Just Not Friends, Perhaps

November 23, 2005 7:50 AM

We love you best when you're snarky, Roger. Perhaps the best reviews from the venerable Roger Ebert are when he gives 1 or fewer stars to a movie (a good example being his review of Just Friends, which comes out this weekend). He has more to say about the industry, the process of film making, and the way people think when they pay to see these things. Now, we've discussed Ebert before, but it's worth a read of his reviews by searching for movies rated from Zero to One star.
posted by thanotopsis (82 comments total)

Roger Ebert Should Lay Off The Fatty Foods (and European Gigolos)
posted by spinoza at 7:56 AM on November 23, 2005

I just read somewhere that Oprah and him were dating at some point during the early 80's. It's so easy to imagine them hitting the all u can eat buffets and piggin' out together.
posted by GoodJob! at 8:03 AM on November 23, 2005

Is this an ad for Just Friends? I missed the review link, sorry.
posted by Rothko at 8:04 AM on November 23, 2005

When a girl says she likes you as a friend, what she means is: "Rather than have sex with you, I would prefer to lose you as a friend."

Never have truer words been spoken...
posted by SirOmega at 8:05 AM on November 23, 2005 [1 favorite]

I have spent many an enjoyable afternoon at work doing precisely this, and his pan of the remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre might be the most memorable:

"It wants to tramp crap through our imaginations and wipe its feet on our dreams."

Ebert tends to recommend a lot of bad flicks, which I forgive him because he obviously loves movies a little too much, but almost all of what he trashes is truly worthless cinematic garbage.
posted by The Card Cheat at 8:07 AM on November 23, 2005

First movie rated Zero Stars: Chaplin's Limelight. No snark whatsoever. Plus a lot of movies with "no star rating."

Better to search movies rated One Star to One Star if you're going to bother.
posted by dontoine at 8:08 AM on November 23, 2005

So what was so snarky about this review again? The part where he called Rob Schneider ugly; anything else? I guess the idea that this movie sucks is implied from the fact that he couldn't bring himself to write a proper review for it, but... only implied.

The Deuce Bigalow review, on the other hand, was masterful. That one also mostly centered around a Rob Schneider insult, but the lead-up to it was positively baroque.
posted by rkent at 8:09 AM on November 23, 2005

Metafilter: Not merely bad, but unpleasant in a hostile way.
posted by unreason at 8:10 AM on November 23, 2005

Funny. Not five minutes ago I says out loud to my wife, I says: "I never realized what a horrible writer Ebert is." after reading his review of The Ice Harvest. I kinda feel like the guy writes with all the vigor and style of a fourth grade book report.
posted by Item at 8:11 AM on November 23, 2005

The first link is the review for Just Friends, Rothko.

But dude, your "discussed" link is about the zero to one star reviews. Any reason to post it again? (I still love the one for The Village, though).
posted by livii at 8:12 AM on November 23, 2005

I missed the review link, sorry.

Yeah, that is kind of clumsily done. It's the main link.

Fun review all right (though I would have preferred a couple more ding!s). I don't have time to do the search and read all the rest, but I'll take your word for it. Ebert can talk trash like nobody else.
posted by soyjoy at 8:15 AM on November 23, 2005

Eric Snider deals out more than the occasional bon mot avec snarque in his movie reviews, and while I don't have the time to hunt down lots of examples, there's a memorable line near the bottom of this one.
posted by Wolfdog at 8:22 AM on November 23, 2005

That whole thing was worth it just to hear (in my head) Roger Ebert say awopbopaloobop awopbamboom
posted by spicynuts at 8:26 AM on November 23, 2005

Gotta say. Ebert hits the nail on the head. Call him fat, whatever. Doesn't matter. When it's shit, he calls it as such.
posted by filmgeek at 8:26 AM on November 23, 2005

Roger Ebert Should Lay Off The Fatty Foods (and European Gigolos)
posted by spinoza at 10:56 AM EST on November 23 [!]


I just read somewhere that Oprah and him were dating at some point during the early 80's. It's so easy to imagine them hitting the all u can eat buffets and piggin' out together.
posted by GoodJob! at 11:03 AM EST on November 23 [!]

And this would be noteworthy or important because?

