Roger Ebert

thomasm

Following the unfortunate death of Roger Ebert I'm looking to find another 'go to' critic. Don't think I watched a film in the last few years without checking out his reviews first.

Just wondering who do other users use for reviews. I understand everyone has different tastes but I don't think I ever disliked a film Ebert recommended.

Birneybau

Mark Kermode maybe. Pure marmite in fairness though.

Mardy Bum

Birneybau wrote: »

Mark Kermode maybe. Pure marmite in fairness though.

Kermode wasn't particularly fond of Ebert's film of the 00's Synecdoche New York.

str8edge

Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune.

Dana Stevens, Slate.


Won't go far wrong with either of those two.

S.M.B.

I put a lot of weight in what those two say myself.

thomasm

Great, thanks for the suggestions

vidor

Not what you're looking for OP but I presume you're aware of this doc that's coming out soon: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2382298/

Looper007

Birneybau wrote: »

Mark Kermode maybe. Pure marmite in fairness though.

That's what I love about Kermode, you disagree massively sometimes with his choices (his distain for Godard's work is a bit sickening) but then another week you agree with his view on a certain film. Kermode brings a bit of comedy to it which is always makes his Kermode Uncut section a wonder to watch.

Banjaxed82

Looper007 wrote: »

That's what I love about Kermode, you disagree massively sometimes with his choices (his distain for Godard's work is a bit sickening) but then another week you agree with his view on a certain film. Kermode brings a bit of comedy to it which is always makes his Kermode Uncut section a wonder to watch.

In fairness, he's not far wrong regarding Godard's more recent stuff.

I do find him pretty much on the money. He does seem to to place a personal interest ahead of the movie when it comes to certain filmmakers (even though he says he doesn't). Wally Pfister being an example. Trancendence will be a cult classic in years to come, says he. :eek: Yeah, right Mark.

thomasm

vidor wrote: »

Not what you're looking for OP but I presume you're aware of this doc that's coming out soon: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2382298/

Looks interesting, must keep an eye out for it. thanks

e_e

I really like the 2 guys on Filmspotting (Michael Philips makes an appearance from time to time too). Sometimes they have really great rows over film like Siskel & Ebert used to.

vidor

Good call on Filmspotting. Adam Kempenaar probably my favourite host out there.

Thargor

I wish the Redlettermedia guys would put out a weekly roundup of films and reviews instead of once a month or worse Half in the Bag specials like they do now, they all must have real jobs.

johnny_ultimate

I don't know if there's any single writers I'd be inclined to rely on. I also don't think it's anywhere necessary to actually agree with an opinion in order to find it worthwhile and interesting. But there's a few publications I quite like in a more general sense.

I find Slant's writers tend to write their reviews in a more engaged way - more in-depth and unusual takes on the film as opposed to just a blanket 'the cinematography / acting / script / music / direction' is good style of writing. I often find their reviews very interesting to read after I've watched the film.

Less wordy and academic, Little White Lies can offer unique perspectives too. Although I'm still a bit baffled by their Godzilla review :pac:

I always enjoyed reading Scott Tobias, Tasha Robinson, Keith Phipps etc... at the AV Club. Thankfully when they departed they all did it together and started The Dissolve instead. While I tend to enjoy the more 'academic' writing you find in Sight & Sound and the like, I think those guys offer a more grounded and passionate take on film which is equally important as the more serious, in-depth writing.

S.M.B.

+1 for The Dissolve guys

I follow these guys on letterboxd which is a very useful tool.

Josh Larsen
Adam Kempenaar
Matt Singer
Tasha Robinson
Keith Phipps

e_e

+1 for Letterboxd. Some excellent reviewers there, both professional and amateur.

Looper007

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

In fairness, he's not far wrong regarding Godard's more recent stuff.

