Ebert: Thumbs Up or Down?

[MusicJunkie]

So what do you think of Roger Ebert movie reviewer?

I found out his reviews some two or three years ago and I loved them. They're knowledgeable without being pretentious and even when I disagree with him totally I usually can get an idea about wether or not I'll like a movie despite Ebert's own likes and dislikes.

He is very famous (or infamous) in this board. I'm not american so I would like to know why.

People around here seem to cite him as an authority in movie matters but they don't seem to respect him. Why?

Some people around here say he's seen better days. When and why?

And in an unrelated note, which other movie critics that are any good can I find in the web? Cervaise has a great informative site but it slowed down a lot in number and frequency of reviews and the ones that are added are usually of obscure movies I haven't/won't/can't see.

I'd appreciate having grammar/spelling mistakes pointed out.

[Fibber McGee]

Most of the people I've encountered on the 'net who are anti-Ebert are generally just being bitchy because he gave one or more of their favorite movies a bad review.

I don't agree with him all the time (nor do I expect to) but, his reviews are always interesting and occasionally highly entertaining. What more can you really ask for from a movie critic?

[Will Repair]

Both thumbs up!

Know I can read his review to learn a little background and not have the movie plot ruined. One of the few movie reviewers who got into the business because he loves and knows movies; not because he started out writing about something else.

[Clint in Wichita]

I agree with most of his reviews, except when it comes to sappy, Oscar-calber chick flicks.

He's the only film critic I pay any attention to at all.

http://www.suntimes.com/index/ebert1.html

[ECJones29]

A lot of people don't respect Ebert because his best-known screenwriting credit is "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls," a name-only sequel to one of the worst movies of all time. BTVOTD is supposedly much better than the original, for what that's worth.

I was a fan of Ebert's reviews for many years. I have some of his books and enjoy his collections of movie "rules." But his sometimes shoddy research makes me doubt other things I can't verify. For example, in reviewing one movie, he'll quote another movie and attribute dialogue to the wrong character, which makes his point moot. He doesn't really have an excuse for that.

[Laughing Lagomorph]

I generally respect his reviews, even if I don't always agree with him. My main criticism is he sometimes reviews the movie he expected to see, rather than the movie he actually saw. I remember his review of Kevin Costner's Robin Hood amounted to "Costner doesn't even LOOK like Errol Flynn!". His reviews of the recent Lord of the Rings movies have been criticized on this board by others: he can't seem to get over the fact that Peter Jackson's vision of the material is different from his own, and he should just review the movies on their own cinematic terms. He keeps going back to "that's really not how I pictured it". Fine, Rog, but how does it work as a movie? (His memories of the books seem to be in error, BTW. He seems to remember them as much calmer and more pastoral than they are).

To his credit, he is not a snob. He is equally enthusiastic about obscure foreign language stuff, and mass market children's fare, as long as it is well done. He can find quality in any type of movie, if it is there to begin with.

MusicJunkie your spelling and grammar are fine, probably above average for these boards. Is English a second language for you?

[Fibber McGee]

Originally posted by ECJones29
A lot of people don't respect Ebert because his best-known screenwriting credit is "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls," a name-only sequel to one of the worst movies of all time. BTVOTD is supposedly much better than the original, for what that's worth.


Since most of the people who criticize Ebert on this point have never written a screenplay and never will, I find it hard to take this as a legitimate criticism. I've encountered a few people on the 'net who say they don't respect Ebert as a reviewer because he wrote BTVOTD and the argument comes across as a poor excuse to explain animosity they have no logical reasons for.

He probably gave their favorite film ever a bad review, but they can't tell people that now can they?

[C K Dexter Haven]

I was running a university film society when Roger Ebert first started to write film reviews. We're talking about 1967ish. The rumor at the time was that he was next up for promotion, so he got the job of writing film reviews, but he really wanted to write sports stuff. Those early years, he was dreadful as a film reviewer. He'd make really, really stupid mistakes -- like, he'd say that a performance reminded him of John Wayne burning Atlanta in GONE WITH THE WIND. It was clear that he hadn't seen many old classic movies but was pretending he had. He was arrogant and snobbish, and had no right to be (that is, no film education or background or taste.)

