Baffling Things Roger Ebert Says In His Reviews - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Strange 

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

Speaking of...(and this is a bit long...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan C.B. 

 Thanks for clearing that up!

No worries

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he apologize and then actually see the whole film in that specific case?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erix 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he apologize and then actually see the whole film in that specific case?

 

Yes I referenced his apology in my post
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syd 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Strange 

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

Speaking of...(and this is a bit long...)

 

 

Quote:

The room. I keep thinking about the room. The office from which Leo pulls the strings that control the city. Leo, played by Albert Finney, is a large, strong man in late middle age, and he lacks confidence in only one area. He is not sure he can count on the love of Verna, the young dame he's fallen for. That causes him to hesitate when he knows that Verna's brother, Bernie, should be rubbed out. He doesn't want to lose Verna. And his hesitation brings the city's whole criminal framework crashing down in blood and violence.

But I think about the room. What a wonderful room. All steeped in dark shadows, with expensive antique oak furniture and leather chairs and brass fittings and vast spaces of flooring between the yellow pools of light. I would like to work in this room. A man could get something done in this room. And yet the room is a key to why "Miller's Crossing" is not quite as successful as it should be -- why it seems like a movie that is constantly aware of itself, instead of a movie that gets on with business.

I do not really think that Leo would have such an office. I believe it is the kind of office that would be created by a good interior designer with contacts in England, and supplied to a rich lawyer. I am not sure a rackets boss in a big American city in 1929 would occupy such a space, even though it does set him off as a sinister presence among the shadows.

 

Well, remember that he still LIKED the movie in that case. He just didn't *love* it like most people do.

Ebert has seen more films and written about more films than any of us on this forum combined.

His reviews aren't always consistent, but to question his credibility or 'diligence' is ridiculous. 

On Marilyn Monroe in SOME LIKE IT HOT:

"Poured into a dress that offers her breasts like jolly treats for needy boys, she seems totally oblivious to sex while at the same time melting men into helpless desire."

For some reason the first part of that sentence still makes me laugh.

He also has the annoying tendency to shove his politics into reviews where they don't belong.  During the debate over the healthcare bill, he nearly lost his mind trying to find ways to shoehorn a comment about it into every review.

This one has always stuck with me as particularly wrong-headed.

"Of course, "Fight Club" itself does not advocate Durden's philosophy. It is a warning against it, I guess; one critic I like says it makes "a telling point about the bestial nature of man and what can happen when the numbing effects of day-to-day drudgery cause people to go a little crazy." I think it's the numbing effects of movies like this that cause people go to a little crazy. Although sophisticates will be able to rationalize the movie as an argument against the behavior it shows, my guess is that audience will like the behavior but not the argument. Certainly they'll buy tickets because they can see Pitt and Norton pounding on each other; a lot more people will leave this movie and get in fights than will leave it discussing Tyler Durden's moral philosophy. The images in movies like this argue for themselves, and it takes a lot of narration (or Narration) to argue against them."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll 

Considering the number of Fight Clubs that sprung up after that film came out, it strikes me as technically correct, but more of that condescending "think of the children" moralizing I was complaining about.

Exactly why I posted it. I forgot to quote you. It would be different if he said 'this will probably lead to idiot copycats' rather than, 'if I give this a good review it'll probably make me compliant when a bunch of idiots try to make their own fight clubs'.

I don't think I've chimed in just to say "fuck this thread" before, but seriously, men.  The dude just got his fake jaw put in.  Don't be shitty.

It's (mostly) being said lovingly, and people can't politely criticize the man's writing because of his medical problems? Lighten up.

I love the big guy, but I love him least when he files a gimmick review, like his Howling review that's basically a Bob and Ray routine, or his Wet Hot American Summer review that takes its form from "Hello Muddah, Hello Faddah."

Also, fuck most of you for being too young to know who Bob and Ray were or what "Hello Muddah, Hello Faddah" was. Or fuck me for being old enough to know.

I think it's sweet how desperately he wanted John Candy to be the hero of Splash.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Blank 

his Wet Hot American Summer review that takes its form from "Hello Muddah, Hello Faddah."

This is simply stunning.  Wow.
 

What's amazing about the WHAS review is that I don't think there's a single substantive piece of criticism in there. And it's hilarious how obviously he thought it was exactly the kind of movie that it was meant to be parodying.

I must say that he warmed the cockles of my heart by referencing JAWS 3D in his review of SANCTUM. So charmed was I, that I was willing to forgive him for mixing up the events of JAWS 3D and THE REVENGE.

This is not so much baffling as unbelievably harsh. This little snippet is from Ebert's Battle: Los Angeles review.

