Critics and Horror

Definitely his worst and most ignorant opinion (and I say this as someone who rarely indulges in gaming). His stance here was pitiful. Thankfully he didn't continue talking about it for years and years. Ebert dissed horror for decades, with few exceptions.

Though Ebert's take on video games was stupid, he did at least make a follow up article where he took back what he said in that article. It can be summed up as "I guess I was being a snobby prick and maybe I actually don't get it after all, so I'll just keep my mouth shut."

https://www.rogerebert.com/roger-ebe...lay-on-my-lawn

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

He's probably the type of person to smell his own farts, most likely from San Francisco.

__________________
“I really have to feel that I could make a difference in the movie, or I shouldn't be doing it.“
Joe Dante

I can appreciate that. It's still a little perplexing that he can "not get it," but it's thoughtful of him to at least recognize that's the case.

But yeah, such a weird position to take at all. It's not art because it's interactive? So there's no such thing as interactive theater or performance art? Just weird.

Yeah, it was a really weird position to take for sure.

As for Ebert in general, I don't want to be too harsh on him as, in spite of his occasional blunders, he did write many quality reviews and I definitely consider him to be one of the best critics that I'm familiar with. But yeah, when he failed, he really failed.

Oh, yeah, that's why the position is so weird: he was always thoughtful, a tremendous writer, and he seemed to grasp the medium on a deep level. It's very unusual for someone like that to have such a far-reaching artistic blind spot. But hey, we've all got something, I guess. This something just makes less sense to me than most.

Every time Ebert comes up I have this imaginary footnote regarding his weird comment about Emma Watson. Not sure what he was thinking there. I say that as someone with two books of his reviews.

What comment ?

Also, his review of Fast Times at Ridgemont High was incredibly creepy.

Too lazy to look it up so I'm just going to assume he said something about wanting to tap dat ass. I just hope it wasn't in a review for Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

__________________

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/h...f-secrets-2002

"Hermione Granger (Emma Watson, in the early stages of babehood)"

Yup that is officially creepy

I don’t think it was ill-intentioned just very badly phrased.

And ultimately an inaccurate prediction since I don’t think Emma Watson is considered any sort of a sex-symbol

I don't really agree. There are lots of horrors out there that have wide acclaim, and rightly so. Some from this year even ('St Maude' has been lauded as one of the year's best films, it is great). Maybe you're being specific to American films? I'm not sure which Suspiria you mean.

Then you have films like 'Audition' / 'Angst' / 'Spoorloos' which are rightly seen as some of the very best horror films ever made.

She looks pretty now, but that's kinda pervy.

This is about how horror has pretty much been shunned by critics for years. I mean the Dario Argento Suspiria

Well I don't really agree. Having said that I don't really read many critics opinions, perhaps the ones I do follow (Kermode and Bradshaw) are the exceptions?

Makes sense.

Oh, I don’t know. A lot of horror really is abysmal. The fact that few people here would watch that kind of horror doesn’t change the fact. Otherwise, I don’t feel critics’ treatment of horror is that different from that of anything else. If it’s art-house-y, understated and explores some kind of deep-rooted psychological issue between the characters, it gets a pass. The Babadook is a good film, but it was ridiculously well received. I believe at one point it was rated 99% by RT and something similar by Metacritic. I don’t want to get into politics or anything like that right now, but as with anything, ‘edginess’, using non-traditional casts and selling a philosophy get you an automatic pass, just as with other genres.

Horror is, by any standard I've seen, definitely not well considered critically. It's greatest contributions rarely get any consideration for 'greatest ever' polls like Sight and Sound. A great majority of its canonical titles were critical misfires when they came out, and many are only now given credit only as successes for the genre. Any horror film that deals with anything taboo or extreme are usually critically reviled. Unlike lots of critical darlings of the indie drama variety, horror films are rarely forgiven for evidence of low budgets, guerilla type filmmaking and are much more dependant on established talent being attached. They are misunderstood and neglected representatives of cinematic art, often belittled for puritanical reasons and a bias favoring' high art' over what is seen as just cheap grist for the masses to gobble up. And don't even get me started on grindhouse and exploitation fare. Generally only turkey time reviews to be found for these wonderful monstrosities, even though they could be thought of as one of the most creatively inspired subgenres in all of film.

Horror (as well as a couple of other genres) is simply behind the eight ball critically, a disadvantage that can be found pretty consistently throughout the decades. There are definitely some anecdotal successes for the genre, but those are the exception to the rule, and they generally have to be pretty immaculately made to get begrudging respect.

No there isn't!

__________________