In those days, I could rely upon him almost 100% -- if he liked something, it was sure to be heavy-handed and artsy-fartsy, and I knew that I wouldn't like it. Alas, he's no longer predictable. On the plus side, he's probably learned a little about movies in the last 35 years.

But my distaste for his reviews sprang from that long-ago period, and I've never bothered to read his stuff since then.

[N9IWP]

I often agree with Ebert. Sometimes his reviews are fun to read even if I disagee. You can tell that he has read SF (even he doesn't remeber too well). He also apreciates anime, which is a good sign.

I find his anti-digital stance odd. (tho he did admit that digitally filmed movies are best when digitally projected)

Brian

[MusicJunkie]

MusicJunkie your spelling and grammar are fine, probably above average for these boards. Is English a second language for you?

Yeah, but I started learning it some 8 years ago and as I have a huge interest in SF and that's not very easy to find in Brazil I read a lot in English. That and I've recently lived in Boston for an year.

Still it's always good to learn more. I'm thinking of making that request my sig but I'm just too lazy to find out how to do that just now.

Thanks for the compliment.

[Laughing Lagomorph]

I never would have guessed from your OP that you weren't a native English speaker.

I live near Boston too. There is certainly a growing Brazilian influence here, both in the city, and in the western suburbs where I live. There is even a Brazilian restaurant in a small town near where I live. They opened about a year ago and are doing a booming business!

[Jervoise]

Originally posted by MusicJunkie
And in an unrelated note, which other movie critics that are any good can I find in the web? Cervaise has a great informative site but it slowed down a lot in number and frequency of reviews and the ones that are added are usually of obscure movies I haven't/won't/can't see.For a good overview of reviews available online, I check out Rotten Tomatoes (rottentomatoes.com). Because of the variety of reviews linked to on that site, you'll have to assess the "quality" of each reviewer individually. It's still a good resource, however.

On Ebert: I enjoy reading his reviews. Overall, he's fairly down-to-earth while still dealing out substantive criticism. Doesn't always get his facts right, however -- he needs a good checker. (Also, that Citizen Kane fixation is a little tiresome. :))

I'd appreciate having grammar/spelling mistakes pointed out.You used the wrong homonym for "whether" in your OP. Also "an year" and "that request [in] my sig" in your last post are errors.

(Of course, having pointed out those mistakes, I will notice several in my own post upon hitting "submit". :))

[ITR champion]

Ebert is the only critic that I read regularly. I find his reviews to be both the most entertaining and the most accurate. Most especially, when he really falls in love with a movie then I know that it will be outstanding. Being John Malkovich and Pleasantville are the best examples that I can think of.

[Silentgoldfish]

He's my favourite movie reviewer, though that's not saying alot :). If he doesn't like a movie he's clear enough about why (rather than just saying it sucks ) that even when I don't agree with him I can see where he s coming from.

Plus I like his policy (though he slips up occasionally) of judging a movie on what it's trying to accomplish. In his review of Aliens he made it clear that he didn't like the movie and watching it wasn't a pleasant experience, but he gave it 3 1/2 stars since it did exacty what it had advertised: scared the bejeesuz out of him.

[Fibber McGee]

Don't laugh, but my favorite movie reviewer (based on the entertainment value of the reviews) is The Brunching Shuttlecock's Self Made Critic.

His reviews are usually funny as hell, and often surprisingly informative given that their focus on humor.

Of course, Ebert is my favorite serious film critic.

