Grandpa Ebert and the Thumb of Irrelevance

Like many, I consider Roger Ebert the single greatest writer on film I've ever read. Many will still prefer Pauline Kael or Vincent Canby or Stanley Kaufman, or someone else I haven't thought of (but hopefully not Armond White). Ebert, however, combined an unapologetic populist sensibility with his genuine and knowledge of film, and topped it off with a winning TV presence and sensational writing. He's the only critic I've ever read that can, when I disagree, almost make me reconsider. Almost. He does however always clearly explain why he likes or doesn't like a movie, and he always speaks from his point of view. He doesn't tell me what I'm going to think or feel. This is my biggest complaint about film critics. Don't write "you feel bored and uninterested," or "the audience will not find the story compelling." No. YOU FELT THOSE THINGS. YOU DON'T KNOW HOW ANYBODY ELSE WILL FEEL. GET OVER YOURSELF, PRICK! Roger has also, for the most part, conceded when a film just didn't fit his tastes but might please a lot of other people. He has worked from a philosophy that a movie should be judged not by how good it IS, but how good it is at BEING WHAT IT WANTS TO BE. Off-hand I think about his dissenting opinion of John Carpenter's (praise be he) universally savaged Ghosts of Mars. He saw it as another genre exercise by JC, another "siege" picture in the film maker's catalog. And since the movie held his interest and satisfied the tropes of the genre he liked it. Same with the wonderfully preposterous Deep Blue Sea. By no means "good," but a fun B-movie that "honors its genre." I agree. Especially on Carpenter's film, but JC is my all-time favorite film maker and I am a notorious Carpenter apologist.

Well, Mr. Ebert USED to do these things anyway. While his blog has become essential reading, and an eloquent look at his life, interests, politics and passions, his film writing has gotten increasingly clumsy, absurd, stuffy and plain annoying. And that's not taking into account his looooooooooong debate over his opinion that videogames are not art (having never ever played a game and outright dismissing them). He eventually reconsidered, and revised his opinion to video games are NOT YET ART, but possibly can be, as he realized that making such a "no, never" claim was ignorant and kinda douchey.

And it's also not about the sort of things the aforementioned Armond White is notorious for. In fact, Ebert doesn't like Armond either. Armond White is a verbose and no doubt intelligent man who was roasted for ruining Toy Story 3's 100% rating at Rotten Tomatoes. In fact, he hasn't been much for Pixar at all. He does, however, consider Michael Bay talented, and praised his work on the Transformer films. He loved the horrid Jonah Hex. He hated Inception and The Social Network, which is fine but his reading of TSN as making a hero out of Mark Zuckerberg, and claim it's a "cinematic travesty" have been met with a chorus of "huh?" He consistently abhors Spike Lee yet seems to worship at the feet of even the weakest Spielberg film (Armond, for the record, is black). He claimed Resident Evil:3-D is a better visual experience than Avatar. And on more personal notes, he dismissed both the Swedish and American version of Let the Right One In (both almost universally praised) as "lurid display(s) of helplessness and pessimism" when they are, OBVIOUS TO ANYONE, Grimm fairy tales tackling loneliness, bullying and the complex nature of evil. And he hated Scott Pilgrim.

But enough about that psycho. The following is a list of things that are making me more and more that Roger has become a crotchety, unreasonable and unfunny version of Dana Carvey's grouchy old man character on SNL.

Mind you, Roger's health problems may well be the reason for some of these things. Coming close to death and having your jaw removed can make one dismiss certain things more easily than before, I suspect. Still, this once great writer is lapsing into a one way ticket of What The Fuck-ville. Happened to Ain't It Cool News, and I thusly deleted them from my favorites almost a year ago, and have not returned. I don't want to delete Roger before God deletes him. Also, the following are things that bother ME. They don't bother everyone. I'm not claiming they do. As I said, they seem to me to either go against his previous nature, are lazy, preposterous or inaccurate.

