Why did anyone like and listen to this freakshow faggot?

Why did anyone like and listen to this freakshow faggot?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=hTAhCDDk5aU
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

He was honest, passionate, had expertise, and even though he had wrong opinions many times, his reviews were usually accurate and well written enough for you to decide whether the movie would be right for you.

t. Siskel

Aww. Which favorite movie of yours did he shit on that compelled you to make this thread?

...full metal jacket

he was a pretty good critic for his time, but in his last years he became "old man yelling at cloud" tier, its alright I guess, getting old is hard

I heard Chris Stuckmann punched him in the jaw after Ebert called his reviews "pulchritudinous manuscriptions". Of course Stuckmann never understood that this was in fact a compliment. Ebert got his jaw removed unfortunately.

Ebert's reviews were so bad my jaw dropped when I read them.

>"Roger Ebert is a fat pig with the physique of a slave trader." -Vincent Gallo

lol who is this deformed faggot?

Kek

Gallo's shit. He has always had emotional problems. He attacked Al Pacino and many others. Fucking "artsy" hipster. In fact, a mediocre actor.

Good review

Leave underaged cunt

>It is baffling to me that a critic could praise "Transformers 2" but not "Synecdoche, New York." Or "Death Race" but not "There Will be Blood." I am forced to conclude that White is, as charged, a troll. A smart and knowing one, but a troll.

Was he right?

But 2.5/4 is a perfect rating considering the first half of the movie is 4/4 and second half is 1/4

t. butthurt "gamer"

>"There Will be Blood."

Trash just like deformed jaw man

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.

If you honestly believe that the world of film is somehow improved by his loss you're pretty deluded.

But Gallo was right about Al Pacino.

Why was he so hung up on fascism? He panned Dirty Harry, Clockwork Orange, and Fight Club because they represented some spectre of 'fascism' returning.

Fuck off, Gallo is /ourguy/

suivant cette logique, every edgelord is ourguy?

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.

(((Ebert)))

He gave Dirty Hairy 3 stars, and he wasn't wrong about it desu.

>But wait a minute. The movie clearly and unmistakably gives us a character who understands the Bill of Rights, understands his legal responsibility as a police officer, and nevertheless takes retribution into his own hands. Sure, Scorpio is portrayed as the most vicious, perverted, warped monster we can imagine -- but that's part of the same stacked deck. The movie's moral position is fascist. No doubt about it.

That's the meanest thing I've ever read user and it's not even directed towards me

He was a democrat.

Probably a cuck. Fascism is true natural order.

>ctrl+f 'jaw'
>Only 5 hits
Disappointing desu.

That explains why he loved the male rape scene in pulp fiction

why has the webm not been posted yet

>A lot of fans are basically fans of fandom itself. It's all about them. They have mastered the "Star Wars" or "Star Trek" universes or whatever, but their objects of veneration are useful mainly as a backdrop to their own devotion. Anyone who would camp out in a tent on the sidewalk for weeks in order to be first in line for a movie is more into camping on the sidewalk than movies.
>Extreme fandom may serve as a security blanket for the socially inept, who use its extreme structure as a substitute for social skills. If you are Luke Skywalker and she is Princess Leia, you already know what to say to each other, which is so much safer than having to ad-lib it. Your fannish obsession is your beard. If you know absolutely all the trivia about your cubbyhole of pop culture, it saves you from having to know anything about anything else. That's why it's excruciatingly boring to talk to such people: They're always asking you questions they know the answer to.
>"Fanboys" is an amiable but disjointed movie that identifies too closely with its heroes. Poking a little more fun at them would have been a great idea. They are tragically hurtling into a cultural dead end, mastering knowledge which has no purpose other than being mastered, and too smart to be wasting their time. When a movie's opening day finally comes, and fanboys leave their sidewalk tents for a mad dash into the theater, I wonder who retrieves their tents, sleeping bags, portable heaters and iPod speakers. Warning: Mom isn't always going to be there to clean up after you.

why is he so mean to nerds?

Gallo has always been /ourguy/

not as deluded as thinking it benefitted from him

What a fag

Look how ugly he was though

kill yourself you 14 year old

*drools uncontrollably*

dude, cmon

kek

He was a very good writer, though he was writing for a mass pop-culture-esque audience. He had some serious film knowledge though.

I exchanged a few emails with him back when I was in college about the films of GW Pabst; he knew his stuff quite well.

>He was a good writer

False.

>He had some serious film knowledge though.

Yeah, listen his movie commentary tracks. He could watch a movie well.

As I said, he was not a good writer, he was a *very* good writer. Take these line from a review of "Searching for Bobby Fisher" -

>The film's implications are many. They center around our responsibility, if any, to our gifts. If we can operate at the genius level in a given field, does that mean we must - even if the cost is the sort of endless purgatory a Bobby Fischer has inhabited? It's an interesting question, and this movie doesn't avoid it.
>At the end, it all comes down to that choice faced by the young player that A. S. Byatt writes about: the choice between truth and beauty. What makes us men is that we can think logically. What makes us human is that we sometimes choose not to.

Clearly stated, gets to the essence of the film, brings in a connection with a Booker Prize winning author while also making a cogent connection with Keats, and ends with a pithy but thoughtful line.

