I agree with people who say that Ebert has become too lenient when judging bad movies. Pretty much any ranking below 3 and a half stars means the movie sucks. However, his recent review of United 93 is by far the best I've read. When I want to read about a great movie, he is the first one I go to.

Ebert's pretty hit or miss with me. The fact that he gave "Domino" 3 stars makes me skeptical of all his future reviews. That was the worst movie I'd ever seen. Now, if he gives a movie 4 stars, I'll go see it still.

I think Ebert is fantastic. He doesn't get bogged down in pseudo-intellectual bullshit, or endless introspection. If he loves the film his reviews are extraordinary, like for example Last Tango In Paris, and if he doesn't, he is witty and light in his criticism, not bitchy or hipper than thou. The fact that he loves so much of what he sees is why he's such a popular reviewer. Roger is not an Abominable No Man!
Now, I'm headin' off to his site to rate a few flicks...
See you there...

I've really come to completely disregard Ebert, as he likes just about everything he sees. I think last year, somebody pointed out that he gave 2.5 stars to a film that ended up making his WORST 10 of the Year! He has no credibility with me.

There's nothing wrong with liking 75% of the films that you see...just don't be a film critic. By definition (or at least my definition), you're supposed to separate out and identify the films worth seeing...not be a shill for Hollywood.

quote:

Originally posted by Frank Valeron Esq.:
If he loves the film his reviews are extraordinary, like for example Last Tango In Paris, and if he doesn't, he is witty and light in his criticism, not bitchy or hipper than thou.

Amen. Also, you know if he really pans something, it must really, really suck.

He did give one of my favorite films, Harold and Maude, a complete pan of one-and-one-half stars.

With Ebert, it's better to just disregard the star ratings and only focus on the written review. Sometimes he likes movies other people hate, sometimes he hates movies other people like, and recently he has been giving average reviews to almost everything. (Let's see, which one of these three-star movies should I see tonight, this one, this one, or this one?)

He's somewhat reliable most of the time, but that review of "Garfield 2" was a new low.

Good old Roger . Why, he hasn't changed a bit

I guess you're referring to Roger's teaming with Russ Meyer when Rog wrote the scripts for Meyers' Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, Up! and Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens?

I'd give the Dolls flick a legit entertainment C+ grade, but even higher (about a B+ for pure camp). I haven't seen Up!, but I'd give the crass Ultra-Vixens something like a D+.

I see Rog wasn't too into the new Superman. I wouldn't really be falling over myself to see it either...

After watching this thread for a while, I've come to the conclusion that it's not Roger's opinion that's in question, it's the 4-star scale, and the thumbs up/thumbs down system.

He makes it pretty clear in his reviews why he chooses to recommend a film...often the vibe I pick up on is, "Well, it's not a *great* movie by any means, but it definitely has [something] going for it, so give it a chance." That's enough for him to give something a "thumbs up," which seems fine to me.

The problem is, that reaction might garner three stars, which is a miniscule difference between the 3.5 and 4 stars Roger gives films that are very good to outstanding. Personally I'd love to see him adopt the A-F grading scale...it would probably clear a lot up, and show that he doesn't "love everything."

Roger also recognizes an excellent movie when he sees one, almost all the time. You won't find him missing the boat on a film like "Cache," for example. And he's not put off by superficial excesses, if the film has substance beneath; he's able to see that something like "Last House On The Left" is an effective movie made with intelligence, and not just some trashy, shocking horror flick. His "Great Movies" list has definitely illuminated some things for me--it showed me why so many consider the old B movie "Cat People" a seminal film, for example. I was able to watch it again with new appreciation.

Personally, I trust Roger's opinion on the kind of movies I'm interested in. He does stumble once in a while though--I agree, that review of "Garfield II" was disturbingly weird and generous.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Commontone,

I hear Roger is ill again, so I wish him a speedy recovery. I watched the show last week and Jay Leno of all people was the guest along with Roeper.

This week film director Kevin Smith will fill the seat. It should be more interesting to hear what a working film director has to say about films, rather than a novice like Leno.

I regularly watch Ebert & Roeper even though Ebert is AWOL and the best show they do is the worst 10. Last week, Roeper said that Kevin Smith would be his guest on this week's show where they do their annual 10 worst.

However, when I watched the show last night there was another Chicago film critic and no Kevin Smith so I wonder what happened. I wonder if Smith got cold feet about panning colleagues' work.

In any event, I only saw one of the films mentioned, RUNNING WITH SCISSORS, which Roeper named his worst of the year and the other guy had it third worst. You won't get an argument from me on that one.

What a bunch of turkeys. There wasn't a total of 20 films because there was some duplication on the lists.

Well, good news! EBERT'S BACK!!!!! He finally has a new review on his site! Of course, it's only for "Shrek 3", but it's a new review from The Man, & he's done a couple more since yesterday! ENJOY!!!!!!