[ / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / firechan / g / imouto / lovelive / maka / pdfs / sonyeon / traffick ]

/tv/ - Television and Movies

8chan Attention-Hungry Games #3 - Nominate your board now [Saturday @ 8pm ET]
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4
Max filesize is 12 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


/bane/ /film/ /strek/ /sw/ /waifuist/ /wooo/ Rules/Info

File: 7113464b0027ebf⋯.jpg (86.66 KB, 612x451, 612:451, Roger-Ebert.jpg)

 No.842329

>gave negative reviews to blue velvet, blade runner, a clockwork orange, the thing and die hard

Why does anyone take him seriously?

He was the Armond White of his day.

 No.842336

>someone dislikes things I like


 No.842358

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

 No.842366

File: 9f2e85f7534c3ce⋯.png (248.65 KB, 549x560, 549:560, 1436313113456.png)

>>842358

>the movies most interesting new character Jar Jar Binks

>And here's our good friend Yoda, who's barely past middle age in this scene

What did he mean by this?


 No.842370

>>842329

He also didn't like the Running Man.

Who cares what Siskitten and Ebrittle think anyway?


 No.842402

File: 80d207aa7893708⋯.png (80.9 KB, 300x300, 1:1, thin kid.png)

All of those are shit though


 No.842408

>>842329

>why does anyone take him seriously?

jew


 No.842409

>>842366

The Phantom Kino.


 No.842425


 No.842441

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

This is an interesting video of Alfred Hitchcock answering questions of various critics. When Ebert finally got his turn, at 34:30, he asks Hitchcock why there are so many staircases in his movies. Hitchcock was stunned by the stupidity of the question, then calmly answered "because staircases are useful for moving characters up and down".

Also, don't forget he accused Dirty Harry of being fascist propaganda.


 No.842563

File: ffab7709954bfe3⋯.jpg (54.79 KB, 600x450, 4:3, the_BLACKED_chin.jpg)

I remembered seeing a thread about him here not too long back where OP and a lot of the anons ITT noted how he gave movies with primarily white characters in them shit ratings while praising the hell out of ones with blacks in them since he was apparently an oil driller. Don't have any screenshots of that thread or examples of his reviews on hand but I do remember having some pretty good laughs.


 No.842579

>Why does people take any reviewer serirously, why /t/v is filled with braindead retards that watch youtube faggots everyday?

Because you are all fucking dumb


 No.842593

He also shat on Ace Ventura.


 No.842618

>>842441

I think Ebert's question is pretty good there. He asked him about the director's fixation on stairs, every good director has their own distinct fixation that defines their personality anyway. Hitchcuck's answer is pretty good as well, he simply loved the suspense of moving up and down rather than in a flat plane.


 No.842631

>>842593

>Ace Ventura

and for good reason


 No.842645

>>842618

It represents ascension to Heaven and descent into Hell, obv.


 No.842648

>>842358

damn, he truly had a shit taste

how did he even get famous?


 No.842649

File: d17db0960cd25eb⋯.jpg (111.68 KB, 1200x1235, 240:247, clint swim.jpg)

>>842441

>he accused Dirty Harry of being fascist propaganda

He was right though. Only Clint Eastwood would accept the role because he would do literally anything to compensate his pozzed boipucci past.


 No.843044

>>842329

>muh Blade Runner

Was objectively shit. There is no debate that Blade Runner was a bad movie upon release. The plot made no sense, and Harrison Ford's voice over work was lifeless. Blade Runner has had more alterations that all of George Lucas' films combined. Think about that. Scott gets for too much credit as being a good director. Most of what he puts out are easily forgettable films.


 No.843277

>>843044

nuh-uh


 No.843381

>>842329

HONESTY.

Because he is honest about his opinion.

I said this before in another thread and I am going to repeat it again.

People are stupid. They used other people's opinions as their own if those opinions are repeated often enough. Critics, fanboys, fangirls, e-celebs. plebbits and the ass burgers on this board are the same. Critics and plebs have two behavior:

>if the film was made by a well-renowned artist or someone they previously like, they kept finding things they liked inside the film despite 99% of the film is shit. And in reverse. Even if Bay made a great film, they kept finding things they hated. Just looked the GOT tv series and the maisiefags opinions on the books.

