Roger Ebert

[GhostFaceSaint]

I don't generally read critics reviews becasue they are way too diverse or sold to the highest bidder but I learned recently that Roger Ebert is a Trekker/Trekkie too! I also read his review of Star Trek (XI) and he seemed to enjoy it so can he really be all bad?

By the way his partner Richard Roeper also liked the new film, but not for the special effects but for the performances by the actors.

Who says Star Trek is poorly or overly acted?

 

[TGTheodore]

Critics are GAUGES by which you can decide or not to decide to go to a particular movie. A critic with whom you incessantly disagree is just as useful as one with whom you almost always see eye to eye.

They represent opinion not fact. It amazes me the number of people who think that the critics think they are writing fact.

--Ted

 

[SlyCardie]

The way they behave though, I think some critics themselves do think they are writing down facts.

That said, you're totally right, I've found the best way to deal with critics is to find a few that you like and use them for comparison. Generally you can draw parallels in your taste and that of some critics and use them as a litmus test for whether or not a movie should be seen.

 

[exodus]

Sometimes I go to the "At the Movies" page, type in a film I've seen many many times, and feel a new need to see it again after watching Ebert review it with Siskel, or Roeper or whoever. The guy had a passion for film, and for articulating what all of us can (or should) feel while watching it. He could even go along with some of the more absurd premises if he was entertained.

Now I must confess something: I hate Roger Ebert. At least the new Ebert. I know his health has been a problem, and I admire his perseverance of continuing even with his condition. He can still write something fierce. But he's become as stodgy and as close-minded as his blog photo would seem to suggest. He's lost the spirit. He doesn't seem to enjoy films any more. He forgot that they are supposed to fun.

Worse, there is so much political crap being fed through his reviews now, half baked left wing liberal ideas. If I wanted politics, Roger, I would have not logged into a movie site. He refuses to put his foot in his mouth about his comment about Ron Paul, where he accuses the congressman of making intolerable comments about homosexuals, without backing up such a statement.

But what bugs me is how just doesn't seem to be watching movies for fun anymore. He's like bully, dismissing films just.. because he is who he is.

Maybe he's just as upset as the rest of us about the lack of good quality films coming out of Hollywood lately. The guy is used to films like "Silkwood" & "Serpico". He can't be happy wasting his time reviewing crap like "Fame" & the remake of "Halloween 2". I wouldn't be surprised if he feels real cinema is dead.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Sometimes I go to the "At the Movies" page, type in a film I've seen many many times, and feel a new need to see it again after watching Ebert review it with Siskel, or Roeper or whoever. The guy had a passion for film, and for articulating what all of us can (or should) feel while watching it. He could even go along with some of the more absurd premises if he was entertained.

Now I must confess something: I hate Roger Ebert. At least the new Ebert. I know his health has been a problem, and I admire his perseverance of continuing even with his condition. He can still write something fierce. But he's become as stodgy and as close-minded as his blog photo would seem to suggest. He's lost the spirit. He doesn't seem to enjoy films any more. He forgot that they are supposed to fun.

Worse, there is so much political crap being fed through his reviews now, half baked left wing liberal ideas. If I wanted politics, Roger, I would have not logged into a movie site. He refuses to put his foot in his mouth about his comment about Ron Paul, where he accuses the congressman of making intolerable comments about homosexuals, without backing up such a statement.

But what bugs me is how just doesn't seem to be watching movies for fun anymore. He's like bully, dismissing films just.. because he is who he is.

Maybe he's just as upset as the rest of us about the lack of good quality films coming out of Hollywood lately. The guy is used to films like "Silkwood" & "Serpico". He can't be happy wasting his time reviewing crap like "Fame" & the remake of "Halloween 2". I wouldn't be surprised if he feels real cinema is dead.

Well, I agree with you. A lot of film is trash today. And he was brought up in a different era.

Ok, so, you're right. But he used to enjoy movies as well, not just films, and he would judge each film accordingly, as to what it was trying to accomplish,. Now he's more like a grinch.

Still, I can understand that. What I really didn't like is the way that lately, he has been bringing his half-baked left-wing views into his reviews.

 

[exodus]

Sometimes I go to the "At the Movies" page, type in a film I've seen many many times, and feel a new need to see it again after watching Ebert review it with Siskel, or Roeper or whoever. The guy had a passion for film, and for articulating what all of us can (or should) feel while watching it. He could even go along with some of the more absurd premises if he was entertained.

Now I must confess something: I hate Roger Ebert. At least the new Ebert. I know his health has been a problem, and I admire his perseverance of continuing even with his condition. He can still write something fierce. But he's become as stodgy and as close-minded as his blog photo would seem to suggest. He's lost the spirit. He doesn't seem to enjoy films any more. He forgot that they are supposed to fun.

