Editor's Note: This opinion is solely of Peter Van (bwbm) and does not reflect the opinions or ideas of TFormers.com or Entertainment News International
Surely many of you have read Roger Ebert's review of
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, which to put it lightly, was scathing.
We won't bore you with his actual review (but
it's here), which begins with, "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is a horrible experience of unbearable length, briefly punctuated by three or four amusing moments."
So, obviously, Ebert didn't like the film, and he felt the need to defend what he thought of the film and what he thought of others who wrote to him or directed something towards him that disagreed with him.
His message to you? You're wrong.
He doesn't stop there, though.
Ebert writes on his blog at the
Chicago Sun Times website that tells a story about his old colleague, the recent Gene Siskel:
I am fond of the story I tell about Gene Siskel. There is a point when a personal opinion shades off into an error of fact. When you say 'The Valachi Papers' is a better film than 'The Godfather,' you are wrong." Quite true. We should respect differing opinions up to certain point, and then it's time for the wise to blow the whistle.
Ebert then decides to insult some of the active members of the fandom, writing, they "are nine blooms short of a bouquet." He does say we have spirited discussions, though, so it balances out, I suppose?
While Ebert is definitely very good at panning the movies he hates and lauding the movies he likes, is it necessary to actually write about us in that form or fashion? As a critic, he should know that he will receive backlash from the people who like a film he hates.
Ebert also writes:
Do I ever have one of those days when, the hell with it, all I want to do is eat popcorn and watch explosions? I haven't had one of those days for a long time. There are too many other films to see. I've had experiences at the movies so rich, so deep--and yes, so funny and exciting--that I don't want to water the soup.
So why go watch a movie in a genre you don't enjoy? Now, it comes to a point that was made on our podcast this past week by one of the contributors. Why do film critics watch every single film? Films have specific audiences.
For me, I hate watching horror films. Not because of the storylines or the gore, I simply don't like them (okay, maybe watching people getting stabbed continuously in the legs is a little squeamish for me, but I digress).
Why then, does the Chicago Sun Times or whomever also employs Ebert, not have him review the films he enjoys?
Simply, Mr. Ebert, it's not necessary for you to defend your reviews if you don't feel sorry for what you wrote. Defending your writing and why you believe whoever thought the movie was a good film is wrong, you already show you are stumbling.
I don't enjoy his reviews nor do I pay attention to them, but I respect his work and what he does because it's his job. But I don't believe he has the right to tell 56% of 2354 people that chose "Loved it" in our
recent poll are wrong.
The story he recounts from Mr. Siskel is funny to say the least. But just because people think
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is good, doesn't mean that we discard all other films.
Why are we not allowed to judge films based on themselves?
Why must we consider
Revenge and rank it along with other films?
The answer, simply put, is we don't have to.
P.S. If you listened to this week's podcast, you'll know I enjoyed the film. Did I love it? No, but if I voted, I'd give it a "4."
Do I rank it as one of the best films of the year? Again, no.
But I wouldn't say, "Transformers sucked because
Up was better," because I'd rather compare this red apple and this orange fruit sitting on my desk.
