my opinion must be on the wikipedia page of every single movie ever made
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
my opinion must be on the wikipedia page of every single movie ever made
>I review for rogerebert.com
>are you roger ebert?
>no
Was he wrong once though?
He was wrong the majority of the time. But if you want one example, see Zoolander
>reads said review
>"WAH WAH MUH TOWERS MUH GUILTY CONSCIENCE MUH TERRORISM MUH WE WILL NEVER FORGET"
>it's a stupid early-00s lowbrow comedy starring ben stiller and owen wilson
damn he really was moronic
How did he connect 9/11 to fricking Zoolander
Both were ultimately just about the drug trade from Southeast Asia to the Levant but nobody wants to talk about it because those are primarily pharmaceuticals and all the countries involved are far away from England and America
Interesting
Zoolander came out a couple weeks after 9/11 happened
>movie made before the attacks happen
>release after the attacks to which it is completely unrelated
>"muh 9/11"
ebert was a weak-jawed pseud
Yes, he was super wrong about The Thing and constantly got Lynched
>he's not a david lynch marketing victim
how is that a bad thing again
except he fell for lynch's most marketable work, mulholland drive. he shat on the usual suspects because "none of it was real so it waste of time" but mulholland drive is ok because it's about lesbians and hollywood
>dislikes a movie where a troony eats dog feces
I wonder why?
>worse than no stars at all
This isn't even true. Thumbs down was basically equivalent to his 2 star and below reviews.
Is that Collider? That looks like Collider.
he got filtered by spiderman and army of darkness
>Doesn't like shitty genre movie that genre movie fans love
He is an enemy of the autists, which makes him my ally.
you're not welcome here, normoid
He's right 99% of the time, but when he's wrong he's pants on head moronic wrong.
He was seething about Freddy Got Fingered like some kind of homosexual.
>Film board is full of people who defend Freddie Got Fingered
This site used to be transgressive, now it's Jeff Dunham fans
Filtered
Unironically go watch the RLM review.
Seriously, I watched the movie and came to the same conclusions Mike did before I even saw the review.
Literally what is RLM? Everyone on Youtube looks like smegma.
?si=Gevl0XFVwvGEphj2
Don’t be a Jay
>Unironically go watch the RLM review.
Quality shit posting right here
Usually yes, but Mike makes some great points about the movie. I’m being 10=% serious, he even brings up the guy in the restaurant scene who is flipping off the camera in the background that I didn’t even notice.
This movie is a giant shitpost and homosexuals like Ebert seething about it is the cherry on top.
100% serious *
The Brown Bunny
Friday the 13th
Godzilla
from the top of my head he severely disliked:
straw dogs
texas chainsaw massacre
gladiator
the warriors
basic instinct
fight club
clockwork orange
waterloo
He was pretty ahead of his time as a zoomer puritan.
Most of those movies were unwatchable crap, a couple of those movies were just explicit violence to take advantage of the Hayes Code being lifted and some of those movies were explicitly violent unwatchable crap.
>The Warriors
>TCM
>Fight Club
>Gladiator
>Clockwork Orange
>"unwatchable crap"
He was only wrong about The Warriors and TCM
Eventually you develop a post-dorm room taste.
unwatchable crap that is fondly remembered and frequently quoted by many dozens of years later? that unwatchable crap?
you literally just take things at face value lmao.
You are a lot less deep than you think you are
He was right about most of them, he hated edgelords and their shit taste.
with the exception of maybe fight club none of those classic movies are in any way edgy
Maybe to someone born in 2002 who grew up watching 9/11 memes and holocaust jokes but in 1972 Clockwork Orange was "The Guy who just made the fun space movie and the hilarious Nuclear War movie just made a movie that is a bad acid trip full of violence"
There was no rating system back then, there weren't deep voiced genre trailers telling people that it's twisted, there was barely a Hoda and Jenna style daytime show to tell mom what the movie's about
>2001
>fun space movie
>dr strangelove
>hilarious nuclear war movie
I get that you're patrician and all and have great tastes and I'm not questioning that your badass taste in cinema proves you're right today. But he was a syndicated columnist who felt obligated to warn people who might consider taking their kids or themselves to it that it's a violent affair full of torture.
>in 1972
>There was no rating system back then
Yes there was. A Clockwork Orange was rated X on release. The rating system was introduced in 1968. In '70, Midnight Cowboy, an X-rated film with graphic (for the time) depictions of homosexuality had even won the Oscar for Best Picture.
when Fight Club can't out he said something like 'Fight Club is an insult to intelligent men'. I imagine if the movie was released today sois would say it's about 'toxic masculinity' and considering the dweeb that wrote it they'd probably be right.
