Me Versus Ebert

After the stream of celebrity deaths this year, I figured I had better get any grievances I have with the Hollywood elite off my chest while they are still alive. Of course, an article listing every problem I have with certain stars would take an excruciatingly long time. So, I'll just start with the top of the list for now and gradually make my way down. And at the top is Roger Ebert.

I know, he isn't a star, but he is certainly related to the world of cinema. Plus, the bone I have to pick with him is a particularly large one. See, ever since I was a kid I've known of Roger Ebert. I didn't have much of a context as to who he was or what he did, but I always knew the name. Then, with thanks to the Animaniacs and "The Critic," I discovered he reviewed movies. Being a movie fanatic for as long as I could remember, I placed Ebert on a pedestal because he was the first film critic I've ever heard of. He was like a demigod to me. But it wasn't until the last year or so that I started reading his reviews. And while he and I agree on many things, I think he's written a good portion of his reviews while out of his mind.

Exhibit A: "Fighting." Ebert gave this film three stars out of four. The general synopsis is that Shawn (Channing Tatum) is a struggling street vendor approached by Harvey (Terrance Howard) to join the leagues of underground fighting. Ebert's reasoning for his score is that he likes how the actors are the film's focus as opposed to the worn out narrative. Ebert says that the director met the requirements of making a genre film and then put the rest of his efforts in making the characters interesting. 

I will concede that the characters, specifically Harvey, were more fleshed out than in other action films, but that isn't enough for me. The narrative itself is dead. As I said when it was first being released, its story is a rehashing of "Lionheart" with minimal chages here and there. So, if you are going to make an action film with a recycled plot, you might as well make sure the action is good, right? Not in this film. Shawn doesn't even win his first fight; the other guy defeats himself. And every subsequent fight gets a little bit better, but, really, watching Adam Sandler and Eric Bana fight in "Funny People" was more entertaining. What I'm trying to say is that if you are going to make an action film that focuses on the characters as opposed to the action, then you had better be sure the characters are damned compelling, which, for me, they weren't. I'd give the movie two stars out of four.

Exhibit B: "Blue Velvet." Ebert gave this film one star out of four. His argument for scoring one of Lynch's most-hailed films a measly one star is that he believes that the film is two-sided. On one hand it shows powerful emotional depth and disturbing sexual imagery that can make almost any audience member cringe. And on the other hand it is a parody of a "Leave it to Beaver"-type small town and is full of satirical in-jokes. The combination of the two takes away from both of their strengths and results in a convoluted, insincere experience.

Again, I disagree. I think the comparison of the seedy underworld with all of its demented attributes and the too-perfect town of Lumberton feed off of each other rather than hurt each other. There are some things you can only define in comparison to their opposites. "Good" would not exist without "bad;" they are dependent on each other for existence. To me, that's what this kind of film does. In order to define how terrible Dennis Hopper and his gang are, we are given the reference point of well-tended lawns and white picket fences. And the fact that the small-town coziness never disappears also works for me because it shows that despite the realization that heinous activities are occurring, the citizens of the town remain oblivious or they just don't care. They are living in a sort of consensus reality where nothing bad happens...even though it does. I'd give the film a minimum of three stars.

Exhibit C: "Knowing." Ebert gave the film four out of four stars. After reading his review, I want to say that Ebert likes this film in theory more than he actually likes it in practice. He commends the film on bringing an ancient debate to the surface (Is the universe deterministic or random?) and making an argument for one of the sides. That is where the greater part of his praise lands. He does mention things like special effects, the musical score and editing, but those received a line of note whereas the general premise of the film and related debates took up paragraphs. Still, whatever his reasoning, he did award it a perfect score.

Now, when scoring something 100 percent, I take things very seriously. After all, a perfect score means nothing could be done to make the film better. I've maybe seen one or two movies I'd give that accolade to, and neither of them is "Knowing." Sure, I like the premise, too, but the film falls flat in other respects. Really, I'd say the film reaches a level of incoherence by the end thanks to its vague randomness. Also, I feel as though Nicolas Cage is only half-trying to act, but maybe that's because I don't like how the character is written. Either way, it's a bad thing. One part of the film Ebert and I agree on is the effects. During certain scenes I was darned impressed with what computers could conjure up. But beyond that, the movie was ok at best. I'd give it a max of three stars, maybe just two and a half.

Now, I am just a lowly film student and Ebert has been studying and reviewing films since before I was born, but I am convinced Ebert is losing it in his old age. Sure, different people have different opinions, but this is too much. "Knowing" getting a perfect score is unnatural. I actually thought somebody hacked his website and wrote a fake review when I first read it. But nope. That's just Ebert. 

Oh well, at least he hated "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen."