In a while I used to hate movie critics. Not because they seem to pan every movie that came out since the Golden Age of Hollywood. It’s because most of them seem to think that every movie that comes out must deliver a new perspective on the human nature.
There are very few movie critics that understand the simple fact that cinematography is divided into genres and each genre has its own universe. In this universe, each production must be measured according to the genre’s own metrics, not by some general values.
Movies are made to entertain and as such they aim at as many goals as there are people since each person has its own desires when it comes to movies.
In this respect, the brilliance of Roger Ebert is that he seems to be one of the view that takes each movie through the perspective of its genre. An action movie is judged by its premise and by its delivery of its promises of gripping violence. A satyre needs to comically point out the flaws of its victim.
Roger Ebert’s usual victim are the stereotypes which come aplenty in summer blockbusters and the flat refusal of some movie makers to underline what makes their work different. That’s not to say I always agree with him, however. I definitely don’t see why he gave (for example) 2.5 stars to Centurion when the movie barely deserves 1, if we would apply the same measure he applied to The Last Airbender.
Nevertheless, of all movie critics I definitely prefer to let Roger Ebert guide my movie going experience – and rent everything else!
