flow, vocab, impact, years- respect it.

dude has been holding it down for the chicago sun-times since 1967. before your favorite reviewers were learning how to count up to four with sony betamax, ebert was putting down much time in the game.

he won the first ever pulitizer-prize for film criticism (1975.) just eight years into the business the boy eazy e-bert was counting his stacks with plaques and pendants in glorious cinemascope.

the greatest of all-time must have versatility, must be able to praise and pan a film with equal grace.

North (1994):

I have no idea why Rob Reiner, or anyone else, wanted to make this story into a movie, and close examination of the film itself is no help. "North" is one of the most unpleasant, contrived, artificial, cloying experiences I've had at the movies. To call it manipulative would be inaccurate; it has an ambition to manipulate, but fails. . .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.

Do the Right Thing (1989):
Of course it is confused. Of course it wavers between middle-class values and street values. Of course it is not sure whether it believes in liberal pieties or militancy. Of course some of the characters are sympathetic and others are hateful. And of course some of the likable characters do bad things. Isn't that the way it is in America today? Anyone who walks into this film expecting answers is a dreamer or a fool. But anyone who leaves the movie with more intolerance than they walked in with wasn't paying attention.

so he's got r a n g e, years, obvious skills, and now units:

almost thirty years on television, over 200 stations, highest rated half hour syndicated show, 15 books, 3 screenplays, and reviews that reach over 250 newspapers.

also, ebert has rejuvenated and popularized the art of "cinema interruptus." for over thirty years, he has made a trip to the university of colorado for a five-day, 12-hour, shot-by-shot look at one particular film. ao scott doesn't have the balls to try and dissect "mullholland drive" like that or deal with "fight club" that frequently. the man is unbreakable.

the "ebertfest of overlooked films" of illinois was another idea of this modern marvel, where he gathers thousands of cinemaphiles for a festival of the unappreciated.

now the haters, even invading this holy ground of "reviews", have claimed the notorious r.hyde has gone soft. they say he has been too lenient on "gigli" and the lot, but consider this a strong example of his independence. he is a trailblazer, a maverick, and not a rat jumping on the bandwagon. even still, look at these recent daggers:

Spy Kids 3-D:As a way of looking at a movie, 3-D sucks, always has, maybe always will.

Bad Boys 2:There was once a time when a hero would sacrifice his own life rather than injure innocent bystanders. No longer. The heroes of "Bad Boys II" are egotistical monsters, concerned only with their power, their one-liners, their weapons, their cars, their desires. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that characters who wipe out a village can also make cruel jokes at the expense of a kid on his first date. Everybody involved in this project needs to do some community service.

Boat Trip:"Boat Trip" arrives preceded by publicity saying many homosexuals have been outraged by the film. Now that it's in theaters, everybody else has a chance to join them. Not that the film is outrageous. That would be asking too much. It is dim-witted, unfunny, too shallow to be offensive, and way too conventional to use all of those people standing around in the background wearing leather and chains and waiting hopefully for their cues. This is a movie made for nobody, about nothing.

still think the man is weak? some will say rakim left eric b. and "the master" disappointed. but you take your james berardinellis and joe baltakes and i'll still be rocking the first paragraph of "moonstruck" on constant rotation.

cultural influence? man has his right thumb trademarked and has become a part of the country's vernacular.

you can have stanley kauffmann or andrew sarris or pauline kael or leaonard maltin (hack), but give me the big man roger ebert.

give me the greatest of all-time.

although lately...i just don't know

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was always mañana. For the next week that was all I heard ---- mañana, a lovely word and one that probably means heaven.

n/m

*literally gets down on knees and prays this was sarcasm*

*remembers entertainment tonight and points guns at self*

and i'll be reviewing this reply later on in this post! *FAKE SMILE*

>and i'll be reviewing this reply later on in this post!
>*FAKE SMILE*

your subtle irony and timing were a bit off. i like the direction you were taking with this piece initially, but it seemed to drag to a meandering pace as the post went on. there were some obvious bright spots, but overall i think it lacked the material and momentum to carry a whole reply. and you probably ripped it off from a post about tarantino or a post about tarantino ripping off.

Especially the fabulous pacing and the incredible performance by the letter "F". I also loved how the letters were framed within the rectangular box, it was just fabulous and very artistic stuff that geniuses like myself pretend to see and understand after reading other peoples opinions and the studio synopsis. What i also enjoyed was writing this second reply pandering to the lowest common denominator sleaze bags who give a shit about wether or not nicole kidman was seen with some guy on the weekend and think dickie roberts was great fun for the whole family like i told them it was. I also love how im paid to say things like that by studio at least i hope thats why im saying these stupid things. *fake smile*

would like to now degrade ourselves and the movies we're reviewing by holding up a cheesy sign that say "NOT."

seriously, dude is a joke.

roger ebert is the man. this guy made me stay up late sunday nights before school the next day to hear about movies. he's smart as hell and generally on point.

>would like to now degrade ourselves and the movies we're
>reviewing by holding up a cheesy sign that say "NOT."
>
>seriously, dude is a joke.
>
>roger ebert is the man. this guy made me stay up late
>sunday nights before school the next day to hear about
>movies. he's smart as hell and generally on point.

Here's where he wasnt.

Tomb Raider 1 & 2
Knockaround Guys
City by the Sea
Usual Suspects


I still listen 2 him since we both loved Minority Report but I wont be buying any more DVD's based on his recommendation. Barry Pepper is a great actor but Knockaround Guys is just plain terrible. So once again, I no longer take his word w/ a grain of salt. I take a whole bucket:)

only thing that pissed me off was malkovich. And hey i can forgive anyone for giving a bad movie with angelina in tight outfits a good review a free pass.

>only thing that pissed me off was malkovich. And hey i can
>forgive anyone for giving a bad movie with angelina in tight
>outfits a good review a free pass.

5 things that pissed me off:
1.) Vin Weasel could've phoned in his lines from a coffin & it would've had the same acting effect.

2.) Blatant rip-off of every other gangster flick that was made before it. Not once did it even try 2 be original in any way.

3.) Malkovich's horrible accent

4.) The Sheriff & his partner & the kids w/ the $. Boring.

5.) Barry Pepper's performance was wasted.

he was also the first critic to review a Scorsese film. And "Beneath the Valley of the Dolls" is one of the funniest scripts ever. What other critic has a book filled with bad reviews? The guy is even holding down his job for the sun times and his tv show while having chemotherapy.
And hes the best writer of all the critics out there without question.

-Gives Cop and a Half more stars than Godfather II.
-Apparently hates Godard and Kiarostami.
-Gives 3 stars to almost everything these days.
-Picked a horrible replacement for Roeper.

But overall, I've got Ebert-love.

>-Gives Cop and a Half more stars than Godfather II.

3 stars! maybe i'll have to revisit. ebert loves anything with black people in it (he's never given spike a bad review and creamed over "player's club.") so maybe only 3 stars does really mean it's horrible.

i can't find his review to "godfather II." he gave "godfather III" 3.5, so i find it hard to belive he'd give II any less than that.

>-Apparently hates Godard and Kiarostami.

Kiarostami-
I am unable to grasp the greatness of Abbas Kiarostami. His critical reputation is unmatched: His "A Taste of Cherry" (1997) won the Palme d'Or at Cannes, and "The Wind Will Carry Us" (1999) won the Golden Lion at Venice. And yet his films--for example his latest work, "Ten"--are meant not so much to be watched as to be written about; his reviews make his points better than he does.

Godard? "breathless" and "my life to live" are on his great movies list.

>-Gives 3 stars to almost everything these days.

gigli only got 2.5.

>-Picked a horrible replacement for Roeper.

i assume you mean "in roeper." true, but it's better than a swinging door of critics. you can' beat the original obviously.

>But overall, I've got Ebert-love.

word.

>>-Gives 3 stars to almost everything these days.
>
>gigli only got 2.5.

Only?

>i can't find his review to "godfather II." he gave
>"godfather III" 3.5, so i find it hard to belive he'd give
>II any less than that.

It's not available online, but check out his book in print next time you are at a bookstore. 2.5 stars for Godfather II.

>Godard? "breathless" and "my life to live" are on his great
>movies list.

I'll admit that I am Godard sensitive. If someone doesn't give everything he does 5 out of 4 stars, I get defensive.

>i assume you mean "in roeper." true, but it's better than a
>swinging door of critics. you can' beat the original
>obviously.

Yes, that's what I meant. I mean, he just happened to favor a guy who ALREADY WORKED FOR THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES!?

Roger Ebert isn't even close.

Andrew Sarris and Pauline Kael are both better.

David Walsh, my personal favorite, is a thousand times better than Ebert.

For the most part, Ebert is too superficial and too willing to excuse bullshit (think of how many reviews he's written lately where he says he knows he shouldn't like something but he does anyway even though he knows it's bad).

This is not to say I don't agree with him on some things, but most of the time (especially with new films), I don't.

I say stick with David Walsh and Andrew Sarris.

>Roger Ebert isn't even close.

to quote you, "NO"

>Andrew Sarris and Pauline Kael are both better.

it worked once, it'll work twice: NO

>David Walsh, my personal favorite, is a thousand times
>better than Ebert.

that cat you posted talking about how "pirates" was brilliant and a strike against the shoot-by-numbers hollywood film? as it was NOT a marketing ploy and NOT a standard action film and thankfully directed by "cinema-noveau" maverick jerry bruckheimer.

