Youngmanridge's 5 Step Program on:

How to Better Use A Roger Ebert Review

STEP
No. 1

"The Four-Star Facelift"

If you come upon a movie that Ebert has given 4 Stars, you're most likely going to watch a worthwhile flick, maybe even a classic. You can further bank on this if the film is an action movie, comedy, horror, or any other genre that usually doesn't deserve such high praise.

But BEWARE! If you aren't a sophisticate who judges lighting, direction, photography, theme, etc, you better check the subject matter of the Quatro-Star Film you're getting yourself into. For instance, if you're expecting to be thrilled by an English manners drama at the end of an 8-hour bluecollar workday, you might be in for a shock.

Ebert has a keen attention span and he's perfectly happy watching actors stare into nothing and ponder things that will never be divulged to an audience. (I think this gives him time to jot down notes like "awesome rack on Johansson" or "Clooney looks fuckin insane when he screams!")

Let's put it this way. I'm an admirer of Ebert's writing and critiquing skills, but there are always exceptions. The man loved the delightfully dull Gosford Park for one, and for two, he lusted after Lost in Translation, a film that moves at the speed of frozen butter.

Exceptions, exceptions. Nobody's perfect.

STEP
No. 2

"The Rating-Draining: Story of the ZERO star"

Don't piss EBERT off with mediocre shit! He's got like twelve-hundred more movies to watch and he's not going to like your movie if he isn't completely overjoyed watching it.

If you come upon a movie with NO STARS rest assured that, most of the time, Ebert has sheparded you away from a steaming plopper. Indeed some movies fall into a category that will cause Ebert's rating to drop to an absolute zero. The Deuce Bigalows are easy to accept. But, thing is, there are rare times when these zero-movies aren't 100% shit.

Real quick. Here's some Ebert zero-star movies that I don't quite agree with.

Police Academy--
It wasn't the groundbreaking comedy that AIRPLANE was, but Police Academy had some funny parts. And other dweebs must have thought so too because the franchise quickly shot out eight sequels.

Great God Ebbie, if you laughed at least one time it deserves 1/2 star. Come on!
I'd give it 2 stars, and on my sillier days, 3.

The Life of David Gale--
Ebert disagreed with the politics of this film. But so? Who cares if the politics are wacky and the story's messily constructed. Zero stars Roger?

Kevin Spacey should get the film a single star just for showing up. Subsequently, Ebert also gave The Ususal Suspects 1-1/2 stars. Kevin must have embittered Roge somehow.

Rozencrantz And Guildenstern are Dead--
What's the purspose of trying to find meaning in a Theatre of the Absurd play? Ebert couldn't make heads or tails of this movie, so he gave it the old open knuckle. But why? What for? Zero stars means the world would be better off if the movie didn't even exist. That's too harsh.

Wait Until Dark--
This movie scared the stuffing out of me when I was a kid. It was at least effective at one level. That, or I'm a wuss, but that's just something I'm not readily going to accept.

Yeah, these films might not be deserving of a positive review, but zero? NOTHING? They don't get any credit? Goddamn, I remember getting mercy-points in school for turning in a paper with my name at the top and the word "The" scrawled on the first line.

 

STEP
No. 3

"The Two And A Half Dilemma"

Sometimes 2 and 1/2 star movies, or Twoofies, as I call them, are those that Ebert almost enjoyed. It's like when you go to McDonald's and are left unfulfilled, but at the same time you can't deny that the meal served your biological purposes.

Sometimes Twoofies can turn out to be really enjoyable films. The way that you can gage this is by what Richard Roeper has to say. If he opposed Ebert with a thumbs-up then you might have one that got away from His Majesty. It doesn't happen often, but it can, so be on the lookout.

NOTE: Consulting Richard Roeper for movie-review comparison should be done sparingly.

STEP
No. 4

"Know The Review Structure"

It's important, especially for people with short attention spans, or people who don't like looking at words, to know exactly how Ebert's reviews are put together.

Most of the time, this is the format.

Part I: Introduction--
Ebert hints at whether he likes, dislikes, or is indifferent to a movie. He won't come right out and let his overall opinion fly just yet.

Part II: Plot--
Ebert will summarize the major conflict of the story, and at times either give subtle praise or subtle rebuke during this portion.

Part III: Opinion--
Ebert will lay it all out. By now you will know if he loves a movie and he'll tell you why he loves it and why everyone should love it. This goes for movies he hates as well.

So, if you're one of those nano-readers, who want the nitty gritty, skip the middle section (Part II) of the review. It's all stuff you can find on IMDB.com if you really want to know. I skip from time to time when I don't want to know anything about the movie save for whether it was great, good or fuckin' horrible. I'm all about budgeting my time to save for moments of gratification.

STEP
No. 5

"The Surefire 3-1/2er."

When you come across a movie that is rated at THREE & ONE-HALF stars, make a point to go see that movie. It will probably become one of your favorites and more than likely you'll actually buy the DVD someday. There's just something magical about the Threefie. I can't put my finger on it, but I would theorize that because Ebert isn't dealing in absolutes something extraordinary occurs...

Art has really and truly been accurately weighed.

--Giggles 8/31/05