Time to stir up some trivial, indulgent propositions for my amusement!
Today's proposition: roger ebert should be delisted from the scoring systems of review aggregate sites such as RottenTomatoes/Metacritic, and disregarded, individually, as a movie reviewer.
Roger Ebert said this of Toy Story 3: "This is a jolly, slapstick comedy, lacking the almost eerie humanity that infused the earlier “Toy Story” sagas, and happier with action and jokes than with characters and emotions. But hey, what can you expect from a movie named "Toy Story 3," especially with the humans mostly offstage?" — with this, I regard him as an ex-critic who should retire from the field.
This, of course, coming on the heels of Ebert's ridiculous controversy-stirring assessment of video games, but I consider that a different issue entirely, because Ebert's expertise has nothing to do with video games. His comments simply represent him reflexively condemning a new media of perplexing unfamiliarity (to him) to a comforting realm of not being worth his time/beneath him and his chosen works/etc. It's irrelevant because he knows feck-all about video games.
The Toy Story 3 comment is different, because its Roger Ebert being dead wrong about a movie! I have not shown that comment to a single person who has watched Toy Story 3 who has not commented something to the effect of "I don't think Ebert watched the same movie I did."
Now! Keep in mind that this is all coming from a person who had the utmost respect for Ebert's work and watched him every year at the maximum number of workshops possible at the World Affairs Conference. He is an interesting and amiable person, but he's done.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I think you may be overreacting. The review is still positive, there was just something in the movie that rang false to him. I sort of agree, actually. It's a very affecting movie, but the expanded cast of characters did take away a bit from the relationship we have with the existing ones. Why is it so important to you that he validate your take on the film?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Because he's WRONG!
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
(in all seriousness, despite the whole "everyone is entitled to their opinion" thing, I pretty much agree with Sam here. To say it was all about silly slaptick jokes is to ignore pretty much the entire second half of the movie. Even if you think that the movie didn't succeed at the depth and intensity it was striving for, any serious critic should at least be aware of what it was trying to do)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Why is it so important to you that he validate your take on the film?
quote:Time to stir up some trivial, indulgent propositions for my amusement!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
also it is not important that he validate my take on the film, he just shouldn't be listed as an important critic on aggregate review sites anymore if he can be so profoundly off the mark on things such as, say, the stellar concluding act of Pixar's most notable franchise.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Samprimary, if Roger Ebert weren't ill, would you have written, "done" or just voiced your disagreement?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
what?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
you.... do know Ebert is ill, right?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If this were a critic who was younger and healthy would you have been as likely to say he was "done" or would you have voiced your disagreement some other way - saying he is an idiot, or has no taste - something like that?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: also it is not important that he validate my take on the film, he just shouldn't be listed as an important critic on aggregate review sites anymore if he can be so profoundly off the mark on things such as, say, the stellar concluding act of Pixar's most notable franchise.
Ehem... The man has a four decade track record of notable reviews, and you think he should be delisted because he didn't like one film you have a stiffy for? Forgive me my polite laugh :maha:.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
if there was a critic who was younger and healthy and was in the same situation as Ebert in terms of the arc of their career as a critic, then yes, I would say that they are done. His medical situation is not the defining condition for this judgment on my part. If anything, it led to a worthwhile twilight writing period and some very notable essays by him.
I would say the same thing: de-list from the aggregate review sites. And if I owned a newspaper that ran him/her, I'd start talking today about moving towards unsubscribing from his movie review column.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What do you mean by "arc of their career?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ]Ehem... The man has a four decade track record of notable reviews, and you think he should be delisted because he didn't like one film you have a stiffy for?
:maha: :maha: nope, the toy story 3 review only acts as a seminal case and notable culmination of how increasingly erratic and out of touch he has become as a reviewer. :maha: :maha: *fits monocle back onto face*
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I know you're indulging yourself, so I get the impression that you're joking...or being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but...
Really? You're at the point where you are considering cutting Roger Ebert from your sources on movies? All because of one movie? Even if you're being frivolous, it seems extreme.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What do you mean by "arc of their career?
Ebert has had a notable arc and is obviously well past his pinnacle. He has a legacy! This is different than someone who, in my opinion, wasn't ever really a great/good reviewer. I wouldn't say that someone without that arc was 'done.'
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: I know you're indulging yourself, so I get the impression that you're joking...or being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but...
Not necessarily joking, but definitely indulgent!
quote:Really? You're at the point where you are considering cutting Roger Ebert from your sources on movies? All because of one movie? Even if you're being frivolous, it seems extreme.
to reiterate, this is not all pinned on the review for Toy Story 3. I'm just throwing it out there as the moment where my long-growing suspicions about his movie reviews finally reached a threshold where I'm all like 'okay, wait, he shouldn't be considered a top reviewer anymore'
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Ah, and that's where I disagree.
