Can someone explain roger ebert to me? is his opinion worth anything, and when did his opinion no longer matter?

can someone explain roger ebert to me? is his opinion worth anything, and when did his opinion no longer matter?

Other urls found in this thread:

rogerebert.com/reviews/persona-1967
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Rimbaud
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

it was a matter of timing 2bh

>and when did his opinion no longer matter?
When he thought Home Alone 3 was better than the first two.

>When did his opinion no longer matter?
Sometime in early 2013.

I was overjoyed when I heard 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.

I will expand OP's question and ask someone to explain movie critics to me

These are people who get paid and, in this man's case, are worshipped purely because of their opinions. Why?

If you find a good critic, with opinions similar to yours, you've essentially hired someone to help out.

Only instead of Consuela cleaning your house for $50 a month, you have Roger watching movies and saying which are worth your time for $0 a month.

fucking kek, is this new pasta?

>No one should be allowed to make a movie before they’re 40. There should be no film critics younger than 30. Before that you don’t know enough about art, you don’t know enough about life. I started out as a young person interested in writing about film, but I know more now than I knew then.

>I think it is fair to say that Roger Ebert destroyed film criticism. Because of the wide and far reach of television, he became an example of what a film critic does for too many people. And what he did was not criticism. And it was a kind of purposefully dishonest enthusiasm for product, not real criticism at all… He does NOT have the training. I think he simply had the position. He does NOT have the training. I’VE got the training. And frankly, I don’t care how that sounds, but the fact is, I’ve got the training. I’m a pedigreed film critic. I’ve studied it. I know it. And I know many other people who’ve studied it as well, studied it seriously. Ebert just simply happened to have the job. And he’s had the job for a long time. He does not have the foundation. He simply got the job. And if you’ve ever seen any of his shows, and ever watched his shows on at least a two-week basis, then you surely saw how he would review, let’s say, eight movies a week and every week liked probably six of them. And that is just simply inherently dishonest. That’s what’s called being a shill. And it’s a tragic thing that that became the example of what a film critic does for too many people. Often he wasn’t practicing criticism at all. Often he would point out gaffes or mistakes in continuity. That’s not criticism. That’s really a pea-brained kind of fan gibberish.

>In mainstream media and the internet, most people who are writing about films are simply writing from a fan’s perspective instead of a truly critical perspective. So what used to be termed "film critics" now is almost meaningless, because you just got a free-for-all of enthusiasms rather than criticism.

>Consuela cleaning your house for $50 a month
My cleaning lady is 45 eurobucks a week

>fucking kek, is this new pasta?
Never respond to me again, you bottom tier worthless poster

>implying most people see the movie first and then watch/read the review, hoping that the person agrees with them

He had ok taste in more artistic movies but awful taste in mainstream ones. His essays are relatively elegant on average, but his early and late ones were essentially critiquing the plot as he describes it rather than an essay.

For example his response to Passion of the Christ is one of the better non-academic defenses of the movie. But look up some second-rate mainstream movie and he'll just kinda rant the plot to you and say "yeah it's mediocre"

The reason he's a household name is because he and Gene had enough personality onscreen to get famous, but his writing is fantastic. What makes him a great critic is that he realizes art is subjective, and even if you disagree with him, you still understand why he feels the way he does.

he gave birth of a nation and triumph of the will 4/4

Before the internet ruined film criticism by allowing amateurs and bloggers to be treated as legitimate film critics, he was one of the dozen professional film journalists working for major newspapers

He's right for the most part. The self-fellating wasn't really necessary.

Though I disagree with the notion that pointing out mistakes in continuity isn't valid criticism.

Stop my dear Armond, i can only get so erect.

there's no bigger joke than "film criticism"

This pasta is older than you.

sauce?

Criticism in general is bullshit. 95% of critics out there don't give a shit about whatever piece of media they are reviewing, all they want is to prove how smart they are by using unnecessarily complex language to shit out five paragraphs that don't actually say anything.

Incidentally that's also basically what academic writing in the field of humanities consists of.

i imagine some just do it for the movie

if you could make a year's salary by writing ten faggy paragraphs about a movie then you wouldn't quit your job?

i agree with your general point though

...

It does, if It wasn't for Ebert & Manohla Dargis, Synecdoche, New York would be considered one of the worst films ever, by normies.

why doesnt he make a film?

whenever critics start going on about how important they are and how great their understanding of film is, i just wonder why they don't just make films then.

pretty much. not to mention all critics are just vapid parasites who make a living off the hard work of others who don't actually create anything of worth themselves.

i would be interested in hearing actual filmmakers critique other filmmakers though, that would be interesting

>spoonfeed me opinions
Jesus...