He dislikes the kind of movie Texas Chainsaw Massacre is but he praised it on a technical level and said it was a far better film than it needed to be as an exploitation horror movie, which is a fair opinion
iirc he also shit on either Predator 1 or 2 because Predator's head tendrils make him look like a black guy with dreadlocks
He also hated the Usual Suspects which is fricking based because it's literally a shit film only remembered for its gimmick ending, and yes its a gimmick not a twist. A proper twist is something you can actually figure out like Sixth Sense, Usual Suspects ending is just "lol it was all a dream"-tier
I think adapting the typical 80's horror flick standard format to a group of criminals then letting the bad guy win was reasonably clever
He came around on A Clockwork Orange. Reviews capture his initial impression, but his opinion can change over time.
Ebert was a moralist, which means he'd be extra harsh on thing he found personally offensive or in bad taste. (The worst examples being his Blue Velvet outcry and the awful horror movie episode with Siskel). But that's also why he was so well liked compared to other critics, even today. He was primarily interested in looking out for the viewer, wheras his contemporaries were more interested in stating their superiority to the viewer. Contemporary critics would find satisfaction in taking the contrarian stance because it makes them stand out as being more unique. Ebert wants everybody to enjoy the movie as much as him, or understand why it's not worth their time, so even if he has an unusual opinion he'll try to guide you to where he's coming from. Other critics would most want to be the sole opposing view on a movie. Ebert most wanted everybody reading him to see the movie he experienced. That's why he got a tv show and is still remembered.
>He was primarily interested in looking out for the viewer, wheras his contemporaries were more interested in stating their superiority to the viewer.
That sounds more like pandering to the mainstream tastes. This isn't the matter of whether popular things =good/bad, but about conveying a message, your opinion. Personally, I find that the more you try to be liked by everybody, the more you're gonna come off as a hack.
>Contemporary critics would find satisfaction in taking the contrarian stance because it makes them stand out as being more unique. Ebert wants everybody to enjoy the movie as much as him, or understand why it's not worth their time, so even if he has an unusual opinion he'll try to guide you to where he's coming from. Other critics would most want to be the sole opposing view on a movie. Ebert most wanted everybody reading him to see the movie he experienced. That's why he got a tv show and is still remembered.
I think there's another way. e.g Cinemaphile has scaruffi who is not afraid to be critical and who likes to be critical, but in the end his tastes seem genuine and not really obscure for the sake of it (not that I share them a lot). I think a better reviewer for Cinemaphile would be someone like Alex Cox, who used to present Moviedrome on BBC. Snappy, informative bit of production/background details and a personal not-fit-for-all take.
>That sounds more like pandering to the mainstream tastes.
He was the populist critic. But you misunderstand. Most of the time he champions movies that go against the mainstream, and hopes to guide his audience outside of their comfort zones so they can appreciate more adventurous, fulfilling art. That's his primary goal. A lot of other critics simply do not care what their audience thinks.
Blue Velvet
TV made Siskel & Ebert far more relevant than Vincent Canby or Pauline Kael ever were.
Kind of beside the point. Being encyclopedic isn't about making judgements regarding whether individual critics were right or wrong, but rather about reporting how influential those opinions were. You might not always agree with Ebert (I certainly don't), but you have to acknowledge that his popular stature as a critic makes his opinion noteworthy even when it might be wrong.
He got absolutely filtered by The Thing. It honestly exposes him as a midwit that he couldn't appreciate the craftsmanship of the practical effects or the fact the film is about psychological horror as well as the gore.
Horror is a midwit genre though and horror fans are almost universally idiots who make it their personality. The only reason people praise horror movies today is because the internet is full of people who give passionate defenses of campy genre crap
People will attack you but this is pure truth, horror is more lowbrow than movies filled with gratuitous sex and nudity. Even the universally acclaimed horror movies are actual shit more often than not
Showgirls
he gave thumps down to die hard.
die hard.
He was wrong basically every time the movie used violence to convey a central theme or set the tone. He has a weird repulsion to on screen gore even when it’s not gratuitous for shock value alone. His most redeeming quality is that his friendship with Russ Meyers and their mutual love of huge jugs helped to create the screenplay for a movie that prominently featured huge breasts.
emme watson was 12 when he wrote and published this
"babehood" doesn't mean "she's a babe"
Was he wrong
More like "early stages of wallhood," amirite?
People who use the term babe are typically turbochads
He said she is not yet a babe, but will be. It's what everyone could conceivably think, and there's nothing wrong with it, you frick.
ok and
He's not scientifically wrong, but it didn't need to be said and it certainly didn't need to be said like that.
At least his AIDS ridden sidekick has been forgotten by time. He made me seethe even as a 5 year old.
Siskel had aids?
