Quote:
Originally Posted by Lasereth
I've been a huge, huge fan of Roger Ebert for years now. I trust his reviews...not because they're always right, but because he tells why he likes or dislikes a movie. Many critics tell about the movie's plot, then give a score. Ebert tells why he's giving it a star rating and what could have been better or worse. Roger Ebert has only failed me thrice since I've been reading his reviews, and by "failed," I mean I actually disagree with the rating. Those three movies were hit or miss with many people. The reason why I still consider Ebert the best critic (ok, the ONLY critic I trust) is because he explained <I>why</I> he disliked those movies which led to me understanding why someone else would like them.
One of Ebert's traits within his reviews is an extreme smart-ass attitude towards movies that are out to make money and laughs. Movies like Deuce Bigalow should never be made. I'm proud of Ebert calling out the shitty movies in our time. He is <I>the source</I> of movie reviews that never fails. He saves people time and money from seeing craptacular movies. When he's out of the movie reviewing game, I honestly don't know what I'll do.
Just a little precaution: if you believe movies are to be made for laughs or for "cool moments," then Ebert may not be the critic for you. If you think Half-Baked, Jay and Silent Bob, or Independence Day are good movies, then you'll probably disagree with all of Ebert's reviews. He reviews movies based on quality film-making, not movies that are designed for young teenagers that want to laugh or see poorly designed Bruckheimer action scenes.
Ebert frequently "owns" people to borrow analog's usage. His Vincent Gallow/Brown Bunny fiasco had me laughing for a long time. Read any of the reviews by Ebert on crappy movies and you'll see comments as entertaining as the Schneider review.
Someone mentioned that all of the movie critics in the world could disappear and no one would notice or care. That's not the opinion of everyone. Some people do not want to waste their time and money at the theater. Some do not want to go and see a disappointing movie. Some people want to spend their money knowing that they are going to see a quality piece of cinema. Those people find a critic they agree with and thoroughly read the review of the movie you're interested in. Those people also invest their money that would have been spent on Deuce Bigalow into more worthwhile objects and laugh at those who think critics are stuck up snobs who don't know what they're talking about. Some do, and they benefit everyone more than you think.
-Lasereth
|
I find it interesting that you also like Ebert, but for almost the entire opposite reason I do. I think he has given good reviews for many "bad movies", but he explained the review in the context of the movie's genre/target audience.