Why the reverence for Ebert?

Cafe Society
1

Failed screenwriter responsible for some average exploitation schlock (Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, Beneath the Valley of the Ultra Vixens, the ghastly script for the unfilmed Who Killed Bambi). Cult classics, yes, but so is Last House on the Left, which Ebert gave 3 and half stars at the time, then spent a career savaging similar movies.

Helped usher in the era of critic as star (those who can’t, critique!), when no critic of any art form should be held in such esteem. Over the top savage reviews to get attention to himself, and his brand. If he doesn’t like it, it can’t be because it’s a good movie and maybe just didn’t click with him, if he doesn’t like it ‘it sucks’.

I don’t care for The Third Man, and prefer To Have and Have Not to Casablanca- doesn’t make me dumb, just those two didn’t click with me for whatever reason- movies are personal, and don’t hit with everybody- no film gets a 10 from every single viewer, not even close. And I can make the distinction that Casablanca and Third Man are good, well made movies, just they didn’t touch me personally, same as I can appreciate the quality of some opera without liking it- Ebert couldn’t make that distinction.

Worked in a era where one or two critics could basically kill a movie, as he and Canby did with Heaven’s Gate, kills Cimino’s career, and then years later, “reassesses” it and says, hey, maybe it wasn’t that bad! I’m sure Cimino appreciated that! Ok’s it under the guise of “I am not the same man I was twenty years ago” and fair enough. Some movies I couldn’t get through years ago, I try again and love them. Difference here is when you call something utter garbage in 1980 and in 2000 says it is really good, your credibility goes to pot.

Titled a book “your movie sucks” as an attention grab to further his brand- “why I didn’t care for this movie” just wouldn’t sell as well I guess?"

Subjective yes, but 3 and half stars to Godfather 3, three stars to Godfather 2.

At least once admitted to possibly missing one or two scenes when a review proved he didn’t watch the whole thing. 1000’s or reviews, this is the only time this happened? Sure.

Good review to the Spike Lee abomination She Hate Me, saying not a good film, but ‘did not know where it was going’. Zero stars to Freddy Got Fingered, which I am sure he didn’t see where that one was going, no one possibly could have.

Inconsistent application of his “does the movie set out what it intends to achieve” mantra. Does not apply this when the movie attempts to achieve something disturbing or gross.

Historically witty reviews are anything but- North (hated, hated hated this movie, etc contains no wit, at all). Freddy got Fingered (scrape the bottom of the barrel? this movie doesn’t deserve to be mentioned with barrels, would only make sense if barrels are an inherently bad thing. Like saying “scum on the bottom of my shoe? This movie doesn’t deserve to be mentioned with shoes!”)

Gave a ‘legendary’ bad review of High Tension, a vile yet well made film, because ‘it has a plot hole so big you could drive a truck through, and then they do’. This would have actually been probably the biggest plot hole in movie history- but it isn’t. Ebert clearly missed the beginning where it shows the bulk of the film to be an unreliable narrator detailing events to the cops.

Once said “I am uninterested in being consistent”. Meaning, I write what I feel at the time, don’t care it correct, don’t care the effect of what my one off review can do for a film. Thank Goodness we have the internet now with 1000’s of reviewers so one person doesn’t have the power over a film anymore.

Etc.

2

The man’s dead. Let it go. Take a walk.

Freddy Got Fingered does suck dirty ditchwater, though.

3

I usually found Siskel’s reviews more helpful. He rarely steered me to a movie I didn’t like.

I quickly learned to ignore Ebert’s reviews unless he agreed with Siskel. I left the theater disappointed a few times because I listened to Ebert.

I did watch Siskel & Ebert regularly on PBS. Watching them bicker was entertaining. I usually went to the theater anytime they agreed on a movie.

Their health problems were so tragic. Ebert was sick for a long time.

4

Why the, uh, ------- focus on Roger Ebert, a guy who’s been dead for 6 years now? You sure seem to know an awful lot about him and his work; are you like a super-fan or something?

5

Ebert often seemed…eager to take umbrage with a film. Didn’t get that so much with Siskel.

6

I always felt Ebert was top notch in his criticism. He saw more in movies and was a far better writer than anyone else.

