 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.81.84.149
1) Crash
2) Syriana
3) Munich
4) Junebug
5) Brokeback Mountain
6) Me and You and Everything We Know
7) Nine Lives
8) King Kong
9) Yes
10)Millions
- http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051218/COMMENTARY/512180302 (Open in New Window)
Follow Ups:
No mention of Good Night & Good Luck or Constant Garder, huh? I would put both of those above Crash. And is Munich in theaters yet? Its not playing around here.
...its marketing campaign was -- to have no marketing campaign! Let it be a sleeper that generates its own advertising, by not advertising.If it works, then, great!
clark
He ran little to no advertising for Schindler's List either and it made a pile of money($321 million world wide off of meger 22 million budget). 3hours 15 minutes in black and white with no house hold names (at that time) in the movie and about a depressing subject matter opening on Christmas Day 1993 (some places Dec 15). 131 all time world wide take -- pretty good for the kind of film with little to no advertising and often with only one showing a night instead of two due to the running time.Good movies don't need advertising - They ran very few theatrial previews, zero television advertising. E.T. as I recall had posters - until the engine began to roll and E.T took over every toy shop book store music outlet, lunch pale, pez dispenser etc. Today all that crap comes out months before the film is released to help it. They even have video games and pre DVD's on the making of movies before it's in theaters (King Kong) and people actually buy that stuff??
Interestingly Schindler's opened Christmas Day 1993 and closed September 29th, 2004 which is 240 days / 34.3 weeks
z
Yeah but at least you heard the product before you bought it. With the new King Kong there is a DVD in stores before the movie even came out about the making of King Kong. To me that's just nuts. I love movies and all but I'm not about to buy the making of Munich. A video game I can see -- interestingly Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic on X-Box has a vastly superior and more interesting story than the films (episode 1 and 2).
x
I saw a preview last week when I went to see Syriana. That was the first time I even heard of Munich.......
Constant Gardner made his honourable mention list (he had two honoruable mention sections.I saw Crash last night and I liked it - want to see it again. I was not expecting much given some of the bashing it has taken by some on forums but I don't think it was at all preachy. Slice of life films with multiple stories compressed into a film "hand pick" the events the storyteller wants to tell.
My only problem, which is not a real big one, is that because there are several stories going on with several people and not a lot of time, we never really get to know anybody very well so it's more about the message or themes than the people. I felt that way about a movie called Traffic several years ago -- but Crash is even more Aloof. (all based on one viewing though).
Interestingly this film reminds me a bit of Grand Canyon in the early 1990's which was preachy but IMO still effective.
As a parent of two young children, I don't get out to see many movies. But somehow I had heard Crash was decent, so I battled my wife to place it on our Netflix list. Saw it, and thought it was horrible! It might have been an interesting film in, say, 1985...but analyzing racism has been done SOOO much more authentically in the last 20 years in both film and TV. Posed and contrived? Absolutely. If this is the best of 2005, I guess I'm not missing much in the theaters...
Out of the ten I've only seen his #1. I thought it OK, but very posed or contrived.
-The bad punk learned a lesson
-The racist cop rescued the same lady he previously persecuted
-The non racist cop (partner of the racist cop) killed a minority kid by mistake
Like I said, I thought it was OK, that's all. A bit too lesson learning/after school special-like for me.
Wonder what the other 9 are like.
x
How can it be "thought-provoking" when it tells you what to think?I quote from another earlier post:
"And I found an excellent center seat in the theatre's second-largest (52 ft. screen) stadium house -- there to sit disgusted by the blatant contrivances of this dreadful film. The writer/director makes you know he has some Terribly Important things to say and the lecture, the harangue never lets up. Just one instance of how this all misfires: The "racist" cop Ryan (Isn't it racist as well to use an Irish name here?) upbraids a black underling for her pissy, bureaucratic response to his father's medical predicament, and eventually he uses racial terms, but really, isn't he just rather undeft in handling underlings?"
More:
- http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=films&n=35590&highlight=crash+clarkjohnsen&r=&session= (Open in New Window)
.
Well, why don't YOU tell us YOUR top ten?
Ask me next year after I get caught up. Of the ones I've seen on Ebert's list, all are either utter crap or barely tolerable. His selections from previous years tell a similar tale of middle-brow, intellectual laziness.
