MovieChat Forums > Storytelling (2001) Discussion > Rogert Ebert proves once again he has no...

Rogert Ebert proves once again he has no clue what he is talking about

posted 19 years ago by mrb_unruh
14 replies | jump to latest

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020208/REVIEWS/202080304/1023

1. "The movie contains two stories. The first, "Fiction," is about a college creative writing student (Selma Blair) whose boyfriend (Leo Fitzpatrick) has cerebral palsy. "You wanna hear my short story now?" he asks her immediately after sex, and it is clear he is trading on sex as a way to win an audience. Although he is the "cripple," that gives him an advantage in her politically correct cosmos, and he milks it. Later, when they've broken up, he observes sadly, "The kinkiness has gone. You've become kind."

They were not broken up. He said this right after the sex. The "break up" came nearly 15 minutes later in the movie.

That's not so bad, but check this out.

2. "Non-Fiction," the longer, second section of the film, opens with a would-be documentary filmmaker named Toby (Paul Giamatti) looking at the high school yearbook photo of a girl he now remembers yearningly. Calling her, he finds she is married and has a family, and immediately decides he is making a documentary about an American family and needs hers.

This family, the Livingstons, is Jewish, lives in the suburbs, and is a seething zone of resentment and rage."

Anybody who has seen the film understands the pure idiocy of this statement. What's funny is Ebert claims to have seen this movie THREEE times ("I saw "Storytelling" at Cannes 2001 and wrote that I wanted to see it again before deciding what I thought about it. I saw it again in January, and still felt I had to see it again. I saw it a third time."). I have seen it a grand total of ONCE and can easily recall the woman on the phone telling Toby her children were aged 8, 6 and 4. Obviosuly these ages do not match the Livingston's children. Scooby is applying for college for christ's sake. I cannot believe a man who reviews movies for a LIVING (and makes a killing at it) did not pick up in any of the THREE times he viewed this movie that there was no correlation between the Livingstons and the woman Toby spoke with on the phone. Remember when Toby met Scooby in the bathroom? Does Ebert think this meeting was arranged or something? What a *beep* idiot.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] delusionist 19 years ago

It's also possible that he gets paid off at times by studios to say he likes movies (ie. Garfield, Tomb Raider 1 and 2 and The Honeymooners).

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kasparhauser44 19 years ago

ebert is clearly a paid-off stooge for certain studio pictures. even worse he claims that some of the most brilliant films are horrible for clearly political reasons. i saw DOGVILLE at telluride and it was one of the best films there. ebert's review was a total pan, which he rationalized by calling lars von trier an "anti-american" propagandist. it may be totally off subject, but lars von trier, as far as I am concerned, is thematically the fassbinder of the current era (but visually more brilliant).
ebert gave thumbs up to the cheerleading bank robber film SUGAR AND SPICE. 'nuff said.
ps: ebert has bigger knockers than any russ meyer actress.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gusjux 19 years ago

It could be that or that or he's full of *beep*

"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you different."

[–] dioro 18 years ago

I think he's full of crap.

[–] ace_hamilton 18 years ago

"ebert's review was a total pan, which he rationalized by calling lars von trier an "anti-american" propagandist."

Not true. This is what he actually said:

"When the film premiered at Cannes 2003, he was accused of not portraying Americans accurately, but how many movies do? Anything by David Spade come to mind? Von Trier could justifiably make a fantasy about America, even an anti-American fantasy, and produce a good film, but here he approaches the deological subtlety of a raving prophet on a street corner."

[–] b1lskirnir 18 years ago

Well, when I first saw the family at dinner and got a good look at the mother I thought immediately that it was the woman Toby was talking to on the phone. I mean, how much of stretch is it that she lied? Not much at all. Then I saw Toby meeting Scooby in the bathroom and from that point on my theory didn't make sense.

I dunno, Ebert can generally speaking back up his opinions on a lot of movies and while I will never forgive him for what he's said about Fight Club and A Clockwork Orange, I do think he makes some good points once in a while. I think he writes too well to take bribes, he's too intelligent to BS that much and that well. Maybe he saw Toby going to the bathroom and suddenly had to go himself and missed that dialogue every single time he saw the film? o_0

------------------------------------
Modern Plumbing Studios, est. 2004

[–] Aapox3 18 years ago

Haha, good ole Rog. Well, first of all I can't really give him too much *beep* for all he's done for the University of Illinois as I'm a student here, but damn he's stupid sometimes.

I seriously can't believe he thought the woman that Giamatti called is the actual family.

[–] gamergotgame 17 years ago

b1lskirnir,

I think you're a little confused here. When mrb_nuruh said "Remember when Toby met Scooby in the bathroom? Does Ebert think this meeting was arranged or something?" he was merely asking a rhetorical question. He's not saying that's actually what Ebert thinks (although it could be). He was just wondering just how far Ebert's idiocy goes...

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nsanestoryteller 17 years ago

Stating Ebert doesn't know films based on a single movie you didn't like that he did is really stupid and closed-minded.

Example...

Sugar and Spice is a biting high school satire. Whether you enjoyed the film or not does not discredit Ebert's review of the film as accurate.

"It's sassy and satirical, closer in spirit to "But I'm a Cheerleader" than to "Bring It On." With its shameless pop culture references, wicked satire and a cheerleader with the hots for Conan O'Brien, it's more proof that not all movie teenagers have to be dumb. (All right, these cheerleaders are dumb--but in a smart movie.)It's is not a great high school movie like "Election," but it's alive and risky and saucy."

That's all factual in a sense. It doesn't account for taste. You might not like satires, a lot of people don't... but Ebert giving it a positive review doesn't make him a bad critic.

Often people will look at his star rating and not read the review. In most cases reviews for films people might think are god-awful have been given positive star ratings with notes like "I'm giving this 3 stars because I think the effects are absolutely stunning, etc... but the story is void of meaning and the film without the effects would earn a much lower rating." Essentially saying "I'm recommending this film but for one reason... it's not a great movie." His stars are not based on quality, but by his personal guidelines. Sugar and Spice might not match other 3-Star movies he's reviewed in terms of quality... but Ebert thought it was worth recommending, thus... the 3-star rating.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]