Ten years since Roger Ebert died.

[Lizuka #BLM]

Died April 4th, 2013. Kind of wild to think both how long it's been and how there's still very much no one remotely close to his level in the field who's arisen since.

[Main Event Mark]

👎👎

[Fake Jesus]

No one can rise to that level of fame because mass media is exceptionally fractured and print media is defacto dead. In countries with a more homogenized media landscape, like the UK, there are film critics who occupy the same niche as Ebert did in America, which is really as a popular communicator and media personality. In general more people pay attention to shitty YouTube channels where the presenters know nothing about film than to actual critics, so Ebert would be completely irrelevant if he was 40 years younger. Happens I suppose

[tirtefaa]

I'd say the closest thing to a successor would be the guys at RedLetterMedia, given they understand the structure of how movies are made, but yeah... unfortunately the days of guys like Siskel and Ebert are gone. Even when there were times where one or both of them went too far with their opinion, it was still leagues better than their successors... Roper and that other guy with the beard and glasses.

[ace]

The worst kind of film snob is the one who convinces everyone he is the everyman

[YAKMAN is ICHIBAN]

His writing was phenomenal.

So many times I wonder what his review of a movie would be like.

Loved his commentary tracks on Casablanca and, of all films, Dark City

[KingPooper]

It was amused me the last review he ever wrote was for the terrible YA film the host.

[El Pollo Guerrera]

Apr 4, 2023 19:24:42 GMT -5 ace said:

The worst kind of film snob is the one who convinces everyone he is the everyman

He loved Tremors.

That's good enough for me.

[Limity (BLM)]

Apr 4, 2023 19:24:42 GMT -5 ace said:

The worst kind of film snob is the one who convinces everyone he is the everyman

Roger Ebert being a good film reviewer has nothing to do with him trying to pass himself off as an everyman? Which I never gathered from him, and have never heard anyone bring up before.

[Mighty Attack Tribble]

Apr 4, 2023 22:57:34 GMT -5 El Pollo Guerrera said:

Apr 4, 2023 19:24:42 GMT -5 ace said:

The worst kind of film snob is the one who convinces everyone he is the everyman

He loved Tremors.

That's good enough for me.

He liked Escape From L.A., Congo, and Anaconda, too. He was alright in my book.

[YAKMAN is ICHIBAN]

Apr 4, 2023 23:34:51 GMT -5 Mighty Attack Tribble said:

Apr 4, 2023 22:57:34 GMT -5 El Pollo Guerrera said:

He loved Tremors.

That's good enough for me.

He liked Escape From L.A., Congo, and Anaconda, too. He was alright in my book.

He generally tried to review a movie fairly, I feel. He wouldn't review an action movie by the standards of art cinema or something. But he still had fairly high standards, colored by a lifetime of watching and analysing a huge variety of films.

Looking at a few of his superhero movie reviews, since that genre can be a real punching bag for critics - The Dark Knight (4/4), Iron Man (4/4), Captain America (3/4), Thor (1.5), The Avengers (3/4)

From his review of The Dark Knight

Something fundamental seems to be happening in the upper realms of the comic-book movie. “Spider-Man II” (2004) may have defined the high point of the traditional film based on comic-book heroes. A movie like the new “Hellboy II” allows its director free rein for his fantastical visions. But now “Iron Man” and even more so “The Dark Knight” move the genre into deeper waters. They realize, as some comic-book readers instinctively do, that these stories touch on deep fears, traumas, fantasies and hopes. And the Batman legend, with its origins in film noir, is the most fruitful one for exploration.

I do think he would have been pretty harsh on the Marvel series as it continued and stagnated. But not unfairly so.


Then he would occasionally put out a completely bonkers opinion like calling The Mummy 3 the best of the trilogy.

And man when he hated a movie he let you know it.

From his legendary review of North

I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (For comparison, he gave the first Transformers 3/4 stars)

"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" is a horrible experience of unbearable length, briefly punctuated by three or four amusing moments. One of these involves a dog-like robot humping the leg of the heroine. Such are the meager joys. If you want to save yourself the ticket price, go into the kitchen, cue up a male choir singing the music of hell, and get a kid to start banging pots and pans together. Then close your eyes and use your imagination.

