Roger Ebert

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Sometimes I go to the "At the Movies" page, type in a film I've seen many many times, and feel a new need to see it again after watching Ebert review it with Siskel, or Roeper or whoever. The guy had a passion for film, and for articulating what all of us can (or should) feel while watching it. He could even go along with some of the more absurd premises if he was entertained.

Now I must confess something: I hate Roger Ebert. At least the new Ebert. I know his health has been a problem, and I admire his perseverance of continuing even with his condition. He can still write something fierce. But he's become as stodgy and as close-minded as his blog photo would seem to suggest. He's lost the spirit. He doesn't seem to enjoy films any more. He forgot that they are supposed to fun.

Worse, there is so much political crap being fed through his reviews now, half baked left wing liberal ideas. If I wanted politics, Roger, I would have not logged into a movie site. He refuses to put his foot in his mouth about his comment about Ron Paul, where he accuses the congressman of making intolerable comments about homosexuals, without backing up such a statement.

But what bugs me is how just doesn't seem to be watching movies for fun anymore. He's like bully, dismissing films just.. because he is who he is.

 

[Amaris]

I am a big fan of the old Siskel & Ebert shows and I, too, have noticed a drastic change in Roger Ebert's more recent reviews. Things he would have never tolerated a handful of years ago he lets slip by without a passing thought, or sometimes even with praise! There are other times where he'll nitpick a scene to death because he doesn't understand the dialogue or "get" the character. He's become a shell of his former self.

J.

 

[Starbreaker]

He's still a million times better than Armond White

 

[Aragorn]

He's still a million times better than Armond White

Armond White knows Roger Ebert is a million times better... which is why he's going to pan Ebert and praise White.

 

[TGTheodore]

There's quite a difference READING a critic than WATCHING a critic.

On camera Ebert can give the intended interpretation he means. On paper the reader has to come up with the "nuances" which would accompany an on screen appearance, and the result can be quite different even while the basic opinion is the same.

Writing to be seen and writing to be read are two different forms.

--Ted

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Ebert's the best working reviewer out there. And readers who think that critics shouldn't comment about politics, morals or anything else in the context of their reviews should stick to My Weekly Reader.

 

[Amaris]

Ebert's the best working reviewer out there. And readers who think that critics shouldn't comment about politics, morals or anything else in the context of their reviews should stick to My Weekly Reader.

That's simply your opinion. While I find Ebert to have an impressive and nearly comprehensive repertoire of movies from which to draw experience, he has certainly become more bitter and despondent, and he has been praising films which he used to pan, and panning films he used to praise. I think his recent struggles changed him, as they would any person. I still highly respect him, but he has changed, and I don't think for the better. All my opinion, but just as valid.

J.

 

[Harvey]

Well, of course his perceptions have changed as he has grown older. It happens to everyone of us, and to expect it not to happen to a film critic is absurd nonsense.

This said, I think the best writing by Ebert in the past few years has not been his regular reviews. They still give me an idea as to whether or not I'll like a film (the occasional outlier such as his four-star Knowing review aside), but the writing, for the most part, is not the joy to read it once was. I much prefer his "great movies" series, which have much more depth and perspective.

 

[Kegg]

He's still got the odd memorable bit of business, like his Mad Money review (which began by quoting an opinion by a poster on RottenTomatoes).

Generally I still find and have always found Ebert a pretty readable writer, and in the end that's what matters. In cases where I may be likely to disagree with his judgement (Knowing, for example)* well, that's where websites like RottenTomatoes come in handy.

Ebert's the best working reviewer out there. And readers who think that critics shouldn't comment about politics, morals or anything else in the context of their reviews should stick to My Weekly Reader.

Quite. Look, our political opinions inevitably shape how we view movies. Ebert's not even pretending to hide that, which is quite honest. If you don't buy into his political opinions then you may find yourself disagreeing with those areas of assesment, which is also fine.

This is just like how he brings up his Catholic upbringing in the context of religious pictures, though it's an oddly broad-minded enough attitude to rave over both The Last Tempation of Christ and The Passion of the Christ.

*Hypothetical. While surprised by his positive reaction to Knowing, the appalling 33% on RT was enough to keep me away.

 

[Mr. B]

I know Ebert has more than his share of detractors but I am quite fond of Mr. Ebert and his reviews. I own a couple of his books and I agree with his opinions more often than not (even though we don't share political persuasions).

As an aside, those who haven't read his Transformers 2 review should check it out.

 

[Middle Earther]

I think that he is still generating great, thoughtful reviews. If anything, I think he's become more generous with his stars over the past few years, but he doesn't really show what he thinks of a movie that way.

I'm especially enjoying his blog, which generates some of the most impressive readers' comments I've seen anywhere.

His take on Armond White, for example.

His most recent entry is about books and reading.

 

[Servo]

I've had pretty much had no time for the guy ever since he wrote a review of Predator when the film was released, and managed to spectacularly miss the point of the film.

 

[Dar70]

I have always taken what Ebert, Siskel, roper etc. have said with a grain of salt. yes Eberts style has changed somewhat. But who cares. There have been several movies I agree with Ebert on and several I havent. Just like with you guys here or friends out in the real world. We will never agree on all the same films and probably will be uneven in our own likes and dislikes.