[Apos]

---Most of the people I've encountered on the 'net who are anti-Ebert are generally just being bitchy because he gave one or more of their favorite movies a bad review.---

Hey, I'm bitchy because he gives lousy movies good reviews. :)

[Fibber McGee]

Originally posted by Apos
---Most of the people I've encountered on the 'net who are anti-Ebert are generally just being bitchy because he gave one or more of their favorite movies a bad review.---

Hey, I'm bitchy because he gives lousy movies good reviews. :)



Well yeah, there's that too. :D

Of course, Ebert can't read your mind and tell you want to hear, he can only give his own opinions. Whether or not you agree with them is pretty much beside the point.

[Sam Stone]

In my opinion, Ebert is one of the top three or four movie reviewers in the business.

The thing about Ebert is that he does his homework, especially in his long reviews. If he sees a historical movie, he'll actually take the time to go read the history in question and compare it to the movie. If a movie is about hustlers, he takes the time to learn a bit about the world of the hustler so he can get some perspective. Thus, sometimes his reviews go beyond the movie and delve into actual social commentary.

Plus, he's just a damned good writer.

Here are some especially good reviews:

House of Games (http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/greatmovies/houseofgames.html)
Goodfellas (http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/greatmovies/goodfellas.html)
The Hustler (http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/greatmovies/thehustler.html)
Lawrence of Arabia (http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/greatmovies/lawrence_of_arabia.html)
Patton (http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/greatmovies/patton.html)
Pulp Fiction (http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/greatmovies/pulp_fiction.html)

C K Dexter Haven says he didn't know much about movies 35 years ago. Maybe not, but he's learned a lot since. His reviews just drip with details about the movie business, obscure movie references, and inside knowledge of directors, writers, and actors. Film is clearly his passion, and he's made an intensive study of it for decades. This puts him head-and-shoulders above the typical movie reviewer, who's just a writer in a newspaper who could have gotten the sports beat instead.

If Ebert has an achilles heel, it's that he writes great reviews for movies he loves, and movies he hates, but the ones in the middle bore him. Those are his weakest reviews.

BTW, in my opinion the other best movie reviewers are Pauline Kael, Jonathan Rosenbaum of the Chicago Reader, Stephen Hunter, David Edelstein of Slate, and there's one or two others I'm drawing a blank on right now.

[MyFootsZZZ]

Thing is; he likes most of the movies I like, and dislikes most of the movies I dislike... but when I read (or hear) WHY he does or does not like a movie, I'm left wondering if he was high while viewing the picture or writing his review.

"WTF!?"

-Is a common response to his movie reviews.

[Fibber McGee]

Originally posted by MyFootsZZZ
Thing is; he likes most of the movies I like, and dislikes most of the movies I dislike... but when I read (or hear) WHY he does or does not like a movie, I'm left wondering if he was high while viewing the picture or writing his review.

"WTF!?"

-Is a common response to his movie reviews.

That's just shows that there are all kinds of different reasons for liking or disliking a movie, which is why I don't usually trust the opinions of film reviewers when it comes to deciding to go see a film or not.

I'm more the sort of person who reads a review after he's seen the film to see why the critic did or didn't like it and whether or not I agree.

[japatlgt]

To me his relevance dropped off the table after Gene Siskel's death. RE is a fairly competent movie fan but then so is my Mom.

[MyFootsZZZ]

Originally posted by Fibber McGee
That's just shows that there are all kinds of different reasons for liking or disliking a movie, which is why I don't usually trust the opinions of film reviewers when it comes to deciding to go see a film or not.

I'm more the sort of person who reads a review after he's seen the film to see why the critic did or didn't like it and whether or not I agree.


You're right.

Most of the time when he says something that I think is ridiculous on he show, his partner (Roper or Siskel) often call him on it.

To each his or her own. I do think he has good tastes, I'm just not sure (like all of us) he always knows WHY he likes a certain movie.

[Kaitlyn]

Ebert: Thumbs Up or Down?

Thumbs up.

So what do you think of Roger Ebert movie reviewer? I think he's genreally knowledgeable and fair. He writes well and tends not to give away too much information in his reviews. He's a good source for finding good, obscure movies that don't get wide release.

