Probably the critic I agreed with most of the time and one of the most fun and enthusiastic without being pretentious. There were times when I completely disagreed with him but they were few and far between.
Yeah, that's how I feel about Ebert as well. I didn't agree with him all the time, and he wasn't especially profound, but he was a little more thoughtful than most and treated movies pretty fairly. He took movies on their own terms, most of the time.
>live outside the US >never heard of him until >every single Wikipedia movie article has to mention what his opinion was
I don't get it. Was he like the world's leading critic? Why is his thumbs-up score compulsory? Why not Pete Bradshaw or Armond White?
He had a famous long-running (as in from 1975 to 1999) TV show with a fellow critic named Gene Siskel called Siskel & Ebert, where they reviewed movies. They had good chemistry and it was a fun show, so they got big.
Siskel died in 1999, so Ebert later replaced him with Richard Roeper, and they had a show called Ebert & Roeper.
I disagree with him a lot, as he doesn't seem to like..... a farce or movies that fly towards being over the top but are trying to stay grounded for accessibility. I could excuse these things and get into movies. He wouldn't, but it's fair. Die Hard is one of those movies. It starts very simple and "real" but it turns into a Lethal Weapon movie. He probably feels about Die Hard the way I do about Die Hard 2, so I get it. I think he only gave a handful of unfair reviews in his career and that is a testament. If maybe 8 or so movies he completely blew it on, but nailed it on 2000+ others. Yea, he was pretty solid.
He actually took effort with his review. I disagree with some and agree with others but you can't deny he had a way with words and that made his reviews entertaining. Siskel was shit
>Was he like the world's leading critic?
He was certainly America's leading critic. He approached movies in a fun, relatable way which most critics did not. He assessed movies with the ticket-buying everyman approach unlike many of his wine-drinking, mainstream- eschewing peers, but was always able to do so with insight and knowledge.
because with just a little googling everybody could make a top 100 best movies. but no one could ever make 100 best video games. because there's like eight good video games total since 1972 when pong was introduced
The american film critic whose opinion I trust most. He was wrong about some films (Heaven's Gate, Fight Club) but he has a great track record overall.
His annual top 10 lists and his Great Movies list are great resources for finding kinos to watch.
Rating movies based on what they tried to accomplish was a novel at the time. But he basically turned film criticism into a product guide, you'd check his opinion to see if you'd enjoy the product not to gain any insight in to the medium. Ultimately the downfall of his style of criticism though, was that rating movies by what they tried to accomplish means that the films which set out to do nothing(MCU) get the highest scores.
>hated Gladiator
Is that just contrarian autism or something? There's literally no reason to hate Gladiator. Maybe indifference or dislike, but straight up hating it is absurd.
Once you strip the mindblowing effects, big budget action and cool aliens and everything else away, Independence Day is about israelites and Black folk saving the world. Ebert may have been on to something...
I'm on the fence about Ebert.
I was a kid when Pirates of the Caribbean, and before I did I happend to catch Ebert's take on it and he said that the movie was a great romp that overstayed its welcome. I went to it and had a great time and enjoyed it, but in the back of my head was his analysis of it and it just kept banging around in there because of how right he was.
Then there was the whole short Twitter feud between him and Bam Margera of all people where he was making snide comments about his friends tragic death and then replied with a bunch of mason numerology shit instead of a retraction or an apology. Then around that same age, I saw that parody of him in Godzilla where he played the mayor of New York with his Gene Siskel assistant trying to steal his chocolates and it was OBVIOUS even to me as a kid at the time who the filmmakers were making fun of and lampooning and I later found out it was because of review he gave of one of his earlier works, so the guy had a reputation for being a fat shit for a while and wasn't everyone's friend. Then again, he did help write 'Valley of the Dolls' so he must have had an appreciation for big breasts and I can rock with that and he actually gave a decent review of 'The Phantom Menace'.
So I got no real regard over the fat shit, it sucks that his face went all funhouse mirror on him before he croaked, but he did even at the most basest sense contribute and throw his own hat into the industry he was a part of and wasn't a total grifter. As they say though, you got 2 choices in life: you can be nothing but a dreamer or nothing but a critic.
"the magnolia defender"
?t=126
midwit boomer who got LYNCHED
Holy based. He was right about fight club, it sucks ass.
Wat
He should lay off the fatty foods
he's quite thin these days
Thin?!?!?
Hes fricking dea......oh......pffffftttthahahahaha
Never liked him.
He shit on Fight Club.
fight club is shit. brad pitt is shit.
cope
>him
looks like a ftm
not great, not terrible
Probably the critic I agreed with most of the time and one of the most fun and enthusiastic without being pretentious. There were times when I completely disagreed with him but they were few and far between.
Yeah, that's how I feel about Ebert as well. I didn't agree with him all the time, and he wasn't especially profound, but he was a little more thoughtful than most and treated movies pretty fairly. He took movies on their own terms, most of the time.
He had a famous long-running (as in from 1975 to 1999) TV show with a fellow critic named Gene Siskel called Siskel & Ebert, where they reviewed movies. They had good chemistry and it was a fun show, so they got big.
Siskel died in 1999, so Ebert later replaced him with Richard Roeper, and they had a show called Ebert & Roeper.
I met the figure of ebert through the Animaniacs cartoons. I am a foreigner and I recently started reading ebert's reviews
This.
