ROGER EBERT ON SPR Vs. FMJ!!
X Phile69
In your opinion would you say that "Saving Private Ryan" is a better
movie than "Full Metal Jacket"? Thank you.
===
His Answer:
Yes. More convincing as it plunges us into battle.
Wolfds
>I e-mail Roger Ebert and asked him this Question:
>
> In your opinion would you say that "Saving Private Ryan" is a better
>movie than "Full Metal Jacket"? Thank you.
> His Answer: Yes. More convincing as it plunges us into battle.
Apparently Mr. Ebert chose to answer the question "Which film, FMJ or SPR, is
more realistic in its depiction of actual combat?"; instead of your stated
question (unless he has some rather strange criteria, IMO, for what
constitutes great filmmaking), in which case I agree with him.
As to which is the better film, well, I'd have to go with FMJ hands down.
SPR was certainly my favorite Spielberg film, but I feel as if everything
following the invasion of Normandy was almost anticlimactic.
Despite the allusions to SK's work, I agree with those who believe these films
are really not analogous: Spielberg made me feel as if I were watching a real
war, brought quite a few tears to my eyes, but I can say almost certainly that
I will not revisit this film anywhere near as often as I do FMJ.
Dave
Nicolas Colovos
X Phile69 wrote in message
<199807312326...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>I e-mail Roger Ebert and asked him this Question:
>
> In your opinion would you say that "Saving Private Ryan" is a better
>movie than "Full Metal Jacket"? Thank you.
Crumb72
>I will not revisit this film anywhere near as often as I do FMJ.
That's a good observation, actually. While SPR was a great film, repeated
viewing is not one of it's highpoints.
Thurston
>>>>
Long time ago I saw a short color film entitled, "In the Paris Slaughterhouse"
which consisted simply of showing how animals are actually killed in a real
slaughterhouse...I would never want to see it again, even though it was very
well done, and if I ever met someone who claimed to have seen it more than,
well, two times, I'd seriously question their "mental balance".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gonigal
(Wolfds) writes:
>> His Answer: Yes. More convincing as it plunges us into battle.
>
>Apparently Mr. Ebert chose to answer the question "Which film, FMJ or SPR, is
>more realistic in its depiction of actual combat?"; instead of your stated
>question (unless he has some rather strange criteria, IMO, for what
>constitutes great filmmaking), in which case I agree with him.
>
>As to which is the better film, well, I'd have to go with FMJ hands down.
It seems to me Ebert has interpreted the question as "Which is the better War
Film, and considers the ability to put the viewer into the center of combat to
be a crucial element of a successful War Film. As such, his response makes
sense.
As many have mentioned, FMJ and SPR are really too different to usefully
compare with each other, the only real basis for comparison is as War Movies.
And I would agree with Ebert's implication that the actual depiction of War is
central to the success of a War Movie.
Full Metal Jacket might be a Great Movie, but I've never thought of it as
mainly a War Movie. Of the half that actually takes place in a war, the only
really complete depition of warfare is the sniper attack, a relatively minor
incident as far as Combat goes.
I think it should be admited that if the catagory is "Great War Films", FMJ
will usualy be on the list, but rarely on top. (Now if the catagory is "Great
Boot Camp Films", that's another story.)
>
>Despite the allusions to SK's work, I agree with those who believe these
>films
>are really not analogous:
I think someone needs to start asking if SPR really makes "allusions" to
Kubrick's work. Incidents where snipers wound a single soldier in the hopes of
drawing out his comrades, or where a soldier bleeds to death crying in pain in
his buddy's arms, were not invented by Kubrick, they're actual wartime
occurances. Spielberg's model for these scenes was not, I suspect, Kubrick
but actual historical anecdotes provided largely by Historian Steven Ambrose.
Spielberg made me feel as if I were watching a
>real
>war, brought quite a few tears to my eyes, but I can say almost certainly
>that
>I will not revisit this film anywhere near as often as I do FMJ.
