Dude, RTFT. I said Ebert was a fucking idiot. What’s wrong with this picture?
If you want to know what’s wrong with a picture, talk to Rog. Hope you get him at a moment where’s not wandering off topic and going all Robert Fulghum on us.
Obviously that’s up for interpretation. It seems likelier to me that his narrow window of star ratings is driven by his need to sell his thumbs, than vice versa.
OK. I was just reporting on what I’d read Ebert himself say.
I don’t believe him, if that’s the case; the sheer number of movies he rates at 3 stars raises an eyebrow, AFAIC.
Have you seriously read the thread? Do you seriously need me to explain to you the gaping hole in your argument?
This would be a hard case to make. As I indicated before Ebert is a very easy marker. According to metacritic.com Ebert rates movies about 10% better than the average critic and in 75% of his reviews rates the movie better than it rates on average. His 4 star truly outstanding films include plenty that while watchable wouldn’t be considered outstanding by most. Things such as
Across The Universe
The American President
Auto Focus
Bee Season
The Contender
Kalifornia
Lakeview Terrace
Perfume
The Polar Express
The Upside of Anger
If you look through the list of his reviews it would seem that the majority of his reviews are in the 3 to 4 star range (75, 88 or 100%).
Wow, good for metacritic. There’s a lost thread somewhere in which I crunched a year of Ebert’s numbers to reach much the same conclusion, which is why I believe so firmly that his thumbs drive the bus.
Lissener, would you explain why you dislike Ebert? I’m not very fond of him either, but I’ve not really thought much about why, and I’d be interested in reading a critique of his criticism.
Judging criticism is like judging any creative endeavor: ultimately, it’s subjective. What’s useful IMO is for folks to say why they like or dislike a particular critic’s work. This may entail explaining what they’re looking for in the form as a whole.
The OP did that, I think: it points out that Ebert is downgrading the movie because of things that are not part of the movie. This is a reasonable complaint. Explaining that Ebert does more than just review movies does not refute it, because it is specifically a complaint about how Ebert reviewed this movie, about how he decided how many stars to give it. Suggesting that someone who dislikes Ebert is looking for a blander reviewer not only is condescending and arrogant, but also betrays a superficial and flawed reading of the OP.
I look for several things in a reviewer/critic. First and foremost, I’m lazy: I look for a reviewer whose reviews over time match up to my own judgments of movies, so that I can get a sense from their reviews whether I want to see a particular movie (I see maybe half a dozen movies in the theater a year, and I want to make 'em count). I also look for someone who’s well-versed in movies and who can provide some interesting information that I wouldn’t otherwise have known–this director’s tendency to use jump-cuts, this actor’s reprisal of his role from a previous movie, this producer’s penchant to make direct-to-DVD releases. I also look for someone with a an insightful aesthetic, someone who can help me see a movie in a new way (suggesting, for example, that I watch The Spirit as a playful sendup of comic-book movies, rather than treating it as an entry in the genre–lousy example, but I’m tired). A flair with the written word is good in positive reviews and wonderful in negative reviews. Someone who pulls in outside information–who teaches me about the Spanish Civil War in a review of Pan’s Labyrinth–can be wonderful, or simply tiresome and pedantic.
My least-favorite reviewer of all time is the insufferable Godfrey Cheshire, of Raleigh’s Independent Weekly. It’s been awhile since I’ve read him, but I remember his reviews as being horribly snotty and too-cool-for-school. My favorite reviewer is Ken Hanke, of Asheville’s Mountain Xpress (his review of The Spirit, for example). His tastes align pretty well with mine, he’s wonderfully snarky when he hates a movie and rhapsodic when he likes it, his knowledge of movies is encyclopedic and informs every review, he suggests interesting ways of viewing movies. I occasionally disagree with him, but in general I find his reviews to be delightful to read.
Daniel
What do you mean? Are you suggesting I criticize Ebert? After so many people in this thread have taken issue with my insistence that he’s off limits to criticism? Oh right, they haven’t read the thread.
Anyway, Daniel, search for my name and references to Ebert; I’ve beat this dead horse pretty pulpy over the years.
Yeah, actually, I was suggesting that you criticize Ebert; I think it’s silly for anyone to suggest that critics are themselves off limits to criticism (I’m not sure anyone made that claim, but then again, I’m pretty sleepy). I’ll search tomorrow for lissener and Ebert, but if you have a link to such a thread, I’d be interested in reading it. As I said, I don’t much like Ebert, but haven’t really thought much about why (except for his defense of Jar Jar Binks—ssssssss!). I think your take on film is pretty interesting, and I’d be interested in reading your take on Ebert.
Daniel
I read Ebert’s reviews. Mostly to find out what the bulge in the bell curve will think about a movie; for the most part his tastes are predictable, uncritical, and shallow, IMO. He hands out stars like he gets a commission on them (which, of course, he does). He leaves movies in the middle for more junk food, and then docks the movie points for plot twists he thus misses. He refuses to reconsider a review, even after 20, 30 years. He almost always includes at least one easily verifiable factual mistake in a review–so consistently that my theory is he does so to track plagiarism. He frequently reviews a movie for what it’s not, rather than for what it is.
(These are just notes on my thoughts; haven’t given him a whole lot of critical thought recently.)
I’ve always (generally) liked and agreed with him. Back in the CompuServe days he even responded to a few of my emails and published two of my suggestions in his Little Book of Hollywood Cliches. And his other books about films and Hollywood are all outstanding.
I always felt that a key difference between him and Siskel was that he could (and mostly did) judge a film on its own terms, whereas Gene absolutely would not. If it didn’t go the way he thought it should go that was the end of it.
But I also feel that facing his mortality has caused him to lose it. More than a bit. I wasn’t surprised that he was a liberal, but I was sorely disappointed to see him repeatedly drop petty little Bush-bashing tidbits into more and more of his reviews. Often about films that were totally apolitical. Sure, its his column and I’m not going to claim he has no right to, but he’s really cheapened his reputation in my eyes by spouting some outright juvenile, spurious opinions in the context of a movie review.
His latest blog entry is absolutely over the top. He devotes a paragraph claiming that global warming is not only the indisputable truth, but that its causing typhoons, volcanoes, and earthquakes! I read that and though, “What the hell?! Is someone sitting one his morphine button?!”
Its just really sad to see someone, in what may be their autumn years, reduced to proselytizing a long, rambling, liberal-guilt laden, angry and bitter diatribe.
Yes; just as sad as seeing someone reduced to proselytizing a long, rambling, conservative-hubris laden, angry and bitter diatribe in response.
If I ever change my user name, this is what I’m changing it to.
Geez, two freakin’ sentences in my post criticizing his leftist views constitutes “conservative-hubris laden”?! And I was not even a bit angry nor bitter! At least I wasn’t… :mad:
Interesting. Mostly untrue, and in one case slanderous.
Actually, all true. Sorry.
Do you have a shred of evidence that Ebert has been bribed?
Um . . . what the screaming purple frak are you talking about?