Roger Ebert
I've been putting off attacking
the fat jolly old elf for so long because I feel that he's better (or rates
less on the scale of epic disaster) than the other critics listed at this
site. He does have some things going for him: First off, he's
usually not affected by the waves of hype or anti-hype, and thus defends
a movie that no other critic does, or attacks a movie that all other critics
worshipped. Thus, he's able to provide some balance for movies that
have been over-attacked, and he's able to shed some light on movies that
deserve more recognition. Ebert is a sucker for movies with great
set designs and good use of effects, for the most part. Despite publishing
a omnibus titled I Really, Really, Really Hated These Movies, he
always comes off as a true lover of cinema. And his thoughts tend
to be more original than most critics.
However, the negative result
of the above is that occasionally Roger writes some reviews that have you
convinced that a) he's taking some very powerful drugs, b) he has delusional
disorder, or c) the lead male star cancelled on a date with him.
Now, this could be a decent price to pay for occasionally watching a missed
gem. But unfortunately, the problems don't stop there. Ebert
never went to film school nor has any experience whatsoever making a film.
He's a writer. He was an English major. His only contribution
to cinema was writing the screenplay for Russ Meyer's Beyond the Valley
of the Dolls. Thus, as far as his reviews go, he's primarily
concerned with his writing, than with cinema. The exception comes
when he really, really, really loves a movie, in which case he goes into
lengthy detail about cinematic quality. However, for the most part,
rather than being preoccupied with telling us how good or bad the movie
is, his attention is focused on how entertaining his review may sound.
The problem is, he sacrifices consistency. On many fantasy
movies and typical summer blockbusters he allows for many scientific mistakes
under the premise that it is an escapist movie, and realism should not
be taken into account. Then a month later he writes a review for
a similar movie in which all he does is do a list of the scientific mistakes
of the movie. Sometimes you do not even have to wait for another
movie to come out; his criteria for a evaluating a movie in one same review
may change from paragraph to paragraph. For a recent example: for
his review of Pearl Harbor, in one paragraph he attacks the movie
for playing to audiences that do not know anything about history, and literally
in the next paragraph he attacks the movie for not giving some basic information
about WWII. Regardless of your opinion of that movie, you have to
admit that that doesn't work as a review. This happens to him with
a lot of reviews. There are many times that I find myself agreeing
with Ebert's overall review of a movie, yet I find myself completely disagreeing
over the reasons why I liked/disliked said film.
The writing factor also gets
in the way of Ebert's reviews in the manner that he constantly refers to
the some corny lines, yet many times fails to distinguish the context of
said line. Another odd factor is that Ebert tends to love any movie
that attacks Hollywood and the commercialism of the entertainment industry,
as long as it was made by people who are roughly his age or older.
When the stars, writers, and filmmakers' ages drop below 40, he fails to
get the jokes. The result is that he's not sure whether the movie
is a good parody, or a weak attempt at comedy that is filled with commercials
and is pandering to the audience. His reviews of such films wind
up sounding quite hypocritical after one remembers his one contribution
to cinema.
Quite frankly, I thought that
whomever decided to pair him with Gene Siskel was a genius, because 90%
of the times when one of the two would remember to take his Thorazine when
the other guy would go on a month-long coke binge. The effect I feel
has still not been reached with his current partner, formerly misinformed
columnist Richard Roeper, for the reason that, although he may be more
sarcastic, he has the same problem as Ebert: he's too concerned with how
entertaining he sounds.
BACK
