Roger Ebert

Started by filmcritic, June 18, 2003, 11:33:11 AM

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Weak2ndAct

No one here will ever see 'Just Friends' anytime soon, but Roger has, and his review borders on drunk/insane/god-knows-what rambling.  Wow.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051122/REVIEWS/51120001

Pubrick

Quote from: Roger Ebert... Awopbopaloobop, alopbamboom!

that's him eating his own head.
under the paving stones.

squints

I've been reading Ebert's reviews for a while now and his commentary on Citizen Kane helped me secure an A in my first film class

my favorite line from one of his reviews lately has to be from Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo, the last sentence made me laugh very hard
"Speaking in my official capacity as a Pulitzer Prize winner, Mr. Schneider, your movie sucks."
"The myth by no means finds its adequate objectification in the spoken word. The structure of the scenes and the visible imagery reveal a deeper wisdom than the poet himself is able to put into words and concepts" – Friedrich Nietzsche

JG

that review was all over the place.  But I love Ebert.   

How old do you think he was when he started writing reviews? [/sarcasm]

Gamblour.

Quote from: Pubrick on November 24, 2005, 03:18:10 AM
Quote from: Roger Ebert... Awopbopaloobop, alopbamboom!

that's him eating his own head.

Now I've seen everything.

That review's pretty nutty.
WWPTAD?

hedwig

Quote from: Gamblour on November 24, 2005, 08:49:33 PM
Quote from: Pubrick on November 24, 2005, 03:18:10 AM
Quote from: Roger Ebert... Awopbopaloobop, alopbamboom!

that's him eating his own head.

Now I've seen everything.

That review's pretty nutty.

i think he was doing that weird thing where he writes the review in the style of the film, purposely stylizing the writing the same disjointed way the film was stylized, creating a sense of confusion and rambling chaos that serves to reflect the film's own flawed structure

he did it with another review, too, where he basically described every plot point in this really dry, boring manner and then went, "That is how the film is made, showing each event unfold so blandly." or something like that.

maybe. crazy eggbert.

ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ

I love how someone cross references Truffaut with Just Friends.
"As a matter of fact I only work with the feeling of something magical, something seemingly significant. And to keep it magical I don't want to know the story involved, I just want the hypnotic effect of it somehow seeming significant without knowing why." - Len Lye

Gold Trumpet

Quote from: Weak2ndAct on November 24, 2005, 02:26:43 AM
No one here will ever see 'Just Friends' anytime soon, but Roger has, and his review borders on drunk/insane/god-knows-what rambling.  Wow.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051122/REVIEWS/51120001

HAH! I saw it. First day and first showing, too. Thats not bragging. Ebert does ramble and would have been better to offer a concise one paragraph shredding of the film. I think he has length requirements to fufill and had no clue what to really say for so long.

matt35mm

I'm assuming, just based on how it looks, that it's a movie of the sorts that he's seen many times before.  I don't know how good/bad Just friends is, but after having to see essentially that same kind of humor for every single time a movie like that comes out, it'd just get excruciatingly boring to have to write another review that covers the same ground as 100 previous reviews he's written.  So yeah, it came off as a "Man, fuck it" review.

Gold Trumpet

Quote from: matt35mm on November 28, 2005, 02:18:31 PM
I'm assuming, just based on how it looks, that it's a movie of the sorts that he's seen many times before.  I don't know how good/bad Just friends is, but after having to see essentially that same kind of humor for every single time a movie like that comes out, it'd just get excruciatingly boring to have to write another review that covers the same ground as 100 previous reviews he's written.  So yeah, it came off as a "Man, fuck it" review.

There is nothing remotely new about it. Its a romantic comedy mixed with gross out humor to appease more people. The reason I saw it is that I thought Ryan Reynolds and Amy Smart would have chemistry. They did and both will be in better movies someday. I got what I expected and when you are Middle America and tickets cost just $5, you can see these type of movies.

JG

The commercials look so stupid.  Literally ever joke relied on someone getting punched. 

Ah, I love Ebert.  I don't see how some of you don't like him. 

jigzaw

He tends to like movies with hot chicks in them, and he often hates really good movies. 

matt35mm

We all like movies with hot chicks in them.  And no, I don't mean movies that HAPPEN to have hot chicks in them.  I mean we like hot chicks in movies.

Sure, I disagree with Ebert from time to time, but give us a few examples of the movies that you think are "really good" that he "hates."  Just don't say Reservior Dogs or Fight Club.

hedwig

he didn't like Blue Velvet or Lost Highway.

he's said/done enough good stuff to outweigh the dumb shit, though.

matt35mm

I was going to mention those films as well.  However, I don't think it's stupid to dislike Lynch's movies.  They're not Ebert's taste (in the case of Blue Velvet and Lost Highway, anyway), and that's a reasonable thing.  Lynch is one of my favorite directors, but I don't really expect everyone to love him.  Just as long as they don't say "wtf was that?  that was WEIRD!  turn that shit off!"  That level of ignorance, my dears, I don't like.  Lynch's movies, to me, are so open to interpretation that there are good reasons to dislike them, as long as someone bothers to open-mindedly watch the film and think about it.  And Ebert certainly doesn't hate all Lynch movies; he loves many of them as well.

In the case of Blue Velvet, he disliked that it mistreated/exploited Rosellini, which is what he saw in it.  That's not what I see when I watch the movie, but if it really were, I would have given it a negative review as well.

The difference is, I don't think it was a simple-minded response to those movies.  So, I'm just trying to say that I don't think Ebert is a simple-minded critic, whether or not I agree with him on everything (and that would be simple-minded of me if I did agree with him on everything).  I would at least give him that.