Movie critics (or any other type of “art” critics), why do we feel the need for their existance?
I used to watch “Siskel & Ebert” mainly to find out what a new movie was going to be about and to watch the banter between Gene and Roger. I’ve never taken their comments into consideration when it came to choosing a movie because I got the feeling from them (especially Ebert) that every movie MUST BE a “Citizen Kane” and not a “Porky’s 2”. True, most movies have flaws, but if the audience enjoys it, who cares? Take “Independence Day”, for example. I watched S & E review this movie before I went to see it. They destroyed it. It then opens to $90 million in the first weekend. (I know, just because it’s popular, doesn’t mean it’s good, I mean, remember the Ford Pinto?) So, Gene & Roger did something they’ve never done before: they re-reviewed the movie. That wanted to see what they could have possibly have missed the first time. They STILL destroyed it. At the showing I went to (the first two were sold out) the audience was laughing and cheering and having a good ol’ time. As far as I’m concerened, the movie makers accomplished what they set out to do: entertain people.
Granted, ID4 won’t go down in the annals of film history as one of the greatest, but I enjoyed it nonetheless. It was just chewing gum for the mind. Sort of a buy-ticket-leave-brain-in-the-car-enjoy-movie-reinsert-brain-go-home kinda movie.
As for the title of this topic (in relation to the choosing someone to die topic elsewhere) I would trade Roger for Gene any time. He seemed to be a more down to earth kinda guy that Roger, who strikes me a pompous ass.
And besides, if every movie was a classic, we never would have had MST3K!!
I think you’re mistaken about Ebert. He’s usually one of the critics who will come out and say, “The snob critics didn’t like it because it wasn’t serious art, but I liked it because it was supposed to be a shoot-em-up, and they shot up lots of stuff.” He’s put movies like “Under Siege” on his 10-best list.
What he hates (and what I hate) is unecessary sloppiness in moviemaking. He slaughters directors who treat their audiences like idiots. Thus he’s often attacking movies that have unnecessarily stupid plot holes, or easy-to-correct technical errors. Die Hard 2, for instance, had a bunch of plot devices that were not only unnecessary, but treated the audience like idiots.
I have to agree with dhanson about Ebert. He certainly does not reside in an ivory tower. In addition, he writes very well. His reviews are always entertaining, whether 4 stars or none.
If you are only familiar with his TV banter, I suggest you thumb through a couple of his books, or read through the current and archive reviews on the Chicago Sun-Times’s Website.
Certainly, there can be a lot of disagreement between a critic and the public at large. I often am at the opposite end of the spectrum. However, I like to read as many reviews as possible, not so much to tell me which movies to see, but which ones not to see.
If a critic says that a movie was lousy because it contained a lot of juvenille satire; well, I’ll probably see it because I happen to like a good low-brow laugh now and then. Likewise, if a critic tells me a movie is wonderful because Striesand and Midler have a “funny, yet tearful reparte;” well, I’ll probably skip that one.
Of course the opinions of people I know personally carry more weight than any critic.
My name is VogueVixen, and I love Roger Ebert. So much so that when Russ Meyer was at my theater for a special screening of Faster, Pussycat, Kill! Kill! I kept interrupting his every story with “Yes, yes…but what about EBERT!!!”
He’s a very fair critic as already mentioned and breaks down why he likes/or dislikes films. If you want to see how good he is, watch one of the more recent “At the Movies” (or whatever the current name is) with one of the guest reviewers since Siskel’s death. Man, there’s no comparison. They don’t even have a clue. Also, ditto on the writing. I read every review regardless of if I plan to see the movie or not, or even if I’ve heard of the film or not. Sometimes I’ll read a paragraph 4 or 5 times because I want to savor it before going to the next one (or because it was so hilarious I want to laugh again and again.)
My only beef with him is he gets all caught up in little mini-crusades, which he seems to tie into every column or review. But that I can live with.
Check out his “Ask the Movie Answer Man” column, it’s really informative and interesting. (To me…)
“Satan – I’ve had enough of your two cents!” – The hilarious Federalist
I think Ebert needed Siskel more than he realized. And it would have been the same if Siskel had survived Ebert. Most movie reviewers work as solo acts, which tends to lead to pomposity. By keeping their counterpart in check, Siskel and Ebert made each other better reviewers.
I haven’t seen any decline in Ebert’s quality since Siskel died. You may be right that the rivalry made them both better reviewers, but there’s really no way to know.
Those of you who think Ebert’s a snob: This is the guy who wrote “Beyond the Valley of the Dolls” for Russ Meyer.
The rumour is that Roger Ebert got the job of film critic in the middle 60s, because he was up for promotion and it was the open slot. He wanted to be a sports writer. For a long while, I could absolutely rely on Ebert’s reviews – if he liked something, I was almost certain that I would dislike it.
Unfortunately, over time, he’s developed some taste and therefore has become less reliable.
How else would you decide which movies are worthy of your time? Previews? Studio advertising campaigns? I depend on a critic’s recommendation to sift through the chaff for me, and help me avoid wasting my time. A friend’s recommendation serves the same purpose, but then that means the friend is serving the role fulfilled by the movie critic. What if you are interested in a movie and none of your friends have seen it?
