Quote:
Originally Posted by trackercowe
Here's an interesting piece on mainstream movies Ebert didn't like, and I agree with almost all of his picks. For those on here who are obsessed with Fight Club his list is probably not for you.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3017550.html
The only review of his I entirely disagree with is Leon, but I can understand why some it would be a turnoff for some people. |
I respect Ebert a great deal, and he truly was an amazing writer and critic, but he's not always right. Just thought I would give my thoughts on the films he mentions.
1) Clockwork Orange: I kinda agree with his thoughts, but the story really is an anti-hero story celebrating this deranged character while trying to pass the buck onto societal ills. The fact is he's a psychopath and the audience never loses sight of that, but the characters in the story do. I think in the end that's the point.
2) Donnie Darko: I don't consider this an amazing film, but definitely worthy of its cult status. If nothing else, a very intriguing film that has problems, but makes you talk about it endlessly afterwards. Isn't that what art is supposed to do?
3) Dead Poet's Society: Schlock. Totally agree with the assessment. Still enjoyed it a great deal. Moving on…
4) Fight Club: I could write essays on that film, but to keep it brief I think Ebert was turned off by it early on and completely missed the point. It's a movie that hits you over the head with dumb base events to tell a greater story and a very nuanced point. Much more intelligent than he's giving it credit for.
5) Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas: insane psychedelic filmmaker makes insane psychedelic film of an insane psychedelic story from insane psychedelic writer. Did anyone think it would be anything other than what they saw? I personally enjoyed it, but mostly for the performances and the sheer loopy fun of the events. It also makes me very uncomfortable, and I like that.
6) Reservoir Dogs: Fair criticism, and Tarantino has made better films since. It is obviously a study in direction style and writing dialogue more than it is a truly great film. Still cool as hell though.
7) Full Metal Jacket: My least favorite Kubrick movie other than Eyes Wide Shut. Felt like a string of short stories lumped together with no rhyme or reason to the events or growth from the characters throughout the war. Maybe that was the point? Not sure.
8) Straw Dogs: Hated this movie and hate the director. Not sure why he was revered.
9) Blue Velvet: another "cool" film that isn't as good as people think it is. Weird and cool sex stuff doesn't fix plot holes and underdeveloped characters (see: Cronenberg's Crash).
10) Fast Times at Ridgemont High: Unless you were a teenager at the time, you just shouldn't like this movie. It's bad…really bad.
11) Harold and Maude: I don't know what Ebert was smoking before writing that. That film is not overly stylized and is quite realistic looking. There's a lot of brilliant writing and acting in that film, and a story that, while is quite sweet, is also very intelligent and not condescending. That is a good movie, I don't care what Ebert says about it.
12) Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid: That is a classic, in every way. I can't imagine the problem he had with it. Not quite as good as The Sting (another George Roy Hill film with those 2 leads), but still a good if not great movie.
13) Leon: The Professional: I don't agree with his assessment. I think they deal with her youth on a very real level, but not really until the end. She's trying to be grown up the entire time, and Leon allows it reluctantly, but in the end she's a scared girl with no one to trust or rely on and it becomes evident at the boarding house.
All in all, Ebert got it right way more often than he got it wrong, but it's tough being a critic. I wouldn't want the job. Even if he didn't get a few films right, it doesn't mean I don't respect him, or that he's right about those reviews.
