"You're taking this very personal..."

Jim, will you AT LEAST acknowledge that TDK is a better film than Revenge of the Fanboyz?

They shouldn't even be in the same sentence.

JE: I thought I was quite specific in my third sentence, no? I can't make a critical comparison myself because I haven't yet come up with a compelling reason to go see "ROTFL." From all reports (including some reviews!) it sounds an awful lot like... a Michael Bay movie. And I've found those to be depressing in exactly the same ways from scene to scene, picture to picture...

Great Scott, this is just like wine criticism.

JE: What's THAT like? As the count said, "I don't drink... wine."

As the question "Why are critics so out of touch with the taste of the movie-going public?" is asked for the eight thousandth about the eight thousandth crap-tastic blockbuster hit, I wonder again (maybe not quite for the eight thousandth time, but close) why nobody asks the question "Why is the movie-going public so out of touch with the taste of film critics?"

It's funny how it never occurs to enraged fans ranting about elitism that it's just possible that their taste just isn't, you know, very good. Or at least not very refined, if we want to use somewhat less charged terminology. When it comes to science or math or philosophy or most fields of knowledge, most people recognize and respect the idea that there are people who know more than they do about a subject. But when it comes to movies, fuggetabout it. Anyone who doesn't march in lockstep with the boxoffice is one of those "elitists" that Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh have made a career of railing against.

What makes you think you know better than me, g-da--it? Um, maybe the fact that I know better than you do. G-da--it!

What I don't know, however, is what you like and don't like. Everyone is the world's foremost expert on their likes and dislikes. Why would you think some writer who doesn't even know you could judge your tastes better than you can? That's your job. And that's certainly not the point of film criticism, as Jim has discussed eloquently in this blog on many occasions.

I also like what Poland says about people agreeing on the qualities of a film, but coming to completely different opinions about it. My film group had a marvelous discussion about Jim Jarmusch's "The Limits of Control." I loved the movie and my learned colleague Michael, who also posts here from time to time, hated it. And the amazing thing is we agreed almost to the letter about what the film set out to accomplish and how it did so. For me, all of those qualities were what made it great, for him, the opposite. That's when film conversations get fun. I certainly didn't accuse him of being out of touch and I was never tempted to send him any hate mail. Well, maybe briefly. :)

JE: I love it when that happens -- and it happens fairly often. People don't necessarily differ in their perception of what the movie IS, even when they differ in their appreciation of it. So, why the assumption that one's opinion is more important than how the movie actually does what it does? Why look for agreement or disagreement (how productive it would be to ban those two terms from any discussion of film or politics) when it's so much more interesting and enlightening to talk about how a movie functions from moment to moment?

We get it jim. You didn't like the Dark Knight. Damn you and your incendiary iconoclasm. But I will forgo my emotional reaction and instead attempt a to rationally analyze your article. (An aside- can you officially retire the use of the pejorative term fanboy? Just because someone enjoys a movie you do not you deem it acceptable to label them a fanboy. Just as someone labels film critics as elitist as a means to invalidate their opinions you commit the same offense to defenders of a movie you think lacks merit. Your continued use of the term fanboy undermines your attempts to champion fair and rational debate. We should be able to move past such petty name calling) I think the ire transformer's defenders exhibit derives from the emotional response the film instilled in them. Just as when someone attacks a person or thing you love, you feel obligated to defend it. they just allow their feelings to override their better judgment. That have been said I found transformers a dire film devoid of any aesthetic merit. I just empathize with the strong emotion they feel toward film. Like myself with the superlative Dark Knight and the films of the beloved, divine Kubrick

JE: "Your continued use of the term fanboy"? Now you're just making things up. But perhaps the HTML didn't work in your browser: Was the word "fanboy" not stricken out, with a line through it, replaced by the word "fans"? I did that on purpose -- not as an afterthought. I did a search for the word on Scanners and found I had used it in three previous posts -- 1) ironically, in quotation marks, as a term used by studio marketers trying to reach a comic book audience for "Watchmen"; 2) as a characterization of the sensibility behind posts at "Ain't-It-Cool-News"; and, 3) as a pejorative term for the mindset in newsrooms that insists on jumping perfectly reasonable opening-day review embargoes just to be "first" with a review of a hot title (in the same sense as the "AICN" usage, in other words). You can look it up. I can't find any record of ever having used it to characterize people who liked a movie I did not like. If I did, then I apologize. That said, the term "fanboy" (which I don't like, either) indicates a certain kind of superficial response (the one I assume you're parodying in your first three sentences, for example) and in any case I would not and did not use it to characterize everybody who liked "TDK" or "ROFTL," but a certain vocal subgroup of "fans who don't usually read movie reviews."

Speaking as a "future filmmaker" (that feels like calling myself a "future astronaut") myself, I have to say I'd also quake with terror at the thought of you criticizing one of my (hypothetical) films. Kind of like how I hope my family never sees anything I make - if they (or you) disliked it, I'd probably be devastated.

Difference is, if my mom disliked a movie I made, I'd feel like a bad son. If you disliked it, I'd feel like a bad filmmaker. Part of what's so damn frustrating about your writing (and the writing of any good critic) is how clear-headed and persuasive it is, even on the occasion I don't agree with a word of it. I want to agree with you, even if I don't. (Well, really, I want you to agree with me.) Ideally, that will only make me consider my own argument, and make it stronger.

Hate, though? That's an emotion that should be reserved for things like ROTFL, not film critics. (I still don't understand how a toy line inspires "fanboys.")

Actually, I'm pretty sure Pols's review didn't even appear in the print edition of Time, just the website. So it's even less influential than you say.

I think I may just be an aberration: A person who actually reads film criticism for advice on which movies to see. For real!

I can think of a number of examples right off the top of my head just in the past few months: 1) I thought "Star Trek" looked dreadful from the previews, but after seeing all the great reviews it received, I decided to see it anyway (and ended up liking it for the most part). 2) I thought "Knowing" looked dreadful, but after Roger Ebert's four star review alone, I knew it at least had to be interesting enough to be worth watching (and boy was it...). 3) I was on the fence about whether I should bother watching "Transformers 2," and sure enough, it got almost universally panned, and most of the reviews I read pretty much described everything I usually hate about Michael Bay films. So yeah, I've managed to avoid it so far (almost as a matter of principle at this point; when a friend recommended we go watch it recently, I nearly stormed out of the room in disgust just to make my stance crystal clear).

So, yes, more often than not, reviews more than anything else affect which movies I decide to see. Am I in some infinitesimal minority? I guess it's possible, but then again when it comes to the few movies now and then that I know I want to see, I usually try to do the opposite: avoid the reviews, and come back to them later to read some divergent analysis (most recent example: "Public Enemies," and soon to be "Bruno").

JE: I was talking about this last week with a friend (in his early 50s) I have known since college. I always assume critics have no influence whatsoever over moviegoing behavior -- because that's not relevant to what I see as a critic's function, which is to report on and discuss movies in various illuminating contexts. (If somebody reads something and chooses to act on it, one way or another, that's entirely up to them.) When I said "ROTFL" was one of those movies everybody knew they were going to see or avoid long before the reviews came out (indeed, long before it was anything but a contractual provision for a sequel), he said: "But I'm one of those people who would have gone if it had gotten reviews that made it sound good, or at least interesting." In case I should ever forget why we're friends, that's a good reminder.

Jim,

I think you and I might be more alike than I'd previously realized. Your thoughts summed up something that I've been grappling with for a while now. See, I have a movie blog that I created with a few friends where we blog about all kinds of things movie-related. It's been a lot of fun, but when it comes to taste, I usually feel like the odd man out. Big summer blockbuster movie? My fellow contributors usually like it, and I either don't like it or like it less than they did. It's not that I necessarily want to be the archetypical "movie snob," but I can't get behind some of these films like they can. I just don't see how every big movie is "amazing" and every franchise reboot is "pitch perfect."

I think that, for a significant amount of people, the biggest factor that decides whether or not they like a film or not is their expectation that that film will be good or bad. I'm no different, although I try to have an open mind. For example, my fellow contributors all were eagerly anticipating "Star Trek." At least 2/3 of them think it's one of the best movies of the year, and one guy is already talking about a Best Picture nomination. (given the new rules, that might not be too far off) As a big Trekker, I was very skeptical about the film, but, after seeing the overwhelmingly positive reviews, decided to give it a shot rather than potentially miss out on a really good/great film. I ended up thoroughly hating it. Now, how much of that was related to my initial set of reservations and how much of that was related strictly to what I saw in the theater that night? We may never know for sure. . .

So, thanks for writing this. Like I said, I'd been thinking about this for a while, but your words have really helped me to make heads or tails of exactly what the issue was.

-Adam

Point of order. Critics loved Dark Knight. It didn't just have "considerable mainstream critical acclaim." It was a better reviewed movie than the Oscar contenders in 2008. Quit trying to rewrite history. You are and always will be in the extreme minority in your disfavorable opinion.

"Those who think "Transformers" is a great or even a good film are, may I tactfully suggest, not sufficiently evolved. Film by film, I hope they climb a personal ladder into the realm of better films, until their standards improve."

That's a very insulting generalization. It also implies that once you have reached a point where you can enjoy films you can not enjoy movies anymore. While that's certainly the case with some of the well respected critics, it's also their major flaw. It's like all those people having lost their inner child completely due to the hard business world, not even being able to enjoy a simple game with their children anymore.

Let me just say that there are plenty of people out there who are able to enjoy either films like A Brighter Summer Day or Week-End and at the same time movies like Transformers (mind you, the first one, the second is a big mess) or Star Trek.

If you're not able to enjoy the movies then you're not better (off) than the people who aren't able to enjoy a film. Both groups are missing out on a lot of things only offered by the productions that fall within the other group. But people in general still have to learn this and rather spend their time defending one over the other when they could lead a happier life enjoying the best of both worlds. This can be applied to a lot of things out there, from all kinds of media (PopClassical, MoviesFilms, Casual GamesCore Games, High literatureFiction...) to various other areas of our lives, like the aforementioned fun of simple games which a lot of people are not able to enjoy anymore.

