Category Archives: Roger Ebert

Roger Ebert (1942-2013): The Critic’s Critic

Leave a reply

“I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated hated this movie.”
-Roger Ebert on “North”

Only Roger Ebert could put this sentence into a review and still sound eloquent as hell.

Just a few days after announcing a leave of absence to deal with his ongoing battle with cancer, Roger Ebert died today at the age of 70.

I never had the chance to meet Ebert. However, for much of my life, I saw him as a mentor. I basically grew up on the many reviews that Ebert wrote. While Ebert is probably best known for patenting his own thumb for reviewing purposes, what he should be better known for is his incredible writing ability. I didn’t agree with him a lot of the time, but it was hard to walk away from a review without thinking “okay, there is no way to dispute anything he said.”

Often, Ebert’s reviews were more entertaining than the films themselves. He could describe a scene from a good film in a way that totally made me rethink how I watched movies. He could deconstruct a bad film to such an accurate degree that it would eventually be hard not to burst out laughing. He knew when to be incredibly serious and when to insert his beautifully crafted wit.

Ebert also reinvented what it meant to be a film critic. He was the first film critic to win a Pulitzer Prize for Criticism for good reason. In the Rotten Tomatoes era, certain critics (I’m looking at you, Peter Travers) are just looking to get write the best quote that will get put up in the next advertisement. Ebert didn’t write superlative reviews. Sure, his reviews instructed you on whether or not to see a movie. However, his reviews were also just as, if not more, helpful to read after viewing said movie. A Roger Ebert review was more than just an expression of liking or disliking something. Ebert put a little piece of himself into every review he wrote. Even if it wasn’t explicit, you could tell from a review exactly what his viewing experience was like. Ebert was one of the few critics who seemed to understand what a subjective experience watching a film was. And even when he attached stars and thumbs, he acknowledged that they were not absolute.

Ebert showed that the critic could be just as important of an artist as the filmmaker was. After he lost his voice, he lost his show. However, that didn’t stop him from writing. In fact, it made him better and even more prolific. During his long battle with cancer, Ebert branched out and wrote political essays, a biography of Martin Scorsese, and a memoir. Yet, the reviews will always be the greatest part of his repertoire. Roger Ebert taught me both that good criticism breaks away from the usual review structure. Most importantly, he taught me that having an opinion was about more than using the words “love” and “hate,” and that having an opinion could be turned into a funny, eloquent, and masterful piece of art.

Some Of My Favorite Ebert Reviews:

Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo

Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties

Fargo

Pulp Fiction

Freddy Got Fingered

That One Scene: (500) Days of Summer

Leave a reply

“That One Scene” is a new (and hopefully recurring) series on The Reel Deal where I examine that one scene in a certain movie that sets it apart from all others.

I hate having to answer the question “what do you think is the most important part of a movie” because it is simply impossible to answer. Every part of a film contributes to how good the final product is. Without good actors, the character’s don’t seem real; without good writing, the situations don’t seem real, and without a good director the whole project falls apart.
However, there is always one part of a film that always stands out to me. One thing that in my eyes that can make or break a film: dialogue. Whether or not the characters have believable banter is what contributes to an entire film feeling realistic or not. That is the particular reason why Judd Apatow and Quentin Tarantino are the best scribes currently working in Hollywood.
I would like to bring up a very recent example of great dialogue. It is a very short scene from “(500) Days of Summer.” This snippet of dialogue might not seem like much when read aloud, but when put in the context of the film, it is incredible:
Summer: Is that true?
Tom: Yeah, yeah. He drinks and he sings…
Summer: No, no not Mackenzie. The other thing.
Tom: What thing?
Summer: Do you…like me?
Tom: (Pause) Yeah, yeah of course I like you.
Summer:…As friends?
Tom: Right. As friends.
Summer: Just as friends?
Nothing remarkable sounding here. But yet, there is. Even when not hearing this in the context of the film, there is something beautiful about this dialogue’s simplicity. In it’s simplicity, it feels so real. In it, Summer isn’t really asking for an answer she doesn’t know, she is just asking for confirmation for something she believes has to be true.
But that’s not the point. When you see this scene in the movie, you will realize everything about it is perfect. The surroundings of the scene seem totally irrelevant; everything is focused on Tom and Summer because it is all about them. This is their moment; their first moment where they see that something other than friendship may be possible in the near future.
Gordon-Levitt and Deschanel deliver the dialogue flawlessly. Every emotion they convey is perfectly entwined with every word they speak. They add a level of friendly awkwardness that no script can convey on it’s own. It is the true essence of onscreen chemistry: two people (typically a man and a woman) being able to communicate with each other at a realistic level, whether for positive or negative reasons.
I recall a line from Roger Ebert’s “Pulp Fiction” review in which he says “this movie would work as an audio book.” What he’s saying that when dialogue is good, sometimes listening can defeat watching.
Good dialogue is like good music, you can listen to it over and over again. That is the case for this scene of “(500) Days of Summer.” It is no complex, witty conversation about hamburgers or foot massages but simply an intimate moment between two strange souls. It is not just the words you want to listen to over and over again, but the delivery.
If “(500) Days of Summer” gets nominated for Best Original Screenplay at the Oscars this year (which I 100% guarantee you, it will), this will be the clip shown when its title is announced.
The next installment of “That One Scene” will discuss the “Ride of the Valkyries” scene in “Apocalypse Now.”

