One factor everyone's overlooked is who directed 2 Fast 2 Furious. John Singleton. Ebert will give a positive review to anything that guy does.

It's the same with a movie starring Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Lopez, or Halle Berry. If any of those three actresses is in a film, Ebert will give it thumbs up. He was the only critic on the planet who liked both Tomb Raider and Enough. And he gave The Cell 4 stars and ranked it among the Top 10 best films of the year.

Blanket statements are funny. Of course, for a lot of people, that is the extent of their "depth."

I didn't realize a * 1/2 rating for Enough was a positive review. Or ** for The Wedding Planner. Or zero stars for B.A.P.S.

I stand corrected. But he did give positive reviews to Maid in Manhattan and Angel Eyes, neither of which were critical faves.

So any critic that gives a positive review to a generally mixed review movie is tainted? That leaves exactly ZERO critics left.

Go ahead make fun (I'm in academia, I'm used to it). Just because a movie has witty one-liners doesn't mean it can't be thought provoking. Some people actually thought about the whole choice vs. fate thing. Heck, most of the posts in the T3 reviews and discussion topic are on that very subject. Not everyone thought T1 & T2 were poorly written and childish and not everyone turns their brains off to watch a film.
The overall moral of the story is: if you think Ebert's lost his mind, don't read or watch his reviews.

Well Doughboy might have overstated it a little, but Ebert does seem to really like these actresses work. And I would argue Ebert is starstruck when Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Lopez, or Halle Berry are involved. I would take away at least one star IMO from any movie review he's done involving these women. I don't begin to understand the respect for Singleton since I don't like Boyz in the Hood or his other far less compelling work.

If T3 becomes popular and well like by the public, he will change his vote to a thumbs up, just like he did for Star Wars and Ghosts.

I haven't trusted Ebert's reviews ever since he recommended "Bowfinger" and panned "Gladiator." "Bowfinger" was a POS with no laughs. "Gladiator" did well in both ticket and DVD sales, not to mention it won the Oscar and Golden Globe for Best Picture. That means not only did most moviegoers like "Gladiator," so did the majority of the Hollywood Foreign Press and the Academy voters. If he's now reviewing his movies based on pure entertainment value, what the hell was he thinking when he gave thumbs up to "Bowfinger" and thumbs down to "Gladiator"?? Same goes for "T3." It may not be as deep as its predecessors, but it's definitely entertaining. It doesn't deserve his thumbs down.

That might be true, but we are not professional film critics like Ebert, and more than that, he is the most respected in the nation. Shouldn't he be held to a higher standard than so-called 'fan-boys'?

I dunno?!??

When I left the theater, one guy was looking at his friend saying : "Aaaaaah! So you mean they both were robots. Cool! That's f***ing deep." So I guess it did involve a little reflection anyhow.

But what standard do we hold them to? Yours? Mine? Joe Six Pack? The Elitists film society? Reviews are in general very subjective, and Ebert in general backs up any of his claims why he recommends or doesn't recommend a movie. If he enjoys something, he gives it a positive review. But if you read the review, it clearly states it was fun trash. note his reviews from Congo or such. The man is a good writer, a very knowledgable source on film, and the only thing that he seems to get judged on is his opinions on Hollywood blockbusters, where his reviews are usually marginal and state that it was idiotic fun. Seriously, critics should be used as reference. But to think that their opinions will in any way reflect yours is silly. Either don't read critics, or find one who writes well and reflects your taste. I often times agree with Ebert, not to mention I think he's a quality writer. That's why I follow him. If I always disagreed with him, I doubt I'd read his reviews. That's why I followed him and not Siskel, cause Siskels opinions were very divergent from mine so I didn't get as much out of them.

So, how much money is there to be made in reviewing reviewers? I could stand a change in careers.

I enjoyed Bowfinger more than Gladiator (mostly because I hated Gladiator). Oh No! I've "lost it" too... I think it boils down to, people have different opinions- not everyone is going to agree on every movie.