One of my favorite albums is Bruce Springsteen's Nebraska. It's a powerful,
sparse, grim album about desperate people losing their last shreds of dignity
in hard ecconomic times. I'm deeply moved every time I listen to it, but I
don't put it on nearly as much as some lesser, more "fun" albums. I could watch
FMJ often. Pyle's breakdown and the final sequence with the sniper are
intense, and there's lots of profound moments to analyize, but Kubrick makes it
palatable with some nice black humor and even some fun little pop tunes. Ryan
doesn't have so much in the way of sugar-coating. To be quite honest the parts
that aren't much more intense than FMJ are simply not as engaging. But if you
find yourself reaching for the tape that begins with Sgt. Hartman's surreal
drill instructor routine more than the tape that opens with some of the most
intense, gut-wrenching battle scenes ever filmed, that does not in itself mean
that Ryan is the lesser film.
-D.G.
tak
says...
>I think someone needs to start asking if SPR really makes "allusions" to
>Kubrick's work. Incidents where snipers wound a single soldier in the hopes
of
>drawing out his comrades, or where a soldier bleeds to death crying in pain
in
>his buddy's arms, were not invented by Kubrick, they're actual wartime
>occurances. Spielberg's model for these scenes was not, I suspect, Kubrick
>but actual historical anecdotes provided largely by Historian Steven
Ambrose.
I think Speilberg himself has stated that he borrowed from Paths of Glory and
FMJ (among other war films). The scenes where you can see this most clearly
are the opening battle sequence (handheld rear-view *FMJ*, focus-shifting
side scan with changing depth of field *POG*). As for the other stuff,
you're absolutely correct.
>One of my favorite albums is Bruce Springsteen's Nebraska. It's a powerful,
>sparse, grim album about desperate people losing their last shreds of
dignity
>in hard ecconomic times. I'm deeply moved every time I listen to it, but I
>don't put it on nearly as much as some lesser, more "fun" albums. I could
watch
>FMJ often. Pyle's breakdown and the final sequence with the sniper are
>intense, and there's lots of profound moments to analyize, but Kubrick makes
it
>palatable with some nice black humor and even some fun little pop tunes.
Kubrick makes FMJ 'palatable' with these things? Hmmm... I think I'd have to
disagree with you here. If anything, the pop tunes provide an ironic,
Brechtian counterpoint that only serves to accentuate the horrendous
stupidity of the situation, and the same can be said of the black humour
elements. Also, you have to remember that SPR is about WWII, whilst FMJ is
about Vietnam, a whole 'nother kettle of fish altogether. Kubrick hasn't
made his WWII film yet, and judging from the source material of the one he
WANTED to make (and keeping in mind the grim piece of work that is Paths of
Glory), I have a feeling it would have left us twitching and wondering what
the hell we just witnessed.
>Ryan
>doesn't have so much in the way of sugar-coating.
I have to ask you, what part of FMJ do you consider to be sugar-coated? Pyle
with his pants around his ankles and his thumb in his mouth? The soap-bar
beating? The chopper gunner's speech about how to kill women and children?
The scenes involving Vietnamese prostitutes? While all these scenes have a
certain warped charm, they also leave the viewer with a sinking feeling.
This is one of Kubrick's trademark moves: disarm the audience with humour,
then go for the crippling gut-punch. SPR is an excellent example of a
straight-ahead war film. It may well be Speilberg's best (although I feel
Hanks, whom I usually enjoy, is miscast). But it's a wholly different beast
than FMJ.
>To be quite honest the parts
>that aren't much more intense than FMJ are simply not as engaging. But if
you
>find yourself reaching for the tape that begins with Sgt. Hartman's surreal
>drill instructor routine more than the tape that opens with some of the most
>intense, gut-wrenching battle scenes ever filmed, that does not in itself
mean
>that Ryan is the lesser film.
First of all, nothing in Hartman's speech is surreal, per se. Secondly, as
to which film is the better or worse, when we're dealing with two such
masterfully crafted pieces of work such as these, it's all a matter of taste.
Mt
David Culpepper
tak wrote:
insightful stuff...
Thank you Tak.
Tobasco
Clear and Present Dylan
<199807312326...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>I e-mail Roger Ebert and asked him this Question:
>
> In your opinion would you say that "Saving Private Ryan" is a better
>movie than "Full Metal Jacket"? Thank you.
