What about Roger Ebert?

jamiestarr

New member
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080518/REVIEWS/969461084/1023


I tend to dismiss critics reviews. Personally, I just think that critics inhabit a different world than me--they see many more movies than me, and have cultivated a different taste/palette than me. They are usually too cynical and snide...

That said, I have never really agreed with a review as much as I did with Ebert's review of Crystal Skull. Those of you who don't see the movie in a positive light, what do you make of Ebert's assessment? Is he not seeing the same movie as you? Is he too big of a fan? What is your take when a popular and well respected critic digs a movie that you bemoan?
 

TheMutt92

New member
Roger Ebert's review of the movie is, I think, the best review KOTCS ever got. Not just because it praised the movie, but because it actually got down to how and why it is such a good. I went into Indy 4 w/ the same mentallity it seems Mr. Ebert had, and it really paid off for me.

And I think thats what a lot of people didn't have was the right mentallity. Both my brother and I are big Indy fans and were equally excited, but went in expecting two different movies. I loved it, he just liked it. Like I said, having the right mentallity going into a movie is very important (which is why DVD is so important for films that would otherwise never get a second chance).
 

yodazone

Member
I agree with Ebert's review of "Temple of Doom" in his site too. I think he nailed it in describing both movies (Temple & Skull).
 

Bvance

New member
Also, it's pretty clear that Roger Ebert is a fan of film, and 'Crystal Skull' is practically an homage to lots and lots of films. I'm sure that was enough to get Ebert excited.

Plus, from reading his review it seems he was going just to enjoy himself and step out of reality, instead of like most of us who had been waiting so long for an amazing Indiana Jones film.

So, attitude is mainly the reason. And his attitude was to go and have a plain-good-ol time.
 
I'll never forget when Ebert and Siskel berated Blade Runner for spending too much screen time on the environments and special effects and not enough time with character development, plot, etc. When the director's cut came out 10 years later, Ebert was backpedaling and hailed it as a classic. I've never seen such hypocrisy from a critic before. I respect Ebert but he's heavily biased. He almost always pans all of Ridley Scott's films. He hated Gladiator. The only time I ever agreed with him 100% was on Dark City.
 

Dust McAlan

New member
Agent Spalko said:
I'll never forget when Ebert and Siskel berated Blade Runner for spending too much screen time on the environments and special effects and not enough time with character development, plot, etc. When the director's cut came out 10 years later, Ebert was backpedaling and hailed it as a classic. I've never seen such hypocrisy from a critic before. I respect Ebert but he's heavily biased. He almost always pans all of Ridley Scott's films. He hated Gladiator. The only time I ever agreed with him 100% was on Dark City.
I don't know if you've ever seen Blade Runner vs. The Director's Cut, but those are two very, very different movies. Liking one and disliking the other isn't hypocrisy, it's a matter of liking a poor movie versus a very excellent film.

I, for one, agree with Ebert on KotCS and ToD, and this is coming from a guy who rarely, if ever, agrees with Ebert. I truly hate his bias, but we agree on some things.
 

Shortie

New member
I agree with him. He also summed the serious, goofy action. That's what I walked in expecting & that's what I got. That's why I love this movie.
 
Dust McAlan said:
I don't know if you've ever seen Blade Runner vs. The Director's Cut, but those are two very, very different movies. Liking one and disliking the other isn't hypocrisy, it's a matter of liking a poor movie versus a very excellent film.

I, for one, agree with Ebert on KotCS and ToD, and this is coming from a guy who rarely, if ever, agrees with Ebert. I truly hate his bias, but we agree on some things.

Yeah, the Director's Cut sucks. Give me Final Cut or the workprint anyday.
 

James

Well-known member
Ebert is one of the few critics who seemed to 'get' each of the Indy films. His review of LC is pretty good as well.
 