...I've always found Ebert to have true enthusiasm for movies. He strikes me as someone who likes to highlight what's good in films rather than trash anything for the sake of appearing superior. I think he's unusually good for a mass-market reviewer.Your comment, on the other hand, strikes me as purposeless cynicism, like you're trying to convince yourself you see flaws in films which lesser minds aren't sharp enough to locate.
Passion uncoupled with insight or taste isn't worth a damn.
nt
and I totally agree with you. To generalize greatly, there are people who generally like movies and those who generally don't. I am in the first camp with Ebert. I can almost always find something to enjoy in a theater experience, even if the movie is no classic. That doesn't mean I like every movie, but there tends to be something to recommend, a performance, the photography, the music, or something, in most of them that I see. And Ebert is very much on that wavelength. Although I have only seen 4 of his 10 best, and only Millions would probably be on my own 10 best, that's OK.OTOH, there are film critics, both amateur and professional, who dismiss most movies as populist junk. And then they do give high praise to a few of them. I've got nothing against them, everyone can enjoy life in their own way, but since they are so far from my wavelength, their opinions are not useful to me.
***He strikes me as someone who likes to highlight what's good in filmsThat's a sure road to mediocrity
Victor, I imagine any readers who bother to pay attention are amused by any exchanges that take place between you and me. Rarely have I encountered someone who I think is so completely wrong so much of the time. If we were to meet and shake hands I think the perfect match of positive and negative would cause us to cancel each other out and we'd both simply cease to exist.Although I presume you'll reject the very validity of the analogy, let alone the argument within in, I will counter your (to me) simple minded statement about highlighting what is good as a "sure road to mediocrity," with the following illustration.
Let's say two people sit down to a series of 10 meals. To give the argument more traction lets say these are the only 10 meals available over a 10 day period. Person 1 takes a couple of bites of each dish at a meal and concludes in 7 of the 10 meals that "the food sucks" so they stop eating. And sometimes they take a bite of only one dish but find it so gross that they decline to sample the other offerings on the plate. From that one bite they conclude "the food sucks." They only gain a day's nutrition from three of the available meals.
Person 2 eats perhaps a little more slowly, and makes sure they sample at least some of every dish at every meal. Sometimes they try a dish and don't like it much, but look at it and say "Well I haven't had any of that kind of vegetable lately, so if I eat it my nutrition will be more balanced." To compress this a little, person two moves more carefully through the various meals, trying to find as many dishes as they can to eat, maybe even trying to combine two things that aren't so good in the hope that together they become palatable. This second person is more inclined to say, for example: "Well, in two of the meals there was nothing I liked and I decided to go hungry. In three other meals I ate about half of what was there but couldn't get down the rest. In two more there were a couple of garnishes I could live without but on balance it was a pretty good meal. And in the remaining three the food was really good and I ate everything. And in one of those three it was a meal for the ages." In the end person two gains a lot more nutrition than person 1.
Person 2 is obviously the one who is more on the lookout for what's good in a meal, culinary or cinematic. It is decidedly NOT a recipe for mediocrity. It results in an infinitely more nuanced appreciation for what's on the table. And if I ever need a guide to make sure I don't go hungry, I'd go for person 2 every time. I'd let person 1 feel superior to "all those pathetic cooks who don't know their ass from a pan" and sit down to my meal.
In the end, true criticism should be about helping people better understand and appreciate what they see. The point is not simply to a watchdog for a person take on what's mediocre. If that's all a critic does he or she is the very definition of mediocrity themselves.
Elliot Berlin
YOu might want to spend more time looking at the role the critics play and the role they SHOULD play. People like Belinsky...The word "critic" is not linked to word criticize by chance. Else those people would be called some other name.
A good coach will always address the weaknesses first, for it is mostly the elimination of them that moves the athlete forward.
Put simply, I am not interested in discovering the few good things in a poorly prepared meal - I want a good meal instead.
I am sick and tired of all that politically correct crap, where we are taught to accept any crap that comes our way.
The role they *should* play? What is that, a sort of aesthetic traffic cop?Here's one take on the term source:
Etymology: Latin criticus, from Greek kritikos, from kritikos able to discern or judge, from krineinDiscernment *and* judgement are about a WHOLE lot more than simply a thumbs up or thumbs down conclusion. Every judge is required to be able to handle more than a simple "off with his head."
And if you look at classic works of literary criticism, say Northrop Frye's _Anatomy of Criticism_ or Eric Auerbach's _Mimesis_, the entire body of the work is about explication and assisting the understanding and appreciation of others.