"Young men: If you attend this crap with friends who admire it, tactfully inform them they are idiots. Young women: If your date likes this movie, tell him you've been thinking it over, and you think you should consider spending some time apart."

I think this is the first time I've read a review in which Ebert insults the people who likes a film he hates. Not that he doesn't do that in his interviews, but usually his reviews focus solely on his opinion of and reaction to a film. Also I find it interesting he immediately assumes the only people who might like this film are young men. I feel that bad taste (if the film is really as awful as Ebert says) has no age or gender limits.

I think the worst case of Ebert getting too fixated on a minor detail in a movie is his obsession with Paul Gleason's character in "Die Hard":

This is a character so unimportant, I bet casual fans of the movie wouldn't even remember him if you asked them. I barely remember him, yet Ebert acts as if he singlehandedly ruins the whole movie and justifies taking a whole star off it to make it a "thumbs down". I'm a huge Ebert fan, though. I agree with him more often than anybody I've ever heard of. He has praised just about every movie I love and own (except "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas"), and when he dislikes a movie I like (including that one), I generally think he's being fair and can see where he's coming from. He also seems to be the only person in the world who agrees with me that "The Thing" and "Blade Runner" are overrated.

The only time he ever pissed me off in a review was by being condescending about "X2: X-Men United" (albeit in a positive review) in saying they should get a mutant called "Scribbler" to write them a better screenplay. Appalling. If you watch the special features on the DVD, you'll find out that the writers worked their asses off on the script going through multiple drafts, and as far as I'm concerned, you can see it on the screen. It drags a bit at the end (and fuck the Cyclops/Wolverine crying scene), but otherwise I think it's pretty perfect.

Battle: Los Angeles looks kinda terrible, though. I had a real crushing sense of disappointment the other night. When the trailer started, I thought it was Super 8 and got excited. Then I saw what it was and began groaning. It didn't help that it came after another trailer that brought groans from me - TRANSFORMERS 3. My point being Ebert just might be spot on in his assessment.

As for Gleason in Die Hard... I've never been okay with his review of that film. But he isn't wrong about him being an important character. People walking out of that movie remembered him for two reasons - Trading Places and The Breakfast Club. He was completing his trilogy of ASSHOLE ANTAGONISTS.

Erix, Like you, I bet Roger Ebert, doesn't want to see...Transformers 3, either.  You should look up his...Bad Boys 2 review, it is an...Epic!

This is from his "Predator" review:

" And the action moves so quickly that we overlook questions such as (1) Why would an alien species go to all the effort to send a creature to Earth, just so that it could swing from trees and skin American soldiers? Or, (2) 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?"

Well, why do 1) big game hunters do what they do? I didn't see it as any different, the Predator was effectively a big game hunter and 2) following on from one, I guess because Arnold being the last man standing, The Predator wanted to stretch things out before the end and thought (not unreasonably) that it could take him. Even from the beginning, it was trying to make it a challenge at least. Possibly along the same lines that at least some hunters hunt game with a crossbow or relatively low caliber rifle instead of a bazooka or surface to surface missile.

Obviously, if we really wanted to apply hard science to this film, well aliens wouldn't by far be most likely not even remotely resemble humans in appearance and motivations, so that would render 99%+ of sci fi films depicting aliens in almost any other context in the same boat.

His comment didn't strike me as baffling so much as not adequately considering the film in the context it was set up in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll 

First sentence of his review of The Edge:

 

"`The Edge'' is like a wilderness adventure movie written by David Mamet, which is not surprising, since it was written by Mamet."

Hahahahaha. That's awesome.

That classic outtake reel of him and Siskel never gets old either.

Sometimes I think Ebert reads the synopsis of a film before seeing it, lets the idea germinate, and play out in his head in accordance to how he would make it.  Upon viewing it, if said film doesn't follow along the exact same path as the one in his brain, he gets pissed off.  It's a problem that a lot of fanboys have when it comes to new installments in their favorite franchises.  They build up expectations in their brain as to what they think the movie SHOULD be and then judge it off of that instead of what the movie actually IS.  In a lot of cases, it seems like this is what Roger does to many of the films he sees................particularly films in the more fantastical genres.

A professional film critic should judge a film based on its own merits, not on what they think it should have been and not on what they feel others will think of the movie.  What society might think of the film or how they might react to it should not even factor into the review.  All that should matter are the professional aspects (acting, directing, cinematography, music, etc.), the storytelling components, and how well (or badly) they compliment one another to make a film.