I read Ebert for his enthusiasm. His sheer love of movies, all kinds of movies, inspires me. When I am bored with the current crop of films, I only have to go back and read one of his books and I find myself renting movies that I never had any interest in before.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:28 AM on November 23, 2005

As has been pointed out, Ebert loves movies. He also enjoys himself at the typewriter. All right, the faux quote from Oscar Wilde wasn't laugh-out-loud funny, but the idea of inserting an Oscar Wilde quote about cell phones is hilarious.
posted by kozad at 8:31 AM on November 23, 2005

Ebert gave zero stars to North and wrote my favorite bit of criticism ever printed with this:

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.
posted by aburd at 8:39 AM on November 23, 2005

And this would be noteworthy or important because?

I'm kinda shocked that the first two comments in this thread are fat jokes. MetaFilter's better than that, isn't it? Besides, give the guy some cred -- he's lost a lot of weight!
posted by Robot Johnny at 8:43 AM on November 23, 2005

HURF DURF BUTTER EBERT
posted by Hlewagast at 8:45 AM on November 23, 2005

Sorry, Roger Ebert Should Lay Off The Fatty Foods is a South Park episode. I was too obscure.
posted by spinoza at 8:46 AM on November 23, 2005

All you ever have to do to completely lose all your respect for Ebert is watch Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.
posted by Pollomacho at 8:48 AM on November 23, 2005

Ebert loves movies. I love movies. We have a lot in common.

Except, I won't see Just Friends. Not even if they paid me.
posted by graventy at 8:54 AM on November 23, 2005

The Jack Frost review is worthwhile.
posted by johngoren at 8:59 AM on November 23, 2005

Ebert is perhaps the best film critic in the history of film criticism. Making fat jokes is just embarrassing yourself.
posted by felix at 9:11 AM on November 23, 2005

Searching Rotten Tomatoes with Tomatometer = 0% is also rather entertaining. Half the movies you've never heard of, half you vaguely remember "Oh yeah - that one was said to be really bad!"
Or you can jump straight to the Uwe Boll list.
posted by Aknaton at 9:17 AM on November 23, 2005

Or you can jump straight to the Uwe Boll list.

I full-heatedly recommend seeing Uwe Boll's "Alone in the Dark" just for the sheer fun of trying to count how many times Christian Slater yells out "Come on!", "This way!", "Hurry!", or "Let's go!". It makes for a fun game. (Also, Christian Slater and Professor Tara Reid's lovescene to the tune of Youssou N'Dour's "Seven Seconds Away" is particularly enjoyable laughable.)
posted by Robot Johnny at 9:22 AM on November 23, 2005

Hmm, some "distinguished film critics" mark Beyond the Valley of the Dolls as the 87th best film of the century.
posted by rottytooth at 9:33 AM on November 23, 2005

Searching Ebert's list for truly zero-starred movies is unnecessarily complicated by the fact that all his unrated articles are treated as movie reviews with zero stars. For shame.
posted by phaedon at 9:34 AM on November 23, 2005

Ebert is great when he's ripping apart horrible movies. My favorite hilariously caustic review, however, is the Onion's AV Club review of Love Stinks, which starts:

The minds behind Love Stinks have done themselves a disservice—and handed critics a ridiculously easy one-liner—by releasing a horrible film with the word "stinks" in its title.

and ends:

Though sitting through Franklin's odious cinematic debut is probably less painful than, say, being anally raped by a giant sewer rat, Love Stinks is still a strong contender for 1999's worst film.

Brilliant.
posted by Eldritch at 9:35 AM on November 23, 2005

I'm not really familiar with Ebert but one thing strikes me, from the one-star or zero reviews linked here also previously, well, I get the impression he tends to pick very soft targets, doesn't he?

Where's the point in being 'snarky' about movies that are obviously intended to be silly disposable pap? Why should they even get a review?
posted by funambulist at 9:41 AM on November 23, 2005

From Ebert's review of Father's Day, starring Billy Crystal and Robin Williams:

This movie could have been written by a computer.

also:

You can always tell a lazy Robin Williams movie by the unavoidable scene in which he does a lot of different voices and characters. This time, nervous about meeting his son, he tries out various roles in front of a mirror. All right, already. We know he can do this; we've seen him do it in a dozen movies and on a hundred talk shows. He's getting to be like the goofy uncle who knows one corny parlor trick and insists on performing it at every family gathering.

