# Sorry Ebert, But Your Reviews Suck **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [July 11, 2011, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sorry-ebert-but-your-reviews-suck/588666 "2011-07-11T20:05:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Arrendajo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Arrendajo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arrendajo)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sorry-ebert-but-your-reviews-suck/588666/21 "2011-07-12T05:03:25Z")
I have always taken Ebert’s reviews with a grain of salt simply because he likes movies so much more than I do. In fact, I really can’t say I like movies at all. I see a few movies per year, and generally feel like it was time wasted. His reviews, however, are so well done that I read them just for the pleasure of enjoying the writing. I would rather read a hundred Ebert reviews than sit through one movie. In my opinion, he’s a national treasure. When he dies - and I don’t know how much time he’s got left - we will have lost a great modern essayist and critic. ---
**Author:** ![minlokwat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/minlokwat/32/2844_2.png) [@minlokwat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minlokwat)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sorry-ebert-but-your-reviews-suck/588666/22 "2011-07-12T13:21:49Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > Any trust I had was destroyed when he gave _Synecdoche, New York_ glowing reviews, calling it the “best film of the decade” and “one of the greatest of all time”. Yup. Word for word, this is exactly the way I feel. ---
**Author:** ![don\_t\_ask](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@don\_t\_ask](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/don_t_ask)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sorry-ebert-but-your-reviews-suck/588666/23 "2011-07-12T13:43:13Z")
My old [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=499750) about how weird I found Ebert’s reviews to be. I like the way that lots of his fans excuse his crappy reviews because he is moribund yet he crappily reviews on. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Excellent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f19dbf/32.png) [@Mr.Excellent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Excellent)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sorry-ebert-but-your-reviews-suck/588666/24 "2011-07-12T14:21:23Z")
> [@CJJ](#): > > For myself, his reviews are an opportunity to read some excellent prose and stimulate a few ideas about the film–ideas that inevitably enhance my movie experience, even if it turns out I don’t like the film. Exactly this. I’d much rather read an intelligent, well-reasoned opinion that I happen to disagree with than get a simple “thumbs-up!” that I can rely upon without fail. Ebert’s reviews are interesting, even educational, and often put me on to other films, books, or music that I’ll find interesting. I wish the man a long life, good health and a lengthy career. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sorry-ebert-but-your-reviews-suck/588666/25 "2011-07-12T14:25:17Z")
Yeah, in the last couple years he’s gone downhill a bit but still better than most. Case in point is indeed _Synecdoche, New York_. But he wasn’t alone. I have no idea why anyone could enjoy that movie, let alone praise it. One of my big problems with him is that he “curves” his reviews by genre. A 2nd rate movie gets a bump if it’s better than others in it’s genre and delivers what it’s supposed to. So a lot of action/kids movies are better rated than they should be. This might explain his review of _Zookeeper_. Which is why I am amazed by his poor review of the newest Transformers film. Yes, it has no plot, bad acting and nonsensical protracted fight scenes. But that is what the series is supposed to deliver and it does. So in that way it is “good”. If you’re going to grade on a curve, be consistent. I routinely ignore the star rating, and a lot of the beginning of his reviews. I get to the “meat” and he usually provides enough info that I can tell whether I might like it or not. Oftentimes I’ve read reviews of his that are basically entirely negative but he gives ~3 stars to the films. As for his review of _Larry Crowne_ and audience approval. It’s a very predictable, generic, bland film. Some people like that kind of stuff. Witness _Everybody Loves Raymond_. If that is what you like, don’t expect someone who sees a hundred films a year to have the same tastes. Given the Rotten Tomatoes score and the box office performance, the number of people who can be expected to like it is relatively small. So complaints about his, or other people’s, reviews won’t stand up. ---
