- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 10 films that Roger Ebert really hated
Posted on 4/5/13 at 4:37 pm to WG_Dawg
Posted on 4/5/13 at 4:37 pm to WG_Dawg
When you win a Pulitzer for your film criticism - then you can complain why people don't take your reviews as seriously as Ebert.
It's a craft - not just opinion. He was editor of the newspaper at the University of Illinois and was working on his Doctorate at the University of Chicago before embarking on his journalist/film critic career. Throughout his life he was a guest lecturer on film at the University of Chicago.
And back then, we didn't have the internet where everyone grew up believing their opinion on any topic was deserved or needed to be heard by the masses.
Baloo is right, he turned people onto films instead of snarky "food-critic" criticisms of the past. I think people appreciated him not just because of his high-profile but he often reviewed films in the context of the intended audience. Not all bad movies were simply bad...they could be fun and entertaining and be good for what they aimed.
It's a craft - not just opinion. He was editor of the newspaper at the University of Illinois and was working on his Doctorate at the University of Chicago before embarking on his journalist/film critic career. Throughout his life he was a guest lecturer on film at the University of Chicago.
And back then, we didn't have the internet where everyone grew up believing their opinion on any topic was deserved or needed to be heard by the masses.
Baloo is right, he turned people onto films instead of snarky "food-critic" criticisms of the past. I think people appreciated him not just because of his high-profile but he often reviewed films in the context of the intended audience. Not all bad movies were simply bad...they could be fun and entertaining and be good for what they aimed.
0
Posted on 4/5/13 at 5:09 pm to Blue Velvet
quote:
Brazil, Blue Velvet, clockwork orange, hudsucker proxy, reservoir dogs, Delicatessen, full metal jacket, the elephant man, and just about every western. If you dig around he made a fool of himself dozens of times. The good movies he gave negative reviews on aren't funny once you see the filth that he gave a thumps up; those are the worst offenses.
How is that making a fool of himself? In a 40 year career, he didn't always parrot critical consensus? What a gasbag! He likes different movies than I did? The horror! Mine is the only aesthetic that is valid.
He didn't like violent movies, as a general rule, especially ones violent towards women. He hated the machismo inherent in westerns. Now, I don't agree with him, but I do see his point of view, and that's why he was so valuable. He could articulate a point of view.
His dissents were more valuable than his raves, in many ways. Especially when he dissented on things you like. He hated the original Straw Dogs, too. You can add that to your list.
Posted on 4/5/13 at 5:12 pm to MrFreakinMiyagi
I feel sorry for you people that over analyze movies like Armageddon.
Posted on 4/5/13 at 5:13 pm to alajones
quote:
Brown Bunny (2003)
I remember that Ebert had an ongoing war with the director of Brown Bunny. When he canned the movie, the director made a comment about Ebert being fat. Ebert shot back with "I am fat. But, I could alway lose weight. And Brown Bunny would still be an awful movie."
Posted on 4/5/13 at 5:23 pm to Baloo
He was lukewarm on Blade Runner - but finally relented or changed his views after years of complaints from fans.
"I have never quite embraced "Blade Runner," admiring it at arm's length:
...but now it is time to cave in and admit it to the canon.
I have been assured that my problems in the past with "Blade Runner" represent a failure of my own taste and imagination, but if the film was perfect, why has Sir Ridley continued to tinker with it, and now released his fifth version? I guess he's only... human."
"I have never quite embraced "Blade Runner," admiring it at arm's length:
quote:
I watched the original "Blade Runner" on video a few years ago, and now, watching the director's cut, I am left with the same overall opinion of the movie: It looks fabulous, it uses special effects to create a new world of its own, but it is thin in its human story.
...but now it is time to cave in and admit it to the canon.
I have been assured that my problems in the past with "Blade Runner" represent a failure of my own taste and imagination, but if the film was perfect, why has Sir Ridley continued to tinker with it, and now released his fifth version? I guess he's only... human."
Posted on 4/5/13 at 5:49 pm to Baloo
quote:No need for strawmen. He didn't see value in many great movies because of his own shortfalls. His critique of Blue Velvet: LINK. His poor rating is more of a reflection of Ebert's character than Lynch's film.
In a 40 year career, he didn't always parrot critical consensus? What a gasbag! He likes different movies than I did? The horror! Mine is the only aesthetic that is valid.
quote:I understand and appreciate this sentiment. That doesn't justify his love of tacky fluff and his disdain for many of the more serious, grand movies from over the years.
Now, I don't agree with him, but I do see his point of view, and that's why he was so valuable. He could articulate a point of view.
Posted on 4/5/13 at 5:53 pm to boxcarbarney
quote:
When he canned the movie, the director made a comment about Ebert being fat. Ebert shot back with "I am fat. But, I could alway lose weight. And Brown Bunny would still be an awful movie."
You are on the right track but here is what was really said.
Gallo retorted by calling Ebert a "fat pig with the physique of a slave trader" and put a hex on Ebert, wishing him colon cancer. Ebert then responded – paraphrasing a statement made by Winston Churchill – that, "although I am fat, one day I will be thin, but Mr. Gallo will still have been the director of The Brown Bunny."