I do find him pretty much on the money. He does seem to to place a personal interest ahead of the movie when it comes to certain filmmakers (even though he says he doesn't). Wally Pfister being an example. Trancendence will be a cult classic in years to come, says he. :eek: Yeah, right Mark.

he has been known to knock Godard's 60's work even choosing Breathless remake with Richard Gere :pac:

He really was trying to win a lot of people over with Trancendence, I knew he would back it cause he has a lot of man love for Wally Pfister and he really was digging deep to find something good about it :pac:

Tenshot

James Berardinelli's Reelviews is my main goto site for movie reviews - I don't always share his taste, but his reviews are well written and my sense of whether or not I'll enjoy a film after reading one of his reviews is usually spot on.

I used to consult both there and Ebert's site, but haven't really found a good replacement for Ebert yet; lots of promising looking suggestions earlier in this thread though, so looking forward to checking those out.

charlie_says

e_e wrote: »

I really like the 2 guys on Filmspotting (Michael Philips makes an appearance from time to time too). Sometimes they have really great rows over film like Siskel & Ebert used to.

I also like their take. Great podcast they do.

Ebert was an excellent reviewer, although he did seem to like some of the big blockbusters that I thought were either terrible or I avoided altogether. In general though I would have agreed with many of his reviews.

Ebert was fun to read but he had an awful habit of getting his facts wrong. You'd often find him criticising an aspect of a film or a moment in it that when you watched it was nowhere to be found. He also had an annoying habit of revealing key moments and twists in films and wasn't above talking about the ending of a film in his review.

Bipolar Joe

The best thing about Ebert, and something other reviewers miss, is he would review a film like he's one of the intended audience. If you like 50's horror, of course you won't like 50 First Dates. You don't need to be told you won't like it, reviewing it for the people who like that genre is good.

Also I hate Mark Kermode.

Bipolar Joe

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

The best thing about Ebert, and something other reviewers miss, is he would review a film like he's one of the intended audience. If you like 50's horror, of course you won't like 50 First Dates. You don't need to be told you won't like it, reviewing it for the people who like that genre is good.

Basically what you are effectively saying, is that people have very selective tastes. That is nonsense, most people are open to a wide variety of cinema, which is why you will have people enjoying both the Blob and 50 First Dates.

jebus84

I predict the new documentary about him will be an Oscar winner and might will be the first documentary to be nominated for best film at the awards

Bipolar Joe

Deleted User wrote: »

Basically what you are effectively saying, is that people have very selective tastes. That is nonsense, most people are open to a wide variety of cinema, which is why you will have people enjoying both the Blob and 50 First Dates.

Big ol' roll eyes. Are you deliberately misconstruing the post, or does it just happen like magic?

Stereomaniac

I haven't seen either Blob or 50 First Dates, however I would be interested to watch both sometime. I usually just look up what other films have been done by directors I think are good.

Bipolar Joe

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Big ol' roll eyes. Are you deliberately misconstruing the post, or does it just happen like magic?

What exactly were you saying? Your post implies that if you like a certain type of genre then you won't like another?

Tipsy McSwagger

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

The best thing about Ebert, and something other reviewers miss, is he would review a film like he's one of the intended audience. If you like 50's horror, of course you won't like 50 First Dates. You don't need to be told you won't like it, reviewing it for the people who like that genre is good.

Also I hate Mark Kermode.

Bottom

Bipolar Joe

Deleted User wrote: »

What exactly were you saying? Your post implies that if you like a certain type of genre then you won't like another?

I am saying that, generally, if you're excited to see the latest Adam Sandler movie, the chances of you wanting to know if Dead Girl is worth a watch are quite slim. Of course some people will watch a massive range. I'm not a fucking moron. Reviews tend to be from the reviewers point of view. Taking the view of the intended audience, whether or not you're included, is a good way of speaking to the GENERAL audience.

Bipolar Joe

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

I am saying that, generally, if you're excited to see the latest Adam Sandler movie, the chances of you wanting to know if Dead Girl is worth a watch are quite slim. Of course some people will watch a massive range. I'm not a fucking moron. Reviews tend to be from the reviewers point of view. Taking the view of the intended audience, whether or not you're included, is a good way of speaking to the GENERAL audience.

