if he says a film is a B i usually agree with him

so what am i going to do when Ebert no longer reviews films?

:(

>

>

WHERE?

n/m

ole lemming ass.

till it ain't

mortal

>

She was clearly making an appreciation of Roger Ebert post & y'all went in on her rhetorical question like people hit InKast with cousin-fucking comments.

This forum is strange.

>This forum is strange.

LOL

neither am I really but I roll through from time to time.

It's the internet, man. People clown.

EEEEEEVVVVVVVVAAAAAAAA MAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

I have a bunch of collections of his reviews/essays in book form, and I just bought the new Scorsese book he did.

My taste aligns with him almost all of the time...

everyone else...NOPE

I mean, Peter Travers for example is someone who I almost never agree 100% with, but my deviation from his opinion is almost always the same size (which is not very big). What I mean is, even if I know I won't agree with him wholeheartedly, I can still gauge where I'll stand because I know where and how we differ. And even with that, I still respect his craft and think he often brings value to criticism.

which is RARE for me. LOL

>I can still gauge where I'll stand because I know where and
>how we differ. And even with that, I still respect his craft
>and think he often brings value to criticism.

I always agreed with Siskel more but Ebert's on point most of the time. They were so good together cuz when one of them liked a movie enuff to give thumbs up the other would try to find faults with it rather than automatically giving an average film two thumbs up.

of films.... but yeah, he's in a class by himself.

that after shitting on so many peoples films and hard work for years

siskle died and roger ebert has cancer and cant speak


i'm not taking joy in anyones tragedy but yeah the irony here is impossible to ignore

I mean, I really don't see how their health situations are some kind of karmic payback (or, "irony") for committing the sin of disliking movies

If that were the case, a lot of people (professional and not) would be in dire straits health-wise...
________________________________________________________________________
"I want to be done playing this lady Nov. 5..." - Tina Fey

http://www.danzfamily.com/archives/blogphotos/06/425-drew-baseball-1.jpg

>

.

Because this post would be it.

if so thanks

So when a movie is not good, yeah, he is upset. I've never in my experience seen a review where he seemed unfairly prejudiced going in, as if he wanted the film to be bad-- something MANY MANY other critics are sorely guilty of.

Jonathan Rosenbaum shits on movies. Roger Ebert expresses disappointment.

This has been a message from your local Captain Save-An-Ebert.

it's like when i make the yearly trek to Ottawa for the animation and i meet hundreds of other people who love the art of animation. with Ebert i feel like i am getting a review from someone who truly loves the art of film. i don't get that sense from the other critics

I hope that doesn't mean God's bout to pay me back with cancer.

I mean damn. I'm sorry. I just don't like Tyler Perry's films. Don't take it out on my organs...

>I hope that doesn't mean God's bout to pay me back with
>cancer.
>
>I mean damn. I'm sorry. I just don't like Tyler Perry's films.
>Don't take it out on my organs...

LMFAO

I don't agree with his reviews all the time.

For instance, he gave both Blue Velvet and The Hudsucker Proxy two stars.

But his since of humor is great. His style is really personable, like his talking movies with his buddies. I appreciate how he comes off as extremely knowledgeable without being pretentious. And he appreciates each movie he reviews according to the context of its genre. I mean, he'll praise a movie like Letters to Iwo Jima, but he'll also occasionally nerd out on a horror flick or action movie. It's a middle ground between high brow critics and more pop-centered critics.

Again, I don't agree with his reviews all the time. Far from it. But I've been reading his reviews since I was a kid, and he's the only critic I know of where I can get a pretty fair early idea of whether or not I want to see a movie based on his review--regardless of whether he actually likes the movie or not.

I remember, after reading his review for the Fall, I went out that Friday night and saw it at the theater, and loved it. I don't know if I'd trust many other reviews like that.

>I don't agree with his reviews all the time.

me, neither but it's all about agreeing to disagree sometimes. i accept that a good critic expresses a reasoned judgment of work, based on an engaged and informed analysis

>For instance, he gave both Blue Velvet and The Hudsucker Proxy
>two stars.

lol. well actually i agree with his here

:)

He gave Lakeview Terrace four stars recently too, and Miracle at St. Anna three stars. He really doesn't get caught up in the "I'm smarter than you" pissing matches that critics wage-- he simply says what he feels.

http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/ebertandroeper/index2.html?sec=6&subsec=sugar+hill

see!

*it's on TVOne right now*

as a film historian and enthusiast, I respect him, but after stumbling across this...

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080911/REVIEWS/809119989


NOPE

Read this, then hush thine mouf:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/09/you_give_out_too_many_stars.html
_________________________________________________________________________
<------ Yeah... not gonna happen.

...he definitely does seem to give out 4-star reviews more regularly as of late (right now, there are four 4-star films in theaters, at least in limited release), but I can't argue with his reasoning. Plus, he's just such a damn good writer that I don't care.

I can still say his ratings are off after reading that and will and do.

Use of "pleacoppage" and all
________________________________________________________________________
<------ Yeah... not gonna happen.

just as predictable. Him explaining why his ratings are higher doesnt convince me why I may be wrong for thinking he's too forgiving; it just cements it further.