Any reviewer who mocks Robin Williams is okay in my book.
posted by billysumday at 9:46 AM on November 23, 2005

Where's the point in being 'snarky' about movies that are obviously intended to be silly disposable pap? Why should they even get a review?

Because the silly disposable pap of the past was often things like the Marx brothers and Astaire/Rogers movies. It was entertaining silly disposable pap. The silly disposable pap of today isn't even entertaining: it's most likely just a tax loss for the studio.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:48 AM on November 23, 2005

And that deserves to be called out and savaged by a critic who cares about movies. Sorry, didn't quite finish my thought.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:50 AM on November 23, 2005

I remember watching "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" and thinking that I wanted to live in that movie. My respect for Ebert went way up after watching it, thank you.
posted by raysmj at 9:55 AM on November 23, 2005

Where's the point in being 'snarky' about movies that are obviously intended to be silly disposable pap? Why should they even get a review?

I think mainly because his main form of employment is with the daily newspaper, the Chicago Sun-Times. Since the typical reader of that newspaper is likely to be a teacher or a lawyer or plumber or whatever, he needs to review films that they are more likely to see.
That's my theory anyway.
posted by NoMich at 10:01 AM on November 23, 2005

In addition to PinkStainlessTail and NoMich's point(s), the reason that horrible films should be reviewed is that holding these films up to the same standard as quality films is absolutely hilarious. In fact it gives the wasted space and talent in these films some worth to have been part of creating such an entertaining article. If a reviewer gives a great film 5 stars really that is all I need to know. I don't want to read a review that could take away some of the surprises this great film has to offer. But reading a review of an awful movie is a really great fun and it prevents me from paying to see pure crap.
posted by aburd at 10:06 AM on November 23, 2005

Don't miss the flatulent deflation of Battlefield Earth when subjected to Ebert's painfully accurate skewering, featuring this masterful put-down:

The director, Roger Christian, has learned from better films that directors sometimes tilt their cameras, but he has not learned why.
posted by drdanger at 10:09 AM on November 23, 2005

I'm not really familiar with Ebert but one thing strikes me, from the one-star or zero reviews linked here also previously, well, I get the impression he tends to pick very soft targets, doesn't he?

Not necessarily -- he also hated the much-loved The Usual Suspects
posted by Robot Johnny at 10:11 AM on November 23, 2005

For those who enjoy Ebert savagely dissing movies, there's a book available collecting many of the illest-starred reviews.
posted by jtron at 10:14 AM on November 23, 2005

Looks like most of the 0-star reviews on Rotten Tomatoes come from 2002, back during the screenwriters' strike.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 10:23 AM on November 23, 2005

Because the silly disposable pap of the past was often things like the Marx brothers and Astaire/Rogers movies. It was entertaining silly disposable pap. The silly disposable pap of today isn't even entertaining: it's most likely just a tax loss for the studio.

Well, it was that, too, but it was also hundreds of crappy films churned out to make a fast buck, most of which have been long forgotten by almost everyone, including people who bemoan the sad state of present-day Hollywood filmmaking.

/ agrees with the larger point being made about why crappy films need to be reviewed/called out
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:25 AM on November 23, 2005

I did kind of have the rose colored glasses on there, didn't I?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 10:26 AM on November 23, 2005

We just had a red carpet opening of Just Friends here. It was supposed to be a Big Deal. Yech. It is obviously going to be total schlock. But since, like the person Ebert quotes in his review, I know people who were in the damn thing, and I watched parts of it being filmed etc etc, I'll eventually see it too (but I'll wait for the one week it spends at the cheap theatre).

I won't see Just Friends. Not even if they paid me. - graventy

I expect most of this film's revenue will come from my hometown - where it was filmed. Everyone who was an extra in this thinks they're big movie stars now ("I got PAID to be there!" they swoon) and they'll traipse out to see it with their friends and relatives, probably multiple times.

This is set in New Jersey, but it's cheaper to film it elsewhere, so that's how they ended up smack in the middle of the Canadian Prairies, right next to - if you'll excuse my language - buttfuck nowhere.
posted by raedyn at 10:33 AM on November 23, 2005

Because the silly disposable pap of the past was often things like the Marx brothers and Astaire/Rogers movies.

Not only that, there's silly disposable pap now that's quite good (Dumb and Dumber, Friday) and more that's not worth your 1.5 hours (Dumb and Dumber 2, Friday 2).

