I’ve never understood why Ebert had such contempt for Harold and Maude. I can understand not loving it, not liking it, saying years later that it hasn’t aged well: people have said all that and I’m not going to argue with them. But Ebert reviewed it when it was new, and seemed to regard it as a complete waste of time. Really? I mean, he didn’t like Zabriskie Point either (I think the challenge there is finding someone who did!) but he did analyze the reasons why ZP didn’t work. With H&M, his attitude was that it didn’t bear discussion; he was only reviewing it out of obligation. I’unno. A while back, Ebert reevaluated The Graduate. I wonder if he ever gave a second thought to H&M.
Napoleon Dynamite was popular with many critics and has a cult following. Ebert gave it 1.5 stars due to unlikable characters and because “I do not much like laughing down at people”. (I recently saw it for the first time- I’d probably give it 2.0 stars, but don’t understand the raves at all- too contrived- though I love Harold & Maude.)
I clicked through to Ebert’s full review of “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” and found this:
What the heck? I could see one of these as a typo, but two in a row? Am I missing something? Did he mix Bay up with a Farrelly?
I don’t remember that error in the review. I wonder if something got mixed up in the site transition they just went through.
I looked up the original article on the Internet Wayback Machine (link here) and it doesn’t include the error. It correctly references Michael Bay as a man.
What a strange error, though.
Did you mix up a Farrelly with a Wachowski? Or am I missing something very obvious?
Brain cramp.
Ebert was really generous, to a fault, with his star ratings. If a film aspires to be a dumb-ass movie, and succeeds in being a dumb-ass movie, there is no point in praising it. That’s just setting the bar low. Some films can be more (or less) than they appear to be, but there still needs to be some kind of standard, IMHO–not one that’s always floating based on “intention.”
He would often get fixated on stupid little details. I’m no fan of Gladiator, but he wouldn’t stop harping (ironically) on the Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down protocol in the Roman circus. Enough! Some films clearly got under his skin to the extent that he stopped feeling like he had to justify his opinion–it was enough to simply slam it (the aforementioned Battle: LA is a good example, because there isn’t that much difference between it and Black Hawk Down)
He obviously loved movies and was passionate about being an ambassador of worthwhile but obscure films. But in Film Critic Bingo, “Roger gets an obvious plot detail wrong” was practically a free space, it happened so often. His writing style was clean, simple, and prolific (the sheer volume of reviews is remarkable), but after Siskel shuffled off this mortal coil, Ebert lost something really essential, and became a pushover. I rarely consulted his reviews because he seemed to like everything, but his other writing was still fun and engaging.
The Dead Poets Society review is spot on and really shows how the Emperor has no Clothes in that film, but he didn’t do it often enough, for movies just as transparently (to these eyes at least) phony or pandering. But he was, by all accounts, a great guy and a fearless one toward the end. And in the long run, that’s what really counts.
Chaz (his wife) has been filling in on his Twitter feed since his passing, and it’s been touching to see her small thanks and observations.
Call it The Four-Star Chamber
Critically acclaimed / publicy adored movies that Ebert disliked since 1980, based on a quick scan by me just now. I made my decision based on “huh - he didn’t like that” - not whether I did or not:
1 Star
Ace Ventura: Pet Detective
Blue Velvet
Dirty Dancing
Dune
Fast Times at Ridgemont High
1.5 Stars
Biloxi Blues
Napoleon Dynamite
Raising Arizona
Splash
The Usual Suspects
2 Stars
300
Airplane 2
Ali
American Werewolf in London
Army Of Darkness
Basic Instinct
The Basketball Diaries
Beetlejuice
Big Trouble In Little China
Brazil
Cider House Rules
Die Hard
Edward Scissorhands
Erin Brockovich
Fight Club
Gladiator
History of the World Part 1
The Russia House
Snatch
Throw Momma From The Train
That is an interesting list. The only movie on that list I’d give a definite 4 stars to is Die Hard. He must have really been in a bad mood when he saw Die Hard.
Reading the review, he mostly really hated the bumbling police chief character.
Another one I missed was The Natrual. Two stars.
Several of my favorite movies of all time are on this list…
I found two elements very interesting:
1.The rape scenes are not titillating, unless you really like brutal rape. This is the earliest film I can think of that deals so plainly with the subject, it needed to be in film.
2.One of the rapists is mentally retarded and only participates because his friends force him to, and the woman knows he is. You start wondering if he will be spared in her revenge rampage. It is a great bit of moral murkiness, that plays with your sympathies.