He reports quality when he finds it, whether it be in anime, foreign art films, or slob comedy.

I found out his reviews some two or three years ago and I loved them. They're knowledgeable without being pretentious and even when I disagree with him totally I usually can get an idea about wether or not I'll like a movie despite Ebert's own likes and dislikes.

This is indeed the mark of a good critic. Too many people judge a critic on the basis of his taste, rather than the skill with which the critic reports his reaction and the qualities of the film that led to that reaction. The former is easy to do, anyone can tell their opinion. The latter is very difficult to do well; being able to identify exactly what in a movie moved you to tears or laughter, and why it worked takes skill, knowledge, and experience.

He is very famous (or infamous) in this board. I'm not american so I would like to know why.

He's the most famous, popular, and influential critic in the United States. Until a few years ago, he shared this title with Gene Siskel, but since Siskel's death, he's solo at the top. Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert were among the first celebrity movie critics, if not the first.

He and Siskel were rival movie critics for, respectively, the Chicago Sun Times and the Chicago Tribune. They were paired by a Chicago public tv station in the early 70's for a tv show called Sneak Previews. The title was later changed to Siskel and Ebert at the Movies to capitalize on the surprise popularity of the two hosts. The show eventually became a big enough hit that PBS couldn't keep up with the salary demands, and Siskel and Ebert went to direct syndication, with a title change to Siskel and Ebert and the Movies because PBS owned the rights to Sneak Previews and At the Movies.

The tv show grew so popular that it spawned many imitations with only slight variations on the formula established. These follow ups didn't have the chemistry Siskel and Ebert had on screen. Though they respected each other, they each harbored a bit of resentment that their success depended largely upon theirl association with the other. At times, it seemed the two actively disliked each other, and they would get into heated arguments when their opinons differed.

As their tv show grew in popularity their newspaper reviews became more and more largely syndicated. Most news markets in the US have a paper that carried the syndicated reviews of one or the other. Today, Roger Ebert is the most syndicated movie critic in the US.

People around here seem to cite him as an authority in movie matters but they don't seem to respect him. Why?

I think you'll find these are usually two different groups of people. The people who don't respect him seem unlikely to cite him as an authority.

Some people around here say he's seen better days. When and why?

Often this is due to his giving an unfavorable review to a favorite movie. The most notorious examples are Fight Club and The Usual Suspects, both of which got negative reviews, and both of which have rabid fans all over the internet, some of whom take a criticism of the movie as if it were a criticism of them.

More recently, he gave the two Lord of the Rings movies positive reviews, but for the more ardent fans, this wasn't enough, because he didn't declare them to be great movies. The people who obsessively analyze the minutia of the books and the movies sometimes seem to label others less knowledgeable than they unfit to offer criticism, unless such criticism agrees with them.

And in an unrelated note, which other movie critics that are any good can I find in the web? Cervaise has a great informative site but it slowed down a lot in number and frequency of reviews and the ones that are added are usually of obscure movies I haven't/won't/can't see.

I read Ebert and Cranky Critic (Chuck Shwartz) at crankycritic.com every week. Cranky has the annoying habit of referring to himself as "we" in his reveiws, but he offers a nice "everyman" type of review. He tends to dislike "artsy-fartsy" type stuff, but he has a specific set of criteria he uses (never compare to source material, a movie should be comprehensible in a single viewing) very consistently.

Ebert recommends James Berardinelli, and I like him too. He offers a nice middle ground between art-house snobs (Rex Reed) and Joe Six Pack type reveiwers (Joe Bob Briggs).

]I'd appreciate having grammar/spelling mistakes pointed out.

Start a pit or IMHO thread griping about some rule of grammar. Everyone who responds will nit-pick your posts to death.

