The Gross Report
What's up with Ebertfest this year?
Roger Ebert's 2008 Overlooked Picks
Apr. 16, 2008 - by Jeffrey Gross – Buzz Writer
What’s up with Ebertfest this year?
Don’t get me wrong, I have great respect for Roger Ebert. He is the man who got me into movies when I was a kid. More often than not, I find my opinion syncs up to his within half a star. This is not one of those times.
At each of Ebert’s past Ebertfests, he has always chosen an eclectic set of films that I have and have not seen that always makes me say “ooh” when I see the list. He always has one epic classic like La Dolce Vita or Lawrence of Arabia that is screened. This year, the epic is Kenneth Branagh’s version of Hamlet. While the movie is supposed to be superb, it is no “classic” in the sense of the aforementioned film. Why did Ebert have to choose a modern epic over something older that he could introduce young audiences to (such as a lost Kubrick classic like Barry Lyndon)? I am not questioning Ebert’s choice of film here; I simply want to know why the change of pace. I liked the old classics.
What I am questioning is Ebert’s choice of several of the other films in the festival this year. Sure there are some great unknown films like Yes and Underworld(no, not the Kate Beckinsale movie), but what the hell are movies like The Cell and The Hulk doing in the line up!?
Seriously, The Hulk?
Just in case you didn’t grasp the gravity of the situation, let me try this one more time.
Roger Ebert is screening The Hulk at Ebertfest...
He isn’t screening the new Incredible Hulk that stars Edward Norton, but rather the Eric Bana one from 2003 that completely sucked ass and almost ruined Bana’s career.
To quote the internet, “WTF MATE?!”
And The Cell? Cmon. It wasn’t that good. There are plenty of other unknown, yet much better horror movies that Ebert could screen. What about The Cube or even Magic. Why The Cell?
After having seen contemporary films like Millions, Claire Dolan and Bad Santa in past Ebertfests, I cannot help but be disappointed until proven otherwise. I’ll give The Cell another chance (hell, it’s got Vincent D’Onofrio in it), but there is no justification for showing the movie The Hulk.
So my question here is this: why are you screening these movies, Roger? I have such respect for you as a film connoisseur, so I know there must be a good reason. Please, share it with me.
On a side note, I will be present at the screenings of Hamlet, Yes, Underworld, and The Cell. Say hi if you see me.
Finally, I thought I’d end this Report with a random suggestion -- having been labeled “the connoisseur of cocoa krispies” by my friend Laura, I must ask that all comments directed towards me by readers and Illini Media staff in the future refers to me thusly.
On second thought, I just realized what that abbreviates to, so scratch that suggestion. ;)
Sound Off
The views expressed are the sole responsibility of the visitors who submitted them and do no represent the opinions of the217, WPGU, buzz or Illini Media staff members.
Katharine O'Brian says:
I completely agree. The Hulk was such a terrible movie. I still can't look at Nick Nolte. And The Cell was visually interesting, but any movie that has Vince Vaughn getting disemboweled has gone a little too far.
Fairfield says:
I must be the only person in the world (aside from Ebert?) that liked the Hulk. I will admit, the ending could have used a little bit of work, but the film itself is beautiful. The took what could have been a mindless, schlocky action film and made something introspective and flowing. It'll be interesting to see what they have to say about it when they present it.
I was hoping that this was the Denis Leary revenge film Underworld, but alas it isn't. That said, the version of Underworld I'm thinking of is a hidden gem of a film. You should watch it.
Jeff Brandt says:
I agree. WTF. I thought this festival was for films you can't find everywhere.
Michael Yohanan says:
Hopefully Roger (or those who are presenting) will prove why he chose the Hulk.