Roger Ebert

Stereomaniac · 07-07-2014 08:28PM

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

Frank Lee Midere · 07-07-2014 08:33PM

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 · 07-07-2014 08:39PM

[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 · 07-07-2014 08:42PM

[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.

07-07-2014 09:03PM

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 · 07-07-2014 11:18PM

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 · 07-07-2014 11:52PM

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 · 07-07-2014 11:53PM

Keep it civil please folks.

Bipolar Joe · 08-07-2014 12:00AM

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 · 08-07-2014 12:05AM

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

johnny_ultimate · 08-07-2014 12:35AM

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.

08-07-2014 08:45AM

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.

08-07-2014 10:38AM

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 · 08-07-2014 01:56PM

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.

08-07-2014 02:01PM

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 · 08-07-2014 02:31PM

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

08-07-2014 02:35PM

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.

Roger Ebert

Comments