Does anyone else double-take when you see a Roger Ebert review pop up?
Yes. I find it not only distasteful but also misleading to some degree.
Ebert had other reviewers on his website before he passed. The ones that are still running the site have high standards that, I think, carry on the legacy of Ebert’s thoughtful, approachable movie criticism. I’m glad the website is still going in the age of review aggregators and social media hot takes.
Yep. I think the whole name of that thing (institution? I don’t know what the deal is) is just dumb and awful. I’ve read plenty of the real Roger Ebert’s reviews, and their value was his own personal style and perspective. A Rogereber.com without Roger makes no sense and I don’t trust anyone that works there or tries to put their reviews forward under his name.
Ebert clearly recognized the value of his brand, and did what he could to ensure it would continue to support his family and colleagues long after he was gone. And while you’re certainly within your rights to be critical of the new writers’ opinions, it’s not like some evil corporation brought them in after immediately assuming the legal rights to Roger’s name.
Oh I can see that and suspected it want some Evil corporation (for now I guess). I was just speaking as a user. I’m sure the whole makes sense from Roger’sc and his family’s perspective.
Thanks for the response!
Didn’t enjoy this movie. Was quirky and had some interesting moments but the story overall wasn’t interesting, to me at least.
So it was a Wes Anderson film.
Sometimes I feel like the only person who doesn’t like Wes Anderson movies. I don’t understand it at all. Isle of Dogs was the only one I liked, but that one kind of goes against his typical style. I’ve otherwise watched Royal Tenenbaums, Darjeeling Limited, and Life Aquatic just to try and understand it and I didn’t like any of them (I don’t think I made it more than halfway through any of them). What am I missing and why does everyone love these movies? (This is a question in good faith, I genuinely want to know because I don’t get it)
I’ll take a swing at answering.
Have you ever spent time at an art gallery or museum of art, just soaking in the beauty?
To me, Wes Anderson films are like a guided tour through an art gallery, nearly every shot is gorgeous and I just want to sit and take it all in.
The people in the films, however, serve as sort of a juxtaposition to the visual delight. They are often small-minded, petty and otherwise broken. Even there, however, there is beauty as they search for, and occasionally find, redemption.
The long shots, the unblinking examinations of scenery and actors, the abnormal pacing create an indulgent experience that invite you to revel in the experience and examine the beauty and brokenness in the world around you.
deleted by creator
the entire thing is stylized. not sure what your criteria is, but wes anderson is not aiming for realism.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/UngE0qn3VRY
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
That’s how I enjoy them, yes. I have no idea about authorial intent, but I certainly wouldn’t treat them like a second screen experience.
deleted by creator
Oh no, I’m hardly an expert. I think Royal Tennenbaums is my favorite as it was the first one I ever saw.
The Grand Budapest Hotel is perhaps considered one of his better films, but I don’t know that it worked as well for me as some of the other ones. It was beautiful though.
If you do give it another try, let me know how it goes and what you think. It may not be for you though and that’s okay. Art is very subjective and there’s probably a huge array of factors that come together to make these films work for me.
As a non-sophisticated film watcher, I think The Grand Budapest Hotel is really approachable. It has a plot, a lot of the humor is easy to grasp. Narrative structure is mostly easy to follow.
I feel like you could watch his movies on mute and get the same effect
Like umami’s “Interface” series. It’s almost a plot. It’s definitely got it’s own unique, creepy style. I like watching the series occasionally but I don’t know why.
Imagine that having a plot and an emotionally relatable script are unimportant. And now imagine that costumes, quirky characters, and gorgeous set design are the most important part of a movie, at the expense of everything else. Some people don’t care about writing. There are several cottage industries in film and television that cater to them. Wes Anderson makes 90-120 minute visually stunning soap operas.
Steve Zissou is a soap opera?
God I wish all soap operas were like that.
Lots of people hate Wes Anderson movies. I’d feel a lot more neutral about them if I didn’t occasionally get suckered into watching one without realizing it’s a Was Anderson movie until it’s too late to back out.
You’re not alone. I loved Bottle Rocket, because it’s a silly comedy with good acting and a silly story line. As he has progressed as a director, I cannot actually sit through is movies. For me it’s like being in an art gallery, and having people tell me why the paintings are amazing and stylish, and me wishing I was in a different art gallery. I’m an absolute fan of movies, be they made in Hollywood, Asia, Europe or the Middle East, but Wes Anderson is a director I just can’t get through the movies of.