I never go by a point score, or a thumbs up/down result, anyway. If I want to know more about a film before seeing it, I'll read the start of a review, skim the bulk of it (trying to avoid spoilers) and read a summary closing paragraph if they have one. That way even if the reviewer loves the film, if they praise the "non-stop action", "clever puns" and "an emotional performance from Vin Diesel", I'll have a much better idea if I'd actually want to see the film, than I would by looking at 4 stars at the top of the review.

You're right: not everyone is going to like every film, and people are entitled to their opinions. Ebert, however, reviews films for a living, and audiences are supposed to be able to trust a critic's opinion more than the average moviegoer's. Had the majority of moviegoers gone by his opinion and skipped "Gladiator" altogether, this film wouldn't have been the success that it was. I'm sorry you and Ebert didn't like it, but I would expect someone who critiques movies for a living to recognize a film with the potential to be a real crowd pleaser.

The only time I see people skipping movies because of reviews is when the reviews state "THIS MOVIE IS HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE" etc and they are all in unison about that.

Moviegoers don't live and breathe by Ebert, in fact most people probably don't read them at all.

So basically you want him to cease being a critic? If he doesn't like it but thinks other people might, he should give a positive review???

I never had a problem with Ebert disliking Gladiator. My only issue with his review was that he bitched about The Rock's performance in the film. Now I'm not gonna sit here and pretend that Rock's a good actor, but last time I checked HE WASN'T IN GLADIATOR!

And before you flame me Face/Off, I'm pretty sure Ebert went back and edited his review so that the Rock comments are now gone. But believe me, they were there 3 years ago.

The original point of the thread was Ebert's lack of consistancy in his reviews. The reason he gave a thumbs down to "T3" is the exact same reason he gave thumbs up to "2Fast 2 Furious". If you watched the "Summe Reloaded" episoded of "Ebert & Roeper" you saw the proof. They replayed the 2 reviews back to back and it was actually pretty hilarious.

I'm not saying that he should have given a thumbs up to "T3" and down to "2 Fast 2 Furious" (granted I loved T3 and have no desire to see 2F2F). It is still one mans opinion. Its just he constantly contradicts himhelf in his reviews. Another example are his reviews of "Attack of the Clones" and "Spiderman" compared to "Spy kids 2" last year. He didn't like so many CG effects in AOTC & Spiderman yet he loved the CG in Spykids 2, which were completly unrealistic compared to the other 2 (and that is fact not opinion)

The issue is not so much opinion, its just consistancy in the criteria you use to reccomend or diss a film. If you don't recommend a film for the exact same reason you recommend another, that defies all logic.

Besides... "Beyond the Valley Of The Dolls" totally sucked bigtime. That is a fact.

He should voice his opinion, of course, but I think he could point out what he believes to be creative or artistic flaws and still recommend a film if he recognizes the overall story or whatever will win the crowd. Drawing from his years of experience as a critic, I would think he could tell whether or not the average moviegoer will find a film entertaining and worth the price of admission. I guess he thought "Gladiator" was pure crap, and that's what makes me distrust his reviews now. The fact that it won awards, made the money it did, and yet Ebert panned it tells me he didn't see it would appeal to the masses (despite whatever flaws he thought it had).

You might as well stop posting now while you're behind.... Maybe you can go hang out with ncmojo.

No, they don't live and breathe by Ebert, but this thread is all about him. As someone else pointed out, he's probably the biggest/most famous critic in the U.S., so I'm sure there are some people who put faith in his reviews.

Joe, this was your hypothetical that you brought up. I was just saying your hypothetical is pretty lame and unconvincing. So if this thread is just about him, unrealistic hypotheticals aren't a very good argument.

By saying that he should base his reviews on broad mass appeal is beyong eye-rolling at this point. Using your argument, you should've already distrusted Ebert with his negative reviews of Independence Day, Twister, Armageddon and Big Daddy.

There's a new book coming out...

Roger Ebert is a Big Fat Idiot!
by Leonard Maltin

How about the standard of professional journalism? Ebert is the most famous critic in the country! His opinion, in general, should be worth more than a 'fan-boy's'.

You misunderstand what many are saying. It's not that Ebert likes one film more than another, but the reasons for it.

I dont think Ebert's opinion will reflect mine. But he does get things wrong about the plots of movies and such. He should be held to the standard of reporting those things correctly.