MovieChat Forums > Reality Bites (1994) Discussion > Wow Roger Ebert really doesn't get it

Wow Roger Ebert really doesn't get it

posted 15 years ago by clouseau-4
29 replies | jump to latest

The thing with Roger Ebert is that sometimes he has deep insights into a movie but often it almost seems like he didn't even watch the movie.

I just watched "reality bites" and the movie really resonated with me, partially because I was almost the exact same age as the characters in the film at the same historical time (I graduated from my University in 1993).

For example, when Roger Ebert mentions that her documentary on her friends isn't any good and the version Michael's company made was better.

The whole point is that Lelaina's video was authentic and real, not some processed visual cheese-whiz for the ADD generation.

It's spelled Raymond Luxury Yacht, but it's pronounced 'Throat-Warbler Mangrove'

[–] Gwasgray 15 years ago

I think he had a point about Lelaina's "documentary" being crap anyway. And that the love-triangle, girl ends up with guy she didn't get on with at the beginning plot is pretty old.

[–] magdalene5 15 years ago

Yeah...I'm a fellow Gen-Exer and I agreed with Roger Ebert. This movie rang hollow for me. It was funny how the characters kept mentioning "irony" in the movie and defined it as when the literal meaning is different from the actual meaning. Well, in Reality Bites, the literal meaning (that old people and corporate types are evil sell-outs) is different from the actual meaning (the whole movie is a sell-out, packaging a message about how young people "should" feel and act). This movie is no better than the re-edited version of Lalaina's documentary that she hates so much....how ironic.

[–] geesuz 15 years ago

I think Ebert is spot on about the film and the film within a film. Her documentary is just bad. She is trying to be creative type and failing, and reacts badly to it. Authenticity doesn't excuse shoddy craftsmanship, ever.

Not a great film overall. The characters are as self-indulgent and blind as the film. (Which I hope is intentional) This has all been examined to better effect in better films, this just seems like a TV show.

[–] move_over_fatso 15 years ago

I'm a fellow Gen-Xer and I totally disagree with you and Roger Ebert. The movie TOTALLY caught the vibe at the time. Being "cynical" and anti-corporate was definitely the vibe with college kids and young adults, especially since it was right after the Reagan years. The movie went with the "romantic" ending, but maybe is just (supposedly) shows that some things people value are timeless, and that young adults at the time were a reflection of the pomposity of the era anyway.

[–] banders46 13 years ago

The problem is that this movie tried to resonate with Gen-X'ers (I'm also one) by being exactly what Gen-Xers hate -- corporate, mainstream, predictable, and cynical. It's so clearly a movie designed to appeal to Gen-Xers that you end up hating it, even though it stars Winona Ryder, the perfect Gen-X poster girl.

[–] Rick-34 13 years ago

This is exactly right.

Roger Ebert doesn't get Gen X apparently.

[–] cmtmj2006 11 years ago

Totally agreed with your post. I was in my 20 and in college when this movie debuted and it perfectly described the feelings and beliefs of the time. We were the anti-counter culture attitude of the baby boomers, against the materialism the baby Boomer generation embrassed and anti corporate mentality. Ebert didn't get it because he was a member of a generation we believed were hypocrites.

[–] paliopa 14 years ago

I agree completely. I was in college when it came out, pretty much the target demo. For me, the whole thing wreaked of marketers trying to make a "cool" movie to appeal exactly to that demo. Think of Nirvana's song "Radio-Friendly Unit Shifter"--this movie felt like that equivalent of that. They were purposefully trying to make the 90's version of "Pretty in Pink," and it was very transparent.

All Glory to the Hypnotoad

[–] TheAnimalMother 15 years ago

Roger Ebert really isn't that great of a critic. Many movies that are now considered classics by the majority of movie buffs and critics, were given terrible reviews by Ebert. A Clockwork Orange is a great example of this. If you've ever seen the film Roger Ebert wrote, Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls, you would know that he really doesn't have that great of an eye for film. The whole film is quite pointless and boring until the end. I'm not sure how he ever got the t.v. critic gig, he certainly never earned it for his film work. He probably just made friends with the right people. Some things about this film, Reality Bites, are very good. It misses the mark in a few ways I think, however it is certainly a worthy film. More worthy than Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls, that's for sure. Of the 3 movies Roger Ebert wrote, only one of them is rated over a 6 on IMDb, and it's a 6.3. I've seen a few films directed by Russ Meyer, and the worst one by far was the one Ebert wrote. I enjoyed the other Meyer films I've seen quite a bit. Ebert also lists The Hurt Locker as the 2nd best film of the decade, and Monster as the 3rd. He's a bit of a joke if you ask me. Sure both were decent films, but they really aren't nearly great enough to put in the top 3 movies of the decade I don't think. His list seems ridiculous to me.

My body's a cage, it's been used and abused...and I...LIKE IT!!

[–] geesuz 15 years ago

Eberts writing credits were deliberately campy genre films. You can't judge him on his produced credits as a critic, it's two very separate things. And no critic is 100% all the time. Pauline Kael has hated some films that were classic as well.

No one thought this was a good film except the market that it was aimed at. It is a limited genre flick itself.