[Tarrsk]

The Flick Filosopher (http://www.flickfilosopher.com/) is far and away my favorite movie reviewer, better than Ebert by far. She's clever, original in her writing, and articulates her opinions intelligently, demonstrating the geeky love for film that Harry Knowles does without the need to go into rambling, incoherent rants about unrelated subjets. Her review of A.I. (http://www.flickfilosopher.com/flickfilos/archive/012q/ai.shtml) is one of my favorite reviews, even though I disagreed with her opinion of the film (I thought it was excellent until the last half hour or so, at which point it took a straight nosedive into the ground).

[DoctorJ]

If you like Ebert and can get to Champaign, IL (or is it Urbana?) for a weekend in April, Ebert's Overlooked Film Festival is a blast. Great movies shown in a beautiful old theatre, with the directors and stars of the movie often there to do a Q&A afterwards.

The day I was there, they showed the documentary On the Ropes with one of the three boxers in attendance and the other--the one who was jailed--live on the phone from NYC. They also showed Jesus' Son with Billy Crudup for a Q&A, and A Simple Plan--which Ebert admitted was not exactly overlooked but he felt it was underappreciated, as it was one of the best movies he'd seen in recent years--with Bill Paxton talking about it afterwards.

I think his reviews are very insightful, both before and after the movie, and we agree probably 80% of the time on good movies. (He's a lot more forgiving than I am about bad ones, but that isn't saying much.)

Dr. J

[Eddie the Dane]

Ebert gave "Daredevil" a good review - suffice to say that any credibility he once had in my estimation is gone and gone for good.

I prefer to use the "Rotten Tomatoes" site for an amalgam of reviewers' opinions:

www.rottentomatoes.com

[Silentgoldfish]

Originally posted by Eddie the Dane
Ebert gave "Daredevil" a good review - suffice to say that any credibility he once had in my estimation is gone and gone for good.


Why, cause he liked it and you didn't?

This is a pretty good example of "he disagreed with me and that means he sucks."

[middleman]

I also use Rotten Tomatoes for my reviews, but when there, I always scan the "Cream of the Crop" section to see what Ebert thought.

The reviewer that baffles me is the guy from EW. He has had soon incredibly bizarre grades over the last few years.

[Fibber McGee]

Originally posted by watsonwil

The reviewer that baffles me is the guy from EW. He has had soon incredibly bizarre grades over the last few years.

You are, I take it, referring to the notorious Owen Gleiberman?


I don't understand that guy at all . . .

[divemaster]

I really like Ebert, mainly because he writes well. He certainly knows how to turn a phrase. His reviews are frequently extremely funny, especially for the movies he pans.

I can't count how many "obscure" films I have seen after reading an Ebert review. Or not necessarily obscure, but ones I would never have picked off the cuff. Take Antoine Fisher for a recent example. Would I have seen it anyway? Maybe, maybe not. But after reading Ebert's review I made a beeline for the theater, and was able to take my wife, mom, and stepdad. It made for a wonderful afternoon.

Sure, sometimes I disagree, but he is very good at pointing out why he liked or disliked a particular movie. I don't get all in a huff if he pans a personal favorite (The Hudsucker Proxy comes to mind).

Plus, his commentary on the Dark City DVD was excellent. (Another example of a movie I saw based on his review).

[Michael Ellis]

Thumbs up. His really negative reviews are things of beauty, even if you disagree with them. How can you dislike someone who says something like:

"Mad Dog Time should be cut up to provide free ukelele picks for the poor."

"You remember Doug McClure. Good. I don't."

"After six months, a week, and two days of suspense, we can now relax: the worst movie of 1979 has opened."

"I don't want to review Friends and Lovers, I want to flunk it. ... I get tapes in the mail from tenth graders that are better made than this."

"This movie doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't below the bottom of the barrel. This movie doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with barrels."

[friedo]

Let's not forget his infamous review of North:


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.


Heheheh.

[KidCharlemagne]

Roger Ebert is the only reviewer who can consistently give me an idea whether or not I will like the movie (and not just whether or not he did). I like him because he isn't afraid to give a "thumbs up" to movies that he personally likes just because they are easy pickins for critical commentary. I also like the fact that he gives you a classical critique but then just ends up saying whether it made for a fun two hours or not.