I still go to his reviews as my primary source. I still think he's spot on. There are very few moments when I disagree with him.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
olol. I have just had it brought to my attention that sakeriver's top post is about roger ebert and is entitled UNFOLLOW!
hee. I haven't even touched on ebert as a twitterer.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I liked Penny Arcade's take on the video game thing:
quote:Also, do we win something if we defeat him? Does he drop a good helm? Because I can't for the life of me figure out why we give a $@#& what that creature says.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Did you read it?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Did you read it?
Yes.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Heh. Mike references the exact same Xkcd.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
It's a pretty commonly referenced strip, and this is precisely the circumstance in which it is correct to reference it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Next trivial, indulgent proposition for the purpose of my own amuesment: XKCD's author should be forbidden, on threat of pain of death, from featuring women in it.
actually no wait back to ebert.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
How did it take you until Toy Story 3 to figure out that Roger Ebert has gone loopy? Did you just miss his Kick Ass review? Forgotten his take on the Star Wars prequel trilogy?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I know that ebert has a massive blind spot for technological spectacle so has sucked at reviewing sci-fi for a long time (the part in his review of The Phantom Menace where he was wishing that the characters in A New Hope spoke with the 'eloquence' of the characters in the prequel was pretty lol, as were his reviews of Matrix Reloaded and Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within) but yes I did miss the Kick Ass review (wtf ebert).
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
IIRC, at least in his Kick-Ass review Ebert acknowledged that he might just be getting out of touch (or something to that effect).
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Ebert is fine. Armond White should be removed from every listing on earth.
--j_k
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I haven't seen Kick Ass, but I know that Ebert was not alone in that review. Given that enough people were so distracted by that point that it dampened their ability to objectively review the movie, I have to assume it's a valid one.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: IIRC, at least in his Kick-Ass review Ebert acknowledged that he might just be getting out of touch (or something to that effect).
he kind of put his review as a dilemma between having feelings and appearing out of touch, or throwing away his scruples in order to appear cool. Not really the same, and he furthermore insinuated that the film only seeks to work through the 'comic book context' and that outside of that, it sucks.
Maybe there was a decent portion of direct acknowledgement. In which case, he's right!
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I did like his review of the human centipede.
Edit: (in Admiral Ackbar voice) It's a TRAP!!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk: Ebert is fine. Armond White should be removed from every listing on earth.
--j_k
Ebert at least deserves a meta-discussion about whether or not he's gone soft in the critic-head. Armond White doesn't need that because he's always been a contrarian joke of a movie reviewer.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I did like his review of the human centipede.
Or Freddy Got Fingered. Ebert still has no problem waxing eloquent about how a worthless piece of trash smeared on film is a worthless piece of trash smeared on film.
And, as far as worthless failures and mockeries of the human endeavor go, Human Centipede is up there! In addition to being a stab at the worst schlock that the director could imagine making the central theme of a horror movie, it isn't even good at managing it. Even outside of the disgusting premise, it's boring and stupid and tedious. A boring stupid tedious film that is also disgusting and is mostly about horrific close-ups of someone's mounting horror at having to process the product of what their face has been sutured to. what a winner of a film!
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Ehh, he was dead-on about Toy Story 3.
Pixar has a problem. Both Toy Story 3 and Up put together a single emotional set piece and "hung" the rest of the movie on it, failing to spend any more time on emotion or development.
Sure, Up was good. But all sentimentality occured in the first ten minutes of the movie. The rest of the show coasted along on the emotion of the opening scenes, leaving nothing more than rudimentary characterization. The boy? We hardly cared. The villain? Who was that again?
Toy Story 3 suffers the same problem. We only get one scene with real human development (Andy and the little girl), and the rest of the movie coasts on our familiarity with the characters. Sure, like Up the story appeals universally, but that isn't an excuse to drop character.
There are a few television directors who've really pushed the envelop recently, all advocating character over plot (Bryan Fuller, JJ Abrams, Joss Whedon), and OSC has been an advocate for years. Like the Shrek movies, the new Toy Story is a relatively hollow adventure / comedy and brings nothing new to the table.
And to stop bashing Pixar, Wall-E was outstanding.
Ebert is dead-on in his reviews. Sometimes he'll ddeviate from the herd when no one agrees (look at his G-Force review), but he generally approaches film from one of the most consistantly rational perspectives in the industry.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Sure, Up was good. But all sentimentality occured in the first ten minutes of the movie. The rest of the show coasted along on the emotion of the opening scenes, leaving nothing more than rudimentary characterization. The boy? We hardly cared. The villain? Who was that again?
