Happy Panic Productions

Roger, Ebert, I read you: Study: Movie Critics Speak Even When They Don't Utter a Word (2006)

For every movie I have seen in the theater since December 13, 2004, I have afterward posted a review of Ebert's review of the same movie. Perhaps it's time to crunch some numbers and give this project a real analysis, but the heuristic impression I'm developing during the execution of this exercise is that the quality of Ebert's writing is directly proportional to his passion for the film he's reviewing. Hold the presses! It's a pretty unremarkable hypothesis in hindsight, I admit. Given the impressive quantity of writing Ebert actually does, it's perfectly reasonable that even a professional would whip out the reviews of films which other critics would pass on. Right?

It turns out I'm not the only one who is studying Ebert these days. Duke University has issued a press release announcing a study of movie reviewers to be published in June. The responses among the movie reviewing community to this silly press release have been rather entertaining, Ebert's included. But kudos go out to former reviewer Marc Caro, who did some real reporting and reveals that the full report is even more idiotic than the press release.

So I'll take this as a warning to be more careful when analyzing the results of my Ebert review. But like Duke, I'll tease you with another preliminary finding in advance of the full report. The two characteristics of Ebert's reviews which I wanted to study were the quality of his writing style and his inaccurate reporting of movie details. Above I addressed the former. Here, I reveal what may possibly cause the latter:

Movie Answer Man

BY ROGER EBERT FILM CRITIC / February 19, 2006

Q. Last week I went to see "Munich" ... About halfway through I felt the normal human need to visit a restroom. But I wasn't about to leave for a minute, afraid I'd miss the most important part. So I endured for an hour and a half rather than miss a minute ....


A. ...My own strategy is to try to sit on the aisle so that I can slip in and out quickly. Your ability to "endure" for 90 minutes has my most sincere admiration.

Roger, Ebert, I read you: Brokeback Mountain (2005)

I don't have much to say about this one except that I congratulated myself while watching it for having predicted who would be the bottom. It's a very well-made movie that never stirred a single passion in me, and I'm not just saying that in a defensive hands-over-butthole kind of way. I remember when I drove through Casper, Wyoming with my friend Paul Rodriguez (not the stand-up comedian) and we both said that it seemed like a nice place to live. After this movie and Boys Don't Cry (1999), I'm glad I have that memory or else I would be unjustly terrified of the plains states.

Here's another boring one wherein I think Ebert's review is well written and agreeable. He liked the film more than I did, but he's much more articulate about his feelings on this one than I am, too. Score this one in the "Ebert's review is better than the movie" column!

Roger, Ebert, I read you: The New World (2005)

Ebert nails it. The most encouraging result so far of this exercise of reviewing Ebert's reviews is discovering that the more serious the movie, the more thoughful and well-written are his reviews. Perhaps he wisely apportions his effort in proportion with the height of the film's artistic aims.