Author Topic: Roger Ebert  (Read 68748 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Myxo

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1768
  • Respect: +29
Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
« Reply #90 on: December 20, 2004, 04:10:32 PM »
0
Quote from: Roger Ebert
4. "Spider-Man 2"

Here's the best superhero movie ever made. The genre does not lend itself to greatness, although the first "Superman" movie had considerable artistry and "Blade II" and "The Hulk" had their qualities. Director Sam Raimi's first Spider-Man movie was thin and the special effects too cartoony, but the sequel is a transformation. Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst bring unusual emotional complexity to comic book characters, Alfred Molina's Doc Ock is one of the great movie villains, and the special effects, while understandably not "realistic," bring a presence and a sense of (literal) gravity to the film; Spider-Man now seems like a human and not a drawing as he swings from the skyscrapers, and his personal problems -- always the strong point of the Marvel comics -- are given full weight and importance. A great entertainment.


I don't think it was the "best superhero movie ever made". It's marginally better than either one of the X-Men films and not even close to as cool as the first Batman.

modage

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10836
  • Respect: +806
    • Floating Heads
Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
« Reply #91 on: December 20, 2004, 04:14:16 PM »
0
yes, i've been scratching my head all year as to how that accolade keeps getting thrown around for that movie.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 11253
  • Respect: +1498
Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
« Reply #92 on: December 20, 2004, 07:25:54 PM »
0
Each year I'm more disappointed with Ebert's lists.

Where's Huckabees?
"Hunger is the purest sin"

brockly

  • The Magic Flight
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Respect: +5
Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
« Reply #93 on: December 20, 2004, 08:53:52 PM »
0
ive only seen 3 movies on that list

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 11253
  • Respect: +1498
Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
« Reply #94 on: December 20, 2004, 10:19:23 PM »
0
You know, I have a strong feeling that Ebert has a narcissistic "quote me on the cover" fetish and massages his prose to accomodate it. I mean... lines like "Here's the best superhero movie ever made" and "This is the best film of the year"... how else can you explain them?
"Hunger is the purest sin"

modage

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10836
  • Respect: +806
    • Floating Heads
Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
« Reply #95 on: December 20, 2004, 10:32:05 PM »
0
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
Each year I'm more disappointed with Ebert's lists.

Where's Huckabees?

you mean why isnt it on his worst list?  because he didnt like it.  so, maybe he thought it was better forgotten.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

ono

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4296
  • ...
  • Respect: +233
Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
« Reply #96 on: December 20, 2004, 10:38:04 PM »
0
Not only that, but I kind of wish he'd outgrow the star system.  It has its appeal, its use, but everyone seriously interested in film should outgrow it eventually.  It's a left-brained way of thinking in a right-brained medium.  Most telling/annoying is how (like matt35mm said) he has Dogville as one of the worst when it's a **(1/2) star review.  Alexander is **.  There are worse movies -- these just seem to be the ones that really rubbed him the wrong way.  I like Ebert, but some of those quotes just seem like money in the bank to him.

I (Heart) Huckabees and I (Heart) You!

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 11253
  • Respect: +1498
Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
« Reply #97 on: December 20, 2004, 10:42:07 PM »
0
Quote from: themodernage02
you mean why isnt it on his worst list?  because he didnt like it.  so, maybe he thought it was better forgotten.

To be honest, I just brought that up because you posted above me.

But the real question is Where's Greendale?
"Hunger is the purest sin"

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 11253
  • Respect: +1498
Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
« Reply #98 on: December 20, 2004, 10:49:35 PM »
0
Quote from: wantautopia?
Not only that, but I kind of wish he'd outgrow the star system.  It has its appeal, its use, but everyone seriously interested in film should outgrow it eventually.  It's a left-brained way of thinking in a right-brained medium.