>For the most part, Ebert is too superficial and too willing
>to excuse bullshit (think of how many reviews he's written
>lately where he says he knows he shouldn't like something
>but he does anyway even though he knows it's bad).

because there comes a certain point in time when being a cynic and hateful and pissed off fails a man. you either are entertained or not.

i'll call it "the home alone syndrome." something you can't really explain just taps into and takes you for some hour and half of escapism.

>I say stick with David Walsh and Andrew Sarris.

ummmmmm . . .. NO?

>that cat you posted talking about how "pirates" was
>brilliant and a strike against the shoot-by-numbers
>hollywood film?

No, Walsh didn't say that. He said that Johnny Depp is an actor who is committed to originality. He said that Depp's performance was good and that he had put an original effort into the character which is indeed a rarity among actors and actresses in Hollywood today.

>as it was NOT a marketing ploy and NOT a
>standard action film and thankfully directed by
>"cinema-noveau" maverick jerry bruckheimer.

Walsh said that the film itself was silly. Nothing to take seriously. He only praised it because of Depp's performance.

But you shouldn't judge Walsh by just the one article of his you've read. Read what he's had to say about Iranian Cinema, Taiwanese Cinema, and read his harsh criticisms of weaker American films (both Hollywood and "independent") before you judge him.

>because there comes a certain point in time when being a
>cynic and hateful and pissed off fails a man. you either
>are entertained or not.

bullshit. I personally don't want anything to do with all these lobotomized films where the "mind" is removed and where thoughtfulness and honesty are replaced by cheap stimulants to get cheap laughs and cheap reactions.

You don't have to leave your mind at the door to have a good time at the movie theater.

And it doesn't mean you're cynical or hateful just because you criticize a film for being hollow if that's how it makes you feel.

You have to be more critical.

>
>i'll call it "the home alone syndrome." something you can't
>really explain just taps into and takes you for some hour
>and half of escapism.

But it's cheap. You know it is. We don't need escapism in our films. You can be just as entertained by something with a little smarts to it. You know?

let me preface this response by saying, some think krs-one is the greatest, others will still tell you it's rakim. i've always been a pharoahe monch guy. like it or not, very little will dissuade me. roger ebert is the g.o.a.t.

>He said that Johnny Depp is an
>actor who is committed to originality. He said that Depp's
>performance was good and that he had put an original effort
>into the character which is indeed a rarity among actors and
>actresses in Hollywood today.

we had this exact discussion before (check the arvhives.)

>But you shouldn't judge Walsh by just the one article of his
>you've read. Read what he's had to say about Iranian
>Cinema, Taiwanese Cinema, and read his harsh criticisms of
>weaker American films (both Hollywood and "independent")
>before you judge him.

i never judged the guy. i was only speaking on that one article you posted. it's really all i know about him. but my homework assignment, aside from the real homework, will be to read up on your mr. walsh.

>bullshit. I personally don't want anything to do with all
>these lobotomized films where the "mind" is removed and
>where thoughtfulness and honesty are replaced by cheap
>stimulants to get cheap laughs and cheap reactions.

neither do i, but there's a difference between pure entertainment and simple manipulation.

>You don't have to leave your mind at the door to have a good
>time at the movie theater.

right, but you shouldn't have to read up or study for one either.

btw, i can like both kinds of films in moderation.

>And it doesn't mean you're cynical or hateful just because
>you criticize a film for being hollow if that's how it makes
>you feel.
>
>You have to be more critical.

recognize who he's writing for. now this is not to say anything bad about chicago or those reading the sun-times, but the majority of people who check for movie reviews want to know if it'll be entertaining. i think he lets the "big" movies slide a little, but rips the independent ones when it comes time (see "levitiy"), given each's "respected" audience. the people that are going to see the blockbuster are already a special category. they just want to know if it'll be worse than "howard the duck" or worth the nine bucks.

and it's not like he let's them have a free pass and doesn't admit that he's might be being "easy." he knows he shouldn't be giving the film the thumbs up and explains this to the reader/viewer.

>>i'll call it "the home alone syndrome." something you can't
>>really explain just taps into and takes you for some hour
>>and half of escapism.
>
>But it's cheap. You know it is. We don't need escapism in
>our films. You can be just as entertained by something with
>a little smarts to it. You know?

sure. but you react to "escapism" like it's a slur. a balance between extremes would be desired. i couldn't take a million bergman films without getting a craving for "zoolander" every once in a while.

movies can make you think, entertain you, move you, make you feel, but in this day and age, movies should especially not make you waste your money. if roger ebert can give the reader fair warning as to why it's bad or why it's alright or as to why it's good, do this honestly and intelligently and constantly, then he's my favorite.

I don't like John Hughes.

>
>>He said that Johnny Depp is an
>>actor who is committed to originality. He said that Depp's
>>performance was good and that he had put an original effort
>>into the character which is indeed a rarity among actors and
>>actresses in Hollywood today.
>
>we had this exact discussion before (check the arvhives.)

I know we did. But you're the one that brought it up.

>i never judged the guy. i was only speaking on that one
>article you posted. it's really all i know about him. but
>my homework assignment, aside from the real homework, will
>be to read up on your mr. walsh.

Here's a link that will take you to all of David Walsh's reviews from the past few years:

http://www.wsws.org/sections/category/arts/walsh.shtml


>but you react to "escapism" like it's a slur.

it is. it's a foul filthy slur. someone should wash your mouth out with soap.

>i couldn't take
>a million bergman films without getting a craving for
>"zoolander" every once in a while.

First, Zoolander was terrible. Second, I don't mean to say that people should watch nothing but "serious" films. A good comedy can say something about the world too, you know? Like "My Man Godfrey" or "I Was A Male War Bride." Those are both great comedies, enormously entertaining, but they still carry with them a generally subversive attitude.

>I don't like John Hughes.

i figured that much. i was being sarcastic when i said that.

>Here's a link that will take you to all of David Walsh's
>reviews from the past few years:
>
>http://www.wsws.org/sections/category/arts/walsh.shtml

tonight. tonight i will read. i'll post my thoughts sometime after.

>>i couldn't take
>>a million bergman films without getting a craving for
>>"zoolander" every once in a while.
>
>First, Zoolander was terrible.

it was an example of an inane film that after the 9-11 attacks offered exactly what the u.s. needed-an escape. eff the soap.

>good comedy can say something about the world too, you know?
> Like "My Man Godfrey" or "I Was A Male War Bride." Those
>are both great comedies, enormously entertaining, but they
>still carry with them a generally subversive attitude.

"my man godfrey"? i assume you're talking about the 1930s one. 1956 may be too recen--- i did not just say that. you are imagining. nice way to pimp carole lombard.

can a film be simply entertaining without carrying any tremendous social weight or "subversive attitude?"

and back to the topic at hand, since you were taking shots at ebert and disregarded every comment i made about him, i'll repost for you reading enjoyment:

recognize who he's writing for. now this is not to say anything bad about chicago or those reading the sun-times, but the majority of people who check for movie reviews want to know if it'll be entertaining. i think he lets the "big" movies slide a little, but rips the independent ones when it comes time (see "levitiy"), given each's "respective" audience. the people that are going to see the blockbuster are already a special category. they just want to know if it'll be worse than "howard the duck" or worth the nine bucks.

movies can make you think, entertain you, move you, make you feel, but in this day and age, movies should especially not make you waste your money. if roger ebert can give the reader fair warning as to why it's bad or why it's alright or as to why it's good, do this honestly and intelligently and constantly, then he's my favorite.

>>I don't like John Hughes.
>
>i figured that much. i was being sarcastic when i said
>that.

Yeah, I know. But I bet you watch Curly Sue at least once everyday don't you?

>tonight. tonight i will read. i'll post my thoughts
>sometime after.

you better post 'em.

You know Walsh is even harder on films than I am.

> eff
>the soap.

that's why you stink, Ricky.


>"my man godfrey"? i assume you're talking about the 1930s
>one.

yep.

>1956 may be too recen--- i did not just say that.

Personally I don't like any movies made after 1914.

I'm old school.

As a matter of fact, my favorite movies are actually just still photographs from the late 18 hundreds.

>nice way to pimp carole lombard.
>

People need to know. Carole Lombard is the truth.

Carole Lombard is the Promised Land.

>can a film be simply entertaining without carrying any
>tremendous social weight or "subversive attitude?"

Well, subversiveness is always a good thing. But sure.

I just want to make the point that you can have subversiveness and *still* be entertaining. that's all.

>
>recognize who he's writing for. now this is not to say
>anything bad about chicago or those reading the sun-times,
>but the majority of people who check for movie reviews want
>to know if it'll be entertaining. i think he lets the "big"
>movies slide a little, but rips the independent ones when it
>comes time (see "levitiy"), given each's "respective"
>audience. the people that are going to see the blockbuster
>are already a special category. they just want to know if
>it'll be worse than "howard the duck" or worth the nine
>bucks.

But Ricky, you should never "cater" to your audience.

>if roger ebert can give the
>reader fair warning as to why it's bad or why it's alright
>or as to why it's good, do this honestly and intelligently
>and constantly, then he's my favorite.

Okay, Ricky. But . . . just make sure to post your thoughts on David Walsh when you get around to reading him. And make sure to read enough of him to get a good idea.