[Mozenrath]

I don't think Ebert always hit the mark, but, like most good reviewers, even his negative reviews often offered insights that'd bring attention to movies from people who would enjoy the film.

I think that Siskel and Ebert could sometimes be too dismissive of horror films, but some of their criticisms had merit, if not in their initial targets, then in copycats that tried to cash in with a shallow understanding of what worked about the initial Friday the 13th and Halloween. (Friday the 13th quickly submitted to its baser instincts, but the original was more worthy than just being gory junk food.)

[fw91]

www.rogerebert.com/reviews/freddy-got-fingered-2001

I always get a good laugh out of this

[The Summer of Muskrat XVII]

Apr 5, 2023 7:41:53 GMT -5 YAKMAN is ICHIBAN said:

He generally tried to review a movie fairly, I feel. He wouldn't review an action movie by the standards of art cinema or something. But he still had fairly high standards, colored by a lifetime of watching and analysing a huge variety of films.

Ebert reviewed films based one what they were trying to achieve, not based on one standard metric in his head. Iron Man wasn’t being compared to The Godfather despite both being 4 stars

[SneakMan]

Apr 4, 2023 19:24:42 GMT -5 ace said:

The worst kind of film snob is the one who convinces everyone he is the everyman

Ebert was the furthest possible thing from a film snob; anybody who ranks movies like Juno, Kill Bill, Minority Report and Bad Lieutenant as among the best of the 2000's is not some elitist sitting in an ivory tower. He had his particular preferences, but always judged movies by what they set out to do and whether they would appeal to their intended audience. Oftentimes his most-hated films were ones that he felt insulted the audience's intelligence or wasted their time (see the above quote from his review of North).

[Clash, Never a Meter Maid]

His review of Suburban Commando had me dead.

“If someone showed up at your door who looked like Hogan, where would you think he was from, outside of the funny pages?”

“Someone else asked me if I got tired of watching movies all the time, I said, no, it’s not a job, it’s a lucky break. Know what? After Suburban Commanndo, by golly, I was tired of going to the movies.”

There’s a line of Hulk Hogan toys, because he’s a man who looks like a comic strip character, but his first film, No Holds Barred, was violent, sexist and blood soaked. This new movie gives him so little to do his youngest fans will wonder why they bothered.”

[YAKMAN is ICHIBAN]

On that note

www.rogerebert.com/roger-ebert/eberts-most-hated

A convenient list of his most hated movies

Two surprising inclusions are Stargate and The Usual Suspects

[pinja]

I like Ebert, but first got familiar with him for his total dismissal of video games, which read like the mother of all film snobism. But really, I don't have problems with someone being a snob, as long as they don't feel like they're genuinely above the audience who enjoy what they deem low. And even then, the line between snobism and critique or concern is a fine one, hence why I'm not mad at all the ageing filmmakers disliking Marvel movies.

[YAKMAN is ICHIBAN]

Apr 5, 2023 10:29:26 GMT -5 pinja said:

I like Ebert, but first got familiar with him for his total dismissal of video games, which read like the mother of all film snobism. But really, I don't have problems with someone being a snob, as long as they don't feel like they're genuinely above the audience who enjoy what they deem low. And even then, the line between snobism and critique or concern is a fine one, hence why I'm not mad at all the ageing filmmakers disliking Marvel movies.

For his part, Ebert did own up to the fact that he shouldn't have mentioned videogames at all because he has no idea about them and was unwilling to play them to find out.

www.rogerebert.com/roger-ebert/okay-kids-play-on-my-lawn

I was a fool for mentioning video games in the first place. I would never express an opinion on a movie I hadn't seen. Yet I declared as an axiom that video games can never be Art. I still believe this, but I should never have said so. Some opinions are best kept to yourself.

...