>They forgot that their opinions is based on their experience rather than their intelligence.

Ebert displayed both behaviors regularly but he tried to contain them as much as he can. And he done it very well on the later. Kubrick were renowned as a great filmmakers, but Ebert was not impressed when he saw some of his films for the first time, and he is not hesitate in writing what he felt about it. He made his judgement on what he was feeling when he watched the film not what he wanted to feel. Also, he pretty funny at times.

Also, I agree with Ebert on Clockwork Orange, it is an mess, great at style, absolute terrible in substance. The reason why it was revered is because that was the first time many people seen ultraviolent in films and it stuck in their heads.

TLDR: Every people had different opinions on films, what made Roger Ebert stand out from the rest:

>He is not afraid to state his own (good or terrible) opinions even if they are extremely unpopular.

>His prose is clear and sometimes funny. He took his jobs seriously. As seen in http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/tru-loved-2008, where he admit his failing. (But he still a dumbass in admitting his idiocy regarding video games)

>Personally, his star system is helpful. 2 1/2 is watchable with flaws (I might hate it), 3 is good (i might love it), 3 1/2 is very good, 4 meant that he loved it (could be kino).


 No.843407

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


 No.843413

>>843044

Agreed. It's such a pretentious yet shallow action flick parading as pseudo art cinema.


 No.843523

>>843381

>Because he is honest about his opinion.

Retards and drunks are usually honest, but folks are not looking for their opinions

At least not before the age of inclusiveness came into be


 No.843525

>>843413

>pretentious yet shallow

That's redundant unless you have very different meaning to those words, also why do you think such a think


 No.843532

>>843523

Ebert was good at expressing his opinions and had some interesting things to say.


 No.843534

>>843532

While i agree he was a good writer, he had a bizarre theory for movies and contradicted himself quite often

Why did he become that famous anyway? the writing chops? the ultra-casual/pleb standards he used to appease his readers?

The man was a hack and overly biased from time to time, along with being angry at movies that challenged the viewer regarding truth.


 No.843539

>>843534

>along with being angry at movies that challenged the viewer regarding truth.

Examples?


 No.843542

>>843539

He shat all over The Usual Suspects because he felt it wasn't fair that the entire movie was a lie

Blade Runner is another example, in his old classics section, he reviewed the Final Cut and went all over it, seemingly not getting it or not liking the ruminating nature of it

Let's not forget Robocop when he got confused if the movie was an action flick or a critique of society and the main character travel through his human psyche

I don't remember Siskel, but i sure hope he was the real deal because i can't see people liking Ebert at all, then again people are plebs.


 No.843547

>>842329

>Why does anyone take him seriously?

Because they know his name.

With the normalfag, name recognition trumps quality every time.


 No.843553

>>842648

Well being a critic who hates everything except for shit of course is a pretty popular thing, even gets a fanbase that only watches movies that they say is good.


 No.843605

Once upon a time it was inconvenient to watch movies so people had to rely on the likes of Ebert.

He's not terrible but his reviews are nothing special either. Notice how much space is wasted on plot summary alone - useless information when you've already seen it.


 No.843633

he's dead now so who cares


 No.843646

>>843633

He's still the most sought after reviewer and his opinions are plastered all over BR, DVD and VHS cases, along with appearing in posters even

He was the Metacritic of his day


 No.843664

>>843605

>Once upon a time it was inconvenient to watch movies so people had to rely on the likes of Ebert.

People still rely on Rotten Tomatoes reviewers or so I am led to believe.


 No.843666

>>842329

he looked really weird even before the chin removal surgery

did he have some sort of hormone disorder?


 No.843670

How can this guy get away with faking his own death, his website is still getting updated.

SMH really.


 No.843678

I hate this nigger.


 No.843707

File: 231498a710cd6ed⋯.jpg (314.36 KB, 904x1400, 113:175, the-majestic.18690.jpg)

He also gave this movie a good review.

If you look at the things he really likes, it is movies about America being really great. Movies with a subversive moral he dislikes.


 No.843734

>>842402

damn thats one thin chin


 No.843735

Everyone gave negative reviews to Blade Runner back then.