>But I bet you watch Curly Sue at least once
>everyday don't you?

that movie traumatized me it was so bad. and what did ebert give it-AAAHHHHHHHH!!!! 3 stars!!!! maybe i have to rethink my original thesis.

he writes-

"Curly Sue" is a cornball, soupy, syrupy, sentimental exercise in audience manipulation, but that's the good news, because this is a movie that works. I don't know how and I don't know why, but somehow the film got around my guard, overcame my cynicism, and left me sitting there with a grin on my face.

So, sure, if you're a hard-bitten intellectual and you're into serious films and don't like to get taken for a sucker with cornball manipulation, this isn't your film. Hey, I feel like that myself most of the time. But if occasionally you come down with an attack of warm-heartedness and let a sentimental movie slip past you, then "Curly Sue" is likely to blindside you. It's not great and it's not deep, but it sure does have a heart.

>You know Walsh is even harder on films than I am.

impossible. and i thought . . .well, you know what they say: the devil you know . . .

>> eff
>>the soap.
>
>that's why you stink, Ricky.

i set myself up for that one. nice shot.

>Personally I don't like any movies made after 1914.
>
>I'm old school.
>
>As a matter of fact, my favorite movies are actually just
>still photographs from the late 18 hundreds.

i woulda guessed cave drawings. you are much more contemporary than i assumed.

>But Ricky, you should never "cater" to your audience.

if he were an artist, true. but the man has to keep a job and just can't throw grapefruits (ahem) at every thing. plus, i doubt he's "catering" to a particular group, just not trying to alienate them.

>Okay, Ricky. But . . . just make sure to post your thoughts
>on David Walsh when you get around to reading him. And make
>sure to read enough of him to get a good idea.

will do.

>>But Ricky, you should never "cater" to your audience.
>
>if he were an artist, true. but the man has to keep a job
>and just can't throw grapefruits (ahem) at every thing.
>plus, i doubt he's "catering" to a particular group, just
>not trying to alienate them.
>

lol. You telling me "Roger Ebert" and "catering" are 3 words you never put together?

(that's a fat joke)

Does anybody REALLY give a shit about a reviewer's political leanings?

And would you consider Old School a fun movie?

>Does anybody REALLY give a shit about a reviewer's political
>leanings?

I do. Your political outlook will no doubt affect the way you see films or art of any kind.

Like if you don't see any problems with the profit system, and you think it should be every man for himself in a race to see who can get a billion dollars first. . . then you probably are going to dislike even something as simple as Mutiny On The Bounty. But you'll embrace garbage like The Fountainhead. See?

Like if you are Pro-Bush and Pro-War, chances are you're not going to like the Iranian films being made right now dealing with Afghanistan or the war.

The politics come into play. It's good to know. You know?

I mean, have you ever read those reviews on ultra-right wing websites devoted to protecting your children? It's pretty silly what they give negative reviews for.

>
>And would you consider Old School a fun movie?

I'm afraid I haven't seen it. However, I can say that I was a big big fan of Will Ferrell's work on Saturday Night Live, and I'll give anything with him in it a try.

"I mean, have you ever read those reviews on ultra-right wing websites devoted to protecting your children? It's pretty silly what they give negative reviews for. "

- just as silly as david walsh's reviews. david walsh isnt a film critic, he's a political and social critic, that likes to look at movies.

>- just as silly as david walsh's reviews. david walsh isnt a
>film critic, he's a political and social critic, that likes
>to look at movies.

Your mistake is in assuming that you can be a film critic without being a political/social critic.

If you aren't both, your film reviews will be superficial at best.

Walsh is the most insightful film critic I've ever read. He's also an insightful political/social critic who has written a great number of essays on the world's political climate apart from films.

It so happens that I agree with his politics, maybe you don't feel the same way, but I think you know that I can't agree with your comparison of his work to that of those bourgeois, petty reactionaries with nothing but censorship on their mind.

they both let ideologies determine their appreciation or lack thereof for a film. you say that a movie should say something about humans, but its really that the movie has to say something that you agree with.
im an atheist, but i purchased God's Son.

>you say that a movie should say
>something about humans, but its really that the movie has to
>say something that you agree with.

That's not true. For instance, Samuel Fuller's film "Pickup On South Street" is extremely anti-communist. . . but I love it. I think it's excellent.

>im an atheist, but i purchased God's Son.

I'm an atheist too, but I think Mahalia Jackson has made some of the most beautiful music I've ever heard.

I'm telling you. . . I'm not as close-minded as you may think.

are closeminded. you dont get interested in a socialist website by being closeminded. just that i think you have a limited view of what you're allowed to do with the medium of film. i read just about everything you post on this site, and most of the time i agree, and i pay extra attention when its about films/directors i havent come across yet. but hollywood does release a decent film or two once in a while.

> but
>hollywood does release a decent film or two once in a while.

That's true. Every once in a while a hollywood film will get something right.

Not as frequently as the hollywood films of the 40s. But you can still find one or two here and there.

...how can they NOT be?

>...how can they NOT be?

No, that isn't true. I don't even understand how you could come to that conclusion.

Art--if it's good art--does not avoid reality but instead looks right at it, questions it, and comments on the state of the world.

The best art always does this.

The best novelists. . . people like Theodore Dreiser or Louis-Ferdinand Celine dealt with poverty and class issues regularly.

The best poets. . . Pier Paolo Pasolini, Vladimir Mayakovsky, and so many more looked directly towards the problems facing human beings.

The best filmmakers. . . Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Luchino Visconti for example, dealt compassionately with questions of politics and poverty.

There's no escapism in great art. The most beloved artistic works in the world have never been escapist.

>>...how can they NOT be?
>
>No, that isn't true. I don't even understand how you could
>come to that conclusion.
>
>Art--if it's good art--does not avoid reality but instead
>looks right at it, questions it, and comments on the state
>of the world.
>
>The best art always does this.
>
>The best novelists. . . people like Theodore Dreiser or
>Louis-Ferdinand Celine dealt with poverty and class issues
>regularly.
>
>The best poets. . . Pier Paolo Pasolini, Vladimir
>Mayakovsky, and so many more looked directly towards the
>problems facing human beings.
>
>The best filmmakers. . . Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Luchino
>Visconti for example, dealt compassionately with questions
>of politics and poverty.
>
>There's no escapism in great art. The most beloved artistic
>works in the world have never been escapist.

i don't think of escapism, as simply "leaving reality"...it's more like "leaving YOUR reality and voluntarily being subjected to someone elses"...the point is not to take it to an ourageous extreme...and in all forms you mention there is escapism...

Sorry to butt in, but often art is about drawing us into reality. You call that 'escapism' because it takes us away from 'our reality,' but often art wants us to consider our reality more closely. Political satire is a straightforward example, or a movie about poverty in America. Sometimes the point can be that someone else's reality is all of our reality, or it can be to give a means of expression of a reality that many of us face.

Calling all art escapism does not take into account the many dimensions of art. Even an exclusive genre, like film, is so multi-faceted that you can't categorize all of it as any one thing.

--

i understand your argument about art (painting-wise), so i change my view...but wouldn't you agree that even though most art tries to establish a link between itself and it's audience, it normally is more murky until you can clearly see the similaries...coming from "escapism" to a reality you can more closely idenity with...

ex...a guy has to travel cross counry with an abandoned ten yr old girl he happened upon in an alleyway to reunite her with her "family" .....this sounds murky at first, but as the story progresses, the audience sees the similarities of the characters and themselves, they ucome to understand how "real" this unreailty actually is....

But many movies don't fit that mold. A recent example is 'The Magdalene Sisters.' You know isntantly that it's reality, there is no murkiness, which makes it all the more heartbreaking.

Film is a valid artform: some of it's crap, some brilliant, but it follows so many different conventions of story-telling that it can't be classified as "either/or" in any respect.

So I see we're you're coming from, sure, but I just feel that there's so much more to it. Peace.

--

I'm sorry, but I don't think that I can get over that.

--

1.5 stars-

" The story builds up to a blinding revelation, which shifts the nature of all that has gone before, and the surprise filled me not with delight but with the feeling that the writer, Christopher McQuarrie, and the director, Bryan Singer, would have been better off unraveling their carefully knit sleeve of fiction and just telling us a story about their characters - those that are real, in any event. I prefer to be amazed by motivation, not manipulation."

" To the degree that you will want to see this movie, it will be because of the surprise, and so I will say no more, except to say that the "solution," when it comes, solves little - unless there is really little to solve, which is also a possibility."

The end just enhances the experience. Ebert even admitted later that he was wrong about that movie. It is one of the best movies ever made and anyone who says otherwise is just plain and simply wrong. It's one of the few movies that I will say that about.

Ebert sounds pissed that he didn't get it, and that the movie didn't make sure that you did get it. That's the brilliance of the movie, is that it's not afraid to lie to you visually. Furthermore, it doesn't distinguish completely between truth and lies in the end.

What's more, if you watch it again, the clues are there. You can see Verbal reading the board when you thought he was just sitting in the office. You can see him read the bottom of the coffee cup. Even though he's called 'Verbal' and says he talks too much, he spends much of his story in the background, watching the other characters. What's more, he even says about the lineup that it made no sense for him to be there. In fact, it didn't make sense for him to be in any of it, he's a cripple, and not particularly smart (or so you think). Watch it again, and notice how cold and manipulative Verbal really is.