Posted on 4/5/13 at 7:11 pm to Baloo
quote:
The funny thing is, a lot of these criticisms I'm reading of Ebert are fairly baseless and contrary to his career. He did champion "middlebrow" films and genre works. He believed strongly that each person's own tastes should be their own guide. He was pretty far from an elitist.
I was about to come let WGDawg know that I've always appreciated Ebert's honesty. Back in the 70's, when their show was one of my favorite watches, it was usually easier for me to agree with Siskel. In my mind, his reviews were more "mainstream". I nearly always had a good idea of whether Siskel would like a movie or not but I never knew with Ebert. Sometimes it made me mad when Ebert liked a movie that I thought he'd hate.
He always came across as completely honest. His passion came out on TV and it always did in his writing too.
Posted on 4/5/13 at 10:09 pm to Blue Velvet
It's not a strawman. You actually criticized him for disliking movies you like...
How did he make a fool of himself for not liking movies upon which there was a positive critical consensus? He disagreed. As is his prerogatve.
And what's wrong with his Blue Velvet review? I disagree with it, but he does raise a pretty salient point -- he felt that the film was exploitative. That's not a from left field criticism. It's perfectly valid. And he's right to ask what the hell is David Lynch's intention? He's almost intentionally oblique.
You criticized him for going against the grain on some widely praised movies. I said this line of thinking is rdiciulous. and you call that a strawman because.... why?
He loved films and films that especially celebrated life. You subscribe to a different aesthetic, and that's fine. The world is big enough for differing points of view. But I find your criticism of Roger Ebert to be lacking. Yes, he liked a lot of middlebrow films and championed a lot of fluff. Liking things is fun. I support liking things. I support looking for joy, and art that is joyful.
quote:
Brazil, Blue Velvet, clockwork orange, hudsucker proxy, reservoir dogs, Delicatessen, full metal jacket, the elephant man, and just about every western. If you dig around he made a fool of himself dozens of times.
How did he make a fool of himself for not liking movies upon which there was a positive critical consensus? He disagreed. As is his prerogatve.
And what's wrong with his Blue Velvet review? I disagree with it, but he does raise a pretty salient point -- he felt that the film was exploitative. That's not a from left field criticism. It's perfectly valid. And he's right to ask what the hell is David Lynch's intention? He's almost intentionally oblique.
You criticized him for going against the grain on some widely praised movies. I said this line of thinking is rdiciulous. and you call that a strawman because.... why?
quote:
I understand and appreciate this sentiment. That doesn't justify his love of tacky fluff and his disdain for many of the more serious, grand movies from over the years.
He loved films and films that especially celebrated life. You subscribe to a different aesthetic, and that's fine. The world is big enough for differing points of view. But I find your criticism of Roger Ebert to be lacking. Yes, he liked a lot of middlebrow films and championed a lot of fluff. Liking things is fun. I support liking things. I support looking for joy, and art that is joyful.
Posted on 4/5/13 at 11:34 pm to Baloo
It's a good movie, but it's not hard to imagine somebody disliking Blue Velvet. I mean that's a messed up movie, and not many people are just stuck in the middle of there opinions of it.
My thing is more with critics as a whole. There isn't a critic on the planet who has stuck to his guns on all of his stuff. If you're trying to be taken serious but yet you probably don't like Casablanca, Vertigo, Blade Runner, *insert a classic*, you're probably not going to admit it.
Critics on Vertigo's release: "wtf was that? Hitchcocks worse movie."
Critics 20 years later: "possibly the best movie of all time."
I mean everybody has changed their opinion on a movie, critics just love/hate movies in groups.
I have no hatred or love towards Ebert. He was a good writer. I just don't like critics as a whole.
My thing is more with critics as a whole. There isn't a critic on the planet who has stuck to his guns on all of his stuff. If you're trying to be taken serious but yet you probably don't like Casablanca, Vertigo, Blade Runner, *insert a classic*, you're probably not going to admit it.
Critics on Vertigo's release: "wtf was that? Hitchcocks worse movie."
Critics 20 years later: "possibly the best movie of all time."
I mean everybody has changed their opinion on a movie, critics just love/hate movies in groups.
I have no hatred or love towards Ebert. He was a good writer. I just don't like critics as a whole.
Posted on 4/5/13 at 11:46 pm to MrFreakinMiyagi
quote:
I could poop on a blank strip of film, project it on a screen, and it would make for a better viewing experience than Armageddon.
Where have you been all my life?
Posted on 4/5/13 at 11:50 pm to Baloo
quote:No. I criticized him for his negative ratings for specific films that he didn't like, not because of the quality of the product, but because of his own warped agenda and shortfalls. It's evident in many of his reviews.
You actually criticized him for disliking movies you like...
quote:The positive critical consensus is irrelevant. There are great movies that I don't enjoy watching and there are shitty movies that I enjoy watching. We're talking about art. Guernica didn't make me smile. Ebert gave negative reviews to and convinced people not see various great movies for reasons that were flaws in Ebert, not in the film. ( LINK) He felt bad for Rosellini and acted as if she was taken advantage of. "Sure the movie is well made, but the more I thought about it, the less I liked it." Siskel put him in his place.