I don't understand how some critics are blaming this outrage on the "fanboys." I consider myself a part of this oft-maligned category for a couple films in which my love for something has been mocked. And I'm here to say that the people loving and enjoying Transformers 2 are not the "fanboys." It's the mainstream audience.

In fact, this film has been met with nothing but derision on any number of "fanboy" sites. Look at anything from io9.com to Ain't it Cool to even some Transformers-specific websites. 90% of the the individuals can't stand the film, even though a good percentage of those same individuals probably enjoyed the first one.

Then, I look to some of my friends and people I know, whether personally or via the web, who can't classify themselve as "fanboys" or, some cases, "fangirls," and I find comments like "it rocked!" "I loved it!" "it was so frickin' hilarious!"

So, I take offense to the idea that it is the fanboys who are leading this charge that Transformers 2 is "the best film of the year!" It sucked. It was racist, misogynistic, bloated and more boring than watching paint dry for two hours and forty minutes.

Don't blame this one on the "fanboys." There's not enough "fanboys" to push the film to such ungodly and unwarranted heights of money-making.

I had the misfortune of seeing Transformers 2 two weeks ago. I have a 12 year old son, you see, and the coin flip came up me, rather than my wife, to take him to it. (I lost.) It was precisely what I expected after seeing the first one. And I say that as an occasional happy consumer of Michael Bay's work. Execreble.

I am curious of your use of the acronym appended with a superfluous 'L' so that is seems to mirror the internet orthography for 'rolling on the floor laughing'. I assume this is disparaging in its intent, which seems unnecessarily glib, and inaccurate. I did not laugh once during the film. I suppose I might have made some involuntary reguritory noises.

Movie going may not be influenced by critical opinion, but movie understanding is. For me anyway.

I saw Public Enemies last week, and I came out of the theater a little underwhelmed. I thought it was pretty good, but that it didn't emphasize character as much as some of Michael Mann's previous movies. Ebert's review offered some insights about Depp and Bale's characters that I hasn't thought about; maybe there is something there that I didn't notice on the first viewing. Maybe not. Either way, the review made me want to watch the movie when it comes out on dvd.

JE: That's one of the ways I think those who DO read criticism get the most out of it, and the movies they see. I'm intrigued by what some critics have said Mann is doing, deglamorizing the movie-star gangster picture and making a kind of meticulously researched docudrama instead. I imagine a cross between "The Insider" and "Zodiac." I hope to see "PE" this week.

I'm definitely with Kris Pigna on using reviews as a barometer of what to spend my time on. I grew up watching Transformers cartoons, so despite my distaste for Michael Bay I went to see the first movie--and died a little inside. I resolved not to see the second, but I'm forced to admit if the reviews had been shockingly good (let's say, a RottenTomatoes score of 80%+) I probably would've caved. Fortunately, I didn't find myself in that position. I generally have some idea of what films I'm going to see or not, but near-universal acclaim can certainly make a movie I didn't care about seem like a better option, while tepid or bad reviews can definitely deter me from seeing something I found interesting based on a trailer.

Of course, sometimes I disagree with critics, but that doesn't make them out-of-touch elitists, it just makes them people-who-aren't-me....

Box office aside, I take comfort in considering that more than likely 30-35 years from now The Dark Knight will be viewed/studied/remembered in a similar fashion to Jaws, while Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen will be mostly forgotten and reviled as a Superman III.

If people applied the logic they use about film criticism to the world of food, that would mean that McDonald's makes the best cuisine in the world because it sells the most.

Clearly, anyone with even a smidgen of sense realizes that that is ridiculous. Even among fast food establishments there are clear differences that almost everyone can discern.

I often ask people who are unclear about what a critic does to explain the difference between a Big Mac and a Whopper. Both are made with similer ingriedients, bread, hamburger, lettuce, tomatoes etc., so, which do they prefer and why?

I use the hamburger probelm as a way to inspire people to reconsider criticism in general and film criticism in particular.

I offer it to anyone who wishes to use it because it does work, in a nice way to make people understand that criticism is not about tearing something down, but about learing more through observation and consideration and free exchange of ideas.

Still, I get fighting mad when someone dismisses my criticisms with an airy, "You're not a good judge, you know too much about photography or screenwriting".

Imagine telling a sports writer his insights have no value because he knows somthing about pitching or short-fielding. It beggars all common sense.

I want to thank my friend Christopher for his compliments about our recent discussion on Jim Jarmusch's The Limits Of Control.

I did send you hate mail. However, my failure to append the proper postage resulted in the package being returned to me where it exploded in my downstairs foyer killing a neighbors cat, but otherwise not causing too much trouble.

I now have an appointment with the Federal Marshalls next week, so if I'm late for film group by 20 years, you'll know why. :)

I don't think its pushing the point too hard to use TDK as a touchstone for this dialogue--especially since it shared both commercial success and critical acclaim (making it different from easy targets like Transformers 2). Jim references to TDK (and the subtext of his past criticism of the film) serve as an easy shorthand for the conversation about the relationship between the box office and the critic's column as well as a widely-seen example ripe for analysis. But Jim's comments on TDK helped clarify my disappointments with the film rather than challenged my love of it, and thus his repeated references to its example don't goad me.

Probably nothing could have dissuaded me from seeing TDK, but the overwhelming critical negativity about Transformers has put me in Jim's boat--"I haven't yet come up with a compelling reason to go see [it]." I can wait for the next Abrams, Spielberg, Favreau or even Berg to get my "popcorn movie" fix. Or just go see "Star Trek" again.

And "ROTFL" is the proper acronym for Bay's latest--the divergence between its (reported) aesthetics and profits does seem like some kind of sick joke.

The "it" getters will always be outnumbered, but never outclassed.

I knew there would be a churning internet sea of rage against the mean, elitist haters of ROTFL. It's been a growing trend ever since the web was new. But this Transformers sequel has provided the perfect outlet for people who take negative reviews personally. (And people who were never explained what film crit is.)

It was driving my blood pressure up and up to read angry, proudly ignorant blog comments in defense the M. Bay stink festival, until I realized that this point in time, this horrible moment of The Transformers crushing us beneath the torrent of box office records and juvenile fan outrage, is merely a frame in the larger picture.

Surely some of today's blog comment-cramming ranters will look back and say, "Oh Man! Was my 22-year-old taste ever terrible!"

The worst movies I ever attended/defended were nothing compared to ROTFL. The Youth - they have a heavy turkey to shoulder, and much to answer for. I don't envy them. Sure, some will go to their graves thinking that ROTFL was the high point of film history, but those kids were doomed from birth by mutant DNA.

Let Roger Ebert's review be cut into the finest marble, and placed outside every school.

BTW: I read reviews for the education, for films I don't see, for entertainment, and sometimes for advice on what to see. (If ROTFL had better reviews I may have been tempted, since I enjoy the chilly embrace of a dark corporate theater chain just as much as the next popcorn muncher. I also like "guilty pleasure" fare as long as it isn't soul-draining.)

ROTFL: Future campy endurance test, a Plan 9 for the class of 2030?

"critics had nothing to do with making these movies hits"

When do critics ever have anything to do with making a movie a hit? I mean, come on...

JE: Yeah, come on. Did you read past that paragraph?

@Neal Buckley

Critics make movies hits all of the time. LA Confidential is one of the most famous. Horror movies like The Descent and 28 Days Later only found a wide audience because of critical praise. No one would have heard of Atonement, Babel, Childen of Men, Pan's Labyrinth, or many others without critics trumpeting the movies. And there's a reason why Oscar nominated movies tend to get a bounce post-nomination.

Transformers 2, like Pirates of the Caribbean 3, Attack of the Clones, Matrix 3, Pearl Harbor, Spider-Man 3, Armageddon, and countless others is a movie that no one liked and made a lot of money. This happens every single year. It isn't the sign of the apocolypse that people are pretending it is.

And Ebert loved dreck like Charlie's Angels 2, The Honeymooners, Speed 2, Anaconda, and Matrix 3. His taste is just as questionable as the most fervent fan of Transformers 2.

JE: Let's keep in mind a distinction between "liking" and "making extravagant claims for," however.

I'd like to second Terry's point about fanboys. I'm willing to guarantee that 75%+ of all people who liked that movie didn't give a damn about Transformers before Bay's first movie. If nothing else, to even *remember* the original TV show you'd have to be in your late twenties, and this is a film best-loved by teenagers. "Fanboys" actually tend to be a lot harder to please than laymen--why else would Spider-Man 3 and the Star Wars prequels be near-universally reviled by fans while making hundreds of millions of dollars apiece?--and have virtually no bearing on a film's success or overall popularity.

One can learn something important even from bad films, no one can predict where fresh knowledge can come from. If I followed Ebert on what to avoid half my childhood would've be thrown out the window. He's shunned some really inspiring, imaginative movies. Critics need to stop making these half-assed useless reviews aimed at the general audience that will never care, and start writing complete analyses for those who do. A walkthrough from shot to shot of what it made you feel and why, if you call yourself a "film critic".

JE: I've been making that argument to my editors at major metropolitan newspapers for more than a quarter century! I don't think reviews should be aimed at a mainstream movie audience, because they're not the mainstream audience for movie reviews. (OK, I'm adding that sentence to the post now.) I don't know how many people would be interested in the shot-by-shot (though people sure love it at the Conference on World Affairs every year), but it's a lot more challenging and rewarding than writing a ten-paragraph review.

What is the role of a professional critic? You have talked about this in a couple of blog entries, but it seems as though your view is more passive than is reasonable. Anyone can be a critic. They might even be a good critic if they back up their opinions with reasoning, evidence etc. Here, I completely agree with your point.

However, the role of a professional critic goes a step farther. Why should Ebert be paid to review films? Because his approach has value, not just to himself, but to the consumer. I will assume the consumer is not just the newspaper, or the film industry, but is the film watching public. (Maybe not the ENTIRE film watching public, but enough to justify being paid.)

So, should a professional critic reflect the mainstream? Cleary no, but when the critic drifts too far from the "target consumer", then his value (as a professional, not a critic) diminishes. Of course, if a professional critic just echoed the mainstream, it would result in the situation you present above, but he would cease to be a critic, since I cannot imagine how you could give evidence, reasoning to explain the box office gross. (Though of course, the film producers try to do this all the time.)

