Critics got it wrong

[NightlyNews]

-snip-

My reasons for thinking that Ebert was off his rocker for he reviewed Push is due to the following (all taken from his online review [http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090204/REVIEWS/902059995]):

He refers to Cassie (Dakota Fanning) as a Pusher. If he'd referred to Nick (Chris Evans), the Mover as a Pusher, I'd have written it off since "somebody who moves objects with his mind" is close enough to "somebody who pushes objects with his mind" for a critic who clearly regarded seeing this film as a hardship. Pretty much EVERYBODY in the film identifies her as a Watcher. You cannot have paid any actual attention to the film and still made this mistake. It is impossible.

He said that Division wanted Kira dead. Again, you cannot possibly make this mistake if you paid the slightest attention to the movie.

He said that Cassie's mom had been killed. Once again, you cannot make this mistake and still have paid attention to the film. Cassie's entire motivation for being in Hong Kong was to rescue her mom. Plus, anybody who paid the slightest attention would have made the connection that the doped-up woman dropping the marble in the beginning of the movie was Cassie's mother, demonstrating why she's considered one of the most powerful Watchers in the world.

Basically, nearly every aspect of the film that he mentioned in his review was factually wrong. I'm kind of surprised that he got the city right. It would not have shocked me if he'd claimed that it was taking place in Shanghai.

I don't mind that he didn't like the movie. I often enjoy movies that critics do not like. All movie reviews are subjective, and I have lowbrow movie tastes. I was annoyed because his review makes me seriously wonder if he actually watched the movie at all, much less paid attention, before panning it.

Yea rereading the review Mr. Ebert seemed to be very very confused as to what happened. I believe he sat down saw it was sci-fi that he didn't immediately liked and then tuned out. He clearly watched the movie because he alludes to the part where they wash their own minds to outplay the asian watcher. He just didn't comprehend any of it.

Just a swing and a miss though. I realize gamers as a whole hate Mr. Ebert because of some erroneous comments, but I generally agree with his points. This doesn't mean we have the same taste in movies though. Like all other critics you generally have to figure out their pet peeves ignore their ridiculous comments. I would still suggest reading his reviews for things that aren't as deep rooted in nerd culture. He freely admits he has no interest in the violent portions of comics and games.

 

[SouthpawFencer]

Just a swing and a miss though. I realize gamers as a whole hate Mr. Ebert because of some erroneous comments, but I generally agree with his points. This doesn't mean we have the same taste in movies though. Like all other critics you generally have to figure out their pet peeves ignore their ridiculous comments. I would still suggest reading his reviews for things that aren't as deep rooted in nerd culture. He freely admits he has no interest in the violent portions of comics and games.

I generally respect Ebert's expertise in regards to movie making as a whole, and most of his opinions are well though-out. However, in this particular case, he dropped the ball, and lacked credibility. If he can't get himself to stay tuned in enough to follow the plot of a movie because he hates the subject matter so much, then he owes it to his audience to not review the movie at all.

Another example: His review of The Lovely Bones [http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100113/REVIEWS/100119992] (a movie that I haven't seen and have no interest in seeing) made me suspect that his own religious/spiritual views clouded his judgement. He panned the film in part because the filmmakers didn't give enough thought "...to the possibility that there is no heaven...". His opening sentence in his online review: "The Lovely Bones" is a deplorable film with this message: If you're a 14-year-old girl who has been brutally raped and murdered by a serial killer, you have a lot to look forward to.

This is a movie where a Heaven of sorts exists. So, yes, an innocent child who ends up dead will probably have something to look forward to. That's generally how the concept of Heaven WORKS (I'm leaving out the whole "But only if you worship the correct deity" issue).

His description of how the afterlife SHOULD be portrayed makes it clear that he has no intention of giving a fair review: Seems to me that heaven, by definition outside time and space, would have neither colors nor a lack of colors -- would be a state with no sensations. Nor would there be thinking there, let alone narration. In an eternity spent in the presence of infinite goodness, you don't go around thinking, "Man! Is this great!" You simply are. I have a lot of theologians on my side here.

Let me get this straight, Ebert: you're panning a cinematic film because it didn't portray heaven in a way that a way that you literally cannot portray in the medium of cinematic film? Really?!!

Again, if you can't do a better job than this with controlling your personal biases, don't review the movie. It'd be like me panning a Harry Potter movie because the film's premise is that magic exists, and I don't think that it does.

Note: I'm an atheist, however, so I couldn't care less whether or not Ebert believes in Heaven or not. But if he can't suspend his disbelief enough to accept as a film's presence that there is an afterlife that could be some form of Heaven, and then pans the movie because of that premise, then he should've skipped this one.

Combined with Push, reviews like this of his make me wonder how often he's done this in the past and panned films that he didn't pay any attention to and that I just didn't get around to seeing.