>actual filmmakers critique other filmmakers
That's never going to happen
>famous director A talks mad shit about famous director B's movie
>endless drama about it
>now director A gets labeled a cunt by everyone
>blacklisted
>etc
Unless you can afford to not give a fuck and say whatever you want, public people like filmmakers need to keep their controversial opinions to themselves

BASED ARMOND
A
S
E
D

A
R
M
O
N
D

...

What kind of training do you have to do to be a proper critic?

Ebert was a great lover of film and his reviews are accessible, elegant, passionate, and informed by a deeply democratic ethos of art and criticism.

"Two thumbs up!"

Yes of course, which would be an easy understanding to anyone who cares to read his work. But on the spergland of imbecility known as Sup Forums, obvious things are too hard

>informed by a deeply democratic ethos of art and criticism

>the phone call that saved cinema

>triggered brainlet

I mean, it's literally a well-recognized facet of his criticism commented upon by other critics who admired his life and work. You understand his criticism better when you understand his ideological approach to his own work.

it means he reviewed movies for the average joe in midwest

>Did he actually die not knowing he was a hack?

Never fails to make laugh

PREQUEL REVIEWS

Roger Ebert was a guy from an era before the advent of the internet and when everyone with a keyboard suddently became a critic. Unlike the shitheads we see reviewing movies on youtube nowadays, Ebert and Siskel, gavetheir honest opinions and were simply providing a service. They told you the basics of a movie, in other words what you needed to know to determine if the film was interesting to you, and if it was worth seeing. Critics on the internet now are basically just rambling on about everything and anything and have forgotten what the purpose of this type of film criticism is all about.

Critics now do it for interent cred, to validate opinions of their followers, to rant about a subject that is maybe only tangentially relevant. But in all of that the reason for reviewing film shas been completely lost. But I guess it is also just a sign of the times. People don't watch reviews now to see what's good to watch, they do so to validate their own opinions. e.g. X said film was good, and I like X, which means i'm right. OR, was Y film a good film? X said Y was bad, therefore it must be bad, and you're wrong.

People nowadays have forgotten why people used to review films. People nowadays don't even go to theatres anymore, which makes movie reviewing somewhat pointless. All they really want is validation of their opinons.

Because its easier to demand and judge than actually doing anything.
If you do it well enough, you can fool people into thinking you know how to do it right.

>gave Knowing and Prometheus 4/4
Was he wrong?

>placing an age restriction on art

I get what your saying, but that won't stop the shit movies/flicks from being made. The production companies are the problem there, not the age of the directors.

As far as critics are concerned, meh. They can be any age because they are insignificant.

>all they want to do

I'd disagree. The majoriy of them are hoping production companies notice them and how good they are at persuading peoples opinions. If a production company thinks they are valuable, then they are basically set for life and get a nice comfy gig like Ebert.

Watch a variety of films. Practice writing down your thoughts of said films. Try to persuade people to watch, like, or hate them.

fucking excellent post user. thank you for putting my feelings on these youtube """review/analysis""" videos into words.

Movie reviewing was already kind of pointless to begin with because people were going to see whatever they felt like regardless. But it's like you said, people just want validation of their opinions, not some other person's who they probably won't even agree with. I mean, shit, why are we even on this site but to find some kind of validation for our own opinions?

YouTube.com/watch?=4d5KovCbU8w

This is Egbert in a nutshell, no analysis of technique or intent, just a very superficial overview backed by nothing more concrete than his opinions

Edge Lord Supreme is that you?

I agreed with him 90% of the time, so I really liked him, could always rely on his score. Now that he's dead there's noone like it. Don't agree with any of the critics, they all seem retarded.

nice projecting, i see a lotta people at the cinema, you have to get out more

rogerebert.com/reviews/persona-1967

Try again

This tbqhdesu. If you had a trailer and a review by Ebert, you could always tell if the movie was worth seeing. Can't tell it anymore, trailers often mislead and critics don't do their jobs.

Try Pete Travers. Not as good as Ebert, but decent.

>best film of 2014: Boyhood
Into the trash he goes

that's not what he said. Do think poetry made by a 15 year old is good?

>Do think poetry made by a 15 year old is good?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Rimbaud

Also how old was Orson Welles when he made CK?