So the role of a professional critic is not just to be a good critic, but also to be a useful judge of good films, while also being a good critic, giving guidance that is useful to the audience.

JE: I'm experimenting with the Obama approach -- downplaying my own role (who wants to hear a critic extoll the virtues of criticism?) in hopes that readers like you will take up the cause. Those filmmakers who are interested in making movies targeted at a post-teen audience will tell you that the lack of a film culture (of which criticism is an essential part) makes it much more difficult to get their movies made and seen. That's why I think critics would do better to avoid writing down to an imaginary "general" audience that doesn't read reviews anyway, and address the audience that's actually interested in reading criticism. We can hope, as teens see more movies, and as they grow older and more experienced, that they will become more deeply interested in movies, beyond the heavily advertised Hollywood pictures marketed directly at them. When they do, they will have someplace to turn.

I think Bob's right. The only way to write a truly definitive and defensible film review is to analyze the entirety of the movie, with consideration for its contacts. Part of my disagreement (and I sincerely apologize that I couldn't think of another word, since you did suggest that it would be productive to ban words like that from forums like this) with your analyses of "TDK" came from the fact that, although I, too, could find many incredibly flawed moments in that film, I still thought that the overall movie was a good one. And the only way you and I would be able to really understand each other's overall impressions would be to do something more akin to an audio commentary, explaining what we like and don't like at each stage of the film.

That said, please don't stop doing shot-by-shot analyses of scenes in films, even if they are ripped from context. Your post on "Speed Racer" last year, for instance, did effectively sum up the problems with that flick thoroughly enough that a similar review of the whole movie would have been unnecessary.

So is there any reason these minimalistic reviews for general public have existed for so long? I mean who the hell read them in the 1st place that sponsors saw money to be made? I see major 2 page reviews in the Daily News for big movies, and they're basically popculturish sum-ups that I can see people reading. But I can't see anyone reading Ebert's review if/when it was in a newspaper. The main and practically ONLY thing I've ever gotten from him is articulacy, not at all a differing opinion.

Then again is there anything else to be gotten from a review? A differing opinion does subconsciously stretch your brain just a tiny bit, but to see articulacy in action takes immediate effect. So what the hell are you people selling? How to speak or what you're speaking? Please pick one

To JE: Nah, my bad. Just popped up and saw the last line of that paragraph and decided to toss a stock argument out.

To break it down, I'm just jealous of film critics...especially the ones that review pornos.

"And Ebert loved dreck like Charlie's Angels 2, The Honeymooners, Speed 2, Anaconda, and Matrix 3. His taste is just as questionable as the most fervent fan of Transformers 2."

Loved? He gave "The Honeymooners", "Speed 2" and "The Matrix Revolutions" three stars. He gave "Anaconda" three-and-a-half stars and "Charlie's Angels 2" two-and-a-half stars. Reading the reviews, I find little to suggest that he loved any of the films.

It's the sports analogy that we'll be quoting for years to come.

If sports fans were like certain movie fans, they would hate sports writers, commentators and sports talk hosts for always discussing fine points, quoting statistics and bringing up games and players of the past. If all you want to do is drink beer in the sunshine and watch a ball game, why should some elitist play-by-play announcer bore you with his knowledge? Yet sports fans are proud of their baseball knowledge, and respect commentators who know their stuff.

Which reminds me, another guy named Raymond said some very rude and uneducated things to Mr. Ebert in the other thread. I think I need to tear him a new one.

Count me in the group who would like to read more detailed, thorough breakdowns of an entire film. When a critic pulls lesser elements out of the context of just about any given film, most films can be made to seem mediocre, regardless of their actual overall quality. And there are far too many so-called critics out there who merely offer up a plot synopsis, and a few snarky comments (sometimes barely related to the empirical content of the film in question), in place of an actual review.

Anyways, I'm rather ambivalent about Public Enemies, which I feel is competent enough as genre entertainment, but not particularly memorable, save for a few scenes. One of the things I enjoyed least about it was the handheld action (shootouts), though that may be partly down to the digital photography being rather murky and unfocused (a blur, really) when run through a regular film projector (I didn't experience this issue with The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button, also shot on digital video, at the same multiplex, though that film didn't feature a great deal of fast movement). That said, I've spoken to individuals who liked the film less than me, but felt the action sequences were one of the film's few strong points. As someone who doesn't generally find modern action filmmaking nearly as "incoherent" as some critics make it out to be, my displeasure (virtual boredom) with the action in PE struck me as rather odd.

So, the general critical response to PE has been very mixed, but I think it's a film that's worth taking apart to see what works, and what doesn't. Plus, it's a perfect example of digital photography having a major effect on how different viewers react to the film (much more than the previously discussed in this regard Benjamin Button, I'd say): myself and many other viewers may have to wait for the Blu-ray to see the film in its "proper" form. It's a shame that digital projectors seem to make up such a small percentage of the screens out there, and people are getting a compromised version of PE for their ten dollars.

I saw all of the horrible reviews of Transformers, I knew it was going to be terrible, but I saw it anyway. In terms of box office, it is the best example of a critic-proof film. People see it simply because it exists. Frankly, I don't much care how much money it makes, though I will be annoyed if it makes as much as Dark Knight (by the way, I do think you're falling into the trap you outlined about criticizing a particular film too much. I'm not going to insane just because you're critical of it, but saying "Transformers is this year's Dark Knight" is borderline insulting).
I also consider myself a "future filmmaker" (as a 17 year old, I believe I still have time on this). But unlike the person you mentioned, your crazy overanalysis of films (no offense) actually makes me want to be a filmmaker more. I think it would be nice if the film industry was more laid back. That way, people would take criticism easier and be able to make better films the next time around.

I've been through the same thing, but in an entirely different market.

I used to be a digital-camera reviewer for an enormous 'gadget' magazine. I was hired because I have experience in photography and imaging-tech, and was considered knowledgable in those areas, at least to the degree that I could critically analyze image-quality.

I had to quit within six months. My editor and the investors all agreed that I was writing reviews 'over the heads of my audience.' At one point, I was literally instructed to avoid ever using the following terms: exposure, ISO, aperture, sensor, pixel, shutter-speed, etc. In other words, I had to write camera reviews for people who not only knew absolutely nothing about cameras, but who were presumed too lazy even to figure out what the terms meant through simple context.

I ask you, what's the point of writing camera reviews for people who aren't interested in cameras? What's the point of writing movie reviews for people who categorically hate film critics!? I think too many outlets confuse 'accessibility' with 'pandering to the lowest-common denominator,' as if it's anathema to expect your readers to have some sort of working knowledge on your subject. I mean, why else would they be reading the freakin' article?

I can't imagine what it's like to be a working film-critic today. How can you make critical comparisons when the acceptable range of discourse only goes back to the last Tarantino movie?

"Powerrr to the people... Powerrr to the people... Powerrr to the people... Power to the people right now!"

Sorry, I had to...

***

JE (on Public Enemies): I imagine a cross between "The Insider" and "Zodiac."

Having seen it, that's not a bad guess Jim. Although I'll agree with that commenter you wrote that in response to. The movie is slightly disappointing, if only because there was much more to the story before and after the fact that was very interesting and could have added other dimensions of complexity and more scope to the film. In particular, one character's fate is awkwardly left as a footnote at the end of the film...

In Ebert's interview with Mann it's apparent that he knows much more than he put in the film. I'm not sure why he left out the rest. Maybe to be different. Maybe he thought people would get bored. The 2 hours and 20 minutes felt short to me. What made it into the film though, is interesting, indeed because of Mann's attempt to deglamorize the genre. It's not entirely a typical gangster flick, not entirely original either.

Doesn't leave you with as much to think about/ nor is it as well performed, directed and shot as "Assassination of Jesse James" but... there are some similarities. I know you liked that film so I thought I'd throw is out there for you (or anybody else stumbling across here.

Great article as always. Your last few have made me want to apologize for any times I've been a moron on here. For example, I didn't know what "straw man argument" meant until Jim Emerson told me I was making one in regards to his position on "Slumdog Millionaire", which I understand more clearly now after thinking about it some more. (Not that I felt the same way, but I understand how Jim could prefer a movie that doesn't force-feed the audience what they should be feeling through in your face colors, and that the flashback structure of the film is without suspense, just to name some of the issues he had with it...)

This blog has been a great learning experience for me and I thank you Jim, though people like myself probably gave you a few grey hairs with our response along the way. You're a great role model for... I was going to say young people but really anybody out there.

JE: Gracias, Karlos. So are you!

Correction: the lyrics are "Power to the people, right on!" Not "now". Been a while since I listened to it... And now this has got me listening to Lennon songs all night... A night well wasted!

JE: It's not "well-wasted" until you've listened to one of my favorites, "Well, Well, Well." Which reminds me: There were two great "Rat own"s in 1971: Plastic Ono Band's ("Power to the people rat own") and Isaac Hayes' in "Theme From Shaft" ("Who's the black private dick that's a sex machine to all the chicks?" "Shaft!" "Rat own.").

@Hans

"Loved? He gave "The Honeymooners", "Speed 2" and "The Matrix Revolutions" three stars. He gave "Anaconda" three-and-a-half stars and "Charlie's Angels 2" two-and-a-half stars. Reading the reviews, I find little to suggest that he loved any of the films. "

Fine, if those are gushing enough for you, he said Crash was the best movie of the year. Crash! I haven't seen Transformers 2. But I've seen Crash, and there are very, very few things one could put on a movie screen that could be worse.

Not to mention Get Smart, Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull, Knowing, W, The X-Files: I Want to Believe, and a bunch of other lousy movies got 3.5 to 4 stars. Ebert is a good writer, but his taste in movies isn't exactly top-shelf. Someone who will gush over Knowing isn't quite the Braniac he proclaims himself.

I'm a list junkie and pretty recently I made up a list (on the great site listofbests.com) of good movies that Roger Ebert gave less than two stars to. In addition to stuff like Harold and Maude, Blue Velvet, and The Usual Suspects I included films like Mandingo, The Good Son, The Devils, and even Michael Bay's own Bad Boys 2. I doubt that there is anything particularly wrong with those films from an objective aesthetic standpoint. I think it's really a matter of taste and his taste leans more toward sunshine and lollipops than my own. He's not all about the sunshine and lollipops, but he is more so than me.