"Up" featured only 'rudimentary characterization?'
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Toy Story 3 suffers the same problem. We only get one scene with real human development (Andy and the little girl), and the rest of the movie coasts on our familiarity with the characters. Sure, like Up the story appeals universally, but that isn't an excuse to drop character.
Really? You weren't remotely affected by, nor at least recognized that you supposed to be, by the grim staring death in the face in the final climax scene?
While I somewhat agree with your take on Up, I think Toy Story 3 and Up are both bold takes on the subject of death, and attempts to package that subject matter in a way that children can deal with. Up is about letting go of people you've lost. Toy Story 3 is about contemplating your own mortality. At the beginning you have Woody trying to convince everyone that there will be a tranquil afterlife in the Attic. The middle act has some characters wanting to believe in this impossibly perfect Toy Heaven and discovering its flaws, but constantly trying to flee from their impending obsolescence. Until the climax, where they finally run out of room to run and have no choice but to stare death in the face and accept it. After which they ARE granted a form of reincarnation, but which I feel they earned specifically BECAUSE of the acceptance that preceded it.
This is all in addition to the more straightforward (but no less poignant) story about the role that toys play in our lives, the ways in which people grow up and moving on, and fears of abandonment. I do agree that the first half of the movie coasts a bit "on our familiarity with the characters" as you say, but the movie has so much going on thematically and character development, even during the first half, that yes, I think failing to acknowledge it means you are not top-grade-film-critic-material.
Posted by LargeTuna (Member # 10512) on :
Toy Story 3 totally stole one scene from Cool Hand Luke.
I felt cool cause I got the reference, but I didn't think it went well with the rest of the movie.
I totally liked Toy Story 3 a whole lot, but it wasn't unbelievabley awesome.
Posted by Ryoko (Member # 4947) on :
I used to think that film critics were parasites.
Now, I think they are completely irrelevant.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ryoko: Now, I think they are completely irrelevant.
Now, if they were completely irrelevant, you would never see advanced critic screenings, employ critic responses in advertising, nor would people actually read the reviews, either as a postscript or (heaven forbid!) decide to go to a movie based on its critical reception. If they were in an age of increasing irrelevance, you wouldn't see the explosion in utility and purveyance of sites for aggregate review.
Posted by Ryoko (Member # 4947) on :
I think I phrased that poorly:
Amendment:
They are completely irrelevant to me.
I do like that the aggregate reviews you reference have diluted the influence of the mainstream critics though.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Not really. Sites that employ ace reviewers (AV Club comes to mind) have gotten excellent press and an expansion of influence vying for aggregate review slots (or in the case of RT, a 'top pick' slot)
Which means more revenue for film review slots in ms and indie alike, which meansssss....
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Sure, Up was good. But all sentimentality occured in the first ten minutes of the movie. The rest of the show coasted along on the emotion of the opening scenes, leaving nothing more than rudimentary characterization. The boy? We hardly cared. The villain? Who was that again?
"Up" featured only 'rudimentary characterization?'
Yes. Carl and Ellie had character development at the very first of the film. That development mostly ended with Ellie's death. Carl had been developed, to an extent, but he was left rather one note -- he was broken and needed to travel, heal, and learn how to reconnect with humanity.
BUT, that was only the first few minutes. All the of the rest of the characterization was based on rudimentary stereotypes and generalities, playing on the fact that viewers already "care" about Carl, therefore they'll care about his continuing adventure. The boy, the bird, the villain -- all of the rest is as plain as punch. Why should I care about the rest of the journey???
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: [QUOTE]Really? You weren't remotely affected by, nor at least recognized that you supposed to be, by the grim staring death in the face in the final climax scene?
While I somewhat agree with your take on Up, I think Toy Story 3 and Up are both bold takes on the subject of death, and attempts to package that subject matter in a way that children can deal with . . . Toy Story 3 is about contemplating your own mortality. At the beginning you have Woody trying to convince everyone that there will be a tranquil afterlife in the Attic. The middle act has some characters wanting to believe in this impossibly perfect Toy Heaven and discovering its flaws, but constantly trying to flee from their impending obsolescence. Until the climax, where they finally run out of room to run and have no choice but to stare death in the face and accept it. After which they ARE granted a form of reincarnation, but which I feel they earned specifically BECAUSE of the acceptance that preceded it.
This is all in addition to the more straightforward (but no less poignant) story about the role that toys play in our lives, the ways in which people grow up and moving on, and fears of abandonment. I do agree that the first half of the movie coasts a bit "on our familiarity with the characters" as you say, but the movie has so much going on thematically and character development, even during the first half, that yes, I think failing to acknowledge it means you are not top-grade-film-critic-material.
