>Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave the film a positive review, awarding it three out of four stars. Ebert remarked, "Now why did I like this movie? It was just plain dumb fun, is why." Ebert also stated that it is the best in the series.
He's talking about The Mummy 3 Tomb of the Dragon Emperor
How the fuck did this guy have any credibility at all?
>guy reviews thousands of films
>he has a couple of unpopular opinions (fight club, usual suspects etc.)
>OMG HOW TAKE HIM SRS
shut the fuck up kid
You just mad cause the mummy is better than your Marvel shit.
its from the mike stoklasa film review school. to him the whole series is trash, but once it opens itself to being complete shlock he could enjoy it
>it's an "Ebert likes a terrible movie because it's for a Black audience" review
Ebert...WE GET IT!! You like blacks
Why would you want to live without the lower part of your face? I would choose death.
>kid
Please grow up.
>am I fitting in?!?!
I may post on Sup Forums but at least I still have a full face. Based Ebert.
what the fuck does his have to do with the mummy 3 lmao
Sup Forums pls
lol
always relevant
Oh god it was literally hanging skin. He had no jaw left... Why didnt that nigga get a face mask like Malek in KOTR of something.
I honestly think it is easier for anybody to go out in public looking like OP's picture with his jaw-flesh being supported and just being a fucked up normal-looking guy than some guy walking around with a mask.
Either way he's not talking. The mask makes it hard to convey that fact.
Roger Ebert: (addressing Rachel Dawes) Well, hello beautiful. You must be Harvey's squeeze. And you are beautiful. Oh, you look nervous. Is it the scars? Wanna know how I got 'em? (grabs her chin as she tries to turn away) C'mere, look at me. So, I had a wife, who was beautiful...like you, who tells me I worry too much, who tells me I oughta smile more, who gambles and gets in deep with the sharks...(she squirms, he pulls her back) Hey. One day they carve her face. And we got no money for surgeries. She can't take it. I just want to see her smile again. Hmm? I just wanted to let her know that I don't care about the scars. So, I stick a razor in my mouth and do this... to myself. And you know what? She can't stand the sight of me! She leaves! Now I see the funny side. Now, I'm always smiling!
That was the beginning of Brendan 's JUSTENING. Ebert could see it coming and tried to save him by giving his shitty movie a good review. He was the hero we needed all along
Indeed, he should have gone full Raziel. This is just disgusting.
Because it puts into question his credibility. It's not like a game of poker, some you lose some you win, Ebert backed all of his claims with full-length reviews and his inconsistencies in opinion, moral biases, misunderstanding of cinema and disapproval of anything edgy or new shows clearly.
It's like if a politician said everything you agreed with and was always logical and enlightened, but then you find out one of his policies is that everyone over the age of 40 should be "put down". Whether it's their intention or not, this policy will inform the way you perceive all of their other policies because it is so bizarre and generally disagreeable. This becomes especially as straight when the politician has this policy, but also the policy: every over 50 y/o are required to retire. There are clear contradictions that are impossible to avoid. This is the case in Ebert's writing.
*strange not straight
Really? He just enjoyed a shitty movie, what a ridiculous analogy - does your movie taste absolutely 100% line up with critical opinion? What a boring shit you must be.
Why is he making such a stupid face?
He looks like a patient of Hannibal Lecter.
Fine, here's a very clear example for you. Ebert gave Lost Highway 2/4 because it didn't make sense yet came back four years later and gave Mulholland Drive 4/4. I'm not going to call Lost Highway the better of the two films, but they're almost sister-films they're so similar, yet one is entirely dismissed and the other is given his highest honour. And again six years later Ebert gave Inland Empire 4/4, all attributed to a director who, before 1999, failed to score higher than 2.5/4.
He also loved Speed 2
DELETE THIS
>thread is about Ebert's questionable reviews
>its about M-m-m-m-m-mummy 3 Sup Forums
he gave jurassic park 3 thumbs up
Non american here, I get the impression his popularity and status ware more the result of the format of his show and its popularity rather than his own knowledge and ability to analyse movies. Is this a fair assumption?
Why should he wear the mask?
Jurassic Park 3 > The Lost World
>Just turn your brain off bro!
He liked the Star wars prequels too
>My friend, that was a big mistake
>Unsheathes katana
>Teleports behind you
>Slices you into a million pieces
>Charges up a ki wave and blasts you into nothingness
>Heh, nothing personal kid
>The OT wasn't cheesy dumb fun
Mike "schlock jock" stoklasa says that xmen apocalypse is better than cap:civil war because of muh schlock
There aren't that many faults other than liking some dumb movies, His Lynch rivalry was fucking hilarious though.
>gave 2/4 to A Clockwork Orange
What a cuck.
Critics in general are shit, nobody should even bother with their opinions. It's dumb. What appeals to one person will bore another.
They're both shit so who cares that he prefers one over the other?
He used a prosphetic chin later
fuck that, he gave Full Metal Jacerk 2.5, that's a far greater insult
Why is roger ebert so celebrated anyway? he was just a film reviewer
The trick is finding a critic who has the same taste as you, even if that taste isn't the consensus.