That's not to say that critics should always avoid summary judgements. Sometimes that's appropriate. But most of the time it doesn't add anything to the larger cultural conversation.
I submit that most classics of serious criticism are not about narrow judgements of good and bad, but about furthering the ability to appreciate, understand, and discern.
This is now quite different from what you wrote earlier: "He strikes me as someone who likes to highlight what's good in films"Always highlighting what is good is the job of an industry lackey, and Ebert is one. A true critic would try to evaluate the work in its entirety, which is far different from your "summary judgement" strawman.
There is nothing wrong with finding something good in an otherwise bad film, and pointing that out, provided one has guts and integrity to call it BAD. It seems like Ebert simply doesn't have guts, or, as some others put it, he is on the industry take, even if not overtly, and his job is really to assure good crowds.
My reaction would have been similar if you stated critic's job was in finding faults with the creation. As I said, neither would be true.
It is not "different." The two comments coalesce, as described by the person who replied to your comment below.
Surely it IS different. It is all in the details. Your statement, to which I objected, had nothing about those "other" things, that were brought into the discussion later.The example below is a bad one, as there could be two different distinct flavors to such comments. One would be to say "Overall it is a failure as a film, even though it has a few interesting moments, like this and that". The troublesome one would be "Johnny's handwriting is so incredibly good!" forgetting to mention it was the algebra test that Johnny failed miserably.
Actually, there are two faces to Ebert. When he writes about good or great classics, I enjoy his work, and usually tend to agree, and love his style and depth. But when he starts writing about mediocre mass-culture crap, it is like that person in my second example.
Of course you can say I have not kept up with him... I stopped reading him for that very reason long ago. But there definitely was that flavor of salesman pitch in his popular reviews.
I would like Victor to prove his slanderous remark that Ebert is a shill -- Victor does not seem to have a problem with those critic shills recommending his tube amplifiers -- the same people unwilling to call the B&W 705 (the height of overpriced crap) great speakers (or most of the other garbage that Stereophile recommends).Funny how one's a shill(Ebert who has loads of money) and the other isn't (advertising accepting stereo review magazines that would go out of business without B&W and Paradigm's contributions). Seems these ad taking mags LIKE everything (whether it is a Tivoli or a BAT no matter how lousy it is or how good. Ebert's list of thumbs down movies sure doesn't make me think he's on the take.
Ebert reviews the movie based on what the artist or entertainer(and fillm's are created for both purposes) has in mind and if it succeeds then chances are he will recommend it. I see nothing wrong with a movie that attempts to be a "roller coaster ride" and does that job effectively -- audiences will determine which of those LAST and which ones were the cream of the Crop. Jaws is an example judging by DVD sales 30 years after it's initial release. Art films have a much more difficult task as they are merely hyped and discussed by nobodies on internet forums -- err or people like Roger Ebert.
I don't particularly like Jurassic Park but I gave it a 3 star rating due to the element and goal it was intended for (it succeeded for the most part) Ebert's review actually was excellently written for Jurassic Park and based on that review alone I think I GET where Ebert is coming from when he reviews films. Unlike the shills at the magazines who don't tell you the BLUNT truth (and when that reviewer at TAS actually told the truth about the Wilson Watt they pulled his review for a "positive" one), Ebert usually indicates why he recommends a film and backs it up. That is what a good critic should be doing and Ebert does it very well. Which is not to say that I al;ways agree with him - I find him too easygoing on movies that make me groan but I believe it is honest opinion.
The JP review is a good one
- http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19930611/REVIEWS/306110302/1023 (Open in New Window)
Too many people, apparently Victor included, need to realize that a professional critic must not only pass judgment on a film, but must also describe both positive and negative elements of a film. They also write knowing that their audiences are varied, with different tastes, and the critics job is to communicate to members of that audience elements of the film they may enjoy. So while Ebert may not like a film, because it may not be his taste, he realizes that the film will be to the taste of people in his audience, and needs to make those readers aware of whether they would like the film.And far from being a "Hollywood shill", there is probably not a critic in this world who reviews more foreign and independent films than does Ebert. He also runs a film festival largely for those films that are not churned out by the big studios. But then, unless you actually took the time to read Ebert, these are facts which a writer would be unaware.
The film is crap, but since you love the crap it is a great film for you!I like that! No absolutes, only slight shades of acceptable!
Your post makes me stand harder on what I said first in this thread - such behavior leads to mediocrity.
