I watched Ebert & Roeper's show regularly and am astonished about how frequently Roger gives the thumb's up. He seems to like virtually everything. I'd like to keep track of all the films he reviews on his show to see what % are thumb's up and thumb's down.

Here is Ebert this week, the first '06 show:

I'll put the metacritics' score in parenthesis next to the movie

Pro
Last Holiday (52)

Matador (65)

Libertine (43)

So far, 3 pro, no con (surprise, surprise, surprise)

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

Actually, Metacritic already records these stats for every critic here. You can see that Ebert scores movies higher than average 72% of the time, and on average scores movies 8.5 points higher than the average critic.

I checked some other major critics, and Ebert does appear to be higher than just everyone. But maybe that's part of his charm. He's not as snobby as others.

I swear that Roger Ebert has become a quote whore, a cut above the Earl Dittmans of the world. LAST HOLIDAY scored a 52 in the metacritic's poll. Ebert's score was 75, the second highest.

Roger Ebert and Glenn Kenny of Premiere magazine are my two favorite critics and I'll tell ya why. They both love movies! A lot. They truly enjoy finding what works in a movie rather than looking for what is wrong with a movie. In my opinion, critics should do more than just pick films apart, which they get paid to do; but they should also point out strong, interesting, artistic, provocative, heart-warming, gut-wrenching, noteworthy, etc. aspects of films. I generally see about 20-25 movies every year that I would give a rating of four stars (out of four). I think most people who see lots of films generally have only about 10-12 films that they would give a rating of four stars. What about you? Do you reserve your four-star ratings for a small number of movies each year or are you more liberal overall in your praise of films?

I love movies, but I rarely give them four stars. I reserve those for what I consider the most-entertaining or powerful films. I don't think I've given more than 12 films this millenium four stars.

quote:

Originally posted by Sees Fine Films:
I generally see about 20-25 movies every year that I would give a rating of four stars (out of four). I think most people who see lots of films generally have only about 10-12 films that they would give a rating of four stars. What about you? Do you reserve your four-star ratings for a small number of movies each year or are you more liberal overall in your praise of films?

As I get older, I think I'm becoming less of a snob about movies. If a movie accomplishes what it set out to do, it's a good movie. Take this year's "Wedding Crashers". It's obviously not going to win any awards, but in the scope of it's genre and target audience, it works tremendously and is a great movie.

Loving movies is one thing, but Ebert gives roughly 75% (maybe even more than that) of the movies he sees two thumbs up. I only remember him actually hating a couple of movies. Don't get me wrong, the guy's an inspiration to me - he gets paid to do something simple and enjoyable, and paid well, I'd imagine, but he's just a bit too generous towards movies that probably deserve a good drubbing.

And am I the only one who just can't stand Queen Latifah? She just gets on my nerves

Roger continues to rival Earl Dittman as the most prolific quote whore. Ebert & his sidekick reviewed six films this week and Rog gave the thumb's up on six of 'em. So of the 9 films that he reviewed on his shows so far in '06, 8 of them received the thumb's up.

Here they are with the combined metacritics score in parens.

Glory Road (58)
Looking for Comedy... (53)
Three Burials...(76)
Bubble (called a "masterpiece") (46)
Tristan & Isolde (49)
Why We Fight (64)

Chris, all that a thumb's up means is that he thinks the movie is worth seeing. it doesn't imply that it's a four star movie or anything, it just implies that it doesn't suck.

As for Bubble, it may be a pretty good movie. Even Steven Stoderberg's missteps are typically above average movies. I wouldn't put too much stock in that 46 since there are only 4 reviews and the two negative ones are from Film Threat (the worst source for film criticism on the planet) and The Hollywood Reporter (not much better).

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
Chris, all that a thumb's up means is that he thinks the movie is worth seeing. it doesn't imply that it's a four star movie or anything, it just implies that it doesn't suck.

As for Bubble, it may be a pretty good movie. Even Steven Stoderberg's missteps are typically above average movies. I wouldn't put too much stock in that 46 since there are only 4 reviews and the two negative ones are from Film Threat (the worst source for film criticism on the planet) and The Hollywood Reporter (not much better).

Well, he's reviewed nine movies so far in '08 and eight of them have received a thumb's up. Not every movie is worth seeing. Robert Ebert has become a quote whore. TRISTAN & ISOLDE, LIBERTINE, LAST HOLIDAY. Those films are "worth seeing?" You have to be kidding me.

I actually liked BUBBLE, which I caught at the New York Film Festival. Unlike, Mr. Ebert, though, I don't believe that it is a "masterpiece."

Well after a two-week hiatus where E&R repeated the "Best Of" and "Worst Of" shows from '05 (I'm surprised Rog could even find 10 films he didn't like) they reviewed a half dozen new movies.

Here are the films. Roeper didn't like any of the films, not surprising given the dreck that the studios release this time of year.