You're still suggesting that if you like one type of film you won't like another. I imagine that plenty of people enjoy both the works of Adam Sandler and the film Dad Girl, peoples tastes are diverse and most don't limit themselves to a certain genre or type of film. Ebert's reviews were from his point of view, his disdain for video games and all associated with them was evident in a number of reviews. He also had a habit of not looking at films from it's anticipated audiences point of view, all you have to do is read his 1 star review of The Raid to see this.

Bipolar Joe

So, are you telling me that everyone on the planet watches all types of cinema? There's not one person who won't watch a black and white film, or non-English language film, or a three hour long art house movie just because they are what they are?

Bipolar Joe

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

So, are you telling me that everyone on the planet watches all types of cinema? There's not one person who won't watch a black and white film, or non-English language film, or a three hour long art house movie just because they are what they are?

That's not at all what I'm saying. There are people out there who won't watch certain films but the vast majority of people don't limit what they are open to and as such most people are as likely to watch a 50s monster movie as they are an Adam Sandler film. Are you arguing that Ebert reviewed films from the point of view of the tiny handful of people with such limited tastes that they only watch one sort of film?

Stereomaniac

http://ec.libsyn.com/p/3/9/7/39794ab8d5a9c36e/filmspot497_070414.mp3?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d06c88330d7c15c4382&c_id=7351877 This podcast is pretty good.

Frank Lee Midere

charlie_says wrote: »

I also like their take. Great podcast they do.

Ebert was an excellent reviewer, although he did seem to like some of the big blockbusters that I thought were either terrible or I avoided altogether. In general though I would have agreed with many of his reviews.

Ebert reviewed ( and marked) blockbusters for what they were. So he would give a 4star to great blockbuster. When it came to the greatest movie list they never appeared.

Frank Lee Midere

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You're still suggesting that if you like one type of film you won't like another. I imagine that plenty of people enjoy both the works of Adam Sandler and the film Dad Girl, peoples tastes are diverse and most don't limit themselves to a certain genre or type of film. Ebert's reviews were from his point of view, his disdain for video games and all associated with them was evident in a number of reviews. He also had a habit of not looking at films from it's anticipated audiences point of view, all you have to do is read his 1 star review of The Raid to see this.

You are deliberately mis construing his point. Most people are not cinephiles. Most people watch only blockbusters, rom coms or comedies. Ebert reviewed all these in his initial reviews at least as if he were the intended audience. Most critics don't. If you look at most critics' top ten lists there are very few comedies or blockbusters. Which is fine. Great art may be elsewhere.

However some of these guys never give a comedy a 4 star. Ebert would give a great comedy a 4 star.

Frank Lee Midere

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's not at all what I'm saying. There are people out there who won't watch certain films but the vast majority of people don't limit what they are open to and as such most people are as likely to watch a 50s monster movie as they are an Adam Sandler film. Are you arguing that Ebert reviewed films from the point of view of the tiny handful of people with such limited tastes that they only watch one sort of film?

I think you are projecting. I bet there are plenty of younger people who don't watch movies pre 1990.

Star Wars and some eighties stuff excepted.

Frank Lee Midere

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

You are deliberately mis construing his point. Most people are not cinephiles. Most people watch only blockbusters, rom coms or comedies. Ebert reviewed all these in his initial reviews at least as if he were the intended audience. Most critics don't. If you look at most critics' top ten lists there are very few comedies or blockbusters. Which is fine. Great art may be elsewhere.

However some of these guys never give a comedy a 4 star. Ebert would give a great comedy a 4 star.

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

I think you are projecting. I bet there are plenty of younger people who don't watch movies pre 1990.

Star Wars and some eighties stuff excepted.

No I understood, it just doesn't really add up. There's a lot of casual film fans who are only interested in what the lowest common denominator fare but even then their interests would not be restricted to a single genre as the poster implied.

And while Ebert did compare like with like he certainly didn't review films from the intended audiences point of view. His review for the Raid demonstrates this, he hated the film yet it's intended audience, action fans adore it and it is rightly celebrated as a classic of the genre.