To argue "going to the attic" as an child-friendly death metaphor is rediculous. Really, so they have the choice of which afterlife they choose? Woody has been selected to live, however, is this the freaking Lottery, where some of the community voluntarily give up their lives for the good of the group? This sounds like a better suicide analogy if you think about it -- "My life's purpose is over, I either escape bondage or go to the attic. . ."
And the argument about the peril in the climax is just as rediculous. It was a by-the-numbers action climax, nobody human was in danger. Did you think that an alien would be incinerated??? The only interesting part of that whole portion of the movie was the fact that Lotso DIDN'T stop the machine.
The ending was great. Like Ebert's review said, we didn't connect to the PEOPLE in the story (except for at the end). It made a weaker movie, in many ways, but I think they did a good job with the characterization in the ending.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:And the argument about the peril in the climax is just as rediculous. It was a by-the-numbers action climax, nobody human was in danger.
Does it make a difference whether a fictional human character or a fictional toy character was part of the action climax? What special importance is applied to the humans in the film that makes what happens to the toys somehow irrelevant to the emotional import of their role and trevails in the film? Did the film need to throw Andy onto the trash recycling line in order to create this import?
Answer: No, so you're way off base here.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Connecting with the characwters in the movie was weaker because they were not the people in the film?
That is so silly. It would be like saying that what happened in wall-e was weaker because we didn't connect to the PEOPLE, only the ROBOTS.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:And the argument about the peril in the climax is just as rediculous. It was a by-the-numbers action climax, nobody human was in danger. Did you think that an alien would be incinerated??? The only interesting part of that whole portion of the movie was the fact that Lotso DIDN'T stop the machine.
....because nobody "human" was in danger, there was no tension? Ignoring for a moment the fact that this movie had MORE human elements in it than the previous two movies, why should it matter at all how many humans were in danger? The main characters are toys. The story is about their trials, tribulations and relationships. The humans are important only because of their relationships with the toys. Whether humans are ever in danger is irrelevant. The final scene WAS incredibly poignant and the human element was an important part of that, but Andy was not and never was the main character.
Lots of people I know, myself included, were genuinely considering the possibility that those characters were actually going to die. I didn't expect it to actually happen, but I had no idea how they were getting out and their grim acceptance had me grimly accepting along with them. If you weren't affected because you felt the filmmakers did a bad job building tension, fine, you're entitled to that. But to claim that's only because the main characters weren't "real people" is to miss the entire point of half the animated stories out there.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ]Ehem... The man has a four decade track record of notable reviews, and you think he should be delisted because he didn't like one film you have a stiffy for?
:maha: :maha: nope, the toy story 3 review only acts as a seminal case and notable culmination of how increasingly erratic and out of touch he has become as a reviewer. :maha: :maha: *fits monocle back onto face*
Mmmmyeeeeaaaasssss... well I dyoo teennd to agreee on the quality of his reviewwwsss from tyme to tyme. I dyoo in indubitably prefer Sir Graham Wilhelm Von Freidenberg III who write for the Guaaarrrdian. His reviews are ever so witty. Ever so. :Maha:
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Was perusing Ebert's site, and found this Q&A note:
quote:Q. I was a little surprised by how your review of "Toy Story 3" was largely dismissive of the film as a derivative sequel, stating it is "happier with action and jokes than with characters and emotions." You say the first two films were about a boy and his toys, whereas this one leaves the toys to fend for themselves. On this point, I'd argue that there's more Andy in this film than any before. The earlier films were all about getting back to the house and facing the dangers of highways, a deranged kid, and worse in the process. Andy was rarely seen in his entirety save a few moments at the beginning and the end. Here the film follows the usual formula, yes, (toys get lost, toys get into trouble, toys find their way back home) but there is a heartbreaking coda that allows Andy to have the spotlight for the first time in the series. These ending scenes were, for me, the most emotionally involving of the series and an excellent example of a franchise that works hard to make the sequel enrich and enhance what came before it. On the topic of 3D, however, I heartily agree. (Steven Avigliano, Rockaway NJ)
A. I have to be honest with you. I fully believe if I could see the film in 2D, my opinion would deepen and improve. I realize I'm in danger of sounding like an obsessive on his topic, but I find 3D an annoyance and a distraction, and the light in the screen in invariably dimmer than it should be. The so-called third dimension is getting between me and the heart of the story.