**Author:** ![Troutsqueezer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Troutsqueezer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Troutsqueezer)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sorry-ebert-but-your-reviews-suck/588666/26 "2011-07-12T14:47:28Z")
> [@ftg](#): > > As for his review of _Larry Crowne_ and audience approval. It’s a very predictable, generic, bland film. Some people like that kind of stuff. Witness _Everybody Loves Raymond_. If that is what you like, don’t expect someone who sees a hundred films a year to have the same tastes. Given the Rotten Tomatoes score and the box office performance, the number of people who can be expected to like it is relatively small. So complaints about his, or other people’s, reviews won’t stand up. Most movies are predictable. Most movies are generic. One person’s bland is another person’s exciting so that aspect is relative. 621 Yahoo Users gave Larry Crowne a B (average) Ebert gave it a C. ---
**Author:** ![joebuck20](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/74df32/32.png) [@joebuck20](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joebuck20)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sorry-ebert-but-your-reviews-suck/588666/27 "2011-07-12T15:20:00Z")
I still read him regularly, and in spite of everything he’s still one of my favorite syndicated writers. Even when I disagree with him I can see where he’s coming from. But he’s been turning into a bit of a crank the last couple of years. Case in point, his review for “The Lovely Bones.” Now, he was hardly alone in bashing the movie, and even though I liked it I can understand why some people wouldn’t. But I thought he was _way_ off base in his review and seemed to miss the point of the film entirely. > [@](#): > > “The Lovely Bones” is a deplorable film with this message: If you’re a 14-year-old girl who has been brutally raped and murdered by a serial killer, you have a lot to look forward to. You can get together in heaven with the other teenage victims of the same killer, and gaze down in benevolence upon your family members as they mourn you and realize what a wonderful person you were. Sure, you miss your friends, but your fellow fatalities come dancing to greet you in a meadow of wildflowers, and how cool is that? ---
**Author:** ![Raygun99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Raygun99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raygun99)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sorry-ebert-but-your-reviews-suck/588666/28 "2011-07-12T15:22:49Z")
> [@joebuck20](#): > > I still read him regularly, and in spite of everything he’s still one of my favorite syndicated writers, and even when I disagree with him I can see where he’s coming from. But he’s been turning into a bit of a crank the last couple of years. Case in point, he’s review for “The Lovely Bones.” > > Now, he was hardly alone in bashing the movie, and even though I liked it I can understand why some people wouldn’t. But I thought he was _way_ off base in his review and seemed to miss the point of the film entirely. FWIW, I took exactly the same message from the film as him, and he’s over twice my age. ---
**Author:** ![kelly5078](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/6f9a4e/32.png) [@kelly5078](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kelly5078)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sorry-ebert-but-your-reviews-suck/588666/29 "2011-07-12T15:38:28Z")
I still like Ebert. Sometimes his reviews have interesting insights, sometimes not; sometimes they’re nuts. They are, however, almost always well-written, entertaining little essays. Bernardinelli is probably a better guide to whether a movie is worth seeing, but he’s a bit bland. There are a raft of reviewers who aren’t really worth paying attention to at all. To me, Ebert’s reviews have value as minor literature, in the same way as Lester Bangs’s reviews had for rock music. They are only secondarily useful as guides to what movies I should go see. The general tenor of reviews for a given movie can be quickly gotten from RottenTomatoes. I find that site fairly reliable if I make allowances for biases that seem to be pandemic. For example, extra points seem to be given if a movie is unintelligible but with pretensions to art (as in “Synecdoche, New York,” mentioned above), or if it is a documentary, or if it is in a foreign language. The latter might have some validity, given that an American distributor has to overcome the language barrier and still draw an audience. ---
**Author:** ![Plumbkrazy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f05b48/32.png) [@Plumbkrazy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Plumbkrazy)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sorry-ebert-but-your-reviews-suck/588666/30 "2011-07-12T16:11:20Z")
I never read Ebert’s reviews with the intention of using his opinion to help me decide which movies to see and which ones to avoid. The vast majority of movies are so cookie cutter and predictable that critics aren’t necessary at all. Of course Transformers 3 is stupid. I already know that Transformers 4 will be stupid, too…probably significantly worse than part 3. I don’t need a critic to tell me this. I find it interesting to look up movies from the past and read his reviews of them. Whether I agree with him or not, the man knows film inside and out. ---