One good thing (or bad thing, depending on your point of view) about movie critics is that they see a lot of movies and (it is to be hoped) will be more discriminating than the average viewer. If a plot element has already been used in 10 other films, and shows up in new film X, then they will probably put that down as a mark against film X. On the other hand, if you’re young and haven’t seen the 10 other films, you might not care.
I would recommend to you that you find a movie reviewer whose tastes agree with yours if you are looking for helpful reviews. With the internet, there are plenty of sites that review movies. Many of those sites are young kids that would probably praise “Independence Day” to the skies.
Well, I write a video review column for Movieline and have written lots of film reviews for other magazines, and I try to follow Mrs. Parker’s precept: a review should be 50% or less information, and 50% or more entertainment in itself. I try to make my columns funny and interesting enough that people will want to read them even if they have no intention of going to see the movie. I’m not saying I succeed, but I want my columns to stand on their own as humor piece. The movie I’m reviewing is only the jumping-off spot.
Hey, Dex, I’ll show 'em to you at the sex-and-opium orgy you and I are having in Philadelphia on Saturday (you DID know about that, didn’t you?).
I do a column for Movieline called The Bottom Shelf, where I review bad how-to videos. I would LOVE to do more actual movie reviewing for them, but they have their own little stable of writers . . . Besides, I got in trouble a few years ago when I reviewed Demi Moore’s “The Scarlet Letter” and opened with, “Who thought it possible for Bruce Willis to marry beneath himself?” So they’re wary of me now.
Hey folks, we no longer need film critics (as opposed to movie reviewers). I have cracked their code, and now we can score movies w/o them (It still needs a bit of work, but…):
*Film is “politically correct” + 1 star
*Film is foreign + 1 star
*Film is actually IN a foreign language + 1
*Film is in Black&white, or sepia +1 star
*Film is depressing +1 star
*Film is such that critic gets to use French phrases (cinema verite’, noir, etc) or the word “cinematography” more than once +1 star
*The film going public actually enjoys the film: minus 1 star(unless the critics panned t over 20 yrs ago & it is now being re-released as a “classic”, then + 2 stars)
*Film has a musical score that gives you a headache: + 1 star
*Film has a score that the entire audience leaves the theatre humming : - 1 *
*Film has no plot, just a “theme” (that is only apparent to the critic) + 2 stars
*Film is made by “certain directors” + 1
*Film is made by “certain OTHER directors” -1
*Film stars members of the critics “cult” +3
So you’re avoiding movies like Star Wars, Aliens, The Matrix, The Sixth Sense, Road to El Dorado, American Beauty, American President, True Lies, Analyze This, Toy Story, Terminator 2, Die Hard 2, Fifth Element, etc.
Roger Ebert gave all of those positive reviews – in fact, he seems to love comedies and shoot-em-ups. Negative reviews went to things like Spice World, Mannequin, Beverly Hillbillies, Flubber, etc.
If you read some of Ebert’s reviews, you’ll realize that he’s popular because he likes what most of us like and can express that in a wonderfully witty way. His only major fault is that he’s seen so many movies that sometimes he’ll knock something down for being overdone when it’s still relatively fresh to the rest of us.
From some of the posts, I assume many of you have never even read an Ebert review. First of all, Ebert is not at all pretentious; you won’t catch him fawning over every indie film that comes out, just as you won’t find him panning every summer blockbuster. He is very good at analyzing movies for what they are. Take a lowbrow comedy. Rather than saying “Why, this movie isn’t deep at all! 0 Stars!”, he will judge it based on what it is. The fine line that critics have to walk when reviewing is “What they like” versus “What is well crafted as a movie”. For instance, I may hate action movies, but if an extremely well-made action film comes along, I’m going to review it based on its merits for what it set out to do, not based on whether i enjoyed it. On the other hand, movies are intended to be entertainment (generally speaking, of course), so this is also a factor that should be considered. Anyway, my point is…Ebert Good.
Frankly I’m suprised at all of you. I feel that one of the 5 best reviewers in America has a link on this site. Yes, Jonathan Rosenbaum, a great reviewer. Why is he so great? Because with each review he delves into the history of the film and the history of film. Even if he doesn’t like a film, he gives a great review that enables you to decide if it is worthwhile. I hate being told if I should see a film. I prefer to see a review that discusses the relative merits and shortcomings of a film and lets me decide.
You know, I clicked on that link at the beginning of year, and found Rosenbaum’s Top Ten list for 1999. He prominently included The Thin Red Line. I stopped reading there, and haven’t been back since.
I have to agree with you on not putting Thin Red Line up there. But, I think you should go back and read some of his long reviews. His comments on the top 100 films are quite funny and interesting, he also wrote one of the best review of Eyes Wide Shut I’ve ever read.
Also the fact that he put “I stand alone” up there as #5 really impressed me. That was an intensely powerful, unlikable movie. I didn’t enjoy a single moment of it, and yet I can’t deny that it got a stronger reaction out of me than any other movie. It did what art is supposed to do, make you think, change you. After the movie, I was forced to actually examine the nature of violence, and what defined it.