Stephen Baldwin describes the movie as a maze of lies, as opposed to a maze of clues. I see it more as a maze of lies that are clues. And even if you didn't know that it all might be bullshit, you'd still be satisfied. Ebert probably would've loved that he knew that Keaton was Soze, or loved the fact that the movie subtly led you to that conclusion until Kujon offered it to Verbal.

Finally, if you watch again, it's clear that the entire reason that Verbal tells Kujon the story is because Kujon says to him straight off, "I'm smarter than you Verbal, and I'm going to find out what I want to know, whether you like it or not." Verbal couldn't resist. Brilliant.

--

>The end just enhances the experience. Ebert even admitted
>later that he was wrong about that movie.

where?

we had this post (might still be around) a while back. for all my comments see that.

i'd give it 2 stars.

THE END

*edit:

i still don't wanna get into this again. we did this here like last week.

If you still don't understand, you're a lost cause. I'm sorry my son, but I tried. THE END.

PS-"I do know that The Usual Suspects eluded me—I'm up to three viewings by now..." Roger Ebert

--

Ebert called it right the first time.

stand alone on okayplayer it seems

Oh well, my case has already been rested.

http://www.okayplayer.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=14836&forum=concert&omm=23&viewmode=

--

There are times when he gives films a good review because he had a good time watching it. He's talked about films being more likable because of the gratuitous sex. He isn't afraid to admit that he likes popcorn movies like Tomb Raider. He gives films like "The Cell" four stars and then explains his decision so that you understand why he liked it so much...

if he likes it he likes it. And he'll tell you so even if he knows he'll take flack for it.

He and Siskel tried to get "I Spit On Your Grave" banned in Chicago

Gets no respect for that

>He and Siskel tried to get "I Spit On Your Grave" banned in
>Chicago

he's called it the worst movie he's ever seen.

his review is on the movie's dvd: "a vile bag of garbage that is so sick, reprehensible, and contemptible that I can hardly believe it played in respectable theaters."

but figure that he and siskel made it was it is today: a cult classic.

and they tried to have it banned

it's one thing to hate a film. it's another to try and get it yanked from theaters

he also called Fight Club fascist because he didn't get it

>he also called Fight Club fascist because he didn't get it

to be exact:"Fight Club" is the most frankly and cheerfully fascist big-star movie since "Death Wish," a celebration of violence in which the heroes write themselves a license to drink, smoke, screw and beat one another up.

he gave it two stars, more than people around here would afford it. he's gone on record as saying it is comprised of two brilliant acts and a third that is awful and ruins the movie. he made it part of the annual film series at the university of colorado.

but not the G.O.A.T.

1Love,
Shuggy

He's a fat pig

Chicago Sun-Times film critic Roger Ebert said today (Wednesday) that he can produce tape recordings of director-writer-actor Vincent Gallo making the comments that Gallo now says he never made. In an interview with the New York Post on Monday, Gallo maintained that he never disowned his movie, The Brown Bunny, which received disastrous reviews when it was screened at Cannes last month, and that he had never apologized for making it. "The only thing I am sorry about is putting a curse on Roger Ebert's colon," Gallo said. "If a fat pig like Roger Ebert doesn't like my movie then I'm sorry for him." Ebert responded that he wasn't too worried about the curse. "I had a colonoscopy once, and they let me watch it on TV. It was more entertaining than The Brown Bunny." And paraphrasing a perhaps apocryphal remark by Winston Churchill, Ebert concluded: "It is true that I am fat, but one day I will be thin, and he will still be the director of The Brown Bunny."

August 11, 2003 -- MOVIE critic Roger Ebert has cancer of the salivary gland and psychopath director Vincent Gallo seems to want credit for it. Though Ebert was but one of the legions of reviewers who felt Gallo's latest effort, "Brown Bunny," was one of the worst films ever, the hot-headed helmer told PAGE SIX at the time that he would "put an unremovable curse on prostate" that would eventually give him cancer. Gallo's curse missed the mark, but he's gloating anyway. "Vincent just wanted to let you know that since he put a curse on Roger Ebert, he has gotten cancer," Gallo's unfortunate assistant called to inform us the other day.

>Gallo's curse missed the mark,
>but he's gloating anyway. "Vincent just wanted to let you
>know that since he put a curse on Roger Ebert, he has gotten
>cancer," Gallo's unfortunate assistant called to inform us
>the other day.

that dude is officially a prick. that's effed up.

shouldn't vincent gallo be banging one of the hilton sisters while trying to act like an outsider or something.

still never was able to come out of his legendary partners shadow.

***All honor to Gene Siskel's name***

>still never was able to come out of his legendary partners
>shadow.
>
>***All honor to Gene Siskel's name***

at least measured by industry success and influence and recognition-doesn't ebert take the cake (fat joke haha) easily?

you're wrong

>you're wrong

now it all makes sense.

i think more people know/knew of ebert than they did siskel. so i was just commenting on your "out of the shadow" comment.

agree to disagree i suppose.

Bonsu Thompson, Music Editor for XXL Magazine, owes me money for a music review for the "Smut Peddlers" on the issue with nas rocking Sway's head gear....but you ain't hear me say that..lol...nah.on the real..truthful tone and real-ass q&a..and the eye candy creation...new times...new writers...get off the whites dick!

smack that ass!

I just didn't realize how much better until after he died.

I loved how Siskel and Ebert would genuinely get under one another's skin. Even when Ebert and Roeper disagree it's much too polite.

Roeper is the Al Gore of movie reviewing: Stiff, insipid, and whiney. Plus his reviews suck

I can't fathom why Ebert selected him out of all the folks he had to choose from.

and he is a film enthusiast, although that doesnt make one a great critic.

i'm just as qualifed as he is. And I'd fight with Ebert. I'd tell him to his face that he's been fucking soft on black movies ever since he hooked up with Chaz. I think she's his ghostwriter sometimes.

>tell him to his face that he's been fucking soft on black
>movies ever since he hooked up with Chaz. I think she's his
>ghostwriter sometimes.

don't know how long they had been together before then, but he's got a pretty steady history of getting on his knees for the "american negro."

in his objectivity with black movies after they hooked up. That's when I started siding with Siskel almost exclusively.

the 93 marriage? how long before?

>in his objectivity with black movies after they hooked up.

i'd like to map this out with charts and pie graphs and that whole bit.

I promise to help you map it out tomorrow, because this subject is near and dear to my heart. 'kay?

he did make me buy a ticket to "player's club." some sort of retribution needs to be made.

night.

To be continued...

She thought it was great how he and siskel didnt pander to the audience on their show.

even though I agree with Ebert only bout 50% of the time, hes the best print critic I've ever read

...is that he'll give a bad film some good press as long as it is visually stunning. He might be harsher on 'em in print, but on TV all he does is thumbs up or down so that's all the viewing audience remembers.

recent examples include "What Dreams May Come" and "The Cell"-- both flicks that were visually stunning but sucked everywhere else.

i sounded like a film major for a sec.

>...is that he'll give a bad film some good press as long as
>it is visually stunning. He might be harsher on 'em in
>print, but on TV all he does is thumbs up or down so that's
>all the viewing audience remembers.

the show has time constraints. you have two guys talking about five or six films in a twenty-three minute time frame, with clips interspersed.

>recent examples include "What Dreams May Come" and "The
>Cell"-- both flicks that were visually stunning but sucked
>everywhere else.

what dreams may come-3.5: Vincent Ward's ``What Dreams May Come'' is so breathtaking, so beautiful, so bold in its imagination, that it's a surprise at the end to find it doesn't finally deliver. It takes us to the emotional brink but it doesn't push us over. It ends on a curiously unconvincing note--a conventional resolution in a movie that for most of its length has been daring and visionary.

So, yes, I have my disappointments with it. But I would not want them to discourage you from seeing it, because this is a film that even in its imperfect form shows how movies can imagine the unknown, can lead our imaginations into wonderful places.

the cell-4 stars:For all of its visual pyrotechnics, it's also a story where we care about the characters; there's a lot at stake at the end, and we're involved. I know people who hate it, finding it pretentious or unrestrained; I think it's one of the best films of the year.

so he admits to being a visual junkie, good occupation for him to go in considering. he also is a fantasy fan it seems (see dark city.) and thats not to say he will only like a film because of the images it exhibits. "before night falls" got 3.5 stars and no mention of the pictures it casts across the screen, even though, in my mind, it was one of the most and best "visual" films in recent memory.

They think that you can just point a camera at a scene and rely on witty dialogue and good plot to make up for how it looks. That's why I love Robert Rodriguez, despite its flaws, Once Upon a Time in Mexico was visually awesome in and beautiful.

--

for giving Raising Arizona 1 1/2 stars. Also, we used to have a book of full-length reviews by him, and he gave away far too many plot details to use the book as a determination of whether a movie was worth renting on video or not.

i can agree with him on this. i always thought it was overrated, but 1.5 stars is about one too little for my liking.

he says- And what "Raising Arizona" needs more than anything else is more velocity. Here's a movie that stretches out every moment for more than it's worth, until even the moments of inspiration seem forced. Since the basic idea of the movie is a good one and there are talented people in the cast, what we have here is a film shot down by its own forced and mannered style.

The movie cannot decide if it exists in the real world of trailer parks and 7-Elevens and Pampers, or in a fantasy world of characters from another dimension. It cannot decide if it is about real people, or comic exaggerations. It moves so uneasily from one level of reality to another that finally we're just baffled. Comedy often depends on frustrating the audience's expectations. But how can it work when we don't have a clue about what to expect - when the movie itself doesn't know what is possible and what is not?