Gamers tried to make it easy for me. Kellee Santiago, whose talk in defense of video games was the subject of my entry, offered to send a selection of games. But I didn't have a game machine. No problem. I heard from my fellow Chicago movie critic Steve Prokopy, better known as Capone of Ain't It Cool News. He has a friend who works at Sony Games, and through this friend I was offered a PlayStation 3 unit and a copy of "Flower," which Santiago produced. To install it and brief me, Steve would bring over Simeon Peebler, the chair of Games and Interactive Media at Chicago's Tribeca/Flashpoint Academy. Steve had the box waiting at his place, pre-loaded with several games.

I stalled. I said I was headed for Cannes. I said I wasn't sure I should accept a gift from Sony. He said he'd wait until after Cannes. He said he'd see that the PlayStation was sent back to Sony when I was finished with it. I replied: "Gee, Steve...I dunno...sigh..."

Actually, I did know. I knew (1) I had no desire to spend 20 to 40 hours (or less) playing a video game, (2) Whether I admired it or not, I was in a lose-lose position, and (3) I was too damned bull-headed. I guess the PlayStation is waiting for me even now in Capone's vault.

....


I concluded without a definition [of art] that satisfied me. I had to be prepared to agree that gamers can have an experience that, for them, is Art. I don't know what they can learn about another human being that way, no matter how much they learn about Human Nature. I don't know if they can be inspired to transcend themselves. Perhaps they can. How can I say? I may be wrong. but if I'm not willing to play a video game to find that out, I should say so. I have books to read and movies to see. I was a fool for mentioning video games in the first place.

[pinja]

Apr 5, 2023 10:54:29 GMT -5 YAKMAN is ICHIBAN said:

Apr 5, 2023 10:29:26 GMT -5 pinja said:

I like Ebert, but first got familiar with him for his total dismissal of video games, which read like the mother of all film snobism. But really, I don't have problems with someone being a snob, as long as they don't feel like they're genuinely above the audience who enjoy what they deem low. And even then, the line between snobism and critique or concern is a fine one, hence why I'm not mad at all the ageing filmmakers disliking Marvel movies.

For his part, Ebert did own up to the fact that he shouldn't have mentioned videogames at all because he has no idea about them and was unwilling to play them find out.

www.rogerebert.com/roger-ebert/okay-kids-play-on-my-lawn

I was a fool for mentioning video games in the first place. I would never express an opinion on a movie I hadn't seen. Yet I declared as an axiom that video games can never be Art. I still believe this, but I should never have said so. Some opinions are best kept to yourself.

...


Gamers tried to make it easy for me. Kellee Santiago, whose talk in defense of video games was the subject of my entry, offered to send a selection of games. But I didn't have a game machine. No problem. I heard from my fellow Chicago movie critic Steve Prokopy, better known as Capone of Ain't It Cool News. He has a friend who works at Sony Games, and through this friend I was offered a PlayStation 3 unit and a copy of "Flower," which Santiago produced. To install it and brief me, Steve would bring over Simeon Peebler, the chair of Games and Interactive Media at Chicago's Tribeca/Flashpoint Academy. Steve had the box waiting at his place, pre-loaded with several games.

I stalled. I said I was headed for Cannes. I said I wasn't sure I should accept a gift from Sony. He said he'd wait until after Cannes. He said he'd see that the PlayStation was sent back to Sony when I was finished with it. I replied: "Gee, Steve...I dunno...sigh..."

Actually, I did know. I knew (1) I had no desire to spend 20 to 40 hours (or less) playing a video game, (2) Whether I admired it or not, I was in a lose-lose position, and (3) I was too damned bull-headed. I guess the PlayStation is waiting for me even now in Capone's vault.

....


I concluded without a definition [of art] that satisfied me. I had to be prepared to agree that gamers can have an experience that, for them, is Art. I don't know what they can learn about another human being that way, no matter how much they learn about Human Nature. I don't know if they can be inspired to transcend themselves. Perhaps they can. How can I say? I may be wrong. but if I'm not willing to play a video game to find that out, I should say so. I have books to read and movies to see. I was a fool for mentioning video games in the first place.

That's cool and seems very on-brand. I think I remember reading the first paragraph when I was still heavy into indie game development.