Worse, there is so much political crap being fed through his reviews now, half baked left wing liberal ideas. If I wanted politics, Roger, I would have not logged into a movie site. He refuses to put his foot in his mouth about his comment about Ron Paul, where he accuses the congressman of making intolerable comments about homosexuals, without backing up such a statement.

But what bugs me is how just doesn't seem to be watching movies for fun anymore. He's like bully, dismissing films just.. because he is who he is.

Maybe he's just as upset as the rest of us about the lack of good quality films coming out of Hollywood lately. The guy is used to films like "Silkwood" & "Serpico". He can't be happy wasting his time reviewing crap like "Fame" & the remake of "Halloween 2". I wouldn't be surprised if he feels real cinema is dead.

Well, I agree with you. A lot of film is trash today. And he was brought up in a different era.

Ok, so, you're right. But he used to enjoy movies as well, not just films, and he would judge each film accordingly, as to what it was trying to accomplish,. Now he's more like a grinch.

Still, I can understand that. What I really didn't like is the way that lately, he has been bringing his half-baked left-wing views into his reviews.

I think he's just disgrunteled.

People usually turn to religion or politics when they are.

It's funny but it's usually true.
Ebert is probably thinking about Chris Rock's lines in "Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back." every time he reviews today's shitty movies: "...and I went to film school."

 

[Random_Spock]

Now I must confess something: I hate Roger Ebert. At least the new Ebert. I know his health has been a problem, and I admire his perseverance of continuing even with his condition. He can still write something fierce. But he's become as stodgy and as close-minded as his blog photo would seem to suggest. He's lost the spirit. He doesn't seem to enjoy films any more. He forgot that they are supposed to fun.

I disagree there. He still does a good movie review. Heck I read them every so often... and he doesn't seem to be that close-minded in terms of movies themselves.

He still has the spirit, imo. I disagreed with him about the Star Trek review (the recent one). He thought it was a 'space opera', but I respected his opinion nonetheless. He did give a good review for IWTB though, it was certainly open minded when it came down to it. And it was definitely what I saw in terms of things there.

 

[Aragorn]

Ebert may get derailed by a single nitpick, or focus solely on Angelina Jolie's breasts, but at least he's not Armond White.

I don't generally read critics reviews becasue they are way too diverse or sold to the highest bidder but I learned recently that Roger Ebert is a Trekker/Trekkie too! I also read his review of Star Trek (XI) and he seemed to enjoy it so can he really be all bad?

The only positive Trek reviews he's given are for I, II, III, IV, VI and First Contact.

 

[TGTheodore]

The only positive Trek reviews he's given are for I, II, III, IV, VI and First Contact.

Only? That's half. And he liked I & VI. That's pretty darn lenient.

--Ted

 

[sidious618]

The only positive Trek reviews he's given are for I, II, III, IV, VI and First Contact.

Only? That's half. And he liked I & VI. That's pretty darn lenient.

--Ted

VI is rather well recieved, isn't it? It's my personal favorite.

 

[The Grim Ghost]

Sometimes I go to the "At the Movies" page, type in a film I've seen many many times, and feel a new need to see it again after watching Ebert review it with Siskel, or Roeper or whoever. The guy had a passion for film, and for articulating what all of us can (or should) feel while watching it. He could even go along with some of the more absurd premises if he was entertained.

Now I must confess something: I hate Roger Ebert. At least the new Ebert. I know his health has been a problem, and I admire his perseverance of continuing even with his condition. He can still write something fierce. But he's become as stodgy and as close-minded as his blog photo would seem to suggest. He's lost the spirit. He doesn't seem to enjoy films any more. He forgot that they are supposed to fun.

Worse, there is so much political crap being fed through his reviews now, half baked left wing liberal ideas. If I wanted politics, Roger, I would have not logged into a movie site. He refuses to put his foot in his mouth about his comment about Ron Paul, where he accuses the congressman of making intolerable comments about homosexuals, without backing up such a statement.

But what bugs me is how just doesn't seem to be watching movies for fun anymore. He's like bully, dismissing films just.. because he is who he is.

Maybe he's just as upset as the rest of us about the lack of good quality films coming out of Hollywood lately. The guy is used to films like "Silkwood" & "Serpico". He can't be happy wasting his time reviewing crap like "Fame" & the remake of "Halloween 2". I wouldn't be surprised if he feels real cinema is dead.

Ha, if anything he has gotten way more tolerant of crap over the years.

 

[Amaris]

I still love the work he does, and consider him to be absolutely hilarious. He has a singular wit which I find appealing. As I said some time ago, any time a legitimate, well received and accredited film critic can write a book called "Your Movie Sucks" and put the face he did on the cover, hell, he's all kinds of win.

