Ebert Review!! 3.5 Stars!!
 

http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert...matrix14f.html


Great news!!! He only gave the original 3 stars

Since it's not 4 stars, let me be the first to declare Ebert INSANE.

yes, he did seem to like it.
although as is becoming the standard now with him, the review is depressingly shallow.

a much better (dare i say it? pulitzer worthy ) review can be found by Gopnick in the New Yorker.

read only after you see the movie, but definitely seek this one

He is insane! I am offended!

Okay...this makes me less optimistic. :(

Typically his reviews are the exact opposite of what I think of a movie.

Cool. Not a bad review.

And no review of The Matrix is going to win a Pulitzer. ;)

He said "fanboys". :D

what did Ebert win the Pulitzer for anyway?

and no, i don't think a review for TMR is going to win a Pulitzer, but if you are the kind of Matrix fan that is stimulated by some of the philosophical implications of the first movie, Gopnick goes into this in quite some depth in his much more substanative review of TMR (which isn't quite as positive as Eberts).


i believe Ebert also gave The Rock the same ***1/2 score.
the segment of audience i was expecting this film to most positively resonate with, and what i was getting at in the other thread.
I'll be interested to see what G.K. thinks later tonight/tomorrow.

BTW, I read about half the review and there were more spoilers than I cared to know about. I guess now I know that

I'm not sure what to think about the review. Ebert doesn't really discuss the movie as much as he merely acknowledges its characteristics. The implications of The Matrix as a cultural phenomenon are interesting but at this point I think what we'd all like to hear is just how spectacular the effects are and how well the storyline is developed. I like it when Ebert's in a jokey mood but both this and his X2 review suffer from him affectionately mentioning loopholes in the movies' concepts instead of writing about what works and what doesn't.

Basically, I doubt this is true. Ebert has fairly mainstream tastes, and likes art films as well. I imagine if we took a random sampling of movies you hated and movies you loved, Ebert would have similar opinions more often than not.

Here we go again with bashing Ebert..the man is one guy. His columns are his opinions of the movies. He has been a consistently good writer and reviewer for a long, long time.

Ebert has a weakness for pretty FX - regardless of how vapid the actual storyline may be. He's demonstrated this time and time again. See "The Cell" or "Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace."

He does. Dark City is one of his all-time favorite movies...largely due to the FX.

I agree with him.


3.5 STARS should be about right:)

That guy is always smokin crack. He is 70 freakin years old! Old ass people don't like action flicks.

He also has a weakness for martial arts.

I was thinking the same thing. In the end the only opinion that matters is your own.

Not in my opinion (no pun intended) - I care what Ebert thinks because his opinions are usually well explained and often insightful.

Has anyone seen any 4 star reviews?

Re: Ebert Review!! 3.5 Stars!!
 

Wow, now THAT is the suprising news. The 1st was surely better than the second.

i think its safe to say that Ebert, despite the positve review, doesn't 'get' it, in the same way that 99% of the viewers don't get the material, and won't get the material until 6 months from now...if ever.

i think Ebert does realize that the film is (going to be) popular and appreciates the fact that the wachowskis are trying to get beyond the usual brainless action picture, and just may be making a sci-fi movie on the level of Citizen Kane.
he doesn't want the possibility of being viewed in the future as 'not being hip to deep concepts' so he gives the film high marks.

its amusing that he also gave XXX high marks.

i didn't have near as much affection for TMR as some people, but i appreciate the concepts at play here. just the fact that it spurs such discussion (though apparently not much deep discussion on this particular forum) is laudable,
but not enough for me to gloss over problems i have with the actual film as an entertaining story.

and i'm sorry, but Keanu Reeves, even though he gave one of the better performances in this film, just goes to show how much most of the other performances sucked.

maybe he's actually the perfect choice to play a mathematical equation... but math wasn't my bag in school so his 'dramatic' charms are lost on me.

I disagree. He likes that movie because it captures the feel of Metropolis and several other films he loves. He does love FX, but Dark City wasn't just a showing of special fx. It had a fantastic plot and was very well acted.