Roger Ebert on Evangelion

[NAveryW]

After reading that Evangelion 1.0 screened in Chicago, I decided to search Ebert's blog for "evangelion". The comments section of this page contained the following:

Hello there Mr. Ebert,

I've been reading your reviews for a couple of months now and I've been really impressed. I saw on your recomended movies "The Seven Samurai" and decided to watch it. Now it's one of my favorite movies. There was this one movie though that I wanted to see if you reviewed. It's technically the end of a television series so I don't know if you would watch it and understand whats going on, but if you're wondering what it is, it's called "End of Evangelion". I have absolutely no idea what it's actually rated (lazy people at MPAA never gave it there rating), but from some of the scenes make you think that it could be on the same graphic level as "Clockwork Orange" (no joke). Check the IMDB site for more information about the creepy things if you dare, but it would be interesting simply to see your response.

Sincerely,
A Movie Lover.

Ebert: Go to this link...

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/06/the_fall_of_the_revengers.html

...search the page for "Evangelion," and you will learn more than you might have dreamed.

So, Ebert is apparently familiar with Evangelion. I went to the page of The Fall of the Revengers and searched for "evangelion" as he said... and only found comments (one very lengthy) from other people. Ebert responded to one of them, but none of his response was about Evangelion. He's apparently familiar with it, but never really said anything about it.

So, I... guess that's it.

[child of Lilith]

To bad. I was hoping when I saw this thread that he'd said something about Eva.

[Galaxy News Reidio]

MFW I kept reading "Shia" as "Siha".

[C.A.P.]

Rats. Here's hoping time will be kind to him in the future regarding the series.

Also, did he just referenced "Everything You Ever Dreamed?"

[Trajan]

So he didn't actually say anything? Maybe he has a review on his site but I doubt it; as for Ebert having knowledge of Eva it doesn't surprise me, the series has defiantly achieved "cult status" here in the US.

[Guyver Spawn]

I was hoping he was reviewed 1.0. I'm pretty sure if he did saw 1.0 (or 1.11) then he would likely like it. This is coming from the same guy who like "The Mummy III" over "Fight Club" afterall.

[Eva Yojimbo]

I was kinda disappointed Ebert didn't say anything himself. Maybe if it gets recommended to him enough he'll eventually see it before he croaks.

This is coming from the same guy who like "The Mummy III" over "Fight Club" afterall.

Yeah, but Ebert likes a lot of artsy stuff over a lot of mainstream stuff as well. He, like every critic, has his occasional peculiarities.

[Killer Bee]

Do you think it would be wise for him to see EoE without seeing NGE first, though? EoE's already one of the hardest--if not, the hardest--movie to understand, and that's with having seen the rest of the show. Would EoE have even the tiniest chance in hell of getting a good review if Ebert watches it completely out of context?

[Xard]

Do you think it would be wise for him to see EoE without seeing NGE first, though? EoE's already one of the hardest--if not, the hardest--movie to understand, and that's with having seen the rest of the show. Would EoE have even the tiniest chance in hell of getting a good review if Ebert watches it completely out of context?

itt bitches don't know 'bout Inland Empire

[facespace]

I think he just needs more fan mail requesting him to watch/ review the series and maybe follow it up with EoE.

[liquidus118]

I've never really cared for Ebert. Everything I've ever read about him (Not a great deal, admitably) has made me wonder how anyone listened to him enough to make him as well-known as he is in the first place.
Although I would love to know what his thoughts on Evangelion are.

[NAveryW]

itt bitches don't know 'bout Inland Empire

Unless Lynch lied, Inland Empire isn't the sort of film you're supposed to try to understand. It's just supposed to evoke a dreamlike milieu. EoE's still good to go.

[Oz]

@liquidus118: Ebert is by far the most respectable American film critic - his argumentation and writing are great. Let me guess, you just disagree with him often, right?

[NAveryW]

He's probably the most respected, but I wouldn't call him the most respectable. Especially after the whole "Video games can't be art and I've never played a video game and I have no definition of art" thing.

[Oz]

Ebert does have his own set of problems (he made no sense at all in that debate), but that still puts him ahead of pretty much everyone else. The only exception to this is Mark Schilling and the other critics who write for Japan Times - who are located in Japan anyway.

[Eva Yojimbo]

I've never really cared for Ebert. Everything I've ever read about him has made me wonder how anyone listened to him enough to make him as well-known as he is in the first place.

