5 ms·

One thing I've always appreciated about Ebert's reviews is that he [has explicitly stated that he] rates movies from the context of the intended audience[1], ra

by dereg 5y ago

One thing I've always appreciated about Ebert's reviews is that he [has explicitly stated that he] rates movies from the context of the intended audience[1], rather than from the context of an aloof movie critic. I like that he takes that approach here as well. This is the first time I read his review and his experience echoed mine, when I saw it as a kid. I remember that the movie sucked and I remember the toy/movie marketing tour that accompanied it. I miss the guy. He was never an elitist and always willing to surprise you and engage with you on his blog. [1]: Check out his reviews for Speed 2 and Home Alone 3. He gave both movies, panned critically, three stars. It's hard to argue with the logic he so colorfully furnishes. https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/home-alone-3-1997 https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/home-alone-3-1997 https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/speed-2-cruise-control-1997 https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/speed-2-cruise-control-19...

willis936 5y ago
Godzilla 1998 popped up on streaming feeds recently. I watched it for the first time in decades and was happy with it. It got so many things right for a dumb blockbuster. I noticed Mayor Eberts as the bumbling mayor. This prompted me, like many others I'm sure, to read Eberts' review of Godzilla 1998. He panned it. Almost all of the critiques felt like they would be considered praise when compared against the blockbusters of today. The final line of critique, and imo the most valid, was the lack of message/theming in the conclusion of the movie. I like Eberts' reviews. He brought good thoughts to the conversation. I think his harsh criticism of Emmerich movies was unwarranted. For a few years Emmerich had it imo.
- MilnerRoute 5y ago
  That was one of the last movies that Gene Siskel reviewed with Ebert on his show. Siskel actually had to phone in to the show from a hospital - and he didn't like the movie either. But I remember that Ebert specifically asked Siskel how he'd felt about the fact that there were two characters in the movie named Ebert and Siskel - that were obviously intended to make fun of them. Siskel called it cheap. But then he added, as a purely objective criticism, that the bit never actually paid off. That he was expecting Godzilla to attack the characters, but instead they're just still standing around talking at the end of the film. What was the point? But whatever you think of any of that, that's what was so great about their show (and about this review, for that matter). That it creates this "middle space" between viewer and film-maker, for this additional giddy social mix of reactions and opinions -- all the "best of the year!" and "what were they thinking?" Or maybe I'm just saying that sometimes I really miss Ebert.
Jiro 5y ago
>One thing I've always appreciated about Ebert's reviews is that he [has explicitly stated that he] rates movies from the context of the intended audience For this particular review, if that's what he's trying to do, he failed utterly. Power Rangers was a massively successful media franchise at the time this movie came out. There's essentially no chance that any child will see it without having watched Power Rangers on television. If he's really going to judge it according to its intended audience, its intended audience is children who saw the series on television. Which means that it doesn't matter that the characters are color-coded, the monsters look phony, the martial arts is fake, or the marketing is filled with the TM symbol. Even the bad dialog and personalities shouldn't matter, if it's like that on the show too, since the kids obviously know about it and don't care.
- vlovich123 5y ago
  I was into it at the time and thought the movie looked terrible, gimmicky and a pure money grab and skipped it. So if Ebert says it stunk I’m not so sure he was as out of touch with the intended audience as you say.
  - Jiro 5y ago
    The problem with the review is not that the movie is good. The problem with the review is that the movie is bad (I assume), but Ebert got that part right by luck. His review is a mixture of things he shouldn't be criticizing the movie for (they have colored costumes which are faceless?), and things that he happened to get right, but which he had no way to know about because he couldn't compare it to the show. I can imagine that the movie has worse acting than the show. But just saying "the movie has bad acting" provides no information; that doesn't tell you whether it's worse than the show, or bad-just-like-the-show.
    - 2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
      So because the TV show was a successful marketing exercise towards kids, the movie should also be considered a success because it was also a successful marketing exercise towards kids?
Waterluvian 5y ago
Agreed. I’m not sure it was Ebert but I remember a critic saying, “I review movies based on one question, ‘how well did the film accomplish what it set out to accomplish?’” This always reminded me of the “Baldur’s Gate is the worst racing game ever” post.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- eru 5y ago
  To save other's some Binging: https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/2959/baldurs-gate-is-such-a-terrible-game https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/2959/baldurs-gate-is-s...
xoxxala 5y ago
Ebert did a commentary track on the DVD of Dark City that could be used to teach film school. Absolutely illuminating.
- axxl 5y ago
  This commentary track single handedly made me appreciate film critics.
- 7thaccount 5y ago
  I think I have that DVD somewhere. I didn't see it when it came out, but saw it on TV years later. I guess the Matrix overshadowed nearly all Sci-fi that year?
- jacquesm 5y ago
  I loved that movie. 'Shut it down'. It's one of the few where I could not figure out the rest from halfway into the movie.
- garren 5y ago
  There was a bonus track or something on an anime called “Grave of the Firefires.” It’s been forever since I saw it, but it was a discussion about post WWII Japan and how the anime industry came to be - Disney influence, why so many characters have a distinctly Western appearance, etc. It really was fascinating to watch. (Edit: grave, not graveyard. Added link to his review of the film.) [0] https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-grave-of-the-fireflies-1988 https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-grave-of-the-...
  - senko 5y ago
    Going off the tangent here, Grave of the fireflies was the most depressing movie I ever saw. Number two on my list, Requiem for a dream, is a distant second. As a rule, I avoid depressing content and was wholly unprepared for the emotional pounding I got. Watch (both) if you haven't, they're great movies, but brace yourself.
    - 5y ago
duxup 5y ago
I read his website religiously. I still miss him.
fourseventy 5y ago
I saw this movie as a kid and it was freaking awesome. Idk what anyone else is talking about.
2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
I’m going to plug Margaret and David At the Movies. They had a good dynamic together and they weren’t pretentious. Though they often disagreed, the combo gave complementary points of view.
ethbr0 5y ago
For anyone even aware of Power Rangers (or any other 90s animated pop culture), go spend 44 minutes listening to the How I Built This podcast on Haim Saban. https://www.npr.org/2018/09/21/650524515/power-rangers-haim-saban https://www.npr.org/2018/09/21/650524515/power-rangers-haim-... Guy went from the son of a refuge pencil salesman (his family emigrated from Egypt to Israel when he was a kid, and his dad had to take what work he could get) to being worth $2.5+ B. Among his other moves, he turned down a deal from Rupert Murdoch to buy his company (the owner of Power Rangers etc), and said he'd only accept a 50/50 joint venture with Fox Kids itself. So he'd own 50% of the combined venture, including the network. Then he convinces Pat Robertson's son Tim to sell The Family Channel, which had the wide distribution they needed, to them, to convert to Fox Family. Then he decides it's time to sell, is offered $500 M by Fox for his share. He thinks it's worth more, and asks Fox if they'll agree to sell as well, if he can sell the entire channel. He ends up finding a deal for $5.3 B to Disney, and walks away with $1.5 B for his stake.
pdpi 5y ago
His reviews were always entertaining to read in and of themselves, and I found that his reviews tend to align with my own feelings towards the films, which is an important feature in a critic. However, he had another important feature: When I did disagree, I could usually tell from the reviews that it was likely to be the case.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by dereg 5y ago

