My criticism against Ebert is perfectly legitimate, another example is his review of Fight Club, he gave it 1 and a half stars, claiming it was a "celebration of violence in which the heroes write themselves a license to drink, smoke, screw and beat one another up" when Fight Club isn't glorifiying violence at all, in fact it's doing the complete opposite of what Ebert was saying, Ebert totally missed the entire point of the film because he didn't bother to look beneath the surface.

In other words, Vexer's opinion of Fight Club = Fact, while Ebert's opinion of Fight Club = Wrong.

That's exactly what you're saying.

No, that's what YOUR saying! The point of Fight Club was NOT to glorify violence, yet Ebert somehow missed that, he based his opinion entirely on a misguided notion. I don't think Fight Club is a masterpiece myself, but I understood the message of the film perfectly. Why do you care so much about my opinion anyways?

I gotta side with Vexer on Ebert's opinion of Fight Club. Anybody who says that Fight Club is glamorizing violence didn't seem to be paying attention or only watched the first half of the movie.

Actually, I do remember Ebert saying about Fight Club that he thought the movie got less interesting as it went along. If that is how Ebert felt, which clearly it is, then THAT is a perfectly reasonable and valid criticism, albeit one that I definitely do not agree with.

So no Shade, i'm NOT forcing my opinion on others, it was never Fincher's intention to glamorize violence in the film, Ebert obviously wasn't paying attention and got the message all wrong(in other words, he was CompletelyMissingThePoint, to quote Tvtropes) if he thought the film got less interesting as it went along, well that's a perfectly good reason for not liking the film(and to an extent I do somewhat agree, I think Fight Club could've worked just as well without the infamous "twist")

"Fight Club" itself does not advocate Durden's philosophy. It is a warning against it...Although sophisticates will be able to rationalize the movie as an argument against the behavior it shows, my guess is that audience will like the behavior but not the argument...But the second act is pandering and the third is trickery, and whatever Fincher thinks the message is, that's not what most audience members will get.

So yes, he completely "gets" the movie, he just thinks he goes about it's intentions in the wrong way, which is a perfectly reasonable argument for disliking it. Given the crop of "real" fight clubs that began after the film came out, clearly he was right in how the film would be interpreted by most.

I remember hearing about that and I also recall the author Chuck also giving a defense along the lines of "well isn't that so much better then if they were beating up their girlfriends?"

Not that I'm saying Chuck (last name too difficult to spell and I'm too lazy to look up at the minute) is also right or that it invalidates Ebert's opinion, who I disagree with as Fight Club is my personal favourite and Vexer may be wrong as well because Ebert has a right to his opinion, no matter how misguided, and I think I've now lost track of what we were talking about anyways as the first rule of Fight Club is we don't talk about Fight Club.
-Jeremy

I Heart Huckabees is a great movie.

Agreed. Anyone who doesn't like it missed the entire point of the film because they didn't bother to look beneath the surface. If someone hates this film, they obviously weren't paying attention and got the message all wrong.

...famous last words.

In any case, how many movies have they been applied to? 2001?
-Jeremy

I don't often agree with Putman but I like reading his reviews. They are always well written. But I like reading everyone's opinions. Not just those that are similar to mine. I've disagreed many times with James but he's always been and still is one of my favorite critics. Putman's opinions are not unreasonable but then again, no opinion is unreasonable.

And I don't think he's being contrary for the sake of being contrary. He's no Armond White. He's agreed with the consensus many times. But he's got his mind too with his own opinions. And for the record, Final Destination 5 was pretty cool. And I LOVED Larry Crowne. Not just one of my favorite movies of the summer but of the year too.

Dustin's a nice guy. He and I used to correspond quite a bit back in "the old days." He's one of the few "early" on-line critics who's still around. I can recall reading some of his early reviews and offering comments. We don't agree on a lot, but we have different tastes.

In a way, I envy him still being able to see as many movies as he does, but life moves on. Then again, I'm not so sure "envy" is the word to apply when one considers some of the titles he has reviewed this year.

Hey James, not to veer too far off topic (as if this thread hasn't done so already) but will you be attending this year's TIFF? Just wondering. Thanks! Now to kinda get back on topic did you ever get around to seeing Animal Kingdom. The reason I ask is that film features Joel Edgerton as does this one.

No TIFF this year - 16 months is still too young to leave alone with my wife without risking disembowelment upon my return.

Haven't seen ANIMAL KINGDOM yet. I'm way behind on my DVDs - have been reading too much lately.