A poor criminal thriller from Samuel L. Jackson received a perfect score from Roger Ebert

In 2012, when the future of cinematographic criticism seemed particularly dark following the decision of Associated Press to limit entertainment writers to 500 words, Roger Ebert wrote a passionate defense of the profession to which he had dedicated his life. In “Death to Film Critics! Hail to the Celebcult!,” The film critic argued that the criticisms were there to simply reflect the opinions of the readers. “A film critic should encourage critical thinking,” he wrote, “present new developments, consider the local scene, watch beyond the weekend fanboy specials, be a meteorologist on social trends, bring a wider context, teach, inform, amuse, inspire, be encouraged, be indignant.” Throughout his career, he has certainly joined these principles, and although there are countless criticisms that illustrate this commitment, the best is perhaps his effusive evaluation of the “Lakeview terrace” (although Ebert’s negative point of view on a certain criminal thriller of the Oscar-winning 90s is also a good example).

Made by Neil Labute, this 2008 criminal thriller played Samuel L. Jackson in the role of Abel Turner, a disturbing police officer of Los Angeles who becomes exasperated when an interracial couple, played by Patrick Wilson and Kerry Washington, settles next to him. Following the guard dog of his quiet suburban district himself, Turner chooses to make the life of the new arrivals living a living hell by taking increasingly hostile actions, which finally pushed the newlyweds to retaliate. All this culminates in a wild final act that most criticisms considered a little copy (without puns), given the earlier attempts of the film to tackle the racing problems. Ebert, however, was not one of these criticisms.

When Roger Ebert gave his opinion on the film, he gained more weight than probably any other voice on the field. After all, he was the first film critic to win the Pulitzer prize for criticism, but its cultural relevance and its impact were just as important, if not more. Long before Rotten Tomatoes (whose success is, ironically, undoubtedly Ebert’s fault) transformed the film criticism into a binary game of “fresh” and “rotten”, the columnist of Chicago Sun-Totes was there “encouraging critical thinking” with his prose always thoughtful. He was not always “on the right” (he gave Ben Affleck “Daredevil” three stars while only attributing “an orange clock” with two on a scale of four), but he has always been reflected and insightful.

However, no one could have seen Ebert’s exam on “Lakeview Terrace” to come. The intermediate thriller collected a 44% score on Rotten Tomatoes, which, once again, is not the best gauge but is instructive in this case. The criticisms were not impressed, Joe Morgenstern of the Wall Street Journal apparently disappointed by the style of the film, the writing, “the only brand of restraint in the film is the absence of an earthquake.” Meanwhile, Wesley Morris of Boston Globe managed to show his own restraint, believing that the film “could have something to say about black racism, but the conversations are going nowhere and that the shots of the genre take over”. This seems to be the real knot of disgust for criticisms for “Lakeview Terrace”, with Deborah Ross of the spectator focusing on the third act and his indulgence in the “gender convention”, which led “a shooting of the greatest stupidity”. In his review for the Philadelphia Inquirer, Steven Rea also challenged the “FRANTIC, FARFED CLIMAX” of the film, “writing that the last act takes place,” the pretension of the film to explore racial intolerance was exposed for what it is really: a B-MOVIE COPOUT “.

In the opinions of these criticisms, then, if the film had something to say about the breed in the United States, it was abandoned halfway. Again, several writers did not think he had a lot to say, with Joe Neumaier of the writing of the New York Daily News, “” terrace “pretends to be on the persecution of a mixed couple when it is really how someone could react alongside the shark of” Jaws “.

To be clear, Roger Ebert has distributed perfect scores on several occasions, granting the honor to Clint Eastwood and “Cerred” by Matt Damon, “The Red Mantle” of 1972, and “The Kite” of 2012, to nam only a few. He was not the only critic who loved “Lakeview Terrace” either. Nigel Andrews of the Financial Times gave the film a positive criticism, believing that Samuel L. Jackson played his role “with a nasty finesse”. But a four -star review? What impressed Ebert so much? Well, of one thing, he thought that the casting of Jackson as a “racist” neighbor was inspired because he “creates a presumption of innocence that some will hold longer than history justifies it”. If the roles had been reversed, in the opinion of Ebert, the viewers would not have to tackle their automatically favorable view of the psychopath next door. For him, it aroused difficult questions that the public had no choice but to face. “Is this film racist to make the villain black or would it just be racist by making the villain white?” he asked in his criticism. “Well? What’s your answer?”

The film’s desire to ask such uncomfortable questions and to present difficult moral choices seems to have been what prompted Ebert’s enthusiasm. Later in his exam, he congratulated the director Neil Labute for having asked just as difficult questions about the character of Patrick Wilson, Chris and his commitment to his wife. “Even making a superb thriller,” wrote Ebert, “Labute makes the film more than that. He deals with one of his themes, the difficult transition of prolonged adolescence to virility.” While most of the criticisms considered that the film had abandoned its commitment to explore deeper ideas halfway, Ebert thought that he had stayed with them throughout, finally noting that even if he knew which characters were “good, bad or strong and weak”, he was not sure if they did.

In the end, it seems that Ebert found in “Lakeview Terrace” the thing he appreciated about cinematographic criticism: critical thinking. “I find films like this one living and provoking,” he wrote, “and I am exalted to challenge my thought at each stage.” This is what Ebert was – challenge his readers in challenge to think more deeply and critically. Obviously, he found “Lakeview Terrace” to do exactly that.