.

yeah, this guy hasn't burned a flag or occupied an administration building in his time.

get me a vial of ritalin, some anger management classes, and a gas mask just in case he gets any ideas.

first off, friday, thank you for taking me to the world socialist web site. it is a welcomed treat for my internet history. thank god netscape has disabled popups and i didn't have to see advertisements for "how to overthrow the government in 13 easy steps"- the deluxe paperback edition.

that being said-

presently i have read his reviews for-
Catch Me If You Can
Adaptation
Almost Famous
Bringing Out the Dead
Bulworth
The Green Mile
He Got Game
L.A. Confidential
Out of Sight
Requiem for a Dream
Summer of Sam
The Phantom Menace
Three Kings
Vanilla Sky

there will be more as he is a skilled writer and quite entertaining.

i strongly agreed with some of his takes, i.e. phantom menace, vanilla sky, the green mile, and bringing out the dead.

although he almost shot is credibility in the foot with his write-up on catch me if you can.

i like how he takes no prisoners and those he does he berates over the brow relentlessly.

well, i certainly see where you get it from. yeah, movies that do not address strong political issues (the rights ones even more so) or that don't defame the police or don't hold a strong political grip or can't relate to some deep ethical or social issue are bullshit.

the guy became a caricature of a ranting extremist sentences at a time. he seemed to be yelling so much and so loud after a while i found it hard to a) concentrate and b)take what he was saying seriously.

don't get me wrong, i can be anti-establishment and all that loveliness, but dissecting simple shit into socio-economic political apocalypse is a bit drastic.

maybe he just doesn't mesh well with my political views, although i could take them if he just turned down the soapbox a little. he is an extremely gifted writer. he knows his movies (someone else referencing 1885 art in the context of a hollywood movie other than yourself) and knows his history and has a good knack for asking questions and ultimately answering them.

the site is getting bookmarked (second review site only to ebert's), plus i don't think the sun-times can offer me "war, oligarchy, and the political lie."

thank you for the recommendation. the jury is still out, although having read him he may storm the courthouse before a verdict can be rendered.

>get me a vial of ritalin, some anger management classes, and
>a gas mask just in case he gets any ideas.

David Walsh and the Socialist Equality Party (of which he is a member) oppose terrorism. So don't worry.


>there will be more as he is a skilled writer and quite
>entertaining.

good! I'm glad you like him at least that much. This is good news!

>
>i strongly agreed with some of his takes, i.e. phantom
>menace, vanilla sky, the green mile, and bringing out the
>dead.

That's right!

>
>although he almost shot is credibility in the foot with his
>write-up on catch me if you can.

Let's leave that alone for the time being. . .

>
>i like how he takes no prisoners and those he does he
>berates over the brow relentlessly.

*does a back flip* Yipppeeeeeeee!!!!

>
>well, i certainly see where you get it from.

That's right. He's had a great influence on me. I can't deny it.

>yeah, movies
>that do not address strong political issues (the rights ones
>even more so)

I think you mean the "left" ones. lol.

>or that don't defame the police or don't hold
>a strong political grip or can't relate to some deep ethical
>or social issue are bullshit.

well. . . it's true ain't it? lol.

>
>the guy became a caricature of a ranting extremist sentences
>at a time. he seemed to be yelling so much and so loud
>after a while i found it hard to a) concentrate and b)take
>what he was saying seriously.

This I disagree with. And I can say from one short correspondence with him by e-mail, that he's actually pretty friendly and nice. I wrote to him because I had a problem with his review of 8 Mile. He said something that kind of damned all of hip hop, and I wrote to him telling him about the difference between bullshit and Talib Kweli. He actually changed a line of his review based on that, and now the review criticizes only "commercial rap".

Ebert never changed nothing for me! lol.

>
>don't get me wrong, i can be anti-establishment and all that
>loveliness, but dissecting simple shit into socio-economic
>political apocalypse is a bit drastic.

Drastic? More like "necessary". It's important to examine all of that stuff, Ricky. That's a big part of Marxism. And Walsh is a Marxist. If you don't agree with Socialism itself, that's okay, but it does provide a nice historical analysis when it wants to.

> he is an extremely gifted writer. he
>knows his movies (someone else referencing 1885 art in the
>context of a hollywood movie other than yourself) and knows
>his history and has a good knack for asking questions and
>ultimately answering them.

I give this paragraph a standing ovation.

>
>the site is getting bookmarked (second review site only to
>ebert's), plus i don't think the sun-times can offer me
>"war, oligarchy, and the political lie."

Damn right. A nice mix of political analysis and arts reviews. I visit the site every morning.

You might also like some of the other film critics working for the site. Joanne Laurier and Richard Phillips are especially good.

And since you're interested in reading more of Walsh's reviews. . . I pulled up a few links you'll like. Reviews and essays. Definitely check these out:

Touch Of Evil -

http://www.wsws.org/arts/1998/oct1998/evi2-o20.shtml

Katherine Hepburn, Gregory Peck and American Filmmaking:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jul2003/hepb-j16.shtml

How Today's Film Industry Views Orson Welles:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/rko-n29.shtml

>
>thank you for the recommendation.

you bet!

>the jury is still out,

*waits for jury*

the man is intelligent in his own right.
i just disagree that an intelligent movie constitutes making a grand condemnation or statement against evil capitalism and bougie types.
when i read some of his reviews it left me wondering, i was like damn, why does a movie have to be about all that, then i came across what the websites acronym stands for and i understood.

>i just disagree that an intelligent movie constitutes making
>a grand condemnation or statement against evil capitalism
>and bougie types.

You're over-simplifying it.

>then
>i came across what the websites acronym stands for and i
>understood.

lol. Damn, man. . . don't be so melodramatic.

Hide your children! Here comes the socialists!

>
>>i just disagree that an intelligent movie constitutes making
>>a grand condemnation or statement against evil capitalism
>>and bougie types.
>
>You're over-simplifying it.
- i might be.

>
>>then
>>i came across what the websites acronym stands for and i
>>understood.
>
>lol. Damn, man. . . don't be so melodramatic.
>
>Hide your children! Here comes the socialists!
- lol, it aint like that. but reading the reviews, i was wondering if there were some unwritten Laws that i have never heard about that, that have this strict definition of films.
it's like "backpack" rap fans, who think materialistic etc. rap is BS, its not "real" hip-hop. i actually used to think like that myself, but then i realized its music. i appreciate an intelligent statement or two mixed in with my entertainment but i dont find it absolutely necessary.

>>Hide your children! Here comes the socialists!
>- lol, it aint like that.

lol. I hear you.

> but reading the reviews, i was
>wondering if there were some unwritten Laws that i have
>never heard about that, that have this strict definition of
>films.

I think the rule book is pretty clear. . . didn't you get a copy? It's all in the chapter called "Better Films Through A Socialist Tomorrow".

>it's like "backpack" rap fans, who think materialistic etc.
>rap is BS, its not "real" hip-hop. i actually used to think
>like that myself, but then i realized its music.

I used to have a pretty harsh opinion on that kind of thing too. My musical tastes have actually loosened up a bit since then.

My film tastes are getting tighter though.

>David Walsh and the Socialist Equality Party (of which he is
>a member) oppose terrorism. So don't worry.

oh that's comforting. i didn't actually think they were gonna come to my town and start raping and murdering women and girls.

although, let's say you make that into a movie and the movie paints it in such a way where the audience can understand the subtle nuances in the economic upbringing which birthed these two separate yet wholly related battle of beings. and you title it after some obscure russian novel or novelist or the novelist's invalid wife, that's a great film. better yet if an iranian director is somehow involved.

>>although he almost shot is credibility in the foot with his
>>write-up on catch me if you can.
>
>Let's leave that alone for the time being. . .

why? that was so horrible and poorly acted (walken even) and had a shitty score and was manipulating and pandering and bottomless and too long and that’s the criteria by which i judge a film. i don't look to see if it represents the same political beliefs which i hold, or if it picks up a baton and beats the police.

>*does a back flip* Yipppeeeeeeee!!!!

but as an atheists do you have anything to fall back on? lol. my religious foray for the night.

>>the guy became a caricature of a ranting extremist sentences
>>at a time. he seemed to be yelling so much and so loud
>>after a while i found it hard to a) concentrate and b)take
>>what he was saying seriously.
>
>This I disagree with. And I can say from one short
>correspondence with him by e-mail, that he's actually pretty
>friendly and nice. I wrote to him because I had a problem
>with his review of 8 Mile. He said something that kind of
>damned all of hip hop, and I wrote to him telling him about
>the difference between bullshit and Talib Kweli. He
>actually changed a line of his review based on that, and now
>the review criticizes only "commercial rap".

well thank you for pointing out the distinction to the man. that’s cool that you got it changed.

maybe my judgment was made in comparison to other critics, who don't take on such strong political stances (and repeat them in every other paragraph in every other review . . .not that walsh did at all.)

>Drastic? More like "necessary". It's important to examine
>all of that stuff, Ricky. That's a big part of Marxism.
>And Walsh is a Marxist.

really? and i thought he was a stockbroker! gosh!

>Damn right. A nice mix of political analysis and arts
>reviews.