That's why these guys get paid. They watch everything for us, and eviscerate.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:36 AM on November 23, 2005

I didn't know some of the comments here are fat jokes. Besides, anyone who puts themself in the public eye is fair game.
posted by GoodJob! at 10:38 AM on November 23, 2005

Absolutely don't miss his review of Freddy Got Fingered. The barrel line in it was repeatable around all my friends for a long time. I've always respected Ebert, even when I was screaming at the TV screen for him choosing "Cop and a Half" for his favorite unsung of that year. The guy loves movies and actually knows what he's talking about. He's not always the most eloquent writer but he's been pumping it out for umpteen years, give him a break.

I own a lot of books about movies and one of my favorites is Roger Ebert's Book of Film. A little of his writing, but mostly his favorite writing by other people about movies. It's a great selection done with a lotta love.
posted by lumpenprole at 10:56 AM on November 23, 2005

Searching Rotten Tomatoes with Tomatometer = 0% is also rather entertaining. Half the movies you've never heard of, half you vaguely remember "Oh yeah - that one was said to be really bad!"

*clicks* They made a sequel to Heavy Metal? Huh.
posted by kosher_jenny at 11:16 AM on November 23, 2005

NoMich is very right, more than perhaps he realizes. It's not just because almost all film critics in the US are working for a media outlet who has an audience they have to satisfy with a simple star ranking of the movies they are likely to go see; but it's also that what these critics are made to do is only mildly related to film criticism. The two things are at odds. This is the lament of almost all serious film critics in the US who aren't associated with an academic institution. Ebert's written about this, so have many others.

For a bit more, and better written, from me about this very particular thing, here's a comment from one of the older Ebert threads. I just re-read that comment because of this thread linking to old Ebert threads, and I'm sort of proud of it.

People pick on Ebert for the popular films but they don't seem to realize that his editors (or certainly the publisher) would prefer that he not review any of the more serious and small-run films he includes almost every week. He's the highest profile major critic actually getting average Americans to watch independent and non-Hollywood films.

I think he has a tough paradoxical job that he manages to do with a certain amount of panache and a good amount of critical insight while still doing the "what movie is playing that is any good, Martha?" thing.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:24 AM on November 23, 2005

When I trust a film critic, I will usually ignore the one-star rated films. Here are some movies I would have missed if I trusted Ebert's opinions:

13 Ghosts
Ace Ventura: Pet Detective
Agnes of God
Armageddon
The Big Hit
Blue Velvet
Dirty Dancing
Dirty Dingus Magee
Fast Times at Ridgemont High
The Field
Joe's Apartment
Mommie Dearest
No Such Thing
Three O'Clock High
Tora Tora Tora

No doubt, some people will think that a single star is generous for some of those movies, but do you truthfully agree that most of them are a waste of time? (BTW, every one of those rated at least 5 stars on IMDB, so the Great Unwashed agrees with me.)
posted by forrest at 11:35 AM on November 23, 2005

"I've met the man in the street and he's a cunt." - Sid Vicious

His fairly frequent lapses in judgement aside, I'd still trust Ebert before I'd make my moviegoing choices based on what the "great unwashed" chooses to spend its money on.
posted by The Card Cheat at 11:44 AM on November 23, 2005

Where is that photoshop cartoon wherein Ebert is framing his face with his hands?
posted by xod at 11:45 AM on November 23, 2005

Fast Times at Ridgemont High

Worth seeing only for scenes involving Sean Penn and a few with Judge Reinhold (along with Phoebe Cates in one). Otherwise, it's a dark, depressing little movie.
posted by raysmj at 11:47 AM on November 23, 2005

I'd still trust Ebert before I'd make my moviegoing choices based on what the "great unwashed" chooses to spend its money on. - The Card Cheat

The list of most gross $ receipts is fairly useless, since it isn't adjusted for inflation in either way that they could (either they should adjust for general inflation, or for the increase in movie ticket prices) so there's no way to judge how many people actually saw one movie or another when they're released in different years - particularly different decades. Heralding the amount of money that film grosses has always struck me as a particularly useless metric.
posted by raedyn at 11:55 AM on November 23, 2005

All right, I can only speak for movies I've seen on that list. So here it goes.
13 Ghosts -- crap.
Ace Ventura: Pet Detective -- well..uh...better than the sequel I guess. still crap.
Armageddon -- well, it's been 15 minutes, if we don't throw another explosion at them they may get bored.
Blue Velvet -- I'm sorry, because I like some of Lynch's work... weak.
Dirty Dancing -- hehe
Fast Times at Ridgemont High -- it's not a good movie. it's fun, maybe, but it ain't good
Joe's Apartment -- seriously? you included this? i've heard it's crap. not just from ebert.

