This one paragraph might say everything that needs to be said

[RookieBatman]

But then, one aspect of a film can ruin a movie for a person. I guess all I'm trying to say is that the only thing Roger Ebert can review is how much he enjoys the movie. I don't think anyone on Earth can project how anyone else will like a movie, unless they're considering one specific person and they know that person very well. So if you and the reviewer have similar tastes, he'll seem "right" to you, but it's really just an examination of his own feelings, which are just as subjective as everyone else's.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

And this is the same guy that gave four friggin stars to the lackluster and all-to-trite and obvious Green Zone, a film which has an obvious, "portray the Americans as bad guys in the war" point of view. I watched that film and was struck by the scene where Damon walks into a room at a random time and there is a newscast in the background. Well as if the film didn't try to hit us over the head with its message, the news report that is showing is the infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech W. gave while on board the aircraft carrier.

I haven't seen 'Extraordinary Measures,' so I won't comment on that, but I did see 'Green Zone,' and I'm not following your logic. It portrayed (indirectly and through the use of Greg Kinnear as a fictionalized alternate version of L. Paul Bremer) certain administration officials in a negative light, and fictionalized versions of private military contractors as unethical and dangerous (which is not a stretch). However, Matt Damon, his team, other soldiers, Iraqis assisting them, reporters, other US civilian government and military officials, and Brendan Gleeson's CIA agent were portrayed in a positive and ethical manner. They weren't portrayed as "bad guys," just victims of incompetent, irresponsible, and unethical higher-ups.

Are you arguing that there was no obfuscation, overselling, or flat-out falsifying of evidence involved in trying to make the case that there were WMDs in Iraq? That's all the movie (and the nonfiction book the fictional action is loosely based on) contends, and it's backed up by numerous real-life facts. The extra subplot with the PMC's out to get him and the chase through Baghdad were made up, but the basic premise was sound.

All that being said, I found 'Green Zone' to be rather lackluster myself despite typically being a fan of Paul Greengrass and his films, but that doesn't mean Ebert's review is unjustified or politically biased.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Thanks, RookieBatman. I see your point. We may or may not agree with the topic at hand, but I think we see eye to eye on the point you just made

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Are you arguing that there was no obfuscation, overselling, or flat-out falsifying of evidence involved in trying to make the case that there were WMDs in Iraq? That's all the movie (and the nonfiction book the fictional action is loosely based on) contends, and it's backed up by numerous real-life facts. The extra subplot with the PMC's hunting him and the chase through Baghdad were made up, but the basic premise was sound.

I'm not saying that. There likely was obsufication foing on the war, and I'm happy to see it brought out in the film. I actually agree with the message. However, I just think the film makers used not-so-subtle sledgehammers to bring their side and only their side of a potentially polarizing issue to the surface without even using the kind of tact and the kind of craft that I think is necessary to make a film worthy of the four stars Ebert gave it. I would also say that Ebert's rating is as much, if not more, due to the fact that he agrees with the argument than the film itself. That much would be okay, and maybe understandable, if he had given it two and half or three stars... but it seems he is giving the reward to the viewpoint and not the film itself.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

There likely was obsufication foing on the war, and I'm happy to see it brought out in the film. I actually agree with the message.

Ahh, okay. Cool.

However, I just think the film makers used not-so-subtle sledgehammers to bring their side and only their side of a potentially polarizing issue to the surface without even using the kind of tact and the kind of craft that I think is necessary to make a film worthy of the four stars Ebert gave it. I would also say that Ebert's rating is as much, if not more, due to the fact that he agrees with the argument than the film itself. That much would be okay, and maybe understandable, if he had given it two and half or three stars... but it seems he is giving the reward to the viewpoint and not the film itself.

Fair enough. While I don't necessarily agree that a filmmaker has a responsibility to present anything other than his or her preferred side of the story, I can see where you're coming from.

As far as Ebert letting his politics get in the way of giving an objective film review in this case (or in other reviews), neither of us can actually prove anything unless he's flat-out said he is biased before, so it all comes down to our impressions of both the review and of Ebert. So, we'll just have to disagree on that.

 

[Teelie]

He's right to an extent but he often takes as has been noted, a certain point then runs with it almost like he wants to stab someone in the eye with it. Yes, there are movies and films posing as movies that are nothing more than the equivalent of junk food and want to build a franchise off it.

Big deal. No one makes anyone watch it and people don't always want junk food. Some people are the equivalent of the all natural vegan who wants nothing to do with meat and shun any movie that might be "meaty" in their eyes. Others will eat anything in front of them.

Does that make either of them right or that there's no average middle ground where most people prefer their movies somewhere inbetween with the occasional soda and candy bar snack?

Ebert has become a crotchety old man who sometimes hits the mark. But then when you fling enough darts, sometimes you're bound to hit it anyways.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Yes, indeed.

