I've noticed the Roger gives 3 stars to just about every movie he reviews. IIRC he even gave 2 stars to that Ben Lo. bomb "Gigli." He's probably one of the best-known critics out there. Has he become soft in his old age?
I've always felt like he was the biggest "movie fan" among movie critics. So I'm not sure it's anything new for him to like most movies he reviews.
I don't have a lot of respect for Ebert anymore. There are a few reasons. 1. In 1996, he gave Space Jam 3-and-a-half stars. 3.5! That is 1/2 star from being up there with the greatest movies of all time. Whatever your favorite four star movie is... Space Jam is right behind it. After I saw this, about a week later I saw Ebert's exclusive interview with Michael Jordan. I have a pretty good idea how he landed the interview. It sure put his "greatest movies" section into perspective. All of them are just one small step above freakin' SPACE JAM!!! 2. When Spawn came out, Ebert raved over the wonderful and unique view of hell from the movie. When I saw it, I saw really bad computer generated graphics that would have looked right at home in a mediocre computer game. Siskel was unimpressed and looked at Ebert as if ol' Rog were losing his mind. I was looking at him the same way. I just looked at the review to see what it was that I was trying to remember that sent me over the edge with this review. He called them "visions of hell that are worthy of Hieronymous Bosch." I had forgotten about that. Those weren't even visions of hell worthy of Christo! 3. Recently, when he reviewed the new Lara Croft movie, he drooled so heavily over Angelina Jolie that it made me nauseous. I mean, she's ok... not my type... but it seemed like he was rating the movie because he thinks she's hot. Even Richard Roeper called him on that one. I wonder if he landed an exclusive interview. I miss Gene Siskel very much.
Since forever By my estimates Ebert is batting around .275 he gets some right and a lot of wrong. It either hit or miss with some categories, but the one he has a terrible time picking is the the slapstick idiotic comedy catergory, he always strikesout in that department. He just can't cope with bathroom humor. As bad as Ebert is Siskel always seemed the more prudish one. Roeper's picks for the most part seem like they agree with the general public.
Re: Re: Roger Ebert's Grade Inflation Though Ebert certainly likes a lot of crap, I'm not sure I follow you in "missing" Siskel. Siskel never seemed to me to like much of anything. He also never had the background in film tht Ebert does. Ebert's fault is overenthusiasm and overforgiveness. Siskel's was lack of knowledge or interest. Jonathan Rosenbaum has described some odd encounters with Siskel in this regard.
Re: Re: Re: Roger Ebert's Grade Inflation Well, I saw Gene Siskel speak at a university, so I can't really agree that he had a lack of knowledge. I do not really dislike Ebert. I agree that he has a lot of knowledge of the cinema... but I just can't quite trust him. Being from Chicago, I grew up with our local critics. Ebert, Siskel, and Roeper are all Chicago guys... though Roeper has no background in film whatsoever... he's been a jack-of-all-trades around here for a long time. I'm so used to him as other things that I still can't get used to him as a movie critic. That said, we also have Michael Wilmington. He's the main tribune critic now that Siskel is gone. Now this is a guy who doesn't like anything. I do kind of like an online critic named James Berardinelli. He seems to follow Ebert's opinions a lot though... I think they think similarly... but I just can't get over the Space Jam thing. Ebert's review of North is classic though! I am not sure, but I don't think he liked that movie much. I think I am biased toward Siskel because of the lecture I heard though... it was really interesting.
He is definitely a movie fan. But when "Gigli" is being called "the movie that makes Madonna's 'Swept Away' stinker look good" and Ebert gives it 2 stars, he's gone from critic to Hollywood shill. Time to get a chair on "Access Hollywood."
