Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!
The last few years I haven't agreed much with Ebert, who used to be one of my favorite critics, because he sounds more like a bitter old man who forgot that movies were supposed to be fun. In addition, he offers too much of his politics into his reviews.
However, in his review of The Sorcerer's Apprentice, which was just posted, he offers this, and, honestly, I kind of agree with him, at least largely so.
I use the word "consumer" deliberately. This genre doesn't require an audience in the traditional sense. It attracts children and young teenagers with the promise of cinematic fast food: It's all sugar and caffeine, no nutrition. In place of a plot, there's a premise; in place of carefully crafted action, there are stupefying exercises in computer-generated imagery, and in place of an ending, there's a hook for the sequel and, if all goes well, a new franchise.
I have no interest in "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" and usually find myself disagreeing with most of Roger's reviews lately but yes that assessment seems to cover what I've seen of this movie from the trailers. Mr. Wooden (Nic Cage) seems to be back to his old self, but I feel bad for the kid from "Fanboys" (his name escapes me, Jay something) whom I have enjoyed his previous work.
I can't believe I'm the one to say this being as huge of an Ebert fan as I am, but I've definitely noticed it too. For example, look at his review of "The Life of David Gale". Now I haven't seen it myself, but I highly doubt that Kevin Spacey, being as picky and talented as he is, would star in a movie truly worthy of zero stars. It seems quite obvious that Ebert's views on capital punishment influenced that very spiteful rating.
I used to like Ebert, but he definitely has brought his politics into his reviews.
Look at his review of Harrison Ford'sExtreme 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.
I might actually play devil's advocate here, and say that it's completely sensible for a person's political views to affect their movie reviews. Why? Because a person's political views do affect how much they enjoy a movie. I think the idea that any one reviewer can tell everyone (or even most people) whether they should like a movie is ludicrous. Rather, Roger Ebert's reviews are only valid to people who have similar tastes in movies to Roger Ebert. So, if his politics affect his reviews, then people who agree with his politics will know to avoid movies he didn't like for political reasons. Conversely, people who don't agree with his politics will realize that his reviews may not be as valid for them (which would still be the case if he wasn't so blatant, the reader just might not realize it).
I might actually play devil's advocate here, and say that it's completely sensible for a person's political views to affect their movie reviews. Why? Because a person's political views do affect how much they enjoy a movie. I think the idea that any one reviewer can tell everyone whether they should like a movie is ludicrous. Rather, Roger Ebert's reviews are only valid to people who have similar tastes in movies to Roger Ebert. So, if his politics affect his reviews, then people who agree with his politics will know to avoid movies he didn't like for political reasons. Conversely, people who don't agree with his politics will realize that his reviews may not be as valid for them (which would still be the case if he wasn't so blatant, the reader just might not realize it).
I would agree with you to a point. A critic's views does inform the reviews. That's unavoidable. But a critic can be irresponsible about it. To toss in that last sentence in the Harrison Ford movie is blatently irresponsible and has nothing to do with the film.
It would be like me saying that Religulous is the greatest film ever made because I agree with the viewpoint Bill Maher has. As a message board kind of guy, it might be even acceptable to do that, but as a professional critic, more balance is needed.
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.
maybe so. But first and foremost, there is a big difference between someone who takes the gloves off on some stupid message board and a guy who is a paid, professional critic.
I can't believe I'm the one to say this being as huge of an Ebert fan as I am, but I've definitely noticed it too. For example, look at his review of "The Life of David Gale". Now I haven't seen it myself, but I highly doubt that Kevin Spacey, being as picky and talented as he is, would star in a movie truly worthy of zero stars.
I would suggest you watch 'The Life of David Gale' before writing his extremely negative review off as being politically motivated, either wholly or in large part. I'm opposed to capital punishment, and watched the movie hoping to find a thoughtful and poignant commentary against it, only to instead be disappointed by one of the most convoluted, ham-fisted, heavy-handed, intellectually dishonest, and implausibly-plotted films I have ever seen.
It suggests that capital punishment can only be discredited through committing a massive fraud, and then throws away the entire point of committing that fraud in the first place by revealing to a journalist (who is standing in for the audience as the real target of the twist reveal) how they pulled off their trick. A journalist who - if she was as good at her job and honorable as the story made out - would be duty bound to report the truth to the public, thus undercutting Kevin Spacey's and Laura Linney's fraudulent sacrifice in the name of stopping capital punishment in Texas.
It seems quite obvious that Ebert's views on capital punishment influenced that very spiteful rating.
What do you think his views on capital punishment are, exactly? If the final paragraph of his 'David Gale' review or his comments about the death penalty in another review (see both below) are any indication, he is strongly opposed to it.
You can make movies that support capital punishment ("The Executioner's Song") or oppose it ("Dead Man Walking") or are conflicted ("In Cold Blood"). But 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.
The ability of so many people to live comfortably with the idea of capital punishment is perhaps a clue to how so many Europeans were able to live with the idea of the Holocaust: Once you accept the notion that the state has the right to kill someone and the right to define what is a capital crime, aren't you halfway there?
If he is anti-death penalty as the above suggest, and was so politically motivated that his bias would completely override his ability to fairly judge a film's merits or lack thereof, wouldn't that bias manifest itself in the form of rating a vehemently anti-death penalty movie like 'Gale' higher than what it deserved, rather than lower?
If he was pro-death penalty wouldn't his bias cause him to unfairly judge other anti-death penalty films such as 'Dead Man Walking', which he gave four stars?
Why do review aggregator sites such as Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, who draw from numerous reviewers with vastly differing personal political views also judge the film so harshly? Maybe they just think it sucks, and it's not about their political views?
Yes, Ebert has personal political views and doesn't hesitate to mention them in his reviews, but I think he is still capable of judging a film objectively on its merits in spite of whether or not those films gel with his personal feelings on the subject matter.
I like a lot Ebert a most of the time. Overall, I think he's a great witty writer and very entertaining to read.
Every once in awhile he delivers a total wtf moment for me, but I think that's bound to happen. Have to disagree with the man sometimes. His recent hatred of Hit-Girl and his classic attack on Blue Velvet spring to mind.
It would be like me saying that Religulous is the greatest film ever made because I agree with the viewpoint Bill Maher has. As a message board kind of guy, it might be even acceptable to do that, but as a professional critic, more balance is needed.
True, but if you did say that about Religulous, people who knew you could probably see the hyperbole in the statement (intentional or not), and realize at least that there's probably a good chance that they'd like the movie if they share your viewpoints on religion. Similarly, somebody who shares Ebert's opinion about health care would then be duly warned that parts of Extraordinary Measures might rankle those sensitivities.
Now, it doesn't really mean much, because I don't read professional reviews; but if I did, I would rather have the politicizing there, so could avoid it in the movie (i.e., I'll probably be giving Green Zone a pass).
Ebert's greatest flaw is that he tends to pick one aspect of a film and base his entire review off of it. If that one thing bugs him, he'll write paragraphs upon paragraph about it - while the rest of the film is perfectly fine. (or even great)
That makes him such a crapshoot for reviews... He seems to be right on the money in some cases, whereas in others you wonder why he is picking on a detail that he actually turns out to be wrong about.
Frustrating. Which is why I don't read his reviews anymore.