Sometimes, all I want to see in a theater- is exactly the kind of film he describes; shallow eye-candy with "no nutritional value". I love those films
I think the point I'm making is that it is kind of shame is that we can expect this kind of thing more often than not. Wouldn't it be great if we could return to the craft of filmmaking, even the so-called "fun" films? I have hopes for Inception, but we will see.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

He's right to an extent but he often takes as has been noted, a certain point then runs with it almost like he wants to stab someone in the eye with it.

Yeah, he does occasionally do that. Sometimes it can be entertaining and enhance the review, and sometimes it detracts from it.

Yes, there are movies and films posing as movies that are nothing more than the equivalent of junk food and want to build a franchise off it.

Big deal. No one makes anyone watch it and people don't always want junk food. Some people are the equivalent of the all natural vegan who wants nothing to do with meat and shun any movie that might be "meaty" in their eyes. Others will eat anything in front of them.

Does that make either of them right or that there's no average middle ground where most people prefer their movies somewhere inbetween with the occasional soda and candy bar snack?

Ebert has become a crotchety old man who sometimes hits the mark. But then when you fling enough darts, sometimes you're bound to hit it anyways.

Ebert likes a lot of silly comedies, unrealistic action movies, and big-budget blockbuster films too. He's doesn't exclusively like artsy movies by any stretch of the imagination, despite the frequent claims to the contrary by many posters here and elsewhere. Hell, he liked 'The Rock' so much he wrote the liner notes for the DVD.

 

[Teelie]

Ebert is somewhat of a contradiction there but he's also too often predictable. I know there will be a specific movie I'll probably like will be on his "hated it list" and usually I'll be right. Sometimes I'm wrong but too often he doesn't like so-called "fluff" movies.

I'd have to say he's not one of my reviewers. It's fine if other people agree with him. The problem lies in that he's seen as more influential than he should be. No single reviewer should be given so much credence, regardless of how much you agree or disagree with them. It was more balanced (but not ideal) when there was a counter to him in Siskel or Roper.

Then again, a lot of critics seem to get involved in group-think situations where they all agree on a movie is good or bad and anyone who disagrees is typically looked at differently.

 

[Hyperspace05]

Oddly enough Ebert used to be the one critic who most liked "fun" movies - or perhaps he was just setting up a contrast to the more serious Siskel.

 

[Gaith]

Re: This one paragraph might say everything that needs to be said

And here and all I thought you were going to link to Timothy Noah's 2000 Slate article "Abolish the Senate!"...

 

[Rii]

Then again, a lot of critics seem to get involved in group-think situations where they all agree on a movie is good or bad and anyone who disagrees is typically looked at differently.

Yeah, which is why Ebert lambasted Kick-Ass and liked The Happening. Bloody groupthink.

 

[EnsignRicky]

If I had to review every film that hits the theaters, I might grow bitter too. That paragraph pretty much sums up more than half the movies that have come out this century alone.

 

[DonIago]

I tend to agree with Ebert's reviews myself, and always enjoy listening to his commentaries when available on films. For those who think he can get focused on a single issue, if it's a movie where such an option is available it may be worth pursuing.

Though in the end I'm not sure whether I enjoy his reviews for the "review" aspect or for the "analysis" aspect. I took a class on films in college, and while I wouldn't enjoy dissecting them on a regular basis, it can be fun for me to hear someone like Ebert have at it. Plus he often mentions other movies by way of comparison that give me ideas of other films I might want to see at some point.

 

[Kegg]

Ebert is many things, but I wouldn't call him a bitter old man. Ofentimes, to be honest, he strikes me as far more leinent and generous than he should be - and when Ebert gets mad, he gets mad with such eloquence and grace that really should be the starting point for any other reviewer. I'm still fond of this opening line from just a year ago or so:

"Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day" is an idiotic ode to macho horseshite (to employ an ancient Irish word).

I used to like Ebert, but he definitely has brought his politics into his reviews.

Look at his review of Harrison Ford's Extreme Measures. He can't help himself, after doing well for the full review, to get a shot in via his last sentence.

It also sidesteps the point that the U.S. health-care system makes the cure unavailable to many dying children; they are being saved in nations with universal health coverage.

I mean, come on! It really has nothing to do with the film. It's tacked on!

The film is concerned with healthcare for children and he's observing it doesn't address something that, er, concerns healthcare for children?

Really, it's the relative consistency of Ebert's prose more than as a reviewer (who I variously agree and disagree with - Babel is a great movie, Ebert? Really?) that keeps bringing me back.

 

[RookieBatman]

Fair enough. While I don't necessarily agree that a filmmaker has a responsibility to present anything other than his or her preferred side of the story, I can see where you're coming from.

