The Criterion Collection

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by SammyJankis

Fanny and Alexander
The Tree of Wooden Clogs
Satyricon
Claire's Knee
Maborosi
The Tree of Life
The Sacrifice

This is an utterly absurd accusation to make and works under the assumption that a critic isn't capable of fault in hindsight. There are a countless number of others, one of whom you cite, Rosenbaum, that are just as guilty for this hollow critera. Hell, I saw Rosenbaum give a speech on Ebert's importance, specifically that aforementioned commentary track.

After reading his review of Ulysses Gaze I question how much he really understood what Tarkovsky was doing, because he could have easily been used as a reference point for that film.

Most of those films are by directors that were already firmly established by that point, so I'm not sure what that proves. I'd say what's more indicative is when he is confronted with a film that he doesn't understand very well and/or knows much about the film maker. That's the real test, especially for challenging works, not early Scorsese.

Rosenbaum is guilty of other things, namely an obsession with old auteurist models of understanding film. For popular films Ebert was probably more valuable than him, although not always.

[Member-167298]

Sounds like some self-important movie know-it-alls in here need to stop taking themselves and their elegant movie taste so seriously and get some Cannon films in their lives...

[malakaheso]

How many Cannon films did Ebert like? That's a better question.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

How many Cannon films did Ebert like? That's a better question.

Gave "Death Wish 2" ZERO stars and "DW 3" ONE star. Absolutely unforgivable in my mind. He did enjoy "Runaway Train" and "Barfly", which are both Cannon movies.

[JoeBuck]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

Yeah, pretty much all Anglophone films in the 00's. Boring middle of the road ones too.

You're the one who sounds like the snob here.

[theater dreamer]

I'm well aware that those films were canon when Ebert wrote his reviews. I think it's highly insulting to suggest that Ebert was incapable of formulating his own opinion without standing on the shoulders of those film critics that came before him.

If you don't like his take on foreign films, so be it. Don't read them. But to single out a couple reviews from a vast body of work to try and strengthen your argument here is not going to fly. There is plenty of evidence, from reviews written of major films when they first came out, that Ebert's instincts were sound.

Werner Herzog had a tremendous amount of respect for Ebert. That should speak volumes.

Originally Posted by malakaheso

Those are all canon films. The problem is when films were new and he didn't have received opinion to rest on.

Anyone that is familiar with Angelopoulos or the history of long take cinema in art films knows why that review I referred to above showed his complete ignorance. There are many different ways he could have engaged with that film, but clearly he couldn't find one because he had no idea so he turned his review into a personal attack.

Ebert was good for some things, but if I want to find out more about the more artistic end of the film spectrum, he is not somebody I'd bother with at all. Not even for Welles.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by PrestonXI

Sounds like some self-important movie know-it-alls in here need to stop taking themselves and their elegant movie taste so seriously and get some Cannon films in their lives...

Your post compelled me to look at how many Cannon films I have in my collection. 44. I have 44 films that ol' Menahem Golan touched with his magic wand. Second to only Jerry Goldsmith in my collection. Technically, 43 because Golan wasn't personally involved with "Electric Boogaloo", although that doc is essential to any Cannon aficionado.

https://www.blu-ray.com/community/co...w&nameid=14804

[malakaheso]

Anyone worth their salt knows that Love Streams is Cannon's best film.

Masters of The Universe is no.2

[mja345]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

Anyone worth their salt nows that Love Streams was Cannon's best film.

Masters of The Universe was no.2

Blasphemy! "The Apple" was Cannon's masterpiece and probably one of the best films of the past 50 years. "Kinjite: Forbidden Subjects" is number two. It answers the age-old question of what a man does when faced with single-handedly attempting to take down a child prostitution ring.

[jedidarrick]

Originally Posted by PrestonXI

Sounds like some self-important movie know-it-alls in here need to stop taking themselves and their elegant movie taste so seriously and get some Cannon films in their lives...

We could all use a little Cannon. Lifeforce and Invaders from Mars are legitimately great movies. My friends and I watched some Tobe Hooper movies a few months ago and those two stuck out with me.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

Ebert was thoroughly middlebrow, almost comically so. I've read enough of his reviews of these films to know that if they got too challenging or minimal or out there he would call them pretentious etc.

The times I do read Ebert, it's generally for middlebrow and Hollywood movies (mind you that the term "middlebrow" isn't a pejorative for me, it's just a good catch all term for populist awards season type movies). Not to generalize his taste too much, but what is so wrong with that being his wheelhouse? Ebert sought to be moved or entertained with his time and, you're right, had little patience for more experimental fare. I don't see how this is damning.

He was The critic of his times for a reason. I don't think his writing will last as long as Kael, Rosenbaum, Kehr, etc, but nobody pushed the masses to seek out smaller films or foreign films quite like he did. He was the bridge to the art-house for countless casual cinephiles.

