 
|
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
As some have argued that Ebert is too vague in his film reviews (a review is different from a critique) he has defended his choice of Crash for best film against some of the art house critics who with big words do not know how to watch a film, review a film or even understand what the hell happens in movies. It is quite funny to see Ebert make these art house critics look SOOO dumb.
- http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060108/COMMENTARY/601080310 (Open in New Window)
Follow Ups:
Everytime I read an Ebert review I think back to his own illustrious career:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078846/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075376/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065466/
Saying you got your start with Russ Meyer is NOT the same as saying you got your start with Roger Corman.
I saw this movie and felt that it would have been a groundbreaking film if it was made 20 years ago, exactly as Ebert describes. But by today's standards, IMHO it treats the issue of racism with a sledgehammer, with little or no sophistication, whereas today we even have comedies that "analyze" the issue of racism with more sophistication than Crash does.
Which comedies?Crash does not analyse racism -- that really was not the point. Like Munich don't go in expecting an answer -- if it had the answer chances are it would be a bad film.
There is nothing sledgehammerry about Crash. For it to hit you over the head it would have to clearly have something to preach. The film merely is and offers no resolution. Neither, interestingly enough does Munich.
Bulworth, White Men Can't Jump, and even something like Guess Who are the three that popped into my head. Guess Who was below average as a movie, but still IMHO did a great job in treading the line between caricature and real.Perhaps I used the word "analyze" and "sledgehammer" incorrectly here, but I felt Crash was just a collection of racism stereotypes all thrown into one movie, and all the contradictions within the characters were predictable. To me, it didn't raise any new points or change my thinking in any way.
At the risk of starting something here, I wonder if there is any demographic segmentation between the people who thought Crash was a great movie vs. those who thought it was contrived...most of my close friends are minorities in the US, and very few of them thought Crash was anything special...
"it was clear to me how inorganic the movie is and how severely it manipulates and contrives.""A suffocating tangle of ham-fisted ironies and belief-beggaring coincidences"
I totally agree with both comments. Crash is crap.
A few years ago Film Comment trashed both Siskel and Ebert in a very interesting article. I don't think that Ebert is taken seriously by any of the serious film critics.
N
"I don't think that Ebert is taken seriously by any of the serious film critics."Really? Like who? Janet Maslin has appeared on his show. Is she serious? Elvis Mitchell, who wrote for the New York Times, and the film critic for the Los Angeles Times, both of whom appeared on his show after Siskel passed away, during that period of time in which a variety of film critics were being "tested" for the other seat. They are not serious critics?
I suspect that their opinions, if they exist, largely stem from the fact that most film critics have no notoriety of their own, and are celebrity wanna bees. That Ebert has been smart enough, resourceful enough, and lucky enough to acheive a status of which they are jealous is the real source of their hostility. We call them sour grapes.
Soryr but they obviously didn't understand the film - pithy as they condemn Ebert clearly shows them their hat for not "getting it." it is clear these writers have no real education in the arts -- big vocabularies and pithy writing maybe but they leave much to be desired as understanding film. Especially their lack of insight in the scenes where Bullock requests the locks to be changed twise -- these critics completley misread the scene - Their conclusion about the scene is laughable.
I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions of that group of critics mentioned in Ebert's article, but I assure you, having read reviews by them over the years, they *do* know how to watch film. And they know how to write.And really - A.O Scott and David Eddelstien as "art house" critics? (The guys from The Voice and The Reader I think could *maybe be called iconoclasts.)
Movies is movies. There are good ones and bad ones. Not all art/independent/foreign films are good and not all commercial films are bad.
I don't find that Ebert is vague in his reviews - sometimes I think he's a bit soft, draws the wrong conclusions or doesn't pick up on things that seem evident to me. But he is normally quite articulate about his reasons fro liking or disliking a movie. OTOH, in this instance, I don't think, however well argued his article is, that Ebert makes the other critics look like dummies. Nevertheless, I do appreciate the enthusiam and love for film Ebert conveys in his writings.
FYI: Crash has appeared on some critics Ten Best of '05 Lists.
most incendiary in this country where almost everyone white has his head in the ground and wishes "those people" would just "get over it."
Americans just can't seem openly to discuss or stomach others discussing racism,
which is not surprising after three hundred years of slavery and a massive imprisonment of African-Americans today.
When I saw it in the theater and allowed myself to view it without a critical eye or mind I was taken by it... even though I knew I was being manipulated.When I watched it at home and applied a bit of a critical eye and mind it was clear to me how inorganic the movie is and how severely it manipulates and contrives.
My verdict after those two viewings is that it holds up as entertainment and fails miserably at being important.
But, generally, I like Ebert and think he's a value to the filmamaking/watching world.
"Where are we going? And what am I doing in this hand basket?"
He made it in 1996.The only thing these two films share is the title but the Cronenberg effort puts this 2005 morality play to shame.
T.D.
"A suffocating tangle of ham-fisted ironies and belief-beggaring coincidences", another said. I'll go with that.clark
What I see here is Ebert defending his position on the movie. I don't think he makes anyone look dumb at all, if anything i think it makes him look insecure in his position. I still think the movie was contrived, too predictable and pretty much agree with the "dumb art house critic".
To boot, I think Bullocks and her husbands (can't remember his name, sorry) acting was a low point in this movie, very unconvincing scenes. It wasn't a horrible movie, but not one I would personally recommend either. Like I said, everyone has their own opinion.
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 ]