One of the first reviews I feel actually gets it right, almost like they watched the movie with focus and joy.
I have yet to see this. I felt like French Dispatch suffered from being too self indulgent and uneven. Hopefully this script is a bit tighter.
AC leans even harder into Wes’ unabridged self-indulgent side imo, so I wouldn’t get my hopes up.
Let’s just say that the problem you correctly pointed in French Dispatch got out of control in this last one.
It’s like a mediocre director trying to make an Anderson’s movie. And failing.It’s worse, imho. French dispatch was better. This one is just weird for the sake of being weird. Looks cool though.
I can’t wait to see this movie!! I love his other work!
How much you enjoy this film is going to depend on how much you enjoy 1950s-1960s era “Theater of the Absurd”. Think Samuel Beckett or Harold Pinter.
If “Waiting For Godot” or “Happy Days” are too weird for you, you won’t enjoy Asteroid City.
Godot - Free on Youtube!
Happy Days also!
I was down for the weirdness. My kid walked out of it going “What did I just watch? Are all of his movies like that?”
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/izX5dIzI2RE
https://piped.video/L5vhQ4d_KMI
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Poor Beckett, he didn’t deserve to be named for such low effort movie. Anderson’s best works are well in the past, time to face it I’d say.
I don’t know that you can say anything Anderson does is “low effort”, if anything it’s too much effort in a hyper controlling way.
The actors here seem bereft of any emotion, such was the style at the time. They are department store mannequins dressed up and playing a role. That takes effort to achieve.
For me, the joy in the film comes from the moments when that façade cracks. The three little witches are hilarious. The one bit where the TV narrator gets confused and ends up in the production of the play. When the actor playing Augie gets frustrated and goes “behind the scenes” of the play to vent.
It’s low effort because he didn’t actually put the effort to make it a good film. I’m sure it took time and effort to put it together, but it wasn’t working alone and if he was the one making the biggest effort we would had another masterpiece. Which we have not.
I’ll tell you this: I loved almost all of his movies, naturally some more and some less, but what I consider the signature of Anderson is that he always managed to make me actually care for his characters. The way he make them so human and vulnerable and fragile… also in the movies I liked less I always loved the characters.
Now, it is noteworthy that you remember the three little witches, I also loved them and they are one of the few characters I still remember. But tell me this: do you know anything about them? Do they have a background? Do they have specific traits that really make then different persons, and not just little differences that only make the comic roles possible? Did you had hopes or expectations about them during the story? I wish I had, but the total of few minutes they were on the screen wasn’t enough for me. The problem is I could ask the same questions about every of the uselessly aboundant number of characters that were in that movie. The were all empty and shallow - and how could they not? They all had minutes, and minutes fragmented in a pointlessly long movie.
The only thing that looked like Anderson is the initial scene with the train, the only very beautiful scenes are those with Scarlett Johansson speaking at the window (that part made me hope it could actually go back to be a real movie… but nope). The rest is confusion.
The façade, the meta-movie: I would have loved to get those in an Anderson movie. This was not it. The guy had too much budget and too many actors who want be able to say that they worked with Anderson, and he just said yes to everyone. He said so many yes that movie died of it.
And if I sound sour is because I am, an Anderson movie used to be a movie worth watching no matter what. I’m afraid we lost that. Fuck Hollywood.
Sorry if this was a bit to long. 🤷♂️
I’d argue that the three little witches have the most complete story arc in the film. From the overlapping babbling introduction, to coming to terms with the death of their mom, to saying goodbye. It’s a decent arc.
The other characters are little more than cardboard cutouts, and designed that was as it was the stage acting style at the time.
Yeah they had probably the most complete arc, that says it all.
I’m not sure what you mean with the next sentence: you mean that cardboard cutouts are fine because this what movies used to be in that age?
He’s emulating the very stilted theatrical style of the 1950s and 1960s. It was called “Theater of the Absurd”. So I was pretty OK with it, unfortunately only theater nerds are going to get what he was going for there. LOL.
Sure.
Roger Ebert is dead.
Yes, and now he’s a brand.
deleted by creator
I tried but couldn’t get through it. It’s beautiful, but I just can’t shake the feeling that it’s quirky, just to be quirky and artsy, without it really serving a purpose for the story. This could probably sum up my review of most of his movies and I think I’m done with them, no matter how interesting the cast or story sounds.
The movie was a hot pile dog diarrhea
I disagree. We went as a family and really enjoyed it, though it was enjoyably baffling in parts.