. . .and that's just david walsh. *looks around for rim shot effect*

>And since you're interested in reading more of Walsh's
>reviews. . . I pulled up a few links you'll like. Reviews
>and essays. Definitely check these out:
>
>Touch Of Evil -

if he says a single solitary word bad, it's over. O V E R!

>Katherine Hepburn

my school is running a month's worth of screenings (just four films though) of some katherine hepburn films.

>How Today's Film Industry Views Orson Welles:

i assume kinder and more reverently than walsh would like.

>>the jury is still out,
>
>*waits for jury*

nothing is gonna touch ebert (insert bad joke here), but maybe he'll serve as my second source of insight.

but just to be safe, i'm taking the "hilary duff precautions" and am deleting my internet history.

>although, let's say you make that into a movie and the movie
>paints it in such a way where the audience can understand
>the subtle nuances in the economic upbringing which birthed
>these two separate yet wholly related battle of beings. and
>you title it after some obscure russian novel or novelist or
>the novelist's invalid wife, that's a great film. better
>yet if an iranian director is somehow involved.

lol. Now *that* was comedy.


>why? that was so horrible and poorly acted (walken even)
>and had a shitty score and was manipulating and pandering
>and bottomless and too long and that’s the criteria by which
>i judge a film. i don't look to see if it represents the
>same political beliefs which i hold, or if it picks up a
>baton and beats the police.

I think you're actually being too hard on this one. I'm not a Spielberg fan either mind you, but I found some things to like about it. Still. . . it's not Iranian. lol.


>but as an atheists do you have anything to fall back on?
>lol. my religious foray for the night.

I think we'd better skip the religous debate after all this political talk. My head might explode.


>>Touch Of Evil -
>
>if he says a single solitary word bad, it's over. O V E R!

Orson Welles is his favorite director. Him and Fassbinder.

>
>>Katherine Hepburn
>
>my school is running a month's worth of screenings (just
>four films though) of some katherine hepburn films.

Hepburn was really great. But you already know that. Do you happen to know which ones they're showing?

>
>>How Today's Film Industry Views Orson Welles:
>
>i assume kinder and more reverently than walsh would like.

No. . . Walsh loves Welles. . . today's film industry does not.


>but just to be safe, i'm taking the "hilary duff
>precautions" and am deleting my internet history.

lol. jesus. I'm just going to leave that one alone.

>Hepburn was really great. But you already know that. Do
>you happen to know which ones they're showing?

there's a link in the "big screen" post (to make you check that one out.)

but the films are-little women, the african queen, christopher strong, summertime, and the rainmaker.

>No. . . Walsh loves Welles. . . today's film industry does
>not.

probably cause back then the studio (THE MAN) was effing with welles' work and that relates to some political struggle. not cause orson could eat twelve hot dogs in one sitting.

>but the films are-little women, the african queen,
>christopher strong, summertime, and the rainmaker.

See Little Women; she was always great in George Cukor's films.

The African Queen is overrated, but at least it's directed by John Huston and also stars Humphrey Bogart.

I've never seen Christopher Strong or Summertime yet.

But stay away from The Rainmaker. Even though it has both Hepburn and Burt Lancaster, just stay away.

So there.

put me off autmatically. Almost as much as psycho-analytical ones who are worse because politics do actually exist unlike the shit they believe in. But Walsh can write and he is a good read. That said his reviews piss me off alot. His picking Seabiscuit apart because guess what it doesnt exactly mirror the real events pissed me off. Also that he needed to say that Amsterdam is a horrible name for a character in the Gangs of NY review seems totally unnecesary. And that he praised Pirates because of Depps out of the ordinary performance and condemning The Hulk which is more daring for a hollywood film by a mile. He comes off as overly mean spirited in his reviews and im annoyed by how he has to reference other critics reviews and attack their opinions. How you can claim that Martin Scorsese is not even a competent film maker is simply absurd. I also find it ironic that he goes after all of these films he thinks show humanity poorly and then names "All or Nothing" one of the best films of 2002.
I do think Catch Me If You Can is great though.

n/m

____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

he loses already because of that association.

examples or reasons why?

he doesn't rely on cliches, and is sixty or seventy times more articulate than most film reviewers.

plus he's fucking hilarious, and neither stuffy (like most arty-film reviewers) or hackneyed, like the Travers ilk.

roger ebert is great, but he's pretty bland sometimes. or, at least, his style doesn't stick out to me as much. but he's really honest and personable.

anyway, magazine association has nothing to do with it. mailer was in playboy. jack handey's been in the New Yorker.

Alek

____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?

yeah, we're gonna take it there.

okp AnaStezia and i will (hopefully) begin our search for the meaning of life via the truth about roger ebert and "the black knight." or something like that.

anyone feel free to share their thoughts and/or information.

i know that he seems to be preferential towards black-majority films or anything with spike lee's name within five feet of the reels of film.

here is :

Is Roger Ebert Preferential to Black Films?

This has been bothering me for some time now. I have been a fan of At the Movies with Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel (now called Ebert & Roeper with Richard Roeper) for as long as I can remember. A couple of years ago I noticed Ebert was giving thumbs up to some pretty horrible films. I didn't really think much of it until I started piecing things together.

First off, it may not be common knowledge that Roger's wife, Chaz, is black. I didn't know this until recently but I think it helps to explain things. I guess it was the time that Roger called Black Knight starring Martin Lawrence, "the feel good movie of the year (2001)" that I started noticing something was skewed. Just last week Roger gave 2 Fast 2 Furious (directed by John Singleton) thumbs up after practically slamming everything about it during his full-length review. I find these inconsistencies to be very odd. It's come to the point where if a film is directed by a black person or has a central black theme it is almost guaranteed thumbs up from Roger.

Is there any harm in it? Of course not, it's just film reviews after all and the thumbs up/down means very little when compared to the full review. I don't think I would ever see a film solely on a binary rating such as thumbs up or down. I am not even claiming Roger is doing anyone a favor by rating these films high. Heck, I wonder if he is even conscious of what he is doing.

I just think Roger is trying a little too hard to be down with the "black experience". That's cool and all, but I don't think that his personal biases should trickle into the workplace. Liking a film because it is afrocentric is one thing and that's great if he is relating to these types of films because of his family situation. Thumbs-upping a film like Black Knight or 2 Fast 2 Furious for no apparent reason other than a black lead or director is another thing entirely.

Just for the record, I am a dopey white guy just like Roger. My last two long-term relationships were interracial, Chinese and Mexican. Still, you didn't see me going around praising every Jet Li and Salma Hayek film. Why does Roger think he's getting away with it unnoticed?

>yeah, we're gonna take it there.

a couple lesser films that ebert hypes like the second-coming with black stars/directors attached.

this is not stay he gets on his knees for every flick. he gave "girl 6" two stars, which still may be two too many.

all i'm saying is what the original okayplayers said themselves, "there's something going on . . ."

The Player's Club-3stars
"The Players Club," written and directed by hip-hop star Ice Cube, is a gritty black version of "Showgirls,'' set in a "gentlemen's club" where a young college student hopes to earn her tuition. Rich with colorful dialogue and characters, it's sometimes ungainly but never boring, and there's a core of truth in its portrait of exotic dancers.

Thirty years ago, this material would have been forced into the blaxploitation genre--dumbed down and predictable. But Ice Cube (who also co-stars) makes "The Players Club" observant and insightful; beneath its melodrama lurks unsentimental information about why young women do lap dances for a living, and what they think about themselves and their customers.

The movie doesn't preach, but it has values . . . I liked Ice Cube's ambition in writing so many colorful characters and juggling them all at the same time. The movie is sophisticated about its people and places.

Barbershop-3 stars
If nothing significant gets settled in the rambling barbershop conversations, at least many issues are aired, and by the end, in classic sitcom fashion, all problems have been solved. The talk is lively but goes into overdrive when Eddie is onstage; Cedric the Entertainer has the confidence, the style and the volume to turn any group into an audience, and he has a rap about Rosa Parks, Rodney King and O.J. Simpson that brought down the house at the screening I attended.

The film is ungainly in construction but graceful in delivery. I could have done without both of the subplots--the loan shark and the ATM thieves--and simply sat there in Calvin's Barbershop for the entire running time, listening to these guys talk. There is a kind of music to their conversations, now a lullaby, now a march, now a requiem, now hip-hop, and they play with one another like members of an orchestra. The movie's so good to listen to, it would even work as an audio book.

Bait-3 stars
"Bait" is a deadpan action comedy with a little Hitchcock, a little Bond and a lot of attitude. It's funny and clever . . . Just last week, in my review of "The Watcher," I was complaining about killers who spend more time devising elaborate booby-traps for the cops than in committing their crimes. Now I forgive Bristol for the same practice. It's all in how you do it--in the style.

Booty Call-3 stars
In a world where vulgarity is the new international standard, where everyday speech consists entirely of things you wouldn't want your grandmother to hear, ``Booty Call'' nevertheless represents some kind of breakthrough. Did I laugh? Sure. Did I recount some of the more incredible episodes to friends? You bet. Is the movie any good? Does goodness have anything to do with it? One of the movie's positive qualities is its hearty equality of the sexes.

Blue Streak-3 stars
"Blue Streak" ranks in the upper reaches of the cop buddy genre, up there in "Lethal Weapon" territory. It has the usual ingredients for a cop comedy, including the obligatory Dunkin' Donuts product placement, but it's assembled with style--and it's built around a Martin Lawrence performance that deserves comparison with Richard Pryor and Eddie Murphy, with a touch of Mel Gibson's zaniness in the midst of action.

