MetaChat REGISTER   ||   LOGIN   ||   IMAGES ARE OFF   ||   RECENT COMMENTS




artphoto by splunge
artphoto by TheophileEscargot
artphoto by Kronos_to_Earth
artphoto by ethylene

Home

About

Search

Archives

Mecha Wiki

Metachat Eye

Emcee

IRC Channels

IRC FAQ


 RSS


Comment Feed:

RSS

10 March 2006

To me, a well-written movie review does three things: 1) Gives a good idea of what the movie will be like, 2) Gives just the right amount of plot detail without giving away too much, 3) Gives new insight into the film when read after viewing.[More:]
Ebert does pretty well at #1 and #3, but he is terrible at #2. He gives far more plot detail than anyone should care about before seeing the movie, and he sometimes gives away surprises.

Imho, the AV Club reviewers get all three exactly right, and are often quite funny as well.
I dunno. A lot of the stuff he gives in his reviews is stuff that's pretty predictable from the first 15 minutes of the movie. In most cases.

But you were pimping AV Club, not starting a trash-Ebert pile-on, right?
posted by stilicho 10 March | 14:32
As I've said elsewhere and in the past, movie critics are between a rock and a hard spot in that editors and readers expect a review to be a "Consumer Reports" evaluation to help make their purchasing decisions while, in contrast, a critic may want to actually be a critic in the same way that someone is a literary critic, for example. A NYT Book Review doesn't worry overmuch about providing too much plot detail, they're providing thoughtful criticism. You cannot be a critic while intentionally avoiding talking about what you're critiquing.

"Well-written" is not what you're looking for, what you want is maximal utility. Ebert is a good writer and a good critic. He is forced to be in the business of being a buying guide and he makes some concessions to that as a result, but he has not capitulated.
posted by kmellis 10 March | 14:36
I'm sure, from a readership standpoint, Ebert is willing to fuck over a few ticket sales by catering to those readers who tune in just for the spoiler value.
posted by Eideteker 10 March | 15:57
I usually don't read reviews until after I've seen the movie. Then I read Salon, Slate, the New York Times, and sometimes Ebert. It's hard enough to not get spoiled by the trailers.
posted by kirkaracha 10 March | 19:46
Ebert spends so much time on the bare plot details that it's usually tedious to read his reviews after I've seen the movie. That's where the Onion reviews shine. They're brief and to the point, and give exactly the amount of detail I want.

kmellis, I do expect a review to be both a buying guide and a thoughtful criticism. Ebert used to be one of my main sources, but I've drifted away in the last few years.

For anyone who missed it, here's the
recent AskMe about film critics.
posted by agropyron 10 March | 19:54
I no longer count Roger Ebert's opinions on movies, because he frequently gives 3 or more stars to movies that are excruciatingly bad. In my opinion, of course.

posted by Lipstick Thespian 11 March | 11:44
Last night we watched The Libertine. Excruciatingly bad. Ebert gave it 3 stars.
posted by agropyron 11 March | 14:24
Add me to the list || The never-ending, rhyming thread...

HOME  ||   REGISTER  ||   LOGIN