In Reply to: Ebert: A Critical defense of Crash posted by RGA on January 11, 2006 at 13:30:33:
I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions of that group of critics mentioned in Ebert's article, but I assure you, having read reviews by them over the years, they *do* know how to watch film. And they know how to write.And really - A.O Scott and David Eddelstien as "art house" critics? (The guys from The Voice and The Reader I think could *maybe be called iconoclasts.)
Movies is movies. There are good ones and bad ones. Not all art/independent/foreign films are good and not all commercial films are bad.
I don't find that Ebert is vague in his reviews - sometimes I think he's a bit soft, draws the wrong conclusions or doesn't pick up on things that seem evident to me. But he is normally quite articulate about his reasons fro liking or disliking a movie. OTOH, in this instance, I don't think, however well argued his article is, that Ebert makes the other critics look like dummies. Nevertheless, I do appreciate the enthusiam and love for film Ebert conveys in his writings.
FYI: Crash has appeared on some critics Ten Best of '05 Lists.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Sez you. - Harmonia 19:51:03 01/11/06 (0)