To his credit, though, he does acknowledge the absurdity of rating systems. But I've never agreed with his relative method of rating, i.e. it's a really good movie if it does what it was trying to do.
"Hunger is the purest sin"

modage

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10836
  • Respect: +806
    • Floating Heads
Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
« Reply #99 on: December 20, 2004, 10:50:44 PM »
0
Quote from: wantautopia?
Most telling/annoying is how (like matt35mm said) he has Dogville as one of the worst when it's a **(1/2) star review.  Alexander is **.  There are worse movies -- these just seem to be the ones that really rubbed him the wrong way.

yes, i think thats probably what he's doing and what most people do with worst lists as such.  its obvious that there will be plenty of terrible movies made by hacks that are instantly forgettable, but to remember the experience it has to be really disappointing (or just horrendously awful).  thats what makes oliver stones bad movie worse than joe roths. because roth can be counted on for crap, but from stone he expected better.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

pete

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5559
  • freakin huge
  • Respect: +457
    • my site
Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
« Reply #100 on: March 06, 2005, 12:37:47 PM »
0
from his column today, regarding the firing of Charles Taylor on Salon:

Film criticism is being swamped these days, not so much on Salon as everywhere else, by idiotic celebrity coverage, gossip, hype, and any possible way to discuss a movie without actually saying whether it is any good or not. Most of the entertainment-oriented TV shows are all foreplay: weeks of gushing and hype, "exclusive" interviews," "first looks" at trailers, and then, when the movie comes out, no critical opinion at all -- just a box-office report.
“Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot.”
- Buster Keaton

life_boy

  • The Ultimate Boon
  • ***
  • Posts: 581
  • Christmas has always smelled like oranges to me.
  • Respect: +1
Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
« Reply #101 on: March 06, 2005, 01:02:49 PM »
0
Ebert seems recently to mistake a great leading female performance for the greatest film of the year.

ono

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4296
  • ...
  • Respect: +233
Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
« Reply #102 on: March 06, 2005, 01:10:11 PM »
0
Nope, not this year.

Quote from: pete
from his column today, regarding the firing of Charles Taylor on Salon...

A more general thread about critics...

life_boy

  • The Ultimate Boon
  • ***
  • Posts: 581
  • Christmas has always smelled like oranges to me.
  • Respect: +1
Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
« Reply #103 on: March 06, 2005, 01:47:47 PM »
0
Quote from: ono mo cuishle
Nope, not this year.


Yes, I know you would disagree with that statement in regards to Million Dollar Baby.  I don't think it is the best film of the year by a longshot, but I look forward to reading your analysis of the film on Green Screen in a few days.  Perhaps my appreciation of that film will increase as a result.

MacGuffin

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 22985
  • Respect: +643
Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
« Reply #104 on: June 23, 2005, 09:20:41 PM »
0
Ebert Gets Star on Hollywood Walk of Fame



Pulitzer Prize-winning film critic Roger Ebert isn't a movie star but he critiques them on TV so memorably that on Thursday he received his own star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

A crowd of family, friends and fans cheered as Ebert's star was unveiled in front of Hollywood's El Capitan Theatre. Attendees included director Werner Herzog, actress Virginia Madsen and actor Tony Danza.

"When I watch movies, I can feel what it's like to walk in another person's shoes," Ebert, 65, told the crowd. "Movies make us more decent people. This is a wonderful day for me."

Ebert, who began his journalism career as a 15-year-old sports writer for the Champaign-Urbana (Ill.) News-Gazette, was named the Chicago Sun-Times film critic six months after joining the paper in 1966. In 1975, he became the first film critic to receive a Pulitzer for arts criticism.

That same year Ebert teamed with the late Chicago Tribune film critic Gene Siskel on the TV show "Sneak Previews," which would evolve into the long-running "Siskel & Ebert and the Movies." Their "thumbs up, thumbs down" system of rating films became so popular that Ebert eventually trademarked his right thumb.

Ebert now co-hosts "Ebert & Roeper" with fellow Sun-Times columnist Richard Roeper.

A humorously unapologetic critic who once called a film "an assault on the eyes, the ears, the brain," Ebert has written 17 books, including "Roger Ebert's Book of Film" and "I Hated, Hated, HATED This Movie."

He has also dabbled as a screenwriter, with credits including "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" and "Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens."
“Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art.” - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy