let me preface this response by saying, some think krs-one is the greatest, others will still tell you it's rakim. i've always been a pharoahe monch guy. like it or not, very little will dissuade me. roger ebert is the g.o.a.t.

>He said that Johnny Depp is an
>actor who is committed to originality. He said that Depp's
>performance was good and that he had put an original effort
>into the character which is indeed a rarity among actors and
>actresses in Hollywood today.

we had this exact discussion before (check the arvhives.)

>But you shouldn't judge Walsh by just the one article of his
>you've read. Read what he's had to say about Iranian
>Cinema, Taiwanese Cinema, and read his harsh criticisms of
>weaker American films (both Hollywood and "independent")
>before you judge him.

i never judged the guy. i was only speaking on that one article you posted. it's really all i know about him. but my homework assignment, aside from the real homework, will be to read up on your mr. walsh.

>bullshit. I personally don't want anything to do with all
>these lobotomized films where the "mind" is removed and
>where thoughtfulness and honesty are replaced by cheap
>stimulants to get cheap laughs and cheap reactions.

neither do i, but there's a difference between pure entertainment and simple manipulation.

>You don't have to leave your mind at the door to have a good
>time at the movie theater.

right, but you shouldn't have to read up or study for one either.

btw, i can like both kinds of films in moderation.

>And it doesn't mean you're cynical or hateful just because
>you criticize a film for being hollow if that's how it makes
>you feel.
>
>You have to be more critical.

recognize who he's writing for. now this is not to say anything bad about chicago or those reading the sun-times, but the majority of people who check for movie reviews want to know if it'll be entertaining. i think he lets the "big" movies slide a little, but rips the independent ones when it comes time (see "levitiy"), given each's "respected" audience. the people that are going to see the blockbuster are already a special category. they just want to know if it'll be worse than "howard the duck" or worth the nine bucks.

and it's not like he let's them have a free pass and doesn't admit that he's might be being "easy." he knows he shouldn't be giving the film the thumbs up and explains this to the reader/viewer.

>>i'll call it "the home alone syndrome." something you can't
>>really explain just taps into and takes you for some hour
>>and half of escapism.
>
>But it's cheap. You know it is. We don't need escapism in
>our films. You can be just as entertained by something with
>a little smarts to it. You know?

sure. but you react to "escapism" like it's a slur. a balance between extremes would be desired. i couldn't take a million bergman films without getting a craving for "zoolander" every once in a while.

movies can make you think, entertain you, move you, make you feel, but in this day and age, movies should especially not make you waste your money. if roger ebert can give the reader fair warning as to why it's bad or why it's alright or as to why it's good, do this honestly and intelligently and constantly, then he's my favorite.