The list is just a bit short of forty titles and I'm thinking that if I do a "bad movies that Ebert gave three and a half to four stars to" it would probably be less than forty titles also.

Not sure if I'm making a lucid point. I guess I'm stressing that good and bad is subjective, but still important. And if people actually like Transformers 2, they have to cop to it. They have to argue that it's a good movie. They have to compare it to The Dark Knight and tell me if it's better or worse and why. Or Star Trek. Or Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. Or Casablanca. Or The Seventh Seal. Like what you like, but realize that film is the new religion for the 20th and 21st century and people are going to judge you for it.

Roger and Jim are making me want to see this movie, but I'm getting the feeling that this is basically a one-sided conversation. The haters are taking this all more seriously than the lovers.

Also, refusing to see ANY movie on general principle is extremely anti-intellectual. We all use discretion and don't watch movies that we know are going to suck. But doing so makes you a horrible person. Or at least not feeling any guilt or self-hatred for it makes you a horrible person. You need to watch EVERYTHING. The only good excuse is that you literally can't find the time. I try and go to the theater every week regardless if there is anything playing that I want to see.

The sad part is, I thought we would be having this argument about "Terminator: Salvation" instead of "Transformers." Boy did I miss the bullseye on that one.

I guess there are times when even the least critical moviegoer in the world knows a piece of crap when they see it.

JE: Come to think of it, except for critics (who HAD to see that movie in order to write about it), I don't believe I know anybody who saw it. Or, at least, if they did, they didn't particularly find anything in it they wanted to talk about.

Ummm, Sorry but Hollywood is today about the franchise product. Everything else is illusion. I think everyone is living in the past to think quality has anything to do with the current state of play of the 'system.'

The reason people complain about you using the same damn examples again and again and again is because it makes you appear intellectually lazy (which you are not, and it isn't why we read you, and it's vicariously embarrassing when we see you do it), and it's boring. Many of us follow your blog pretty religiously, and seeing the same examples repeatedly just gets flat-out dull. Certainly your horizons are wider than that.

You don't get to dismiss this complaint as a mere superstition.

Other than that, keep up the good work.

I've found that most of the people who say things like you've described are also the people who end up getting refunds five minutes into films like THE ORPHANAGE "because it has subtitles" or won't watch even RAGING effing BULL because it's in black and white, let alone something produced before 1980.

(Yes, at the time I was working at a movie theater, and we actually gave out several refunds for that exact reason. Well, jesus christ, why don't you just go watch it and then maybe you'll see it's not so bad as all that. Enjoy DELTA FARCE, dipsh*t.

"We all use discretion and don't watch movies that we know are going to suck. But doing so makes you a horrible person."

I mean this with as little offense as possible, but your last paragraph is idiotic. Turning your mind into a landfill for film's garbage isn't intellectualism.

Restaurant critics don't waste their time eating at McDonalds, simply because they don't want to dull their palate. Same reason why wine critics don't drink box wine. Same reason why English professors don't teach the Twilight series. And why theater snobs don't bother with high school plays.

If you have the time to watch Transformers 2, you have the time to read a a newspaper or begin a book. Either are better uses of your time. There's no moral superiority to rotting your brain with Michael Bay's junk food.

Anyway, there are 200-300 movies that come out every year in the theater. And countless that go straight to DVD. Even seeing a movie a week isn't enough to see 1/4 of movies in any given year. This is where discretion comes in. It is the reason critics exist - to separate the gold from the dross so that you don't have to if you don't want to.

So there are [occasional] film watchers venting against more or less professional film critics. Where's the relevance? Let's keep this in perspective: Folks with the minds of 4-year olds [nothing against actual 4-year olds] who like Michael Bay junk food complain if others do not. And then they raise a tantrum. Like the 4-year old in the supermarket when not getting his chocolate. Blah.

The same dickheads will point anybody who doesn't care to a review sharing their own opinion, that is, if Mr Ebert had praised Bay's latest drivel all those 'critics know nothing' blowers would come up with 'see, even Ebert thinks'. Har, har.

I do read a handful of critics on film and literature, usually not to get my own opinion venerated - my ego is much too big for that - but because I want them challenging my views. Unlikely they will always disagree but there are points even when we agree on the whole.

It would be quite nice if professional critics at least understood the difference between 'I like it' and 'it is good', or between 'appeal' and 'sublime'. For instance, none of Bay's oeuvre can be characterised as sublime but several of his movies - alright, all of them - have a lot of appeal. Most critics and moviegoers like The Rock, doesn't make it good. Personally I don't like that one but I can watch Armaggeddon about once every two or three years - not a good movie, but has enough appeal in the satirical way it handles the characters that I like it.

You said in the first comment that you have yet to come up with a compelling reason to see the film. Here's one: You've now written three columns on a film you have yet to see. Granted, these columns are more about the reviews the film inspired and the public reactions, but don't you think that maybe the fact that this has inspired almost a thousand comments on Ebert's blog, three columns from you, and $300 million in box office warrants a viewing?

JE: I feel like resorting to an emoticon here: :) There was a time when I would have been curious -- felt obligated, even -- to see it. But, as I said, one of the things that makes Bay such a terrible director is that he makes exactly the same terrible decisions from picture to picture. I'm pretty sure I saw the first one (or, at least, large chunks of it on HD cable), but I remember thinking it was like loud patterned wallpaper: screaming for attention, but with nothing to hold your interest for more than a few seconds.

As much as I love reading Ebert - and I do read him religiously - I find him more than a little hypocritical in that comment (even though I agree with it.) For comparison's sake, here's what he said about recent Cannes winner Brillante Mendoza's Kinatay:

There will be critics who fancy themselves theoreticians, who will defend this unbearable experience, and lecture those plebians like me who missed the whole Idea.

Now I don't doubt his visceral dislike of the film, but unless I'm misreading him he's giving the same kind of reaction against critics-cum-theoriticians that he eviscerates in this braniac essay.

I'm much more inclined to support his braniac essay than the Mendoza comment, even if the Mendoza film is a worthless pile of trash. It strikes me as antithetical to the entire purpose of criticism to strike down any potential defense of the film preemptively, as if no one could possibly say anything interesting about it (much less to defend it on grounds that sound strikingly anti-intellectual).

Anyway. The dissonance between those two posts was just driving me nuts.

*if I do a "bad movies that Ebert gave three and a half to four stars to" it would probably be less than forty titles also. *

With all due respect to Mr. Ebert, one of the finest critics in the land, I think this list could reach 400, let alone 40. OK, maybe that's a slight exaggeration, but it'd be a hefty number. Just looking at his "best of" list (he used a different term) from last year, I see quite a few.

And I guess that's going to be the problem. While I very much agree with Ebert's sentiment that there _is_ some kind of objective measure of quality involved in assessing film, with each year I'll be darned if I can figure out where the line can be drawn.

I agree with everything J. Hoberman says here:

http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-09-27/film/states-of-grace/

*But I reach the edge of my tolerance in the case of Robert Bresson.

Bluntly put, to not get Bresson is to not get the idea of motion pictures—it's to have missed that train the Lumiére brothers filmed arriving at Lyon station 110 years ago.*

Amen, brother!

And yet... Martin Scorsese, when discussing Paul Schrader's obsession with Bresson, is on record as saying he has never warmed to the filmmaker. And I'm sure Marty gets motion pictures.

I'm tempted to say anyone who doesn't like "2001" needs to find a different art form, but I encounter so many smart people who "get" movies and don't like 2001 that I have to toss that out as a line-in-the-sand moment too.

Perhaps we need to see what's on each side of the line? Don't like 2001? OK. Thinks Transformers 2 is better than 2001? Here's your sign.

Think Crash is the best movie of the year? Then I just can't help you... :)

Hate to tell y'all, but a lot of people do hate sportswriters/broadcasters who sound too "elitist" (see: Bob Costas/Tim McCarver - I never learned more from those guys, but there are TONS of people who hate them for the very same reason).

How about Bill James? The guy deciphered baseball through statistical analysis, and for years was derided as a "numbers nerd" who knew nothing about actual baseball. Of course, he's been proven right over and over.

And it just occurred to me that, with "ROTF" crossing the $300,000,000 dollar mark, the general public has probably dashed Roger Ebert's fond hopes that oversized, CGI-fueled behemoths like this would soon fade into obsolescence in this flick's wake. (Unless critics and bloggers are able to mount a truly spirited and vigilant resistance)

Actually, I now feel duty-bound to admit that... yeah, I saw Terminator Salvation.

Surprisingly, it was not a completely painful experience. It was just completely unremarkable. Not very good, but not a complete disaster either -- which is probably why anyone who saw it had nothing to say about it. It all felt like a very big, elaborate, and expensive production of some lousy Terminator fanfiction. (And that is a fan-affixed word that I will forever use in a derogatory fashion!)

But I will at least say this: As much as I want to punch McG in the head simply for having the audacity to go by the name "McG," he is at least no Michael Bay when it comes to the action scenes, which actually had some semblance of coherent visual logic from one shot to the next. Not very elegant visual logic, but hey, at least it was there.

I don't think we should be too dismissive of fanboys as immature people who can do no right.I sometimes think they could help get a small or overlooked film to be put into the spotlight if they wanted to.A good example of this could possibly be Blade Runner (one of my favorite movies) which was a critical and commercial flop when it first came out but a cult following by sci-fi fanbases developed and the film is now considered to be a classic of its genre.Although,I could be completely wrong in what I'm saying since "Fanbase" and "Fanboys" might be two different groups of people.

JE: Another perspective: When Jean-Luc Godard was a critic, he sometimes wrote almost like a modern fanboy on AICN. And today Godard, Tarkovsky, Von Trier, Herzog, Wong Kar Wai -- you name 'em -- have fanboys. It's about how they write and what they have to say (or don't), not who they are.

Brad--

I think the sentiment Ebert expresses is different than the one he criticizes. Recognizing that intelligence and education are good things does not preclude recognizing that they can also be turned toward skillful acts of rationalization and self-deception.