No. He had brain cancer.
I literally agree with everything Eggbert ever said. It's hard being this based 9 days a week.
I love how mad he makes Gamers. He's basically a black israeli feminist studies professor who makes Sociology Tiktok videos.
I read music wiki articles more than film and christgau seems to be the music equivalent
Ive noticed this guy.
I have no idea who he is. Obviously I've read the page on him, but he has zero impact on my musical tastes. I'm not a Zoomer either. Boomer no one under 40 cares about music quote on 100,000 pages
He has some good takes imo. His jazz ratings are pretty accurate.
Christgau is 10x more moronic and unhelpful, at least Ebert doesn't write in schizoprose
one of the biggest homosexuals to ever exist
Cuckgau and Cancerjaw both benefited from having their entire backcatalog of reviews available on the internet in around 2005-07, which is when the vast majority of Wikipedia articles on western films and music were written. most wikipedos can't into libraries and research databases which is why their opinions are typically the only ones you see on there
Hate this homosexual more than you can believe. Made writing music reviews an exercise for frustrated creative writing students. Half of his "reviews" are irrelevant word salad or complaining about heavy metal fans apropos of nothing.
REALLY funny to see these touchy high standards homosexuals go all softball when they have to review a rap album, then they're all ctrl+v "fiery braggadocio"
what's his opinion on the new barbie movie
Uh, anon…
my point precisely OP is a homosexual
jaw-dropping
he doesn't get any time to see it inbetween his ass rapings from Satan
why doesnt satan show him the movie on a loop instead
Satan prefers adam sandler movies on autorepeat
And? Where is your opinion at on those pages? Oh...
What do we think of Pauline Kael?
she's like a mother to armond white and armond white is like a father to Cinemaphile, so she's like this board's grandmother
Tarantino loves her
That's all i know
I find that weird too.
>Random guy's opinion is THE opinion
>because
>because it is!
he was right about star kid and that's good enough for me
He ruined criticism.
>ebert haters = chads
>ebertstans = virgins
simple as
damn I guess I'm a stan then.
Paying attention to any critic is peak pleb behavior. Patricians form their own opinions and know them to be the only correct take
>gave Gamera Guardian of the Universe 3/5 stars just to make Siskel fricking seethe
Based Rog
Was he right about videogames?
yes and no. his stance is basically the same as someone who's never watched a film regarding all filmgoers as marvel fans.
Yes. I play video games but frick, the most detrimental thing that ever happened to them was when soiboy nerd directors decided that the game being fun wasn’t as as important as the “artistic merit” and “personal experience” of the game to the players. And of course once you start going down that rabbit hole politics inevitably gets shoved into the mix as well. No I don’t want to play your over the shoulder Sony exclusive walking simulator that’s fricking gay.
absolutely. it took 15 years from the invention of the camera to get to pic related. some games like doom and tetris could be considered art i guess but compared to all the other arts they're absolute trash
>tetris
The only game I'd consider art and even that's a stretch. Games can be made and played artfully, like a chess set can be made and played artfully, but just like chess itself games are not art. They're games. Simple as
they can be artistic in the same sense that an ornate chess board is. The bigger issue is that they are a terrible medium for conveying a narrative, which is what ole' floppy jaw was probably getting at. And straight forward, cinematic narratives are exactly what the moron sois who get upset about videogames being art or not want to see. Hence cringe walking simulators like the Last of Us and the morons creaming themselves over it.
video games can be very good when they focus on the gameplay mechanics that make them memorable. All of the really great games that stand the test of time, like Mario and Tetris, get this right. Sometimes those gameplay mechanics include a lot of exploration such and can approximate a rough narrative.
>The bigger issue is that they are a terrible medium for conveying a narrative
They're bad at conveying a narrative in the same way as a film, because a linear narrative paced in the exact way that the director envisioned isn't suited to an interactive medium. And yeah as you said the whole fad of cinematic games propped up as ART comes from a fundamental misunderstanding that because films are now considered art then if we copy films we can also be art! It's an incredibly juvenile mentality that usually leads to games that eschew the very things that make games a unique medium. All the best games that could be considered artworks are the games that make the most of the video game medium and tell a story in a way that only a game can, do things only a game can, usually making the most of stuff like exploration and the story being absorbed through the environment at a pace set by the player. A game like Thief The Dark Project or Riven is art, Last of Us is just a shitty attempt at being a movie when if it was a movie it would just be some regarded as some b-grade horror action flick.
absolutely, and I've probably gamed more than a lot of people here. it's just fun to me but I would never pretend that even the most acclaimed games reach the level of other mediums on pure artistic merit. I think gamers just have a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes good narratives.