 No.843769

ebert was a patrician

he knew lotr wasn't 4/4


 No.843771

>>842329

He was a cronyist and the human embodiment of double-standards


 No.843775

>>842358

>>842366

>>842648

At the end he states that it is still a little empty character wise and not in the moment but its setting up the next ones. He didn't give it two thumbs up I think he only gave it one thumb up.


 No.843784

File: 4252ddba6459134⋯.png (459.25 KB, 847x1200, 847:1200, Female Kira.png)

Both him and Armond White did nothing wrong.

The majority of films are pure and utter dog shit. if you cannot accept that you need to leave the internet forever.


 No.843791

File: 7789d6be591d568⋯.webm (404.94 KB, 640x272, 40:17, 91349857132421343241.webm)

File: 87ad6b72ecc659c⋯.jpg (34.53 KB, 600x255, 40:17, mac-flamethrower.jpg)

>gave John Carpenter's The Thing a 2.5/4

well, that's just his opinion

>gave its shitty 2011 prequel the exact same rating

well, he's just fucking wrong


 No.843793

Based af tbh

Fellowship of the Ring 3/4

The Two Towers 3/4

Return of the King 3.5/4

Philosopher's Stone 4/4

Chamber of Secrets 4/4

Prisoner od Azkaban 3.5/4


 No.843820

>>843277

>>843525

Gotta agree with the two anons you replied to.

I watched the film for the first time last year on a recommendation from someone here, and it was incredibly lifeless. Lots of sparkle and dazzle, but the plot was all over the place and it only made sense to me as I'd read the book and knew the background for the setting.

The ending monologue was brilliant, but that's about it, and it was ad lib, so that goes to show how little the scripted sections of the film affected me.


 No.843825

>>843820

the film isn't bad but the narration version certainly is. its definitely one of the most overrated films of all time though along with star wars and empire strikes back


 No.843831

>>843825

>all harrison films

Really gets the noggin joggin'.


 No.843835

>>843831

im going to make a most overrated films of all time core now what should i add? besides some of the obvious best picture winners/ nominees of late like Argo for example


 No.843845

>>843835

Wouldn't know. I only watch things recommended here or a few select, niche genres that get a single film or two a year.

That being said, 90% of the films talked about here in any form are garbage or overrated while LARPers shitpost about them being good or "kino".

It was funny when we LARPed as /leftypol/ and still talked about movies, but when /leftypol/ came here and we couldn't tell the difference, then every shit film under the sun got bundled under the same banner as a couple of films that were good and overlooked, it got less fun.


 No.843847

>>843845

Some films I bet you dislike that are actually kino the problem is kino you either understand or not there are people who actually deny that certain certified kinos are kino like 2001 for instance and many people at that. So you either see the vision succeeding or you dont but I agree there are a ton of films that are garbage and about 90% of films made are so but theres still some great and good films out there. I watch too many so many recent best picture winners are trash


 No.843852

>>843845

I don't see much /leftypol/ here the only people being called leftypol are shitposting against the political shitposts


 No.843860

>>843847

There are clear films that could be grouped together under the banner of "Kino", but it's overused and doesn't accurately describe a lot of films.

To use a recent example, everyone calls action movies "kino" if they have good fight scenes, but I'd argue that the only kino film in the past 2 decades was Hardcore Henry, as it explored a new way of storytelling and cinematography, while also providing enjoyment, not just trying new things to say they were the first.

>>843852

Poe's Law in overdrive. Drumpfsperg was so convincing that copycats and other fuckers come here doing the same shit, thinking that we weren't all laughing at Drumpfsperg for giving us some entertainment while /pol/ was being kiled by those useless Beaner mods.


 No.843861

>>843820

>but the plot was all over the place and it only made sense to me as I'd read the book

There was not a lot of complexity in the plot, but the few gears scattered around were easy to digest in the slow paced environment

If you couldn't get that, i don't know what to say, you need to watch more movies


 No.843864

>>843860

>There are clear films that could be grouped together under the banner of "Kino", but it's overused and doesn't accurately describe a lot of films.

>To use a recent example, everyone calls action movies "kino" if they have good fight scenes, but I'd argue that the only kino film in the past 2 decades was Hardcore Henry, as it explored a new way of storytelling and cinematography, while also providing enjoyment, not just trying new things to say they were the first.