A critic slams some of Ebert's reviews: Movie: The Usual Suspects EBERT'S MOVIE RATING: * 1/2 I nearly shat myself when he said:To the degree that you will want to see this movie, it will be because of the surprise, and so I will say no more, except to say that the "solution," when it comes, solves little - unless there is really little to solve, which is also a possibility. Comments: I find it hard to believe that Ebert gave The Usual Suspects 1 1/2 stars. Suspects is a fun whodunit movie which, for better or for worse, created a ripple effect spawnd a great deal more crime/mystery films full of red herrings and ending in plot-twists. In this movie it works and everybody loves it; it most movies following its just a screewriter having too much fun with the audience. C'mon Ebert, give it your standard 3 stars at least! You gave Chill Factor more stars!! Unforgivable. Movie: Glitter Ebert's Movie Rating: ** I nearly shat myself when he said:We're in the strange position of knowing everything that's going to happen and wishing it would take longer. Comments: I'm in the strange position of saying "be careful what you wish for." Make the bad man stop, he is asking to see more of Glitter ! Possibly the worst movie of the century and here is Roger Ebert saying 'It could have used a few more minutes.' There is a reason that Mariah Carrey can no longer A) Hold a tune B) Sell out stadiums C) Cut a record deal AND D) Find another acting gig. That reason is this horrible movie. Its a self-indulgent, "Look-at-me-I'm-in-a-movie" piece of crap. NO STARS! Movie: Gigli Ebert's Movie Rating: ** 1/2 I nearly shat myself when he said:Affleck and Lopez create lovely characters, even if they're not the ones they're allegedly playing, and the supporting performances and a lot of the dialogue is wonderful. Comments: Here is some wonderful dialogue: J-LoIt's turkey time. B-Fleck:What? J-Lo:Come on, gobble, gobble! Who comes up with this? Even main actor Ben Affleck admits this moive is bad . For some reason Ebert found enough charm and dazzle to give this summer 2003 Ben-nifer Lo-Fleck film better than average rating. 2 1/2 stars usually leads to some sort of "Thumbs Up" on his show. Even weeks later, the Rotten Tomato meter gives this movie an 8% approval rating. Pass!
More than anything, reviews should provide insight, historical context, and general information for a movie. Ebert's very good at offering these. Who cares if he liked the film or not. Somebody should just cut off his thumbs so that we can concentrate on what makes him a good reviewer. And the Usual Suspects IS an overrated, cynical crapfest that is dishonest with its viewers.
Which is why I prefer film reviews in the Onion because there's no numerical rating system (and why I used to like Rolling Stone reviews before they started adding stars). It tells you where the film was strong and where it falls apart. Then, you can decide if you're willing to put up with its shortcomings to get to the payoff. When there are stars attached to a review, it's impossible to take the actual review for what it is. I believe Ebert himself said something along the line of, you shouldn't not see a film because he gives it a thumb down. It's merely a guide for people without the time or the money to watch every film like he can.
I think you're describing "film criticism" there, Gringo, not movie reviewing. Perhaps you are merely wishful thinking, but I think the majority of the public likes to get brief evaluative judgments of films before spending the cashload that they cost nowadays. And 99% of those readers/viewers could care less about insight or historical context before having even seen the film. I'm also not sure Ebert is so great at those things anyway. My experience with his reviews is that he mostly just summarizes the plot, commenting throughout on how much he liked/didn't like various elements. Nonetheless, of the movie reviewer crowd, I'd still take him over twits like Lisa Schwartzbaum or Leonard Maltin.
It may be so rare as to be a meaningless designation, but great movie reviewing should incorporate film criticism. Like Rosenbaum or Sarris or early Kael. The public wants the appearance of evaluative judgements. That's why a studio can pay reviewers for the blurbs they put on their ads, and nobody really cares. True. Although the best reviewers can be read after seeing the film. I didn't mean to imply that he was great at them- just that he's better than most mass media reviewers. As I've made known, Rosenbaum is my favorite reviewer. He had a great quote to the effect of: "I only review movies that I want you to see, whether I hate them or not."
Gringo, I'm with you on liking Rosenbaum and the film criticism crowd, but I also think there's a place for purely evaluative judgments. They are immensly overhyped, and obvioulsy useless when merely paid for by industry marketers, but in general they aren't a bad idea. I use RottenTomatoes pretty frequently to grab a quick glimpse of what the consenus on a given film is. And generally, if 80% of critics at least liked the film, it shouldn't totally suck, and if only 10% liked it, it's probably not worth paying $9 for. What I like Rosenbaum for is exactly how you described: he's worth going back to AFTER you've seen the film as a way of enriching your own experience of the film. That quote makes a lot of sense to me now. I've always wondered about his * ratings. I forget them individually, but just 1 * means "Worth Seeing."
