Sorry... zero stars? Zero?
I realise this movie isn't to everyone's taste, but hardly worth a rating like that. What's more puzzling is that the content of his review, whilst still damning, doesn't quite reflect the appaling score he gave.
Incidently...
Ebert's rating for Battlefield Earth: Half a star.
Ebert's rating for Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead: No stars.
Just a thought.
"I'm the guy who does his job. You must be the other guy."
He obviously doesn't get Stoppard's sense of humor...I am watching this now on MGMHD and my son and I are cracking up laughing!:) Just goes to show you can't always trust the critics...:)
shareIts very strange because the review reads more like a two star review than a 0 star view. I wonder if the number of stars listed is a mistake
shareI'm stunned by that review. I can only guess it had something to do with Ebert's expectations, since he mentions several times how good the original Stoppard play was. I imagine there was something in the filmn which didn't match Ebert's stage experience and he was disappointed. (He mentions how the actors related to the live audience.) Its like when your a big fan of a book and they make it into a movie, so you judge it very harshly because you love the book so much. I'm can only assume this is why Ebert was so negatively judgemental of the film. He was expecting a play.
shareIt's always bugged me why this man has a job! Most reviewers are practical, unbiased folk who try not to let their own personal niggles affect a fair scoring. Afterall, your review is aimed at Joe Public not the tiny minority of folks who may share your crap tastes.
Ebert on the other hand gives his own wacky opinions on movies and in my experience he's usually so far out of the ballpark with his scores that it's stunning he hasn't been relegated to a basement spot on a naff cable channel.
With your feet in the air and your head on the ground, try this sig with spinach!
Your post makes no sense raf.
shareI dunno - made sense to me. I mostly ignore Ebert, too - the man is incompetent.
sharehe wrote "beyond the valley of the dolls" produced by Russ Myers...
that says it all... (if you've seen it)..
actually kinda witty satire wrapped in an over the top kinda way but most people wouldn't see it that way.. at least I hope that's how it was written, lol..
The play is in some ways quite different from the film version: Rosencrantz' "business" with the scientific discoveries, etc. Nevertheless, the movie is brilliant, and Stoppard opened it up beautifully to turn it from a "closed" theatrical piece into a film. Ebert is an ass.
The Haunted Man, by Dori Davis: Sometimes it's the living who torment the dead
Amazon.com
If he happened to love this movie, would he still be an ass?
shareYes, he would.
His reviews never seem to actually reflect what most people think of a film. His position on a growing number of films is wildly out of touch with what most cinema-goers and movie-watchers actually think. He judges movies based not on the criteria of most folk, but on his own criteria. Take Kick-Ass for example; it's widely regarded by many people who have seen it as a pretty good film, yet Ebert gave it 1 star and actually stated he doesn't give a damn if others like it. What about Clash Of The Titans, where he gave it 3 stars before then saying the acting and film were both bad.
Personally, I and many friends no longer give any credence to his reviews.
He judges movies based not on the criteria of most folk, but on his own criteria.
Agreed.
A critic's job is not to guess the public's taste, or kowtow to it. It is entirely subjective. What a good critic does (and what Ebert DEFINITELY does) is make you aware of his tastes and his general style of moviewatching, so that even if you don't agree with his review, you can infer from his writing whether or not you would like it. But to try to simply agree with the public? That's complete and utter nonsense.
A critics job is to guess what other people's taste is and not to give their personal opinion to the movie. Got it.
This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.
I still do not understand why so many posts give a damn about what Mr. Ebert thinks and likes!
He is irrelevant to the whole process...
We like what we like and we dislike what we dislike.
Personally i loved the film.
OFF-TOPIC:
Generally i do not enjoy Richard Dreyfuss performance that much but to be fair he performed excellent in this one.
Also for anyone who likes this movie very much i recommend Jan Svankmajer's Faust (1994) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109781/
Have a good day.
What's everyone whining about? Reviews, in their nature, are a stranger's opinion. OPINION, we all have it, all are different, all are right.
What's more annoying are people who actually make their choices based on others' opinions.
Define "opinion" then get back to me.