Siskel was also fine, though if they differed I’d go with him if it was a comedy and Ebert if it was a drama. But Ebert opinion was always a solid one and he was able to articulate the reasons for it better than just about anyone – a key but overlooked element in any review.

If you want to complain about a terrible reviewer, take Gene Shalit or Rex Reed.

7

Well, for one thing he’s the only movie critic I ever found to be entertaining to read or watch. So there’s that.

8

Because I still often hear people quoting the North and FGF reviews, and the Rob Schneider and Vincent Gallo insults and find it offensive a man could take pleasure in ruining careers and lives and not really care about it.

9

In the internet age he would be one among hundreds. So no fan, but as a movie fan during his era, wanting reviews of films, his show was all my TV channels had to offer.

10

People will only listen to and quote a review if they believe it has merit.

Reviewers are not gods. They can’t make people not like something. At most they can discourage some portion of the audience not to bother viewing something. But then the people who do see it are going to tell everyone they’re wrong.

In other words, Ebert did not and could not ruin any of these careers.

And I say this as a guy who never gave his reviews much mind, and would find flaws in them when people would link them. You’re giving the man more power than he could ever have.

11

perhaps, but it was original, different, he did not know where it was going, and it certainly achieved what it intended to do- all requisites for a good film, per Ebert. Yet zero stars.

12

Thank you for the response, but respectfully, Michael Cimino would probably disagree, that in 1980, one or two reviewers couldn’t ruin your career.

That would be Heaven’s Gate, currently over 50% RT and 6.8 IMDB- hardly best movie ever, but not the worst thing ever, as Ebert pretty much claimed in 1980, then changed his mind.

13

There is simply no way in hell Roger Ebert ruined Heaven’s Gate. That’s just not a thing that happens, but in this specific case, it’s crazy to say Roger Ebert really had much to do with the movie bombing at all. It had a dreadful reputation before it released, being a production nightmare, and the released version was a 3-hour-40-minute snoozefest that essentially no one liked. Ebert’s famous review of the film was of its second release version (a shorter version, but one which, due to the editing, often failed to be coherent) by which time the movie had ALREADY gain es a reputation as a disaster.

14

I always found Ebert fair with movies, and not snobby about genres.

I do think that towards the end, he was mostly handing out candy. Maybe being so sick was making him less on point, or he was so grateful to still be alive that an unwarranted positivity pervaded his work. He seemed to rarely hand out less than three stars to anything.

I liked Siskel fine too.

15

If they didn’t want their careers ruined, they should have made better movies.

16

Bad movies ruin themselves; they don’t really need anyone else’s help.

17

True, Canby savaged the original four hour cut, but this was shown as a premiere, one theatre only. It was recut and given a wider release. Ebert and Kael savaged that cut. The dreadful reputation pre-release was mainly known only to film insiders and was due to, among other things, way over budget, great amount of waste (rebuilding an entire set because Cimino wanted it a foot closer or something), animal cruelty, etc. None of which matters to the viewer, except maybe the animal cruelty. Viewers don’t care what it cost, their ticket cost was the same at 1 million or 40 million. Average person in 1980 did not know inside info on movie dailies.

So agree, in this case, Canby savaged it and Ebert piled on, which is still a problem in film criticism today- monkey see, monkey do.

For further reading:

18

I’m not remotely a Rob Schneider fan but the story of his post-review interaction with Ebert is surprisingly touching.

19

I liked his reviews, generally speaking. I found him more likely to meet a movie where it was, then to pan it simply because it was a superhero/horror/art film, and he didn’t like that genre (which I see all the time now, and it’s a peeve of mine). He tended towards the snarky, which I also enjoyed. I miss him. I haven’t found another critic who captures the essence of movies so well.

20

It’s okay with me if a critic treats their job as an art rather than a science. It’s okay with me if a review is worth reading for its own sake (it’s insightful or entertaining) rather than its movie’s sake. Critics are not umpires; they don’t have that same duty to be fair or consistent, let alone to enforce rules.

Any review of a movie (or anything else) should be understood as one person’s opinion (hopefully an informed, well thought out, well defended opinion).