Baffling Things Roger Ebert Says In His Reviews

"Crash is a film about progress."

This reminded me of CHUD's review of Polar Express: 

JACK FROST

" To see the snowman is to dislike the snowman. It doesn't look like a snowman, anyway. It looks like a cheap snowman suit. When it moves, it doesn't exactly glide--it walks, but without feet, like it's creeping on its torso. It has anorexic tree limbs for arms, which spin through 360 degrees when it's throwing snowballs. It has a big, wide mouth that moves as if masticating Gummi Bears. And it's this kid's dad." 

I remember he thought the movie Stepfather was too violent.

Damn, he really had it in for that movie didn't he? Though now I can't get "To see the snowman is to dislike the snowman" out of my head. 

I used to like Ebert, but he's been issuing forth some bafflingly small minded opinions as of late, and I have to wonder if he's not just lost his touch, but his mind. This thread just serves to remind me of how his recent reviews have a tendency to engage in impenetrable analogies that put even Thomas "If you're in a hole, stop digging. If you're in three holes, keep digging*" Friedman  to shame

*How can you be in three holes at once? How would continuing to dig help? WTF?

The...Best line, that Ebert had to say is this, "There was once a time when a hero would sacrifice his own life rather than injure innocent bystanders.  No longer.  The heroes of "Bad Boys II" are egotistical monsters, concerned only with their power, their one-liners, their weapons, their cars, their desires.  I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that characters who wipe out a village can also make cruel jokes at the expense of a kid on his first date.  Everybody involved in this project needs to do some community service."  That is not even most ridiculous point in his review.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll 

What kind of small-minded opinions?

I am extremely tired right now so the only specific one I can remember was his KICK ASS review

Here is a choice quote from that review. I would have added it in to my other post but the EDIT function is not working:

Six year olds are going to watch Kick ass? It's R so no children can see it without their parents, and therefore it's even more harmful to children? Huh? Hahaha indeed..

I'm still wondering why he decided to write his Garfield 2 review AS Garfield. I love ya, Roger, but you're a kooky old fart sometimes.

His criticisms of Fight Club, A Clockwork Orange, and Blue Velvet are similar. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by C.S. Lewis Jr. 

His criticisms of Fight Club, A Clockwork Orange, and Blue Velvet are similar. 

Actually, I think he gets his opinions across in those reviews rather well, and I can honestly understand where he's coming from on them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll 

Also...

 

How Do You Know?

 

"The one thing we don't see Reese Witherspoon doing in "How Do You Know" is playing softball. Considering that she portrays a softball player, this seems strange. To be sure, she's dropped from the team roster early in "How Do You Know," so that's a reason. But there's something so deeply Witherspoonish about the idea of Reese stealing second that I am unconsoled."

The thing about Ebert that I've always loved, because it leads to his funnier reviews, is that his mind tends to wander when a movie bores him, thus leading to musings like the above.

As far as the whole "moralizing" thing goes: yeah, I can see it. It doesn't bother me because you have to remember that he grew up in a different era. He was in his 40s when slasher movies came into vogue, for instance, and I really don't have a problem with him denouncing most of them since, well, a lot of them were crap. And I think he did find them morally reprehensible, to be honest.

His love affair with Steven Seagal (at the beginning of his career) produced this bon mot in his review of "Above the Law:"

"[Seagal] can play tender and he can play smart, two notes often missing on the Bronson and Stallone accordions. His aquiline face and slicked-back, slightly receding hairline accentuate the macho exterior. He moves around too much in closeups, but then he moves around a lot anyway, seeming restless on screen, sometimes swaggering instead of walking."

Oh, man, this thrread is sig heaven. "Deeply Witherspoonish" is a serious contender, but I think I'm going to have to go with "To see the snowman is to dislike the snowman."

I remember a review of a movie with Neve Campbell where he referred to her "pert, intelligent breasts". Also, he was bizarrely fond of the nonsensical David Mamet line from Heist: "Everyone wants money. That's why they call it money."

Also, from his Tomb Raider review: "Lara Croft is a major babe with a great set of ears."