"critics had nothing to do with making these movies hits."

In the case of the Dark Knight, I would have to disagree with you to an extent. It's true that those that the fanboys were going to see the movie regardless of what film critics thought, but as someone who saw The Dark Knight more than once in a packed movie theater, what was interesting was that as time went on, social demographics that you wouldn't expect to see a movie like The Dark Knight, namely older men and women, were coming out to see the film, largely because of the critical acclaim the film was receiving. As Roger Ebert said in reference to the off chance that Transformers beats the all-time box-office record,"I don't believe "Titanic" and "The Dark Knight" have much to fear, however, because (1) it has little to no appeal for non-fanboy or female audiences, and (2) many of those who do see it will find they simply cannot endure it."

Way up at the top t wrote: "Just because someone enjoys a movie you do not you deem it acceptable to label them a fanboy."

I think a fanboy is many things, someone who loves a movie going into it, someone who accepts criticism of said movie and still loves it, someone who finds a large number of things in the movie to connect to that most folk do not, etc etc.

Fanboy is often taken as an insult and maybe it is sometimes. I love "Star Wars" and all it's sequels/prequels and totally understand all the critique and outrage at George Lucas. But I love the world, er.....universe....galaxy! and I gladly deal with all the eye rollingly bad dialogue to sit in that galaxy. Does that make me a fanboy? Maybe, but I've never been to a convention and only dress like Darth Vader for the odd Halloween party. So I guess there are levels to it.

I also love nearly any sci-fi movie with Vin Diseal, "Beerfest", Will Ferrell and "Rambo" and no amount of argument will change that, nor will the way I watch those movies change that I love "Breathless" or "Punch-Drunk Love" or that I cried like a baby in "The New World" when the child looses his mother in the maze garden. Many of my friends love Wes Anderson so much they can't even talk about him, yet they often dimiss "Life Aquatic" as the least of his films. Meanwhile my wife and I watched it for the upteenth time last night and I still find it the most emotionally engaging and mystical of his films.

Personally I thought "The Dark Knight" was better than any Christopher Nolan snooze fest that came previously, but Ledger is the magical glue and I can't pretend the rest of the movie isn't overly crafted (1st half) or sloppy and dumb (last 3rd). It's themes often feel like they happened by accident, sliding out of the way of all the serious acting going on.

Everyone on this site has smart movies that they love, dumb movies they love and often hold opposite opinions of them than critics/audiences. Duh right? That's why I'm reading and reacting in the first place. I read film critics to get an idea if I want to pay $15 for a movie. I never agree with any critic all the time, but from reading Mr. Ebert or others I can usually tell whether I will like a movie.

Lousy bunch of fanboys.

By SG on July 9, 2009 5:19 AM
Ummm, Sorry but Hollywood is today about the franchise product. Everything else is illusion. I think everyone is living in the past to think quality has anything to do with the current state of play of the 'system.'

Yeah...but, I think it's a little different from that. Hollywood today is about marketing. Movies make money based on how much they are marketed. Once you've bought your ticket, Hollywood studies literally do not care what happens after.

Yeah, it'd be nice if the film generates repeat business. But the major measure of success is box office, and for most films box office is measured in the opening weekend only. Jim's pointed out notable exceptions to this (such as Titanic) in other entries, but for 90% of films, the opening weekend is the make-or-break time. As Roger pointed out and Jim quoted (I think in "I criticize you back, again"), once you've bought your ticket, it doesn't matter if you think the movie was good or not.

And so the marketing campaign is geared toward engineering consent in two areas (and "Engineering Consent" is a book on my "to read" list): convincing people to buy the ticket; and, convincing people that what they've seen isn't horrible dreck.

If you have the time to watch Transformers 2, you have the time to read a a newspaper or begin a book. Either are better uses of your time. There's no moral superiority to rotting your brain with Michael Bay's junk food.

Anyway, there are 200-300 movies that come out every year in the theater. And countless that go straight to DVD. Even seeing a movie a week isn't enough to see 1/4 of movies in any given year. This is where discretion comes in. It is the reason critics exist - to separate the gold from the dross so that you don't have to if you don't want to.

Any time the avoidance of possible displeasure trumps one's curiosity, it's anti-intellectualism.

I'll choose my words carefully. If you would rather read a book that's probably going to be good instead of seeing a movie that's probably going to be bad, then you are not a real movie lover.

Similarly, if you would rather see a movie that's probably going to be good over reading a book that's probably going to be bad, then you are not a real book lover.

I haven't seen Transformers 2 yet. Saw Away We Go instead. Will probably see Public Enemies and Bruno next. Or hopefully a new art film coming into town. Yeah, if you choose any movie over another you are using discretion. A movie is a movie, so that's not that bad.

What makes me mad is when people actively avoid a film or stay home rather than see a certain film. If I missed the screening of the film I wanted to see and I can make a screening of Transformers 2 (which is playing every hour) I'll see Transformers 2. If somebody tells me that this is a great movie and they'll buy my ticket so I can see it, I'll definitely go. I think that I probably will go eventually, though I'm in no rush since I know I'll have plenty of opportunities as it's not going anywhere.

To me that's the fundamental measure of a film lover. You're up for anything.

The idea that Michael Bay dulls your sense of taste or rots your brain is dodgy nonsense and an excuse for possessing insufficient curiosity and passion for film. It suggests that you're actually scared you'll like Transformers 2 and then won't want to watch anything difficult or demanding ever again.

Made that list of bad movies that Roger Ebert loved and only had 19 titles:

Akeelah and the Bee, Antwone Fisher, Broadcast News, The Death of Mr. Lazarescu, The English Patient, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, Holes, Junebug, The Little Mermaid, Love Actually, My Girl, The Negotiator, Once, The Perfect Storm, The Proposition, Robots, Seabiscuit, Seven Beauties, and Scarface.

Any thoughts on that list? I really hate those movies. It fills me with disgust whenever I see those titles. (The first Transformers film is better than all of those, not by much but I would still argue that it's better). But still, I'm sure that everybody will find something on that short list that they think should be salvaged. Anybody's idea of good or bad necessarily should offend or alienate somebody.

Terminator Salvation is a good movie by the way, and as has been suggested, the hate it has been getting seems to stem largely from the mere fact that it was directed by somebody called "McG".

I thought that it was a VERY well-made action film. If this is mere competence, I would like to see what exceeding mere competence looks like. Seriously, I love well-made films (my rejection of Junebug and Broadcast News is almost exclusively because they have no filmmaking excitement) but I feel underqualified in discussing aesthetic quality. I would love to see somebody explain to me why Terminator Salvation is a mediocre film on a visual level and compare it to a film that is truly successful on a visual level.

What I don't understand is why fanboys feel the need to have these kinds of movies given a stamp of approval. Where exactly does that come from?

I watched several reviews on Youtube yesterday and discovered something interesting. The best reviews seemed to come from adolescent males. Older guys, even some who I suspect played with the toys when they were kids, were turned off. Women didn't seem to like it either. The fact is that 16-25 year old demographic has a lot of money to toss should inform us. Transformers Revenge of the Fallen is made for a demographic that can simultaneously get turned on by Megan Fox and by big robots and big explosions.

JE: Absolutely true. And that teen to early '20s demographic is also the time in most people's lives when peer opinions matter greatly -- so it's really important that everybody align themselves with the proper identity-defining pop-culture totems. That's been the case for generations.

"...that teen to early '20s demographic is also the time in most people's lives when peer opinions matter greatly -- so it's really important that everybody align themselves with the proper identity-defining pop-culture totems. That's been the case for generations."

Slightly off-topic, but speaking of peer opinions, I've wanted to know for years how many people actually like rap music, and how many are following the herd. I hate to sound like the crotchety guy railing against something he simply doesn't understand, but for me, it's the aural equivalent of being locked in a room with a jackhammer. And I'm 28, so I'm stuck in the midst of a generation whose majority seems to enjoy driving cars that vibrate hard enough to shake the paint off, and who gladly listen to nothing but a 24/7 rotation of artists who basically shout tonelessly at their audience. (However, I don't completely hate it; I've got about a half-dozen rap CDs from a range of eras.)

Am I asthetically tonedeaf when it comes to hip-hop? Or am I surrounded by sheep? (Or both?) I don't get it.

I feel like the high schooler who's studying Welles while his friends go see Transformers 2 again.

JE: OK, you asked for it. I was a big hip-hop fan in the late '80s and early '90s, then lost interest around the time that the black-owned community radio station I used to listen to in Los Angeles switched formats because they didn't like the influence the new, post-N.W.A. gangsta rap seemed to be having in their neighborhoods. (Fortunate for the transplanted Seattleite I was at the time, grunge came along just in time and destroyed the hair-band Sunset Strip to make it safe for people like me!) I think there's a straight line of impressive technical proficiency -- even virtuosity -- that runs from Toto to most of the bands featured in Penelope Spheeris's masterpiece "The Decline of Western Civilization II: The Metal Years" to techno-dance to Madonna to MC Hammer to P. Diddy to 'N Synch to Britney Spears to "High School Musical." What I mean by that is there's always been pop music (and it's all been pop) that has been slickly produced, phony as a three dollar bill, and wildly commercially successful. Michael Bay music, you might say. And most of it is fairly interchangeable, appealing at its commercial peak mainly to white suburban kids. In 30 years (since "The Breaks," say) rap and hip-hop have gone through the familiar process of influence, discovery, acceptance and assimilation into the mainstream. I'm selective about what I like, but I love Grandmaster Flash, Kool Moe Dee, KRS-One, Run-DMC, Eric B. & Rakim, De La Soul, some non-fascist Public Enemy and some non-racist/homophobic Eminem, to mention a few familiar acts off the top of my head. There you go: Jim's Recent Pop History In A Nutshell.

@Alex Jackson

"Made that list of bad movies that Roger Ebert loved and only had 19 titles:

Akeelah and the Bee, Antwone Fisher, Broadcast News, The Death of Mr. Lazarescu, The English Patient, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, Holes, Junebug, The Little Mermaid, Love Actually, My Girl, The Negotiator, Once, The Perfect Storm, The Proposition, Robots, Seabiscuit, Seven Beauties, and Scarface. "

I suppose you're a big Crash fan? And that you think Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, The Phantom Menace, and Knowing were somehow *not* bad?

