Ebert gave it one half of a star

Next time you could post the link so people can read what he disliked of the movie. This movie was incredibly confusing and not for everyone. I can agree on that but it was very brilliantly written and if it wasn't for the psychologist explaining the movie at the end(which I think only appears on the US version) then it would have only appealed to even a smaller amount of people.

But I saw this movie yesterday and I did enjoy it, it was the ultimate battle of sub-consciousness.

yeah, same thing he did to the usual suspects

Ebert doesn't know what a good film is. He rates films on moral value, on big budget effects, and on how understandable a film is. Never once he rates a film on how well made it is or on how cleverly it is written. Intelligent films like this get trashed, while films as Tomb Raider get three full stars. Films like Avatar ( with a big budget and impressive set design ) get the full treatment no matter how dumb and run of the mill the story is. A film like I Spit On Your Grave is considered as the worst film ever. And yes it's a *beep* film, but he trashes it just because he thinks the film is disgusting. There are films a lot worse than that movie. The only reason why I can imagine why The Devil's Rejects got three stars is that Ebert wanted to cut down on the stereotype people had of him. Masterpieces like Lost Highway or Blue Velvet were also not received very well, while pure pulp like Escape From LA ( which is a fun film, but by no means a masterpiece )are praised.
I know he's just a guy who writes down his opinion, but that doesn't change a thing about the fact that his opinion's *beep*

[deleted]

Ebert is a puppet. Why else do you think he's in the position he's in?

[deleted]

Ebert was being kind. The film is a vanity project mish-mash of new age bibble-babble, bad psychology, worse philosophy and unending dullness.

I'd say this film is shy from a complete masterpiece,stronger acting and slightly better execution would have made this a perfect 10 out of 10.


Back to topic, Ebert did it just because he didn't like "the pretentiousness" of this film.

Hell, wasn't Citizen Kane pretentious for his time too??

The thing with Ebert is that he makes a solid case most of the times he's right, so the average people will take for granted he's right ALL THE TIME, yet when he screws it he does it BIG TIME. His views on cinema are too idiosyncratic to be considered perfect.



Real art needs total impartiality, this means that critics, in a perfect world, should be able to understand the true purpose of the artists themselves enough to give a fair criticism on wether the filmmakers/painters/musicians achieved their goals and how well they did it. Instead, mainstream critics (especially in the music business) base their opinions on how reachable to the masses a product is.

That's why music critics only review dispensable crap like Timberlake's, Gaga's, T.I.'s or Madonna's stuff, yet they leave out true artforms, just because nobody would pay them to review "those".

In the movies business happens something similar, altough markedly different: movie critics' good reviews serve the industry's desires. They will give high ratings to those movies the general public will already approve of. Sure, you would say why stuff like "Transformers" or "Twilight" get trashed if they bring billions to the industry? Because they are already so popular a critic's opinion won't do any harm at all. They know criticism only influenciates a certain group of people, that's why good "serious" movies like "The King's Speech" took huge profit from critic's applause, because the people that might be interested in seeing it will certainly hear what the critics got to say. That's not the case with Team Jacob, right?

Like someone posted here before, mainstream critics are the film industry's puppets, and Ebert, despite being brilliant at times, isn't the exception.





now this is acting: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2458172160/tt1528718