I think this thread should be renamed "AWESOME Things Roger Ebert Says In His Reviews". These quotes just remind me how much I love the guy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradito 

His love affair with Steven Seagal (at the beginning of his career) produced this bon mot in his review of "Above the Law:"

 

"[Seagal] can play tender and he can play smart, two notes often missing on the Bronson and Stallone accordions. His aquiline face and slicked-back, slightly receding hairline accentuate the macho exterior. He moves around too much in closeups, but then he moves around a lot anyway, seeming restless on screen, sometimes swaggering instead of walking."

It's interesting that he interpreted Seagal's amateurish mistakes (moving too much in close-ups is the mark of an inexperienced actor) as artistic choices.

I think Ebert was one of the very few critics who supported Seagal in his early years. As a confirmed Seagalogist, I've always been endeared to him for that.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waaaaaaaalt 

I remember he thought the movie Stepfather was too violent.

It's not so much that he thought the movie was too violent. It's that he was disappointed that the movie was a thriller instead of a compelling drama. But that doesn't really make sense to me. Because The Stepfather's entire purpose is to be a very effective thriller. You can't criticize a movie for not being what you want it to be.

Like: I would like The Shining to be a romantic comedy. So I'm pissed that it's a horror movie.

I love Ebert. But I've never liked his review of The Stepfather.

He also complains that Fatal Attraction is a fascinating Oscar-caliber observation of human relationships until it becomes a slasher movie. That I sort of agree with.

.....

And sorry Patrick. But it saddens me that neither you nor Roger Ebert like Clockwork Orange.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erix 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradito 

His love affair with Steven Seagal (at the beginning of his career) produced this bon mot in his review of "Above the Law:"

 

"[Seagal] can play tender and he can play smart, two notes often missing on the Bronson and Stallone accordions. His aquiline face and slicked-back, slightly receding hairline accentuate the macho exterior. He moves around too much in closeups, but then he moves around a lot anyway, seeming restless on screen, sometimes swaggering instead of walking."

It's interesting that he interpreted Seagal's amateurish mistakes (moving too much in close-ups is the mark of an inexperienced actor) as artistic choices.

 

I think Ebert was one of the very few critics who supported Seagal in his early years. As a confirmed Seagalogist, I've always been endeared to him for that.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waaaaaaaalt 

I remember he thought the movie Stepfather was too violent.

It's not so much that he thought the movie was too violent. It's that he was disappointed that the movie was a thriller instead of a compelling drama. But that doesn't really make sense to me. Because The Stepfather's entire purpose is to be a very effective thriller. You can't criticize a movie for not being what you want it to be.

 

Like: I would like The Shining to be a romantic comedy. So I'm pissed that it's a horror movie.

 

I love Ebert. But I've never liked his review of The Stepfather.

 

He also complains that Fatal Attraction is a fascinating Oscar-caliber observation of human relationships until it becomes a slasher movie. That I sort of agree with.

 

.....

 

And sorry Patrick. But it saddens me that neither you nor Roger Ebert like Clockwork Orange.

Perhaps Ebert thought it wasn't as effective as a thriller than it would've been as a drama? As my signature indicates, his first rule is indeed to judge a movie on its on terms, and he has ignored that rule sometimes, but I don't think he does in the Stepfather. You'll note that he praises Terry O'Quinn's performance, but thinks that the "thriller aspects of the film are the least satisfying" and that too much of the film relies on an Idiot Plot.

I've always been disappointed by his review of Hellraiser--another example of Ebert's knee-jerk dislike of horror flicks, despite him claiming in the review that he likes them--where the only substantive criticism he gives is that he doesn't believe Frank could hide in this relatively medium-sized house. The rest reads like he was watching a totally different movie, which is sadly common with his reviews.

I'm not the only one who occasionally feels like Ebert keeps running in and out of the theater thoughout the movie and extrapolates what he missed, am I?

Please don't ask me why I read Ebert's review of James and the Giant Peach years ago. I remembered the hilarious way he wrapped up the review: 

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

 

I'm not the only one who occasionally feels like Ebert keeps running in and out of the theater thoughout the movie and extrapolates what he missed, am I?