>===
>
>
>Yes. More convincing as it plunges us into battle.
Last week I searched his website for both reviews.
FMJ - **1/2 SPR - **** (out of 4)
Dylan
Wolfds
>FMJ - **1/2 SPR - **** (out of 4)
>
>Dylan
>
>
This reminds me of another paradox: Roger Ebert's Godfather reviews. He gave
Godfather III a half star more than GF II (I believe that's accurate...maybe a
full star).
Obviously nobody will agree with anyone all the time; and I enjoy reading
Ebert's reviews; but that one, to me, defies all comprehension.
Dave
Frank Grimes
>
> I e-mail Roger Ebert and asked him this Question:
>
> In your opinion would you say that "Saving Private Ryan" is a better
> movie than "Full Metal Jacket"? Thank you.
> ===
>
> His Answer:
>
> Yes. More convincing as it plunges us into battle.
Well he gave FMJ two 1/2 stars and SPR 4 stars so of course
M4RV1N
Fine.
But I present the following Ebert ratings for your consideration.
Back to the Future ***1/2
The Karate Kid ****
Yentl ***1/2
Superman ****
Close Encounters (blahblah)Special Edition ****
Lethal Weapon ****
Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome ****
Animal House ****
Pumping Iron, II ***1/2
Stephen King's Silver Bullet ***
AND...
The Tin Drum **
Daniel **1/2
Blue Velvet *
Harold and Maude *1/2
Stardust Memories **
The Elephant Man **
Brazil **
Full Metal Jacket **1/2
I feel like I've just shown one of those "this is your brain on drugs" PSAs.
Any questions?
Mark Ervin
Dan Feder
PSAs.
>Any questions?
>
>Mark Ervin
Dispite some serious objections I have to many of Roger's movie ratings (**
for Brazil?) he is still one of the critics I most admire. We all have to
remember that just because we think we have good taste in movies doesn't
mean the movies we like are better by some objective, universal standard.
The only thing anyone can do is to have a literate discssion of why or why
not he or she liked a certain movie. Roger Ebert may make some unpopular
choices, but his reviews are always facinating to read, even when I
completly disagree. He may have strange tastes, but he's no idiot.
Phil Noir
> I present the following Ebert ratings for your consideration.
> Daniel **1/2
> Blue Velvet *
> Harold and Maude *1/2
> Stardust Memories **
> The Elephant Man **
> Brazil **
> Full Metal Jacket **1/2
>
> Any questions?
Yeah -- have you seen his review of Lynne's Lolita remake? Pheeew.... ;)
> Mark Ervin
rick nelson
>
> Roger Ebert likes "2001" and champions it as one of the great films ever made.
> Fine.
>
> But I present the following Ebert ratings for your consideration.
>
> Back to the Future ***1/2
> The Karate Kid ****
> Yentl ***1/2
> Superman ****
> Close Encounters (blahblah)Special Edition ****
> Lethal Weapon ****
> Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome ****
> Animal House ****
> Pumping Iron, II ***1/2
> Stephen King's Silver Bullet ***
>
> AND...
>
> Daniel **1/2
> Blue Velvet *
> Harold and Maude *1/2
> Stardust Memories **
> The Elephant Man **
> Brazil **
> Full Metal Jacket **1/2
>
> I feel like I've just shown one of those "this is your brain on drugs" PSAs.
> Any questions?
>
Ebert's OK, but remember, this IS the guy who wrote the screenplay for
"Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" and "Myra Breckenridge", 2 soft core
porn flicks from the early '70s. I _think_ he won a Pulitzer Prize for
"MB" Oh well, it was the 70s, the Pulitzer judges were probably on acid.
blue skies,
rick
DeppityBob
"Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" and "Myra Breckenridge", 2 soft core
porn flicks from the early '70s. I _think_ he won a Pulitzer Prize for
"MB" Oh well, it was the 70s, the Pulitzer judges were probably on acid.<<
This is in need of correction. Ebert did write BTVD, but he did NOT write Myra
Breckinridge; that particular piece of unholy crap was written by David Gile,
Gore Vidal, and Michael Sarne (who also directed). Also, it helps to know that
BTVD was written purposely as a romp--as my one friend put it, it seemed that
ol' Rog put on a coupla pots of coffee at 6pm Sunday night and got it done by
6AM Monday, giggling all the while. If you watch it in that light--that it was
not meant to be serious in any way--it's a REAL hoot. (As Ebert said, it was
one time the lunatics got to take over the asylum.)
