Name two bigger hacks in the industry. I'll wait.
>"The Thing" is a great barf-bag movie, all right, but is it any good? I found it disappointing, for two reasons: the superficial characterizations and the implausible behavior of the scientists on that icy outpost. Characters have never been Carpenter's strong point; he says he likes his movies to create emotions in his audiences, and I guess he'd rather see us jump six inches than get involved in the personalities of his characters. This time, though, despite some roughed-out typecasting and a few reliable stereotypes (the drunk, the psycho, the hero), he has populated his ice station with people whose primary purpose in life is to get jumped on from behind. The few scenes that develop characterizations are overwhelmed by the scenes in which the men are just setups for an attack by the Thing.
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
>That leads us to the second problem, plausibility. We know that the Thing likes to wait until a character is alone, and then pounce, digest, and imitate him--by the time you see Doc again, is he still Doc, or is he the Thing? Well, the obvious defense against this problem is a watertight buddy system, but, time and time again, Carpenter allows his characters to wander off alone and come back with silly grins on their faces, until we've lost count of who may have been infected, and who hasn't. That takes the fun away.
>"The Thing" is basically, then, just a geek show, a gross-out movie in which teenagers can dare one another to watch the screen. There's nothing wrong with that; I like being scared and I was scared by many scenes in "The Thing." But it seems clear that Carpenter made his choice early on to concentrate on the special effects and the technology and to allow the story and people to become secondary. Because this material has been done before, and better, especially in the original "The Thing" and in "Alien," there's no need to see this version unless you are interested in what the Thing might look like while starting from anonymous greasy organs extruding giant crab legs and transmuting itself into a dog. Amazingly, I'll bet that thousands, if not millions, of moviegoers are interested in seeing just that.
>Well, the obvious defense against this problem is a watertight buddy system, but, time and time again, Carpenter allows his characters to wander off alone
fricking Chicago, man
just two messy b***hes who love drama
Filthy israelites
the sexual tension is palpable
>The Catholics and the fricking israelites, we go back a few years together
>Come on, we're real, we get down and get dirty
Is this Abrahamic solidarity or are they referencing the fact that both groups molest children?
five bags of popcorn
>trusting ~~*critics*~~
They were two Midwestern yuppies and appeal solely to Midwestern yuppies.
They're older than yuppies
think we all realize gene was enamored by jennifer grey; couldn't see the film straight
>appeal solely to Midwestern yuppies
gosh you could not be more wrong it was a massively popular syndicated show that went for ages, became a cultural touchstone, they made appearances on everything... then gene got cancer in the late '90s and roger got it a decade later. it could still be going today if not for those unfortunate illnesses
and they were mainly criticized for being too mainstream, pandering, middle-of-the-road and tolerant to dumb films (which is of course why they were so popular). unless you want to go to leonard maltin territory they're pretty damn every-man and humble
gene caught a body on that one
?t=356
It's all start with a smile, that damned smile
what the FRICK
Your wait is over. Armond White has arrived.
It was instructive to read Ebert reviews and realise that he'd failed to follow the plot
>wow, this guy's just a pompous ass that doesn't know shit
Can't think of any examples, maybe The Usual Suspects
What are bad films they gave positive reviews to.
Speed 2, they're two out of three positive reviews of the film
Ebert hated Conan the Barbarian but loved Conan the Destroyer.
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/star-wars-episode-i-the-phantom-menace-1999
>As surely as Anakin Skywalker points the way into the future of "Star Wars," so does "The Phantom Menace" raise the curtain on this new freedom for filmmakers. And it's a lot of fun. The film has correctly been given the PG rating; it's suitable for younger viewers and doesn't depend on violence for its effects. As for the bad rap about the characters--hey, I've seen space operas that put their emphasis on human personalities and relationships. They're called "Star Trek" movies. Give me transparent underwater cities and vast hollow senatorial spheres any day.
except phantom menace is better than star trek
LOL no. Star Trek V is the worst TOS movie and it's way better than Phantom Menace.
>I've seen space operas that put their emphasis on human personalities and relationships. They're called "Star Trek" movies.
How dare Star Trek have soul! Give me soulless CGI any day.
I love how they both hated friday the 13th because “it was against women”
Siskel seethed so hard that he started doxxing people involved with it, including Betsy Palmer, even though she was just an actress.
I think Ebert gave The Hitcher zero stars solely for the scene where the girl got ripped in half.
Gene Shalit and Leonard Maltin. Eat shit op.
The Thing is only two hours long. Why spend a lot of time developing characters that are only going to die?
It does develop the characters, it's just that the characters are masculine and understand the severity of the situation doesn't call for them to start talking about their ex-wives or whatever
Should've started with a scene in the real world where Mcready's wife had schizophrenia and she doubted he wasn't her husband. You see, Trauma. I can already see Jay Bauman salivating now.
Where's the lie?
They’re not lies per se, but he’s making them seem like bad things when honestly I feel like everything he described are things I LIKE about the movie. My only gripe is I wasn’t a big fan of the ending
>we hate it for what it isn't and not what it is
Seems like it's mostly b-movies where they just failed again and again and trashed true classics while praising mundane shit.
you can't look at these two and instantly tell they're huge gays? they're like the 1980s version of soijacks...fricking ebert looks like a literal troony.
You do know that Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert have been dead for a long time, don't you, OP?
Ebert had some incredibly dumb takes:
>Criticizing Splash because he thought that John Candy should have been the love interest and not Tom Hanks.
>Criticizing Mrs.Doubtfire because he wanted it to be a commentary on gender politics like Tootsie.
>Hating the first two Home Alone movies for being too violent, but liking the third because it was "sillier" and he felt the plot was more plausible (wtf).
Splash because he thought that John Candy should have been the love interest and not Tom Hanks.
This is actually a really good take though. Would have immediately made the love story more powerful that a fat loser has his own magic GF.
What planet was Ebert living on thinking a story about Russian spies trying to get a microchip back from a kid in suburban America was more plausible than a kid being home alone during a home invasion?
Who was in the wrong here?
A reminder that Siskel hated Friday the 13 so damn much he spoiled the ending and "doxxed" the chairman in charge of Paramount Pictures and Betsy Palmer (Mrs. Voorhees' actress) in a review so people could send them complain letters.
Ebert royally FRICKED the video game industry with a swish of the pen and it hasn't recovered since, if anything, it's doubled down against him and become even shitter.