The thing about critics is that you don't have to listen to them. I take what Ebert says under advisement. He's not always right, but I value his opinion. No one should limit themselves to what one critic likes. Experience movies for yourself, people.
posted by graventy at 12:07 PM on November 23, 2005

Heralding the amount of money that film grosses has always struck me as a particularly useless metric.

Granted, but every movie on that list was undeniably popular, in that millions of people saw it (whether they actually made money is another issue altogether).
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:09 PM on November 23, 2005

He didn't like Blue Velvet and he liked Garfield (which, along with a rusty spoon, is the reason I am blind today). The man clearly shouldn't be let near a typewriter and/or keyboard. Also, I hear he's overweight.
posted by Sparx at 12:11 PM on November 23, 2005

Sorry, but Ebert's review of "Just Friends" can't hold a candle to the LA Times' review of another movie this week, Rent.

A commodified faux bohemia, the film elicits the same kind of numbing soul-sadness as children's beauty pageants, tiny dogs in expensive boots and Gandhi in Apple ads.
posted by LimePi at 12:15 PM on November 23, 2005

"Armageddon' reportedly used the services of nine writers. Why did it need any? The dialogue is either shouted one-liners or romantic drivel. "It's gonna blow!' is used so many times, I wonder if every single writer used it once, and then sat back from his word processor with a contented smile on his face, another day's work done.

Heh. Single-handedly caused me to all lose respect for The Criterion Collection. Ebert rules.
posted by stinkycheese at 12:24 PM on November 23, 2005

Thanks LimePi, that is a great example of the snarky, but actually cutting review.
posted by elwoodwiles at 12:27 PM on November 23, 2005

NoMich has a point there... so I guess it's a case of I have to review this, might as well have fun with it?
posted by funambulist at 12:30 PM on November 23, 2005

The thing about critics is that you don't have to listen to them

Exactly. I just don't bother with reviews before I've seen the movie, because I don't want to know too much beforehand and I don't want to be influenced, it bothers me when I hear too much about a film, then I go in with a lot of preconceptions and I'm not really enjoying it. If I don't already know I'll be interested in this or that movie based on things like who is in it or where it's from or who's directing or very basic information, or if I don't get passing recommendations, then I just read the shortest, one paragraph blurbs in local listings and such, scanning to see what's on.

I only read actual reviews afterwards if I liked the film and I enjoy the more critical style of reviews, as I want something more than advice or instructions on how to watch and what to expect.

And I've more often regretted having spent time watching some films that were hyped as masterpieces. That's where I enjoy finding reviews that knock them down, I really relish that. For me, only the films that advertise themselves as quality cinema with some kind of higher message and only end up being pretentious or moralistic or overblown (I could make such an obvious example, something even Ebert gave four and a half stars to, but I won't) are worthy of being bashed and I find it more entertaining to see that kind of hype demolished than to shoot on the red cross so to speak.

If something is so obviously advertising itself as silly mindless pap then there's nothing to add to it, you already know! you either watch it when you're in the mood for silly pap, or you don't. There's no way anyone could mistake Deuce Bigalow or Ace Ventura for something worthy of the Cahiers de cinéma, so, I just don't see the point of wasting words on it.

(and I love Ace Ventura, it is crap, it's not worth the effort of a review, but it is fun and it's Jim Carrey, so for me it's time much, much better spent than some overhyped four star moralistic melodrama I won't name).
posted by funambulist at 12:46 PM on November 23, 2005

I agree with much of what he has to say about Blue Velvet, but ultimately disagree with his dismissal. But I like (and presume to get) David Lynch, and he might not.
posted by cortex at 2:19 PM on November 23, 2005

"I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it."

Why do I get the feeling he's holding back on us...
posted by muppetboy at 2:44 PM on November 23, 2005

it's not a good movie. it's fun, maybe, but it ain't good

What does this mean? "This object, meant to entertain, is entertaining, but it's not good." How do you define "good"? By your own admission, the movie fulfilled its raison d'etre.

