Now that my favorite fim critic, Roger Ebert, has died, is there anyone out there who can fill the void? Ebert and I had the same taste in film, and I mean to a remarkable degree. Almost exactly the same, with very few exceptions. I could trust his reviews so much that I’ve not paid that much attention to other reviewers.
Leonard Maltin I like, but I don’t feel the same affinity as I did with Ebert. I recall Ebert mentioning someone one time who he thought was great, but I can’t recall the name. I have a vague recollection it was someone with The New York Times but can’t be sure.
I honestly think the days of the professional movie critic are just about over.
With multiple trailers for just about every movie, and reviews and critiques all over the web at almost the instant a movies’ first showing concludes, and sometimes before, there simply isn’t much of a need to wait 2, 3, and sometimes up to 5 days after a movie opens for someone to tell you whether it’s good or not.
It’s not a matter of how many opinions are out there instantly; it’s a matter of whether I can find an opinion I trust by someone whose writing and judgment I respect.
I’m going to miss Ebert as much for his writing as for his opinions about movies. I don’t think there is a replacement out there, period.
Honestly, Film Brain is the film critic I have the most respect for at this point in time - he’s very intelligent and even-handed, and takes an analytical look at the movies he’s reviewing even when he’s being downright hilarious. I don’t think there’ll ever be anyone to hold the same level of gravitas as Ebert did - times have changed and people no longer have to rely on newspapers or TV to tell them what to think of movies.
There’s a fellow by the name of grude who has some remarkable insight into film. Such questions as “Why does anybody like this stuff?” are a fresh approach that the cinema-goers of today demand.
Just kidding. I have nothing to contribute, I’ve never found a reviewer I’ve agreed on more than about 40% of the time, so I’m still searching.
Ebert has a lot of great essays in the Great Movies section of his website. I hope those all remain preserved and accessible. Indeed, I hope all his reviews remain accessible.
I’m surprised here at the emphasis on whether or not you agree with Ebert, or another reviewer. Who cares if you agree with them? I’ve made my decision on seeing a movie within fifteen seconds of seeing the first trailer, and often before that.
I read Ebert because he was a hell of a writer. He and I might have disagreed on how good or bad a movie was, but I always wanted to read his take on the film because he always had an interesting take on it. Ebert approached his reviews with a different perspective than most reviewers; he saw all movies as an effort to do something with the medium of cinema, and judged them according to whether they could do that and still keep the viewer interested. He really, really loved movies, and he liked movies that reinformced his love of movies. His last line of his review of “Fargo” is “Films like Fargo are why I love the movies.” That was the highest praise Ebert could deliver.
Ebery was often criticized for missing details and plot points in the movies he reviewed; indeed, in his “Fargo” review, he (like a lot of people, to be fair) demonstrates he doesn’t know why William H Macy’s character is in trouble with GMAC. But that’s beside the point and not relevant to why he was so popular. He was popular because he approached movies from the same perspective as the public;** is this movie what it promised to be?** And he was very, very good at expressing why he felt it was, or wasn’t.
So, really, there may not be another Roger Ebert. There may be many fine movie critics, but there isn’t necessarily going to be one who reviews films the way Roger Ebert did.
You feel this way now, and I respect that. Let’s pick this up again in 5 years when I suspect the concept of a professional movie reviewer will seem quaint, even to you.
There will be no next Ebert. But the film critic I will read is, perhaps by default as I live in SF, Mick LaSalle. He’s not great, and not as good a writer as Ebert, but he’s competent.
Add the word “traditional” and I think you’re right. We no longer need a specialist, invited by the industry to preview the movie, whose work we read in a newspaper on opening Friday. As strong and perceptive a critic as Ebert was, that was his main purpose, and it’s one that has been eclipsed by the internet.
There will always be a place for discerning and educated critics, but “Siskel & Ebert” style reviewing is one with the buggy whip and gas lantern.
More importantly, he’s very consistent. After reading him for ten years, I had a carefully calibrated gauge on his viewpoint and could ‘correct’ his reviews for personal accuracy.
I’m very sorry to see Ebert pass on, but I had pretty much quit reading his reviews. No special reason, just didn’t take the time. I tend not to read reviews until after I have seen something that appealed to me either from promotions, trailers, word of mouth, or some affinity to people involved in the movie.
After seeing something that intrigued me I would look for Ebert’s slant on it or check Rotten Tomatoes for the overall opinion of it. I found I would agree with those sources at least 75% of the time.
I would read Ebert for things I might have missed or evaluated differently, and in that sense I can’t think of any reviewer whose take on a movie was or is better put together. Not that I would agree, but that I could see that person’s point(s).
Ebert won’t be replaced in my book. He was one of a kind with few peers and no betters.
