CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › The Roger Ebert Discussion Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Roger Ebert Discussion Thread

post #1 of 229
9/14/07 at 10:38am
Thread Starter 
I'm glad Roger Ebert's back. I still think as a writer, he's hands down one of the best film reviewers out there. When he's right, his reviews are a delight to read. I especially admire his review of THE FOUNTAIN, although I don't agree with it. He at least breaks down the film in a logical fashion instead of so many people who ranted about how they thought it was pretentious.

He seems to give 4 stars at the drop of a hat lately, though. I'm wondering if it's because he's just happy to be at work again, and anything that passes along gets that boost. He gave ELAH 4 stars, YUMA 4 stars (that's one's a solid 3 in my book), and stunningly, he gave ACROSS THE UNIVERSE 4 stars. Judging by the trailer alone, I can't imagine that being possible.
Reply
post #2 of 229
9/14/07 at 10:49am
I was actually thinking about starting this exact same thread after checking his reviews today!

I agree with basically everything you said there, and have also noticed his prediliction to give good reviews lately. I wonder if part of it is that he's seeing fewer movies now becuase of his health, and thus only seeing those he's more predisposed to like. That's my theory, anyway.

But, yes, I was shocked at that Across the Universe rating. There's absolutely no way that film could be even mediocre, much less great. I simply refuse to believe it.
Reply
post #3 of 229
9/14/07 at 10:52am
Incidentally, I still haven't forgiven him for giving Crash 4 stars...
Reply
post #4 of 229
9/14/07 at 11:22am
I'm interested in Across the Universe, so I'm glad someone out there is raving about it. Even if it is the guy who gave The Cell 4 stars back in the day.

Ebert's a class act. Did anyone see Ebert & Roeper last week, when they had to do the entire show without the thumbs? Very disconcerting.
Reply
post #5 of 229
9/14/07 at 11:27am
Even when I disagree with the man, his point of view is inevitably worth a read.
Reply
post #6 of 229
9/14/07 at 11:57am
He's not seeing fewer movies, but not only is he happy to be back in the game, he's also a huge Beatles fan.
Reply
post #7 of 229
9/14/07 at 12:06pm
All the more reason to despise ATU. It doesn't do their music any favors.
Reply
post #8 of 229
9/14/07 at 12:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supremo
I'm interested in Across the Universe, so I'm glad someone out there is raving about it.
I feel the same way about Elah since pretty much anything with Tommy Lee Jones will get me to shell out for a ticket. While there's a chance it's not going to be that good, it makes me feel better that someone with such a great repuation loved it.
Reply
post #9 of 229
9/14/07 at 12:13pm
Since he's been back he's only given two films less than two stars, Evening and September Dawn.
Reply
post #10 of 229
9/14/07 at 12:14pm
Thread Starter 
I wish he'd stop with the star rating, myself, and just let his reviews stand for themselves. This whole point system/star rating/thumbs up thing simplifies the whole critical process, and it gives non-discriminating filmgoers an out. Why read words and shit when you have a rating system?
Reply
post #11 of 229
9/14/07 at 12:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackspades22
He's not seeing fewer movies, but not only is he happy to be back in the game, he's also a huge Beatles fan.
I'm a huge Beatles fan, too, which is a primary reason why the movie looks like a pile.
Reply
post #12 of 229
9/14/07 at 12:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan "Nordling" Cerny
I wish he'd stop with the star rating, myself, and just let his reviews stand for themselves. This whole point system/star rating/thumbs up thing simplifies the whole critical process, and it gives non-discriminating filmgoers an out. Why read words and shit when you have a rating system?
I don't think he gives much weight to the star ratings, himself. He's always been generous with four stars, I think he just gives them to every film whose faults he finds easy to overlook. And his FOUNTAIN review was much kinder than the star rating he gave it.

Sometimes his reviews come from out of left field, but considering he has arguably seen more movies than anyone currently alive, his point of view is quite unique.
Reply
post #13 of 229
9/14/07 at 1:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan "Nordling" Cerny
I wish he'd stop with the star rating, myself, and just let his reviews stand for themselves. This whole point system/star rating/thumbs up thing simplifies the whole critical process, and it gives non-discriminating filmgoers an out. Why read words and shit when you have a rating system?
Ebert often talks about his own dissatisfaction with the star system, and I agree both with his criticisms and with his use of them still. They still give a good guide ultimately of how good a movie he's felt he's seen.

I'm very glad he's back. It doesn't particularly bother me that he's giving out four star reviews like candy (except for Haggis' latest movie). It just means I have a lot of movies I want to see and probably won't be able to.

