Friday, May 27, 2005

THERE IS A SENSE IN WHICH ATTACKING THIS MOVIE IS LIKE KICKING A DOG FOR NOT BEING BETTER AT CALCULUS: Roger Ebert gets downright philosophical in his three-star review of The Longest Yard:
I often practice a generic approach to film criticism, in which the starting point for a review is the question of what a movie sets out to achieve. "The Longest Yard" more or less achieves what most of the people attending it will expect. Most of its audiences will be satisfied enough when they leave the theater, although few will feel compelled to rent it on video to share with their friends. So, yes, it's a fair example of what it is.

I would however be filled with remorse if I did not urge you to consider the underlying melancholy of this review and seek out a movie you could have an interesting conversation about. I have just come from 12 days at Cannes during which several times each day I was reminded that movies can enrich our lives, instead of just helping us get through them.

As someone much smarter than me once wrote (and I forget who), if Roger Ebert gave 90% of the movies he reviews the 1-1 1/2 stars they probably deserve, people wouldn't listen to him anymore.

No comments:

Post a Comment