House Party-3 stars
"House Party" is first of all a musical, and best approached in that spirit. To call it a teenage movie would confuse the characters with the subject. Yes, it's about a crowd of black teenagers who go to the same school and hang out together, and it's about their loves and rivalries and a party that one of the kids is having at his house.

In the case of "House Party," the musical is a canvas used by the director, Reginald Hudlin, to show us black teenagers with a freshness and originality that's rare in modern movies. We hardly ever see black teenagers at all in films, and when we do they're painted in images that are either negative and threatening, or impossibly clean-cut. His teenagers are neither: They're normal, average kids with the universal desire to go to a party and dance.

School Daze-3.5 stars
Spike Lee's "School Daze" is the first movie in a long time where the black characters seem to be relating to one another, instead of to a hypothetical white audience. Lee's "She's Gotta Have It" was another, and then you have to go back to films like "Sweet Sweetback's Badass Song" in 1970. Although the film has big structural problems and leaves a lot of loose ends, there was never a moment when it didn't absorb me, because I felt as if I was watching the characters talk to one another, instead of to me. In its own way, "School Daze" confronts a lot of issues that aren't talked about in the movies these days: not only issues of skin color and hair, but also the emergence of a black class, the purpose of all-black universities in an integrated society, and the sometimes sexist treatment of black women by black men. There is not a single white person in it. All of the characters, good and bad, are black, and all of the character's references are to each other.

Jungle Fever-3.5
Jungle Fever" is Spike Lee's term for unhealthy sexual attraction between the races - for relationships based on stereotypes. Too often, he believes, when blacks and whites go to bed with one another, they are motivated, not by love or affection, but by media-based myths about the sexual allure of the other race. Lee has explained this belief in countless interviews, and yet it remains the murkiest element in his new film, which is brilliant when it examines the people who surround his feverish couple . . .It contains humor and insight and canny psychology, strong performances, and the fearless discussion of things both races would rather not face.

Get on the Bus-4 stars
For the men on the bus, quite simply, ``this march is not about Farrakhan.'' We expect that the Nation of Islam member will speak up to defend his leader, but he never does, and his silence, behind his dark glasses, acts as a powerful symbol of a religion that none of the other men on the bus seem to relate to, or even care much about.

Then, in Tennessee, the reason for the march comes into sharp focus when the bus is pulled over by white cops. They bring a drug-sniffing dog on board, and treat the men in a subtle but unmistakably racist way. When the cops leave, Lee gives us a series of closeups of silent, thoughtful faces: Every black man in America has at one time or another felt charged by the police with the fact of being black.

The Player's Club- 1 star

Even better than the movie was listening 2 actor Faizon Love describe Cube as a director on the set during 1 of the episodes of Dinner 4 5, "AY YO, ROLL THA THANG OVER THERE MAYNE! AIIIGHT CHALL NIGGAZ READY? BET!"

>Barbershop-1 star

The talk is lively but goes into overdrive when
>Eddie is onstage.

Actually all the talk is terrible unti Eddie starts speaking. He's the only reason why it gets 1 star.

I could have done without both of the
>subplots--the loan shark and the ATM thieves--

I think everyone could've. The stolen ATM is the worst subplot in the history of cinema.

and simply sat
>there in Calvin's Barbershop for the entire running time,
>listening to these guys talk. There is a kind of music to
>their conversations, now a lullaby, now a march, now a
>requiem, now hip-hop, and they play with one another like
>members of an orchestra. The movie's so good to listen to,
>it would even work as an audio book.

Sounds just like a white guy who has never been in a black barbershop.


>Bait-0 stars
>"Bait" is a deadpan action comedy with a little Hitchcock, a
>little Bond and a lot of attitude.

Alotta bullshit in that statement right there

It's funny and clever . .

Not

>. Just last week, in my review of "The Watcher," I was
>complaining about killers who spend more time devising
>elaborate booby-traps for the cops than in committing their
>crimes. Now I forgive Bristol for the same practice. It's
>all in how you do it--in the style.

Whatever.

>Blue Streak-2 stars
>"Blue Streak" ranks in the upper reaches of the cop buddy
>genre, up there in "Lethal Weapon" territory. It has the
>usual ingredients for a cop comedy, including the obligatory
>Dunkin' Donuts product placement, but it's assembled with
>style--and it's built around a Martin Lawrence performance
>that deserves comparison with Richard Pryor and Eddie
>Murphy, with a touch of Mel Gibson's zaniness in the midst
>of action.

This just in. Richard Pryor just killed himself just so he could roll over in his grave after hearing that statement. In other news, Eddie Murphy didnt know whether 2 say thank u or be offended.

>House Party-4 stars

One of the better "black" comedies of my generation. Robin Harris @ his best. And one of the only ones I agree w/ Ebert on.

barber shop and jungle fever are good films. And he does like Ice Cube (so do i) so thats why the players club is there, he does hate the Friday movies and that other awful one though. The rest i dunno. But if he likes them, he likes them no matter the reason hes just doing his job giving his honest opinions.

In 1989, Ebert gave Harlem Nights 2 stars.

"The movie stars Richard Pryor as a Harlem speakeasy owner and Murphy as his adopted son, and plugs them into a plot involving the usual Mafia bosses, crooked cops and sexy dames. There is not an original idea in the movie from one end to the other."

In 1997, he gave Hoodlum, a more dramatic version of the same subject matter 3 stars.

Bill Duke's ``Hoodlum'' looks into the way the Mafia muscled into the black-run numbers racket in Harlem in the 1930s; this is a ``gangster movie'' in a sense, but it is also about free enterprise, and about how, as the hero says when asked why he didn't go into medicine or law, ``I'm a colored man and white folks left me crime.''


Which one sounds more objective?

Harlem Nights was a comedy & a damn good one I thought. Hoodlum was one of your typical ganster flicks which would've been a complete waste if it wasnt 4 Tim Roth's performance as Dutch Schultz. He stole every scene he was in.

As far as objectivity, well...take your pick. Six in one hand & 1/2 dozen in the other.

And I've liked Roth in just about everything I've seen him in (even in movies I disliked). But in Hoodlum I felt his performance was too over the top. Like he was mocking a mob guy instead of trying to be one.

That and Hoodlum is a terrible movie

>And I've liked Roth in just about everything I've seen him
>in (even in movies I disliked). But in Hoodlum I felt his
>performance was too over the top. Like he was mocking a mob
>guy instead of trying to be one.

Yeah I guess I can see that. It worked 4 me tho. Maybe cuz him & Chi McBride were the only ones bringin anything 2 the table. It was the same thing w/ Planet of the Apes. I thought he brought the perfect blend of humor & harshness. His voice cracked me up as well.

>That and Hoodlum is a terrible movie

@ least Vanessa Williams was lookin bout it bout it.

aside from maybe the makeup and Estella Warren.

>@ least Vanessa Williams was lookin bout it bout it.

Yep

I think they both sound like his fairly stated, unbiased opinions of the movies.

Also, but not related, I think they are both accurate assesments of the movies they are regarding.

Furthurmore, and also not related, I agree with both of them.

Film criticism is not supposed to be objective. It can be argued that film REVEIWS are supposed to be. But I've always found that the value of a piece of film writing -- criticism or review -- comes from just how informed and educated the writer's informed and educated opinion is. Not only is the object object not to be objective, but it is to be very subjective.

RED
Ora et labora

Hoodlum was a crappy movie, but he viewed it through a less harsh lens than he did Harlem Nights. They both were very formulaic 30's gangster movies with black casts, but it seemed to me like he gave Hoodlum a pass. He gave it 3 damn stars. If you look at the thread above you'll see a lot more crappy black movies that Ebert gave inexplicably good ratings to. I think its his soft spot.

why did he hate on Harlem Nights? That was a horrible movie. I think he was too soft on it.

Hoodlum, on the other hand, while not great, certainly aspired to more. And if Ebert has a soft spot that I've noticed, it's that he is too willing to reward good intentions even when those intentions don't translate on screen.

Hoodlum wasn't very good, but I thought it was head and shoulders above Harlem Nights.

RED
Ora et labora

was that he has become softer on black movies since he married a black woman. I'm sorry if i didn't make that clear. the Marriage happened in 1993. I'm saying that Harlem Nights probably got the harsh treatment it deserved because the review took place before he married Chaz and his viewpoint softened, whereas Hoodlum got a much nicer treatment it deserved because Ebert was then pussywhipped, for lack of a better term.

But once again you're comparing a comedy 2 a drama. Apples & Oranges.

that i have an actual anger towards. When I was finished watching it I destested everyone involved in it...actors, crew, movie studios, the rental clerk, my vcr, me for renting it. I don't know what it is about that movie but i HATE it. Funny thing is I'm pretty sure ebert's review is the reason i ended up renting it...at that point I hadn't noticed his bias, but keep up the good work in trying to prove it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

whassun eva you do i wantcha to remember this here...you can't hold no groove if you aint got no pocket

From Ebert's 1991 review of Jungle Fever:

We never really believe the attraction they feel for one another, we never really understand their relationship, and their romance seems to be mostly an excuse for the other events in the movie to happen - the events that make the film special.

It's as if Lee himself, as a screenwriter, could see these characters only as stereotypes - could not, or would not, get inside of them.