willis936 5y ago

Godzilla 1998 popped up on streaming feeds recently. I watched it for the first time in decades and was happy with it. It got so many things right for a dumb blockbuster. I noticed Mayor Eberts as the bumbling mayor. This prompted me, like many others I'm sure, to read Eberts' review of Godzilla 1998. He panned it. Almost all of the critiques felt like they would be considered praise when compared against the blockbusters of today. The final line of critique, and imo the most valid, was the lack of message/theming in the conclusion of the movie. I like Eberts' reviews. He brought good thoughts to the conversation. I think his harsh criticism of Emmerich movies was unwarranted. For a few years Emmerich had it imo.

MilnerRoute 5y ago
That was one of the last movies that Gene Siskel reviewed with Ebert on his show. Siskel actually had to phone in to the show from a hospital - and he didn't like the movie either. But I remember that Ebert specifically asked Siskel how he'd felt about the fact that there were two characters in the movie named Ebert and Siskel - that were obviously intended to make fun of them. Siskel called it cheap. But then he added, as a purely objective criticism, that the bit never actually paid off. That he was expecting Godzilla to attack the characters, but instead they're just still standing around talking at the end of the film. What was the point? But whatever you think of any of that, that's what was so great about their show (and about this review, for that matter). That it creates this "middle space" between viewer and film-maker, for this additional giddy social mix of reactions and opinions -- all the "best of the year!" and "what were they thinking?" Or maybe I'm just saying that sometimes I really miss Ebert.

