| Roger Rubber Stampin' and Rubbin' One Out To
Angelina Jolie During the Worst Movie Summer in Recent Years The alpha and omega of film criticism is
Pauline Kael. But since her retirement, criticism has been at a loss. It
mirrors the state of American literary criticism of the last twenty-or-so years:
Critics desperately yearn to be taken seriously, to place the art they study above the
audience, so much so that they no longer resonate. B.R. Meyers gave his account of
this in the July/August Atlantic Monthly, explaining why the literati continue to
rubber stamp the unreadable novels of Cormac McCarthy and Don DeLillo. Serious film
criticism suffered the same fault, presumably as a reaction to the democritazation of
criticism itself. Hell, if I was an educated, serious film critic back in the 1980's
when the studios starting using Gene Shalit blurbs, I'd probably defend myself with
pretension too.
But the one man who rose above the fray to
become the only person ever to win a Pulitzer for film criticism is Roger Ebert. Not
only did he win a Pulitzer, but he has his own television show. Hell, Roger Ebert
and Gene Siskel were regulars on Letterman, and they were damn funny almost every
time. When the Good Lord took Gene from us, I think we knew it would hit Roger
pretty hard--and it did--but little did we know how far Ebert would fall. He's a
shadow of his former self. He's gotten careless and sloppy. He pimps the
Independent Spirit Awards as a champion of the little film--and he does review a lot of
them--but I think it's more a cover for how much of a shill he's become. It's too
bad: As a child, Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert were the only film critics I ever knew,
and so they earned a certain amount of trust from me. Now it's apparent that Gene
can't quite police Roger from beyond the grave--because Ebert certainly needs
it. Maybe my suspicion was right all along: Half of that Pulitzer does
belong to Gene Siskel.
To properly describe the point, let's just
take a look at some lines from Ebert's summer reviews. The Summer of 2001 is being
widely hailed as the worst movie summer in quite some time. That didn't stop Rog
from ok'ing everything from Heath Ledger to American Pie 2. I'm fully aware
that this criticism of criticism comes from the same guy who gave Pootie Tang and Freddie
Got Fingered positive reviews, but I also think it's fair to say that we at
Filmsnobs.com have brought a different dish to the pot luck dinner of film
criticism. I think we're just disappointed, really, to see one of the legends
in the twilight of his career. It's probably the same feeling my dad had watching
Johnny Unitas scrambling around in a Chargers uniform. So with this spirit we bestow
the first Jay Sherman Award for Excellence in Film Criticism to Roger Ebert for the
following nuggets of movie wisdom.
A Knight’s Tale (Three Stars from Ebert)
"In the case of 'A Knight's Tale,' Helgeland has pointed out
that an orchestral score would be equally anachronistic, since orchestras hadn't been
invented in the 1400s. For that matter, neither had movies."
This is the best defense Ebert can come up with. Not only is
this logic elliptical, it's lame. But not as lame as the soundtrack for the movie
he's hopelessly trying to defend.
"The movie has an innocence and charm that grow on you. It's a
reminder of the days before films got so cynical and unrelentingly violent. 'A Knight's
Tale' is whimsical, silly and romantic, and seeing it after 'The Mummy Returns' is like
taking Tums after eating the Mummy."
Ebert gives us this line after talking about how realistic the
jousting scenes are. Roger, you can't have it both ways: Either they are or
they aren't. I don't think he really cares, quite honestly--this line of thinking is
just a set up for his lame "Tums" line.
"Some will say the movie breaks tradition by telling a medieval
story with a soundtrack of classic rock. They might as well argue it breaks the rules by
setting a 1970s rock opera in the Middle Ages. To them I advise: Who cares?"
I do, Mr. Pulitzer. He tells us this after talking about how
much he liked Moulin Rouge!. Roger is just showing us that he's as lazy as
the mediocre filmmaker Brian Helgeland. You may not like Moulin Rouge!, but
you can't say Baz Luhrmann doesn't try to be dazzling and original. Helgeland just
popped in an old "Jock Rock" CD and hit "play." And Ebert still
gave it three stars.
The Fast and the Furious (Three Stars from Ebert)
"It's slicker than films like 'Grand Theft Auto,' but it has the
same kind of pirate spirit--it wants to raid its betters and carry off the
loot."
This is an interesting thought, especially about a movie in which a
suburbanite white boy does nothing but bust Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. This is
an issue that Ebert usually zeroes in on, probably just to impress his wife.
"He also runs a bar where his sister Mia (Jordana Brewster)
serves 'tuna salad on white bread, no crusts' every day to Brian (Paul Walker), who looks
a little like white bread, no crusts himself."
Ok, I've got to give him credit. That's a great line.
"One of the nice things about the movie is the way it tells a
story and explains its characters. It's a refreshing change from such no-plot, all-action
movies as 'Gone in 60 Seconds.'"
Anyone who saw this movie is probably thinking what I'm
thinking: What the hell is Roger talking about? We learn little about any of
these characters, and frankly, I really didn't care about them anyway. Except for
the nerdy ADD white boy who would have gone to MIT if his parents hadn't gotten divorced.
