Films you generally avoid...

[Harvey]

The Searchers is weighed down by plenty of racism...

Very little, actually. The behavior of the Indians is easy enough to understand, but for the most part they're seen through the eyes of the white characters and their actions discussed almost exclusively by whites. The whites are bigots - and Wayne does play an unsympathetically and explicitly racist character, which was a departure for him.

Undoubtedly, the film has more nuance where the Indians are concerned compared to earlier John Ford/John Wayne collaborations. In Stagecoach, for example, Geronimo's Indians are a faceless, savage menace who makes war upon whites without motivation. They attack the titular stagecoach because they are evil, and when the Calvary rides in and kills most of the Indians, it is portrayed as nothing less than righteous.

Having said that, I don't think The Searchers is as unproblematic in terms of race as you indicate. What I wrote on the subject when I first saw the movie last year explains it well enough:

Despite the fact that Wayne's character is intended to viewed with scorn by the audience (his sneering in close-ups, and his slaughter of buffalo, drive home this point), the film undermines this scorn by supporting his racist viewpoint. You see, the Indians of this film go around raping women, murdering families, and kidnapping children. The late suggestion that this is retaliation over the murder of Chief Scar's sons does little too alleviate the fact that he and the other Indians are demonstrated again and again to be brutal savages. It's not nearly the revision of the norms of the classical Western that some critics suggest. The Indians are also, of course, terrible shots. Despite being armed with plenty of guns, they can't seem to hit any of the white characters, while the Indians are killed by the dozens.

 

[the G-man]

Ebert is a douche who increasingly represents nothing more than an expression of the majority viewpoint. His opinions are formulated by reading other critics' reviews and those of blog commenters.

Ebert is an astute reviewer with an absolute passion for movies, a wealth of experience and understanding of film history and technique ...

I'd agree if you'd written all that in the past tense. These days I don't think Ebert is anything but a shadow of his former self.

 

[Harvey]

Ah, but, unfortunately, there are some idiots apparently putting out a revised Huck Finn book, that cleans up the Racism nevermind that defeats the whole point of the book

I just read that a 1955 TV movie version of the novel eliminated all references to slavery and cast a white actor in the role of Jim. What the hell?

In regards to Ebert, I've always enjoyed reading his reviews, although I find his star ratings to be less and less useful. I believe he's expressed more than once that he doesn't have much use for them. That certainly seems to be the case.

 

[Sindatur]

OMG Seriously, Harvery? I'd never heard about the "uncolorized" version of Huck Finn from 1955, that'd be worth checking out just to see how off the mark they could go.

 

[Set Harth]

Well, he did give two of the three Star Wars prequels good reviews. So, clearly, that proves your "he says what the majority says" point wrong (though, it does give some credence to your "don't go by what he says" point).

You'll find that by the time of his review of The Clone Wars his views have become sufficiently conformist and mainstream on that topic, in that he criticizes the film for things which apply equally to the PT ( "no one we like is going to be killed" - translation: a prequel is automatically at fault by its very nature ) and conspicuously only refers to the OT when making comparisons intended to depict the film in an unfavorable light. You have to give him credit for one thing: he knows which way the wind is blowing. Bravo.

 

[Greg Cox]

It's interesting. It dawns on me that most of the westerns that I've really enjoyed haven't been about cowboys vs. Indians at all.

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, The Magnificent Seven, Shane, High Noon, The War Wagon, The Cowboys, Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid, True Grit . . . .

Those are all cowboy vs. cowboy, or lawman vs. outlaw, or civilization vs. the Wild West, or man vs. nature.

Despite the cliche, it's worth noting that there's a lot more to Western than just "cowboys vs Indians."

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I recently saw Fort Apache (1948) just to check out young adult Shirley Temple, but I was truly impressed with the film, especially with its characterization of the corruption occurring on the Indian reservation.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

But the truth is that he's merely a typical product of his insecure generation, with a cult following...

Nope. There's not a shred of truth in what you posted, your claims aren't accurate observations, and you've utterly failed to make any point of substance.

Just because you dislike someone intensely doesn't mean that making up vitriolic nonsense about them instead of informing yourself will somehow be persuasive.

 

[Broccoli]

Well, he did give two of the three Star Wars prequels good reviews. So, clearly, that proves your "he says what the majority says" point wrong (though, it does give some credence to your "don't go by what he says" point).

You'll find that by the time of his review of The Clone Wars his views have become sufficiently conformist and mainstream on that topic, in that he criticizes the film for things which apply equally to the PT ( "no one we like is going to be killed" - translation: a prequel is automatically at fault by its very nature ) and conspicuously only refers to the OT when making comparisons intended to depict the film in an unfavorable light. You have to give him credit for one thing: he knows which way the wind is blowing. Bravo.

Good job. Your point here had almost nothing to do with my post and didn't disprove my earlier point at all.

Edit: Just realized that your post doesn't in any way help defend your belief that Ebert just says whatever is popular. Yeah, The Clone Wars was critically panned (and rightfully so). But you have yet to show any proof that Ebert is just writing his reviews by saying what everyone else is.