**Author:** ![It\_s\_Not\_Rocket\_Surgery](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/it_s_not_rocket_surgery/32/312_2.png) [@It\_s\_Not\_Rocket\_Surgery](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/It_s_Not_Rocket_Surgery)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sorry-ebert-but-your-reviews-suck/588666/31 "2011-07-12T16:26:24Z")
> [@jharvey963](#): > > I’ve pretty much stopped listening to (or at least, giving weight to) all critics reviews. They seem to have much different criteria for judging the movie than I do. > > What I DO pay attention to these days is the Yahoo! Movies User’s Grade. I find that this grade gives me a better prediction of whether I’ll like the movie or not. There ARE a few gotchas in that system that you have to be aware of, though. All “regular” movies start out with pretty high marks on opening day. If the grade is too high or too low (e.g., A+ or D) on opening day, that means that some political movement has influenced the grade. For example, The Golden Compass had a VERY low grade on opening day due to all of the Fundies (who I’m sure hadn’t even seen the movie) giving it an F because it was allegedly an atheist movie. > > After 1 or 2 days, however, the grades seem to average out. A rating of A-, B+, or B usually means it’s a pretty good movie. Any C grade means it’s probably not very good. The number of ratings is also important. Any movie with less than, oh, 100 user ratings probably isn’t very accurate. > > J. Hmmm. My impression of Yahoo! Movies ratings is a bit different. It seems to me that almost all movies get a rating of B+ or better, and that the only way a movie could get worse than a B is if during the movie, the ushers come out and throw shit at the audience. Maybe it’s just me. ---
**Author:** ![It\_s\_Not\_Rocket\_Surgery](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/it_s_not_rocket_surgery/32/312_2.png) [@It\_s\_Not\_Rocket\_Surgery](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/It_s_Not_Rocket_Surgery)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sorry-ebert-but-your-reviews-suck/588666/32 "2011-07-12T16:37:15Z")
Make that “worse than a B-”. Here are some generally panned, recent movies and their Yahoo! user ratings: Zookeeper: B- Bad Teacher: B- Larry Crowne: B Green Lantern: B+ Hangover 2: B- Judy Moody and the Not Bummer Summer: B+ Hoodwinked Too: Hood vs. Evil: B Priest: B- ---
**Author:** ![DMark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@DMark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMark)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sorry-ebert-but-your-reviews-suck/588666/33 "2011-07-12T17:10:36Z")
> [@It\_s\_Not\_Rocket\_Surgery](#): > > Make that “worse than a B-”. > > Here are some generally panned, recent movies and their Yahoo! user ratings: > > Zookeeper: B- > Bad Teacher: B- > Larry Crowne: B > Green Lantern: B+ > Hangover 2: B- > Judy Moody and the Not Bummer Summer: B+ > Hoodwinked Too: Hood vs. Evil: B > Priest: B- Sounds like a bunch of yahoos who liked those that much. Every speech class, I have a question of the day and last week I asked, “Name your favorite film.” One of my student’s favorite film of all time is “The A-Team.” I think my jaw put a dent in the desk when I read that. I like Ebert - I don’t always agree with him, but I respect where he is coming from. Certain films I know he won’t like, even before it is released, and others I can pretty much guarantee he will like, sight unseen. Still - he can be funny or give some good insight even in reviews I don’t necessarily agree with. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sorry-ebert-but-your-reviews-suck/588666/34 "2011-07-12T17:51:31Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > He’s gotten extremely lazy, and many times complains about plot holes that don’t exist - he just didn’t catch the explanation because he wasn’t paying attention (used to be because he was notorious for a mid-movie concession stand run). This has been true for a long time. His review of _Ronin_ doesn’t even sound like the same movie that I saw. His insights are sometimes interesting, but his attention to the details is more fleeting than a butterfly in a snowstorm. > [@Sampiro](#): > > Any trust I had was destroyed when he gave _Synecdoche, New York_ glowing reviews, calling it the “best film of the decade” and “one of the greatest of all time”. Admittedly so did many other critics; others gave it failing grades, there was hardly any middle ground. Of course Charlie Kaufman is my litmus for “The Emperor Has No Clothes” artists: what critics interpret as innovative and unique and symbolic I often interpret as ‘pretentious crap masquerading as absurdism because the writer was too lazy or untalented to write a coherent script’. I take exception to this; Kaufman doesn’t write movies that pander to the audience (or when they do, as in _Adaptation_, it does so in a mocking, “Is this what you wanted, Mr. Beeblebrox?” tone), and shouldn’t be judged in terms of purely entertainment value any more than you would grade _War and Peace_ or _Catch-22_ on the same standard as you would a _Harry Potter_ novel. This doesn’t mean that you have to like his film, and I would be the first to agree that _Synechoche, New York_ is decidedly an unlikable and depressing film, but that doesn’t detract from the skill, talent, and unvarnished self-reflection it takes to make such a movie. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sorry-ebert-but-your-reviews-suck/588666/35 "2011-07-12T18:33:42Z")