HellofaSandwich

New member
I enjoyed Ebert's review and generally agreed with him the "Crystal Skull" was fun, but sometimes the man's approach to criticism just confounds me. Take "Wanted", for example. The movie is the biggest pile of dung that I have (unfortunately) seen in theaters in a very long time, and Ebert seems to agree that it sucks badly in his review ("mindless and heartless" are his words), but gives it three out of four stars due to its "technical achievements" and the fact that one can enjoy it if you "immerse yourself as in a video game". Uh, if I wanted to immerse myself in a video game, I'd play a damn video game! You can't find any joy in the action if the film itself is riddled with unlikeable characters, awful dialogue, and a morally bankrupt core.

Offtopic rant over...
 
Dust McAlan said:
I don't know if you've ever seen Blade Runner vs. The Director's Cut, but those are two very, very different movies. Liking one and disliking the other isn't hypocrisy, it's a matter of liking a poor movie versus a very excellent film.

I, for one, agree with Ebert on KotCS and ToD, and this is coming from a guy who rarely, if ever, agrees with Ebert. I truly hate his bias, but we agree on some things.


But Ebert certainly does back-pedal. A lot. I adore Ebert, personally... but he certainly isn't consistent and his reasoning can often be flawed.

Case-in-point, the luke-warm review he originally gave Tarkovsky's Solaris in the 70s... the (horrid) remake came out a few years back and Ebert scored that one BETTER than the original. And then he added the original to his on-going list of essential films and was suddenly singing its praises. Uh... what?


That's just one example of many. Ebert's prone to fanboyism and inexplicable bias just like anyone else. How about giving The Hitcher (original) zero stars and criticizing it as being "diseased and corrupt." He notes that the film creates a sadomasochistic link between the protagonist and antagonist. Sadomasochism... corrupt sexuality? Uhm... Ebert, you simultaneously missed the point and nailed the point.


Ebert's a great reviewer but he's still only human. I take his review of KOCKS with a grain of salt as I do any other review. Read someone like Ebert for their knowledge but don't jump onto a bandwagon just because they give approval.


"Think for yourself, question authority."
 

Rococo

New member
Oh, I could kiss Roger Ebert! Thanks for posting this link. He nails it perfectly, what so many of us have been thinking but unable to say nearly so eloquently. Yes, there are flaws, yes, stupid things might happen, yes, there is too much exposition- but who the h*ll cares, it's not the point! It's Indy, and he's back!

And the fact that Roger Ebert is really a bit of a fanboy in hiding- just too cute!
 
Last edited:

Agent Z

Active member
Ebert also goes more into his Kingdom review on his blog, including commenting about the early negative review at AICN.

Roger is a geek at heart. He embraces the internet as well and reads online critics from sites such as Arrow in the Head, among others. At the end of the day, Ebert really is "one of the boys". (y)

As I have made the analogy before, Kingdom is just like your favorite comic book when you were a kid, rolled up in your back pocket and taken to your friend's house, or to the park. You read it to see your hero being a hero...and you don't question how or why crazy things happen, you just want to know when more crazy things are going to happen.

I love this following quote from Harry Knowles at AICN, which was posted in the Talkbacks of his review of the film:

"I'll tell you what the negative reviews are. They're people that watch movies with notepads - making notes during movies about their fave moments and the points that they disengaged... besides the points where they're writing notes and not actually WITH the movie. I can't really speak for everyone - but there's people that will see a sequence like the Shia/Monkey sequence.... or the Prairie Dogs.... or even the Ants... and they'll disengage - say that's not realistic, that's just plain silly - and then they'll listen to the dialogue and think... that's corny, people don't talk like that - and while they're looking and disengaging from all those moments - they're missing the entire ****ing point. INDIANA JONES isn't real - he's a concoction - he's a creation of cinema magic. He says the perfect thing, does the perfect thing - gets banged up, knocked around but at the end of it all.... He's the most amazing man the world never gave birth to. He could survive an atomic blast through ingenuity. He knew EVERYONE in the history in which he lived. And he's like a bad penny, he'll always turn up. It's about a dream of an adventurer, not the reality. The fx and sets are never quite real - because none of it is real. It's a fanciful painting of our dreams - after being drunk on the movies of the 30's, 40's & 50's... but doing that now... with all the fun and joy of the toys we have today. It's about Harryhausen and Demille... about Hawks and Ford... it's about every genre and the very celebration of movie making, watching and fandom. It's about being taken away - and there's some people that just refuse to get on board. They can't shake the cynicism of their own self-importance - and they go home... disappointed - because ultimately they've no room for being a kid anymore... even briefly."
 