 

[Set Harth]

But the truth is that he's merely a typical product of his insecure generation, with a cult following...

Nope. There's not a shred of truth in what you posted

A state of denial is not especially persuasive. As I already stated, some of what I posted referred to things which he confirmed himself in one of his reviews. And he does have a cult following, though in predictable fashion the Nope cult may tend to deny its own existence.

Good job. Your point here had almost nothing to do with my post and didn't disprove my earlier point at all

Right. Nothing to do with it at all...

Edit: Just realized that your post doesn't in any way help defend your belief that Ebert just says whatever is popular.

So you "just" realized that, as of the edit? But I thought you had already decided that before the edit, by claiming that it didn't disprove your point. Is it possible the portion before the edit was just a knee-jerk response?

Yeah, The Clone Wars was critically panned (and rightfully so).

In case you missed the point, those who panned the film tend to have the same opinion of the PT, and Ebert criticizes the film for things which also apply to the PT, while holding up the OT as superior and conspicuously neglecting to mention the PT in the same context. As such he's conformed to the mainstream view of the PT, as he's expected to.

 

[Broccoli]

A state of denial is not especially persuasive.

Irony?

Good job. Your point here had almost nothing to do with my post and didn't disprove my earlier point at all

Right. Nothing to do with it at all...

Good, you agree. Now, we're making progress.

 

[Set Harth]

Good, you agree. Now, we're making progress.

Just more denial. "Your point had nothing to do with my post" is obvious nonsense. In fact, it had everything to do with it, and you know that.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Roger Ebert's review of The Fountain can be found here. The review was dated September 13, 2007, ten months after The Fountain was released. Evidently this was one of the movies that he did not publish a timely review for, because of his health.

In the review linked above, he discusses reading other reviews of the film before writing his own, which is unusual because:

Although as a doctoral candidate in English I was advised to be familiar with the existing criticism on a work before venturing to write my own, as a film critic I am usually writing before other reviews have even been published. But a year had passed. So after looking at the film, I checked out IMDb’s “external reviews” section and discovered that, good lord, 221 reviews had been written on “The Fountain.”

I think this more or less speaks for itself. Case closed.

 

[Amaris]

I love Roger Ebert. I don't always agree with his reviews, but the man knows film. I learned a long time ago that not agreeing with someone doesn't mean you can't respect their views, and to simply trash them with all the nuance of a bull in a china shop shows a severe lack of comprehensive understanding and social context, as well as a latent fear of being discovered as wholly wrong.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Roger Ebert's review of The Fountain can be found here. The review was dated September 13, 2007, ten months after The Fountain was released. Evidently this was one of the movies that he did not publish a timely review for, because of his health.

In the review linked above, he discusses reading other reviews of the film before writing his own, which is unusual because:

Although as a doctoral candidate in English I was advised to be familiar with the existing criticism on a work before venturing to write my own, as a film critic I am usually writing before other reviews have even been published. But a year had passed. So after looking at the film, I checked out IMDb’s “external reviews” section and discovered that, good lord, 221 reviews had been written on “The Fountain.”

I think this more or less speaks for itself. Case closed.

Well, the allegation that Ebert bases his reviews on the opinions of others was a nonstarter to begin with - a baseless claim for which there's not one iota of support, manufactured entirely as a foundation for meanness.

 

[Set Harth]

If that were the case, he wouldn't have been in journalism for over 40 years.

Self-fulfilling prophecy.

a latent fear of being discovered as wholly wrong.

Reminiscent of the "latent fear" that the Emperor actually has no clothes. Or as someone once put it, a shadow of his former self. But if a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, do we even have to admit that the tree fell?

Well, the allegation that Ebert bases his reviews on the opinions of others was a nonstarter to begin with - a baseless claim for which there's not one iota of support

...as a doctoral candidate in English I was advised to be familiar with the existing criticism on a work before venturing to write my own...

 

[Kegg]

Well, the allegation that Ebert bases his reviews on the opinions of others was a nonstarter to begin with - a baseless claim for which there's not one iota of support

...as a doctoral candidate in English I was advised to be familiar with the existing criticism on a work before venturing to write my own...

You may want to finish reading that sentence.

as a film critic I am usually writing before other reviews have even been published.

In practice, Ebert doesn't have the time to follow the herd, because he's usually writing before he's aware of what it is the herd thinks. He couldn't kowtow to public opinion on a film unless he's uncanny at guessing at it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

You keep reposting variations of the same rant without offering a shred of evidence to support it.

You have no case.

Dislike Ebert all you want, but don't come claiming to have some detached basis for it other than personal emotion because you can't produce any.

 

[Greg Cox]

Er, can we maybe drop the whole Ebert debate so we can get back to the original topic?

 

[Gojira]

I generally avoid your crime/drama suspense thriller type of movie. I have enough stress in life I don't need a movie to stress me out.