> [@Arrendajo](#): > > His reviews, however, are so well done that I read them just for the pleasure of enjoying the writing. I would rather read a hundred Ebert reviews than sit through one movie. This. Exactly this. Ebert’s reviews are generally much more fun than the movies he covers. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sorry-ebert-but-your-reviews-suck/588666/36 "2011-07-12T19:10:18Z")
I have never read a movie review for the purpose of deciding whether to see a movie. I read movie reviews for the insight that the reviewer offers in interpreting the movie from his or her point of view. ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sorry-ebert-but-your-reviews-suck/588666/37 "2011-07-12T19:30:05Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > I have never read a movie review for the purpose of deciding whether to see a movie. I read movie reviews for the insight that the reviewer offers in interpreting the movie from his or her point of view. Yeah, same here. Ebert is one of those guys I like reading because he is a good writer. I don’t really need to get my opinion of a film from someone else - I’ll just see it myself. A reviewer might make the difference between a cinema visit and a DVD purchase/rental though, but they are a select bunch - Peter Bradshaw at the _Guardian_ and Mark Kermode at the BBC ---
**Author:** ![Clark\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c77e96/32.png) [@Clark\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clark_K)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sorry-ebert-but-your-reviews-suck/588666/38 "2011-07-12T20:12:30Z")
Ebert has repeatedly made clear that his goal in a review is not simply to tell people whether it’s good or bad, but to explain WHY. That way, people know enough to say, “Well Ebert may not have liked it, but it sounds like exactly the kind of movie I’d enjoy.” So a successful Ebert review is not one that matches your perception of a movie; it’s one that gives you enough information to make a decision. That said, I have seen him get confused about key plot points (his review of “Unknown” with Liam Neeson was a disaster) and wander off on tangents. As a reviewer, he’s no longer at the top of his game. He’s still a fascinating writer and thinker. ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sorry-ebert-but-your-reviews-suck/588666/39 "2011-07-12T20:37:22Z")
> [@Clark\_K](#): > > Ebert has repeatedly made clear that his goal in a review is not simply to tell people whether it’s good or bad, but to explain WHY. That ship has sailed. A typical Ebert review nowadays is just him going off on some ridiculous diatribe about god knows what. Case in point, his [Battle Los Angeles](http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110309/REVIEWS/110309992) review: [QUOTE=Roger Ebert] The aliens are hilarious. Do they give Razzies for special effects? They seem to be animal/machine hybrids with automatic weapons growing from their arms, which must make it hard to change the baby. [/QUOTE] A previous scene established that the aliens are an alien/machine with the gun surgically welded to their hands. There’s no “seem to be”, it’s shown on screen in a lengthy scene. [QUOTE=Roger Ebert] Aaron Eckhart stars as Staff Sgt. Nantz, a 20-year veteran who has something shady in his record, which people keep referring to, although screenwriter Christopher Bertolini is too cagey to come right out and describe it. Never mind. [/QUOTE] Again, Aaron Eckhart’s past is fleshed out in an extended scene towards the end of the movie. The fact that Ebert missed it means he zoned out during a good 10-15 minutes of the movie. At least. [QUOTE=Roger Ebert] There is a lazy editing style in action movies these days that assumes nothing need make any sense visually. [/QUOTE] It astounds me that a critic of Ebert’s former renown missed that Battle LA is just an Iraq War movie with aliens. And that the editing style deliberately aped The Hurt Locker and other, similar movies. [QUOTE=Roger Ebert] Young men: If you attend this crap with friends who admire it, tactfully inform them they are idiots. Young women: If your date likes this movie, tell him you’ve been thinking it over, and you think you should consider spending some time apart. [/QUOTE] That’s just crass, even for Ebert. ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2011, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sorry-ebert-but-your-reviews-suck/588666/40 "2011-07-12T20:41:53Z")
> [@Clark\_K](#): > > That said, I have seen him get confused about key plot points (his review of “Unknown” with Liam Neeson was a disaster) and wander off on tangents. As a reviewer, he’s no longer at the top of his game. He’s still a fascinating writer and thinker. Holy fuck! I just read that **Unknown** review. The only way Ebert missed that many plot points is if he fell asleep after the first half hour. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sorry-ebert-but-your-reviews-suck/588666.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sorry-ebert-but-your-reviews-suck/588666.md?page=3)