What the Success of G.I. Joe Says About America

Leave a reply

Like him or not, comedian Bill Maher often makes some interesting (and very true) observations. On his show last Friday, he remarked how stupid and misinformed Americans have become (I can’t find the video, but the transcript is here).

I feel myself starting to agree. But I’m not talking about stupidity when it comes to politics, I’m talking about stupidity when it comes to entertainment. For example, “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” grossed an astonishing $56.2 million on its opening weekend. I haven’t seen “G.I. Joe” yet; I haven’t even seen “Transformers 2″ yet and nor do I ever plan on viewing either of them. Why don’t I want to see them? Simply because they’re based on toys. If I wanted to see a story about toys, I would take the G.I Joe and Transformers action figures I have out of my cabinet and hit them up against each other, while making up dialogue.
Now, it might be unfair of me to judge either of these movies without actually seeing them. But as critical consensus shows, I’m not missing much. On Rotten Tomatoes, “G.I. Joe” recieved  39% approval rating while “Transformer 2″ received an abysmal 20%.  So, why is it that “Transformers 2″ is on its way to making $400 million while “G.I. Joe” is starting to make what looks like a big final fortune? Simply put: stupidity. Why can’t anyone think of an original idea anymore? Why must movies be made for the simple purpose of merchandising?
Maybe the reason isn’t so much that studios don’t want to create original ideas as much as they’ve forgotten how to. It kind of reminds of “Fahrenheit 451;” the reason books were banned wasn’t so much that the government didn’t want people to read them as much as people had stopped reading them and there was really no use for them anymore. Likewise, when you stop thinking of original screenplays, the ideas never come back.
But our popular culture hasn’t fallen that low yet, and we certainly aren’t in a dark age as Roger Ebert suggests. There are still some great movies out there now that nobody is seeing. Take for example, “The Hurt Locker.” It’s by far the best film this summer (and maybe even this year, if you don’t count unreleased Sundance entries). It’s currently tracking an amazing 98% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. So why then, is it still playing in just 535 theaters? Like “Transformers” and “G.I. Joe,” “The Hurt Locker” is filled with actions and explosions. I believe there is an audience for this film, you just can’t ignore the fact that some people look for a more meaningful experience when they go to the movies. And even those who don’t might find something to like in this movie, if only they are given the chance.
Before I sum up all of my points and reach a conclusion, there are still two films I’d like to mention that are perceived by most as the biggest disappointments of the summer: “Bruno” and “Funny People.” I’ll admit that both were not as masterful as I had hoped, but that didn’t stop me from being entertained and even fascinated by both. For all their faults, both tried to do something new and original. They strived to break new ground rather than be part of existing trends. Now, the message their poor box office receipts will send to studios is never to make a daring comedy ever again.
But there is one glimmer of hope: the wide release of the upcoming “District 9.” Yes, it’s a blockbuster. But it’s not based on a toy, a video game, or even a comic book; it’s a purely inspired, purely original idea. It’s a film about aliens, but it’s also an allegory on apartheid. So as long as studios find ways to provide smart movies to a wide audience, there is a chance for the survival of intelligence in Hollywood. But as long as movies like “G-Force” are raking in big bucks and movies like “Twilight” are dominating awards*, it’s survival will remain on life support.
In conclusion, maybe it’s not the people that are dumb, it’s the movies. And once Hollywood figures that out, this supposed “Dark Age” will finally come tumbling down.
*I meant the MTV Movie Awards/Teen Choice Awards; nothing major like the Oscars or Golden Globes.