I can only speak for movies I've seen...i've heard it's crap...Experience movies for yourself, people.

You can only speak for movies you've seen, yet you've heard it's crap. You must have gotten distracted between the start of your post and the end (I know -- you watched Joe's Apartment). Anyway, it's got talking cockroaches, for pete's sake -- name another movie that gives you that plus the fat kid from Stand By Me.

it's been 15 minutes, if we don't throw another explosion at them they may get bored

Yet Ebert awards 2.5 stars to Independence Day. Since both movies are pretty much explosions followed by the setup for the next explosion, how is ID 2.5 times as good as Armageddon? (And if anyone wants to talk about dialog, ID was copied from the Big Book of Cliches. Every good pilot in the world lined up to kick Will Smith in the nuts for the line about "I've seen it fly, so I can fly it myself".)

I think Ebert's best days ended when Gene Siskel died. Before then, Ebert seemed to restrain himself because he didn't want to play the fool in front of someone he liked and respected. Now that Ebert's pretty much the top dog, he's too self-indulgent.
posted by forrest at 3:17 PM on November 23, 2005

Wow, on further review, Ebert seems to have nothing nice to say about Lynch's films except when discussing unrelated movies. Pans of his films but praise for his skills and sensibilities and such. Comparisons to Hitchcock coupled with assertions of the self-hatred of Lynch's work. It's like Kael-Kubrick all over again.

Though Roger did like Mulholland Drive, so that's something.
posted by cortex at 3:19 PM on November 23, 2005

forrest: I hated, hated, hated ID, but not nearly as much as Armageddon. Not to say Ebert's differing scores aren't partly just situational noise, but Armageddon managed somehow to be a shallow, cynicial facsimile of the already shallow and cynical produciton of ID.
posted by cortex at 3:21 PM on November 23, 2005

funambulist: And I've more often regretted having spent time watching some films that were hyped as masterpieces [...] For me, only the films that advertise themselves as quality cinema with some kind of higher message and only end up being pretentious or moralistic or overblown (I could make such an obvious example, something even Ebert gave four and a half stars to, but I won't) are worthy of being bashed [...]
it is fun and it's Jim Carrey, so for me it's time much, much better spent than some overhyped four star moralistic melodrama I won't name.

Oh fer chrissake's, just name the movie! I'm curious which one you're thinking of...

cortex: Wow, on further review, Ebert seems to have nothing nice to say about Lynch's films

Probably because they're ham-fisted, unintelligible, self-indulgent crap. David Lynch is to cinema what countless 12-year-old teenage girl bloggers are to the literary arts.

Also: I liked "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls", but it was too.. shall we say "restrained" for a Russ Meyer movie. It needed more boobs, and bigger ones.
posted by hincandenza at 4:47 PM on November 23, 2005

Why should they even get a review?

Many times, Ebert will not review an obviously bad movie in favor of reviewing a smaller film, or a foreign film. He has admitted this in his Answer Man column. Many times critics (probably not Ebert) are required to review bad movies because they are mainstream and the editors people buy the paper looking for that review of Jeepers Creepers 2.

The best part about Ebert is that he writes to the level of the movie, like a lazy sports team playing to the competition, but more fun. If a movie is compelling and intelligent, Ebert's review will reflect that, but if it's the opposite then it looks something like what he wrote in his review of Caveman.

I don't always agree with Ebert (Dark City, The Cell) and sometimes I think he is unfair to movies, like the Usual Suspects. However, after reading him for most of my life, I know how he comes up with his opinions and I many times can tell based on what he writes if I'm going to like it or not despite if he gives the movie a favorable review or not.

On a side-note, has anyone else noticed that he seems to give a positive review to seemingly everything now? I think there was an entire month recently where more than half the movies were given 3 1/2 stars or better.
posted by my sock puppet account at 4:50 PM on November 23, 2005

I hate to say this, because I don't mean it snarkily, but Roger Ebert has forgotten more about movies than most of us will ever know.

An individual's taste is the most important thing in determining potential enjoyment from a film. However, Ebert (and most (some?) of his brethren) review movies for their careers. You know how you're real good at squeezing your supply chain and 6-Sigma and all that crap? That's how good Ebert is at watching movies.