Reading ABOUT him is not the same as reading HIM (what he, you know, actually writes). Ebert is an incredibly lucid critic with a phenomenal talent for relating to the mainstream, movie-going public even when it comes to discussing difficult, arty films and arguing why they're considered great. He's also got a knack for rhetorical turns-of-phrases and he somehow manages to walk that line between objective/analytical and personal/opinionated. Yeah, he's got his faults (what critic doesn't?), but he didn't become so popular for no good reason.

FWIW, I think there are others who are just as good (Rosenbaum, Hoberman, Scott), but they all have their failings, and I don't enjoy reading any of them as consistently as I do Ebert.

[liquidus118]

@liquidus118: Ebert is by far the most respectable American film critic - his argumentation and writing are great. Let me guess, you just disagree with him often, right?

Well, so far all I've seen of him is that he says video games can't be art - even though he admtis not knowing anything about them - simply because the player controls and interacts with the world, and after reading several of his reviews on his website he only ever seemed to do a plot overview with a short paragraph of opinion.

It's not that I disagree with him particuarly (I agree with him that games are probably never going to be considered art, but I find the reasons he offered to be rather lacking). I'm sure that there's some reason for all the credibility he has, I'm just saying that whenever I have read him, or read about him, it hasn't seemed to be as insightful as I've been led to believe. Perhaps it's just his later years or something, I don't know.

[Gendo'sPapa]

For Ebert to stay the world's leading film critic for over 30 years, even continue with his love of the profession to date after all his recent physical troubles, is commendable.

I may not always agree with him but that's part of the profession. If you agree with a critic 100% of the time than he's probably not that opinionated of a critic. But I love the man's writing and do love to read his reviews, especially when we disagree about the film in question.

Shame to know he'll probably never write a review of Evangelion. But then again, when you've written more detailed reviews than films most people can see in a lifetime it's impossible to cover everything.

[facespace]

Well, so far all I've seen of him is that he says video games can't be art - even though he admtis not knowing anything about them - simply because the player controls and interacts with the world, and after reading several of his reviews on his website he only ever seemed to do a plot overview with a short paragraph of opinion.

It's not that I disagree with him particuarly (I agree with him that games are probably never going to be considered art, but I find the reasons he offered to be rather lacking). I'm sure that there's some reason for all the credibility he has, I'm just saying that whenever I have read him, or read about him, it hasn't seemed to be as insightful as I've been led to believe. Perhaps it's just his later years or something, I don't know.

I don't to come off as an ass, but honestly I have to disagree with everything uo said. I do believe that video games will become art, but more importantly I see his writings to get better as the years go by. Movies now are not like the movies ten or twenty years ago, thte majority (not all, there are some serious exceptions) of films today have become simpler. Films are of a lesser quality than the film from the 70's and 80's (glory days of film), and it is very impressive that Ebert can still write about films in a beautiful way even though most of the films out there now are trash.

[liquidus118]

I don't to come off as an ass, but honestly I have to disagree with everything uo said. I do believe that video games will become art, but more importantly I see his writings to get better as the years go by. Movies now are not like the movies ten or twenty years ago, the majority (not all, there are some serious exceptions) of films today have become simpler. Films are of a lesser quality than the film from the 70's and 80's (glory days of film), and it is very impressive that Ebert can still write about films in a beautiful way even though most of the films out there now are trash.

Oh, don't worry about that. Disagreeing with me isn't being an ass. Disagreeing with people makes having an opinion interesting.

I tried to phrase that bit very carefully, and I guess I should have phrased it better. I was saying that they could never (By most people) be CONSIDERED art , not necesarilly never BE art (As that's subjective so I see other people's opinions to be irrelevant on it). Mainly because nowadays something like MGS4 or Heavy Rain can be called a masterpiece by journalists without being laughed at, and the fact that CoD of all things is the biggest selling and most popular franchise in gaming. I just don't see gaming gaining any intellectually credibility when we have Ethan having flashbacks that just stop when they are no longer convenient, nanomachines can be used as the answer to 20 years of questions and when an annual expansion pack under the guise of a new release. All of which are considered the best stories or games of the times. I just don't see an industry in that kind of depressingly abysmal state being taken seriously and considered "Art" by anyone other than gamers.

I agree that most films nowadays are hardly wonderful, but I don't really think quality of a film reflects the quality of the films, and from the reviews I've read he just summarises the plot and throws in an opinion at the end.