FUCKING THIS. The only time I actually put any effort in college until now was when we had to write an essay on a film adapted from a play. I actually explored the author's intent and his choice in story telling. I didn't even score half because the professor was a fucking retard with 3rd grade reading skills and only saw the most superficial (and non existant) message (not my opinion because we had to do a bunch of projects around that theme). I was pretty JUSTed

>thinking those were any good
ok guy, don't let me stop you from making your student film

...wait.

Are you. Really dismissing Arthur Rimbaud AND Citizen Kane all in one post?

#trumptrain

Ebert's only popular because he had a tv show. That's literally the only reason he's more famous then any other critic, his reviews aren't bad but aren't anything above anyone else.

>Do think poetry made by a 15 year old is good?
Maybe not. But maybe other 15 year olds like it. And that 15 year old will never be as good as he/she could be when their 30-40 if they don't start young.

Wait is this a person?

I unironacly thought he was a character from some horror movie

who?

>meh

when he died, you imbecile

He lost all credibility with me when he said this wasn't art

>is this a person

One of the most famous people in the world. He had cancer in his mouth, had to get his lower jaw removed. He died from it later on in life.

Babby please go.

>they say in chorus, while watching a xavier dolan flick

...

I bet you think Transformers is art too because it's pretty looking CGI.

I hope you don't actually believe you're making any worthy point.

well you named one kid and one hack. I'll consider your point if you could name a young director who's not a self indulgent prick.

I'm sure you think anything that isn't a mainstream blockbuster is self-indulgent and pretentious.

>well you named one kid and one hack
Just hurry up and kill yourself, Sup Forumseddit

>he says it, while stroking his dolan and korine posters
I'm sure you think anything senseless and quirky is a masterpiece of cinema

internet ruined a bunch of stuff, everyone and anyone with computer access is a food critic, a movie critic, a journalist, a political expert and a doctor now. Use to be you needed authority in a field to be heard but the internet changed all that so now everyone is heard, and what's worse is that most think that just because they can be heard they are automatically an authority.

>video games
how's life in mummy's basement?

>Did he actually die not knowing he was a hack?

This. Roger and Gene played off each other really well and unlike today disagreeing with one wasn't the end of the world. If one like a movie and the other didn't they didn't immediately devolve into name-calling each other. They respected each other enough where they might not had understood the other's opinion or thought it was stupid but it was ok for them to have that opinion.

2 thumbs up to this post

>Literal nigger faggot
>Who heralds GI Joe, Transformers, and Resident Evil as high art.

I'm going to laugh very hard when he dies and finds himself in the hell he believes in.

>I didn't understand it
>Therefore its pseudo intellectualism!

It made perfect sense to me dude. There aren't any superfluous words in that phrase, its just above a elementary school reading level.

>In mainstream media and the internet, most people who are writing about films are simply writing from a fan’s perspective instead of a truly critical perspective. So what used to be termed "film critics" now is almost meaningless, because you just got a free-for-all of enthusiasms rather than criticism.

Couldn't put it any better

>disliked Blue Velvet because he thought Isabella Rossellini was being abused on set
>Disliked Fight Club, The Usual Suspects, Fear and Loathing, Leon the Professional and The Master
Never put any stock into a single one of his reviews, although he was pretty entertaining at times

it stopped mattering the day he decided to become a nigger loving oil driller

>meanwhile he likes the transformer series

they're both shit

what did he mean by this

>guy who likes capeshit and pain and gain said this

Wow

Really makes ya think

...

I thought Ebert liked Korine

Because a good critic is a good writer

No memes?

Roger Ebert was a bubbly fellow who brought some charm to the Movies. He was the complete personification of a manchild and in that sense, brought with him a ferment that made adults rekindle with their childhood tantalising love for film. This was most exemplified in his love for Anime and quirky styled reviews with Siskel allowing a sort of rivalry between friends to burst onto the screen reminding one of their own childhood debates. He introduced many American home viewers to great cinema and was a necessary force during the '70s.

Despite this, Ebert faltered when he decried a series of great films. For one, Ebert didn't like Blue Velvet for its overbearing brutality towards the female lead, this would lead him onto the long road of failure. Ebert could see a good movie when he watched one, but when it became something too abstract, brutal or esoteric in nature, he would dislike it despite loving many childish blockbusters and giving them upwards of 3/4 reviews. He also disturbed the by pointing out to them, quite appropriately, that video games aren't art and made a series of blunders when criticising (I believe) a recently deceased individual on Twitter.


Roger Ebert? A good man who was very much deservedly respected during the '70s forward but burned out sometime in the late '90s or early 2000s. A decent reviewer, but ultimately, an amateur hack.