It's interesting that you bring up Ebert because I would apply your original comment to him. Ebert is spot on about the redeeming qualities of many films, but in retrospect he focuses a lot on the positives. I don't think this is due to him appealing to the "idiot masses", but rather it's a product of how he views film. No matter which review I've read, the only impression of Ebert I've had is of someone who loves film and its ability to convey the human spirit.
As for calling Ebert himself an idiot the man had seen pretty much every movie that deserves acclaim so it's silly to think he doesn't have a huge library to compare to or isn't qualified to talk about film. He even kept reviewing after having his lower jaw removed because of cancer. The only reason I'd call him an "idiot's reviewer" is because he never bothered with pretentiousness or overanalysis in his reviews.
What Ebert did for the most part was accurately say whether or not the masses would find a film enjoyable. He was very good at his job.
A film critic should aspire to do more. He should be critical and hopeful educate the audience on some level. Ebert's reviews were more like restaurant reviews.
cooper12|10 years ago
As for calling Ebert himself an idiot the man had seen pretty much every movie that deserves acclaim so it's silly to think he doesn't have a huge library to compare to or isn't qualified to talk about film. He even kept reviewing after having his lower jaw removed because of cancer. The only reason I'd call him an "idiot's reviewer" is because he never bothered with pretentiousness or overanalysis in his reviews.
a8da6b0c91d|10 years ago
A film critic should aspire to do more. He should be critical and hopeful educate the audience on some level. Ebert's reviews were more like restaurant reviews.