Jiro 5y ago

>One thing I've always appreciated about Ebert's reviews is that he [has explicitly stated that he] rates movies from the context of the intended audience For this particular review, if that's what he's trying to do, he failed utterly. Power Rangers was a massively successful media franchise at the time this movie came out. There's essentially no chance that any child will see it without having watched Power Rangers on television. If he's really going to judge it according to its intended audience, its intended audience is children who saw the series on television. Which means that it doesn't matter that the characters are color-coded, the monsters look phony, the martial arts is fake, or the marketing is filled with the TM symbol. Even the bad dialog and personalities shouldn't matter, if it's like that on the show too, since the kids obviously know about it and don't care.

vlovich123 5y ago
I was into it at the time and thought the movie looked terrible, gimmicky and a pure money grab and skipped it. So if Ebert says it stunk I’m not so sure he was as out of touch with the intended audience as you say.
- Jiro 5y ago
  The problem with the review is not that the movie is good. The problem with the review is that the movie is bad (I assume), but Ebert got that part right by luck. His review is a mixture of things he shouldn't be criticizing the movie for (they have colored costumes which are faceless?), and things that he happened to get right, but which he had no way to know about because he couldn't compare it to the show. I can imagine that the movie has worse acting than the show. But just saying "the movie has bad acting" provides no information; that doesn't tell you whether it's worse than the show, or bad-just-like-the-show.
  - 2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
    So because the TV show was a successful marketing exercise towards kids, the movie should also be considered a success because it was also a successful marketing exercise towards kids?

Waterluvian 5y ago

Agreed. I’m not sure it was Ebert but I remember a critic saying, “I review movies based on one question, ‘how well did the film accomplish what it set out to accomplish?’” This always reminded me of the “Baldur’s Gate is the worst racing game ever” post.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
eru 5y ago
To save other's some Binging: https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/2959/baldurs-gate-is-such-a-terrible-game https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/2959/baldurs-gate-is-s...

xoxxala 5y ago

Ebert did a commentary track on the DVD of Dark City that could be used to teach film school. Absolutely illuminating.

axxl 5y ago
This commentary track single handedly made me appreciate film critics.
7thaccount 5y ago
I think I have that DVD somewhere. I didn't see it when it came out, but saw it on TV years later. I guess the Matrix overshadowed nearly all Sci-fi that year?
jacquesm 5y ago
I loved that movie. 'Shut it down'. It's one of the few where I could not figure out the rest from halfway into the movie.
garren 5y ago
There was a bonus track or something on an anime called “Grave of the Firefires.” It’s been forever since I saw it, but it was a discussion about post WWII Japan and how the anime industry came to be - Disney influence, why so many characters have a distinctly Western appearance, etc. It really was fascinating to watch. (Edit: grave, not graveyard. Added link to his review of the film.) [0] https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-grave-of-the-fireflies-1988 https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-grave-of-the-...
- senko 5y ago
  Going off the tangent here, Grave of the fireflies was the most depressing movie I ever saw. Number two on my list, Requiem for a dream, is a distant second. As a rule, I avoid depressing content and was wholly unprepared for the emotional pounding I got. Watch (both) if you haven't, they're great movies, but brace yourself.
  - 5y ago

duxup 5y ago

I read his website religiously. I still miss him.

fourseventy 5y ago

I saw this movie as a kid and it was freaking awesome. Idk what anyone else is talking about.

2muchcoffeeman 5y ago

I’m going to plug Margaret and David At the Movies. They had a good dynamic together and they weren’t pretentious. Though they often disagreed, the combo gave complementary points of view.

ethbr0 5y ago

For anyone even aware of Power Rangers (or any other 90s animated pop culture), go spend 44 minutes listening to the How I Built This podcast on Haim Saban. https://www.npr.org/2018/09/21/650524515/power-rangers-haim-saban https://www.npr.org/2018/09/21/650524515/power-rangers-haim-... Guy went from the son of a refuge pencil salesman (his family emigrated from Egypt to Israel when he was a kid, and his dad had to take what work he could get) to being worth $2.5+ B. Among his other moves, he turned down a deal from Rupert Murdoch to buy his company (the owner of Power Rangers etc), and said he'd only accept a 50/50 joint venture with Fox Kids itself. So he'd own 50% of the combined venture, including the network. Then he convinces Pat Robertson's son Tim to sell The Family Channel, which had the wide distribution they needed, to them, to convert to Fox Family. Then he decides it's time to sell, is offered $500 M by Fox for his share. He thinks it's worth more, and asks Fox if they'll agree to sell as well, if he can sell the entire channel. He ends up finding a deal for $5.3 B to Disney, and walks away with $1.5 B for his stake.

pdpi 5y ago

His reviews were always entertaining to read in and of themselves, and I found that his reviews tend to align with my own feelings towards the films, which is an important feature in a critic. However, he had another important feature: When I did disagree, I could usually tell from the reviews that it was likely to be the case.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]