4 ms·

While it might be cheap to remember a critic by something as sensationalist as a scorcher - and Ebert was of a higher caliber than to build a career on the ente

by sho_hn 14y ago

While it might be cheap to remember a critic by something as sensationalist as a scorcher - and Ebert was of a higher caliber than to build a career on the entertainment value of them - his review of "Highlander 2" has been a favorite of mine for its good-natured bickering about the gaping holes in the film's logic: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19911101/REVIEWS/111010305 http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19... (Cache: http://web.archive.org/web/20121026130620/http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19911101/REVIEWS/111010305 http://web.archive.org/web/20121026130620/http://rogerebert....) I think what set Ebert apart is that he consistently judged films in the context of their ambitions. An action film was good so long as it had effective action; films purporting to be more cerebral in nature had rather more to answer for. He resisted the ivory tower most other writers with his level of film knowledge would climb.

rodgerd 14y ago
Your final paragraph was Ebert's great value for me: there are no shortage of critics who can tell me interesting things about the canon of great films; there are almost none amongst them who can also meet less elevated fare on its own ground.
- stcredzero 14y ago
  As I've mentioned elsewhere, Ebert wasn't trying to impress anyone. He told the truth as he saw it. Keep doing that while being a good writer, and people will recognize you for it.
Cowen 14y ago
> I think what set Ebert apart is that he consistently judged films in the context of their ambitions. A great example of this was his review of The Human Centipede. He said that the film perfectly accomplished its ambitions, but those ambitions were so dark, so far outside the norm that his rating system was simply incapable of properly rating the film. In his own words[1]: > I am required to award stars to movies I review. This time, I refuse to do it. The star rating system is unsuited to this film. Is the movie good? Is it bad? Does it matter? It is what it is and occupies a world where the stars don't shine. [1]http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100505/REVIEWS/100509982 http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20...
teach 14y ago
I managed to hack your last paragraph into 140 characters, in case anyone else wants to tweet it and look smart like I did. "Ebert judged films by their ambitions, eschewing the ivory tower: action films needed but good action while cerebral ones had a higher bar." (Minus the quotation marks, that's 139 characters.)
papsosouid 14y ago
>I think what set Ebert apart is that he consistently judged films in the context of their ambitions Yet he consistently dismissed films that I would describe as "low brow humour" as being terrible films. He said Ace Ventura was one of the worst films he had seen for example, and his reasoning appeared to be "the character is annoying, and the jokes are crude".
- raganwald 14y ago
  True, but there is a difference between well-crafted jokes about a crude subject and crudely fashioned jokes.

by sho_hn 14y ago

rodgerd 14y ago

Your final paragraph was Ebert's great value for me: there are no shortage of critics who can tell me interesting things about the canon of great films; there are almost none amongst them who can also meet less elevated fare on its own ground.

stcredzero 14y ago
As I've mentioned elsewhere, Ebert wasn't trying to impress anyone. He told the truth as he saw it. Keep doing that while being a good writer, and people will recognize you for it.

Cowen 14y ago

> I think what set Ebert apart is that he consistently judged films in the context of their ambitions. A great example of this was his review of The Human Centipede. He said that the film perfectly accomplished its ambitions, but those ambitions were so dark, so far outside the norm that his rating system was simply incapable of properly rating the film. In his own words[1]: > I am required to award stars to movies I review. This time, I refuse to do it. The star rating system is unsuited to this film. Is the movie good? Is it bad? Does it matter? It is what it is and occupies a world where the stars don't shine. [1]http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100505/REVIEWS/100509982 http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20...

teach 14y ago

I managed to hack your last paragraph into 140 characters, in case anyone else wants to tweet it and look smart like I did. "Ebert judged films by their ambitions, eschewing the ivory tower: action films needed but good action while cerebral ones had a higher bar." (Minus the quotation marks, that's 139 characters.)

papsosouid 14y ago

>I think what set Ebert apart is that he consistently judged films in the context of their ambitions Yet he consistently dismissed films that I would describe as "low brow humour" as being terrible films. He said Ace Ventura was one of the worst films he had seen for example, and his reasoning appeared to be "the character is annoying, and the jokes are crude".

raganwald 14y ago
True, but there is a difference between well-crafted jokes about a crude subject and crudely fashioned jokes.