----A valid point, but compare it with the softball treatment he gives 1995's Higher Learning, which was rife with stereotypes and poor character development:

"Meanwhile, a sense of impending doom hangs over the campus. All of these groups with all of their agendas are headed for a collision. Singleton does a good job of cutting back and forth between many stories; this is not a "black movie" but sees the whole campus population as its subject.

He handles the subplot involving the neo-Nazis especially effectively; skinheads lend themselves to parody, but in Cole Hauser and Michael Rapaport, Singleton has cast two effective actors who bring a chilling plausibility to their roles. Rapaport plays a big, confused kid who looks like a rabbit caught in headlights, and Hauser, with his cynical charm and insinuating drawl, is like a snake-charmer.

"Higher Learning" is Singleton's third film, after the great "Boyz N the Hood" (1991) and the more meandering, romantic "Poetic Justice" (1993)...He sees with a clear eye and a strong will, and is not persuaded by fashionable ideologies. His movies are thought-provoking because he uses familiar kinds of characters and then asks hard questions about them. "


Again, which one seems more objective?

>Again, which one seems more objective?

the comparison would have to be done between a white majority film and a black majority film.

if my point is that he is softer on black films than he used to be, why would I need to look at white films?

He even admitted that.

and point taken :)

>if my point is that he is softer on black films than he used
>to be, why would I need to look at white films?

i think chaz just upped the ante.

but a man needs to get his exercise, so who can blame him if he prints that martin lawrence is the next richard pyror.

that he gave Poetic Justice and Rosewood equally good ratings, and those flicks were just as flawed as Higher Learning.

roger ebert is the greatest.

david walsh is NOT crazy (ahemwinkahem)

ebert likes black people (who wouldn't), so that should make him a clear okayplayer.com favorite. lol

and he has the best job in the world.

T H E F A C T S

>roger ebert is the greatest.

Yes

>david walsh is NOT crazy (ahemwinkahem)

Right, hes a socialist and thus not worth taking the time to categorize.

>ebert likes black people (who wouldn't), so that should make
>him a clear okayplayer.com favorite. lol

maybe to half of OKP. If you have any view on race about half will attack you for it. Just hope no folks from Activist dont see this post or next thing you know people will be calling people anti semites and arguing about wether or not jesus wore anything under his robe.

>and he has the best job in the world.

Hes getting paid for what we do for free, so yes. Then again Vincent Gallo has never put a curse on my colon. Pretty dangerous game film critiscism.

because nobody expects anything of him. Not even in his day job at the Sun-Times.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

whassun eva you do i wantcha to remember this here...you can't hold no groove if you aint got no pocket

just a recent example of how entertaining and insightful his stuff is.

1 1/2

"Cold Creek Manor" is another one of those movies where a demented fiend devotes an extraordinary amount of energy to setting up scenes for the camera. Think of the trouble it would be for one man, working alone, to kill a horse and dump it into a swimming pool. The movie is an anthology of cliches, not neglecting both the Talking Killer, who talks when he should be at work, and the reliable climax where both the villain and his victims go to a great deal of inconvenience to climb to a high place so that one of them can fall off.

The movie stars Dennis Quaid and Sharon Stone as Cooper and Leah Tilson, who get fed up with the city and move to the country, purchasing a property that looks like the House of the Seven Gables crossed with the Amityville Horror. This house is going to need a lot of work. In "Under the Tuscan Sun," another new movie, Diane Lane is able to find some cheerful Polish workers to rehab her Tuscan villa, but the Tilsons have the extraordinarily bad judgment to hire the former owner of the house, Dale Massie (Stephen Dorff), an ex-con with a missing family. "Do you know what you're getting yourselves into?" asks a helpful local. No, but everybody in the audience does.

The movie of course issues two small children to the Tilsons, so that their little screams can pipe up on cue, as when the beloved horse is found in the pool. And both Cooper and Leah are tinged with the suggestion of adultery, because in American movies, as we all know, sexual misconduct leads to bad real estate choices.

In all movies involving city people who move to the country, there is an unwritten rule that everybody down at the diner knows all about the history of the new property and the secrets of its former owners. The locals act as a kind of Greek chorus, living permanently at the diner and prepared on a moment's notice to issue portentous warnings or gratuitous insults. The key player this time is Ruby (Juliette Lewis), Dale's battered girlfriend, whose sister is Sheriff Annie Ferguson (Dana Eskelson). She smokes a lot, always an ominous sign, and is ambiguous about Dale -- she loves the lug, but gee, does he always have to be pounding on her? The scene where she claims she wasn't hit, she only fell, is the most perfunctory demonstration possible of the battered woman in denial.

No one in this movie has a shred of common sense. The Tilsons are always leaving doors open even though they know terrible dangers lurk outside, and they are agonizingly slow to realize that Dale Massie is not only the wrong person to rehab their house, but the wrong person to be in the same state with.

Various clues, accompanied by portentous music, ominous winds, gathering clouds, etc., lead to the possibility that clues to Dale's crimes can be found at the bottom of an old well, and we are not disappointed in our expectation that Stone will sooner or later find herself at the bottom of that well. But answer me this. If you were a vicious mad-dog killer and wanted to get rid of the Tilsons and had just pushed Leah down the well, and Cooper was all alone in the woods leaning over the well and trying to pull his wife back to the surface, would you just go ahead and push him in? Or what?

But no. The audience has to undergo an extended scene in which Cooper is not pushed down the well, in order for everyone to hurry back to the house, climb up to the roof, fall off, etc. Dale Massie is not a villain in this movie, but an enabler, a character who doesn't want to kill but exists only to expedite the plot. Everything he does is after a look at the script, so that he appears, disappears, threatens, seems nice, looms, fades, pushes, doesn't push, all so that we in the audience can be frightened or, in my case, amused.

"Cold Creek Manor" was directed by Mike Figgis, a superb director of drama ("Leaving Las Vegas"), digital experimentation ("Timecode"), adaptations of the classics ("Miss Julie") and atmospheric film noir ("Stormy Monday"). But he has made a thriller that thrills us only if we abandon all common sense. Of course preposterous things happen in all thrillers, but there must be at least a gesture in the direction of plausibility, or we lose patience. When evil Dale Massie just stands there in the woods and doesn't push Cooper Tilson down the well, he stops being a killer and becomes an excuse for the movie to toy with us -- and it's always better when a thriller toys with the victims instead of the audience.

well, sorta.

maybe ebert isn't soft on black films because he's married to a black woman. maybe it's like peter griffin from family guy: husband, father, . . .brother?

Peter: Holy crap, I'm black!

AHHH!!!

maybe he was eminem before marshall mathers.

for the love of god, if someone finds a picture of ebert sporting a white man's fro, i'm ready to sign over the reparations check.

HE GAVE SCARFACE FOUR STARS BACK IN 1983.

before rappers were co-opting the movie as their own and sisquo was proclaiming its greatness, ebert was already calling it brilliant and putting it up there with "the godfather."

it becomes a part of his "great movies" in about a week and a half!

roger ebert, do we know thee?

excerpt from original review:

Most thrillers use interchangeable characters, and most gangster movies are more interested in action than personality, but "Scarface" is one of those special movies, like "The Godfather," that is willing to take a flawed, evil man and allow him to be human.

That Hawks film was the most violent gangster film of its time, and this 1983 film by Brian De Palma also has been surrounded by a controversy over its violence, but in both movies the violence grows out of the lives of the characters; it isn't used for thrills but for a sort of harrowing lesson about self-destruction.

It's also an exciting crime picture, in the tradition of the 1932 movie. And, like the "Godfather" movies, it's a gallery of wonderful supporting performances.
-
you see, "there's something going on . . ."

I hardly think that's a smoking gun.
Exhibit C will not be entered into evidence.

Scarface was widely panned when it first came out.

Whatever his reasons, Ebert has been willing to go out on a limb to give his unique opinion in regards to the movies.

Many people point to their disagreement with him as a reason not to trust his opinion. But I always trust what he says to be how he truly feels about a movie, whether I agree with him or not.

And I still think Scarface sucks.

RED
Ora et labora

I saw him on Charlie Rose last year and he was saying he cant allow himself to think about what people will think about him based on his reviews. Said he was a bit embarassed about crying during Antwone Fisher but as a critic he has an obligation to truthfully write how he feels about the movie.

it does suck...

it was joke.

>I hardly think that's a smoking gun.
>Exhibit C will not be entered into evidence.

i was not serious. i also implied that ebert might be a black man. this, at least until further dna tests, is just speculation.

lol (maybe i needed to put that before.)

white people like gangster films, but do all white people put "scarface" up "there?"

it was a horrible movie. it was a horrible movie which has been adopted as some sort of communal emblem for hiphop. roger ebert was on jock before. some connection must be drawn.

roger ebert was also a member of funkadelic and actually ghostproduced 90% of dr. dre's "the chronic."

he became a father in 1972. the child's name was dilla.

L O L

my final summation on ebert and "preferential treatment to black films?"

yes it appears sometimes that he seems to give better reviews to some films that don't deserve it. but maybe they, for whatever reason, tap into some unique side of him. at the same time he will not hesitate to give one a bad review. i think we only see the difference because those films are so widely panned/discouraged elsewhere.

maybe the more important question in all of this is what the eff is wrong imdb.com? they shat on every spike lee film (deserving or not) and the only black film they seem to "approve of" is "gone with the wind."

ROGER EBERT IS THE GOAT . . .nuff said.

really *really* needs to be retired.