[beajerry]

thanks for the flickfilosopher link, Tarrsk, she's pretty damn good.

ebert is one of the best--love of movies, doesn't try to give quotable onliners, good cinematic knowledge...

harry knowles i like now and then, but i just cannot stand his tangents into stuff that is absolutely boring to me but seems fascinating to him (the drive to the theater, who he sat with, how the weather was...) i do like his enthusiasm for movies, though.

i also like rottentomatoes.com what could be more democratic?





this is a no-capital day.

[Stephe96]

Ebert gave the original 'Die Hard' two stars. He later gave three-and-a-half stars to an unwatchable, much-hated sequel to a rip-off of 'Die Hard!' ('Speed 2,' in case you didn't know).

Buh bye, credibility...

[Mahaloth]

Originally posted by ECJones29
A lot of people don't respect Ebert because his best-known screenwriting credit is "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls," a name-only sequel to one of the worst movies of all time. BTVOTD is supposedly much better than the original, for what that's worth.



It's not a sequal, it's a remake. More like a spoof, really.

[SolGrundy]

I'm not crazy about Ebert, but I don't think he's as evil as people make him out to be, either. He does a fairly good job of doing away with all the pretense, and will frequently judge a movie on its own merits instead of whether it's high-brow or low-brow. Few things are as tiresome as people who talk about movies as if they have something to prove, that they need to validate their opinions by talking about cinema and mise-en-scene and such.

But I think that whole "populist movie reviewer" thing is also what damaged Ebert's credibility. When Siskel and Ebert got to be really big names, to the point where they were celebrities themselves and even doing cameos in movies as themselves, it made a lot of people perceive them as being too mass-market, or having no semblance of objectivity anymore. Probably the most damaging was when they started the whole "two thumbs up" business; it seems shallow enough to reduce your opinion of a piece of art to a number of stars or something, but when you go all the way down to "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" it just seems meaningless. Of course, they always did more lengthy recaps of the movie and explained their reviews on the show, but the "thumbs up" was what got all the attention.

My biggest problem with Ebert is that his writing is often very sloppy. There's at least one factual error in just about every review of his I've ever read. Usually it's something trivial, but it just lends an air of incompetence to the whole thing. And actually, I take it back -- my biggest problem with Ebert is that he's won a Pulitzer Prize for his film criticism. And that bugs me because a) I've never won a Pulitzer Prize (although the fact that I've never written anything counts against me), and 2) the whole field of film criticism feels like bottom-feeding to me, instead of truly creating something of artistic merit.

Originally posted by Number Six
More recently, he gave the two Lord of the Rings movies positive reviews, but for the more ardent fans, this wasn't enough, because he didn't declare them to be great movies. The people who obsessively analyze the minutia of the books and the movies sometimes seem to label others less knowledgeable than they unfit to offer criticism, unless such criticism agrees with them.
That's just not true. There was a whole thread about it on this message board and the complaints were crystal clear. Whether or not he gave the movie three stars or whatever, is irrelevant. The annoying part was that he kept harping on the same point -- that the movies weren't as tranquil and whimsical as the book. That's not obsessive minutiae, that's the whole theme of the book. And it's nonsensical; the books aren't light and airy but are about a world-wide war.

The reason that bugs people, myself included, is because it just comes across as arrogant and sloppy. He makes the same criticism over and over again about the movies' not being faithful to the source material, and then admits that he's not that familiar with the source material, either.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally posted by Fibber McGee
You are, I take it, referring to the notorious Owen Gleiberman?


I don't understand that guy at all . . .
Entertainment Weekly has that weekly box of movie grades given by other reviewers. It's amazing how many times the EW grade will either be the highest or lowest of them all. Many weeks, they will be highest or lowest (or at least tied) for every single movie on the list. I've noticed this for years so it's not a one-time or new phenomena.

