When it comes to film criticism, few names carry as much weight as Roger Ebert. His ability to see the merit in movies that others dismissed was nothing short of remarkable. Personally, I think what made Ebert so unique was his unwavering commitment to his own perspective, even when it flew in the face of popular opinion. This is perfectly exemplified by his positive review of Hollywood Homicide, a 2003 Harrison Ford action comedy that was largely panned by critics. What makes this particularly fascinating is how Ebert’s take on the film reveals not just his taste, but his broader philosophy on cinema—a philosophy that valued authenticity and character over slick plotting or high-octane action.
The Contrarian Critic: Ebert’s Unapologetic Perspective
Ebert’s review of Hollywood Homicide is a masterclass in going against the grain. While most critics dismissed the film as a 'snail-paced bore' or a 'tepid, superfluous movie,' Ebert awarded it three out of four stars. In my opinion, this isn’t just a matter of differing taste; it’s a reflection of Ebert’s ability to find joy in the unexpected. He praised the film’s focus on its 'goofy cops'—Harrison Ford and Josh Hartnett—rather than its murder plot, which he found dull. What many people don’t realize is that Ebert’s appreciation for character-driven stories often led him to champion films that others overlooked. This wasn’t contrarianism for its own sake; it was a genuine celebration of what he believed made cinema worthwhile.
Harrison Ford’s Grumpy Charm: A Misunderstood Performance
One thing that immediately stands out is Ebert’s admiration for Harrison Ford’s performance in the film. While other critics labeled Ford ‘creaky,’ ‘grumpy,’ or ‘essentially humorless,’ Ebert saw something entirely different. He described Ford as ‘more distilled, more laconic, and more gruffly likable, year after year.’ From my perspective, Ebert’s take highlights a broader trend in how we perceive aging actors. Ford was in a career lull at the time, and Hollywood Homicide wasn’t exactly a comeback hit. Yet, Ebert’s review suggests that Ford’s performance was a strength, not a weakness. This raises a deeper question: Do we unfairly judge actors for not living up to their past glory, or do we fail to appreciate how their craft evolves over time?
The Buddy Cop Dynamic: A Formula That Works—Sometimes
Hollywood Homicide follows the classic buddy cop formula: two mismatched partners forced to work together to solve a case. What this really suggests is that the success of such films often hinges on the chemistry between the leads. Ebert found Ford and Hartnett’s dynamic compelling, particularly their dialogue, which he believed saved otherwise unremarkable scenes. A detail that I find especially interesting is how Ebert’s review contrasts with the general criticism of the film’s script. Many reviewers called it ‘lazily scripted’ and ‘poorly structured,’ but Ebert seemed to enjoy its loose, freewheeling nature. This makes me wonder: Is there value in imperfection? Can a film’s flaws actually enhance its charm?
The Broader Implications: Why Ebert’s Take Matters
If you take a step back and think about it, Ebert’s review of Hollywood Homicide is about more than just one film. It’s a reminder that cinema is subjective, and that what one person finds boring, another might find delightful. Ebert’s ability to find merit in dismissed films speaks to his broader belief in the diversity of cinematic experiences. In a world where box office numbers and Rotten Tomatoes scores often dictate a film’s legacy, Ebert’s contrarian takes feel like a breath of fresh air. They challenge us to look beyond the obvious and find value in the overlooked.
Final Thoughts: The Legacy of a Contrarian Critic
As I reflect on Ebert’s review of Hollywood Homicide, I’m struck by how much it reveals about his approach to criticism. He wasn’t interested in following the crowd or pandering to popular opinion. Instead, he trusted his own instincts and celebrated what he loved, even if it meant standing alone. This, to me, is the mark of a true critic. Ebert’s legacy isn’t just in the films he praised or panned; it’s in the way he taught us to think critically about cinema. And that, in my opinion, is far more valuable than any star rating or review.
