Roger Ebert is a hack

[bisonbison]

Roger Ebert is a boob fiend.

[Anacardo]

Happy birthday, Search Engine Sage.

[captZEEbo]

I think Ebert is a really good reviewer. I think he's not nearly harsh enough on most of his reviews (he gives out 3 stars etc liberally). But one thing to know about his star rating system is this: he bases his rankings on if he thinks the movie achieved what it was set out to do. So a 2 star Scorsese movie could be miles more enjoyable in his mind then a 3 star garfield movie; HOWEVER, that doesn't mean the 3 star garfield movie is better. He'd rank it meaning he thinks the 3 star garfield movie did a good job at achieving what it intended to do, but the scorsese movie did not.

This basically means that, although he can rank a romantic comedy high, that doesn't mean he thinks it's a great movie. That means, if you are looking for a fun romantic comedy, THIS 3.5 star romantic comedy is a great option. NOT, if you are looking for groundbreaking cinema, this romantic comedy is your option.

If you are just looking for good movies though, just look at his 4 star ratings, or top 10 of the year lists which also have top 10 of decade lists. I also like his Great Movies list, which is a great place to find classic films of many genres.

Summary of my Roger Ebert opinion: if you are looking for good movies, look at his 4 star and best movie lists, if you are trying to determine how good a movie is, assume it's not that great unless it has 4 stars.

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]

Link please, .....



[/ QUOTE ]

34 year old review

[KOTLP]

captZEEbo, well said.

Also, I have no idea if this is the case, but he could have changed his mind in the past 34 years. When he intially reviewed La Dolce Vita, in 1961, he gave it 3 stars. Now he considers it one of the greatest films he's ever seen.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
TME: Your thesis is based on a review that he wrote 34 years ago?

[/ QUOTE ]

After reading the review I see his point but I don't agree with all of it. In fact over time I think he probably changed his POV about Kubrick's long and boring conversations which became his trademark. His main complaint is that Kubrick altered the focus of the story, which I recall being a common discussion at the time, and a valid argument. Personally I feel that the visual adjustments which lead us to pity young Alex add to the story, not detract because it makes the movie grower search from within and battle the inner demons that allow us to feel bad for Alex - a sadistic violent rapist.

RE Quote: I say that in full awareness that "A Clockwork Orange" is based, somewhat faithfully, on a novel by Anthony Burgess. Yet I don't pin the rap on Burgess. Kubrick has used visuals to alter the book's point of view and to nudge us toward a kind of grudging pal-ship with Alex.

Even when I don't agree with Ebert I agree with him, you got to admit he is a thought provoking reviewer.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[theBruiser500]

"I think Ebert is a really good reviewer. I think he's not nearly harsh enough on most of his reviews (he gives out 3 stars etc liberally)."

exactly what i think

[TimTimSalabim]

It's hard for me to picture the guy who wrote Beyond the Valley of the Dolls as a prude with no sense of humor.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
It's hard for me to picture the guy who wrote Beyond the Valley of the Dolls as a prude with no sense of humor.

[/ QUOTE ]

I forgot about that... yet another reason to like Ebert.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[Buckmulligan]

I absolutely love Roger Ebert and want him to get healhy soon so I can again read his [censored].