FOH
________________________________________________________________________
<------ Yeah... not gonna happen.

-- "1. I like movies too much."

OK, so he admits that he likes movies more than the average person which would shade his judgement to the positive.

-- 2. Directors. There are some who make films I simply find myself vibrating with.
-- 3. I feel strongly about actors I admire, watching their ups and downs and struggles to work in a system that often sees them only as meat.

So basically, he rides for directors and actors he likes and just enjoys seeing them, regardless of whether the movie was good or not. The question is: if actors he admired were in Sex and the City, would he have liked it more? I think he would have and, to me, that's a problem.

-- "5. I have sympathy for genres, film noir in particular. I am almost capable of liking a movie simply for its b&w noir photography. I like science fiction. Ed Harris has a new Western coming out named "Appaloosa." I'll like it more than the Metacritic average. You wait and see."

I already saw and Appaloosa is a perfect example of a film that gets reviews for the pedigree more than the actual product. Liking certain genres more isn't something to brag about, it's something to guard against when printing your reviews so that the reader will know your prejudices.

I agree with #6 and #7 although I don't think Ebert always admits it in his reviews.

In the end, what he said is exactly why I don't read his reviews. They come from a very personal place and usually don't tell me whether or not the film is good or something I should spend my money on.

________________________________________________________________________
<------ Yeah... not gonna happen.

He basically just agreed with most of his detractors. 1 and 4 stars are defined terrible/classic and the rest is almost haphazard since the rating could fluctuate by a star based on, not the quality of the film, but whether Ebert likes the actors, admires the director, is a fan of the genre, etc.

>-- "1. I like movies too much."
>
>OK, so he admits that he likes movies more than the average
>person which would shade his judgement to the positive.

Right. But he admits it, so where's the problem?

>-- 2. Directors. There are some who make films I simply find
>myself vibrating with.
>-- 3. I feel strongly about actors I admire, watching their
>ups and downs and struggles to work in a system that often
>sees them only as meat.
>
>So basically, he rides for directors and actors he likes and
>just enjoys seeing them, regardless of whether the movie was
>good or not. The question is: if actors he admired were in Sex
>and the City, would he have liked it more? I think he would
>have and, to me, that's a problem.

That's not what he said. Some actors and directors simply strike a chord with a human being. He doesn't say he likes them whether they're good or not-- he's admitting he's more likely to find those movies good because they relate to him.

>-- "5. I have sympathy for genres, film noir in particular. I
>am almost capable of liking a movie simply for its b&w noir
>photography. I like science fiction. Ed Harris has a new
>Western coming out named "Appaloosa." I'll like it more than
>the Metacritic average. You wait and see."
>
>I already saw and Appaloosa is a perfect example of a film
>that gets reviews for the pedigree more than the actual
>product. Liking certain genres more isn't something to brag
>about, it's something to guard against when printing your
>reviews so that the reader will know your prejudices.

Orrrrr you admit you have these predilections and allow the viewer to choose for himself rather than attempting to hide it and write something that isn't truthful.

>I agree with #6 and #7 although I don't think Ebert always
>admits it in his reviews.
>
>In the end, what he said is exactly why I don't read his
>reviews. They come from a very personal place and usually
>don't tell me whether or not the film is good or something I
>should spend my money on.

For me, that's exactly why I think he's the GOAT. He goes into a movie hoping to like it, and he reviews it from the POV of a man, not some uppity critic looking to drop some scathing one-liners. He still has loads of insight, even with his personal opinions, and he's never claimed to be "totally objective," because, regardless of how a critic tries, they never ever will be.

If you don't dig him, that's cool, because it's your own personal preference. That's exactly why Ebert wrote this column-- to let you know his mindset, and allow you to make your own choice. That, to me, is what film criticism should be about.

From Deadline Hollywood:

The long respected film critic really stepped in it this week when he wrote a long negative review of a movie without revealing until the very end that he only saw the beginning of a 99-minute film before walking out. (Ebert wrote at the finish of his critique: "The rating only applies to the first eight minutes. After that, you're on your own.") Here is Ebert's own blog defense: "My editor argued that in my Tru Loved review, I should reveal in the first paragraph that I drew the line at eight minutes. I protested. That would pervert the flow of the review. Everything after would be anti-climax. What I was trying to do was recreate my thoughts as I watched the movie, and show them leading inexorably to my eventual decision. But was I placing my regard for my prose over the rights of the movie? I hope not. I hope the review truthfully records the process I went through." Sorry, but his argument is lame to the extreme. How can you base a review on 8 minutes of a 99-minute film? Most of us could name hundreds of terrific films that started out horribly. Conversely, if people had only seen the first few minutes of Godfather Part III, it would have looked like a worthy final installment to Coppolla's mob masterpiece. I think no reviewer should dare critique a film without seeing the entire film.

Here's the review
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081015/REVIEWS/810150277/1023

**************************************

"I'm sick of followin' my dreams. I'm just gonna ask where they goin', and hook with them later." - Mitch Hedberg

"I don't think muthafuckas went to the moon either, but that's just me..." - Mos