Yes, yes you are. And having seen Hellraiser and disliked it as well, I can actually see where he's coming from.

Not only does he dislike the snowman, Ebert apparently dislikes tripods as well. The racist!

WAR OF THE WORLDS

Yeah, I love Ebert, but it's amazing how one little detail can derail his entire opinion of a film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Spider 

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

 

I'm not the only one who occasionally feels like Ebert keeps running in and out of the theater thoughout the movie and extrapolates what he missed, am I?

 

Yes, yes you are. And having seen Hellraiser and disliked it as well, I can actually see where he's coming from.

Nah, Ebert definitely at times gets confused when it comes to the details of a film's plot. A completely random example, but the first to pop into my mind...

From his review of Young Sherlock Holmes:

"The effects were supplied by Industrial Light & Magic, the George Lucas brain trust, and the best one is a computer-animated stained glass window that fights a duel with Holmes.

I liked the effect, but I would have liked it more if, at the end of the movie, Holmes had drawn Watson aside, and, using a few elementary observations on the apparent movement of the stained glass, had deduced the eventual invention of computers."

Um, I don't think that happened in the movie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abbott & Prospero 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Spider 

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

 

I'm not the only one who occasionally feels like Ebert keeps running in and out of the theater thoughout the movie and extrapolates what he missed, am I?

 

Yes, yes you are. And having seen Hellraiser and disliked it as well, I can actually see where he's coming from.

Nah, Ebert definitely at times gets confused when it comes to the details of a film's plot. A completely random example, but the first to pop into my mind...

 

From his review of Young Sherlock Holmes:

 

"The effects were supplied by Industrial Light & Magic, the George Lucas brain trust, and the best one is a computer-animated stained glass window that fights a duel with Holmes.

I liked the effect, but I would have liked it more if, at the end of the movie, Holmes had drawn Watson aside, and, using a few elementary observations on the apparent movement of the stained glass, had deduced the eventual invention of computers."

 

Um, I don't think that happened in the movie.

OK, true, but I don't think that means he walks out the theater willy-nilly.

Well, I hate to speak for someone else, but I don't think Prankster meant that he literally does that. Just that it seems that way sometimes.

He has openly admit ed to walking out on a film and reviewing only half of it. The fact he was willing to publish such an admission says to me that he isn't necessarily the most diligent film goer. How many times has it happened without him talking about it in the review? It wouldn't surprise me to learn that he's fond of extended bathroom breaks

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erix 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradito 

His love affair with Steven Seagal (at the beginning of his career) produced this bon mot in his review of "Above the Law:"

 

"[Seagal] can play tender and he can play smart, two notes often missing on the Bronson and Stallone accordions. His aquiline face and slicked-back, slightly receding hairline accentuate the macho exterior. He moves around too much in closeups, but then he moves around a lot anyway, seeming restless on screen, sometimes swaggering instead of walking."

It's interesting that he interpreted Seagal's amateurish mistakes (moving too much in close-ups is the mark of an inexperienced actor) as artistic choices.

 

I think Ebert was one of the very few critics who supported Seagal in his early years. As a confirmed Seagalogist, I've always been endeared to him for that.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waaaaaaaalt 

I remember he thought the movie Stepfather was too violent.

It's not so much that he thought the movie was too violent. It's that he was disappointed that the movie was a thriller instead of a compelling drama. But that doesn't really make sense to me. Because The Stepfather's entire purpose is to be a very effective thriller. You can't criticize a movie for not being what you want it to be.

 

Like: I would like The Shining to be a romantic comedy. So I'm pissed that it's a horror movie.

 

I love Ebert. But I've never liked his review of The Stepfather.

 

He also complains that Fatal Attraction is a fascinating Oscar-caliber observation of human relationships until it becomes a slasher movie. That I sort of agree with.

 

.....

 

And sorry Patrick. But it saddens me that neither you nor Roger Ebert like Clockwork Orange.

