Contradicting Popular Opinion
A.K.A.
An Enquiry Concerning Why Your Favorite Movie Sucks
An Appeal to Authority
An appeal to authority is a type of argument in logic also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it, where an unsupported assertion depends on the asserter’s credibility). It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge and is often a logical fallacy. Some examples of appeals to authority: * Referring to the philosophical beliefs of Aristotle. “If Aristotle said it was so, it is so”. …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
I often ridicule movies. Not just here mind you, but any chance I get. A lot of times people say, “oh you’re just being mean.” I’ve gotten one person who has said to me, “I wish I could write you something that sounded smart and said you were wrong.”
And oftentimes I hear, “but Ebert liked it.”
Ebert seems like a fine fellow, don’t get me wrong. And people seem to see him as the benchmark, the cornerstone, the living legend, the be-all-end-all, the apotheosis of the film critic.
I tend to see him as that guy who used to sit next to Gene Siskel. He is also the guy who currently sits next to Sun-Times fluff artist Richard Roeper. Richard’s newspaper thought pieces are great if you’re the sort of person who has ever laughed hysterically that abbreviate is a longish word. Or if you’ve ever really truly appreciated the increased winter traction due to a bag marble chips in the bed of your pickup truck.
(Man I miss Siskel. There was a guy I could get behind. He panned Tim Burton’s Batman and gave a 3 star review to Carnosaur. You gotta respect that.)
Be these tings as they may, Ebert is somehow the ultimate “authority” on film, to whom nearly everyone “appeals.” (see how effortlessly I worked that thing in there)
Since 1990 Ebert has given no less than 345 movies 4 stars, his highest rating. Now, to be fair, this number is inclusive of a couple of re-issues. For instance, it includes the infinitely long version of Apocalypse Now through which I, literally, slept. Snoring drooling, the whole nine yards.
Earlier in the week (in the now extra-super secret writer’s forum) I took a look at some of these films which Ebert considers to be 4 star classic films.
They include, but are no means limited to:
The Polar Express: A creepy children’s book, bloated into a interminable, creepier children’s film complete with a musical interlude by an all-elf version of Aerosmith.
Adaptation: Another self-indulgent Charlie Kaufman flick, starring the routinely self-indulgent Nic Cage. The thing falls apart before the third act. But the movie seems to think that that is okay, because it is “supposed” to.
Babe: Pig in the City: To be fair, I haven’t seen this one. The original is, as its box proclaims, the Citizen Kane of talking pig movies though.
Casino: Scorsese’s worst film. The thing is a bloated frigging clusterf*ck of multiple narrators, superfluous numbers from the soundtrack, etc. The best thing I can say about the flick is that it is redundant considering the careers of most involved.
The Cell: Trippy and forgotten JLo vehicle.
Changing Lanes: Forgotten Ben Affleck vehicle.
Crash: Which did win Best Picture, despite being snubbed by those rational folks at the Golden Globes.
Dick Tracy: One can probably defend this thing as a 3-star movie.
The English Patient: Another terrible Oscar winner. It’s now pretty much remembered as the film used to torture Elaine on “Seinfeld.”
Frailty: A film I kinda like, especially considering that it was made by the mostly talent-free Bill Paxton.
Harry Potter 1 and 2: Chris Columbus is a hack. Anybody else notice that the movies are better without him directing? Huh? Huh?
Disney’s Hunchback of Notre Dame: Yeah…
Lost in Translation: A ridiculously over-rated movie. It’s like Ghost World, except that you take out Thora Birch, replace Buscemi with Bill Murray, and remove all the parts where stuff happens. Nothing happens for about twenty minutes, and continues not happening right on through the credits.
Let’s skip through the next couple:
Magnolia
Matchstick Men
Natural Born Killers
Shrek
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow?!?!
Speed? Really? Speed? A film in which Dennis Hopper is out-acted(!) by Keanu Reeves, who in turn is out acted by Bus 2525. If you don’t remember the film, it is the one where a bus full of wooden stereotypes rely on Sandra Bullock and Reeves to save them from a hugely contrived plot device. Then, just when the movie is mercifully over, it kicks you square in the jimmies with an even worse movie that rattles on for another half an hour.
Tarnation Unwatchably bad “documentary.” I don’t see how this thing could be of any interest to anybody but the maker’s family and his analyst. Although Mr. Ebert is thanked in the credits. One wonders.
Titanic The Star Wars of the 1990s provided you were a girl ages 10-16.
Traffic: Which is as about the same movie as Crash, substituting drugs for racism. My community center tried to do a drugs for racism swapped, but kept on arguing as to which one they wanted to give away.
Waking Life: Which I just bitched about last week.
Now, it seems to me that Ebert has achieved his status as the Guru of review by means of duration and public prominence. These things, I believe, he has achieved by having utterly bland and inoffensive taste in film. He likes what the studios need him to like. He doles out good reviews to expensive summer blockbusters, and to the cold, calculated prestige films AKA “Oscar contenders.”
I don’t think that he is bought and paid for, mind you. (Though I can say for certain that many reviewers are. Every complaint that the IP Gaming section has for the gaming review community goes double for film critics.) I just think that his tastes auspiciously line up with the agendas of several powerful entertainment industry persons.
Does this make him a bad critic? No. He usual provides an adequate analysis of the films he sees. But of late, at the very least, he is sloppy. Movies Zone editor Mikey has called Ebert out on several factual errors in his review of Annapolis. And I bet you, that if you watch an episode of “Ebert and Roeper” after having seen one of the films reviewed, you can spot Ebert f*cking up movie details.
I can’t even watch “Ebert and Roeper” anymore though. Every time I watch the show everything is TWO THUMBS UP. Is Duke Phillips their new boss? The films seem to be rated on his scale of “good” to “excellent.”
Really, I expect better from the writer of Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens and Russ Meyer’s Up.
What I’m trying to do here, is not attack Ebert. What I’m trying to say, is that an appeal to authority is indeed often a logical fallacy. Argue using the logic of the authority not his or her name. Nobody is right all of the time, except for Loki.
Baldr had it coming.
Pimping
Lucard talks about one of my favorite Sega CD games. The only game on that system which I played more often than Dracula Unleashed was that under-appreciated Spider-man vs. The Kingpin game.
Mark B. still denies us use of his last name. It’s okay though, as he pimps me despite his column appearing six days after mine.
Tom P. is not a 14 year old girl. He just reviews their movies.
I tell you how to skin a squirrel in Moodspins, but I won’t link you to that thing directly.
