comment #1

christian says ...

bless ebert for BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS but he has a thing about trumpeting any african american film or actor to the point of non-objectivity.

he also gave thumbs up to THE GOLDEN CHILD and thumbs down to BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA.

draw your own conclusions.

comment #2

bipedalist says ...

Get him, Jeff, GET HIM!

comment #3

bipedalist says ...

p.s. Ebert "personally endorses" someone in every category - yes, Murphy, yes Hudson, yes Scorsese, yes Babel, etc. Like a dog with a bone!

comment #4

Dixon Steele says ...

Not so, Christian.

Ebert loathes the work of Tyler Perry, as does every other white critic in America.

comment #5

D.Z. says ...

I'll give Ebert a break this time, since he's still recovering.

comment #6

Craig Kennedy says ...

Back off Ebert, man. It's not like he ginned up evidence to support the US invasion of Iraq or soemthing.

comment #7

Phil says ...

Maybe Dreamgirls was the only movie he saw in 2006.

comment #8

bipedalist says ...

Right, like Ebert doesn't get sent all of the screeners?

comment #9

Roman says ...

Jeff, I don't like Murphy any more than you do. However, I think I'm beginning to like him more than I like you.

Shut up. Just shut up and let it go. You don't want him to win, we get it. Got it a long time. I'm sick of reading your posts on him on daily basis. It isn't news and it's only making you look bad.

comment #10

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Roman: Thank you. I've never once felt prouder or been more at peace with the notion of looking bad in my life. If you really and truly prefer Murphy's horseshit to mine and you've got a way of rolling with everything he stands for, then fine.

comment #11

Roman says ...

"Wells to Roman: Thank you. I've never once felt prouder or been more at peace with the notion of looking bad in my life. If you really and truly prefer Murphy's horseshit to mine and you've got a way of rolling with everything he stands for, then fine. "

Jeff, to me all horseshit was created equally. I don't differentiate between it. I treat it the same coming from you and from Murphy.

But good job putting your own spin on what Ebert said and good job trying to do the same to me.

comment #12

Walter Sobchak says ...

Roger Ebert is continuously competing with Ken Burns for the title of "Guiltiest White Man in America" so that comes as no big suprise. ("New Jack City"? Thumbs up!... "Menace II Society"? "Poetic Justice"? "Soul Food"? Thumbs up! "Any Movie About the 'Hood"? Thumbs up!)

comment #13

Walter Sobchak says ...

I don't know if it's 100% true, but I've been told that Eddie Murphy is supplying nukes to Al-Qaeda, as well as canisters of deadly mustard gas to insurgents in Iraq.

- Jeffrey Wells

comment #14

VictorLazlo says ...

WALTER SOBCHAK: New Jack City was a fun little throwback to 30s gangster movies, totally deserved the 3 star rating by Ebert. ANd MENACE II SOCIETY is an unsung masterpiece on par with MEAN STREETS. It deserved the four star rating by Ebert. The question is, what do you have against "Movies about the hood" and why can't you judge them on their individual merits?

comment #15

ROTC says ...

Jeff, in case no one has already made this point: The problem is that you always seem to be strenuously campaigning against some film instead of being a strong proponent in favor of a particular contender. Whether it be Return of the King, Munich, or now Dreamgirls, your reputation now is as an embittered spoiler, not a passionate advocate. That in large part is what distinguishes you at this time of year from your dumbass rival Dave Poland, who's notorious for prematurely backing the wrong horse and then spending months lambasting everyone who sanely disagrees with him. Funny thing is that, this year at least, both of you have foolishly set up your ridiculous hubris tents in the Dreamgirls camp.

comment #16

Dan Revill says ...

God bless Ebert.
I'm guessing his preference for director is Eastwood...

comment #17

Craptastic says ...

Wells hates Murphy because he gets more men than he does.

Wells, don't you have anything better to do? Its WELL known that Murphy isn't the coolest guy in the world to work with. MOVE ON.

comment #18

gruver1 says ...

Wells to ROTC: You're absolutely dead fucking right -- I never run repeated passionate pieces in favor of "The Departed," Leonardo DiCaprio's performance in that film, or "Children of Men" or "The Lives of Others" or "Volver" or "United 93" or any other worthy '06 films. And I haven't run any positive pieces about "Zodiac" either. What can I say? You nailed me, dude....you've exposed me for the crabby neg-head that I really and truly am.

comment #19

Roman says ...

