![]()
![]()
That somewhat disproves my theory, though A.) it received a Live-Action Adaptation, not a normal The Movie, and B.) it's easier to see at a glance why people like Avatar than Powerpuff Girls.
![]()
He's talking about the show. Ebert actually mentioned liking it in his review of the film.
edited 1st Aug '11 5:30:43 PM by BaronofBarons
I put on my robe and tinfoil hat...I sincerely dislike Ebert for the simple reason that he doesn't know squat. Yes, this is my opinion, but I honestly believe that he has such a Mary Whitehouse manner of thinking that everytime a film doesn't fit into his tiny sack of morality he automatically dismisses it.
Is it really necessarry to insult the fans of this show? The review seems to be just one insult after another in regards to a children's film.
~Sickly •❤• Sweet~Roeper insulted the fans, not Ebert. Roeper also didn't like Fellowship of the Ring.
More Buscemi at http://forum.reelsociety.com/Ebert and Roper were split on Lilo And Stitch, with the former loving it and the latter hating it. This would be all well and good if it weren't for the fact that while the end credit were playing, Roper still drags on the argument by saying, "Btw, I still think Lilo & Stitch sucks."
Ebert is a thoughtful, knowledgeable reviewer, much more openminded than most critics. That said, he does have his blindspots. He'll give something 4 stars if it's visually impressive enough even if the story is only subpar; he'll also give points for novelty even if that novelty doesn't serve the film's story. And you will hear about it if a film's male and female lead have romantic tension but don't end up together or at least having sex (Spider-Man, Hidalgo, etc; he really doesn't seem to like chaste heroes if there's a willing female partner around). He spent a good portion of his review of Treasure Planet complaining about the science fiction setting (rule 1 of critiquing: review what it is, not what it isn't). And, like most mainstream critics, he seems confused and angry about genre films made pretty much entirely for their core audience.
Based on all that, he sounds like a very introverted critic (not sure if that's the right word to use). When he reviews a film, it's very much his opinion alone, and he isn't really considering what kind of audience the film might be made for and how tastes may differ. This would end up meaning favoring certain genres over others.
I think it's better if a critic sticks to reviewing a genre that they actually do like. If someone doesn't like a certain genre, it's likely because he/she doesn't understand it and therefore probably shouldn't be critiquing it.
What are you, mad? What will we do if reviews are made with the target audience in mind? Role playing games might get a fair shake! Who will we direct our misguided, impotent rage at?
Ebert generally does a pretty good job of reviewing movies in the spirit in which they are intended. If he's reviewing an action movie, he won't judge it on the same standards as Citizen Kane.
However, this has the unintended side effect of limiting what the show can do and be. He didn't pick up on Po being adopted in Kung Fu Panda (the first) despite the gigantic anvils dropped because he'd already decided that genetics were irrelevant in a funny animal movie. He made some significant mistakes of fact in his Thor review because he'd already decided it was going to be a dumb action movie. By seeking to review in view of the limitations, he ends up applying limitations.
edited 2nd Aug '11 6:17:40 PM by TheZMage
Yeah, how exactly does one become a respectable critic? Go to film school, show up to work on time, work eight hours a day five days a week? Whatever the case they get paid to watch programs and give their opinions. Big deal. Even if they have a successful career in some other field a critic is a critic.
Modified Ura-nage, Torture RackExactly. He tries to judge everything by how well it fulfills the artistic purpose of its genre. It's not accurate to say "Waaah, he's an old fart who hates superheroes/anime/whatever" when he's given Iron Man and most Hayao Miyazaki films four stars.
“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. BernardI am always so amused when people see a review of something they disagree, and respond by attacking the reviewer.
Are you all so insecure in your opinions you can't risk seeing some that disagrees with them?
I like Ebert's reviews. I don't always agree with him. Quite often the opposites, but I always enjoy seeing his reasons for liking or disliking something.

Ebert is a fan of Avatar: The Last Airbender.
More Buscemi at http://forum.reelsociety.com/