That was one thing I really liked about the way David E. Kelley did "Boston Legal." He would take some controversial issue, and then he would make strong, reasonable arguments for both sides of it. I thought that was something really special; even though you could usually tell which side he favored (the side being defended by the main characters, naturally), he still made a fair case for the "wrong" side. When that stopped happening was about the time I stopped watching the show.
Going from that model, it seems that the difference between something being preachy and being thought-provoking can sometimes come down to how well-represented is the side the writer thinks is wrong.

 

[barnaclelapse]

I used to like Ebert, but he definitely has brought his politics into his reviews.

Look at his review of Harrison Ford's Extreme Measures. He can't help himself, after doing well for the full review, to get a shot in via his last sentence.

It also sidesteps the point that the U.S. health-care system makes the cure unavailable to many dying children; they are being saved in nations with universal health coverage.

I mean, come on! It really has nothing to do with the film. It's tacked on!

And this is the same guy that gave four friggin stars to the lackluster and all-to-trite and obvious Green Zone, a film which has an obvious, "portray the Americans as bad guys in the war" point of view. I watched that film and was struck by the scene where Damon walks into a room at a random time and there is a newscast in the background. Well as if the film didn't try to hit us over the head with its message, the news report that is showing is the infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech W. gave while on board the aircraft carrier.

It's tacked on, but it's not like he choked the whole article with it, and he certainly doesn't do that sort of thing consistently.

I say ignore the last paragraph and enjoy the rest of the review (whether you agree with it or not).

 

[stj]

Ebert makes more errors than he used to. (Errors as in incorrectly recapping events or confusing characters or misunderstanding the plot.) I attribute that to ill health primarily. As a critic, he is a generous but not blind reviewer. As a reviewer, he is capable of insight in the mechanics and esthetics. As a writer, he is entertaining. He is occasionally prone to groupthink (Alexander is just a bad movie?) or, more often I think, hero worship (Million Dollar Baby is even good, much less great?)

But no one should expect perfection. Consider the alternative, the reviews in People and Entertainment Weekly or the New Yorker?

As to the notion that controversial films have to include balance, remember the vast majority of films default to the conventional without the slightest concession, ever, to anything different. This therefore is a double standard. As ever with double standards, it is indefensible. The insistence that different point of view must be deniable merely expresses outrage at the very existence of dissidence.

 

[Samurai8472]

Ebert can sometimes be right and sometimes not. Take his Superman Returns review

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060626/REVIEWS/60606009/1023

Now about Lois' kid. We know who his father is, and Lois knows, and I guess the kid knows, although he calls Richard his daddy. But why is nothing done with this character? He sends a piano flying across a room, but otherwise he just stares with big, solemn eyes, like one of those self-sufficient little brats you can't get to talk. It would have been fun to give Superman a bright, sassy child, like one of the Spy Kids, and make him a part of the plot.

NO!

 

[Too Much Fun]

L.O.B., I appreciate how much thought you put into your rebuttal about "The Life of David Gale", but this part of his review is what bugged me and still does:

while Texas continues to warehouse condemned men with a system involving lawyers who are drunk, asleep or absent; confessions that are beaten out of the helpless, and juries that overwhelmingly prefer to execute black defendants instead of white ones, you can't make this movie. Not in Texas.

Come on, do you really have to see the movie to know this is a way too biased and subjective sermonizing that's out of place in what's supposed to be an honest movie review? It's clearly just him ranting his opinion about the corruption of capital punishment in Texas, and revealing that the movie pissed him off because of that opinion. I think a movie should be judged first and foremost on its qualities as a part of its medium (i.e. acting, writing, directing, etc.) and what the hell does that sentence have to do with any of these things? Now the movie may very well be sloppily written and convoluted as you said, but that's not what this line I've quoted is about. It just seems irrelevant and overtly political to me.

And I agree about it being frustrating how Ebert sometimes singles out one thing about a movie and lets that ruin the movie for him. The best example I can think of is in his "Die Hard" review. He goes on and on about what a stupid character the police chief is and how his stupidity tainted the whole movie. I don't know why the hell Ebert got so worked up about that. The guy was one of the least important characters in the movie and it had so many other fun characters, dialog, and action sequences that make the character's idiocy far from enough to sink the movie. Plus, it depends on how you look at it. Personally, I find it amusing how moronic that character was. Doesn't diminish the movie for me at all. Who cares if that character's stubbornness is unrealistic? It's entertaining and part of the movie's charm is how preposterous it and its characters are at times.

On the other hand, I am grateful for Ebert's fussiness sometimes. He seems to be the only person in the world who understands and agrees with my issues regarding some really popular movies that I think are annoyingly overrated and have deep flaws the rest of the world seems blind to; "Blue Velvet", "Blade Runner", and "The Thing".