Oh, and what's the deal with not using thumbs on his show now? I didn't totally keep up with the copyright issue of it. That's too bad if it's going to be that way from now on.
Reply
post #14 of 229
9/14/07 at 1:50pm
Ebert generally gets when a movie is intentionally geeky or over the top and judges the movie on that level. Unlike Roeper who's always trying to trying to judge the movie based on his lame sensibilities.

However the man's reviews are wildly off the mark. For instance, how could he give 3 stars to the sloppily directed Transformers. 3 and 1/2 stars to Spawn. And 4 stars to Crash.....but then give 1 and 1/2 stars to The Usual Suspects?
Reply
post #15 of 229
9/14/07 at 1:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Zeed
Ebert generally gets when a movie is intentionally geeky or over the top and judges the movie on that level. Unlike Roeper who's always trying to trying to judge the movie based on his lame sensibilities.

However the man's reviews are wildly off the mark. For instance, how could he give 3 stars to the sloppily directed Transformers. 3 and 1/2 stars to Spawn. And 4 stars to Crash.....but then give 1 and 1/2 stars to The Usual Suspects?
For one thing, The Usual Suspects sucks. It's a depressing little movie whose only point is to have a twist.

Secondly, you may still not agree (and sometimes I don't either), but I respect Ebert for addressing issues like this, such as giving both Tomb Raider movies 3 stars and giving Memento 3 stars. It's not as if he's saying the Tomb Raider movies are just as good as Memento. The movies have different things that they try to do, and Ebert tries to judge movies based on that.

4 stars to Superman, for instance, doesn't make it as good as The Godfather.
Reply
post #16 of 229
9/14/07 at 2:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stunt poop
For one thing, The Usual Suspects sucks. It's a depressing little movie whose only point is to have a twist.

Secondly, you may still not agree (and sometimes I don't either), but I respect Ebert for addressing issues like this, such as giving both Tomb Raider movies 3 stars and giving Memento 3 stars. It's not as if he's saying the Tomb Raider movies are just as good as Memento. The movies have different things that they try to do, and Ebert tries to judge movies based on that.

4 stars to Superman, for instance, doesn't make it as good as The Godfather.
The Usual Suspects does not suck. It contains uniformly excellent performances, dialogue, and camerawork. The whole movie doesn't exist to have a "twist." It doesn't tread water. The twist is also consistent with the theme of the rest of movie "which is the one with the stongest will has the most power." The most powerful way to illustrate that would be for Verbal to be Keyser Soze. It's not just there to be cute.

By the way Memento is far more depressing than Usual Suspects, so I wouldn't go down that route. A movie doesn't have to make you "feel good" to be good.
Reply
post #17 of 229
9/14/07 at 3:09pm
I'm one of the rare film geeks who agrees with Ebert on The Usual Suspects. I don't understand the worship. The twist ending invalidates everything that happened before it. We've just watched a big lie. Since none of it actually happened, there's no reason to care about any of it. I don't see how it can possibly have rewatch value when you know that it ultimately comes to nothing. Just like The Wizard of Oz, frankly.
Reply
post #18 of 229
9/14/07 at 3:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stunt poop
For one thing, The Usual Suspects sucks. It's a depressing little movie whose only point is to have a twist.
For another thing, your review is asinine and simplistic and smells like a kid reading something semi-subversive and making it his own to feel cool.