Roger Ebert has had a long and impressive career.  He has also had a lot of hardships hit him in recent years.  All that aside, he stopped being consistently objective about the films he reviews a long time ago..................which kind of defeats the purpose of being a professional film critic.  Nobody is perfect and no one can keep outside influences from affecting their work from time to time.  That said, any type of professional critic should attempt to be as objective as humanly possible every time they review something.  Ebert, it seems, stopped trying years ago.  What Roger really needs is a decent editor to whip him back into shape.  Someone to step up and let him know when one of his reviews is not suitable for print.  Sadly, I think his popularity is still too high for anyone to even attempt to do that.  It is because of this that his reputation is continually getting worse and he isn't being taken very seriously anymore.

See, I DON'T think professional critics need to be completely objective. They're telling you their opinion, aren't they? That's a completely subjective thing. And I suppose Ebert doesn't always hit the mark or judge a film based on what it is rather than what he thinks it should be, or how society will react to the film. That's OK with me. He's human, he's not perfect, none of us are.

Does he make odd recommendations sometimes? Sure. But I've never felt that those came from a dishonest place or feeling. And who the hell is saying Ebert's reputation is growing worse or that people aren't taking him seriously anymore? None of us are doing that. At all.

I was talking about this very phenomenon with folks at work just the other day. A great example is his commentary track on Dark City. He loves the film and makes a good case for it, but there's this moment at the beginning where he explains that the way a knife falls off a table, spiraling in slow-motion before it hits the floor, is an intentional echo of the spiral motif featured in the opening titles. That's a great idea except that it doesn't happen in the film-- and it especially doesn't happen when you're watching that scene on the DVD while he's telling you that it does.

Maybe it's just the circles I run in or a mistaken perception on my part but it seems like his reputation has only gotten better in recent years. I think his personal struggles caused a lot of people to reflect on how great he is, if not completely reassess their opinions of him.

How the hell can art criticism be entirely objective? How the hell can anything involving human beings and art be entirely objective?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe Powers 

How the hell can art criticism be entirely objective? How the hell can anything involving human beings and art be entirely objective?

Exactly! There are certainly objective things that people can agree on in art, but your own response is entirely subjective.

Gah, I hate the "reviewers should be objective" schtick. Makes it sound like film appreciation and criticism can simply be taught like math and biology.

Critics who try to sound "objective" come across as boring and pompous.

As I get older I've actually gained a greater appreciation for Harry Knowles as a critic. Yeah, I said it. Yeah, he can't really write. But the passion is there, you know where he's coming from, and he's just about the polar opposite of "objective." If he could actually put a sentence together he might work magic. But I'm getting to the point where I'd rather read him than some dull workaday reviewer trying to explain why Gnomeo and Juliet has a problematic second act or whatever. Those reviewers don't love movies. They may once have, but too many years of having to cover every piece of shit week in and week out killed the love.* Not Harry.

To swing it back to the topic, Ebert's the rare example of a critic who has worked the beat week in and week out (except for his time of illness, of course) for decades and it doesn't seem to have dampened his enthusiasm for Going To The Movies even a little bit. So despite the occasional weirdness or getting a fact wrong, I'll always sit and give him a read.

* And honestly I can't fault them for that. Film critics, at least the ones expected to cover everything new coming out each weekend, are the only critics who have to review everything. Book critics don't have to review the new James Patterson as well as the new Jonathan Franzen. Music critics don't have to review the new Bieber as well as the new Radiohead. But the workaday film critics, they often have to do Bieber and Bob Dylan within hours of each other, metaphorically speaking, and this leads to disdainful dismissal of "Bieber" (i.e., the film equivalent, say Take Me Home Tonight or something — I'm not talking about the actual Bieber concert film) instead of finding something to appreciate in "Bieber." Of course the new Bieber album is going to suffer in comparison to the new Radiohead; that's why you generally don't see the same music critic covering both.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Naisu Baddi 

 He also seems to be the only person in the world who agrees with me that "The Thing" and "Blade Runner" are overrated.

...Must find way to punch you through internet.

Joking of course.

Seriously. If Ebert can't see the merit of The Thing and also claim that the new years party ending of Strange Days makes no sense, then I just have nothing to say

Quote:

This movie perfectly telegraphed its ending if you pay attention.

One, if the man ever actually pays full attention to any of the movies he watches, he might for once be able to make out the trees from the forest. That said, I am a fan. He's still better than 90 percent of critics on the internet, who are so biased and subjective in opinions and prejudices that their reviews turn into commentaries on their own pathetic characters.

It's worth noting that he still gave Strange Days 4 stars and named it one of the best films of that year, though.

He's one of the few who truly praised that underrated great film. That's what I love the most about him. When he gets it, he really gets it.