In Ebert I Trust
Ebert Loved 'Knowing.' Deal with It.
Roger Ebert handed Knowing four stars, and in doing so — and being in the minority — some continue to say he's tossing out four stars these days like they're Tootsie Rolls in a parade. So what? Mr. Thumbs habitually rails against the superficiality of star (or thumb) ratings. The stars are an afterthought for him. People who regularly read his work know that. Yet when Ebert leads a review with "Knowing is among the best science-fiction movies I've seen" (thankfully without the word "ever" or "!!!"), people tend to take notice.
In trendy sushi bars across the country a quiet buzz hums among kids wearing black-rimmed glasses and Alamo Drafthouse T-shirts. They wonder if Mr. E ate some magical Freaky Friday fortune cookie with Ben Lyons — not than any of these curious folk would admit to seeing any version of Freaky Friday. Has the man given up? Is he losing it? The only explanation is insanity. Seriously, he just put Knowing and 2001: A Space Odyssey on the same level. They whisper all of this. Chortle. Then move on to bitching about Michael Bay killing cinema, despite the advance tickets for Transformers 2 occupying their wallets.
I haven't seen Knowing. Which means I can't say whether I agree with Ebert or not. Regardless of whether I think Knowing is junk or treasure, I do know the man has not lost it. He has not gone Earl Dittman on us. He really does believe Knowing is a great science-fiction film despite whatever you, your mom and your favorite hipper-than-thou Internet curmudgeon thinks. And that's why I love Roger Ebert. He's his own man.
I'm not 100 percent sure why, but I've always sensed a pervading tone of insincerity around most film reviewers, especially web-based ones. Some are quote whores who would try selling you on a snuff film if it got their names on TV for a nanosecond. Most others are self-serious, wannabe iconoclasts who often slam or praise a movie for what it represents rather than what it is — like judging the taste of a peanut by looking at the peanut factory from the parking lot. Ohhh this movie is soooo Hollywood. I gotta hate it, really hate it (although I thought it was just okay). Ohhhh this movie is sooooo Hollywood. Everyone is gonna hate it. I gotta love it, really love it (although I thought it was just okay). Watching the onslaught of back-flipping gymnastics is exhausting. Perhaps you can chalk my cynicism up to two decades in which everything has reeked of irony, or — I don't know — maybe I have an inherent distrust of strangers.
Despite never having met the man, Ebert is no stranger. I've read Ebert's reviews since the time I stopped pleading for a night-light in my bedroom (that puts me around the age of nine). I've bought several of his books and still read them regularly ("Roger Ebert's Video Companion: 1996 Edition" might be the most bathroom "flagged" book within my library). He's a comforting voice in the increasing noise of film reviewing. He's like grandpa telling you a bedtime story, only the story is an editorial on the merits of Goodbye Solo… or Paul Blart: Mall Cop.
When Ebert says he loves or hates a film, I believe him. As the Paul Blart or Knowing reviews show, he has a non-conformist streak. Yet, he doesn't emit the stench of someone making overly calculated judgments to impress his peers or readers. He simply lays his thoughts out — mainstream opinion be damned — and then defends the hell out of them when the rotten vegetable hurlers arrive (read his current rebuke of the savage critical response to Knowing here). There's an honest sincerity about his opinions that's missing among the majority of critics. Hell, he exhibits a level of sincerity found wanting in all facets of today's culture, not just film criticism. And for that alone Ebert is a national treasure regardless of whether you think Knowing sucks or not.
Side Note: If you haven't already, I highly suggest you check out and bookmark Roger Ebert's blog. It is the best film blog on the Internet… Ever!!!
RSS Feed
| 17 comments so far 
news feeds