And if you liked Terminator: Salvation, well, I have to say that my theory is true. Watching bad movies has rotted your brain. Terminator: Salvation is a very, very dumb movie. The action scenes and visual effects were fine from a techincal standpoint (not, however, from a excitement standpoint). However, the plot is idiotic to an extreme that few movies match, and the acting is some of the worst put to film.

And loving movies is not the same as loving them indiscriminately. A person who wastes time watching the Terminator: Salvations, GI Joes, and Transformers 2s of the world is no different than the one who wastes his life watching soap operas and professional wrestling all day.

Dumb is dumb. Watching dumb doesn't make you smart.

"What makes me mad is when people actively avoid a film or stay home rather than see a certain film."

You mean people with taste and common sense?

Alex Jackson--

So in order to be a "real film lover" you must love bad films more than good books? And vice versa to be a "real book lover"?

That doesn't sound like being a film-lover to me. There's another term for people who are so enamored with something that they lose the faculty for critical judgment and irrationally favor it over all else.

That'd be "fanboy"...

In response to Jack Foley's post above:

Speaking as a huge hiphop fan, I understand the frustration with most of what gets played over the radio. Ebert’s comment that “people should climb a personal ladder…until their standards improve” certainly applies to my discovery of hiphop music. Before college, I tried to get into hiphop but never knew where to look, so naturally I bought albums from artists who received attention from MTV, like Ludacris, Mystikal, Ja Rule, etc. It wasn’t until I met my freshman roommate, an indie rock/rap fan with a considerable knowledge of underground music, when I finally could distinguish what I thought was a quality rap album. I remember hearing “The Low End Theory” by A Tribe Called Quest, “Illmatic” from NaS, and “Original Pirate Material” from The Streets for the first time and being completely blown away. I find I am most impressed by rappers who write and deliver creative rhymes and word play that seem to naturally roll off the artist’s tongue; lyrics by most of today’s popular artists seem forced to me. And while I’ve been a serious hiphop listener for five or six years, I have a lot to learn. For example, I finally picked up “Paid in Full” by Eric B. and Rakim as well as Run-DMC’s debut album for the first time last week, even though these are considered essential listening in the world of rap. For me, film and hiphop are similar in the sense that it takes a little work to find the best art. Needless to say, I haven’t played my Ja Rule album in about six years and I've given up on music that is the "aural equivalent of being locked in a room with a jackhammer."

Also, I think I’m sort of starting a similar journey with film, as this blog and Ebert’s great movies list has inspired me to see or rediscover “Nosferatu,” “The Godfather” trilogy, “Notorious,” “Grave of the Fireflies,” “The Third Man,” “Unbreakable” and many others, all fantastic. It’ll be interesting to compare my reaction to these with “ROFL” when I finally get around to seeing it.

To be The Dark Knight of 2009, Transformers would have to be the best and most important film of the year. Obviously, it isn't.

JE: Yes, and Hitler was a vegetarian, so? Really, if you don't understand points of comparison when they're pointed out to you then you really shouldn't be here. No more wasting time with comments like this.

Well, about Terminator Salvation I think you are grossly exaggerating the quality of the plot and the acting. I was satisfied with the film's take on the perennial sci-fi theme of robot identity and consciousness. I wasn't blown away, but I was satisfied. I felt that I had enough to chew on. And I thought Christian Bale was terrific in the film and brought a certain gravitas and legitimacy to the project.

But come on, I don't know why people are so dismissive about the film's technical merits. The sensual pleasures of a slick well-made action film are one of the major reasons I love the movies. Is it really that far of a gap between stuff like Terminator Salvation (and to a lesser extent Transformers) and Touch of Evil, Mr. Arkadin, or Citizen Kane?

Seriously, I didn't like the first Transformers but I still felt defensive about it. I think it came out shortly after the death of Ingmar Bergman (who I like, but still) and that bit from Welles on Bergman was going around where he said that he sees Bergman as heralding the death of cinema and that film should have some kind of hallucinatory quality. There's something like that in Transformers. It annoyed me when people criticized the film for having too many beautiful women. I mean what the hell? What do you want? A cinema without any flavor? Without a pulse?

Terminator Salvation is a good movie, not a great movie but a good movie. The first Transformers is a mediocre movie, but it's not a bad one. It's not as bad as the 19 I mentioned.

I love Crash, actually. Very complicated reasons I won't go into. I like Knowing and I liked The Phantom Menace. They're not great and I wouldn't place them in the same eschelon as Welles (I would do that with Crash though and you can feel free to hate me for that), but yes they are good films and I would tell people to see them. A lot of this comes back to the fact that these films have a pulse. They have flavor. They're made by people who love the film medium and want to give us a rich sensory experience. If this is truly the complete antithesis to what you believe film should be than I don't really see you as a film lover.

Strangely, the film that I feel most defensive about is Kingdom of the Crystal Skull as out of all the films you've listed it's the one that I like the least. (My feelings are more mixed than positive). I apologize for being condescending, but I suspect you may have missed the point. It's an Indiana Jones film for the atomic age. It's saying that God is dead and all supernatual phenomena now requires a scientific explanation. We had the Jewish God in Raiders, the Hindu God in Temple, the Christian God in Last Crusade and now we have space aliens mistakenly worshipped as gods. The point is that sci-fi has replaced religion as our culture's organizing mythology. (And this was ushered in by the creation of the atom bomb).

The point in Kingdom is that it's impossible to actually make another Indiana Jones movie. The film is snarky in the way it revels in how utterly unnecessary it all is. But of course that key idea forms the basis of Knowing. I understand that people are laughing at Knowing, but are they exploring their reasons for laughing at it? Would they be more or less accepting of it if it wasn't presented as a sci-fi film, but as a straight-forward actualization of Christian apocalyptic myths? The sci-fi trappings worked for me and cut through the baggage I carry toward Christianity. Ditto for the somewhat underappreciated remake of Day the Earth Stood Still. If it was presented as a fairy tale it would register in quotation marks with me. Here, I accepted it.

But anyway, no, your elitism and maintainance of these goofy high art/no art false dichotomies speaks to me of the real intellectual laziness.

I like Michael McGonigle's fast-food comparison. From a different angle, think of the release of a new fast-food product - the 'Bacon Cheesy Potato Burrito' from Taco Bell for example. (And, that really is a new menu option from them. Reminds me of the Onion headline: "Taco Bell's Five Ingredients Combined in Totally New Way.")

If 1,000 food critics get off on railing against this new burrito abomination, will it have any affect on someone looking to dive into its bacon cheesy potato-ness? Probably not. Fast food restaurants are generally review-proof, much in the same way as big summer box-office movies.

And yet, one hopes that in the still, silent moment before someone places that 3am drive-thru order, they might think, "There's got to be something better out there." And maybe a food critic can point them to a family-owned burrito shop that uses local ingredients and makes a damn fine burrito...

I'm reaching, but all this is to say that I agree that there is little to no correlation between the mass-market box office smashes and film criticism. But, critics can use their unique knowledge base to spark debate, add to the great conversation, and maybe even encourage people to engage their critical thinking skills for a moment or two - a pretty noble deed when done well.

My ten favorite films are as follows:

1. Schindler's List
2. Citizen Kane
3. Casablanca
4. Seven Samurai
5. Raging Bull
6. 8 1/2
7. Rashomon
8. Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans
9. All Quiet On The Western Front
10. 2001: A Space Odyssey

...and I liked "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen." I can't wait to see the film-going elitists scratch their heads over this one.

Alex's comment is weirder than that (that is, The Death of Mr. Lazarescu is a great film; and Once is perfectly charming; much of the rest of that list is bleh, but hardly the worst things ever). He says this:

"Any time the avoidance of possible displeasure trumps one's curiosity, it's anti-intellectualism."

ANY time? What kind of displeasure?

But this is even odder:

"I'll choose my words carefully. If you would rather read a book that's probably going to be good instead of seeing a movie that's probably going to be bad, then you are not a real movie lover.

Similarly, if you would rather see a movie that's probably going to be good over reading a book that's probably going to be bad, then you are not a real book lover."

I can only assume you didn't choose your words as carefully as you said you would, because this makes no sense whatsoever. Surely you mean "good" wherever you wrote "bad", and vice versa?

Alex Jackson; "Any time the avoidance of possible displeasure trumps one's curiosity, it's anti-intellectualism.

I'll choose my words carefully. If you would rather read a book that's probably going to be good instead of seeing a movie that's probably going to be bad, then you are not a real movie lover.

What makes me mad is when people actively avoid a film or stay home rather than see a certain film. If I missed the screening of the film I wanted to see and I can make a screening of Transformers 2 (which is playing every hour) I'll see Transformers 2. If somebody tells me that this is a great movie and they'll buy my ticket so I can see it, I'll definitely go. I think that I probably will go eventually, though I'm in no rush since I know I'll have plenty of opportunities as it's not going anywhere.

To me that's the fundamental measure of a film lover. You're up for anything."

I completely reject this, as I do your previous post that "We all use discretion and don't watch movies that we know are going to suck. But doing so makes you a horrible person. Or at least not feeling any guilt or self-hatred for it makes you a horrible person."

I only see films which give me pleasure. I am also a real movie lover, although I hate this whole competitive 'I love film more than you do' thing, and I don't feel any need to justify myself. But nonetheless, I do choose what films to see, and sometimes I will opt to read a good novel rather than see a film which does not give me pleasure, and I feel quite comfortable about my being a cineaste.

But here's the thing; pleasure can mean different things. It can refer to being entertained, it can refer to being challenged, it can refer to admiring the cinematography or art direction. Choosing to see films which gives one pleasure can mean different things to different people. For me, it changes with the film. Some films I want to see becasue I want to be entertained, others because I want to be challenged, others because I admire a particular actor/director etc... others because it simply sounds interesting. So while I will probably see GI Joe because it looks entertaining (although it depends on the reviews; see, critics are important!), I am looking forward to seeing an Australian film called Sampson & Delilah because it'll challenge me.

