>Hated Home Alone 1 & 2, but liked Home Alone 3
>Hated Blue Velvet & A Clockwork Orange
>Gives obvious Oscar bait thumbs up
>Gave The Good, The Bad and The Ugly a lower score at release because spaghetti westerns "weren't in" then later gave it a better review
>Defended Armond White because "it was da evil racist trolls hating a black man and his views!" then quickly recanted on this when he, you know, actually LOOKED at Armonds fucking reviews
What the fuck was his problem?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
rogerebert.com
twitter.com
What's wrong with Armond?
He was a full-blown cuck. He hated Blue Velvet because of "muh violence against womyn"
>>Gave The Good, The Bad and The Ugly a lower score at release because spaghetti westerns "weren't in" then later gave it a better review
He acknowledges that in the better review.
Show me his fucked up face post cancer
What I really hate is reading every single hollywood move wikipedia and finding about how "Roger Ebert gave this film 3 1/2 stars"
I DON'T FUCKING CARE. WHY IS THIS TWAT'S OPINION PLASTERED ON EVERY SINGLE MOVIE WIKI PAGE?
I kind of want him to just die already, but I feel sad saying that at the same time because he's one of the last relics of my childhood thats remained pretty much untainted and unchanged by modern shit.
Its hard to explain, I hope you know what I mean
wasn't he married to a black woman? BLEACHED
>listening to critics
>ever
>Hated Home Alone 1 & 2, but liked Home Alone 3
>Hated Blue Velvet & A Clockwork Orange
>Gives obvious Oscar bait thumbs up
>Gave The Good, The Bad and The Ugly a lower score at release
I fail to see how any of these opinions are controversial in the slightest, these are IMDb top 250 letterdbox "muh filmbuff" college student tier if not worse
Boy do I have some news for you.
He hated almost every David Lynch movie. Lost Highway has a 2 for being confusing, yet Mulholland Drive is a perfect score despite being as esoteric as his other movies
He was the most famous film critic ever.
The most patrician one was Pauline Kael though.
He died
rogerebert.com is handled by different people
He died like 4 years ago
>it's a "ebert gives a movie a good review because it Stars a black" episode
Was Blue Velvet really any good besides the shocking scenes with Dennis Hopper?
I just watched it the other day and yeah it was really good.
Kek
He didn't hate Clockwork Orange.
Mulholland Drive was Lynch's version of Oscar bait, no surprise there.
I feel like I've seen this before
I understand where he's coming from. He doesn't feel like the movie is saying anything important, so it's not worth what the actress had to go through to make it.
Didnt he originally give a bad review to Shawshank Redemption and then changed it to good when everyone else liked it?
Or was it some other film critic?
Didn't he hate Blade Runner as well?
Reminder this fuck liked 50 first dates
But it had semi-explicit lesbianism. And it happens in LA and in the movie milieu (massive pandering to Hollywood).
Good Ebert
>Apocalypse Now
>Last Tango in Paris
>Pulp Fiction
>Wrote Beyond the Valley of the Dolls
>Great essays about movies and the people who make them
Bad Ebert
>Confuses Dirty Harry with fascism
>1.5 stars for Raising Arizona
>Hated Caddyshack
>Went from obnoxious liberal in person to obnoxious liberal who couldn't quite infusing his reviews with politics
Neutral Ebert
>promethean troll
Remeber that Ebert was a professional film critic, you arent and thats why his opinions on films and cinema are more valid than yours.
This was before movie critics were just unemployed bloggers
Siskel was the real man.
>"Blue Velvet" contains scenes of such raw emotional energy that it's easy to understand why some critics have hailed it as a masterpiece. A film this painful and wounding has to be given special consideration.
>And yet those very scenes of stark sexual despair are the tipoff to what's wrong with the movie. They're so strong that they deserve to be in a movie that is sincere, honest and true. But "Blue Velvet" surrounds them with a story that's marred by sophomoric satire and cheap shots. The director is either denying the strength of his material or trying to defuse it by pretending it's all part of a campy in-joke.
Ebert's review on the day it was released in U.S.
he's not wrong you know
...
>Defended Armond White
Is this true because doesn't Armond dislike him?
Shit nigga, I like a lot of Ebert's work his 'The Great Movies' essay on The Passion of Joan of Arc was particularly moving. That said, he was still a blowhard, and the joke in Pret-a-Porter about the critic who hated movies before he got married and then loving them after applied directly to him.
rogerebert.com
Siskel: I liked this movie because it had a good, interesting plot and had some great, original dark comedy bits mixed in through out that added a lot to the overall tone of the movie. Thumbs up.
Ebert: In the works of Spelling, a predominant concept is the distinction between
opening and closing. It could be said that the subject is contextualised into a
postdialectic paradigm of discourse that includes consciousness as a paradox. A
number of semioticisms concerning the meaninglessness, and subsequent rubicon,
of capitalist language may be found. Thumbs down.
>said vidya isn't art
hero
Nobody´s perfect. I love his books and though I hate some of his specific reviews, I see where he is coming from 100% of the time. He was a smart guy who understood the true power of cinema. No one on this board has a fraction of the knowledge he had on the medium, and though I know I´m kissing him ass, it´s for a good reason. I think it´s nothing but pathetic when someone like OP has the balls to act as if having opinions he disagrees is objectively wrong. RIP, I respected the shit out of him.
>If an character feels pain the movie is bad.
Good review. Certainly understand film.
Explain why this makes it bad, or even deserves the lowest possible score
So whenever they say that a classic was panned by critics on release only to be later considered a masterpiece, he is one of those critics? I don't know what's worse, not recognizing greatness or his backpedalling.
He's wrong. He completely misunderstands Lynch and his work, and so do you. You probably think Twin Peaks is a soap opera satire.
Are you retarded? Roger Ebert's criticsm is actually for being simplistic.
He looks like a 70 year old lesbian in that photo.
Have you even read Ebert's reviews? He could appreciate dumb fun movies. He gave The Mummy a high score, and many other movies of the sort.
not him, but what is Twin Peaks about then?
He dated Oprah.
He loved BBV.