Thought it was interesting.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Oh, that is interesting. I think he realizes he biffed that review.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Ebert has always given great reviews to all of Miyazaki's films, so he can stay. I don't agree with all of his reviews or his look on video games though. (Games aren't an art? Really? Someone ship him Xenosaga 1-3 or Heavy Rain)
But the fact that he loves Miyazaki wipes all the negative out....Then again.. How can you NOT like a Miyazaki film?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
If I had the time, I would write this game and mail it to Roger Ebert:
At first, it appears to be a simple basketball game. You control the star player, an unstoppable juggernaut of a center; even at the highest difficulties, racking up a high score is no problem at all. After each game, your endorsements and contracts are adjusted based on your performance; the resulting dollar amount is displayed between matches, and the money can be used to customize your palatial estate. You also have a "rep" score, which improves your relationship with some vendors and hurts it with others; you can choose from various dialogue options during post-game briefings to adjust your Rep as desired. You may also choose to donate as much money as you want to various charities between each game; this has a much smaller effect on your Rep, but the effects are predictable.
Halfway through the first season, with no warning at all, you suffer a catastrophic injury and are left paralyzed from the waist down. Half your endorsements instantly vanish. You can no longer use most of the items in your estate; the ones you cannot make use of are greyed-out and can no longer be selected, although you can purchase other items to replace them.
You can continue to make statements to the press to adjust your Rep (and thus keep some of your endorsements alive); each statement now costs you money, however. Instead of basketball games, you now make your money at speaking engagements, represented by dialogue trees and QTEs; because these are much harder on your body and mind than basketball used to be, you must alternate engagements with rehab sessions (played out as minigames of increasing difficulty). Your long-term investment income becomes vital to your survival; sadly, you have no control whatsoever over the performance of the market, which is generally randomized (but very slightly biased against you.)
If you do well enough with your speaking engagements, you gain access to a "social media" event that allows you to issue the equivalent of press statements without having to pay money. Once you unlock social media, you become immersed in a handful of short plotlines: people meet, get married, enjoy chatting with you. One recurring plotline, however, involves the growing popularity of soccer. It turns out that soccer is taking the country by storm, and its popularity directly affects the value of your endorsement deals and thus the amount of money you can spend on both rehab and long-term tech research into a cure for your condition. You can choose to address the popularity of soccer in a variety of ways: you can learn to appreciate it, you can keep mum, you can criticize it but remain receptive to other points of view, or you can be outrageous in your dismissal of the sport. Of all the options, the latter turns out to get you by far the most publicity; your followers and re-tweets skyrocket. None of the options have any effect whatsoever on the popularity of soccer, which continues to grow.
The game ends when you are hit by a truck; this is a purely random event, the possibility of which is triggered only once you discover social media. You are presented with a final score that is, as stated, the number of discrete usable items in your house times the number of your Twitter followers divided by the number of times you've launched the game.
Because it's all about keeping score.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Revised theory. Fun games aren't art.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
he would glance at a youtube clip of the game and know for sure that it was not art
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That's why I'd mail it to him. There would be no YouTube gameplay video. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
then he would complain that the exercise was of little benefit to either party due to his purposeful lack of a nintendos video-gamery con-sole. efforts to communicate that it actually goes on your computer would also fail.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Ebert has always given great reviews to all of Miyazaki's films, so he can stay. I don't agree with all of his reviews or his look on video games though.
Miyazaki is releasing a video game. Ebert's head will explode.
Posted by Ryoko (Member # 4947) on :
I find this fascinating...
How many of you actually decide to see a film based on a critic's review?
Personally, I use some combination of the following:
director (whose work I like) actor (same as above) recommendation of a friend (whose opinion I trust) source material (based on a favorite book, etc.)
I do remember watching Siskel and Ebert in the late 80's/early 90's, but I mostly watched in order to see an extended preview of a film I was already interested in.
I'd say that I've gotten better recommendations from my Tivo than from any critic. Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"How many of you actually decide to see a film based on a critic's review?"
I tend to get interested in a movie because the trailer is funny or interesting, and then use movie reviews to rule out the stinkers. One of the local newspaper reviewers has tastes in movies that are pretty compatible with mine, so I use his reviews first.
If I really think it looks good and it gets a bad review from the local critic, I look at an aggregator. If there are some positive reviews that resonate with me, I'll see the movie anyway. If the positive reviews seem like shills or like they just don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, I'll trust the general "bad movie" consensus.
Still, at some point, I'm going to watch The Happening just to see what the fuss was about.
Posted by Ryoko (Member # 4947) on :
Hmmm...
quote: One of the local newspaper reviewers has tastes in movies that are pretty compatible with mine, so I use his reviews first
I can see this as a viable option. I suppose that I just haven't found any critic I trust yet.
Posted by Ryoko (Member # 4947) on :
Just some random thoughts...
One of my favorite things is when I "discover" a film I'd never heard of previously.