Fateless pro

Final Destination 3 con

Curious George pro

London con

Pink Panther con

Real Dirt on Farmer John pro

Three pro for Rog, three con. For the year, 11 pro, four con

Hollywood is batting pretty high in Rog's world

In Roger's defense, he does usually write a fairly good argument for why he enjoys the movies he reviews so highly. Most of the arguable points have been covered already. I can't site specific reviews, but I've read a lot of Roger's reviews, and about 10 years (or so) ago, he did start becoming more lenient with his reviews. He takes his job much less seriously then others, because he's basically the most established critic in the business. This gives him the area to bounce around a bit, be honest about whether or not he enjoyed a movie, not just say what the wannabe film elite wants to hear.

Five more reviewed this weekend, Rog gave thumb's up to four films.

Freedomland -- thumb's down

Winter Passing -- thumb's up

Eight Below -- thumb's up

Tristram Shandy -- thumb's up

Unknown White Male -- thumb's up

In '06, 15 thumb's up and 5 down.

Ok Chris, then why does your beloved Roger bash such films as the original Japanese version of Godzilla? Well?

I get no response or acknowledgement because I DISAGREE?! What a peaceful forum... peaceful opinionation. Doesn't anyone have anything to say against me? I LOVE EBERT. I like it when he messes up entire movie reviews based on small issues that he's made in critiquing . Like, one time he said Happy Gilmore sucked because the main character killed his girlfriend, then claimed she fell off of a cliff.

Or that other time he reviewed I Heart Huckabees and said that the physics in the movie weren't very well conceptualized or something. (The "physics" were actually Buddhism)

If someone wants to argue about Ebert, argue THAT! His reasons for loving most of those movies are sound opinions. Find some errors the guy has made, and bash those.

Ebert hated the remake of War of the Worlds, which apparently makes him a cult figure for some. I REALLY liked that movie because I found it intense and unpredictable. Ebert claimed that "Tripods are unsound and awkward as a conceptual device. They are ugly and ungainly." I guess Ebert took a long crap during the actual movie because those tripods were just about the most graceful villains I've ever seen!

quote:

Originally posted by Nickel-Z:
I get no response or acknowledgement because I DISAGREE?! What a peaceful forum... peaceful opinionation. Doesn't anyone have anything to say against me?

I agree with your former post Nickel. I actually think this is a pretty stupid thread. Chris' only point is that Ebert likes more movies than he dislikes, which is kind of lame because I think if you're going to pick on a critic, you should pick on his/her ability to disect a film and write an intelligent review. The final rating he/she gives the film is really irrelevant.

But, as I've said before, just because Ebert gives a movie a thumbs up, it doesn't mean he considers it a great film. It basically means that he doesn't find it to be a steaming pile of crap. That's sort of the problem with the thumbs up/thumbs down system. You don't know how much he actually enjoyed the film unless you go read the review. For example, if I were to use Ebert's rating system, I'd give thumbs up to "A History of Violence" and "Blade: Trinity". Does that mean that I think "Blade: Trinity" is on par with "A History of Violence"? No, of course not. It just means to some degree, I enjoyed both films.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:

quote:

Originally posted by Nickel-Z:
I get no response or acknowledgement because I DISAGREE?! What a peaceful forum... peaceful opinionation. Doesn't anyone have anything to say against me?

But, as I've said before, just because Ebert gives a movie a thumbs up, it doesn't mean he considers it a great film. It basically means that he doesn't find it to be a steaming pile of crap. That's sort of the problem with the thumbs up/thumbs down system. You don't know how much he actually enjoyed the film unless you go read the review. For example, if I were to use Ebert's rating system, I'd give thumbs up to "A History of Violence" and "Blade: Trinity". Does that mean that I think "Blade: Trinity" is on par with "A History of Violence"? No, of course not. It just means to some degree, I enjoyed both films.

I agree with that. When it comes to movies, I'm sort of a softie when it comes to critiquing movies. I "like" tons of movies. If it's funny and it makes me laugh, even if the story is lacking, I'll call it good. Now that doesn't mean I'm going to compare a movie like Wedding Crashers to La Dolce Vita, but I would give both thumbs up for very different reasons.

I agree with both of you. I only, just after seeing his review for Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang... have started questioning Ebert's intelligence. Well, that and I Heart Huckabees...and alright, he does it a lot. He just flat out doesn't understand certain things. There are movies he can review with DEAD ON assessment, but if he's going to discourage viewers from seeing crackling movies like Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang, he certainly should be reevaluated as a critic.

I find it interesting that you all talk smack about Mr. Ebert's reviews but have yet to mention reading either of his "Great Movies" books. I could care less what he says about the stuff that comes out now because there are so many other critics and sites that compile and rehash what is released by any studio. I am interested in what he has to say about films he has revisted because the guy knows movies. His take on "Pulp Fiction" alone is worth your time. His opinions on "M" are engaging. "Singing in the Rain" and "My Neighbor Totoro" have become some of my favorite movies because of his critiques. I don't know, cut the guy a break. A sportswriter that has made a living off of watching movies is an inspiration.