But they resonated with Roger!
"It has some of that grandiose self-pitying dialogue we've
treasured in movies like this ever since 'Rebel Without a Cause.' 'I live my life a
quarter-mile at a time,' Toretto tells Brian. 'For those 10 seconds, I'm
free.'"
Does he even realize that he just compared Vin Diesel and James
Dean? Don't forget, he's writing a three-star review.
Tomb Raider (Three Stars from Ebert)
"'Lara Croft Tomb Raider' elevates goofiness to an art form.
Here is a movie so monumentally silly, yet so wondrous to look at, that only a churl could
find fault."
Then a churl I be, Mr. Ebert. But it gets worse. Read
on.
"This is, at last, a real popcorn movie. I have been hearing for
weeks from fans of 'The Mummy Returns' and 'Pearl Harbor,' offended that I did not like
those movies--no, not even as 'popcorn movies.' I responded that 'The Mummy' was a good
popcorn movie but 'The Mummy Returns' was a bad popcorn movie. It is my job to know these
things."
Here, Ebert displays how much he really needs Siskel. Do you
think Gene would let him get away with that for even one second? Never does he
explain what he means; he expects us to take in on his authority because he's The Most
Famous Film Critic in the World.
"Did I enjoy the movie? Yes. Is it up there with the Indiana
Jones pictures? No, although its art direction and set design are (especially in the tomb
with all the dead roots hanging down like tendrils). Was I filled with suspense? No. Since
I had no idea what was going to happen, should happen, shouldn't happen or what it meant
if it did happen, I could hardly be expected to care. But did I grin with delight at the
absurdity it all? You betcha."
God bless Roger, though. The most common thing Ebert does to
justify a terrible movie is to comment on the art direction. He loves art, and he'll
even give The Haunting three stars to prove it. But I've got other ideas as
to why Rog loved Tomb Raider so much.
Original Sin
"’Original Sin’ is based on the novel Waltz Into
Darkness, by the famous noir writer Cornell Woolrich. Another of his books inspired
Hitchcock's 'Rear Window'--and indeed this one was earlier filmed as 'Mississippi Mermaid'
by Francois Truffaut, in 1969 (Jean-Paul Belmondo and Catherine Deneuve played the roles).
Like many good thrillers, it really gets rolling only after we think we've already seen
through the plot. There are surprises on top of surprises, and I will tread carefully to
preserve them.”
Whoa, just hold on a minute. You
leave Francois out of this. You can rubber-stamp this
piece of crap, but for God's sakes don’t work your Angelina
masturbation fantasies into a comparison to Catherine Deneuve
in a Truffaut film. I don’t care that it’s
not even good Truffaut, this aggression cannot stand, man.
"The purpose of the movie is not really to tell its story,
anyway, but to use it as an engine to pull Banderas and Jolie through scenes of lurid
melodrama, dramatic ultimatums and stunning revelations. Another purpose is to show
off these two splendid human beings, and I am happy to report that there is even a certain
amount of nudity--which you would expect with this passionate story, but then again you
never know, now that studios are scurrying into the shelter of the PG-13 to hide from
pruny congressmen."
A-Ha! I knew it! Rog, you played
your hand here, buddy. So Ebert's got a hard-on for Angelina
Jolie. Hey, there is nothing wrong with that, except
for the fact that he tries to mask it by throwing out some
b.s. remark about Washington. When in doubt, blame it
on the politicians, I guess. And his remark that Antonio
Banderas is a "splendid human being" recalls the
Chris Katan skit on "Saturday Night Live" in which
Jimmy Fallon plays in Antonio's mariachi band screaming "Too
Sexy Antonio, Too Sexy!"
"There's dialogue in this movie so overwrought, it's almost
literally unspeakable, and she survives it by biting it off contemptuously and spitting it
out."
This is the best compliment he can come up with for Angelina
Jolie? For a movie he's giving three stars to? It's got to be the boobs.
"The movie is not intended to be subtle. It is sweaty,
candle-lit melodrama, joyously trashy, and its photography wallows in sumptuous decadence.
The ending is hilariously contrived and sensationally unlikely, as the movie audaciously
shows an unrevocable action and then revokes it."
And then you rubber-stamp it by giving
it three stars. Roger, we love you, we really do.
But please, start trying again. We miss you, and film
criticism needs you right now. Hell, you're a champion
of the little guy--find some bright young internet film critics
and give them a push on your website. Or better yet,
send Roeper on a little vacation and let's start testing some
graphics for "Roger Ebert and the Filmsnobs and the Movies."
We'll bring the popcorn and the penis jokes. And some
Tom/Gay Porn jokes. It'll be fun, and the folks at the
Independent Spirit Awards will love it. However, until
that time, Mr. Pulitzer Prize, you have earned the Jay Sherman
Award for Excellence in Film Criticism.
 The Filmsnobs wish to congratulate Roger Ebert, the winner of the
first Jay Sherman Award for Excellence in Film Criticism!
|