How did he make a fool of himself for not liking movies upon which there was a positive critical consensus?
I guess this is where we approach a fork in the road and start the new debate. I disagree with his decision to trash a great work of art because he couldn't detach himself from the director's conscious decision to treat his leading actress in a way in which she agreed. I'm not saying he's stooping to the level of poliboard posters who won't see a movie with Sean Penn in it for political reasons but Ebert admitted the movie was well made but didn't give it a good rating. In all seriousness I'm probably wrong here but I just wish a critic could score a movie somewhat objectively. That leads to the objective film myth conversation. But Ebert even admitted it was a quality movie and still trashed it! There's no reason this film isn't a ***, ***1/2, or ****. He gave it a * because it made him uncomfortable. It only means Lynch won. Do you really think Lynch wanted people to smile while a woman was being raped? Does this make the average person feel all fuzzy inside? That's the entire conundrum of Blue Velvet is that you're horrified yet half of the time the characters are acting campy. What other movies put you in a position where it plays out like a joke but you wan't to cover your eyes in fear? B.V. puts you in emotional situations you've never been in or felt before. It was powerful and Ebert knew it.
David Lynch manipulated him, like Lynch did to everyone else, yet Ebert couldn't handle it. ( LINK).
I do want to say that you are dead on about his ability to express his viewpoint. Just read about 10 more reviews and I enjoyed reading all of them.
quote:No I didn't. My line of thinking has nothing do with the "width" of their praise. You made that up.
You criticized him for going against the grain on some widely praised movies. I said this line of thinking is rdiciulous. and you call that a strawman because.... why?
quote:I can love films that celebrate life and still find merit in ones that don't. I don't feel the need to call foul on great films for political reasons or because they succeeded in making me uncomfortable.
He loved films and films that especially celebrated life. You subscribe to a different aesthetic, and that's fine.
Posted on 4/5/13 at 11:57 pm to iwyLSUiwy
quote:I agree with you. My argument is that if you dislike something and think it's messed up it doesn't mean it is a bad. Me not liking the film doesn't change the technical quality, acting, effects, story, passion, impact, etc.
It's a good movie, but it's not hard to imagine somebody disliking Blue Velvet. I mean that's a messed up movie, and not many people are just stuck in the middle of there opinions of it.
Posted on 4/6/13 at 1:43 am to Blue Velvet
Great posts
Posted on 4/6/13 at 3:22 am to Baloo
quote:
And what's wrong with his Blue Velvet review? I disagree with it, but he does raise a pretty salient point -- he felt that the film was exploitative.
Agree.
Nothing is wrong with his review. In reading his review he understood the film but didn't enjoy it (masochism isn't for everyone). Which is appropriate really - Lynch's movies are not for everyone and in Ebert's role of reviewing a film for general consumption I think he gave a good review of the film and criticism of the methods (if not the psyche of David Lynch)
Posted on 4/6/13 at 5:35 am to alajones
His Last Journal entry, from just 3 days ago :(
End with:
End with:
quote:
So on this day of reflection I say again, thank you for going on this journey with me. I'll see you at the movies
Posted on 4/6/13 at 10:34 am to Drank
:(
Posted on 4/6/13 at 12:26 pm to Blue Velvet
quote:
The positive critical consensus is irrelevant
quote:
Ebert gave negative reviews to and convinced people not see various great movies for reasons that were flaws in Ebert, not in the film
If the positive consensus is irrelevant, what determines that it is great art? I've never seen Blue Velvet and quite frankly don't recall it being listed as a masterpiece of the medium, Lynch the Picasso of film. The irony is you are acting like the very thing most people hate about critics, being pretentious and condescending. He didn't like a movie you do, so you call him a fool. And seeing as Gene Siskel and the "irrelevant consensus like it, how did Ebert stop people from seeing it?
Posted on 4/6/13 at 12:28 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:Read above.
If the positive consensus is irrelevant, what determines that it is great art?
quote:Wrong. Read his review and watch his explanation for trashing the film.
He didn't like a movie you do, so you call him a fool.
You may want to re-read the thread and start from the beginning.
Posted on 4/6/13 at 12:45 pm to Baloo
quote:
Because they can write. And because they do not approach it haphazardly. Professional critcs, of any art, are essentially contemporary historians. Ebert;s opinion mattered because A) he was articulate and B) he had spent a lifetime studying film. He understood the medium.
It does not mean your opinion doesn't matter. But Ebert reviewed over 300 movies a year. He spent his life not just watching lots of movies, but studying movies. He knew a lot about them. I don't understand this fear people have of other people having expertise. The funny thing is, a lot of these criticisms I'm reading of Ebert are fairly baseless and contrary to his career. He did champion "middlebrow" films and genre works. He believed strongly that each person's own tastes should be their own guide. He was pretty far from an elitist.
Perfectly put. While I liked Siskel, I think he was overly nitpicky and harsh about minor details, while Ebert saw more the big picture. Ironically, this made them the perfect bickering couple since they had those two different viewpoints, and made them so fun to watch.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News