Also, if I can point out something Ebert has said often in defense of his star
ratings: he judges a movie on what it sets out to do and how it succeeds. Now,
I don't totally agree with that approach, but it's pretty useful in looking at
4 stars for Animal House vs. 2 1/2 for FMJ. It doesn't mean that AH is that
much a better overall movie than FMJ; it just means that it's the epitome of
its genre (which, I guess, is the raunchy-frat-house-comedy genre).
And here's one good reason to like Ebert's views: he's one of the few reviewers
out there (if the only one?) who champions the need for crude, tasteless
comedies (like Kingpin) and schlocky Japanese monster movies (like the recent,
and thoroughly fun, Gamera Guardian of the Universe), as well as classic films
and art films. He knows well thet comes through in his reviews.
There. I'm done now. : )
Dep
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Humans. Can't live with 'em, can't
escape the fallout when you
bomb 'em into oblivion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I picked myself up, dusted myself off,
and joined the Dark Side!"
Gensu 2000
My lord! Now that shows a lack of taste. A movie that gets 1 star must be
terrible. Now, most (even Lynch haters) agree that Blue Velvet had
good cinematography
good sound effects
and a great performance from Dennis Hopper
Now these facts alone make a film better than one star. I've now lost a little
respect for Ebert.
--Gens...@aol.com
Nicolas Colovos
DeppityBob wrote in message
<199808030112...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>And here's one good reason to like Ebert's views: he's one of the few
reviewers
>out there (if the only one?) who champions the need for crude, tasteless
>comedies (like Kingpin) and schlocky Japanese monster movies (like the
recent,
>and thoroughly fun, Gamera Guardian of the Universe), as well as classic
films
>and art films. He knows well thet comes through in his reviews.
>
much to mass taste. and he cautiously follows every poltical fad. i can't
respect a man who has recommended rambo, thelma and louise, when a man loves
a woman, boyz in the hood, less than zero, brightlightsbigcity.
ebert used to be better in the 70s before he became a star. bad for a
critic.
DeppityBob
My lord! Now that shows a lack of taste. A movie that gets 1 star must be
terrible. Now, most (even Lynch haters) agree that Blue Velvet had
good cinematography
good sound effects
and a great performance from Dennis Hopper<<
But in no way does it make up for the overbaked, lurid script, indescribably
ludicrous plot, the hammer-over-the-head metaphors, the self-conscious
direction... Having seen Eraserhead and The Elephant Man (but having barely
survived Dune), I was looking forward to Blue Velvet as some kind of wicked
satire...instead it was two hours of pathologically sadistic self-indulgence.
(Much the same as Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me.) One of the worst films of the
80's.
Gary Jones
<m4r...@aol.com> wrote
>
>But I present the following Ebert ratings for your consideration.
If any of us reviewed as many movies as Roger Ebert, it would be amazing
if, after a number of years, there weren't some assessments that, with
hindsight, we would wish had been different.
--
Gary Jones (Remove SSPPAAMMBLOCK from e-mail address)
PGP public keys available from servers
RSA Key ID: 0x6AFBEAA1
DSS/Diffie-Hellman Key ID: 0x11EAE903
DeppityBob
if, after a number of years, there weren't some assessments that, with
hindsight, we would wish had been different.<<
Yup. He recently returned to The Graduate and found himself far less impressed
than on its initial release.
Gonigal
>Gonigal wrote:
>> Pyle's breakdown and the final sequence with the sniper are
>>intense, and there's lots of profound moments to analyize, but Kubrick makes
>
>it
>>palatable with some nice black humor and even some fun little pop tunes.