The guy wrote very well; I don't know how you can reasonably deny that.

BASED

>The guy wrote very well; I don't know how you can reasonably deny that.

Just look at his jaw that's how

>speaking well
>writing well

If you are Ebert, pick one.

Thank you for this post
Sup Forums is sometimes an okay place

Deformed people don't have souls, and you need a soul to be a writer

I'm so glad the filters are still in place

FUCKING BASED EBERT

...

Why was this even filmed?

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Praise the King of Sup Forums

I dont understand. I thought plastic surgery - especially maxilofacial surgery had come *way* further than this. I mean, I get that cancer fucking ate his face bones. Thats brutal. But even with nothing to work with but the flesh, how did they not give him a better fake bottom jaw than this?

Especially with his money and connections!

On his blog, he talked about the option of wearing a fake beard to cover up his lack of jaw but he didn't want to do it for some reason.

Fellow Ebert anons: what was the review you most disagreed with him about, and how do you feel about it now?

I remember when Avatar came out and I read his review. I was so excited for it. He said he hadn't been that blown away by a movie since Star Wars. Then I went and saw it, but it didn't seem like anything special to me. How could he not see that it's just Fern Gully in space? I still respected him, but that review baffled me.

Fast forward to today and I see where he was coming from. James Cameron knows how to make a movie. It feels like a classic of cinema, much the same way Titanic does. It's not a perfect film, but Avatar captures that magical movie spirit that many reminisce about.

i find the existence and availability of this footage, baffling

My jaw dropped when I heard he died

why did i enjoy so much reading this post?

This. Siskel & Ebert was also comfy as hell.

R E D D I T

I still can't get into his praise for Crash.

Yeah, I know he gets emotional over movies like this, but for fucks sake fucking Crash of all things. There are plenty of other movies that did the same thing better and he's seen them all.

>I don't expect "Crash" to work any miracles, but I believe anyone seeing it is likely to be moved to have a little more sympathy for people not like themselves.
hahaha

You're taking your first steps out of the reddit cave of ignorance and into the light of Sup Forums.

kino

Oh shit good call, I forgot he gave it 4 stars. Man this really takes me back to my highschool days of reading his reviews on the Chicago Sun Times website.

I am able to accept that a person can be intelligent and informed while having a different opinion than I do. He did give Raising Arizone 1.5 stars, which I think is completely baffling.

how do i prevent myself from ever looking like this.

This was from the documentary 'Life Itself' about his life. I believe he said he was glad the suction scene was included because you never see that in movies or shows about cancer. He never wore a fake jaw or bear because he wanted people to see him as he was.

Don't be a """"""""""""""movie critic"""""""""""""

I also completely disagree with him about Brazil (two stars). He said it was "very hard to follow." That's a weak criticism, and not a particularly true one. I haven't changed my mind on either of these looking back.

Both titanic and avatar are shit. Watch once affairs with no redeeming quality other than visuals.
>classic of cinema
>magical movie spirit
You need to go back.

w/ his wife


JUST

what exactly are they suctioning?

i always thought of Ebert as a classy man, letting the world see how they suck inside the center of his head with a straw it's like a nightmare someone could have

aguante el ferné guacho

Damn eh, that's respectable. I wouldn't be able to do that, way too worried about my looks.

Kek. With literally his wife and her daughter!

In my third year of animation college they blocked YouTube because people spent too much time watching Graham Norton and Nostalgia Critic. Seriously.

but they didn't have the foresight to block SiskelandEbert.org. Spend the year watching the whole back catalogue of episodes. Just about any movie from the 80s throught the 90s and they did an episode on it, not to mention all their episodes dedicated to classics. It's great to hear two articulate, intelligent men swap barbs over a their interpretation of a movie.

Anytime they went on a talkshow together, it was pure electricity. Or the time they were on SNL or their specials about the latest christmas toys. Watch this clip of them failing at karaoke and know my joy
youtube.com/watch?v=hTAhCDDk5aU

this fucking picture holy shit, his pose seals the deal

They had some pretty interesting reviews that really made you think

>“This movie made me laugh so hard, I had mild headaches. So I went to the doctor and got myself checked out. I am currently waiting for the results. –Gene Siskel."

I was unironically listening to California Dreamin' when you posted this. Do you think it's a sign?

there was a webm of him in a hospital bed having some painful shit done by a nurse to adjust his neck or something

i really don't want cancer

fuck it still scars me

She has his face(back when he had a jaw) only it's black HAHAHA

...

see

don't laugh at your own jokes, it's off-putting.

Yes. Better check for cancer, quick

Been here for 11 years, no intention of leaving.

He's had some pretty jaw-dropping reviews.

>I would not interrupt you while you were singing!
>Siskel starts singing
>Oh that's terrible

>off putting

Like his jaw HAHAHA

kys right now

>been here 11 years
So you've been posting here since you were 3? That explains it.

(You)

r****t

I can't imagine the level of degeneracy you could possibly have to be born both a furry and a footfag.

I'm never interested on what critics what to say so I don't know much about this guy. But once I read one of his reviews and he just writes a summary about the movie and bitches about stupid shit that happened there, nothing that a Sup Forums poster couldn't write.

Are all critics as shit as he was?