FILM: National Treasure

[PaulKemp]

Ebert, Lord of Elitism?

Yes. Lord of the Eighth Hell? Has been in an ongoing battle for centuries with Dispater, before the very gates of the iron city of Dis? Where have you been?

 

[Dark Jezter]

Oh please. Saying that movie critics are elitist is like saying that NBA players cheat on their wives.

 

[RangerWickett]

So, um . . . where was the trap? Where was the monster? Why did the treasure matter?

I can forgive the illogic of the puzzles, but the quest just wasn't that difficult. It was like the Goonies without any of the traps. Nothing to threaten the characters except a villain that you kinda wish could have won. Gargh, movie hurts me.

There should've been a monster. We had a dungeon, but there were no traps and no monster. When was the last time you played a D&D game, went into a dungeon, and just got the treasure? *shakes head* Gargh.

 

[Teflon Billy]

Ebert, Lord of Elitism?

I was little baffled by that myself.

Ebert, who penned the Russ Meyer movie. Beyond the Valley of the Dolls?

Ebert who lists Schlocky japanese c-grade sci-fi film Infra Man as one of his all-time favorites?

Ebert, who had Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome ranked 7th on his "years Best" the year it was released?

I mean,he's a lot of things, but he's no Subtitle Lovin' elitist like his late foil.

 

[Dark Jezter]

There should've been a monster. We had a dungeon, but there were no traps and no monster. When was the last time you played a D&D game, went into a dungeon, and just got the treasure? *shakes head* Gargh.

If National Treasure would have had a gelatinous cube or a displacer beast guarding the treasure, I probably would have had a geeky joy-induced seizure. :

 

[Ranger REG]

Yes. Lord of the Eighth Hell? Has been in an ongoing battle for centuries with Dispater, before the very gates of the iron city of Dis? Where have you been?

Ebert? I find his partner, Roeper, to be harder to impressed. The guy embodies the definition of cynicism. At least I agree with Roeper on the film Star Trek: NEMESIS.

 

[Desdichado]

I mean,he's a lot of things, but he's no Subtitle Lovin' elitist like his late foil.

I was about to hit quote, and I thought I'd read all the way through first. TB got just about exactly what I was going to say; Ebert, more than any other critic I've known (except maybe that redneck critic that used to have a boob count for every movie he reviewed) was all about movies being fun, not art. Siskel was the elitist. I disagree with Ebert here and there, but for the most part, I think his reviews are pretty good.

Plus, I know his style well enough by now to know when I'm going to disagree with him before I even see the movie, most of the time.

 

[jasper]

do remember on Siskel and Ebert show in the 80's where I swear as soon as the director yell cut. They had a knock down drag out. I now forget the moive. But with S and E I discover if they both loved it, I would generally hate it. Most critics forget occasionally a movie is just a popcorn movie and a pay check for the actors. Now Joe Bob Brigs was great. Remember Tazarn with Bo Dereck is a 50 counter. And my friends steal argue over a body count on one his movies.

 

[Desdichado]

Now Joe Bob Brigs was great.

That's the guy I was talking about.

 

[barsoomcore]

And, isn't it kind of the POINT of film critics to be, you know, CRITICAL of films?

I mean, seriously.

Actually, I think it's useful to distinguish between REVIEWERS and CRITICS. A reviewer is just somebody who says, "I liked it or didn't like it and here's why." A critic is somebody who says, "Here's a viewpoint on this film and what it means."

The reviewer's job is to give appraisals of films that people come to count on -- whether they agree or not, at least you're providing them with information they feel like comes from a reliable source. Their primary statement is "I liked the film." Or the opposite.

The critic's job is to provide context for films, so that audiences as they watch the film can better appreciate what is or isn't being done by the film-makers. Whether or not they LIKE the film is actually beside the point.

Roger Ebert is a critic who writes reviews. He knows very very large amounts of stuff about cinema, and his website features critical commentaries on lots of films. A magazine like Sight And Sound is a critical magazine. A magazine like Entertainment Weekly is a review magazine. The former is for students of cinema who are looking for new ways to consider the medium. The latter is a guide for consumers of cinema to help them decide where to spend their money.

So critics are SUPPOSED to be elitist. That's their job, and if they don't do it, they aren't contributing anything to the art. Reviewers don't have to be.

Just to say pretty much whenever I see somebody say, "It's not brilliant but it's an entertaining mindless flick," I say, "It's a piece of crap, but it's the latest, shiniest piece of crap so people will go and see it."

But hey, I'm an elitist. I only like GOOD films.