>
>Kubrick makes FMJ 'palatable' with these things? Hmmm... I think I'd have to
>
>disagree with you here. If anything, the pop tunes provide an ironic,
>Brechtian counterpoint that only serves to accentuate the horrendous
>stupidity of the situation,
Yes, that's a good description of the music's impact. Slaughtering to the tune
of "Wooly Bully" can be even more nightmarish than slaughtering to "Ride of the
Valkyries"(sp). It also compliments the casual, sometimes enthusiastic
attitude many of the soldiers have to killing. But even if they do enhance all
these elements, they're still insipid, catchy pop songs, and their imediate
effect is to make the movie more watchable (unless you hate the songs, I myself
never could stand "Surfin' Bird"). I don't see one contradicting the other,
especially with a director who likes to play around with the "duality of human
nature" so much.
>and the same can be said of the black humour
>elements.
Hmmm..., I guess how we react to black humor is purely an individual thing. I
know Sgt. Hartman could have been played as simply a sadistic monster who was
as unpleasant to watch as he was to serve under, but the humor in his abuse
lends an undeniably entertaining element to the first half of the film, even as
we watch a man's sanity being destroyed
>Also, you have to remember that SPR is about WWII, whilst FMJ is
>about Vietnam, a whole 'nother kettle of fish altogether. Kubrick hasn't
>made his WWII film yet, and judging from the source material of the one he
>WANTED to make (and keeping in mind the grim piece of work that is Paths of
>Glory), I have a feeling it would have left us twitching and wondering what
>the hell we just witnessed.
I'm not familiar with Kubrick's proposed WWII film, but I've always regreted
that he never made the movie of Catch-22. I've read the book about five times,
(never seen the movie they did make), and I've always thought the humor, unreal
situations absurd horror, were all taylor made for Kubrick. (even the
characters as written seem as Kubrickian as any in his films) A good Kubrick
adaptation of Catch-22 could have said much of what FMJ said about war in the
context of WWII.
>
>>Ryan
>>doesn't have so much in the way of sugar-coating.
>
>I have to ask you, what part of FMJ do you consider to be sugar-coated? Pyle
>
>with his pants around his ankles and his thumb in his mouth? The soap-bar
>beating? The chopper gunner's speech about how to kill women and children?
>The scenes involving Vietnamese prostitutes? While all these scenes have a
>certain warped charm, they also leave the viewer with a sinking feeling.
>This is one of Kubrick's trademark moves: disarm the audience with humour,
>then go for the crippling gut-punch.
Maybe I was being a bit facetious when I said "sugar coated", disarming the
audience with humor is pretty much what I'm talking about. Most of the humor
is in the first half, with Hartman (interesting that "Joker" is never
particularly funny in either half). In the second half, the "sugar coating" is
more in the way Kubrick tends to hold off from really showing graphic carnage
until near the end. In the scene with the helicopter gunner, there is only one
brief shot of the peasents on the ground running for cover. A viewer could
watch nearly the whole scene before it really sinks in “Wait a minute, is he
just shooting anyone he sees on the ground?” This is a pretty sick scene, when
you think about it, but it’s still more “watchable” than if Kubrick had shown
slow motion shots of women & children being ripped apart with bullets.
>>To be quite honest the parts
>>that aren't much more intense than FMJ are simply not as engaging. But if
>you
>>find yourself reaching for the tape that begins with Sgt. Hartman's surreal
>>drill instructor routine more than the tape that opens with some of the most
>>intense, gut-wrenching battle scenes ever filmed, that does not in itself
>mean
>>that Ryan is the lesser film.
>
>First of all, nothing in Hartman's speech is surreal, per se.
I’m aware that the use of “surreal” tends to be the topic of some debate on
this ng. Some of Hartman’s threats, such as “I will unscrew your head and
shit down your neck!” and “Wipe that grin off your face or I will gouge out
your eyeballs and skull-fuck you!” certainly contain some bizzare imagery. To
my mind, the whole Boot Camp sequence, and in particular Sgt. Hartman, is a
somewhat exagerated view of reality Hartman’s odd, crouched posture when
yelling, that strange “This is my rifle/this is my gun” march inside the
barracks, and in particular Hartman’s final act, of hurling abuse at an
obviously deranged cadet pointing a loaded rifle at him, take this film out of
the “real world”. I’m not sure if that means it expresses the workings of the
subconsious mind, unless we’re really seeing the first half of the movie not
through Joker’s eyes, but through Pyle’s.