It usually is some sort of independent or older film that flew under the radar.
Anyway, what I love most is that it frees me from having any expectations (high or low). I found a few of my all-time favorites this way.
I do regret not getting to see them in the theater though.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Ebert has always given great reviews to all of Miyazaki's films, so he can stay. I don't agree with all of his reviews or his look on video games though.
Miyazaki is releasing a video game. Ebert's head will explode.
Yep, I wonder what Ebert's thoughts will be on this. The trailer looks absolutely FANTASTIC. (The PS3 Trailer that is)
The game looks so good that I was confused at points during the trailer if I was looking at animation or if I was looking at actual gameplay. Then they showed both side by side and I realized it didn't matter; They looked the same.
I'm REALLY excited for this and I'll write Ebert and ask him to look at it when it is released.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ryoko: I find this fascinating...
How many of you actually decide to see a film based on a critic's review?
Me. SO many limited release projects get out into the field these days that the only reliable field of info on what I want to check out is going to be from people who are specifically tasked with milling out the duds. There is no way I would delve into that general mess without some sort of a system of vetting.
CURRENT DAY EXAMPLE: Here is a partial list of extremely well-vetted limited release cinema currently making the rounds:
I Was Born, But... A Prophet 45365 Winter's Bone Exit Through the Gift Shop Vincere Crazy Heart Restrepo Mademoiselle Chambon Ajami The Secret of Kells The Secret in Their Eyes
A lot of these are actually better movies than the median-quality popular release at cineplexes. Do these have much popular press/advertising? No. Do most people even really know about them? No. And they're obscure titles probably worth watching that are jammed into a sea of similarly obscure titles that are NOT worth watching. I would stab my eyes out with forks before having to waste time wading through this sea of mediocrity (Black Waters of Echo's Pond, Finding Bliss, Burzynski, Happiness Runs, etc) just to chance upon the ones that are probably worth my time!
Like, honestly, I was never going to find things like Turtles Can't Fly or The Diving Bell and the Butterfly without a critical establishment in place (that I knew how to navigate).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:How many of you actually decide to see a film based on a critic's review?
More often I'll decide I don't want to see a movie based on reviews, but yeah, reviews do influence what I see.
Posted by Ryoko (Member # 4947) on :
I can respect that.
You seem to be thinking in terms where a critic is a champion for independent film.
And, I do understand and can appreciate that there are only so many hours in the day and that you can't watch everything.
However, I have to ask...have you ever accidentally found a film you loved that wouldn't have otherwise made it through the "critic" filter you employ?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I don't see many independent films. I still use critics to filter out popular looking movies that looked somewhat interesting but apparently suck. Occasionally a trailer looks interesting enough that I see it anyway. Sometimes I end up disappointed, sometimes pleased (Treasure Planet seems universally panned and I don't understand why).
I don't use individual critics. I look at rottentomatoes/metacritic and for controversial films, look for a few good and bad reviews to get a sense of why a movie is good and bad. (Alice and Wonderland: Negative reviews said "Nothing but eye candy." Positive reviews said "Amazing eye candy!")
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Not very often, because, like I've mentioned, I've figured out how best to navigate the current field of reviewers. I know how not to pre-bias myself out of potentially enjoying a movie because I am wary that I am 'not supposed to,' I know which full reviews I shouldn't read because the critics in question practically just spoil the entire movie for you beforehand (though these are usually great to read as a postscript), and, more importantly, I know which critics are most likely to point me to movies I will enjoy.
A site like Metacritic is extremely helpful for that because I can quickly find these reviewers' takes on a given movie, distilled into a number between 1-100, without having to read them explain the movie to me (so I can go in without being half-spoiled about what is going to happen in the movie).
Normally I can just ask my friends, but more and more frequently I'm the first to go see many movies, and they aren't going to be much help in things like limited release films.
Another way that critics help is, ironically, from not having a review. Beware the movies that they can't screen. Most movies are provided early for critic screening prior to release. When a studio specifically does not, they are playing damage control before the movie even gets to screens. This is a giant red flag.
Posted by Ryoko (Member # 4947) on :
Another factor:
One thing I recognize about myself is that my taste in film has evolved over the years.
What I loved at 15 is very different from what I loved at 25 (or 35).
How would you filter out the adolescent or old-timer critics (as the case may be)? Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
You can read the blurbs in metacritic to get a sense of why they say a movie is good or bad. Find one that is the sort of reason you tend to like or dislike films. Ebert, for example, didn't care much for How to Train your Dragon because he didn't care for the "flying scenes, although children probably love them." Ebert in general doesn't offer much relevance to me when choosing "children's" films. Whereas other critics specifically talk in terms of "it'll have you feeling like a kid again," which is something I like if done right.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Ebert's genius as a critic was in teaming with Siskel, and their chemistry together. Their great invention was the fact that the two of them would argue over a movie, even one that both of them liked or disliked, because often they both liked it or disliked it for different reasons. It was the argument that served their audience. They both knew that the purpose of criticism isn't to decide if a movie is bad or good, but to give people enough information to let them decide for themselves if they want to see it.