Also his reviews were always fun to read
his books on his worst reviewed movies are fricking hilarious. The guy has a way with words
I disagree with him a lot, as he doesn't seem to like..... a farce or movies that fly towards being over the top but are trying to stay grounded for accessibility. I could excuse these things and get into movies. He wouldn't, but it's fair. Die Hard is one of those movies. It starts very simple and "real" but it turns into a Lethal Weapon movie. He probably feels about Die Hard the way I do about Die Hard 2, so I get it. I think he only gave a handful of unfair reviews in his career and that is a testament. If maybe 8 or so movies he completely blew it on, but nailed it on 2000+ others. Yea, he was pretty solid.
He was a terrific writer, bad takes aside.
He actually took effort with his review. I disagree with some and agree with others but you can't deny he had a way with words and that made his reviews entertaining. Siskel was shit
>live outside the US
>never heard of him until
>every single Wikipedia movie article has to mention what his opinion was
I don't get it. Was he like the world's leading critic? Why is his thumbs-up score compulsory? Why not Pete Bradshaw or Armond White?
>looking after a child
>particularly one mixed up in crime
A teacher at school helped me kick drugs. A 'father figure' I was missing, really appreciate his support to this day.
Did he secretly want to bum me, Cinemaphile? Are all pastoral services sick nonces--any children staying in their care brainwashed by groomers???
meant for
It's true; It amazes me too that every blockbuster or cult movie has Ebert's opinion on its corresponding Wikipedia page.
>Was he like the world's leading critic?
He was certainly America's leading critic. He approached movies in a fun, relatable way which most critics did not. He assessed movies with the ticket-buying everyman approach unlike many of his wine-drinking, mainstream- eschewing peers, but was always able to do so with insight and knowledge.
>Was he like the world's leading critic?
He was THE critic in the 90s
he was the most famous movie critic. like christgau but for movies
american boomers worship israelites and their unsolicited opinions on everything almost as much as they worship pedophile pop stars.
why was he such a sperg about video games?
because with just a little googling everybody could make a top 100 best movies. but no one could ever make 100 best video games. because there's like eight good video games total since 1972 when pong was introduced
Boomers were just old fogies who didn't get why kids play the video games.
him always clinging onto that was bizarre
Siskel and Ebert was a kino show
Used to look forward to it every week.
Also, he was the only American critic in history that could actually write.
I'd take him over any of the paid shills who call themselves movie reviewers today
RLM are more entertaining and their views are less crusty
The american film critic whose opinion I trust most. He was wrong about some films (Heaven's Gate, Fight Club) but he has a great track record overall.
His annual top 10 lists and his Great Movies list are great resources for finding kinos to watch.
Rating movies based on what they tried to accomplish was a novel at the time. But he basically turned film criticism into a product guide, you'd check his opinion to see if you'd enjoy the product not to gain any insight in to the medium. Ultimately the downfall of his style of criticism though, was that rating movies by what they tried to accomplish means that the films which set out to do nothing(MCU) get the highest scores.
he found the avengers boring and would definitely be a bigger critic of the MCU than scorsese was
>rating movies by what they tried to accomplish
I think that's a good method t b h and I think your reasoning for why that doesn't work is hyperbolic.
What happened to his jaw? Did he eat out Catherine Zeta-Jones or what?
Even worse a black lady from Chicago
Talentless piece of shit like every critic.
I would have liked to have been born in murrica, so I would watch the ebert show all the time. In which movies was Roger Ebert very wrong?
The Raid
>hated Gladiator
Is that just contrarian autism or something? There's literally no reason to hate Gladiator. Maybe indifference or dislike, but straight up hating it is absurd.
It seems to me that ebert hates the John Carpenter thing too
Also Independence Day
Once you strip the mindblowing effects, big budget action and cool aliens and everything else away, Independence Day is about israelites and Black folk saving the world. Ebert may have been on to something...
One thing I agree with him on is that Home Alone sucks and is just a weird sadistic fantasy with moronic adults.
Holy bases.i hate home alone too
He was only notable because he was prolific. His taste was very subpar and it was only other American "critics" who gave a shit about his opinion
Hack, proto-Chris Stuckmann
.
I'm on the fence about Ebert.
I was a kid when Pirates of the Caribbean, and before I did I happend to catch Ebert's take on it and he said that the movie was a great romp that overstayed its welcome. I went to it and had a great time and enjoyed it, but in the back of my head was his analysis of it and it just kept banging around in there because of how right he was.
Then there was the whole short Twitter feud between him and Bam Margera of all people where he was making snide comments about his friends tragic death and then replied with a bunch of mason numerology shit instead of a retraction or an apology. Then around that same age, I saw that parody of him in Godzilla where he played the mayor of New York with his Gene Siskel assistant trying to steal his chocolates and it was OBVIOUS even to me as a kid at the time who the filmmakers were making fun of and lampooning and I later found out it was because of review he gave of one of his earlier works, so the guy had a reputation for being a fat shit for a while and wasn't everyone's friend. Then again, he did help write 'Valley of the Dolls' so he must have had an appreciation for big breasts and I can rock with that and he actually gave a decent review of 'The Phantom Menace'.
So I got no real regard over the fat shit, it sucks that his face went all funhouse mirror on him before he croaked, but he did even at the most basest sense contribute and throw his own hat into the industry he was a part of and wasn't a total grifter. As they say though, you got 2 choices in life: you can be nothing but a dreamer or nothing but a critic.
I like when he said:
>friends don't let jackasses drive drunk
the day Ryan Dunn crashed his porsche while driving all shitfaced. It got everybody all assblasted
How did he get filtered so hard by Conan?
Either a genius for recognizing the importance of Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, or an idiot for failing to do the same with Freddy Got Fingered.
100% right about video games not being art.
All I need to know is his Africa Addio review from 1966
The trib was always based.
Based Ebert. Based Kass. Based everything.
he's good, but he's no mike stolska
Why did it filter him so badly?
Probably bad idea to go down on a blaq womon