[octagon]

I need to rewatch Highlander soon.

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

The times I do read Ebert, it's generally for middlebrow and Hollywood movies (mind you that the term "middlebrow" isn't a pejorative for me, it's just a good catch all term for populist awards season type movies). Not to generalize his taste too much, but what is so wrong with that being his wheelhouse? Ebert sought to be moved or entertained with his time and, you're right, had little patience for more experimental fare. I don't see how this is damning.

He was The critic of his times for a reason. I don't think his writing will last as long as Kael, Rosenbaum, Kehr, etc, but nobody pushed the masses to seek out smaller films or foreign films quite like he did. He was the bridge to the art-house for countless casual cinephiles.

Can't really disagree with that. I did say he was a good populist critic.

I'm happy to accept your post as the last word on the topic as I have no desire to continue arguing. We have all made our points.

I'm just hoping the next Criterion annoucements don't disappoint me like the last ones did!

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

Can't really disagree with that. I did say he was a good populist critic.

I'm happy to accept your post as the last word on the topic as I have no desire to continue arguing. We have all made our points.

I'm just hoping the next Criterion annoucements don't disappoint me like the last ones did!

Dillinger is Dead
Symbiopsychotaxiplasm Take 1
Ossos
The Complete Michael Snow, Vol. 1

You won't be disappointed!

[Cremildo]

It was thanks to Ebert's clear mastery at shining light on the artistic merits of a film (especially plot construction and narrative strategy as well as acting minutiae) that his writings became the foremost source of film knowledge to me, and it was thanks to his essays that I delved into the likes of Ozu, Resnais, Melville, Buñuel, Fassbinder, Jodorowsky and Herzog - just to limit myself to his thoughts on non-American masterpieces. Frankly, some of the attacks leveled against him in this regard are so factually nonsensical that I can't help but think the person hasn't read more than just a couple of his reviews (or just saw him giving thumbs up or thumbs down on that show) and got mad like a petulant child for disagreeing with them.

Suggesting that a critic is only worth his salt when he champions unknown or under-appreciated artists doesn't make any sense, either - but even if such a criteria were valid, Ebert would fill it. As others have mentioned, he was among those who first recognized the greatness of Scorsese and of milestones like Bonnie & Clyde and McCabe & Mrs. Miller. He was also pretty much the only mainstream reviewer to champion then-unknown indie filmmakers like Ramin Bahrani or unsuspected pop artists like Alex Proyas and Tarsem, not to mention documentaries. He still valued old enfant terribles such as Brian De Palma when most of his peers barely remembered his existence.

Ebert was neither a bad writer, a sell-out who only recommended previously canonized works nor an Anglophone nut who didn't value artistic contributions from overseas. As for havig blind-spots, I see no one disparaging Rosenbaum for hating on the Coens or Spielberg, or Kael for her crusade against Kubrick.

What's this all about then? I say it's about a flagrant lack of knowledge about Ebert's work.

[xHank_Hillx]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

Yeah, pretty much all Anglophone films in the 00's. Boring middle of the road ones too.

eeesh

[senseabove]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

The Complete Michael Snow, Vol. 1

Since Symbio... was included, at first I thought this was a reply to the recent "underrated films" and I just about fainted at the thought I'd somehow missed this being in the collection.

[mja345]

Ebert responded to experimental fare positively for the most part, i.e. his 4 star reviews of "El Topo", "Fellini Satyricon", "3 Women", "Santa Sangre", etc. But Ebert did seem to dislike films that were graphically violent or extremely depraved. Hence his negative reviews of "A Clockwork Orange", "The Devils", "Pink Flamingos", etc.

[theater dreamer]

Oddly enough, though, he loved Bonnie & Clyde, which represents the beginning of realistic gun violence in film.

Originally Posted by mja345

Ebert responded to experimental fare positively for the most part, i.e. his 4 star reviews of "El Topo", "Fellini Satyricon", "3 Women", "Santa Sangre", etc. But Ebert did seem to dislike films that were graphically violent or extremely depraved. Hence his negative reviews of "A Clockwork Orange", "The Devils", "Pink Flamingos", etc.

[SammyJankis]

Originally Posted by mja345

Ebert responded to experimental fare positively for the most part, i.e. his 4 star reviews of "El Topo", "Fellini Satyricon", "3 Women", "Santa Sangre", etc. But Ebert did seem to dislike films that were graphically violent or extremely depraved. Hence his negative reviews of "A Clockwork Orange", "The Devils", "Pink Flamingos", etc.

He disapproved more on ideological grounds. The claim that he didn't like graphically violent pictures doesn't hold with Natural Born Killers, Taxi Driver, Irreversible, etc.