Roger Ebert is an ignoramus

Posted by Mikal C Johnson from CRDAB102-38.splitrock.net on January 17, 2000 at 14:02:45:

In Reply to: Re: Roger Ebert is an ignoramus posted by JuggleEwok on January 17, 2000 at 11:39:07:

Hmm. I can't even think of any other reviewers (still living), I have so much respect for them <--sarcasm.

Almost every time I read one of Ebert's reviews, as I said, I see something just plain ignorant. The man liked Austin Powers!!!

Not meaning to harp on Braveheart, but I just re-read the review, and almost half of it is garbage. He just doesn't know what he's talking about.

There are points where he's right on, and others where he's just making stuff up to fit his own version of the world.

While he gave 3.5 stars to Last Crusade, he also gets a little haughty with it... says it largely unoriginal, and hints that it's just a rehash of Raiders. Makes me wonder if he's even seen the movie!

: Actually, he's the only movie reviewer I've ever seen who hasn't made me think he didn't know what he was talking about. Consequently, he's the only critic I'll actually listen to (provided I listen to one).

: : My response to this below...

: : >I was reading Roger Ebert's review of The Matrix and noticed >something
: : >that concerns us Indyfan's a little. It's about Keanu Reeve's
: : >performance in The Matrix. It's kinda interesting. Read for
: : >yourself:
: : >
: : >Keanu Reeves goes for the impassive Harrison Ford approach,
: : >"acting" as little as possible.
: : >
: : >Now obviously, Ebert is referring to Harrison Ford's performance in
: : >his more serious movies I suspect (i.e. his films that are not Star
: : >Wars or Indiana Jones). What's your take on this fellow Indyfans?

: : I agree with the assessment that what Mr Ebert was trying to say is that he was going for a "toned down" character, but I just have to throw this in...

: : Whatever he may be in his private life, Ebert as a movie reviewer doesn't always know what he's talking about. Almost every time I've read one of his reviews, I've noticed some glaring error in his judgement.

: : For instance, he knocked Braveheart because "the concept of personal freedom did not exist in the middle ages" or some garbage to that effect. What he fails to realize is that is was the Scottish struggles for freedoms that brought about later revolutions (ever wonder why the Scots and French get along so well?).

: : He has a tendency to pick some little piddly thing which he doesn't understand and can't get past because of his prejudices and failure to do a little studying, and make it the reason he doesn't care for a movie.

: : He's the kind of guy who'd knock Indiana Jones because he endangers real archaeology.

: : Sorry... I just really dislike the guy. He's an idiot.

Follow Ups:

Re: Roger Ebert is an ignoramus Anejo Joe 16:03:33 1/18/2000 (0)

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: Hmm. I can't even think of any other reviewers (still living), I have so much respect for them <--sarcasm.

: Almost every time I read one of Ebert's reviews, as I said, I see something just plain ignorant. The man liked Austin Powers!!!

: Not meaning to harp on Braveheart, but I just re-read the review, and almost half of it is garbage. He just doesn't know what he's talking about.

: There are points where he's right on, and others where he's just making stuff up to fit his own version of the world.

: While he gave 3.5 stars to Last Crusade, he also gets a little haughty with it... says it largely unoriginal, and hints that it's just a rehash of Raiders. Makes me wonder if he's even seen the movie!

: : Actually, he's the only movie reviewer I've ever seen who hasn't made me think he didn't know what he was talking about.  Consequently, he's the only critic I'll actually listen to (provided I listen to one).

: : : My response to this below...

: : : >I was reading Roger Ebert's review of The Matrix and noticed >something 
: : : >that concerns us Indyfan's a little. It's about Keanu Reeve's 
: : : >performance in The Matrix. It's kinda interesting. Read for 
: : : >yourself:
: : : >
: : : >Keanu Reeves goes for the impassive Harrison Ford approach, 
: : : >"acting" as little as possible. 
: : : >
: : : >Now obviously, Ebert is referring to Harrison Ford's performance in 
: : : >his more serious movies I suspect (i.e. his films that are not Star 
: : : >Wars or Indiana Jones). What's your take on this fellow Indyfans?

: : : I agree with the assessment that what Mr Ebert was trying to say is that he was going for a "toned down" character, but I just have to throw this in...

: : : Whatever he may be in his private life, Ebert as a movie reviewer doesn't always know what he's talking about. Almost every time I've read one of his reviews, I've noticed some glaring error in his judgement.

: : : For instance, he knocked Braveheart because "the concept of personal freedom did not exist in the middle ages" or some garbage to that effect. What he fails to realize is that is was the Scottish struggles for freedoms that brought about later revolutions (ever wonder why the Scots and French get along so well?).

: : : He has a tendency to pick some little piddly thing which he doesn't understand and can't get past because of his prejudices and failure to do a little studying, and make it the reason he doesn't care for a movie.

: : : He's the kind of guy who'd knock Indiana Jones because he endangers real archaeology.

: : : Sorry... I just really dislike the guy. He's an idiot.

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]