Read his reviews and you will find the most unprofessional writing about movies there is. He openly hates Kiarostami. He can't stand him. His idiotic mind cannot overcome the inability to understand this great film maker and therefore he cant't stand him. And it all comes from a winner of Pulizer's Prize. Shame.
share...And note also that IMDB has choosen the worst comment in front page, like as usual when IMDB choose comments for non-american film.
IMDB, are you racist ?
And note also that IMDB has choosen the worst comment in front page, like as usual when IMDB choose comments for non-american film.I understand that the comments are being rotated automatically. share
Would youm please give me the address of that webpage? I am going to read that critic. Thanks.
sharerogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030411/REVIEWS/30 4110305/1023
I want you to hold it between your knees!share
Ultimately, I think for a lot of casual film lovers, Robert Ebert is somehow presented as a complete authority on cinema. Clearly, he has established his position as a well respected and (by many) loved authority of cinema, but I think his critical writing on World Cinema and Independent Cinema is not particularly insightful or indeed sophisticated.
I think he does has some valid things to say about mainstream cinema, and I would even still take the time to read his reviews of non-mainstream stuff, but I would not give it too much credance. I would like to think anybody familiar with the work of a master (and I don't use the word lightly), such as Kiarostami, would know better than to be influenced by the opinions of a journeyman hack such as Ebert. If anything, I would perhaps be worried if Ebert started giving 5 star reviews to such diverse and wonderfully subtle cinema, and might then have to conclude that Kiarostami was going down hill, or that Ebert had lost his marbles completely.
I know he has plenty of experience judging and critiquing cinema, but he's an idiot when it comes to Kiarostami.
Here's what he had to say about his films:
"No ordinary moviegoer, whether Iranian or American, can be expected to relate to Kiarostami's films. They exist for film festivals, film critics and film classes."
Hmm ... last I checked, nearly everybody genuinely interested in film was agreeing how brilliant a filmmaker Kiarostami is. Maybe by "ordinary moviegoer" he means people whose idea of a great film is seeing Keanu Reeves shooting at people.
I'm not aware of many major film critics, but Australia's David Stratton is a very insightful and reliable one.
I also hold Jonathan Rosenbaum in high regard, although I have only read a few of his reviews.
I've read some of Ebert's pieces and he isn't anything special. If you look at his site, there are many great European films he apparently hasn't even seen.
that Ebert quote is comedy gold. he has discredited himself when it comes to world cinema so many times it's close to hilarious and from what i've read he's growing more sloppy by day even with his mainstream reviews
shareWell, unlike everyone here, I agree with Ebert. This movie was a bore and had nothing remotely interesting to say. I found it painful to get through. And no, my idea of film is not Keanu Reeves shooting people up. I love my more modern films but I also like a wide range of movies from Day of Wrath to Sunset Blvd to Brazil...but this film just seemed pointless.
shareBefore posting in defence of Ebert I should probably qualify my remarks by stating that that I think Kiarostami to be an astonishing director and Ten to be a truly great film.
Having said that Ebert is entirely correct in stating that mainstream audiences would have no interest in this film at all. You can bemoan it all you like but surely it is not controversial to say that the majority of people would far rather see Keanu Reeves blowing someone away than watch a static shot non narrative minimalist film.
We who appreciate Kiarostami are a small bunch and, whilst all generalisations have their faults, it would not be unfair to characterise us as film festival goers and film student types.
Ebert's criticism is that he finds Kiarostami too detached, for me it is this detachment that is crucial. Ebert's comments should be understood in their context, which is his belief that Kiarostami is overpraised next to his contemporaries
"If you want to see the themes in "Ten" explored with power and frankness in films of real power, you would turn away from Kiarostami's arid formalism and look instead at a film like Tahmineh Milani's "Two Women" (1999) or Jafar Panahi's "The Circle" (2000), which have the power to deeply move audiences"
I don't agree with him, but to dismiss him completely because of one blind spot is over the top, I don't agree with him but the fact that the best known critic in America is someone who praises The Circle and hails Aguirre Wrath of God as his favourite film is something to celebrate. He may not be a critic with as much to say as Rosembaum for instance but like Kiarostami Rosembaum could never reach a wide audience,
Ebert is just helping to maintain the mind-numbed "status quo," whether he realizes or not. IMO.
Criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, friend, acquaintance or stranger.
Well, how boring would it be if every single critic agreed on every single "masterpiece" there is? Personally I believe Kiarostami DOES make films only for film festivals, but that's just an opinion. Why do I think it is so? Because his films feel more like experiments than actual works of art, which sadly is the case of a lot of modern artists. Roger Ebert is a professional critic, and even though I knw he's not the best, he surely is not ignorant about cinema.
Let me place a part of Ebert's comment on "Ten" here:
"The shame is that more accessible Iranian directors are being neglected in the overpraise of Kiarostami. Brian Bennett, who runs the Bangkok Film Festival, told me of attending a Tehran Film Festival with a fair number of Western critics and festival directors. "The moment a film seemed to be about characters or plot," he said, "they all got up and raced out of the room. They had it fixed in their minds that the Iranian cinema consisted of minimalist exercises in style, and didn't want to see narrative films." Since storytelling is how most films work and always have, it is a shame that Iranian stories are being shut out of Western screenings because of a cabal of dilettantes".
I personally believe Kiarostami IS based on style exercises and nothing more. Stillborn art. Yet it is MY opinion, other people are free to believe what they want. Ebert isn't stupid just because he doesn't like a "great" director. (Maybe time will prove he IS great, who knows...If he keeps making the same film over and over, I highly doubt it)
[deleted]
[deleted]
You guys are being dense. Because a guy a differing opinion he is now an idiot? Ebert is a terrific reviewer because his writing is concise and provides support for his position. Even when you disagree with the man, it's pretty silly to throw insults at him.
shareBut he does it for a living -and a very good living at that - and his knowledge and experience of his subject should enable him to be more balanced. I think Kiarostami has done better work than 'Ten', but other people disagree. That's fine, we all have opinions. Personally I wanted to take that kid out the back and shoot him, but maybe that's just me.
Ebert is, like most critics, an exemplar of the attitude: those who can, do; those who can't, criticise.
Famous directors that hold Kiarostami in high regard. Tarantino, Scorsese, Godard, Kurosawa.
The list actually goes on. Ebert can suck it.
That's fine, we all have opinions. Personally I wanted to take that kid out the back and shoot him, but maybe that's just me.It's not just you. That kid deserved a few good slaps on his face for the way he was talking back to his mother. In fact, any of the scenes containing the insufferable prick were mind-numbingly difficult to sit through (so much that I felt compelled to knock down the rating a notch - or several)... but I suppose that's the whole damn point.
Ha. Yes, indeed. A film that involves you to the extent that you actively loathe a part is well-written and directed. The brat was playing a part, but I defy anyone to watch his performance and just shrug.
shareI, too, was extremely annoyed by the son and his attitude. In fact, I wanted to knock that imperious little brat clear into next week!
share[deleted]