Of course, according to my local movie reviewer we recently had twelve pictures rated 10 out of 10 playing simulataneously. I don't think there are twelve 10-worthy pictures released over a decade, so one of us has bizarre tastes.

[C K Dexter Haven]

<< C K Dexter Haven says he didn't know much about movies 35 years ago. Maybe not, but he's learned a lot since. His reviews just drip with details about the movie business, obscure movie references, and inside knowledge of directors, writers, and actors. >>

Well, that was the problem 35 years ago, too. Only he'd get the facts wrong, the details wrong, the references wrong, etc.

[II Gyan II]

Besides Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com), there is MetaCritic (http://www.metacritic.com) and the Movie Review Query Engine (http://www.mrqe.com).

Laughing Lagomorph

My main criticism is he sometimes reviews the movie he expected to see, rather than the movie he actually saw.

Don't all of us do this ? We have prejudices formed about actors (from past roles), directors, topics. We also form an impression from trailers, from gossip, from reviews. Heck, from our general prejudices of what constitutes a good movie.

As long as a critic realizes what his/her prejudices are and reveals them implicitly or explicitly, I think we can expect a good review.

Narrad

Also "an year" and "that request [in] my sig" in your last post are errors.

The first error is indeed an error in most dialects of English, although "an year" is pretty common in Indian English.

The second, might not be an error, if the OP meant to indicate that the request should be his new sig verbatim rather than in the new sig.

[Governor Quinn]

One of the reasons that "EW" is so inconsistent is that there are two film reviewers, Owen Gleiberman and Lisa Schwarzbaum.

Checking the comment on how "EW" gives either the best or worst review:
"All the Real Girls": EW gave A, tied with 3 other papers.
"Chicago": EW gave A-, Mike Clark (USA Today) and Mick LaSalle (San Francisco Chronicle) gave A, Rita Kempley (Washington Post) and Todd McCarthey (Variety) gave B.
"Daredevil": EW gave C-, Clark gave D, Ebert a B.
"Deliver Us From Eva": EW gave C-, LaSalle and JoAnna COnnors (Cleveland Plain Dealer) gave B, Ebert D+.
"Gerry": EW gave best grade, A-.
"The Guru": EW gave B+, tying for best with Kempley.
"How To Lose A Guy in 10 Days": EW gave C+, LaSalle B, Ebert D-.
"Jungle Book 2": EW gave C, tying with 4 others for best.
"The Recruit": EW gave best grade, B+.
"Shanghai Knights": EW gave B, tying with 6 others for best.
Out of 10 movies, EW gave the (or tied for the) best grade.

[Kaitlyn]

SolGrundy: So he's unqualified to offer criticism of the movies because A: he is less familiar with the source material than you are and B: his interpretation of the theme of that source material differs from yours?

By the way, I said that fans who were obsessed with the minutia were those who most strenuously objected, not that the objections were themselves obsessive minutia.

[MovieMogul]

It was clear that he hadn't seen many old classic movies but was pretending he had. I had to reopen this thread because of a recent revelation on his website:

Apparently, Roger Ebert saw his first Harold Lloyd movie (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050703/REVIEWS08/507030302/1004) a week ago! :eek: He's 63, probably the most-read critic in the US, a frequent visitor to multiple film festivals, and a genuine champion of older movies. How in the world does someone make it that long in his career without ever seeing a single film by Lloyd (who's generally understood as one of the 3 Great Silent Comedians, along with Chaplin & Keaton). Mikio Naruse, I'd understand. Ditto Ousmane Sembene. Heck, I might even have a moment of leniency and understand Victor Sjostrom, Jean Grémillon, Dusan Makavejev, Dorothy Arzner, Theo Angelopoulos, or Hou Hsiao-hsien.

But Harold Lloyd?!?!? :confused:

That'd be like saying that I've been a reporter for ESPN for 3 decades but never actually watched a single Philadelphia Phillies game. Ever. Not once. Not even when they were in the World Series.

Unbelievable.