Perhaps ypur talking about the print review. There was a great archive over at atthemovies.com of the original review siskel and ebert did on the show. It was kinf of fun typing in 20 year old movies and seeing them review them with their old hair praising "new" actors that are so well known today. Their review of Stepfather mentioned that but then they both went on a jag about how violent the film was citing the board scene and then the telephone scene. Made me laugh a little considering they had given good reviews to far gorier films over the years including The Devil's Rejects although Siskel wasn't present for that.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess Kate 

He has openly admit ed to walking out on a film and reviewing only half of it. The fact he was willing to publish such an admission says to me that he isn't necessarily the most diligent film goer. How many times has it happened without him talking about it in the review? It wouldn't surprise me to learn that he's fond of extended bathroom breaks

Where did he do that?

Here. And whoa, I gave him too much credit. He walked out and reviewed the first eight minutes!

Now, to be fair, he did apologize and admit it is bad journalism, but to me the fact he did it at all suggests he wouldn't bat an eye at a bathroom break. I've not let myself take a bathroom break during a film since TWO TOWERS, and I don't even review films professionally

I think the fact he openly admitted to walking out on a film and only reviewing it based on 8 minutes means that he would be honest had that ever happened before or after.

It's true that a bathroom break means you might miss a couple of minutes in a film. But not enough to really harm your review.

Yeah, I wasn't specifically accusing him of that (though honestly I wouldn't be surprised), just that he often seems like he wasn't paying attention for long stretches of the film. For a while there he seemed to be getting details wrong, or not understanding some plot point or character beat that was clearly explained, in almost every review. Maybe it's a function of having to take notes during the movie?

Also, quoted for brilliance:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess Kate 

. I've not let myself take a bathroom break during a film since TWO TOWERS,

The fact that he did it at all to me says that he doesn't think missing parts of a movie were a big deal. He was astounded to hear that people thought it was unprofessional, what he did. Would you write about a bathroom break  in a review? Even if it was a lengthy one? I don't think he'd have let us know, necessarily

Just my take

PS I can't edit my posts but figured I should mention: When I missed a scene in TWO TOWERS (the Arwin dream sequence) because of my BR Break, I immediately went back and purached a ticket to the next show and sat through it again to see what I'd missed

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll 

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

Yeah, I wasn't specifically accusing him of that (though honestly I wouldn't be surprised), just that he often seems like he wasn't paying attention for long stretches of the film. For a while there he seemed to be getting details wrong, or not understanding some plot point or character beat that was clearly explained, in almost every review. Maybe it's a function of having to take notes during the movie?

 

Also, quoted for brilliance:

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess Kate 

. I've not let myself take a bathroom break during a film since TWO TOWERS,

Right. He gets story details wrong a lot. I was just arguing against the "extended bathroom breaks" Kate has made up. I misunderstand story details all the time, as well, but I've never gone to the bathroom during a movie unless I already saw it. It's just not his strong suit.

You make it sound like I outright accused him of doing this. Not so. I just hypothesized it might be a possible explanation for some of his questionable reviews, and then laid out my evidence showing that he apparently doesn't consider missing chunks of a film a big deal (though in fairness he's now said he won't review a movie based on it's first few scenes again)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll 

I think Bill Maher could possibly like to vandalize churches in his spare time.

 Is there any other instance of Maher engaging in property destruction as a means of furthering his anti religion agenda? Not sure I see the connection here

And, is anyone familiar with the situation regarding Elvis Mitchell being let go from Ebert's new show? How and why did this happen?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess Kate 

Here. And whoa, I gave him too much credit. He walked out and reviewed the first eight minutes!

 

I believe that means you gave him too LITTLE credit, not too much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan C.B. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess Kate 

Here. And whoa, I gave him too much credit. He walked out and reviewed the first eight minutes!

 

I believe that means you gave him too LITTLE credit, not too much.

No. It means that initially I'd given him too much credit for assuming he'd watched at least half the film. It turns out he only watche eight minutes. It's one of those "I couldn't/could care less" mix ups I think you're engaging in

 Thanks for clearing that up!