3:10, Ebert, and a Great Weekend for Flicks

Every friday morning, I arrive at work a little early so that I may sit down, drink some bean, and read all of Roger Ebert's reviews for the weekend's slate of new movies. I've done this for as long as I can remember. When I was younger, I would come home from school and read the USA Today's reviews, but have since realized that they just aren't as good as Ebert's. Plus, during his health absence last year, I missed him. Nobody writes better reviews than Ebert. Nobody. Period. He never condescends, never uses "industry" terms, and he always writes in a way that suggests a conversation he might have with a group of eager, young filmgoers.

I realized today just how much I missed him when I read his review for "3:10 To Yuma," to which he gave 4 out of 4 stars. When Ebert awards a film 4 stars (and he hates his star scale, forced upon him by the suits at the Times), it is a time to stand and take notice. He doesn't do it too often, and his tastes may not always be mine, but when he dishes out 4 stars, I have to to give the film a chance and view it through my own, 4-star lenses because Ebert said so.

Speaking of taste, Ebert pretty much dictated my taste in film, save, of course, for his unfavorable review of the original DIE HARD - a review I took personally for many years. I think if Ebert were to revisit this, he would reward it with a more positive review, especially with some of the awful action franchises since.

When I say that he dictated my tastes, let me explain: Ebert LOVES intelligent characters who are true to themselves - not the plot. If a character in a film does something which is only in service of the plot, and not something that seems true to the textures of their character, then Ebert jumps all over it. More than anything, though, Ebert loves when two well-developed, intelligent characters square off, be it in an action film, a drama, or a horror film, and he finds tremendous pleasure in it and even writes his best reviews about it. I think Ebert's love of intelligent characters stems from his love of literature, where a character's motivations are under a much tighter microscope because literature typically unfolds much more deliberately.

So, when a movie takes time to develop two characters, give them a definitive voice, and allows them to interact, it truly is a pleasure and I share Ebert's enthusiasm for it.

In his 3:10 review, he writes a passage that truly gets me excited about the film. It reminded me of his review for "Collateral," one of my favorite flick of the past 10 years. Actually, maybe what Ebert wrote reminded me of my own feelings about Collateral, but what's the difference. In his review, Ebert writes:

"Locked in the hotel room, surrounded by death for one or the other, the two men begin to talk. Without revealing anything of the plot, let me speculate that each has found the first man he has met in years who is his equal in conversation. Crowe and Bale play this dialogue so precisely that it never reveals itself for what it really is, a process of mutual insight."

This is high praise and the type of criticism that I've come to love from Ebert. It gets me excited for this movie and makes me even more happy that Hollywood is taking the time to develop big studio flicks that still observe character development. You'll hear me say this all the time, but there is truly nothing better in film than when two intelligent, well-defined characters square off because by that time, the audience will have invested something in each of them and when that scene comes, where the characters come to understand one another, its amazing.