1. His never-ending bitching and moaning about 3-D. This had worn on me prior, but his recent review of Megamind --which he liked-- spends most of the first paragraph COMPLAINING ABOUT THE WRAPPING THE 3D GLASSES COME IN. If that isn't grumpy old man territory, what is? Seriously, Rog. Even a 3D proponent like me is a bit exhausted with it. Yes, the pos-conversion stuff is awful and a rip-off. But to constantly claim it adds nothing to the experience, or is always just a way to get more $$ ignores the artful use of stereo in Avatar, Coraline, U2-3D and, as you stated in your review, A Christmas Carol. Ok, man. We get it. Move the fuck on.
2. He claims Kick-Ass is "morally reprehensible." I love the movie. Full disclosure. Not everybody else did. And it's fine if he simply didn't like it. But to call it morally reprehensible, putting it on the level of Abu Ghraib and The Jonas Brothers is absurd and also rings of just being an old fart. Punk was called morally reprehensible. So was rap. So were many classic films Roger loves. It also completely misses the point regarding Hit Girl essentially being used, abused and programmed to kill by her father, and how she eventually escapes that life. The idea doesn't beat you over the head like most films would but it's there in the details and the ending. As far as the 11 year old Cloe Grace Moretz playing a character that stabs, shoots and killed countless bad guys...get a grip. It's not like she was on the set being taught how to murder. Maybe you never played cowboys and indians? Plus, this is the same young actress who killed innocent people in Let Me In, a movie you praised. Off-base, dude.
3. His review of Paranormal Activity 2 is so non-sensible as to be unreadable. he calls the movie a well-made "an efficient delivery system for Gotcha! Moments.." He praises it's skill in delivering these scares, that the audience enjoyed them and he, too, jumped here and there. He praised it as being as scary as the original, which he gave 3 1/2 out of 4 stars. he then closes by saying " I don't have a problem with "Paranormal Activity 2." It delivers what it promises, and occupies its audiences. Win-win." He then awards the movie 1 1/2 stars. Huh? Yes, he hates the star rating and has always considered it arbitrary, but the review is miss-leading, confused or purposely assholeish. Nowhere in the text does he offer a reason for not recommending it. He doesn't exactly seem excited, and that's fair, but the review leaves one with a positive impression. Did he forget what his review said and just tack on a star rating? Old age will make you forget things. Or does he really have contempt for the films audience, enough to be lazy and random. Additionally, the review is ripe with inaccuracies. No critic can remember EVERY detail, but here he questions things that are very clear or explained in the film. I don't fault him for not thinking much about a simple popcorn "gotcha" programmer. I do fault his sloppy, disinterested and confusing review. If it's not enough to take seriously, don't review it.
4. When asked why he did not review Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, he reasonable explained the film was released while he was on a leave of absence to work on his memoirs. But he can't leave well-enough alone by stating "I still sleep of nights." Unprofessional. Why, you ask? Yea, the movie flopped. It was very well reviewed but not universally so. But aside from my personal view that it's the best movie I've seen this year, it's been almost immediately recognized as an attempt at making a real work of art that integrates (and takes seriously) video game culture, special effects, comic books, rock music, pop culture and filmmaking chops. It also succeeds at telling a good story that will echo for anyone who was ever young and in love and its central character is more complex than most think as he's kind of a self-centered douche. Oh, and its fun as fuck. It was made by Edgar Wright, one of the more respected and promising young filmmakers working. Roger liked both of Wright's previous films (the classic Shaun of the Dead, and the underrated Hot Fuzz). The movie is currently being championed by no less than Guillermo Del Toro at public screenings. Del Toro is a film maker Ebert very much admires. I guess his opinion means nothing to a grumpy old fart that doesn't seem to care enough to at least recognize that a film might be impactful enough that he should not dismiss seeing it.
5. He gave Slumdog Millionaire 4 stars. Ugh
6. He called  Synecdoche, New York, a film so far up its own ass that Charlie Kaufman is still covered in poopy, the best film of the past decade. Huh?
7. He rabidly praised, to some controversy, Watchmen, only to make no mention of it a year's end.
8. He likes the Chris Columbus Harry Potter movies more than the widely acknowledged better directed entries.
9. He was "meh" on the Lord of the Rings movie yet gave Jackson's tedious and over-long King Kong 4 stars.
10. He took the time to review the remake of I Spit On Your Grave. He has a notorious (yet correct) hatred of the original. Zero stars. The remake got zero stars. Didn't see that coming!! Seems more like a desire to re-preach his hatred of the original. But hey -- don't bother with Scott Pilgrim.
11. This from his review of Step Brothers: "Sometimes I think I am living in a nightmare. All about me, standards are collapsing, manners are evaporating, people show no respect for themselves. I am not a moralistic nut. I'm proud of the X-rated movie I once wrote. I like vulgarity if it's funny or serves a purpose. But what is going on here?...when I left, I felt a little unclean." If it wasn't funny to you, ok. But to make it sound like the breakdown of society is insane.
12. After endlessly hammering the stupidity and supposed indifference to mass death in Independence Day, Godzilla and The Day After Tomorrow, he gives Roland Emmerich's ridiculous 2012 3 1/2 stars. "This is fun," he says. What exactly is the difference between this and TDAT????
13. Alvin and The Chipmunks: 3 stars  Garfield: 3 stars  Garfield 2: 3 stars. The Happening: 3 stars
14. Conversely, Star Trek: 2 1/2 stars  District 9: 3 stars Toy Story 3: 3 stars So, the films above in item 13 are equal, if not better than these 3???
15. He liked Transformers, but hated Transformers 2. They are the same fucking movie!
16. He seemed to think Toy Story 3 was too distressing, and Coralline too scary for kids, yet has praised edgy, scary kids films in the past like James & the Giant Peach, The Witches and Finding Nemo (THE MOM IS DEVOURED BY A SHARK 2 MINUTES INTO THE DAMN THING!!)

There's more, I'm sure, but these are foremost the most troubling to me. One can go back further to weirdness like his 3 1/2 star review of Aliens where he says the movie is "too intense" for its own good. There's his still divisive 1 1/2 review of Blue Velvet, which he accuses of misogyny. He robbed The Incredibles--Pixar's best movie, IMHO-- of half a star, as well as Let The Right One In. 3 1/2 stars for both. And there was his understandable, yet still bizarre and melodramatic wholesale dismissal of Zoolander, released days after 9/11, for its assassination sub-plot. But those are just quibbles, and can be attributed to opinion. 

And in fairness he still gets some things right. He nailed the dull failure of Superman Returns. He summed up the flaw in the overrated Benjamin Button (Fincher's weakest), but nailed the perfection of Zodiac (Fincher's best). He's called out the banal, tedious and sexually dysfunctional Twilight movies accurately. He rightly praised the bat-shit fun of The Box, and accurately pointed out the guts and beauty of Cameron's unsubtle pro-green message in Avatar. That's all well and good.

My distress comes from watching somebody I have read, trusted and admired for almost 3 decades lose his edge, enthusiasm, attention to detail and consistent standards. Since I was a teen reading his collected reviews in big thick paperbacks I always trusted he knew what he was talking about and was the genuine article. Now he is too frequently behind the times and stubbornly happy about it. There's charm in that, I guess, but when you're continuing to right about modern and evolving art it's limiting, and many times the results say more about you than the art. I suppose it's the natural way of things. It'll probably happen to me. Doesn't mean I have to like it.

"I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems weird and scary to me... it'll happen to you!" Grandpa Simpson