Before Siskel and Ebert critics knew perfectly well that part of their audience would read their review and do the opposite of their suggestion, because disagreement with a critic is a pretty reliable indicator.
Ebert still knows this.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I went and saw "Grownups" this past weekend. I didn't want to see it because I had read the reviews and looked at Rotten Tomatoes. The movie had received a 10% rating on that site. My sister and wife wanted to go see it so my brother in law and I reluctantly agreed.
And I liked it. It wasn't a film that made yout think. It really had no plot. It wasn't really about anything. But I laughed through the entire thing. It was worth the $7.50 (I had coupons) for the laughs I had. I wouldn't see the movie again, but it had some really funny bits in it. It is a standard Adam Sandler movie with heart.
The Book of Eli was another film that did not get great reviews but that I still enjoyed. The twist at the end of the film was brilliant and in my opinion rivaled the twist at the end of The Sixth Sense. (Though Sixth Sense was still a better movie throughout) It included religion but did not go over the top. The fact that the bad guy wanted the bible so he could use it control the masses was a nice touch.
I guess reviews do play a part in what I watch, but if a movie catches my eye it doesn't really matter what the reviews say.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
Final straw:
Ebert only gave Eclipse two stars...
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
You surely mean
quote:Ebert...gave Eclipse [too many] stars...
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: You surely mean
quote:Ebert...gave Eclipse [too many] stars...
This. If I were Ebert though, I would have given it the maximum amount of stars allowed. Why? I don't want to be murdered by a mob of 13-15 year old girls.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
I meant what I wrote and don't call me Shirley.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
This game was made specifically to provide an argument that games could be art: And Everything Started to Fall Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Ryoko: I find this fascinating...
How many of you actually decide to see a film based on a critic's review?
Me. SO many limited release projects get out into the field these days that the only reliable field of info on what I want to check out is going to be from people who are specifically tasked with milling out the duds. There is no way I would delve into that general mess without some sort of a system of vetting.
CURRENT DAY EXAMPLE: Here is a partial list of extremely well-vetted limited release cinema currently making the rounds:
I Was Born, But... A Prophet 45365 Winter's Bone Exit Through the Gift Shop Vincere Crazy Heart Restrepo Mademoiselle Chambon Ajami The Secret of Kells The Secret in Their Eyes
A lot of these are actually better movies than the median-quality popular release at cineplexes. Do these have much popular press/advertising? No. Do most people even really know about them? No. And they're obscure titles probably worth watching that are jammed into a sea of similarly obscure titles that are NOT worth watching. I would stab my eyes out with forks before having to waste time wading through this sea of mediocrity (Black Waters of Echo's Pond, Finding Bliss, Burzynski, Happiness Runs, etc) just to chance upon the ones that are probably worth my time!
Like, honestly, I was never going to find things like Turtles Can't Fly or The Diving Bell and the Butterfly without a critical establishment in place (that I knew how to navigate).
Agreed. And Ebert is actually one of the few reviewers I've seen who doesn't score independent films higher or lower simply because they are independent or art house. He doesn't suffer from a lot of the snobbery or pretension that a lot of other critics do. He takes films at face value and judges them on what they try to do and how well they do it. Ebert's blog is not only home to his reviews, but to what is one of the largest forums for film critique on the net. Each blog post he makes is littered with thousands upon thousands of posts all weighing in on his discussion.
Not only that, but he is on top of his game when it comes to independent cinema. He has played a huge role in boosting the directing career of Ramin Bahrani, one of the most talented filmmakers of our generation, even going so far as to call him "the new great American director" (a statement with which I wholeheartedly agree).
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
He's good, not great, but definitely good.
Also, he recently admitted that doesnt know what hes talking about when it comes to games.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Also, he recently admitted that doesnt know what hes talking about when it comes to games.
he basically said "I'm still right, but I just shouldn't have brought it up"
Close, but not quite!
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I actually thought the article was pretty good. He says "look, I honestly don't understand how you guys could be getting anything crazy-artistic out of this, but I admit if I'm not willing to check it out for myself I can't speak with any authority." I think that's a perfectly fair and honest way thing to say.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I have to confess that while I still think Ebert has some interesting things to say, I increasingly find many of his reviews rambling and without focus. I also thought his comments regarding video games were asinine, but that's quite beside the point; he's entitled to his opinion. I've started reading whole paragraphs which make me say, "Well, that was interesting; how does it relate in any way to the movie you're reviewing?"
