For whatever reason, I can't get into Roger Ebert. I just can't. I've read some of his reviews on movies and I just don't get it. I don't get what's so special about him as a movie reviewer. I can never predict that what movies he'll like or dislike- some of them, I can't even tell exactly WHY it is that he gives a movie one star and another movie four stars. For example: I read his review of "Snow White and the Huntsman" and I'm still confused as to why he gave it such a high rating of three and a half stars out of four when I found nothing spectacular about the film whatsoever (Except that it confirmed the fact that Kirsten Stewart can't act to save her life).
To me personally, I just find him as another pretentious film reviewer, that's it. I don't really see anything special about him at all.
To me personally, I just find him as another pretentious film reviewer, that's it. I don't really see anything special about him at all.
I love film as a medium. Love, love, love it. I know a bit about it and never refuse the chance to know more. But while a Bertolucci film can be dissected a certain way, Uncle Buck needs a different treatment. Is it funny? Yes, it is very funny. Will it make you happy? Yes, it will. Should you go and see it? Yes, you should. And, after you've seen it, you should never try to dissect it; just be happy that you saw it.
And for anyone who thinks I am comparing what John Hughes did to what certain other directors did, yes, I am. You don't have to be good in a very specific way. You just have to be good. To be fair to Roger Ebert, I did once read him champion a film for the same reason. He's not dreadful. He's not even bad. I just sometimes dislike what he says.
The last three sentences are probably going to be my epitaph.
I think my major problem with film critics in general is that I don't feel like they get that the first rule about movies- it's main goal is to entertain its audience. I've seen far too many critically acclaimed films that didn't entertain me in the slightest, whether it was because the plot was so despicable that I utterly despised it or was bored out of my skull. The most recent film to me that fits the latter category would be Tree of Life. Every single professional critic said it was incredible, groundbreaking and touching while audiences were left bored- which to me, is one of the greatest crimes of any piece of entertainment, whether it's movies, books, or even video games. If any piece of fiction fails to entertain its audience, it has failed as a movie.
Critics can despise movies like Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter or Jack & Jill all they want, but if they're at the very least entertaining its audience and making them feel like they haven't waste two hours of their time, then the film has succeeded, even if it is at its core, a terrible movie.
As far as Roger Ebert goes, 80% of the time I disagree with what he says... I feel like that's a big part of the reason why I don't care for him, but that just seems really shallow :/
I've got films I love but which the critics (initially) destroyed (Dune, Idiocracy, Midnight Run, Contact). I guess I approach films differently than a critic or reviewer. Like you, I'm just the audience. But who else is a film made for, if not the audience? I don't always need to be entertained but I need to be something-ed. Whether it's moved, scared, enlightened.
Maybe film critics should stick to important films; the works of art. You wouldn't get a food critic at McDonalds or KFC, despite it being what people like to eat. Maybe regular films should be reviewed by regular people (which is probably why my first port of call is always IMDB). Even then, I look for somebody who sounds a bit like me and likes the things I do.
This is funny.
Or maybe I just have a morbid sense of humor. Who knows really?
And while I disagree with Ebert a lot, he has trashed some bad movies that deserved to be trashed (like Human Centipede 2, Independence Day, & North), but I find that he mostly praises films that I don't think deserved to be praised.