Secondly, as
>to which film is the better or worse, when we're dealing with two such
>masterfully crafted pieces of work such as these, it's all a matter of taste.
Agreed, I was merely pointing out that the desire to watch one of the films on
a regular basis is not neccesarily an indication that it is a better film,
either, particularly when the other one makes a deliberate attempt to be
uncomfortable to sit through at certain points.
-D.G.
john melville
same things shouted out by DI's in 1980 that are portrayed in the film,
and in the same manner.
Gensu 2000
>.instead it was two hours of pathologically sadistic self-indulgence.
> One of the worst films of the
>80's.
>
>
What???????
Please explain what you mean.
--Gens...@aol.com
DeppityBob
Please explain what you mean.<<
Well, my memory is shaky on this. I saw Blue Velvet when it came out, regretted
it, and really truly did not bother to commit a bit of it to memory. Some of it
stuck, I think: I remember Dennis Hopper's character being constantly stoned or
in the act of getting stoned, chewing up lots of scenery in the process;
Isabella Rosselini's character was forced to endure lots of pointless, sadistic
abuse onscreen; and Kyle McLachlan acted much like a wooden stick. Plus
over-the-top symbolism (a bug burrowing underground in suburbia!! Could it
possibly mean that there are deep dark secrets even in communities with plastic
facades?? WOW.)
I am sure I could be more detailed, but I hated the thing the first time I saw
it and don't have a whole lot of inclination to see it again.
Gensu 2000
>Dennis Hopper's character being constantly stoned or
>in the act of getting stoned, chewing up lots of scenery in the process;
Well, he never really gets stoned, he really stays himself the whole movie (he
sucks on nitrous oxide, similar to Jeffrey's father who is in the hospital.
>Isabella Rosselini's character was forced to endure lots of pointless,
>sadistic
>abuse onscreen;
She is raped once, and we do not see the actual rape. Jeffrey makes love to her
and hits her when she begs him to. That's about it (she does show up naked and
bruised at one point, but the abuse is "off screen").
>Kyle McLachlan acted much like a wooden stick.
What about his breakdown as he realizes that he can hit a woman, the kind of
little child glee as he begins his detective work, and the tender, teenage-ish
romance with Laura Dern.
> Plus
>over-the-top symbolism (a bug burrowing underground in suburbia!! Could it
>possibly mean that there are deep dark secrets even in communities with
>plastic
>facades?? WOW.)
>
>
Lynch likes to begin his movies big, either with a incredible credits sequence
or a big shocking scene. Lost Highway: the best credits sequence of the year.
Wild at Heart: an incredibly over-the-top opening scene. The closeup of the
bugs and the incredible noises are part of this (plus he gets to put a cheesy
song for the town of Lumberton right after it). Maybe you saw this symbolism as
heavy handed, but I'm not sure that Lynch even knows he's using symbolism all
the time. Also, what did you feel was so heavy handed about it? It's very
brief, and the movie doesn't seem to hit over the head with it (it's not even
recurring).
>I am sure I could be more detailed, but I hated the thing the first time I
>saw
>it and don't have a whole lot of inclination to see it again.
>
>
I still don't see why people hate it. It really is a love-hate movie (one
critic said that it was the most important and wonderful movie that no movie
has topped since, one called it another film from the most repulsive director
in America).
--Gens...@aol.com
Wolfds
>> Plus
>>over-the-top symbolism (a bug burrowing underground in suburbia!! Could it
>>possibly mean that there are deep dark secrets even in communities with
>>plastic
>>facades?? WOW.)
>>
>>
>
>Lynch likes to begin his movies big, either with a incredible credits
>sequence
>or a big shocking scene. Lost Highway: the best credits sequence of the year.