He's not incorrect. Video games are art, but the artistry comes from aesthetic choices and the ingenuity of the mechanics in delivering a fun experience. They're an inferior form of narrative delivery, but so is live theater and serial television
Yeah no shit he was correct. Maybe it's unfair to say video games are not art at all but they will never ever be as valuable as the great paintings or novels or poems or films or architecture of the world. It's not possible. Slaying werewolves in Bloodborne or watching shitty revenge fantasy movie games like Last of Us 2 will never be as profound as Hamlet or The Ring Cycle. Video games are for fun and that's okay.
this is baseless midwit fart huffing. all those movies and he's still an NPC sheep. Hollyweirdos are the least qualified to make people more civilized and sophisticated
Keep seething Cinemaphileirgin, games will NEVER be art
>"I don't know of any good video games"
>"lots of people prefer playing video games instead of making themselves pretentious fricks like me"
sounds like he was entirely right on both counts.
No and anyone who agrees with him is a midwit homosexual.
He did like one game, some weird point and click from japan
He was wrong, but I don't think any of the gamers realized that Ebert would talk about vidya often in his 90s TV appearances, and was an avid gamer who stopped playing because the arcadey nature of the Atari and later NES era made him feel like an addict. According to him, TMNT was his breaking point, where he had to force himself to stop playing.
So he's coming from a place where he doesn't want to admit games can be art because he's already made up his mind that they aren't a positive influence for him. Which is still a bad stance to take, but it's much different than being an old clueless boomer who doesn't know anything about games, like everybody assumed. He was closer to me, having grown up on 3D console platformers and PC shooters in the 90s, saying modern video games are not art because they're either singular experiences trying to be bad movies and are no longer about the player gameplay experience, or multiplayer experiences that only exist in the hope of finding a few microtransaction whales to keep publisher's pockets filled. I'd get pushback from certain people, but there are others who think like me.
I've never cared what this dead c**t thought of any film I've ever watched
thats how israelites maintain their cultural relevancy. they simply never shut up and eventually you passively accept their innane ramblings as something important. you get use to it, and then you begin to miss it when its not there.
he was ok. wrong most of the time but he'd give a pass to any movie that had a big enough set of chocolate funbags in it so he can't be all bad.
>mfw
>this movie was a jawdropping experience
What did he mean by this?
I noticed he got filtered by lots of movies.
midwits often do
Videogames were not art yesterday, they are not art today and they will not be art tomorrow, they in fact will never ever until infinity and beyond be art.
>sculpture and architecture not God tier
Shit bait is shit
certain god tier examples of sculpture do not make sculpture a god tier art considering it's 99% paper mache bullshit by rich kids
Same is true of paintings, a few god tier examples don't make up for the fact that 99% of it is rich kids literally shitting on a canvas
How in the frick were 80% of sculptures not simply pre-industrial porn, like this one? Don't get me wrong, nothing wrong with making sculptures to coom to, but let's be real about it fr fr
Agreed. Sculpting and Music are the highest forms of art.
How the frick can one person be so fricking stupid?
it's just moronic to rank forms of art
all art is based on merit regardless of medium/form
video games just aren't art
Calling something "art" carries a connotation of quality, which is why people get so defensive about video games not being art.
I love vidya and frankly do not care if they are considered art (except for legal reasons).
i disagree because writing a symphony is by any means higher art than doing a stand up set
Stand-up isn't art either.
>Calling something "art" carries a connotation of quality
connotations are irrelevant. what matters is the truth.
Basket weaving is a higher art form than anime tbh
I noticed this too and I hate it. Nobody gives a frick about what this liberal elitist probable pedo says except for liberal elitist pedos.
>unironically praised Harry Knowles
Why are gamers so obsessed with their timewasting being considered art? Yeah it requires an arts education to make it and scripting it but it's also a mass-produced adventure where most of the game is spent collecting things and killing wolves.
Is Family Guy art? It's a picture, it was made by a wealthy RISD alum and it's as famous as any work of Da Vinci's.
Only midwits don't enjoy good horror.
He dislikes Jim Carreys Grinch, Freddy got fingered, and fight club. He's a fricking square, who gives a shit what he thinks.
Sounds based to me.
How about I shove a refrigerator up your ass. Would that be based then? Huh?
I don't care how shit a lot of their opinions were, Siskel and Ebert were always entertaining to listen to
he was the everyman's film critic. he gave his thoughts and nothing more.
I only like him because he thinks Romero's Dawn of the Dead is a masterpiece and also wrote Beyond the Valley of the Dolls....
?si=7L9WjWWb6yK1Jgut
?si=d0qgU6QczI56AYS_
!!!FACT!!!
Dawn of The Dead being great is a widely accepted opinion, anon. I don't know what he has to do with it.