I also felt that while his review of "Kick Ass" was subjective but honest, his review of "Death at a Funeral" in the same week seemed exaggeratedly positive in almost a sort of rebound reaction. And while public opinion isn't necessarily a perfect arbiter of anything (helloooo, Transformers) I found it a little unsettling that his rating and his readers' rating of both Kick Ass and Funeral were essentially inverted.
I guess I sort of agree with Samp's original thesis. As I've said, I still think he has interesting things to say, but I would never, ever go or not go to a movie on the basis of his review alone.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I actually thought the article was pretty good. He says "look, I honestly don't understand how you guys could be getting anything crazy-artistic out of this, but I admit if I'm not willing to check it out for myself I can't speak with any authority." I think that's a perfectly fair and honest way thing to say.
Except that he prefaces it all with "But I still think I'm right".
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't see why that's a bad thing, Porter. Surely he's entitled to still think he's right, as long as he's not arguing that his rightness is weighted with any special authority.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
uhhuh, he straight up trollin' now
quote:If they had their choice, 63.1% of people would value "a great video game" over Huckleberry Finn. That's the result of a completely unscientific survey I conducted in two places: Twitter, and my recent blog about video games.
...
For these and other reasons, choosing Huckleberry Finn over "a great video game" was a no-brainer for me.
...
But no, no, I am not re-opening the debate about video games. That's over and done with. My previous entry was my last word.
...
I don't know who voted in my little poll, and I don't know why they voted the way they did. All said to that first reader some weeks ago: "Show me a man who prefers a video game to Huckleberry Finn, and I'll show you a fool."
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Well, his newest post is on another topic. You clipped that part of your quote:
quote:But no, no, I am not re-opening the debate about video games. That's over and done with. My previous entry was my last word. I'm beginning a discussion about Huckleberry Finn -- and reading.
So he basically said: I still think video games are crap. I still love Huck Finn. I don't want to debate this anymore, but I do want to share with you why I love Huck Finn...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't want to debate this anymore, but everyone who voted in my little poll against huckleberry finn is a fool. Just FYI.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
While I don't want to talk about it, I believe there used to be a large number of intellectual snobs who felt that movies could not be art.
The best argument of theirs I saw was about how movies were such a collaborative effort that being "art" was impossible.
They remind me a lot of Ebert's view on video games, oddly...
Posted by Ryoko (Member # 4947) on :
quote: Sociologists have sometimes referred to the vast amounts of free work carried out on social networking sites as "digital sharecropping" because of the low rewards, but such thinking fails to explain the phenomenon, Shirky said.
"On that basis, Lego is exploiting children by making them build the toys before they can play with them. That's ridiculous of course -- the process of creating is the entertainment. It's the same with review sites," he said.
An interesting article that made me think of this thread.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: you.... do know Ebert is ill, right?
This may be a definition of "ill" I'm not acquainted with. I know that he's missing most of his lower jaw, can't speak, and gets his nutrition from a feeding tube, but all things considered I gather he's in pretty good health.
(He's also doing some of his best work these days, I think.)
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Ah, I haven't seen TS3 yet but I recently saw Kick-Ass at the dollar movie and walked out after the dude popped in the microwave. It was totally disgusting in a gratuitous and pointlessly stupid way, I thought. So I give Ebert kudos for even watching the whole thing! I totally want my dollar back, and even more, those 15 minutes. Ew.
It sort of sickens me that it got 8 of 10 stars from IMDB viewers. I worry sometimes about stuff like that, about what people in general seem to enjoy and how low their tastes are.
Anyway, I trust Ebert from 30 plus years of mostly really good reviews.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
quote:How many of you actually decide to see a film based on a critic's review?
I usually use critical reviews if I'm unfamiliar with the movie and unsure whether to pop it into my Netflix cue or not.
I don't base my theater visits on critical reviews, however. I only visit the theater to watch zombie movies, book adaptations (Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, etc), or anything directed by M. Night Shyamalan.
If friends recommend a film I never intended to see, along with the critics, and the populace in general, I may head to the theater to watch it. Dark Knight was one of those films. (I still haven't decided whether I want to bother with Inception or not at this point.)
Normally I agree with the critics, but sometimes I don't.
I didn't like:
Shakespeare in Love Chicago (I haven't been thrilled with the recent crop of critically acclaimed films from 2009/2010 either.)
But I liked:
Doom The Happening
As for Ebert, he's hit and miss for me. Sometimes his opinions are dead on. Sometimes I wonder if he even watched the right movie.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)