I trust *some* film reviewers to tell me whether there was a coherent plot, good character development, or some other redeeming characteristic in a film that would make it worth seeing. Ebert can spot those things whereas my buddy Daryl, who is a whiz at fixing computers, usually can't.

Armeggedon sucked ass.
posted by ryanhealy at 6:14 PM on November 23, 2005

David Lynch is to cinema what countless 12-year-old teenage girl bloggers are to the literary arts.

*foams, felonizes*
posted by cortex at 7:24 PM on November 23, 2005

I'm not defending all of Ebert's reviews. I'm just saying that the movies he gave one star to deserved that one star, and little more.
Armageddon is simply the worst movie I've ever seen that made 300 million bucks. It's horrible. Every single scene is laughable at best. I derive no enjoyment from a movie with absolutely no crediblity. Shotgun on an oil rig? Oil rig workers in space?

It was like The Core (yeah, he gave that 2.5 too).

In my book, his main flaw is that he enjoys visuals waay too much, and gives extra points to movies that wow him with effects. *cough* ID *cough*
posted by graventy at 7:29 PM on November 23, 2005

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.


I remember seeing some roast or Rob Reiner when they read this review to him, and he responded, as in Spinal Tap, with,

"That's nitpicking."

Made me laugh out loud.
posted by Man-Thing at 7:46 PM on November 23, 2005

I love reading reviews that trash things, but I think Joe Queenan does it better.
posted by BrotherCaine at 4:36 AM on November 24, 2005

hincandenza: eh, sorry, I didn't mean to be that annoying about not saying which film I was thinking of. Ok so don't anyone take this as "your favourite movie sucks", I'm no critic or expert fan of movies, just my tastes... it's Requiem for a dream, I really couldn't stand it, to me it's a perfect example of overblown moralistic melodrama that got 4-star reviews.

Ebert even goes and recommends it to kids for its anti-drug message, agh... I just hate how the film goes about treating that. Too much heavy handed affectation for me. It's not the fact of being depressing or disturbing that bothers me, I just don't like how Requiem does it. For me it's like it only pretends to do gritty stuff, like, oh here's what a brave film we're making, but it just ends up feeling fake, glossy and contrived. Same for this. Nothing personal against Jennifer Connelly...
posted by funambulist at 6:20 AM on November 24, 2005

but it just ends up feeling fake, glossy and contrived. Same for this. Nothing personal against Jennifer Connelly...

I'm shocked, I thought that was going to be a link to Ebert's 4-star Beautiful Mind review. What dreck. Fake, glossy, and contrived indeed. Nothing personal against Jennifer Connelly either...
posted by my sock puppet account at 7:39 AM on November 24, 2005

Ok now for balance we have find a decent movie with Jennifer Connelly in it...
posted by funambulist at 1:25 PM on November 24, 2005

Ok now for balance we have find a decent movie with Jennifer Connelly in it...

Labyrinth, baby!
posted by Robot Johnny at 3:01 PM on November 24, 2005

I love Ebert and Lynch. Too little conventional narrative in Lynch for Ebert, I guess. (to oversimplfy after overeating)

And as for Beyond the Valley of the Dolls...well, if I were his age at that time, I would have had just as much fun. Roger was not trying to be Orson or Luis or Fredrico, fer crying out loud.
posted by kozad at 6:24 PM on November 24, 2005

raedyn, we apparently live in the same town. I was in the theatre with all those local cast members at the gala premiere the other night, and maybe it was because of that that I have such a positive take on the film.

But I trust Ebert more than I trust my own sensibilities -- I just wish he had spent more time critiquing Just Friends than reviewing The Hot Chick all over again.
posted by evilcolonel at 8:49 PM on November 24, 2005

Robot Johnny, I beg to disagree, the first thing that came to mind was a Dario Argento movie, but I'd forgot about Sergio Leone... nah I'm not biased in favour of Italians ;)
posted by funambulist at 3:04 AM on November 25, 2005

raedyn, we apparently live in the same town. - evilcolonel

*checks blog* Yep, definitely the same town. Your photoblog covers places I pass everyday. Cool. Now I know of 3 of us Queen City folk on MeFi. That's almost enough for a meetup....
posted by raedyn at 6:41 AM on November 25, 2005

Joe's Apartment

Vaguely worth it for the 5 seconds of screen time given to the band Boss Hog.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 7:03 AM on November 25, 2005