It's been said, (
frequently by me) that Ebert's reviews aren't as much fun anymore, since he now likes everything. Well, he might not "like" everything, but he's started giving out a bloated number of three-star reviews, since by his metric, if a movie more or less succeeds at what it aimed to do, and will be enjoyed by its target audience and should therefore be mildly-recommended. I think he should tweak his star system to turn a mild recommendation into about 2 or 2.5 stars, but whatever.
His "logic" and aging/growing tolerance is put on display again this week, with 3-star reviews for
Rumor Has It (
19% on RT),
The Ringer (
39% on RT), and even execrable family-friendly swill
Cheaper by the Dozen II (
11% on RT).
There is something he doesn't like though. The new no-budget gore-fest from Oz,
Wolf Creek, a film he awards with zero stars, and
about which he says:
I like horror films. Horror movies, even extreme ones, function primarily by scaring us or intriguing us. Consider "Three ... Extremes" recently. "Wolf Creek" is more like the guy at the carnival sideshow who bites off chicken heads. No fun for us, no fun for the guy, no fun for the chicken. In the case of this film, it's fun for the guy.
..
There is a line and this movie crosses it. I don't know where the line is, but it's way north of "Wolf Creek." There is a role for violence in film, but what the hell is the purpose of this sadistic celebration of pain and cruelty? The theaters are crowded right now with wonderful, thrilling, funny, warm-hearted, dramatic, artistic, inspiring, entertaining movies. If anyone you know says this is the one they want to see, my advice is: Don't know that person no more.
I don't have issue with him hating the film, or the reasons for which he hates it. I just wish he was a little freer with his hatred of other deserving cinematic releases, since those reviews are
always usually the most fun to read.
Update: Ironic that I posted this last night, since when I read Ebert's bi-weekly
Movie Answer Man segment Sunday evening, I saw this:
Q. It seems that in past year most of your reviews end up awarding three stars or more. I had confidence in your three-star ratings until I realized that so many of them are mediocre films. For example, "Star Wars: Episode III -- Revenge of the Sith," which is composed of bad acting and unimpressive dialogue. Please be more critical of average films.
Bud Schauerte, Austin, Texas
A. I often hear I am "getting soft." A correspondent helpfully writes: "My friend says that since you had cancer, you give every movie three or four stars." A New York weekly critic says I "like everything," and he must be right, because I even liked the film he cited as an example of how much more discerning he is than critics like me.
I did some math, and found that my average rating for a feature film in 2005 came to about 2.7 stars. On a bell curve, the average should be 2.0, but consider that I reviewed 284 movies in the last year, and the extra titles were independent and foreign films that tended to skew higher. I am content with my 2.7 average.
The problem is with the use of stars as a rating system. Star ratings go back to that simpler time when film critics stood on far hillsides and signaled to the grateful peasantry with torches and brightly colored flags.
Indignant readers write me: "How could you give Film A three stars and Film B only 2-1/2 stars? I will never read your reviews again." I reply: "A wise decision! My reviews are for those who are stronger in literature than math."
He's got a point, and he always says his reviews are meant to be read, not judged by the imprecise star system (or worse yet, the "thumbs up/down" he's limited to on his TV show). Still, that doesn't address the fact that for the last year or so, his scores for major films have consistently been much higher than the mean or median scores for those films. He can give every gay cowboys eating pudding film he sees a four-star score, and I won't object. I'd just like to see less three-star "it was okay for its target audience" kid gloves reviews.
What can you do though? I certainly don't think he's taking payoffs, or that he's grown afraid to say bad things about a film he didn't like. The man's tastes have changed and he's grown less prickly with age and cancer survival. Is he supposed to fill a review with vitriol he doesn't really feel, just for our amusement?
