Robert Ebert is a great writer and a soldier for cinema. Don’t really care about judging critics though.
Ever heard of Earl Dittman?
Every critic out there has given some piece of crap a good review one time or another. Besides, I’m willing to bet you haven’t seen Paul Blart to really know.
I kind of think Paul Blart looks semi-funny. I preferred Siskel, but I like Ebert, despite his feelings about Full Metal Jacket and Juno.
Ebert was always a well meaning guy … overly sincere at times, but serious about the movies.
No. The prize for lifetime achievement in bad film criticism at a major media outlet will alway belong to Bosley Crowther, that old pedant who sat over American film at the New York Times during the 50s and early 60s (an interesting period in moviemaking), and who got it wrong at least half the time. But even when he got it right, it was so often for the wrong reasons.
Very rarely fails as a critic .. I like him
Bosley Crowther!!!! HA HA HA!
Good call. Poor bastard…just never got it, did he?
Ebert was totally wrong about David Lynch. He just got blindsided there. But he really should’ve been more receptive, having worked with Russ Meyer. However, I do find myself agreeing with a lot of his reviews.
You negative posters are obviously not aware that we just had a pro-Ebert thread called: Saluti a Roger Ebert!!! Read that for the other view. Considering I have heard he is back in hospital and battling a serious illness, I don’t think this thread is appropriate under the circumstances.
Yeah, soldier of cinema indeed. Critiquing a critic on a few isolated reviews is of course absurd, as are worst ever statements. Ebert reviews in context. I’m not going to go see Paul Blart, but for those who enjoy that strain of movies, how is it? ya know.
He’s not good but in terms of the worst critic that honnor must go to………Lisa Schwartzbaum of Entertainmet Weekly.
Okay definitely an over statement, but I just can’t see why people consider him to be this great critic when he gave Brazil two stars and Paul Blart Three Stars.
He also gave Blue Velvet one star and Straw Dogs two.
Love Ebert. When you review as many movies as he does you are going to have some disagreements. He has been a wonderful ambassador for movies, and his Great Movies I and II are great reference books in which you could do a lot worse than viewing these 200 movies.
To me he’s the best critic out there. When he gives a negative review of a generally well received movie, it’s often for personal reasons that he makes clear. His review didn’t keep me away from ‘Benjamin Button’ because although he didn’t like it, he explained what he did like, talked about how well made it was and then gave his ideological objections. Based on that, I knew I’d still want to see it and I liked it better than he did. I can’t think of a time when he’s talked me out of a movie but he’s definitely talked me into a few. He was one of the few critics who liked August Rush and he convinced me to give that one a chance. I liked it a lot (the trick is to apply cartoon logic. It’s consistent in it’s good natured absurdity) ‘Paul Blart’ looks very stupid to me but I think Kevin James is a genuine comic talent who just might salvage it. Perhaps he elevated the material and Ebert enjoyed it. Perhaps if I read his review and was in the mood for a dumb comedy, he would steer me there and away from something like Bride Wars. Perhaps I’d be grateful for a more enjoyable 90 minutes.
I find Ebert to be a better writer than he is a critic. I prefer Manohla Dargis.
Obviously none of you have heard of Armond White, he’s the Ann Coulter of movie critics.
I’ve heard of Armond White. And he is the Ann Coulter equivalent with the “criticsm” he gets published. But then again, he has a good point, I mean, how can a film that doesn’t preach to the audience be any good?
@Matthias-Preaching to an audience whether it be in Film or Literature is usually detrimental to art. Crash preaches. Citizen Kane does not.
I get that; I was just being sarcastic as Armond White tends to like preachy directors *cough*Spielberg*cough*. But yes, the injection of moralization into a work usually backfires or necessitates some sort of contrivance for the sake of pandering. I apologize for my lack of clarity.
@Matthias-I kinda thought you were being sarcastic but wasn’t sure. Directors as diverse as Speilberg & Godard usually do their best work when they don’t get preachy.
I like Ebert- he seems to have a real love of film and it comes thru in his writings. Unfortunately he has had a tendency of late to be rather kind to a lot of light weight films. Mummy 3 anyone?
Actually, I don’t think Ebert’s a very good writer, but I still admire his enthusiasm and pure love for cinema. And he works a lot, even while he can’t speak he’s watching and writing constantly.
this quote of his is a pretty good explanation of his opinions and ratings
“When you ask a friend if Hellboy is any good, you’re not asking if it’s any good compared to Mystic River, you’re asking if it’s any good compared to The Punisher. And my answer would be, on a scale of one to four, if Superman is four, then Hellboy is three and The Punisher is two. In the same way, if American Beauty gets four stars, then (The United States of) Leland clocks in at about two.”
Alone In The Dark and The Great Movies series are mandatory reading. Actually, he’s an incredible writer and yes he has been a soldier for cinema. For over 40 years no less.
Did you ever think that maybe it is a good movie? Maybe not to you, or most people here, but for kids. Especially if it’s as clean as people say, movies are getting too violent and contain too many obscenities.
Uh, he’s the BEST critic. I think Rex Reed is probably the worst critic because he’s just not a very good writer. He’s also extremely mean. You never really can sense his unbrideled enthusiasm for movies like you can with Ebert. Reed gives film critics a bad name.
@Jake-Michael Medved is pretty bad. Sees everything from a conservative family values sort of view. Rex Reed is both shallow and bitchy.
Responding to Yves’ remark about Ebert’s ratings for Straw Dogs and Blue Velvet, he gave clear and sensible reasoning for his ratings and, while I don’t agree with them, they are perfectly valid criticisms.
We are criticizing critics now?
Aww, c’mon, guys & dolls, where was the mindless fun of putting two directors into a cyber ring & battling it out to save our favorite’s skin?
Yeesh.
Hans Lucas
THe worst critic ever. Please just agree with me there is no way you think this guy is a good critic.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090114/REVIEWS/901149986
he gave Paul Blart a B.