>Wild at Heart: an incredibly over-the-top opening scene. The closeup of the
>bugs and the incredible noises are part of this (plus he gets to put a cheesy
>song for the town of Lumberton right after it). Maybe you saw this symbolism
>as
>heavy handed, but I'm not sure that Lynch even knows he's using symbolism all
>the time. Also, what did you feel was so heavy handed about it?
I seem to remember a >>very<< similar complaint in a critic's review of Blue
Velvet (Ebert's, I believe); voiced so similarly as to make me wonder whether
the original poster is offering his own criticism or someone else's...
In fact, I'm almost positive it is Ebert's review which mentions the
"symbolism" regarding the bugs and suburbia, and rather disparagingly so.
Dave
Wolfds
>Velvet (Ebert's, I believe); voiced so similarly as to make me wonder whether
>the original poster is offering his own criticism or someone else's...
>
>In fact, I'm almost positive it is Ebert's review which mentions the
>"symbolism" regarding the bugs and suburbia, and rather disparagingly so.
>
>
After glancing at Ebert's review, I must retract part of what I posted. Ebert
mentions that particular symbolism, but is not critical towards it.
Dave
jgmc...@my-dejanews.com
deppi...@aol.com (DeppityBob) wrote:
> Also, if I can point out something Ebert has said often in defense of his star
> ratings: he judges a movie on what it sets out to do and how it succeeds. Now,
> I don't totally agree with that approach, but it's pretty useful in looking at
> 4 stars for Animal House vs. 2 1/2 for FMJ. It doesn't mean that AH is that
> much a better overall movie than FMJ; it just means that it's the epitome of
> its genre (which, I guess, is the raunchy-frat-house-comedy genre).
This approach actually makes a lot of sense for someone in Ebert's position;
by giving the odd 4-star review to the great movies of all sorts as well as
the Great Films by Any Measure, he nicely straddles the line between being a
critic in the full sense (and Ebert's body of work vis-a-vis the important
films of the past 25 years stands up fairly well in this respect, IMO) and a
reviewer in the what-should-I-go-see-this-weekend sense.
If you are willing to go beyond the star ratings you will find that Ebert
almost invariably frames the ratings in this way, differentiating between a
movie that is a must-see for fans of a particular genre (ie. Evil Dead II)
and a film that is a must-see for anyone who wants to see something great.
And he's truly knowledgable about and a fan of enough sub-genres to pull this
approach off.
My only problem occurs when he defines his genres too narrowly, as Deppity
hints at here: witness his favorable review for Speed II, which seems to fit
only in the semi-intentionally-bad-and-inaccountably-cheesy-Hollywood-sequel
genre. I think sequels, especially, must be measured up against their
predecessors.
JGM
------------------------
"Speed Two" == dope stew
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Gonigal
> My only problem occurs when he defines his genres too narrowly, as Deppity
>hints at here: witness his favorable review for Speed II, which seems to fit
>only in the semi-intentionally-bad-and-inaccountably-cheesy-Hollywood-sequel
>genre. I think sequels, especially, must be measured up against their
>predecessors.
I think one problem with Ebert is he has an unpredictable weakness for cheesy,
enjoyably bad movies. If he's in the right mood, he will have a grand old time
laughing at the ridiculousness of something like Armageddon and, because he
had fun watching it, give it a good review. The problem is he's never
consistant about this. He not only gave "Congo" a good review but insisted
(seriously, it seemed) that the film was an intentional satire of old Jungle
pictures but people didn't realize it because it was marketed wrong. Yet he
panned The Big Hit as a dumb, ridiculous movie, not realizing that that one
really *was* a parody of itself. At times the jokes were Airplane-style
obvious, yet Ebert seemed to take it seriously, and on his show he even
addressed complaints he recieved that he didn't "get" the joke with the
response "I think, if it was meant to be a comedy, I would have laughed"
BTW, you may or may not enjoy The Big Hit (I did, to some degree) but if you
see the movie and then read Ebert's review, I think you would agree that he
missed the point entirely. I certainly can't recall another occasion when he
felt compelled to address criticism of his review on his show. As for Congo, I
only saw part of it on Cable, but the cheesy elements of the film didn't strike
me as witty satire so much as careless apathy.
-D.G.