...the famous critc?


Am I the only person who likes Roger Ebert??? Am I the only existing human life-form that owns all of his books, not to say, checks Mr. Ebert's website on a daily basis?

My question: Why is he disliked so?


Yeah, I've heard the arguments-

He likes movies that not a lot of people like!

I always disagree with him!

He isnt consistent!

He gave "Ghosts of Mars" three stars (a positive review) yet that same film received a bad Metascore on the very website whose forums you are browsing!

OK, am I missing the point, or something??? To me, critics are people, just like us, who go to the movies, the only difference being that we have to pay to see a crappy flick whereas they get paid.

Ebert states his opinion in a rather well-written article while we discuss what we have just seen in an informal way.

A critic that you always disagree with is just as helpful as a critic that you always agree with. If he/she says to see the movie; first read why he said to go see it, and then, from there, decide if he has a justifiable point.

And to say that Mr. Ebert is inconsistent would be a correct statement. How else could you account for giving "Reservoir Dogs" a negative review yet saying "Pulp Fiction" is one of the greatest films of all time. But, are any of us consistent??? When we walk out of, let's say "New York Minute", do we analyze every negative thing we've ever said about a movie similair to umm...that -cough- movie -cough- and see if the criticism that we are about to lash out against Mary Kate, Ashley, and Eugene Levy's agent goes along with the guidelines previously set at a prior occassion? Or do we just go ahead and say it sucked and give three reasons why?

I dont know. Again, maybe I am just missing the point. After all, I am the only existing human-like life-form that liked "Hulk".

Maybe, the crazy-freaking editing in that flick screwed with my mind, and programmed myself to defend an undefend critic....

....or maybe not.

~Eccentro

I like Ebert, too. Even if he did give Showgirls 2 out of 4 stars. He clearly loves film, and it shows. Keep it going, Rodge!

I think a lot of people don't like Ebert because he puts a relentlessly positive spin on most movies, which strikes some as fake. I think he's a terrific analyst (his perspective on some films, like Irreversible, is an invaluable read) and that makes up for the odd up-scaling of his reviews.

Everyone has a different movie taste. Thus, you simply choose the critic who's views are most consistent with yours. Personally, I tend to ignore Ebert's reviews. If you walk into a Best Buy looking for a good movie to purchase, you will see that 50% of the movies they carry are always labeled on the front cover with:

"Two thumbs up!"
- Roger Ebert

He's not picky enough. He likes virtually everything he sees. So if he's raving about every movie in the world, why even consider his point of view? That's my opinion anyway.

I actually don't have a personal favorite critic. That's why I use Metacritic.

K-Dog

He's the critic whose reviews I read the most.

Here's what great about Ebert:

1. He judges films based on the filmmaker's intent. He'll give Episode 1 a decent review, not because Lucas has made a movie for the ages that should be compared to LOTR, Saving Private Ryan, or Pulp Fiction. He gives it a decent rating because Lucas set out to create a popcorn flick and he delivered a decent popcorn flick.

2. His reviews are insightful. I read Ebert mostly because of the fact that he is always trying to find something interesting to say about filmmaking in every review he writes. He never seems content with a plot synopsis and a thumbs up or down in his column. He'll use the movie as a jumping point to talk about current positive or negative trends in Hollywood.

sometimes it seems that ebert likes everything, comes off as phony

quote:

---

Originally posted by enkydu:
Here's what great about Ebert:

1. He judges films based on the filmmaker's intent. He'll give Episode 1 a decent review, not because Lucas has made a movie for the ages that should be compared to LOTR, Saving Private Ryan, or Pulp Fiction. He gives it a decent rating because Lucas set out to create a popcorn flick and he delivered a decent popcorn flick.

---

uh, phantom menace wasn't supposed to be a 'decent popcorn flick', and that is the reason why that flick stank. the original star wars was a herculean project undertaken because he believed there was a wonderful mythological story to be told, a tale for a country just starting the space age.

there was an important social subtext, although not a deep one, with the original, whereas the phantom menace was sheer commercial exploitation, or artistic cannibalism, since he was feasting on the virtues he created for the sake of the monied hype he now believed and represented.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucho Grande:
sometimes it seems that ebert likes everything, comes off as phony

---

He also dislikes quite a bit (Fight club, Gladiator, Reservoir Dogs, Usual Suspects). A critic who really likes just about everything is Harry Knowles.

I have to agree with K-Dog, in that he likes just about every movie. Check out on MetaCritic their Critic Analysis. Across the films that he rates, he gives more positive reviews than other critics 70% of the time! That means he rates great pictures higher than most, and rates bad pictures higher than most! What the heck is that? Isn't there any discrimination in what films he sees anymore?

I've got to say that, even though I don't agree with Mr. Ebert 100% of the time, I do respect him tremendously. The man has an encyclopedic knowledge of film, yet he manages to be totally unpretentious. He could probably best any film critic, prof, or snob out there in terms of the sheer vastness of his knowledge, but he doesn't really care-- at the end of the day, he just loves movies.

Oh I have no doubt about that. But then again, that's precisely why I don't take his reviews into consideration. He loves ALL movies, and way more than the average critic at that.