"Jeff, in case no one has already made this point: The problem is that you always seem to be strenuously campaigning against some film instead of being a strong proponent in favor of a particular contender. Whether it be Return of the King, Munich, or now Dreamgirls, your reputation now is as an embittered spoiler, not a passionate advocate. That in large part is what distinguishes you at this time of year from your dumbass rival Dave Poland, who's notorious for prematurely backing the wrong horse and then spending months lambasting everyone who sanely disagrees with him. Funny thing is that, this year at least, both of you have foolishly set up your ridiculous hubris tents in the Dreamgirls camp."

What you must not forget is that Jeff Wells is a worst kind of hater, a hater who must constantly hate something and most often ends up hating a frontrunner.

He is a type of man who is incapable of praising one thing without putting down the other.

comment #20

TheScott2K says ...

Wells, you've run waaay more "fuck Eddie Murphy" pieces in the last few weeks than favorable "passion" pieces for another film. It is clear that your number 1 concern right now is making sure that your impotent rage is directed at making sure Eddie Murphy doesn't win Best Supporting Actor. Occasionally mentioning that you think United 93 isn't getting enough love doesn't come close to counterbalancing that.

comment #21

ROTC says ...

Sasha (bipedalist), do you have any idea why Ebert "prefers not to say" who his choice is for Best Director? I cannot imagine that he's afraid to offend any of the nominated directors or that he's embarrassed/intimidated to express his choice. Maybe he hasn't seen the work of all the nominees?

comment #22

ROTC says ...

"Wells to ROTC: You're absolutely dead fucking right -- I never run repeated passionate pieces in favor of "The Departed," Leonardo DiCaprio's performance in that film, or "Children of Men" or "The Lives of Others" or "Volver" or "United 93" or any other worthy '06 films. And I haven't run any positive pieces about "Zodiac" either. What can I say? You nailed me, dude....you've exposed me for the crabby neg-head that I really and truly am."

Jeff, sorry to tell you but, in case you haven't noticed, not many of your readers seem to remember those supportive pieces. All that lingers is your relentless daily Sherman-esque take-down efforts against Dreamgirls and its predecessors. Maybe you just suck as an advocate.

comment #23

bipedalist says ...

ROTC - I Yeah, I think he prefers not to say because he loves Marty and he'd like, like so many others, to see him win. But that doesn't mean he thinks he deserves to win, as in, he probably thinks Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu "deserves" it because he made what Ebert thinks is the best pic. Also, he might not want to say because he believes Eastwood and/or Gonzalez Inarritu truly deserve it. The point here is that Ebert is wise enough to know his influence. If he starts saying Marty doesn't deserve to win he knows it would start people thinking the same and eventually maybe leading to YET another loss for Scorsese.

He clearly states in his piece that it's time for Scorsese to win. But he isn't so up on the Departed - and I think the reason for that is the whole remake thing. People like Ebert who liked or loved Infernal affairs do not see The Departed as its own separate work worthy of awards (I do, of course, and I've seen both films).

But all due to respect to the man, this is kind of a way to have it both ways. He wants Marty to finally win yet he wants people to know he doesn't think it's his best film (Scorsese will always be punished for having made superior works earlier in his career).

And as to Wells - I do see him as a passionate advocate for films, absolutely. No one championed Children of Men and The Lives of Others the way he did. Christ, look at what he did with Factory Girl. He is both. The Murphy thing falls into its own category and ought to be cut out of Wells' soul to leave room for more beautiful things. you know, like nourishing private stuff.

comment #24

ROTC says ...

Sasha (bipedalist), that's very interesting. Feel free to correct me if my memory is faulty, but I seem to recall a relevant incident from a couple of years ago when Ebert went on either Leno or Conan prior to the Oscars. He proceeded to endorse Scorsese for The Aviator, but admitted that he didn't think Scorsese was the best in that year's field nor that he deserved the award for that particular movie. It sounds like Ebert may believe that that kind of honest but qualified endorsement put the final nail in Scorsese's coffin, and he doesn't want that to happen again this year.

comment #25

gruver1 says ...

