Siskel and Ebert review 'The End of Violence'
http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/ebertandroeper/index2.html ?sec=6&subsec=the+end+of
shareVery interesting. I've never seen Ebert & Siskel so divided on a film. That review perfectly illustrates the 2 reactions to this film. The Ebert types don't get it, so they say it's pointless, silly and full of plot holes. The Siskel types grasp everything--the plot, theme and poetry behind it--and they give it high praise. It's a similar phenomenon with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which Ebert also didn't get).
shareEbert gave 2001 four stars in his initial review and includes it on his top 10 list.
If I could drop dead right now, I'd be the happiest man alive.
Ebert was wowed by the special effects, like a child dazzled by pretty lights, but it's clear from his 1968 review that he didn't get it, saying "it failed on a human level" and totally missing the philosophy. After some 30 years of consideration (and the film's incontrovertible success) he wrote another review, put it in his top 10 list and claimed that his first review was hurriedly written to meet a deadline. So yeah maybe in 30 years he'll change his tune about End of Violence if it becomes a smash success...
shareThere were plenty of abstract, impenetrable art films made over the decades that Ebert "got". Your dismissal of "Ebert types" (whatever that is) is silly and unfounded. Ebert praised plenty of other Wenders films that were/are better than this one. 'The End of Violence' is a minor work ( I say this as someone that isn't much of a Wenders fan).
shareDidn't mean to offend the Ebert fanboys out there; I was just talking about his particular reactions to End of Violence and 2001 A Space Odyssey.
share