As early as 2012, when the future of film criticism seemed particularly gloomy ahead of the Associated Press decision to limit the 500 -word entertainment writers, Roger Ebert wrote a reckless defense of the profession to which he dedicated his life. In "Death of movie critics! Greetings to Celebcult!" The rated film critic was arguing against the idea that critics were there to simply reflect the readers' views. "Newspaper film critic needs to encourage critical thinking," he wrote, "Introduce new developments, consider the local scene, look away from the weekend fanboy specials, be a meteorome of social trends, bring more contexts, teach, get in, inform, get in, to be informed. During his career, he certainly adhered to those principles, and while there are countless reviews showing this commitment, perhaps the best is his efficient Terrace Lakeview (though Ebert's negative takeover for a particular crime thriller in the 90's Oscar in the 90's is also a good example).

Directed by Neil Labtut, this crime thriller starred Samuel L. in 2008. Acksexone like Abel Turner, the incessant policeman in Los Angeles, who got angry when a couple, played by Patrick Wilson and Carrie Washington, moved to the house beside him. After appointing the guardian of his quiet suburb, Turner chooses to make the lives of new arrivals alive hell by undertaking more hostile activities, which eventually encourages the newlyweds to fight. All this culminates with the last act that most critics consider somewhere to be a certain (without any shot), given the previous previous attempts by the film to deal with the race. However, Ebert was not one of these critics.

When Roger Ebert gave his opinion on the film, he carried more weight than probably every other voice on the ground. After all, he was the first film critic to win the Pulitzer Award for criticism, but his cultural relevance and influence were just as important, if not more. Long before that Rotten tomatoes (whose success is, ironically, is probably Ebert's fault) turned film criticism into a binary game of "fresh" and "spoiled", columnist Chicago Sonde-Times was there "inciting critical thinking" with his always careful prose. He was not always "right" (he gave Ben Affleck's bad "Daredeville", three Starswells, while awarding only "orange watches" with two on a four scale), but he was always reflective and insightful.

However, no one could see Ebert's review for "Lake Terrace" comes. The Midlive Thriller got a score of 44% Rotten tomatoesWhat, again, is not the best gauge, but is instructed in this example. Critics were mostly unimpressed, with the Wall Street Journalournal Oeo Morgenstra seemingly descended from the film style, writing: "The only mark of film restraint is the absence of an earthquake." Meanwhile, Wesley Morris of Boston Globe has managed to show his limit, thinking that the film "can have something to say about black racism, but the talks go nowhere, and the clichés of the genre are taking them." It seems to be the true essential cruelty of critics for Lakeview Terrace, with Deborah Ross from the viewer focusing on the third act and his indulgence in the "Convention of the General" that results in "firing the greatest stupidity". In his review of Philadelphia ancherier, Steven Re also appeared with "frenetia, far-reaching culmination", writing that by the time the last act is going on, "the pronunciation of the racial intolerance research film is exposed to what is really: A B-MOVO."

According to these critics, then, if the film had something to say about the race in the United States, he was abandoned in part. Then, again, several writers did not think that there was much to be said at all, with Jo Neumeyer of the New York Daily News wrote "Terrace" pretends to be about the persecution of a mixed race when it really is about how someone can respond to the next door. stars.

To be clear, Roger Ebert has set perfect results many times, giving Clint Eastwood's honor and "Further" to Matt Damon ", "The Red Mantle" of 1972 and the "Dragon" in 2012, just to name a few. He was also not the only critic who liked Lakeview Terrace. Nigel Andrews of the Financial Times gave the film a positive review, thinking that Samuel L. Acksexone played his role "with the wicked finality". But a four -embroidery review? What did Ebert have so much so much? Well, for one thing, he thought that Acksexon casting as a "racist" neighbor was inspired because "it creates an assumption of innocence that some will keep longer than the story." If the roles were reversed, in the opinion of Ebert, viewers would not have to deal with their automatically favorable view of the neighborhood psychopath. For him, this caused difficult questions that the audience had no choice but to face. "Is this film racist for making a villain black or would it be equally racist with the villain Bell?" He asks in his review. "So? What's your answer?"

The film's willingness to ask such unpleasant questions and to present difficult moral elections it seems to have fueled Ebert's enthusiasm. Later in the review, he praised director Neil Labut for asking equally difficult questions about Patrick Wilson Chris's character and his wife's commitment. "Even while doing a top thriller," Ebert wrote, "Labut makes the film more than that. He deals with one of his themes, the difficult transition from prolonged adolescence in masculinity." While most critics thought the film left his commitment to exploring deeper ideas in the middle, Ebert thought he was with them throughout the period, eventually revealing that while he knew which of the characters was "good and bad and strong", he was not sure if they did.

In the end, Ebert seems to have found him in Lakeview Terrace the very thing he appreciated for film criticism: critical thinking. "I think movies like this alive and provoking," he wrote, "I am also thrilled to challenge my thinking at every step of the way." That was what Ebert behaved - causing his readers to think deeper and critically. Obviously, he found "Lakeview Terrace" to do just that.