Well, it’s pretty apparent that Roger Ebert is hors de combat, review-wise, for the near future. And so I need someone else to trust.
Can any of you recommend a substitute Ebert to get my movie reviews from?
He or she should have Ebert-like tastes, be unafraid to say that they liked a bad movie–and why, not be a shill for the studios, be willing to slam a movie if it warrants it, have a sense of humor, and (most important) be a good writer. Oh, and available on-line, of course.
I share your concern. Lacking Ebert’s reviews, I just go straight to Rotten Tomatoes and get a score, knowing that nobody else’s review will mean all that much to me.
I asked the same question a few months ago, and this is the discussion that ensued. I’ve been liking Berardinelli.
Honestly, I find these two things extremely contradictory, because I’ve found that Ebert is more likely to like a movie (even thoroughly mediocre ones) than any other high-profile critic from a major publication.
Ebert is a democratic movie reviewer, which means he reviews a movie in terms of whether it accomplished what it was trying to accomplish for its target audience. If you make a cheezy slasher film for lovers of cheezy slasher films, Ebert will review it in terms of whether it achieved its goal of being a good cheezy slasher film. Other reviewers will pan it because it’s a cheezy slasher film.
I find that very refreshing, and it’s one of the reasons I like Ebert so much. Why in hell should a slasher film be panned because it’s not “Goodfellas”? It never wanted to be Goodfellas. The director had no intention of competing against Goodfellas. The audience for the movie doesn’t want to see ‘Goodfellas’.
I second Berardinelli. But this really seems to be a matter of taste. Its just that I find Berardinelli generally does a good job of articulating my thoughts about movies I’ve seen. But your thoughts may vary.
-FrL-