly enhances them. In a mainstream medium, this is good, good writing.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

People are always going to disagree with some opinions from any critic, and agree with others. The trick is to find one you largely see eye to eye with, I guess. The "bashing" of Ebert or anyone else is inevitable.

 

[Steve Christou]

The only movie critic I trust.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

I don't recall doing any "bashing" of Mr. Ebert whatsoever. I just wonder at the logic behind placing a pair of 2-star movies at the top of your Bottom 10 List, particularly when you gave over a dozen other movies 1.5, 1 or 0 stars.

 

[David Galindo]

Because he has said many times before NOT to go by the stars, but by the review.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

But why should the rating be different from the actual review?

~Edwin

 

[Geremia P.]

Because some movies just get suckier in the months after they have been viewed/reviewed.

They age like a dead mackerel.

 

[Jose Martinez]

As you may recall, when he originally reviewed Unforgiven, he gave it a thumbs down. However, it still ended up in his Top Ten Best of 1992. He changed his view when he watched it a second time.

 

[AlexCremers]

Which leads to the following question: What did he miss the first time what we didn't?

 

[Jose Martinez]

So basically you're saying you've never changed your view about a movie? Once you hate you'll hate it forever and once you love it you'll love it forever?

 

[AlexCremers]

No, I only meant, "what" was it exactly that made Ebert initially not like this movie? I think Unforgiven doesn't get better with multiple viewing. It's great the first time but it's not the sort of movie that gets better when you watch it a second time, or a third. How can a well respected critic like Ebert "misjudge" so easily?

 

[Jerry R Colvin]

I remember him talking about this flip-flop years later. The first time he saw it, he was nervous about his wedding which was coming up in a few days, and could not concentrate on the film.

By the way, Mr. Ebert is very responsive to e-mails. If you have a question for him, just write.... he will probably write back. (check his web site for address)

 

[David Galindo]

Beats me, but thats the way he works.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Ebert usually explains his flip-flops in detail when they occur. Check his new website. It has an extensive archive of his past reviews, Q&A's and articles. A simple search using "Unforgiven" should turn up an explanation, if that is what you seek.

 

[Ernest Rister]

I think Unforgiven doesn't get better with multiple viewing. It's great the first time but it's not the sort of movie that gets better when you watch it a second time, or a third. How can a well respected critic like Ebert "misjudge" so easily?

Because he's not speaking for you, he's speaking for himself.

Speaking for myself, I think Unforgiven just gets better and better and better the more times I watch it (maybe once a year). The film is like a Greek tragedy, and I don't think it really can be fully appreciated on a single viewing.

 

[AlexCremers]

Well, OK, maybe you couldn't, but the first time I watched 'Unforgiven' I appreciated it to the fullest, Ernest. I don't think I ever saw ten movies that got better with multiple viewing. The "content" of 'Unforgiven' is not really that complicated to understand, nor was its delivery. That America's most famous and beloved critic needed two auditions to recognize the merits of Unforgiven strikes me as odd. Maybe Roger Ebert should watch 'The Fight Club' again, who knows, he might reconsider here also.


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

 

[Jeff Gatie]

I don't think Ernest said he "couldn't" appreciate Unfogiven at first, he only said it got better and better with each viewing, which agrees with what I've observed about the film. In all, I see this critique of not only what Ebert thought about a film, but when he came to the realization of that thought, to be picking nits. I disagree with Ebert as much as I agree with him, but I've never called into question his expertise or standing as a critic. I use my experience of his reviews to decide whether I want to see a flick or not, that's it.

 

[Quentin]

Wow...that's incredibly patronizing. :frowning:

It's also bombastic and naive.

I could go on a rant about how a true cinephile does not watch films multiple times to "get" them or to understand complexity, but watches them to appreciate and draw from them.

I won't. You're entitled to your opinion. However, I would caution against holding it so high over others.

For the record, I'm sure Mr. Ebert HAS re-watched Fight Club. I know his opinion on Blue Velvet went from horrid and offensive to fascinating and powerful within the span of a year or so.

I guess he's not as smart as you either...