On Tuesday one of our readers posed the question: What is wrong with Roger Ebert? His two-star reviews of Gladiator and Erin Brockovich compared to four stars for both The Cell and The Contender seem to have people worried that the famed film critic is losing his touch. roughcut.com reader Scott responds with his own take on Ebert's recent reviews...

"I've got a couple of theories regarding Roger Ebert's occasional flights of fancy, and they explain different reviews he's given lately. Ebert's four-star rating for The Contender is inspired by his contempt for George W. Bush.  For some reason, Ebert has, of late, presumed that his insight into films entitles him to spout off political analysis as well.  I watched Ebert on "Hardball" last week, and he could not hold back his revulsion at the idea of a Bush presidency.  Ebert's review of The Contender was written at some point during the presidential debates, which Bush somehow won by losing.  Ebert saw his beloved Gore as the more articulate, persuasive, and qualified candidate, and yet Bush was the candidate who rose in the polls (not that Ebert is alone in failing to understand how Gore failed to clean Bush's clock).  Then The Contender comes along, and a noble Democrat is unfairly besmirched by Republican hatchetmen.  This taps into Ebert's well-known Democratic political leanings, and he channels his frustrations into his review of a movie that was daring enough to take on the Big Bad Republicans (what an unusual trick in a Hollywood movie!).  All in all, a natural bit of osmosis pumps up his review of what is a good movie, but not a great one. Ebert's admiration for The Cell and Dancer in the Dark can also be easily explained.  He's forced to watch too many crappy formulaic movies!!!  After watching this year's spate of uninspired drivel (the tidal wave of third-rate teenage thrillers, for example), Ebert's dying for originality.  After watching twenty movies that are carbon copies of each other, skill in execution is not anywhere near as important as just trying something new.  Gladiator and Erin Brokovich have both emerged as two of the better movies of the year, but that's only because this year has had so little to offer. Ebert's also suffering from the fact that he's now the Wise Old Man of movie criticism.  For years, Ebert was just one of a small number of somewhat influential film critics.  He's held on as his peers have left the profession (for a variety of reasons), but his peers have been replaced by the likes of Harry Knowles and that Gore twit on TNT.  Ebert now sees himself as an aging lion in film criticism, and he's desperate to prove that he's got skills these young punks will never have.  Accordingly, he's trying to find the good in movies that just don't have it.  Soon he'll be writing reviews for the art-house crowd alone, grumbling that back in his day even the mainstream films had more originality and skill than what's being made by 'these kids today.'  Harrumph!" -- Scott

Reader Elizabeth also thinks Ebert is losing his touch and thinks Gladiator was worthy of more than two stars...

"A) The 'problem' with Ebert is 'Siskel.' With benefit of hindsight, it seems that their partnership must have influenced even more than people realized. The ratings Ebert has been giving lately seem out of character and are increasingly hard to fathom. Someone's tastes can change -- but this fast, this much, and this late in life? No new partner, however good a critic, can have the same chemistry. (Lucy without Desi?) I think this is why many of his ratings lately have struck me as bizarre: four stars for The Cell and two for Gladiator? I accept that I can't agree with every review by every critic, but some of his recent stuff is just inexplicable. I put it down to the absence of Siskel. B) The 'problem' for Gladiator is 'May,' when it was released. I agree with Paul: it's the best film of 2000 so far. Releasing it in May put it into the company of brain-dead summer flicks and, unfortunately, cost it some respect. Even so, it rose above this with wonderful acting and excellent work in almost every technical area. In fact, it was Ebert's comments about the cinematography here that first got me seriously wondering about him, when he wrote something to the effect that the Germania scenes were gloomy. It's northern Europe in winter! The sun is low in the sky. 'Light' in 180 AD meant candles, oil lamps, or wood fires -- all seen in the film. Armies didn't exactly have portable electric generators, or jeeps and planes with lights. So yes, it would be dark on the battlefield. It is kind of a small point, and no I don't expect reviewers to discuss the history of incandescent lighting, unless the movie is about Thomas Edison, but it's an example of the odd things Ebert has been writing." -- Elizabeth

Wondering what is going on with Roger Ebert seems to be a popular activity these days. His recent review of The Contender certainly had me scratching my head. roughcut.com reader Paul questions the critic's latest likes and dislikes...

"What is wrong with Roger Ebert?  Does anyone else think he is losing it?  Toward the beginning of the year, he gave both Erin Brockovich and Gladiator two stars.  Both of those movies are not only among the best of the first half of the year but the best of the entire year so far.  In my opinion, Gladiator is the best film of the year so far.  Then in August, Ebert gave The Cell four stars and now he has given The Contender four stars as well.  Did he actually watch these movies?  Granted, The Contender is a pretty good movie.  But it totally cops out with a weak ending.  The bad guys become typical villains.  It ends up being conventional and predictable.  Roger, of all people, should have easily spotted this.  There is no way, despite excellent acting all around, that The Contender is a four-star movie.  As for The Cell, well, Roger fell off his rocker.  Visually it was good, but the story was pathetic.  It wasn't even that good. So those are four examples.  Does anyone really think The Contender and The Cell are better than Gladiator?  Or even Erin Brockovich?  As far as I am concerned, Roger is really losing it." -- Paul Doro

All right, enough picking on Roger, let's move on to the movies YOU liked. Kevin responded to my challenge of coming up with a list of the Top Ten movies released this year. Here are his picks...

"I took your challenge and came up with a Top Ten list for this year. It wasn't easy, but easier than any year of the 1980s would be (seriously, pick ANY year from that decade and name ten flicks you'd like to see again). Not in order... High Fidelity Erin Brockovich Gladiator Chicken Run X-Men (for the nice character moments, rather than the awkward action scenes) Wonder Boys Way of the Gun (doesn't pretend to be anything more than it is - a down & dirty thriller) Pitch Black (ditto) The first ¾ of The Contender And my #1 of the year (if this counts); the re-release of Rear Window, which is as close to perfect as a movie can get - humor, suspense, PACING, sex appeal (in spades!)." -- Kevin

Can you come up with a Top Ten List? I'll make it even easier on you. How about a Top Five? Tell me which films you think rank higher than the rest and let me know why you liked them so darn much. Or, if you're feeling a little more cynical, send me your Worst Five List. Be sure to let me know why these flicks are so rotten. I'll post your responses in the next edition of Civilian Voices. Keep those e-mails coming!

 

Meghan McCarthy
Editor, Civilian Voices

Send your submissions to civilianvoices@roughcut.com

No purchase necessary. Void where prohibited. Must be age 16 or older to submit a story. Stories will be edited for length and content by representatives of Roughcut. Not all stories will appear online. By submitting this story you agree that Roughcut has the perpetual right to use the submitted story, in any and all media, without limitation, as Roughcut may determine in its sole discretion. You also acknowledge that you will not receive any monetary compensation for the use, if any, of your story.