Every DVD I own has "Roger Ebert gives it two thumbs up!" It's come to the point where I don't even notice his quotes on DVD's anymore. They're just as common as taglines.

K-Dog

Eccentro, I LOVED the Hulk. It was brilliant. I didn't expect to because of the poor reviews.

I am an Ebert fan, too. Yeah, he loves movies and therefore can find good in movies that others can't, ergo more positive reviews, but you just factor that in and keep moving. I have a brain of my own.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Lion:

I am an Ebert fan, too. Yeah, he loves movies and therefore can find good in movies that others can't, ergo more positive reviews, but you just factor that in and keep moving. I have a brain of my own.

---

Yes, I think we all have our own working brains. But why factor Ebert's reviews in along with everything else in the first place? It's just like multiplying everything by the same number. It's pointless because you end up doing extra work, but in the end you get the same ratios you began with.

Ebert is the common denominator in a math equation. All you have to do to simplify it is cancel him out.

And also...

quote:

---

Written by Eccentro
He also dislikes quite a bit (Fight club, Gladiator, Reservoir Dogs, Usual Suspects).

---

Um...the examples in the quote above don't necessarily help the pro-Ebert argument, they just further prove how Ebert is not a very good critic. Fight Club, Usual suspects, Res. Dogs, and Gladiator are all great films.

Ebert:

Walking film encyclopedia: YES
Lives and breathes movies: YES
Would have sex with movies if he could: YES
Is a good critic: NO

K-Dog

quote:

---

Um...the examples in the quote above don't necessarily help the pro-Ebert argument, they just further prove how Ebert is not a very good critic. Fight Club, Usual suspects, Res. Dogs, and Gladiator are all great films.


_K-Dog_

---

I was trying to say that he doesnt like EVERYTHING, as you said he did. I like many of the films he dislikes, but that doesnt make him a bad critic---he always justifies his opinion. I think he just writes controversial reviews.

quote:

---

written by Eccentro
I was trying to say that he doesnt like EVERYTHING, as you said he did. I like many of the films he dislikes, but that doesnt make him a bad critic---he always justifies his opinion. I think he just writes controversial reviews.

---

Yeah I know. Obviously I was exaggerating when I said "all" movies. I didn't think you'd take it literally. Also, I understood what your point was, I was just saying as a side note that the examples that you happened to provide were great films.

As for him being a great "critic" I'd have to disagree (again). He gives an overwhelming amount of positive criticism, but not enough negative criticism. To be a great critic you have to have a balance of both.

K-Dog

I don't think he is a great critic, although I enjoy reading his reviews of movies that I plan to see because I find that his enthusiasm can be infecting. His review of Spider Man 2 has gotten me even more stoked to see it, which is quite a feat! I really loved his dynamic with the late Siskel, and felt that they produced much more balanced reviews than Ebert does on his own or with that studio marionette Roeper. Personally, I also enjoyed the Hulk, which I never expected to, due to both poor reviews and my hatred for Ang Lee's previous film Crouching Tiger, Hidden Plagiarism. And as far as giving Showgirls a 2 out of 4, I think I would do the same. I enjoy the film in the same way I enjoy seeing Paul Verhoeven shit on U.S. culture in all of his films! Poor reviews for Fight Club, the Usual Suspects and Reservoir Dogs are not that uncommon from people I know, let alone professional critics. I love those three movies, but I don't expect people working in the industry to agree with me. Look at my favorite movies, I haven't met too many people who love them as much I do. So, no, Ebert is not a great critic, but I can't think of anyone who is. A great critic is most likely an oxymoron.

quote:

---

Originally posted by K-Dog:
Oh I have no doubt about that. But then again, that's precisely why I don't take his reviews into consideration. He loves ALL movies, and way more than the average critic at that.

Every DVD I own has "Roger Ebert gives it two thumbs up!" It's come to the point where I don't even notice his quotes on DVD's anymore. They're just as common as taglines.

_K-Dog_

---

to clarify Roger Ebert is one person of a team on Ebert and Roeper and the Movies so HE himself doesn't give 2 thumbs up.

i in fact love Roger Ebert. i watch his show every week. i read his reviews on sun-times and he is one of my favorite old poeple on tv. critics are no different from all the other posters/postees on this site-he just gets paid, handsomely i might add. besides there are so many other crappy critics-scorn them.

I like Roger.

Besides the fact he lives in my hometown, he certifiably loves films. He has become articulate and thoughtful over the years. If he's wrong, it's 'cuz he loves film too much, and in some areas he has become sentimental in his old age.

Chicago (which has graced film criticism with not only Roger, but Dave Kehr, David Elliot AND Jonathan Rosenbaum) also has Jonathan Rosenbaum at the Reader. He writes criticism in the way that we think of French film criticism. He's honest and acute with the foreign stuff (the best there is actually in the good ole USA-better than Hoberman, even, at the Village Voice) and top notch with American cinema, particularly nuanced with comedy and comedy directors.

I shouldn't praise Roger too much, it'll go to his head.

Oh my God! I just saw "The Village", thought it was pretty good, and then checked to see each critic's rating. Was absolutely flabbergasted that Roger Ebert ACTUALLY RATED A FILM POORLY! What happened? Did M. Night piss him off or something?