In fact, you are not even disagreeing with that... all you seem to be saying that being mediocre is fine... as many people indeed love mediocre.
You seem to like strawmen - mischarachtarizing what I wrote, then telling me why I am wrong. I never said or implied that "the film is crap, but since you love the crap it is a great film for you!" Nor do I ever recall Ebert writing that either. I do think that films are inherently subjective. If someone likes a piece of crap, say, the Russian film Mother and Son directed by Sokurov, which I think is one of the two or three worst films I have ever seen, but you love the film, then who is right? If you like the film, then who am I to tell you that you are wrong? If I reviewed the film, I would simply describe the film, and write that watching paint dry was more emotionally and intellectually involving, and if that is your cup of tea, have at it. Why should I care if it a great film for you? My life goes on.Nobody wrote that there were no absolutes, only shades of acceptable. Once again, you have misstated, I assume accidently, what I wrote. Enter into Ebert's website all the films he has given zero through two and a half stars, and there are a litany of films. Some are scathing reviews. Clearly, there are not only shades of acceptable, otherwise everything would be a postive review. But then you would not understand this unless you did the research.
I never wrote that mediocre is fine. Films, like music, and dare I say amplifier design, are inherently subjective. If they were not, then there would be one way of doing them. I would ask you for "absolutes", but then, your list would probably be different than mine. So I am not sure there are absolutes. Maybe for that person. If there are absolutes in amplifier design, then are all the other manufacturers wrong because they do not adhere to your thoughts? Are poor Patrick's Krells deficient in some way, dare I say, mediocre?
Or is your version of "absolutes" open so long as they comport to your opinions? I do not care if people care for what I deem to be mediocre. Why you are so concerned puzzles me. Perhaps your years of growing up in a society in which the government attempted to control actions and thoughts has stunted your growth and ability to appreciate that some things are so inherently subjective, that there are no "answers".
But what is most decidedly not subjective is whether a person is a "shill", or on the take. Which is what you accused Ebert of. Disagreeing with their opinion is the name of the game, but impugning their charachter is not, which you most certainly do when you accuse them of being dishonest. Particularly when you have not the fortitude to do so directly to them. So perhaps you can set forth your evidence that Ebert is a shill. Or maybe enter the world of human beings and retract those comments. And I thought Patrick was critical of name calling. Hmm, maybe he will enter this discussion.
Ebert is a movie lover - Victor is not. Victor has a veyr narrow vision of things - probably in all things outside of movies -- and I would be willing to bet that he is a conservative in his political views as well (as from msot of the people I have met it tends to follow). All things are subject to a narrow box of what is right and good in his world and anything that deviates from that narrow vision is "wrong" in some way.Luckily Ebert is the one they pay the money to, someone who appreciates all genres of films on their terms and evaluates from that basis. He is intelligent, worldly, humane, sensitive, and passionate enough to be a film lover turned film critic who understands what movie making is REALLY about. Victor can't shove his self-appointed small minded, silver spooned ego out of the way to even consider anyone elses opinions of film or anything else, I suspect. You see he doesn't consider that film or art is the least bit subjective -- it is objective in his world view and there is no argument - like arguing with the ultra right wing Religious set, he is the sole dicatator of what is considered right and moral and which Art is good and which art is not. And if you can live your life in a pompous enough way you may actually believe in the artifical superiority God Complex you've provided for yourself. Until you realise that the paper thin ego has little intellect behind the posts. He can't address any of your literary criticim arguments because that would have required him to understand what literary criticism really is so instead you get terse and vague commentary written in a condescending manner to seem "elite" enough to poo-poo everyone else.
***...I would be willing to bet that he is a conservative in his political views as wellHe would not dare!
Ebert often tilts with the Hollywood establishment, as he did on the MPAA rating of "Whale Rider" and the dismal way the Academy treats documentaries.
Correct. He always rails against the MPAA's rating system, particularly as it pertains to sex, and generally complains with the Academy's treatment of not only documentaries, but also animation films. Total shill.
"Always highlighting what is good is the job of an industry lackey, and Ebert is one."I think that you are missing the point. You can highlight something good in a film, but still not recommend the film. Doing so does not make you a lackey. "That speaker reproduces a solid bass, but is not recommended because of what it does to the midrange" does not make the critic a lackey. It merely means the critic did his or her job, and described the entire experience. If you actually read Ebert with any regularity you would know he very often not does not recommend a film, but does discuss positive attributes of the film. How does that make him a lackey?