Usual Suspects isn't a masterpiece by any means, and if you dislike it, more power to you, but to sum it up by calling it a depressing little movie and to say the entire point of the film was to have a twist, is to brand yourself as a contrarian moron without an original thought in your head. On that note, super username. Great addition to the boards.
Reply
post #19 of 229
9/14/07 at 4:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supremo
I'm interested in Across the Universe, so I'm glad someone out there is raving about it. Even if it is the guy who gave The Cell 4 stars back in the day.
I love Ebert, but he tends to give films with a rich visual palate more attention than they sometimes deserve, which might explain both of these 4 Star Reviews. Although I haven't seen Across The Universe yet, I do plan on it, so who knows? But based on the trailer (and Taymor's previous work) it'll have a lot of eye popping visuals. He's one of the few critics who gave 4 stars to Dark City (in fact, it topped his best of the year list). The Cell, however, is junk wrapped up in nice, pretty, music video wrapping paper.
Reply
post #20 of 229
9/14/07 at 4:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David
I'm one of the rare film geeks who agrees with Ebert on The Usual Suspects. I don't understand the worship. The twist ending invalidates everything that happened before it. We've just watched a big lie. Since none of it actually happened, there's no reason to care about any of it. I don't see how it can possibly have rewatch value when you know that it ultimately comes to nothing. Just like The Wizard of Oz, frankly.
I've also cooled on Suspects for the same reason. It's a neat little mousetrap of a movie, but I don't like it today nearly as much as I did when it came out. As far as McQuarrie's scripts go, Way of the Gun has more rewatchability for me.
Reply
post #21 of 229
9/14/07 at 4:46pm
You have to admit that The Usual Suspects is a fantastic first-view, it only seems hollow the second time around. Like most twist-movies, really.
Reply
post #22 of 229
9/14/07 at 6:47pm
Exactly. I loved it while I was watching it the first time, and there are certainly still a lot of things to admire about it. But when that twist came down, I felt really cheated.
Reply
post #23 of 229
9/14/07 at 8:11pm
He gave Woodcock three stars. Are we sure he's okay?
Reply
post #24 of 229
9/14/07 at 8:49pm
I think that, as others have mentioned, Ebert is so happy to be back at the movies on a regular basis that he's far more forgiving than he usually is. I say give the guy a break for a couple of months -- at least until the dreary days of January. If he's not posting reviews like this by then, then we can talk about his mental capacity.
Reply
post #25 of 229
9/14/07 at 9:25pm
His Great Movies list is getting bigger:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/.../70825002/1004
Reply
post #26 of 229
9/14/07 at 9:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stunt poop
Secondly, you may still not agree (and sometimes I don't either), but I respect Ebert for addressing issues like this, such as giving both Tomb Raider movies 3 stars and giving Memento 3 stars. It's not as if he's saying the Tomb Raider movies are just as good as Memento. The movies have different things that they try to do, and Ebert tries to judge movies based on that.

4 stars to Superman, for instance, doesn't make it as good as The Godfather.
I agree, Ebert tends to rate a movie based on it's own genre most of the time. He doesn't try to compare apples and oranges. I think that is how it should be. He is also very accepting of different genres, he seems to like them all.
Reply
post #27 of 229
9/14/07 at 9:59pm
I don't always agree with Ebert on movies (Fight Club is one example) but the guy knows his stuff. I like Ebert best when he tears a movie a new asshole like he did with "North"

Quote:
I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it.
BTW, not only did Ebert give Dark City 4 stars and the top spot of favorite movies that year but he also did the commentary track on the DVD. One of my all time favorite yack tracks of all time (other than Uwe Boll's of course).
Reply
post #28 of 229
9/14/07 at 10:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Detonathor
His Great Movies list is getting bigger:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/.../70825002/1004
Hopefully Children Of Men will be on there soon.
Reply
post #29 of 229
9/14/07 at 11:17pm
I've actually read quite a few decent reviews of Across The Universe, though nothing else that positive. It really sounds like it's not the fiasco some people were expecting (hoping?) it to be.

By the way, The Usual Suspects isn't a big lie. Most of what we see happened. Check out the first scene, where Gabriel Byrne addresses the shadowy guy as "Keyser"--it's with this "Oh, CRAP" look on his face, as he's finally realizing who Keyser Soze is. I've never quite understood why people think that literally everything we see in that movie is a lie--if that was the case, what would the point be? The made-up stuff are the names and the elements of Verbal's backstory that we don't actually see, like the barbershop quartet stuff. The point is that he played the main characters just as he played Chazz, not that he made the whole story up.
Reply
post #30 of 229
9/16/07 at 5:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zollicoffer
He gave Woodcock three stars. Are we sure he's okay?
He's a big Billy Bob fan, and has been since One False Move. Another one of his problems is that he often makes excuses (or, just plain loves) certain performers and will back whatever they do, even if it's junk.

I do love the big lug, though. I think they should fire Roeper and have Ebert partner up with the guy who's been guest hosting the past four or five weeks (can't remember who he is or where he's from, but I like him).
Reply
post #31 of 229
9/16/07 at 5:43pm
I just took a look at his main page. Jesus, he's really loving being able to write about movies again. Pretty much everything is 3 to 4 stars (except The Fountain, unfortunately).

It's hard to begrudge him his enjoying everything. I'm sure it'll fade after some time. I'm happy that he's back and happy.
Reply
post #32 of 229
9/16/07 at 6:10pm
In all fairness, his back catalog reviews included Casino Royale, The Departed, and Ratatouille. I'd be giddy there too. He also shredded September Dawn.
Reply
post #33 of 229
9/16/07 at 6:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker
He's a big Billy Bob fan, and has been since One False Move. Another one of his problems is that he often makes excuses (or, just plain loves) certain performers and will back whatever they do, even if it's junk.
I'm having trouble remembering a single Angelina Jolie film that got a negative review from him. He's kind of insane for her.
Quote:
I think they should fire Roeper and have Ebert partner up with the guy who's been guest hosting the past four or five weeks (can't remember who he is or where he's from, but I like him).
I really like him, too. Oddly, though, I think he and Roeper make a better onscreen team than Ebert & Roeper do. They seem to be having a good time, which really helps.
Reply
post #34 of 229
9/16/07 at 9:38pm
Yeah, he's nuts for Jolie. Extra stars if she gets naked. (You can tell Ebert assigns extra stars for extra skin...holdover mentality from his Russ Meyers days, I'm sure).