I'll defend Ebert a bit, or at least put him in context. I'm a newspaper reporter and a very,very, very minorly published fiction writer. I realize that I'm writing in two different styles for two different audiences. Mass accessibility is the name of the game in newspapers.The saying in the business is that you're writing for an intelligent 12-year-old. I'm not defending it, but that's the philosophy. Now that doesn't extend to every paper. That's why in major metro areas, you end up with the New York Times for professionals and the New York Post for the working class. Or in the case of Chicago, the Trib and the Sun-Times, the relatively working-class paper for which Ebert works. It's a different audience for which Ebert writes than Wilmington or Rosenbaum. With that in mind, what Ebert in his best reviews does really, really well is come up with ways of communicating complex ideas to a "downstream" audience. I was reading an Ebert review of some arty film the other day, I don't remember what (Requiem for a Dream, maybe?), and he came up with this brilliant idea of comparing the basic theme to his impressions of walking around the shanties of Bombay. HIs impresssions of a neverending hopelessness and despair fit perfectly with the film's basic framework and gave his audience a very simple, bricks-and-mortar example. The target Sun-Times reader probably wouldn't relate to a Rosenbaum-ian reflection complete with references to French films, but he or she can probably imagine stepping off a plane in Bombay and seeing the incredible mass of poor people with no hope. They can carry that idea into a film and get something more out of it than maybe they would have otherwise. That's Ebert's job and often he does it exceptionally well. The writer side of me finds his reviews shallow, but the newspaper reporter in me really marvels at his ability to reduce complexity to simplicity without complete surrender. The fact that I find anything in his reviews that's worthwhile is testament to his good work, even if its not something that's truly meant for me. .
Either one of whom is Dwight Macdonald, Pauline Kael, Jonathan Rosenbaum and Leonardo da Vinci ALL ROLLED INTO ONE compared to Michael Medved. I haven't seen him in a while though, unless that really was him washing the windows of a cab I took in Manhatten last December.
I've always thought Ebert was a lousy critic. He gave 3 stars to way too movies I didn't like. Siskel was much tougher and better critic. Ebert said Monster's Ball was the best movie of 2001 so I watched it and I was like you got to be kidding me !
Ebert's or any other critics numeric rating system is seriously flawed. Would you rate a book, or a painting, or some other work of art by how many stars? His reviews are useful reading. That's why I prefer word of mouth. Ordinary people will tell you whether it was a complete waste of time, mindless entertainment, etc. Could you guys give some links to the film reviewers being mentioned? I'm in the New York city metro area, which is singled out for special attention from the Hollywood hype machine. And I wonder about the strength of the barrier between the business and editorial side of the NY Times film section. Ironically, when I was in Tucson, I was much more aware of smaller releases. As a percentage of the films shown, the U of AZ and the local art house cinema had a larger share.
http://www.chireader.com/movies/rosenbaum.html Here's Rosenbaum's page at the Chicago Reader site. It doesn't give you any reviews, though, just plugs his books. I like him as a reviewer, even though the films he writes about don't get to where I live until much later, if at all. And I don't always agree with him, but after reading him for awhile I know where he and I diverge, and he's consistant enough on that score to be reliable. Here are his last two longer reviews: http://www.chireader.com/movies/archives/2003/0803/030822.html http://www.chireader.com/movies/archives/2003/0803/030905.html My wife and I spent two summers in Tucson, incidently. We can verify what you say about the local offerings. We saw some good stuff in the U of A student Union, as well as stuff in an arthouse and even an art gallery, though my ass was numb for a couple of days after sitting on a folding chair that should've been classified as an instrument of torture.
i don't even know what to say to this... perhaps you could explain your reasoning - cynical? crapfest? dishonest?