Still, I can only assume that Ebert was having a very off day. I believe this movie can be enjoyed on so many different levels that a no stars rating is incomprehensible. Even if I had no interest in either philosophy or language, I'd be entertained by the physical comedy alone. And given the richness of the dialogue and Stoppard's trademark juggling of ideas, well, this movie is definitely better than most of the stuff pumped out these days. So, yeah, I don't get a zero stars review at all. To each his own, I guess.
shareEbert is not a bad or incompetent critic, and nobody here really has the credentials to declare as much. He is literally the most decorated and followed critic of our time. And before you blast him for being unfair or bias, you should read his manifestos regarding how he views his critiques. He is very clear that there is an inherent bias that is involved with reviewing films. After all, we ARE humans with our individual feelings. Of course anyone's movie opinion holds some personal bias. But what has happened is that Ebert's personal opinions have, over time, earned and accumulated vast attention and respect from audiences and literary boards, unlike your or mine or any other person's. I read almost all of Ebert's reviews and, while I enjoy them, I never presume that I will automatically agree with him. It is simply a perspective that he gives, and you take it for what it is.
If you are aspiring to be involved with film in any way, I highly suggest you read Ebert's 100 greatest movie reviews, as well as Ebert's glossary of film rules. Of course not even the best opinions will miraculously appease everyone, but you would be smart to take the most respected opinions into serious consideration.
"Who are you and how did you get in here?" "I'm a locksmith...and I'm a locksmith."
And yet he is correct... R&Gad should never have been a film. it is a very cute idea which falls flat as soon you film it. it would work much better as a game!!
shareWhy do people like Elbert so much?
share1. Who cares?
2. ....who cares?
I'm always (never?) amazed at the fact that just about every board on IMDB has a thread for "OMG EBERT'S REVIEW :[" and "WORST MOVIE IN THE WORLD, YOU'RE ALL IDIOTS".
The second one isn't even worth discussing. But the "did you guy's see what roger ebert said???? UGH HES SUCH AN IDIOT I HATE HIM" stuff is...so strange. He is a film critic. It's his job to give his opinions on films, not to attempt to predict public opinion or to reconcile with it. If his position were as the government's propaganda minister and he officially rated all films that entered the country and everywhere you went movies were categorized by the ratings given them by Roger Ebert, sure, I would understand your distress. But he's just one of countless individuals whose opinions may in fact differ from your own, critic or otherwise.
Yes, his score is counter to critical and popular consensus. No, I don't agree with him at all. He is no more or less entitled to his opinion than anyone else, and he is just as subject to his personal biases. Many have already said, his bias here is against the film being a film. He was apparently so taken with the play, so particular about its successes, that the film to him was incomparable and unfit. Get over it. Critics are people too.
Your point is more than fair, but not quite applicable here. After all, the OP addressed that different people have different tastes and put forward that his issue was that the rating didn't seem to jibe with the content of the review.
That's significantly different from all the "How could he hate it when I like it?" posts.
§« All roads lead to truth if you're willing to travel honestly. »§
He gave 4 stars to Prometheus, worst amateurish piece of cr*p i've seen in a long long time. That's enough for me to know not to read his reviews.
sharevery few people in my experience appreciated this film - tried to turn 3-4 people onto it, o for 3-4
i loved it. was actually enthralled with the verbal wit and generally rousing tussles between the characters, esp. R & G & The Player.
never a big RE fan. overly enamoured of puff/fluff, the heady stuff seemed to either get by him or threaten him.
but that's speaking ill of the dead, so please forgive the bad form.
someone wrote "Roger Ebert" just doesn't get Tom Stoppard's humor".
I can assure that person, the late Roger Ebert was more familiar with Tom Stoppard's writing style and signature sense of humor than we are by virtue of his long and productive career. His focus was constantly consumed with All that encompasses Theater from Stage,to Cinema, to Scriptwriting, to TV, to Production, to Acting. Nothing escaped his attention. He was a familiar face at many International Film festivals.
Having said that, I understand WHY he did not appreciate the FiILM version in COMPARISON to the STAGE version. I also have seen the stage version as well. There ARE some types of performance that translate BETTER in person, (such as Dance or a musical concert). A comedian will STILL be funny on TV, but probably seem better LIVE.
That is the exact same experience I felt with Rosencrantz & Gildenstern . . . There is an intimacy that is lost in film as well as a comedic timing that I've rarely seen in film - other than with Richard Pryor & Gene Wilder. Comedic timing is easier to synchronize on stage; it's like choreographing a dance. The problem with film is the expansiveness of cameras, crew, background, etc. and it's like trying to create that intimate, magic moment on the freeway.
However, I too, thought Roger Ebert was WAY TOO severe! I thoroughly enjoyed the film; I'm just saying that the script & comic dialogue lends itself 'better' to the live stage -that's all - Roger Ebert could be very pedestrian in his criticisms, but he missed the boat rarely. This was just one of those times. Rest his soul!?
just stop worship Ebert as a god and theese questions will cease to bug you.
share