Wells to ROTC: I know how to write well and say what I mean, so I don't see how I could suck as an advocate. What lingers in your head is your issue, pal.

comment #26

ROTC says ...

BTW, Jeff, I apologize for that "maybe you suck as an advocate" remark. I actually agree that, if anyone is paying attention, you can be very persuasive in your support of films like Children of Men, to which I was first drawn by your columns. But by distracting your readers with all of your relentless Dreamgirls/Eddie Murphy/et al bashing, your passionate support of certain films is routinely subsumed and buried by your hatred of others. Hubris, my friend, hubris.

comment #27

Craptastic says ...

Guys and Gals,

I've dealt with Wells before and can honestly tell you that he is the biggest BABY "working" in Hollywood.

Its funny how all of your Eddie Murphy complaints can easily be applied to yourself. Maybe THAT'S what you really hate.

comment #28

Walter Sobchak says ...

It's been reported that Eddie Murphy is 100% in favor of the war in Iraq, however he allegedly does NOT support our troops.

-Jeffrey Wells

comment #29

Walter Sobchak says ...

Fred Merkel at ijustlovemovies.com is reporting that Eddie Murphy was behind New Coke back in 1985, cheered when the space shuttle Challenger exploded and hated the film "Children of Men". He also apparently spends much of his free time as a puppy vivisectionist. Hey, it's what I heard.

-Jeffrey Wells

comment #30

The Movie Man says ...

I really like, respect and miss Ebert's writing, but he does, as Christian and Walter suggest, seem to have a guilty white man thing going on, and anything with an "I'm ok, your ok" message normally gets a free pass, maybe even a rave.. But Menace II Society is a very strong film and worthy of the acclaim and he certainly wasn't the only one championing that one.

comment #31

Craptastic says ...

Eddie Murphy created the HEAD ON commercials

comment #32

jeffmcm says ...

Ebert liked Crash. Nuff said.

comment #33

Craptastic says ...

It doesn't matter what Ebert liked/disliked... its that he backs up his opinion is a very articulate way. What sets him apart from other critics is that he'll tells us in these reviews how these films made him feel and how he related to them in a personal fashion. That's why people love him. He genuninely LOVES movies.

People don't like Wells because he simply spews bile. Take a lesson from the master, moon face.

comment #34

Craptastic says ...

"in" a very articulate way (will allow pot shots for that one)

comment #35

Walter Sobchak says ...

Roger Ebert:
"Speed 2: Cruise Control", "Nutty Professor 2: The Klumps", "Armagedeon"...Thumbs Up!
"Rushmore", "Welcome to Sarajevo"... Thumbs Down!
(I'm not making that up, btw)
Few people write so eloquently about film like he does, and I've always appreciated his work. (I've been watching him since I was a kid and he and Siskel hosted "Coming Soon to a Theater Near You" back in the late '70s) But let's face it. He lost it a few years ago. I likes practically EVERYTHING. And when he doesn't like something, he goes overboard dumping on it, as if making up for all the crap he did like. And he wants to legally change his name to Hoop Dreams Ebert.

comment #36

jeffmcm says ...

My understanding wasn't that Wells was championing Factory Girl because he loved it (since he was doing so for months before it came out) but out of some kind of Weinstein-related publicity con game. Lives of Others and Children of Men have plenty of proponents out there, but Factory Girl has a Rottentomatoes rating of 14% and as I recall, Wells was so-so (sorry, mezzo-mezzo) when he actually saw it.

comment #37

Craptastic says ...

"Welcome to Sarajevo"? Couldn't you come up with something better than that?

I loved "Rushmore" but I know a lot of people who didn't. Wes Anderson is either you get it or don't. He's not for everyone.

As for the other "questionable" films he's liked... Who is ANYONE to knock someone's opinion? If Nutty Professor made him laugh-- good for him. I'm sure I've seen films that have cracked me up ("Wet Hot American Summer") to no end that someone else is going to hate.

Just because you disagree with him does not make him any less of a critic.

comment #38

The Movie Man says ...

Walter and Craptastic have it right, Ebert's tastes are debatable but he's one of the clearest, most passionate, appealing writers about film in the business. His reviews should be read for the entertainment value of reading them, the actual opinion they contain should sometimes be taken with a grain of salt.