I'm sure there any many young people who wouldn't watch a film made before 1990 but the majority would. IMC cinemas have recently been showing older films and druing the Hitchcok screenings there were plenty of people under the age of 18 at the screenings I attended, in fact there were more young people there than older. Same thing occurred at the screening of We're No Angels and a friend working at one of the cinemas told me that they've had more kids (13-15 year olds) asking about the upcoming Robocop screening than adult.s

Bipolar Joe

Next time, I'll be sure to mention every single genre so as to make it as clear as possible just for you.

e_e

I don't think the "he reviews films for their genre" argument is true all of the time though. He'd always say his personal objections to a film even if he admits it was well made, like he did with his negative reviews of The Raid, Blue Velvet, A Clockwork Orange and Fight Club.

johnny_ultimate

Keep it civil please folks.

Bipolar Joe

e_e wrote: »

I don't think the "he reviews films for their genre" argument is true all of the time though. He'd always say his personal objections to a film even if he admits it was well made, like he did with his negative reviews of The Raid, Blue Velvet, A Clockwork Orange and Fight Club.

Even Ebert is fallible. I really liked The Raid, and I even "Liked" The Human Centipede II (I'm not sure like is the right word). I don't think there's gonna be another critic like him in a position like his for a while.

e_e

I actually agree with him on Fight Club and A Clockwork Orange though. As unpopular an opinion it is to have.

johnny_ultimate

Sure all of us have our own biases, preferences, pet peeves - of course we're never going to agree with any one critic or viewer all of the time. I'd probably be a bit freaked out if I did discover someone who I agreed with 100% of the time :pac:

What has to be said for Ebert is that even when his reviews were 'out there' - Knowing being a particularly noteworthy one! - he argued with passion and conviction, giving the impression of being honest and on the level. Sure he had his quirks and favourites and weaknesses, but we all do, and hell a film no matter its quality might catch any of us on a good or bad day and influence a response massively. So it's wrong to expect a critic or viewer to be 'right' all the time, as there's no single 'right' response to any film - even if you disagree with them completely, if they voice their dissent in a clear and articulate way then it's maybe even more informative and interesting to read. Film discussion would be a damn boring place if we all agreed on everything in the exact same way, and I always enjoyed reading Ebert's take even when his four star was my one or vice versa.

Bipolar Joe

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Next time, I'll be sure to mention every single genre so as to make it as clear as possible just for you.

You mada statement that implied that if you like a certain genre then you wont another. It's that simple, it's an incredibly closed mined statement and it's also not true for the vast majority of people.

Thinking about it last night and I recalled a number of films which Ebert ruined in his reviews, he gave away the identity of the target in The Jackal which is a big reveal near the end of the film, he gave away the ending to Frequency, he went into great detail regarding the Joker's plan in The Dark Knight, revealed details about the ending to X-Men: First Class and ruined a major aspect of the film Super in his opening paragraph. More often than not he defended his decision to give away such information as a result of being offended by a film. If he enjoyed a film then he would often warn that his review contained spoilers but if he disliked a film or was offended by it then he had no problem spoiling it.

vidor

Name me a reviewer who doesn't spoil a film. The only time I would ever check out a review would be after I've watched the film. There's always something spoiled in a review, even if it's meaningless to most I still don't want to hear/read about it.

vidor

vidor wrote: »

Name me a reviewer who doesn't spoil a film. The only time I would ever check out a review would be after I've watched the film. There's always something spoiled in a review, even if it's meaningless to most I still don't want to hear/read about it.

Any half way decent reviewer should be able to review a film without spoiling anything important. Ebert had a habit of giving away key plot points and discussing the endings in depth which is something that most critics would shy away from as it's unnecessary. You do not need to offer a blow by blow in order to critique a film.

vidor

As I was saying, the spoiler might not mean anything to most people but I'd prefer not to take that chance.

vidor

vidor wrote: »

As I was saying, the spoiler might not mean anything to most people but I'd prefer not to take that chance.

The point is that if a spoiler involves discussing the death of a predominant member of the cast or going into detail regarding how the film ends then it ruins the film for anyone who would have read the review and is unnecessary. I enjoy reading Ebert's reviews, he had a passion for film that was infectious but he wasn't the great reviewer that many held him up to be.