critics back then:
>educated in film theory and film history
>experienced as writers and as human beings
>celebrated a wide variety of films including arthouse, indie, and foreign films
critics now:
>don't like watching movies made before the 80s
>all in their 20s and have only written inane blogposts
>watch only blockbusters including capeshit, pandering remakes, and moronic comedies
what happened?
Other urls found in this thread:
nationalreview.com
theimaginativeconservative.org
rogerebert.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Ebert was a sappy sentimental middlebrow hack
Youtube channels like CineFix shows what is wrong with millennials 'reviewing' movies
They want to earn money, not respect.
I blame it on our shit economy.
Lol
I was overjoyed when I heard on Sup Forums that this charlatan had finally died, but I was also saddened by the fact that he hadn't suffered that much before deciding that he could insult film criticism no longer. The pain and suffering that he went through is only a fraction of the evil that he inflicted on the millions of cinematically illiterate teenagers. When I found out that the old fart had finally decided to not assault the public with his adolescent approach to art, I pulled off the framed picture of Armond White from my wall, kissed it reverently, and immediately embarked on a Korine marathon. Good riddance, you jawless hack.
>They want to earn money, not respect.
this p much
>buzzwords
Heh, funny reply kid. NEXT!
Ease of access of internet coupled with social media.
ebert was a joke who came up with a ridiculous way of rating movies. he rated movies based on the audience that was likely to watch it and judge the movie based on how well they would receive it.
once he started doing that his ratings didn't really make much sense, but everyone was sucking on his dick so hard that no one noticed. the last couple years of his life his ratings were all over the place.
critics back then
>actually created film theory and forced film into an academic study
>experienced as French people and not Americans making movies
>liked all kinds of weird genre shit that generally didn't win awards in America
critics now
>have access, at their finger tips, to basically every piece of media ever put to film via digital distribution
>are more numerous than ever before and both better and worse than times past because: 1) that's the way it always is and will be and 2) the whole internet thing
>still conduct academic research and writing about film, giving detailed observations and arguments and observations, if you know where to look for it, you shit-ass rottentomatoes reader
your parents sucked at raising a thoughtful child is what happened
>They want to earn money
>people need money
WOW NO FUCKING SHIT
Keep watching anime.
No blame them for their shit degrees in woman studies and communication. The top review of GB is from fucking Buzzfeed.
>if you know where to look for it
Where are they then?
see
Yeah, but the weird thing is that, even though the economy is top-heavy, the new small business class is tending to be niche websites and advertisers.
For every Buzzfeed list catering to ADD kid popularity there's also something like Paste magazine which does thoughtful popular opinion.
Content providers online are the people steadily making money. They're the ones who can direct traffic. It's not necessarily that they're getting rich, but they are making money. Except Gawker. Gawker is fucked.
The decline of the western civilization.
Here are some recent recommendations to get you started with. Armond is a critic with integrity. You might not always agree with him but rest assured he'll always judge a movie fairly and in its own terms:
Batman vs. Superman rejects progressive-era hero worship as conflicted mythology.
Beautiful Something looks for passion behind identity politics.
Chevalier finds ego-campaigning even in interpersonal rivalries.
Eddie the Eagle gives speed and feeling to real-life determination.
Eisenstein in Guanajuato salutes the great radical cinema artist on his own terms.
The Finest Hours rediscovers modern heroism in the values of the forgotten past.
Knight of Cups makes a moral assessment of contemporary corrupt Hollywood.
Love & Friendship, a comedy of millennial manners with a Regency twist.
Miles Ahead salutes the great radical jazz artist on his own terms.
The President dares hold a mirror up to despotism.
Sunset Song searches the soul of patriotism.
Standing Tall movingly connects a white at-risk French youth to the West’s at-risk future.
Valley of Love probes forgiveness through unconditional parenting.
Wiener-Dog explores the complexity of human will through tragedy, humor, and metaphor.
nationalreview.com
Search for things on JSTOR and join a community like KG. Hell, even public trackers carry a lot of film theory ebooks.
>he'll always judge a movie fairly and in its own terms
No he doesn't. He's as subjective as every other critic.
I don't think any unbiased, objective critic exists and army sure as shit ain't the closest to it.
He's a nigger faggot and a psudo-intellectual contrarian to boot.
A broken clock is right once a day. He seems to aspire for something beyond a mere "review" by injecting buzzwords and """"philosophy"""" / """"politics"""" by he fails to substantiate all the assertions he makes in his """"arguments"""".
There are Ghostbuster 2016 reviewers less biased then him because his politics always take precedence over an objective analysis. He's fully entitled to write rhetorical reviews, but people shouldn't expect him to suggest good movies.
He's fully embraces his politically led assessment of movies and art while rejecting any appreciation for a movie's actual quality.