Oh, and Walter, he also liked Tomb Raider and modern The Haunting, to of my favorite what the hell was he thinking? of recent years.

comment #39

Walter Sobchak says ...

Movie Man and Craptastic..... Thumbs Up to your excellent responses! They were the "feel-good" responses of the year!

comment #40

Craptastic says ...

Ha! Ha! Good one, Walter. Made me laugh out loud.

comment #41

Craig Kennedy says ...

An Ebert review of a contemporary film can be a dicey proposition, but since he's stated he tries to judge a film on its own terms and in comparison to other movies of its kind, it's not fair to...

Oh nevermind, he doesn't need me defending him.

comment #42

rocco says ...

As others have said Jeff, you've spent more energy and created more bad karma with regards to Murphy than all the positive energy you have ever put behind films, performances, or other causes...combined. Even your Al Gore love affair lasted for only a few pieces.

It doesn't matter what you shoot back with in these comments...it doesn't matter how you perceive yourself...it's about how your actions and your words cause others to perceive you.

What is it about Murphy that's different? So many self-absorbed assholes are in this industry, an industry you have voluntarily chosen to cover. Being an advocate for anything in Hollywood almost guarantees backing someone who is an egomaniac, I would think you would have resigned yourself to this long ago. Is it about power?? Do you feel neutered or impotent in your personal life? Take the advice of your loyal readers and your friends, such as Sasha...this has crossed the line of being a hobby or a cause; it's become an obsession, a compulsion...it's not healthy. You put out some good, meaty stuff today...focus on that, and bring H-e back to form. If you're suffering from burnout, well, there's always old-media.

comment #43

christian says ...

i find ebert's reviews the least nourishing around. he spends three paragraphs describing the plot and then some various throwaway insights. but i loved him on pbs back in the day...

comment #44

ROTC says ...

I'm sorry, but Ebert changed a lot when he became EBERT®, especially after Siskel died and he never found a worthy counterbalance. I honestly believe his judgment got impaired by his own celebrity and the amount of money at stake, especially when Siskel's death put his own commercial future at risk, whereupon his reviews took on a decidedly more commercial bent. And no matter how much he may love movies or how eloquent Ebert can be, a truly great critic's opinions ultimately have to survive the test of time to be judged worthy.

Sadly, I also don't buy that he's ever going to recover enough of his voice to comie back to the airwaves, but we're being led to believe otherwise so the cash truck can continue making its deliveries to his house. Remember, whether he's there or not, his name is still trademarked on the show. So both he, Roeper and the program's producers continue to have a lot at stake in its continued airing for as long as possible, even if Ebert himself never returns to the main chair again.

comment #45

ROTC says ...

Don't know where that extra "Â" in the first sentence came from. It should just read as EBERT with a circle-R.

comment #46

nemo says ...

My taste meter must be way off. I liked both "New Jack City" and "Welcome to Sarajevo". Neither one was great, but both felt like time and money reasonably well spent. NJC was worthy of comparisons with "Little Caesar" or Cagney's "Public Enemy" or Paul Muni's "Scarface".

I also don't get what's so bad about Wells venting on his pet hates such as Eddie Murphy. Yeah, it's getting tiresome. But not half as tiresome as all the backtalk about how he should shut up and move on, or how he's becoming a pathetic obsessive loser.

Good God, let the guy get his hate on. We don't all have to be nice and even-handed all the time.

Whenever Alice Roosevelt, Teddy's daughter, threw a party, she used to put a pillow beside her on the couch that said, "If you don't have anything nice to say about anybody, then come sit here next to me." Wells would have been her kind of guy.

It's boring to hear only what someone likes, and not what they dislike. It's one of things that makes me uneasy about Obama as a candidate -- his relentless need to be positive all the time, and his constant fear of saying anything that might ruffle anybody's feathers.

comment #47

hiviper says ...

bravo, Nemo.
Every time Wells posts on Murphy, or what others are writing about him, I just sit back and watch the usual suspects fill up the comments section with their bitching and whining about "negativity" and "vendettas", etc, etc. If they want a nice movie blog site without honest opinions or off-the-cuff remarks, then psst: GET LOST! But they can't - they keep coming back because they like this joint. The fact that they keep posting proves it.