"There is nothing wrong with finding something good in an otherwise bad film, and pointing that out, provided one has guts and integrity to call it BAD. It seems like Ebert simply doesn't have guts, or, as some others put it, he is on the industry take, even if not overtly, and his job is really to assure good crowds."
Who are the others that you are referring to? Friends of yours? People who complain about Ebert because they are jealous that they do not get paid handsomely to watch and write about films? Let me know, I'd like to know "some others" credibility. You obviously do not read Ebert's reviews with any regularity, because he is not shy about writing that a film is bad when it is bad. Perhaps you should not be listening to others, but rather doing your own homework. What would your response be if I wrote a statement that "some others" said you dressed up cheap wire in amplifiers to fool your buying public?
Once again, you post a conclusion without providing any analysis, then accuse another of being intellectually dishonest. Apparently, being hypocritical does not pose a problem for you.What movies have you seen that were released in 2005? What films have you seen off of Ebert's top ten list? If you have not seen the films, then how can you comment, or does your superior intelligence allow you to be lazy? What films in Ebert's past lists would you disagree with? And, here is the biggie, the question which intellectually lazy people loathe, why? You are very adept at providing conclusions, apparently incapable of providing analysis. But why start now?
I'm sorry if it appears like laziness to not go into why I don't like them, but I simply haven't the slightest desire to discuss them. Is it worth one's time to discuss why Thomas Kincade is a bad painter? It's not my aim to convince anyone to change his mind. If you're content with bad art, then more power to you.Convincing a philstine of his lack of taste is a fruitless endeavor. One can only let him wallow in it.
Care to specify which films? You remind me of Cliff Claven from Cheers. The guy who likes to drone on about how much smarter he is, says absolutely nothing, proves that he is an idiot, then sits contentedly with a grin, all the while his life's calling is delivering mail and living with his mother in a mediocre apartment. This person needs to convince others of his superior intellect and culture all the while refusing to lay the cards on the table.Educated people are not lazy. Educated people are willing to submit their analysis, not their conclusions, for public comment. That you are not willing to do so demonstrates that you have more in common with Cliff Claven than someone who is truly educated, and someone able to add something productive, meaningful, and enlightening to discourse.
;^)
Ebert is the same guy who didn't like Goodfellas so his opinion doesn't really sway me all that much."Me and You..." was one of the worst films I saw this year and I'd rate Batman Begins over it.
I've seen Kong twice (had to take the nephews over the weekend) and it was worse the second time. Long, poorly edited, etc...
Capote, Squid and the Whale, MadHot Ballroom, and Match Point were better than those three films by a wide margin.
Tosh
"I think this place is restricted Wang, so don't tell em you're Jewish"
I am not sure what you are talking about. He gave Goodfellas a four star review, and it was one of this top ten films of the 90's. Since your data was incorrect, does that now change the conclusion?
James,Siskel (may he rest in peace) and Ebert got into a fight over "Goodfellas" and it wasn't Siskel who was against it. I'll take your word for it that Ebert "liked" it, but I recall him talking about why it wasn't Oscar worthy.
I still don't agree with his picks for 2005 regardless.
"Crash" wasn't all that good...and Kong? Pleezzzz...
Tosh
"I think this place is restricted Wang, so don't tell em you're Jewish"
Ebert picked Goodfellas as the number 3 best film of the 1990's behind Hoop Dreams and Pulp Fiction. He loves Goodfellas.
Dudes,I believe you.
I still don't like Roger Ebert.
His list for 2005 still wasn't very good.
Tosh
"I think this place is restricted Wang, so don't tell em you're Jewish"
Well look over his runner ups -- he stated he could just as easily have made a top ten list from the films that didn't make his top ten list. Some years I feel that way where maybe one or two films truly stand out for me and the rest I could flip a coin as to which order I'd have them in.This is sorta what Ebert Implied. Ebert's lists usually are of interest and have some interesting pics -- though I have not seen a single film on his list this year -- no time. I bought Crash for $6.00 previously viewed but have not seen it yet. The Constant Gardner was very good and it made his runner up list so I expect good things from his top ten...but he usually has a few stink bombs on there - though I was happy with his pic some years ago of Monster's Ball which was off the beaten track and easily the best film I saw that year.
While not everybody's cup of tea "Crash" surely is one of the most different and original films of the year.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
