Roger Ebert

thomasm · 06-07-2014 09:34PM #1

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 · 06-07-2014 11:31PM

Mark Kermode maybe. Pure marmite in fairness though.

Mardy Bum · 06-07-2014 11:33PM

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 · 07-07-2014 12:24AM

Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune.

Dana Stevens, Slate.

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

S.M.B. · 07-07-2014 12:28AM

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

thomasm · 07-07-2014 08:06AM

Great, thanks for the suggestions

vidor · 07-07-2014 09:34AM

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 · 07-07-2014 09:50AM

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 · 07-07-2014 10:41AM

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 · 07-07-2014 11:05AM

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 · 07-07-2014 12:02PM

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 · 07-07-2014 01:09PM

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

Thargor · 07-07-2014 01:43PM

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 · 07-07-2014 01:48PM

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. · 07-07-2014 02:18PM

+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 · 07-07-2014 03:23PM

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

Looper007 · 07-07-2014 04:21PM

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 · 07-07-2014 04:26PM

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 · 07-07-2014 06:08PM

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.

07-07-2014 07:31PM

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 · 07-07-2014 07:49PM

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.

07-07-2014 07:52PM

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 · 07-07-2014 07:53PM

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 · 07-07-2014 07:56PM

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 · 07-07-2014 07:58PM

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.

07-07-2014 07:59PM

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 · 07-07-2014 08:00PM

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 · 07-07-2014 08:03PM

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.

07-07-2014 08:09PM

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 · 07-07-2014 08:11PM

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?

07-07-2014 08:15PM

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?

Roger Ebert

Comments