 

[Level 2 Diagnostic]

I've had pretty much had no time for the guy ever since he wrote a review of Predator when the film was released, and managed to spectacularly miss the point of the film.

I see this a lot, but it's always weird when someone dismisses the entire body of a critic's work based on his/her opinion of a single movie. Ebert writes several reviews a week, so you're essentially judging his entire career based on something he did one day 20 years ago. What if someone judged your entire career on whatever you happened to have gotten done today?

And I looked up his Predator review. It seems to be spot-on. I can't see where he missed the point of the film; heck, I can't find anything the slightest bit controversial about what he wrote.

None of these logical questions are very important to the movie. "Predator" moves at a breakneck pace, it has strong and simple characterizations, it has good location photography and terrific special effects, and it supplies what it claims to supply: an effective action movie.

That sounds like a pretty fair and accurate description of the movie to me.

 

[Servo]

the action moves so quickly that we overlook questions such as why would an alien species go to all the effort to send a creature to earth, just so that it could swing from the trees and skin American soldiers? Or, why would a creature so technologically advanced need to bother with hand-to-hand combat, when it could just zap Arnold with a ray gun?

Why even bother pointing out "questions" like that in the first place, when they're answered in the movie? That goes double if you're claiming they're not important to your enjoyment of the film anyway.

I have little time for movie critics as a whole. I have less time for ones who spend more time picking apart the artistic merit of a sci-fi action movie than they do concentrating on the basic setup of the film.

 

[Kegg]

Why even bother pointing out "questions" like that in the first place, when they're answered in the movie?

They were? Been years since I've seen Predator, what were the answers?

Besides, here's another quote:

"Predator" begins like "Rambo" and ends like "Alien," and in today's Hollywood, that's creativity. Most movies are inspired by only one previous blockbuster.

The movie stars Arnold Schwarzenegger as the leader of a U.S. Army commando team that goes into the South American jungle on a political mission and ends up dueling with a killer from outer space. This is the kind of idea that is produced at the end of a 10-second brainstorming session, but if it's done well, who cares?

This is probably one of the most accurate summations of Predator I've ever read. It's also blithely amusing - critical without being shrill, and honest as to the merits of the cinematic cut'n'paste which Predator is freely based on.

Also he gives the movie three stars. Which is a good grade and a pass.

I have little time for movie critics as a whole. I have less time for ones who spend more time picking apart the artistic merit of a sci-fi action movie than they do concentrating on the basic setup of the film.

The basic setup is, as he observes, really frigging simple. Why not talk about the aristic merit or lack thereof?

Anyway, I read his review of A Serious Man and man he's seriously still got it.

I am so going to hell for that one.

 

[Servo]

Why even bother pointing out "questions" like that in the first place, when they're answered in the movie?

They were? Been years since I've seen Predator, what were the answers?

The Predator was an intergalactic version of a big game hunter. It came to Earth to hunt, and what better prey to hunt than a fully armed squad of well trained soldiers in a jungle setting? Ebert's question was as redundant as asking why a big game hunter bothers to go out on Safari just to hide in the grass and shoot a few lions.
As for why the Predator bothered with hand-to-hand combat; it's simple enough to deduce from the fact that the creature is a hunter - where is the sport in shooting your relatively helpless prey with a super-advanced ray gun when you can fight it to the death and earn your trophy?

 

[sidious618]

The last paragraph of his review of "Couples Retreat" that he posted recently made me laugh.

Marcel hands each couple an animal representing their true inner animal spirits. These figures are carved from a dark wood, which I deduced after seeing the second, third and fourth animals. The first was a rabbit, which looked like nothing else than a chocolate bunny. That would have been strange.

I love Ebert and almost always check out his review before seeing a film.

 

[Level 2 Diagnostic]

The Predator was an intergalactic version of a big game hunter. It came to Earth to hunt, and what better prey to hunt than a fully armed squad of well trained soldiers in a jungle setting? Ebert's question was as redundant as asking why a big game hunter bothers to go out on Safari just to hide in the grass and shoot a few lions.

I watched Predator about a year ago, and I really don't remember that being established in the film. I'll take your word for it, but isn't it possible that this is something that's only obvious to you because you've seen the movie 50 times since it came out? Ebert only sees the movies once before he reviews them, so it's not that really that outrageous that he'll miss little details.

Also, he clearly will get details wrong when he's bored by the movie. I know a lot of people on this forum have harped on how he got the plot of ST: Insurrection completely wrong, but I see that as more the filmmakers' fault for making a boring and confusing movie, not Ebert's fault for not being able to follow it.

 

[23skidoo]

Ideally, no free-thinking individual should ever take a reviewer's opinion as gospel anyway. I can't even attempt to list the movies I've loved that have been panned by critics, and ones I've taken the time to see because of critical praise and came away completely unimpressed (I'm looking at you, Dark Knight).

That said I do have a fondness for Ebert, and his historical work on film is terrific. But he really hasn't been the same since Siskel died. He did OK with Roeper, but I saw the spark start to fade after Siskel died.

Alex

PS. I got a good laugh out of who this thread is indexed. The thread titles have the name of the user who created the thread underneath. As a result I now have the image of "Roger Ebert Flying Spaghetti Monster" in my mind!