We all know Roger Every, arguably the greatest film criticic of all time. He was known for his very good, and sometimes even funny reviews on films, many with the late Gene Siskel; the duo popularized the thumbs up/thumbs down form of criticism
While many of Ebert's reviews were mostly on point, even if a bit hyperbole, however, there are some which I believe he completely missed the mark, either with negatives or positives:
The Thing (1982) - Negative: He heavily disliked the movie and the character (as surprisingly did most critics during the time): "The Thing is a great barf-bag movie, all right, but is it any good? I found it disappointing, for two reasons: the superficial characterizations and the implausible behavior of the scientists on that icy outpost. Characters have never been Carpenter's strong point; he says he likes his movies to create emotions in his audiences, and I guess he'd rather see us jump six inches than get involved in the personalities of his characters"
Spawn (1997) - Overwhelmingly positive: While I liked Spawn, he goes to overpraise the movie in his review, I believe: "Spawn' is best seen as an experimental art film. It walks and talks like a big budget horror film, heavy on special effects and pitched at the teenage audience, and maybe that's how it will be received. But it's more impressive if you ignore the genre and just look at what's on the screen."
Alien³ (1992) and Alien esurrection (1997) - Overwhelmingly negative: I really enjoyed these movie, and while I recognize their flaws I think the good outweight the bad. However, for Resurrection Ebert says The "Alien" movies always have expert production design. "Alien Resurrection" was directed by the French visionary Jean-Pierre Jeunet ("City of Lost Children"), who with his designers has placed it in what looks like a large, empty hangar filled with prefabricated steel warehouse parts. There is not a single shot in the movie to fill one with wonder--nothing like the abandoned planetary station in "Aliens." Even the standard shots of vast spaceships, moving against a backdrop of stars, are murky here, and perfunctory. - Similarly, in the same review, he heavily critizes Alien³
The Phantom Menace (1999) - I am admittedly a great fan of the Star Wars Prequels. I understand their problems, but I enjoy their creativity and visuals. Still, I think Ebert went way too positive on TPM's review - "Star Wars: Episode I--The Phantom Menace, to cite its full title, is an astonishing achievement in imaginative filmmaking. If some of the characters are less than compelling, perhaps that's inevitable: This is the first story in the chronology and has to set up characters who (we already know) will become more interesting with the passage of time. Here we first see Obi-Wan Kenobi, Anakin Skywalker, Yoda and R2-D2 and C-3PO. Anakin is only a fresh-faced kid in Episode I; in IV, V and VI, he has become Darth Vader."
Event Horizon (1997) I liked EZ, probably Paul W. Anderson's best movie (and could have been much more if he released it the way he intended). Ebert said "They're a highly trained space crew, on a mission where space and time are bread and butter, yet they apparently know less about quantum theory than the readers of this review. It's back to Physics 101 for them. So, OK, where did the ship go for seven years, and what happened while it was there? Why is the original crew all dead? Unfortunately, "Event Horizon'' is not the movie to answer these questions. It's all style, climax and special effects. The rules change with every scene."
I have some others, but I'm mobile now (and it would probably consume all the text space; which movies you think Ebert was wrong about, both giving a positive or negative review?
Submitted September 17, 2018 at 05:39AM by DraftDraw https://ift.tt/2xpdqMO