There are however two kind of film I will never see (again); self-righteous films which really say nothing at all, and where I want to shot the director for stealing my time; Catherine Breiliat, either version of Funny Games, Lars von Trier come under this category. But also 21st century horror films which are completely repugnant. I loved the original version of Halloween, which certainly gave me pleasure, although I didn't 'enjoy' it, howewever the remake was horrible to the point of being toxic.

If I had the choice between playing a video game and seeing the latest Von Trier film or the new version of Texas Chainsaw Massacre (another remaake of a film which I loved but I did not 'enjoy'), I will play the video game. I make no apologies for that as I don't believe that not seeing anything is anti-intellectual. Plus, let's face it, everyone has a line; would you watch an execution?

I am not going to rush out to see a film just for the sake of doing so if I can not derive any pleasure from it. If that makes me a horrible person, I would seriously question your judgement. If that does not, according to you, make me a real movie lover, I will simply say that I don't measure my love for cinema based on other people's definitions. Plus, your definition kind of falls apart when you say that you'll see Transformers 2 if someone pays for a ticket. If someone paid for a ticket, most people would see probably any film. To be fair, you did say that you would see it if your preferred choice wasn't playing, but then the question arrises; if you went out for dinner, but was unable to get into your preferred restaurant, would you go to McDonalds instead or have dinner at home? If you go to McDonalds, that doesn't make you a real food lover. I think it's a silly defintion as nobody would see a film which denies them pleasure, however they define pleasure.

Oh, and Dierk, I consider The Rock to be one of the best action films of all time, so I would certainly describe it as good.

"I can only assume you didn't choose your words as carefully as you said you would, because this makes no sense whatsoever. Surely you mean "good" wherever you wrote "bad", and vice versa?"

Let me try that out: "If you would rather see a movie that's probably going to be bad over reading a book that's probably going to be good then you are not a real book lover". I can see the logic in that. But in that sentence, one is rejecting books and simply using film as a substitute.

What I'm saying is that when you love something, I mean really love it, you need to take the bitter with the sweet. If you only love something when it gives back to you, I don't see that as love.

Love should be irrational. It should be all-consuming. My devotion to the cinema is romantic, spiritual, even masochistically sexual. I don't want to cautiously wade my big toe in it, I want to immerse myself in it. Call it fanboyism, but I'm underwhelmed by any other approach.

By displeasure- I mean boredom, frustration, disgust, discomfort, et cetera. If you're not willing to risk those experiences in favor of satiating your curiosity, I see you as anti-intellectual. I hope that clears it up a little.

By the way, I hope that question "what kind of displeasure" and my answer opens up a fresh new can of worms. We've seem to have been working off the assumption that we all agree what "bad" means and once we define that word more explicitly I think we'll see a number of accepted classics nailed to the wall.

@Alex

You don't seem to know the definitions of either the terms "intellectualism" or "elitism," but no matter. Your quasi-intellectual defense of Indiana Jones 4 is pretty embarassing. The movie failed because of its poor action scenes, unfunny jokes, and bad acting, not because of its thematic depth (which was more kiddie than Olympic size anyway).

You claimed earlier that a mental palate couldn't be dulled by bad movies like a physical one can with bad food. Your approbation of the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still, Terminator Salvation, The Phantom Menace and Knowing is not evidence in your favor. These are the worst type of movies - dumb movies that think they are smart.

You are what you eat. If your mind is devouring the quasi-intellectual (at best), then what do you think your mind is becoming?

@JE

If you're tired of people ragging on you for your irrational criticisms of Dark Knight, you should probably stop bringing the movie up. You will always, always, always be in the extreme minority (of either critics or audiences) in your dislike of the film.

Alex, I find your assertion that failure to watch EVERY movie possible makes you "not a real movie lover" to be inexplicable. Surely a person who loved movies that much would rather watch GOOD ones whenever possible?

To other commenters, I'd like to make sure we all know deep down that enjoying dumb things does not automatically make a person dumb. I'm always skeptical of any argument that charictarizes other people as idiots.

As tempting as it is to jump in to this debate of Alex's taste, I'd ratehr comment on the fast food comparison.

It's apt but it breaks down at one point. Better food, in general, costs more. Whereas bad movies cost the same as good movies. You can understand people choosing the cheesy bacon potato burrito for 89 cents instead of shelling out $8 for that local-made burrito with fresh ingredients, but when people pay $10 for Transformers 2 when they could see a perfectly good movie for the same amount of money (though not necessarily at the same place, which is part of the problem) it just feels more depressing for a critic to not be able to have much of any influence on that particular decision.

But, hey, every single person I know at my local comic book store is beaming about Transformers 2. It's the best movie they've seen since Dark Knight. And those dumb critics don't have a clue what they're talking about...

Not seeing a movie because you've seen it before and you know that it's bad is not the same as not seeing a movie because you have heard that it's bad or past experience tells you that it is probably going to be bad. Again, I'm simply demanding that your curiosity trump your fear of POSSIBLY having a displeasurable experience.

Still Dan gave the most satisfying rebuttal to date. Look, I know that there are only so many hours in a day. And as long as you'll be willing to see Transformers 2 if somebody bought you a ticket and you haven't seen it before, you have my personal stamp of approval that you are a true film lover.

I'll tell you that I wouldn't necessarily read a book if somebody gave me a free copy and I wouldn't necessarily even listen to a CD if somebody gave it to me for free. Some people would, but I don't love books or music the way that I love film.

And John. Not sure how I can pump up a quasi-intellectual defense of Indiana Jones 4 into a full-blown intellectual defense, but I'm pretty sure that simply complaining about the unfunny jokes and "bad" acting isn't an intellectual attack, but a superficial one more befitting of the IMDB "fanboys". I'm not denying that Indiana Jones 4 is unfunny and has bad acting, but the fact that you expected it to be funny and have good acting (and judged it "bad" because it did not have those things) suggests to me that you missed the entire point of the film.

Movies that are dumb and think they are smart and not nearly as bad as movies that are dumb and know that they are dumb. Not even close. When a movie knows its dumb and doesn't even pretend otherwise it's a celebration of stupidity. When a dumb movie plays smart it at least falls on us to have the arrogance to say that the filmmakers and the people who love the film and buy into its claims of significance really are stupider than we we are.

Big fan of Haneke, Von Trier, probably Breillet (really enjoyed Fat Girl), the new Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the prequel, and Devil's Rejects, Hostel 2, and the new Last House on the Left for that matter. Anybody who doesn't see that stuff is missing out and in fact those films should be near the top of anybody's to-see list. In my not so humble opinion. Very interesting that that was brought up, Dan's tastes are polarized to my own. If he can reject that stuff for being displeasurable, maybe I can be excused for postponing any more Ozu for a while.

I think what Alex, and those responding to Alex may be missing is that this person is clearly a film fetishist, not a lover, as they assert. Viewed in that context, it seems all of their stated opinions make perfect sense. I don't mean to be condescending, but perhaps Alex hadn't realized that fetish was the proper description of their feelings for movies... sadomasochistic, really Alex? More on the general topic, I'm really happy to have found this place for people to break free of the conceit that things they like are 'good' and things they dislike are 'bad', and have actual discussions. So many other forums, on all subjects and even among what seem to be the intellectuals of a given set (I'm talkin' to you FreeDarko) seem to be either all "great post" and general circle-jerking, or just rude, very young, and/or otherwise ignorant posters. I've been somewhat baffled by what seemed to be an overwhelmingly positive response to Star Trek, and I was glad to see at least one person here didn't think too much of it either. At the very least, character development that brief and shoddy shouldn't be excused just because most people are familiar with the roles, especially not when everyone's backstory has been completely rewritten. There's my two (or more) cents and once again, my gratitude to JE and everyone who posts here for allowing me to feel they weren't wasted.

In defense of fans, if you believe both the Rottentomatoes and Metacritc score, Star Trek is a better movie than The Dark Knight. I can't defend Transformers, but just sayin'.

@Sean

"I've been somewhat baffled by what seemed to be an overwhelmingly positive response to Star Trek, and I was glad to see at least one person here didn't think too much of it either. At the very least, character development that brief and shoddy shouldn't be excused just because most people are familiar with the roles, especially not when everyone's backstory has been completely rewritten."

Make it three. I have no idea why people like the new Star Trek (or the old Star Trek, but that's a different topic). The villain is awful, the humor falls flat, the protagonists are unlikeable, the plot is clogged with holes, and the Max Fischer players staged better action scenes. When a movie like that is loved, it confirms my belief that the vast majority of people are crazy.

Except for the insubstantial but surprisingly funny Hangover, it has been a massively disappointing few months for movies.

@ John L.: While I'm certainly in agreement with a few particulars of your argument, your steadfast reliance on a few particular examples crosses the line into fascism. Please explain to me how mine, Leonard Maltin, Roger Ebert, Dustin Putman, Keith Uhlich, Matt Zoller Seitz and many others' like/love of [i]Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull[/i] makes us somehow inept or incapable. I'm just sayin'.

"In defense of fans, if you believe both the Rottentomatoes and Metacritc score, Star Trek is a better movie than The Dark Knight."

Metacritic's always a bit iffy, with so many levels of subjectivity in the process. Beyond individual critical appraisals and the site giving number grades to reviews that don't possess them (like The New York Times), they also pick and choose whatever 40 or so critics they deem the most significant and, more significantly, weight their reviews according to their assessment of the critics's writing ability. My feeling is that if the critic/magazine is worthy enough, in their estimation, to make their list of 40, they should all be weighted equally.

Re: Rotten Tomatoes, Star Trek (95% positive) does have two more positive reviews than TDK (94% positive), but its average rating is 8.1/10, to TDK's 8.5/10. Which basically tells you that TDK was averaging about an A- with critics-at-large, whereas Star Trek was averaging a B+. When a few cranky (at the time of review) critics can knock a film down a few percentage points at RT, I usually find the average grade a film gets more telling of how strongly a film's supporters are responding to it, and how much the negative reviews are actually dragging down the average (often, they're around 2 1/2-out-of-4-Star reviews).

Anyways, this is all just a numbers game, and easily discarded in the end (everyone's got critically-acclaimed films they don't much care for), but I thought it might be worth noting.