J.

 

[bluedana]

It's been a while since I've followed any movie critic reviews (once you have kids and don't go to the movies as often, you aren't that invested in only choosing "good" movies to watch...), but I remember Siskel and Ebert's At the Movies from its inception. The two of them played off each other so well, you got a nuanced review between the two of them. I couldn't really say whether I agreed with one or the other on more occasions, but between them, they generally got the pros and cons right. It was less about their worldview, and more about, Is this a good story told well?

In the end, it's opinion, yes, but it's also knowledge of good storytelling and movie making. Sometimes you just don't know why you like or dislike a film; a good critic will put it in context. Example, S&E did a review on their show of the Bruce Willis film "Mercury Rising." I was into Bruce at the time, but couldn't figure out why this one didn't do it for me. They pinpointed the trope of putting a vulnerable character (here, a child) in dangerous situation after dangerous situation (here comes a train! there's a fire! or whatever) just so the hero can rescue him or her, not because it advances the plot, and despite the logical contortions you'd have to go through to decide to do the hundred different stupid things in order to get into the situation in the first place. And since then, that sort of thing jumps off the screen at me every time I see it.

That's what I liked about Ebert (and Siskel).

 

[Darth_Pazuzu]

I've always had a good deal of respect for Roger Ebert's reviews. He's always struck me as thoughtful and intelligent. Even when I disagree with his views, it certainly doesn't inspire homicidal rage on my part or anything. (Which is more than I can say for Mark Kermode. All that guy needs to do is make fun of Quentin Tarantino's speaking voice and I envision his head exploding and splattering his brains all over the walls.)

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I want to clarify...
I love him as a reviewer. However, lately he seems to have a major stick up his ass.

 

[exodus]

Sometimes I go to the "At the Movies" page, type in a film I've seen many many times, and feel a new need to see it again after watching Ebert review it with Siskel, or Roeper or whoever. The guy had a passion for film, and for articulating what all of us can (or should) feel while watching it. He could even go along with some of the more absurd premises if he was entertained.

Now I must confess something: I hate Roger Ebert. At least the new Ebert. I know his health has been a problem, and I admire his perseverance of continuing even with his condition. He can still write something fierce. But he's become as stodgy and as close-minded as his blog photo would seem to suggest. He's lost the spirit. He doesn't seem to enjoy films any more. He forgot that they are supposed to fun.

Worse, there is so much political crap being fed through his reviews now, half baked left wing liberal ideas. If I wanted politics, Roger, I would have not logged into a movie site. He refuses to put his foot in his mouth about his comment about Ron Paul, where he accuses the congressman of making intolerable comments about homosexuals, without backing up such a statement.

But what bugs me is how just doesn't seem to be watching movies for fun anymore. He's like bully, dismissing films just.. because he is who he is.

Maybe he's just as upset as the rest of us about the lack of good quality films coming out of Hollywood lately. The guy is used to films like "Silkwood" & "Serpico". He can't be happy wasting his time reviewing crap like "Fame" & the remake of "Halloween 2". I wouldn't be surprised if he feels real cinema is dead.

Ha, if anything he has gotten way more tolerant of crap over the years.

Tolenance doesn't mean you like it, it just means you put up with it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Actually, Ebert accurately summarized most of the complaints here and about critics in general in his reply to critiques of his review of the second Transformers movie:

It's true that many Americans have an active suspicion and dislike of the "educated." They ask, "what makes you an expert?" when they're really asking, "what gives you the right to disagree with me?"

"I don't like his opinion, so it annoys me that he's well known and that people care what he thinks!" is another way of summarizing it.

 

[Random_Spock]

I've always had a good deal of respect for Roger Ebert's reviews. He's always struck me as thoughtful and intelligent. Even when I disagree with his views, it certainly doesn't inspire homicidal rage on my part or anything. (Which is more than I can say for Mark Kermode. All that guy needs to do is make fun of Quentin Tarantino's speaking voice and I envision his head exploding and splattering his brains all over the walls.)

Yep that's me pretty much. The man knows what he's talking about for the most part. And I respect him for that.

One of the recent reviews that I read from him... about Nights in Rodanthe...

he really didn't like this one...

It was still a good read though. Seeing where he was coming from and all that.

 

[Aragorn]

Ebert mentioned that he can no longer eat or drink.

 

[cardinal biggles]

Count me in as another who always finds Ebert's reviews an interesting read, even when I disagree with him. Perhaps even moreso when I disagree with him, because it challenges me to more closely examine why I liked/disliked some aspect of a film. And his really negative reviews (say, anything one-star or lower) are almost always a hoot.