And so he goes on lauding Resident Evil, GI Joe, and Transformers while shitting on objectively well crafted movies.
What're his thoughts on The Thing?
Mike = Ebert, a populist hack
Jay = Siskel, a true lover of pure kinography with excellent taste, forced to sit next to a country bumpkin and pretend his opinion matters
well crafted movies with shit tier ideologiesare shit movies senpai
>shilling for le contrarian critic Sup Forums hero
He's shit. Going against the grain of popular thought every chance you get, to the point that he called Paul a better movie than Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives, does not a good critic make.
Not every movie has to have ideologies.
I suppose Mendelssohn, Mahler, Schoenberg are all hacks because they're Jewish right?
I hate most lefties as much as most people on Sup Forums, but assessing art based on politics is absolutely retarded. Unless it's actively promoting something regressive (and sometimes not even then), it shouldn't have any bearing on the actual quality.
>a movie must be putting forward a political ideology because if we look at it from a bird's eye view, isn't everything essentially politics?
slavoj zizek, please leave
Every movie does.
What are the ideologies of Predator 2?
when did I say it had to have a POLITICAL ideology?
It's inevitable for a movie to take a moral stance, even if it is apathy or indifference.
So there are only political agendas? A filmmaker's personal agenda in making a film, to you, is always a political involvement?
And we, as viewers, are engaging in a political act every time we watch and try to interpret a movie?
that final scene where the predators give danny respect for defeating his adversary.
that's loaded with all sorts of stuff
see
Politics is just the science of rule. Morality is relative to whomever holds power. *tips fedora*
Armond White literally creates a list every year where he tries to explain his opinions against the establishment. Clearly his 'morality' is to incite people.
What about Jaws?
IMO the establishment is somewhat misguided today *tips back fedora* so Armond's stance makes sense.
Thank you for not brushing me off as a troll and sorry for not actually contributing to the discussion and simply asking for examples.
This is actually pretty cool and eye opening.
You might as well posted an image of Gene Shalit because Roger Ebert was a hack. Fucker was a bitter film maker whose only work was some softcore porn movie. He had very little understanding of movies from different genre as he would try to hold shit like a kids movie to the same standards as the English Patient. If Roger Ebert were born a in the 80s he'd be a screen reader. The assholes who failed to get in the industry by normal means so they become gate keepers and impose their shit tastes on the masses.
I'm not a fan of critics in general. I personally believe that those who don't do should pipe down a little bit. And I know there are people who like to defend the opinions of critics because you don't have to be a film maker to review a film right but it doesn't mean your opinion should have so much clout. Sure you can take a random guys opinion about a restaurant if you'd like but I'd put more weight in someone who is a chef and understand food and restaurant on another level than someone who only knows about stuffing their face.
Don't forget that critics now have are educated in gender studies
That doesn't make him an honest reviewer. There isn't always a solid logic to his reviews, except that they go against convention.
Not that other critics are any better, they're just a bit more predictable about their tastes. Siskel and Ebert often agreed with other critics and were hugely promotional in the early-1990s in determining Oscars. They're all hypocrites to some extent, but there's something especially hypocritical, to me, about going out of your way to make your readers feel that you've got a higher understanding than your peers.
>educated
>"t-two thumbs up"
Millennials and the internet happened.
All films have ideologies even if they're not made with ideologies in mind. It can be conscious or unconscious but they'll often reflect contemporary social trends or crises.
Look at The Thing, which echoes the AIDS scare in a way. The monster hiding amongst an isolated group of men, in the bloodstream.
I don't agree with him always. I ultimately make up my own mind.
Shit I didn't mean 'in the bloodstream' exactly because the alien needs minimal contact to mimic them (one drop of blood) and there is that blood test scene
>Armond White? A filthy contrarian, nothing more.
That's part of it, but the other part is how they are teaching film criticism in colleges.
I took a class my final year on media criticism and at least 85% of it was feminist/SWJ bullshit. We had to read essays that included "inoffensive pronouns" like "ze" and "zhey" and all that shit.
For fuck's sake, we even had an entire fucking class basically dedicated to shitting on John Wayne because he was right-wing and dared to make a Vietnam film that didn't shit on American soldiers (granted Green Berets wasn't great, but it was hardly the atrocity that our professor and a bunch of the feminist students made it out to be).
The only good thing I got out of it was we had to write blog posts on a weekly basis about films, and I basically got to review a bunch of really good older films/more obscure films like Cries and Whispers, Ida, Song of the Sea, and The Killing Fields.
>le contrarian nigger
Fuck off Korine fag
Are you one of those they call homosex?
Green Berets is shit propaganda with no artistic value tbqh
youtube.com
this guy is pretty cool but im not interested in most things he posts
I stopped going to rotten tomatoes when I went to look at the review summaries of some movie and at least half of them were just bitching about the movie's potential effect on social consciousness.