I don't think it's up to me or anyone else to tell someone whether they "really" love movies or not. Cinephilia takes all sorts of forms. Alex is suggesting that viewers should be ecumenical in their choice of films. I tend to agree but I wouldn't hold everyone to the same standard. Some people only want to see movies where stuff blows up, and don't have any interest in anything else. That's fine with me.

I think I'm open to a very broad variety of films, though I know from past experience that the chance of me liking any romantic comedy is minuscule and that I will not be able to watch any of the current torture porn flicks. If I ever ran my own repertory house, I would start a series of "Inappropriate Double Bills" and I would begin with a Barry Lyndon/Pink Flamingos program just to weed out the hackers. If I can find a group of people who love both movies, I think we'd get along well.

That doesn't mean you have to be arbitrary in your film selection. As pointed out, there are a lot of good movies to see and a limited time to see them. Life's too short to waste on another Michael Bay movie. Or another Sam Mendes movie.

"While I'm certainly in agreement with a few particulars of your argument, your steadfast reliance on a few particular examples crosses the line into fascism."

You might want to look up the word "facsism." The word doesn't mean what you think it means.

Your like of Indiana IV (I'm tired of typing the full name) doesn't make you inept or incapable. Just as liking a McDonald's hamburger doesn't make a person an idiot. But there's a difference between liking something and saying something is great. The person who would choose a McDonalds hamburger over a good steak isn't someone with very good taste in food. Soemone who says Indiana IV is one of the better movies of the year doesn't have very good taste in movies.

I would only call someone inept or incapable if they liked true garbage, like Taco Bell or the new Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Don't underestimate the critic's role in filling Netflix queues. I regularly add movies to the queue that I would not even have heard of but for the reviews of Roger Ebert or critics such as yourself.

If you are right and only a small number of moviegoers actually read critics or care what they think, then why would newspapers and magazines pay critics to review critic-proof movies like Transformers 2?
If I ran a newspaper I would run critical opinion of movies that played at being great, but leave the rest alone.

JE: Answer: curiosity. Before the Internet (which hasn't been around for very long), professional critics were the only ones to report on new movies the day they opened, and people are naturally curious about the high-profile, heavily advertised ones. That doesn't mean the reviews affect their behavior, but (as I can tell you from RogerEbert.com stats) those big movies still sell papers -- er, drive traffic.

I like a lot of this. ROTF wasn't for people who think Monet is the Lowest Common Denominator. Having fun at a "dumb" movie is neither a crime nor an indicator of personal stupidity. See http://michaelbrent-mylittlethoughts.blogspot.com/2009/07/transformers-revenge-of-fallen-or-why.html for another POV on ROTF.

John L. : But Ebert said Crystal Skull was a good movie. He gave it a positive review. By your standards that means he's inept, incapable.

You're being way too dogmatic- you can argue that a movie is bad without arguing that anyone who disagrees with you is impaired. The problem with the whole TRANSFORMERS 2 arglebargle is that the fans are attacking the critics instead of putting forward their case for why they think the film is good. I think it's at least theoretically possible to do so, I've defended movies with a much worse reputation.

I don't remember calling anyone "impaired" or calling you or anyone else "inept" or "incapable." Quit trying to put words in my mouth.

Ebert lost most of his credibility as a movie critic the moment he proclaimed Crash the best movie of the year. He used to be a great critic and has declined in the past decade (yes, I'm aware of his health issues). He's still a good writer, but he's regularly giving mediocre (at best) movies 3.5 and 4 stars.

And, if I remember correctly, critics were attacking Transformers 2 fans, not vice versa. My whole point is that people who effusively praise the likes of Knowing and Crash have little standing to call themselves "braniacs" and judge the lovers of Transformers 2 and GI Joe.

Jim, you should take heart: at least a movie reviewer like yourself, or even a legendary one like Roger Ebert (no disrespect to you) commands a certain degree of influence which is not afforded to an ordinary Joe like myself.

As annoying as it may be to write a negative review of a movie and see countless angry fans who are furious that you disagreed with their subjective opinion about a subjective subject (God forbid you also dislike their favourite foods), it's worse to be the odd man out from both critics AND the mainstream audience.

At times it feels like I'm the only person in the world who hated The Dark Knight. The critics loved it, the audience loved it, everyone I know loved it, even my own WIFE praised it. And yet I hated the film even though I liked "Batman Begins".

The Joker is not a character so much as a villainous version of a Mary Sue. Everything he wants to happen, no matter how absurd the requirements, happens exactly as per his schemes. Not one thing ever happens which does not fit perfectly into his master plan: a plan which often involves so many implausibilities it beggars belief. It's like watching a chess master who makes foolish move after foolish move after foolish move, repeatedly exposing himself to disaster, and yet wins anyway because the writers of his story simply wanted it that way. It completely took me out of the movie.

Even more remarkably, when I state this criticism to those who love the movie, they admit that it's true ... yet they still insist I'm somehow "wrong" for not liking the movie anyway! Absolutely maddening. As an ordinary Joe who disliked a much-beloved movie, I found myself simultaneously being accused of both elitism AND an inability to appreciate elite work.

There's nothing wrong with holding an elitist opinion, as long as you can explain it when challenged.

JE: Thank you, Michael. I don't even think my opinion of "TDK" is "elitist" -- it just happens to be a minority opinion! But you're right, I've presented plenty of evidence for why I feel the way I do.

"Ebert lost most of his credibility as a movie critic the moment he proclaimed Crash the best movie of the year."

It can't work that way. If a critic's credibility is dependent solely on whether he or she holds the correct opinions, then the actual reviews they write don't matter, just the thumbs and/or star ratings.

I disagree with Ebert on CRASH (to a degree- I think it's just marginally a good movie, a B- as it were), but that doesn't destroy his credibility for me. He still argues based mostly on what's in the movie and does his best to support the case.

I'm a fan of film criticism. I might read a dozen reviews of a movie I have no interest in seeing, just because I know that the good writers will write interesting things about it.

I don't enjoy critics who seem to have no emotional reaction to the movie they just saw. I'm sure a learned critic could write 10,000 words on the technical and structural failings of Meet the Spartans, but who would want to read it? Better to just say the movie sucked, briefly explain why, then have some fun at its expense.

There are times when I think a critic's emotional connection to a movie might blind him to its flaws. When it's a favorite critic and a bad movie, it can be annoying. But that's why it's fun to read criticism and it's why we remember certain critics names.

A few of Mister Ebert's reviews have left me scratching my head. A select few have left me wanting to smack him upside of his with a VHS copy of Starship Troopers. It's usually because he connected to the movie and I didn't.

But I'll never stop reading. A new Ebert column is like seeing an old pal at the end of the bar.

I don't know how it's elitist for a film critic to not have enjoyed TDK or Transformers or any film for that matter. I sometimes find it tiresome to hear that "It's only my opinion that matters" when discussing the merits of film, music, visual art or other cultural endeavours. Opinions can be dead wrong at times, particularly uneducated ones. If that's an elitist attitude, so be it.

Listen, I thought "Crash" was not just bad, but laughably bad. So manifestly awful, so asinine from start to finish that I have no idea how any reasonably savvy film viewer could take it seriously let alone consider it a great movie. But you know what? A lot of them did. I don't understand how that's possible. But then again I don't understand how someone could call "2001" a "monumentally unimaginative" film but that's what Pauline Kael did, and she knew something about movies.

Taste matters. I listen more to the critics whose taste I agree with more than to the ones whose taste differs sharply from mine. But there's no way you can say that a critic's opinion about a particular movie destroys his credibility. How does he or she make the argument? Does the argument contribute in any way to your understanding of the film? Is the review a good read?

Granted, I find myself moving farther away from Ebert all the time. In the last several years, he has given four star raves to the movies I considered to be the very worst of the year (Crash, Rendition, Revolutionary Road) and he's not my 'first choice' read like he used to be. But I still read him on almost every film, and I still think he's a heck of a critic. Even when he makes me throw up my hands and say "You've got to be kidding me!" (he must have mixed up his star ratings for "Limits of Control" and "The Girlfriend Experience", right?) I still get something out of reading him. Sometimes an awful lot. Which is what makes it worthwhile.

Now a critic whose taste I disagree and whose writing does nothing to persuade me or make me think or even entertain me, well he or she probably lost credibility with me a long time ago.

Call me a nerdy intellectual but I think the utilitarian philosophers Bentham and J.S. Mill have something to offer to this discussion. In the original conception of utilitarianism from Bentham he suggests that all sources of pleasures are essentially equal due to the notion that only the individual can declare what is enjoyable for his or herself. It's a logic I believe that is employed by those proponents of such movies as ROTFL who believe that Roger Ebert and my 17 year old brother are equally correct in their assessment of the film. J.S. Mill however revises this notion and asserts that there is in fact a hierarchy of pleasures. He says it is possible to claim that The Seventh Seal is a better film than Transformers. How is such a hierarchy established? Simple. We ask those who have seen both the entire filmography of both Michael Bay and Ingmar Bergman and ask them which they prefer. I believe it makes fine sense to trust the judgement of those who make it their livelihood to expose themselves to as many films from as many different directors, decades and genres and examine each for both their flaws and merits. Sure everyone is a critic but some are just better than others.

Personally I think critics have gotten a bit snotty lately with their reviews. They seem toi forget to "TELL US WHAT IS WRONG" with a movier. Not being SNIDE about it.

On the other hand I think Audience members need to GROW UP and stop watching CRAP 24 7.
If you want to Go see Transformers 2 go ahead..
but 1) Know what you are watching and what is BAD about it ...
2) At LEAST invest in some GOOD QUALITY film viewings as well.
Thanks to EBERT I am Drooling over "Nothing But the Truth" and "Merry Gentlemen" I cant wait to see them (On DVD >sigh I am taking responsibility and trying to be Mature over what movies I see. I think Critics should try to be helpfull and not be so Damn Snobbish when they write their reviews...

As per Speed 2, Ebert says Constantly that he thinks its Not a bad movie. He quotes that almost every time he reviews a Bullock movie (And SHE thinks Speed 2 sucks)
Also keep in mind this is the same critic that gave GIGLI 2 1/2 stars.. whereas everyone else thinks that movie sucks