That, and he sometimes just plain gets facts wrong. I think it was in his review of The Red Violin that he said that it took place in Italy, Czecko, England, China, and America. The movie made it pretty clear that Vienna and Montreal were major locations. Those aren’t in Czecko and America! And often these little details aren’t all that little.
Still, I have a soft spot for the guy, and when his reviews are negative, they’re a blast to read.
Is he a smoker? Just curious about “mouth” cancers. My dad died from cancer last Thanksgiving. His started in his adenoids and I was told that this was very rare (He was a very heavy smoker). Now I wonder about salivary glands . . .
Well, if you’re going to fault Ebert for liking Beckham, then you’re going to have to fault over eighty percent of movie reviewers as well. Plus, he admits in his written review that the movie breaks no new ground - but he appreciates it because it accomplishes what it sets out to do so well.
Makes sense to me. If I were “taken” with the lead character - regardless of gender - then that’s a sign the moviemakers are obviously doing something right. After decades of reviewing, I doubt Ebert’s critical eye can be swayed by a firm ass.
While I haven’t watched Ebert on television for some time, I still find his written work fascinating. And I really start to wonder about people who say they can’t stand anything Ebert likes - I mean, this is a guy that gives adulation and praise to Spiderman 2, The Shawshank Redemption, Star Wars, Pulp Fiction, Toy Story, and on and on. He’s hardly elitist.
The only thing I’ve noticed about the new show is that he sometimes seems to geniuinely dislike Roeper. It’s not the friendly arguing that he had with Siskel. Sometimes he seems like he’s trying to disguise his intense contempt for his new partner.
And if I am not mistaken, Roeper was Ebert’s choice - wasn’t he?
I still like Ebert, and I can tell he is sometimes pissed that Roeper is totally at odds with his opinion. Granted, Siskel also disagreed with Ebert a lot, but their disagreements were more in line with each other - if that makes any sense. Siskel would agree with Ebert to a point, but maybe be a little more, or a little less enthusiastic. I think Roeper is sometimes totally at odds with Ebert and it seems like very often, one is giving “enthusiastic thumbs up” while the other looks on in disbelief and says says it is one of the worst films of the month. While that might be good Jerry Springer television - for two film critics, it makes it seem like one of the two is an idiot. Not that they should always agree 100%, but you would think they could at least agree on what is either a good film worth seeing, or a film not worth the price of admission.
I was always curious about this. At the time that Siskel passed on, Ebert spent many months “auditioning” new partners. They were mostly all established film critics from other media; newspaper, magazine, radio. I enjoyed watching them at the time, although it was obvious some were not really TV material.
When he chose Roeper, I was a bit non-plussed, after all he was not a film guy, he doesn’t love the movies the way Ebert does and Siskel did. I really wonder what went into the decision, some thoughts:
That really really irritates me. I started a thread about it after I bought the DVD of Ronin and then read his review. He wasn’t even close to accurate in some of the things he said.
I still love reading his scathing reviews, though. The first thing I did when he redid his website was to read every single bad review that I hadn’t already read online and that wasn’t in his book “I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie.” But now I read them with a grain of salt if I haven’t seen that movie.
Thanks for the reminder, Dooku. I’m going to click on over to Netflix right after this and order Ronin. I’ve seen it three times, once in the theater and twice recorded. I still haven’t been able to see it nonstop. This time I will. I hope it’s on DVD. 
Anyway, I do like Ebert’s reviews in general. Mostly because he is definitely not elitist, and I can figure out if I’ll be interested in the movie or not.
Talk about elitist! There’s a woman here in the SF Bay Area who rates movies with the number of hats she awards. She really does tend toward snobbishness. Nothing quite measures up to the old musicals in her opinion.
But, the main thrust of my OP wasn’t the quality of Ebert’s rating system, but his emotional demeanor on the show. I didn’t know about his bout with cancer. I’ve known a few people who’ve peeked at the Other Side, and it can really affect one’s outlook. Don’t sweat the small shit, eh?
I’m going to begin using his website, I think.
Peace,
mangeorge
About Ebert making factual mistakes or complaining about plot holes that aren’t there:
I’ve noticed him sometimes doing this too, but it doesn’t bother me as much as it seems to some of you. How many times have we seen posts on this board from people who missed or misinterpreted a key scene or line of dialogue and wound up confused about the whole movie? I remember pages and pages of threads on Pirates of the Caribbean alone. Now, a professional and experienced movie critic should make such mistakes far less often…but given the sheer number of films Ebert has to watch he’s sure to slip up now and then.
