Ebert thumbs down?

[Marcus Telcontar]

"Local ABC station WLS showed some highlights from this weeks "Ebert and Roeper" on the news earlier today. While it seems as if Roeper really enjoyed the film, Ebert did not. Which is shocking, considering that Ebert gave Phantom Menace one of its best reviews. The highlights seemed to insinuate that Ebert thought that the effects were too over the top and that the story had too many holes in it."



(From TF.N)



>_<


That's truly odd. Roeper is usually the one dissing Sci-fi and stuff.

[Live Wire]

This is why I never listen to ebert

[JMK]

Maybe he felt stupid about praising TPM so much.
And it seems that if he thinks there are too many holes in AotC, he should have also thought that about TPM. Every other critic seemed to think that.

[Marcus Telcontar]

I read his actual review of AOTC. He does not recind his good review of TPM. What he did get stuck into for AOTC was dialogue and also he really let rip about the screener quality. His review is well reasoned actually and I felt he was not bashing AOTC for the sake of bashing - he was very genuine in his concerns and backed them up as a good critic should. We may not agree in the end with his opinion, but I believe his review is valid, becuase of the way he presented his case.

[darth_mcbain]

I make it a point to never trust any critic. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and that includes me - I form my own opinions of the movie without being swayed by critics. I also this that many times, critics have to uphold a reputation or an image, so they may not judge something entirely fairly. I was reading an advance "review" of AOTC in my local paper today - the reviewer hadn't actually seen it, but was describing it - and he was really negative. I'm sorry, but the only reason for being negative in that kind of review is safety. If the movie does suck (which it won't), then he's correct and safe. But if the movie is good, then he can just claim ignorance, saying "well, I hadn't seen it yet". Much safer than if he claims it will be great and then it isn't. He said something to the effect that "... it is supposed to be darker and less sucky than TPM..." Screw that, you haven't even seen the darn thing...

[Jedi Master Carr]

I am also curious how much the whole digital thing is influencing him, I know he is against digital so maybe that is influencing his opinion, still he did say he would have to see it again to see if his opinion changes. I am surprised Roeper liked it that is a shock in itself, he hated LOTR the most of just about any critic except Jeffery Wells.

[imported_QuiGonJ]

Begun, this media backlash has...

[Jedi Master Carr]

At worst it will be mixed, still there seems to be more critics who liked it than last time for example Variety and Rolling Stones both are postive this time, most critics won't be on though until next week (Usa Today, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, La times, etc) I am curious how they will react to it.

[Charley]

I couldn't give a flying wad of hot feces for Ebert, or any critic, no matter their opinion on SW.

[Tenel Ka]

I never listen to critics. They always make me angry. >_<

[Champion of the Force]

Begun, this media backlash has...
Maybe, maybe not. Rotten Tomatoes.com is still giving AOTC the ripe tomato, with 60% of reviews positive (that's right on the borderline though, if it gets anymore negative reviews it'll receive a rotten one).

We'll have to wait until later in the week to find out the final critical response.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Most will be out between Tuesday and Thursday, I am really curious about USA Today, The Washington Post and the LA times mainly the rest don't matter to me. Newsweek came out with a mixed review the but Ansen did say the fans will be happy so at least that sounds good.

[Live Wire]

heared two more critics today who didnt like aotc. Critics are just people who get paid to watch movies. Doesnt make their opinion any more valid then the fans.

[DarthNuriko]

I kinda agree with Ebert. A thumbs down means less than 3 stars. This movie wasn't a three star film for me. Parts of it even put me to sleep. It was a worthy effort bogged down by its flaws.

[Lady Vader]

O_o @ Nuri. No comment.

You know... a friend of mine pointed out the other day that it is quite possible that Ebert doesn't watch every single film he critiques. On more recent occassions, he's been insinuating that most of the info he gives on his show is from internet reviews.

It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Ebert didn't see AOTC, but rather read the script or read reviews and tidbits from other sites.

I mean, it makes no sense for him to give TPM good reviews and AOTC bad reviews, when it is pratcially clear to ALL that AOTC is far superior.

It's like being a grade A writer, and having the teacher give you a grade of A for your first paper, and then a grade of D for your second, even though both papers are written well. (I can attest to this. I had a teacher like this that just gave out random grades. All the students complained about it.)

It just makes me wonder if he really did see AOTC...

On another note, Time magazine gave AOTC a very good review and even DISSED the other critiques for being so stupid. I liked that so much, I read the article again. :lol

[JMK]

I agree, I wonder if he's even seen the movie. Maybe he just bought into the "it's cool to bash Star Wars" fad. Maybe it isn't fair to say that, as Ebert has normally been better than fair to most "blockbuster" movies, but I wonder how anyone could give TPM a higher rating than AotC and explain how they came to it.

[Righ Gan Fang]

There is an old axiom that those of us who work in film and theatre subscribe to regarding critics.


"A critic's review is like a virgin teaching a whore how to F@$%"

[CMJ]

Ebert saw it...I assure you. He saw it more than once, he said he caught a Digital Screening of it on the next week's show(said it was sharper, clearer....remarked that movies shot digitally look best digitally and movie shot on film look best on film).

[Jedi Master Carr]

I still disagree with him about that he said the film was fuzzy, and I never really saw any fuzzy footage. I still think he let his biased against Digital technology get in the way of the movie (though I think he did without even realizing it) its a shame that it did, not that I still don't respect him but I do find his views old school, I am all for digital film, if it improves the quality of the movie, I watch I am all for it.