Robert Wilonsky is the name of the returning guest host. He's known for hosting a show called Higher Definition on some network called HD Net. Never heard of either, but I think his criticisms are usually much more valid then Roper's, and he's never afraid to give him a hard time. I like him with Roeper too, but that's mostly because he mops the floor with Roeper. And I hate Roeper.
Reply
post #35 of 229
9/17/07 at 2:27am
I've never minded Roeper that much. He has too much of a tendency to completely dismiss a film that gets his ire up, and refuse to see any good in it, but a lot of critics do that. Even Ebert has done it. I think there are far worse decisions Ebert could have made. Anyone who watched the show right after Siskel died saw several of them.
Reply
post #36 of 229
9/17/07 at 10:01am
Siskel and Ebert introduced me to film and showed me that there was more to the medium than whatever trifle happened to be playing in my town's one-screen theater.

I read Ebert religiously, often after I've seen a given film. Reading his work is like hearing the impressions of a trusted friend.
Reply
post #37 of 229
9/17/07 at 10:07am
Thread Starter 
One of the worst, most insidious types of reviews lately is "I hated (blank), and people who like (blank) are idiots/drank the Kool-Aid/don't understand film." It's endemic to the Internet and it's the weakest, most lazy type of review, right up there with using the word "pretentious". Ebert, for the most part, avoids that (though he falls into that trap occasionally, see FIGHT CLUB). That's mostly why he's so refreshing to read. The vitriol out there is exhausting at times.
Reply
post #38 of 229
9/17/07 at 11:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David
I'm having trouble remembering a single Angelina Jolie film that got a negative review from him. He's kind of insane for her.
If the movie is obviously crappy but features Jolie, Drew Barrymore or Neve Campbell, it's getting a free pass from Ebert. You can be sure of that.
Reply
post #39 of 229
9/17/07 at 7:33pm
Ebert Vs. Barker

Barker: "We can debate what art is, we can debate it forever. If the experience moves you in some way or another ... even if it moves your bowels ... I think it is worthy of some serious study."

Ebert: Perhaps if the experience moves your bowels, it is worthy of some serious medical study. Many experiences that move me in some way or another are not art. A year ago I lost the ability (temporarily, I hope) to speak. I was deeply moved by the experience. It was not art.
Reply
post #40 of 229
9/17/07 at 7:40pm
Not the Barker I'd like to see Ebert debate on the subject of games as art.
Reply
post #41 of 229
9/21/07 at 12:56pm
Bob Barker?
Reply
post #42 of 229
9/22/07 at 3:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Bolivar
I've seen more beauty and truth about the human nature in a solid game of Plinko than any fucking film, I'll tell you that.

??? Judging by your avatar, I can only assume you were asleep.
Reply
post #43 of 229
9/24/07 at 12:18am
I like Roger Ebert... but the man dissed The 'Burbs.... I can't have that!
Reply
post #44 of 229
9/24/07 at 3:36pm
Babel is now a Great Movie.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/.../70922001/1004
Reply
post #45 of 229
9/24/07 at 5:37pm
Can "Children of Men" be far behind?
Reply
post #46 of 229
9/24/07 at 5:40pm
Babel? Jesus. He's approaching Crash-territory now.
Reply
post #47 of 229
9/24/07 at 5:48pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamotv
Can "Children of Men" be far behind?
He's stated in one of his letters that it'll probably wind up there.
Reply
post #48 of 229
9/24/07 at 11:20pm
It's pretty inevitable that Crash is going to become one of his Great Movies. He practically fellated it in the year-end discussions.
Reply
post #49 of 229
6/25/08 at 2:11am
Did anyone read Ebert's letter to Werner Herzog upon seeing that Herzog's new doc is dedicated to him?
Reply
post #50 of 229
6/25/08 at 3:31am
Man, I hope Roger returns to Ebert & Roeper before the end of the year - I'm starting to get sick of Roeper & Phillips's antics. They need to bring back Richard Wilonsky - I loved it when he made Roeper look like a fool on numerous occasions.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › The Roger Ebert Discussion Thread