Blade

New member
Instinctively I thin Ebert is slightly playing the game.

Spielberg and Lucas are massive power brokers in the industry and Ebert realising he is a parasite would not want to dis these two giants.

If you look at his reviews of poor Spielberg films such as Terminal etc a (and KOTCS) he always appears to be positive where he can and his criticisms are never very aggressive.
 

StoneTriple

New member
Agent Z said:
...quote from Harry Knowles at AICN, which was posted in the Talkbacks of his review of the film:

"... it's about every genre and the very celebration of movie making, watching and fandom. It's about being taken away - and there's some people that just refuse to get on board. They can't shake the cynicism of their own self-importance - and they go home... disappointed ..."
Well put, Mr. Knowles.
 

Niteshade007

New member
Agent Z said:
"I'll tell you what the negative reviews are. They're people that watch movies with notepads - making notes during movies about their fave moments and the points that they disengaged... besides the points where they're writing notes and not actually WITH the movie. I can't really speak for everyone - but there's people that will see a sequence like the Shia/Monkey sequence.... or the Prairie Dogs.... or even the Ants... and they'll disengage - say that's not realistic, that's just plain silly - and then they'll listen to the dialogue and think... that's corny, people don't talk like that - and while they're looking and disengaging from all those moments - they're missing the entire ****ing point. INDIANA JONES isn't real - he's a concoction - he's a creation of cinema magic. He says the perfect thing, does the perfect thing - gets banged up, knocked around but at the end of it all.... He's the most amazing man the world never gave birth to. He could survive an atomic blast through ingenuity. He knew EVERYONE in the history in which he lived. And he's like a bad penny, he'll always turn up. It's about a dream of an adventurer, not the reality. The fx and sets are never quite real - because none of it is real. It's a fanciful painting of our dreams - after being drunk on the movies of the 30's, 40's & 50's... but doing that now... with all the fun and joy of the toys we have today. It's about Harryhausen and Demille... about Hawks and Ford... it's about every genre and the very celebration of movie making, watching and fandom. It's about being taken away - and there's some people that just refuse to get on board. They can't shake the cynicism of their own self-importance - and they go home... disappointed - because ultimately they've no room for being a kid anymore... even briefly."

Well, I don't bring a notepad with me.

It's a well written review, but I don't agree with him. Cynicism of my own self-importance? I'm a college student with no money who has to have his parents pay for everything. If that doesn't prove I'm still a child in many ways I don't know what would. Maybe I don't play with toys anymore, but I wouldn't say I've lost the thrill of being caught up in a good film. My heart still races during the Raiders truck sequence. I still worry about what's going to happen to Grace Kelly in Rear Window, even though I've seen the film countless times and know the ending. I still quote the final bits of dialogue with Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca, truly believing what Rick is saying to Ilsa, never questioning his sincerity. The shower sequence in Psycho still scares me, and I still laugh along with Roger Rabbit. It isn't that I have no room for being a kid anymore, it's that I saw a movie I didn't like. Is it that hard to accept? And now, a reviwer who doesn't even know me has accused me of a lack of imagination in order to defend a movie a he enjoyed. That doesn't seem fair.
 

nitzsche

New member
Life's not supposed to be fair. And you don't need college to tell you that life isn't going to give you everything you want out of it either, but to look for the positive and focus on that, instead of taking mental note of everything you hate and acting like you deserve better.
 
Top