[–] TheAnimalMother 15 years ago

They aren't just campy, they're shyt! And I can judge him on whatever I like.

My body's a cage, it's been used and abused...and I...LIKE IT!!

[–] ARH 15 years ago

Her film was barely in the movie.

[–] leoguy7 15 years ago

I'm Sorry but I think you are the one who doesn't yet get it, but maybe you will in time. Ebert's review of this movie was one of the best I've read. He nails exactly what is wrong with this movie down to the last detail. Ethan Hawke's character did not strike me as intelligent nor did Ben Stiller's strike me as a "sell-out". One was a decent, successful and kind man and the other was a smug, unhappy, stupid little boy who had some serious growing up to do. Lelaina's "documentary" wasn't even a documentary. She was walking around with a camcorder and taping her friends. What in the hell would be interesting about that? Could you imagine having to watch 90 minutes of that garbage? Even reality TV is heavily edited and it's still unbearable. Anybody can play with a camera and tape their friend's and all the little, witty brain farts that come out of their mouth but nobody else would want to watch it. I guess in some ways, this movie really did resonate with the extremely naive 20ish year-olds who are still going through a late bout of "teen angst" but to me this movie was a pile of crap.

[–] baprice14 14 years ago

To me, the strange thing about Ebert's review is that he nails the film exactly, except he insists that the film is "blind it is to its own realities." I don't believe that this is true.

I believe the film intentionally shows us that her documentary is not that great, and that Troy really isn't as clever as he and everyone else thinks he is, and that Michael isn't really a "crass corporate monster."

I like Ebert fine, but he seems kind of snobbish in this review, because he thinks that he realizes things about the film that film isn't even aware about itself, and thus it is not a good film. Strange.

(as far as the version of the documentary that the TV station makes, I wouldn't say it is better, just equally bad).

Tendrils of Obfuscation

[–] scrap-7 14 years ago

My thoughts about this movie (as a late-wave Boomer with an Xer sibling whom I strongly identify with as to culture) are closest to baprice14's, although not exact.

I have finally decided that to analyze this film too much is a mistake. Some movies are to be taken as a whole, like a sniffer of brandy, inhale and sip and don't worry about it.

This movie is as emblematic to Gen X as any other. It is and will remain a seminal movie to define this generation for other gens.....and it doesn't matter why or if it was technically superior.

Like Easy Rider defined older Boomers. And St. Elmos Fire defined mid-Boomers and Breakfast Club defined younger Boomers. Like that.

It will be remembered as an important coming of age film, and the *ironies* of the characters are their truths, their realities. They're far from perfect. They are each ambivalent toward life in their own ways, like any typical GenXer. That is what life gave to that gen at that time.

I find it a wonderful film in its honesty.

[–] hempick2 12 years ago

Sniffer of brandy?

There is a God and his name is Billy Joel.

[–] spirit-of-1969 12 years ago

You got it. I actually think Ben Stiller's character is by far the most sympathetic in the movie. His takedown of Ethan Hawke outside the bar is clearly the filmmakers showing their hand: Hawke is not someone to look up to, he's a loser. Confusing the author's and the characters' opinions is a pretty rookie mistake for someone as amazing as Ebert.

[–] dzukelica 13 years ago

"I believe the film intentionally shows us that her documentary is not that great, and that Troy really isn't as clever as he and everyone else thinks he is, and that Michael isn't really a "crass corporate monster." "

Agree with this quote, and i liked the movie.

It`s like a jungle sometimes, it makes me wonder.. how i keep from goin` under. Ha-Ha.

[–] PhoenixPhuck 13 years ago

I agree with baprice on this one...Roger Ebert does judge the characters properly, but it's the filmmakers (particularly Stiller) that he underestimates.

I find that most people who like this film don't even really get it...they usually find the ending to be a perfectly happy romantic comedy ending and about true love and all that mess...they also think Stiller's character was wrong in his actions and that he ruined Ryder's character's so-called "documentary".

Even the most primitive society has an innate respect for the insane.

[–] Misanthwopical_Bweed 13 years ago

I think Ebert had a point, those "documentary films" were unwatchable,
the editing job they did was as well but I dont see how it was worse than her footage

"Abortion is green!"
Doug Stanhope

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] americanbeauty82 13 years ago

I've noticed that a lot of times Ebert reads way too much into some films that aren't meant to be taken so seriously.
Have you seen the Brady Bunch movies? Those are meant to be ridiculous satires and Ebert critiqued them like they were meant to be uber dramatic pieces of art. His reviews were laughable.

[–] baprice14 12 years ago

I've noticed that a lot of times Ebert reads way too much into some films that aren't meant to be taken so seriously. Have you seen the Brady Bunch movies? Those are meant to be ridiculous satires and Ebert critiqued them like they were meant to be uber dramatic pieces of art.

Yeah. I love Ebert, but he is certainly guilty of this. Though I think that sometimes this approach is valid. For example, though I think that Tyler Perry movies are awful, I think that a serious critique is valid because they are a symbol of something in culture that is much bigger than the film itself. But I do agree that there is a point, like with the Brady Bunch movies, where a critic can take it too seriously.

Tendrils of Obfuscation