Well yea theres no action kino that shouldn't exist an action movie can be kino but its pretty much a flickino then or its known as such. Again the poes law there are people that unironically would call it action kino and then capekino and people actually get serious with it.


 No.843866

>>843864

(cont)

there are way more kinos in the past two decades than Hardcore Henry which I've never seen


 No.843870

>>843861

There was a small amount of plot, yes, but they just glossed over 90% of the development of the Replicants, Deckard was completely devoid of anything beyond being the viewer's eyes in the world (which isn't always a bad thing, but was in this case as the plot wasn't furthered by him making his own choices) and they tried to have good action scenes which were let down by the tone of the film and just looked forced by executives to increase viewership.

>>843864

>there are people that unironically would call it action kino and then capekino and people actually get serious with it

Biggest problem on the board. For every anon that posts a good, structured and worthwhile post, there's 50 braindead idiots that think posting the same 10 memes and spoutng "Drumpf" is funny.

The true balance is shitting up a couple of threads while funposting in the off-topic ones.

>>843866

I just used that as I saw a couple threads in the past day about it. I'm sure there's better action films maybe the next Liam Neeson film? It' Non-Stop, but on a train!


 No.843886

>>842649

Elaborate please.


 No.843972

>>843820

Just wait for the new Blade Runner, where even the dazzle is gone.


 No.843993

>>843523

>but folks are not looking for their opinions

But they looked for opinions on films from a film critic.

>>843534

>bizarre theory for movies and contradicted himself quite often

Agree but as I defend him before, his opinions are based on his experience. He don't pretend to have feelings he had not.

>Why did he become that famous anyway? the writing chops? the ultra-casual/pleb standards he used to appease his readers?

Why do you ask the question when you knew the answers? He appeared on-screen, garnered a great reputation, has a following of casual fans and kino aficionados that have him as the introductory course. His reviews of bad films have a lot of good jokes on them. Basically the Plinkett of the old-style critics.

>>843542

Look at it this way: Most critics are stupid, arrogant and narrow-minded. Ebert shared all of those traits but he took his job seriously. He wrote the reviews to art films for the artsy-fart, the reviews of the blockbusters for the normies. But he wrote based on his honest feelings not what he think he should felt or the audience felt.

I agree that his opinions are often retarded, but when it isn't (the ones I agree with), his analysis are well-done, written well, and have a dry charm to them.

>but i sure hope he was the real deal because i can't see people liking Ebert at all, then again people are plebs.

Siskel is the more cerebral. He think himself as a journalist first and a critic second. He hated Taxi Driver the first time he saw it not sure if he change his mind.

The consensus among film critics is that Ebert got such a status because of his writing ability not his analytic. He admit this himself on his blog. And yeah, people are plebs, they want an authority figure to tell them what to like or hate.


 No.843995

>>843886

Use Google or wikipedia.


 No.844025

File: 1ad901a6f8139c6⋯.jpg (23.76 KB, 565x321, 565:321, Amber_Lynn-52_Pick-Up-02.jpg)

>>843707

> Movies with a subversive moral he dislikes.

Ebert defends this sleazy cashgrab as if it's art >>>/film/9325


 No.844027

>>844025

stop shilling your stupid board


 No.844028

>>844025

>Ebert defends this sleazy cashgrab as if it's art >>>/film/9325

Still not an argument just like the other anon you replied to


 No.844029

>>844025

nice boobs.


 No.844061

>>844028

> Still not an argument just like the other anon you replied to

I didn't realize responding to someone's comment meant I was officially debating you and whatever the hell you are talking about


 No.844104

No one but the lowest common denominator cares what a critic thinks, a patrician simply makes his own critical analysis.

What credentials does ebert have to critique movies and have people hold his opinion up? He has no more than reddit letter media, failed at every attempt to get into the film industry, so does the only thing hacks like them can do, bitterly critique work superior to anything they could make until they die of saltiness and alcoholism.


 No.845236

>>844027

>>844028

t. r/movies


 No.845308

Blade Runner is fucking trash


 No.845313

>>845308

>t. huge cocksucking faggot




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / firechan / g / imouto / lovelive / maka / pdfs / sonyeon / traffick ]