Major mistakes are less excusable, but I have wondered if the version of the movie critics are allowed to see for advance review purposes isn’t sometimes edited further before release to the public. It may occasionally be that a point that seems crystal clear in the general theatrical release was only made so after the review copies went out. I’ve heard stories about old movies that were being edited right up until the big premier, but I don’t know if the studios would tolerate that these days.
About Ebert making factual mistakes or complaining about plot holes that aren’t there:
I’ve noticed him sometimes doing this too, but it doesn’t bother me as much as it seems to some of you. How many times have we seen posts on this board from people who missed or misinterpreted a key scene or line of dialogue and wound up confused about the whole movie? I remember pages and pages of threads on Pirates of the Caribbean alone. Now, a professional and experienced movie critic should make such mistakes far less often…but given the sheer number of films Ebert has to watch he’s sure to slip up now and then.
[/quote]
It wouldn’t bother me so much if he didn’t spend 2+ mins talking about something that’s covered in the movie when he could be reviewing the rest of the movie. If you’re going to call a director out for his mistakes and make a big deal about it make sure you know what you’re talking about. Also if he only occasionally did it instead of every few reviews it would be easier to live with as well…
I’m curious has he ever corrected wrong reviews on his website or on the air? Does he ever print letters correcting his mistakes? I don’t ever remember him doing that but I hardly see every show and I only go to his website if I’m really really bored.
errr…where the heck did the rest of the post I qouted go? Oh well pretend that Lamia’s post is in there.
The only time I’ve seen him seriously screw up was when he didn’t like the Lord of the Rings movies because they don’t have the same tone as the books. Unfortunately it was pretty clear that he was misremembering and thinking of “The Hobbit” as his criticisms on that mark were right off.
To answer your question Darkhold, he occasionally re-reviews movies, especially if his opinion is vastly different from his audience. In one of his books (maybe in the “official” review of the movie) he mentions doing so specifically for Raising Arizona because the audience reaction to his review was so different from his, and because the Coen brothers became the Coen brothers in the decade since the films release.
As far as corrections, I don’t know if he’s bound by the newspapers policy to print them as he is “just” reviewing a movie, not reporting from the White House. But it wouldn’t surprise me to find out that he has made a correction or two.
He also used to really hate the movie “U.H.F.”, but has since changed his mind on the movie (probably because it has become such a cult classic). I guess “U.H.F.” doesn’t seem that bad now compared to a Tom Green movie.
Well I doubt a newspaper would waste much space on a correction for a movie review I was thinking more along the lines of on his website.
The rest of your post was informative. Thanks for the response.
Where did you hear that he revised his opinion of UHF? The review on rogerebert.com is still the scathing one-star review he originally wrote.
The only time I’m aware of him fully changing his opinion is with Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven. He was originally cool toward it but changed his mind subsequently, a change he owned up to in his written review.
In his review of Mighty Peking Man, he upped the star count on his original review of Infra-Man from 2.5 to 3 stars. I actually remembered this from reading the review when it came out five years ago. Why?
Ebert did like the LOTR movies, recommending all three, each more than the last, giving The Two Towers an honorable mention on his top ten list for the year it was released, and heaping praise on The Return of the King.
Yes but in the reviews themselves he fell over himself criticizing them for not having the proper tones.
Fellowship:
“If the books are about brave little creatures who enlist powerful men and wizards to help them in a dangerous crusade, the movie is about powerful men and wizards who embark on a dangerous crusade, and take along the Hobbits. That is not true of every scene or episode, but by the end “Fellowship” adds up to more of a sword and sorcery epic than a realization of the more naive and guileless vision of J. R. R. Tolkien.”
And,
“The Ring Trilogy embodies the kind of innocence that belongs to an earlier, gentler time. The Hollywood that made “The Wizard of Oz” might have been equal to it. But “Fellowship” is a film that comes after “Gladiator” and “Matrix,” and it instinctively ramps up to the genre of the overwrought special-effects action picture. That it transcends this genre–that it is a well-crafted and sometimes stirring adventure–is to its credit. But a true visualization of Tolkien’s Middle-earth it is not.”
The Two Towers:
“With “Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers,” it’s clear that director Peter Jackson has tilted the balance decisively against the hobbits and in favor of the traditional action heroes of the Tolkien trilogy. The star is now clearly Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), and the hobbits spend much of the movie away from the action. The last third of the movie is dominated by an epic battle scene that would no doubt startle the gentle medievalist J.R.R. Tolkien.”
The Return of the King:
“That it falls a little shy of greatness is perhaps inevitable. The story is just a little too silly to carry the emotional weight of a masterpiece.”