>How the fuck did this guy have any credibility at all?
I have no idea.
if your movie makes china look bad then the media moguls will back that shit up no matter what, it's a rule
Why is she tickling that old man's neck?
>There are clear contradictions that are impossible to avoid.
Not really. He's a human being. And he wrote entire reviews that explained his reasoning. He also probably changed over the course of his life. You know, because he was a human being with human experiences. You sound like a child, to be honest.
Also, if a politician I admired had that policy, I'd probably just look more into why he holds that view. I wouldn't throw him out the window completely.
>Revenge of the Sith
>3.5 Stars
Come on Roger, who paid you?
He's not wrong, Apocalypse gathering followers to the tune of Four Horsemen by Metallica and Oscar Isaac hamming it up to the extreme was way more fun to watch than Muh Bucky Vs Muh Parents.
He had Credibility because:
>>He was a jew.
>>He Married a negress.
I would understand if Ebert went from 18 to 22 from Lost Highway to Mulholland Drive, but he went from 30 to 34, nothing so earth-shattering should have happened for his score to double from one film to another that is so similar. To be frank I think it would be more childish to claim that there shouldn't be cohesiveness between reviews, what inconsistencies demonstrate is a misunderstanding of the medium and too great a conscious effort of his audience and peer reactions to his reviews. As someone who followed him during most of his late career, I can tell you he rarely wrote for the films.
>Also, if a politician I admired had that policy, I'd probably just look more into why he holds that view. I wouldn't throw him out the window completely
This is exactly the point I was attempting to highlight. You shouldn't just look at the scores and think "that's an odd anomaly", you should go back and reassess other reviews that pertain to that controversial/abnormal review. What I'm saying is that Ebert rarely justified his drastic changes in opinion, he more often than not allows the mood he goes into a movie with dictate how he feels about it.
Critics don't become famous because of a vast cinematic knowledge or analytical ability
they become famous because they write catchy one liners in their reviews
Which movies they like and don't like are only a little more consistent than a random movie goer
He was right about Fight Club and the Usual Suspects. Wrong about A Clockwork Orange though.
>what do blacks have to do with ancient Egypt
Are you serious?
REMINDER:
>movies Ebert gave 4/4 stars:
Knowing
Prometheus
Avatar
Crash (2004)
Salt (2010)
>movies Ebert gave 3.5/4 stars:
Cars 2
Star Wars Episode I The Phantom Menace
Star Wars Episode III Revenge of the Sith
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
Anonymous
2012
The Karate Kid (2010)
Diary of a Wimpy Kid
Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs
Paranormal Activity
Brüno
Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within
Snow White and the Huntsman
Junior (1994)
The Matrix Reloaded (he gave the first Matrix a 3/4)
The Amazing Spider-Man (he gave Sam Raimi's Spider-Man a 2.5/4)
>movies Ebert gave 3/4 stars:
Paul Blart: Mall Cop
Speed 2: Cruise Control
Transformers
The Matrix Revolutions
Ghosts of Mars
Deep Blue Sea
Zack and Miri Make a Porno
The Santa Clause 2
Garfield: The Movie
Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties
Jennifer's Body
Total Recall (2010)
>movies Ebert gave 2.5/4 stars:
The Omen (he gave the remake a 3/4)
John Carpenter's The Thing (he gave the prequel the same score)
Once Upon a Time in the West
Full Metal Jacket
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
Rushmore
Wild at Heart
Naked Lunch
Reservoir Dogs
Grindhouse
Caddyshack
>movies Ebert gave 2/4 stars:
Straw Dogs (he gave the remake a 3/4)
Die Hard
A Clockwork Orange
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)
Army of Darkness
Big Trouble in Little China
Prince of Darkness
The Fog (1980)
Starship Troopers
Basic Instinct
An American Werewolf in London
National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation
Lost Highway
Brazil
The Fisher King
Fight Club
Bottle Rocket
Papillon
>movies Ebert gave 1.5/4 stars:
Raising Arizona
Day of the Dead (1985)
A Nightmare On Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors
Phantasm
The Usual Suspects
Dead Man
>movies Ebert gave 1/4 stars:
Blue Velvet
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
The Frighteners
Scrooged
The Raid: Redemption
Phantasm II
>movies Ebert gave 0.5/4 stars:
Hellraiser
>gives movies like the mummy 3 and 2012 good reviews for being fun, turn your brain off movies
>gave the raid 1 star for being "mindless" and "pandering"
>Non american here
But seriously yeah it's a fair assumption, it's how I feel too. I can feel you
>movies Ebert gave 3/4 stars:Paul Blart: Mall Cop
It deserved 4/4 indeed.
but... why? for validation? why do you want to hear your own opinion through someone else? or is it like those Sup Forums threads where they just finished watching something and ask everyone whether they're allowed to like it or not?
The point is having somebody who enjoys the same shit you do to get raccomendations for more shit to watch, nobody just watches every single movie that comes out and trailers are often misleading
Truly a masterpiece. I bet he would've loved the sequel.
oh, shit i see. my bad then, thanks
I don't know, I don't consider him credible myself.