Are they the Siskel and Ebert of our generation?

Are they the Siskel and Ebert of our generation?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/OkwVz_jK3gA
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

No because Ebert and Siskel usually disagreed with each other. Jay just agrees to whatever Mike says

I agree with this statement.

They've disagreed with each other multiple times on many things, they just don't waste our time arguing about it.
Brevity is the soul of wit- William Shakesman.

Mike's awake. Time to spam Sup Forums.

...

Basically, yes. There are no other good film reviews out there.

Do they secretly hate each other, too?

youtu.be/OkwVz_jK3gA

>overrated hack duo who think they have taste
it's a perfect match

Yes, they're bad critics too

Siskel and Ebert shined the best when they disagreed with eachother. Now, I don't hate Mike and Jay like most of you do but they generally agree in all of their videos.

Is Jessi ever returning to the balcony, or is it closed to her forever?

You mean Jay sucking up Mike's dick every time?

>do they hate each other
Ebert just seems like a massive asshole. If there was any hate it was all his doing

>seskel and ebert hated each other meme
That's bants, they respected each other.

Was Siskel drunk?

In that one is hugely overweight and will soon die of a disease? then yes.

siskel died first. watch out jay

(Except Mike is based Siskel and Jay is film geek Ebert)

No, not until one of them have mouth cancer so that they can finally shut up. Youtube is cancer. Stop enabling mentally challenged lazy street beggars.

Who?

legacy media, pls

Yeeeep

No...
Siskel and Ebert reviewed everything, from art films to blockbusters. The only thing Mike and Jay review are capeshit movies.
Siskel and Ebert weren't paid shills unlike Mike and Jay who give favorable reviews to every mediocre piece of shit Marvel/Disney shits out because their livelihood depends on it.
Siskel and Ebert always broke down the films they reviewed and explained their thoughts behind their opinions, Mike and Jay's commentary is strictly limited to the effect of "I like this because it is fun", or "This is bad because I don't like it".
Siskel and Ebert took their jobs seriously, Mike and Jay are "ironic" reviewers and constantly shit on others for doing doing exactly what they do (but it's okay because irony is very cool :^)
Siskel and Ebert actually enjoyed watching movies and enjoyed reviewing them, Mike and Jay are failed filmmakers who lack talent and sincerity, which is why they can't do anything but be "ironic" reviewers on youtube.

this

genre movies are a safe space for lazy critics.

>Siskel and Ebert weren't paid shills
Siskel and Ebert L I T E R A L L Y worked for Disney. Fuck off and do your morning chores, kid.

he had a tumor in his brain

Are Rich Evans & Jessie Whatever the Rex Reed and Dixie Whatley of the '90s?

Yes. But what does that say about our generation though?

I like the RLM crew, but it is clear that Jay can't bring himself to disagree with Mike.

Like, during the Independence Day Resurgence ep, it was painfully obvious that Jay was about to destroy the movie, but Mike liked it so he (again, very obviously) refrains himself and goes nowhere near as ballistic as he did with the first movie.

Siskel and Ebert are the Siskel and Ebert of our generation, you fucking child.

Actually, they kind of remind me of somebody else more

> *breaks hip in autistic fit*

They are talentless and completely without charisma. They are inarticulate and cringe inducing. Only autistic neckbeard virgins that post on Sup Forums like these losers. At least Siskel and Ebert wrote for legitimate papers and had an actual Television show on a real TV network.

Mike is charismatic as fuck

Suuuure, and you are a billionaire who fucks Victoria's Secret models and Leo is jealous of you.....

>there are people on this site that like DC

>Siskel and Ebert actually enjoyed watching movies and enjoyed reviewing them, Mike and Jay are failed filmmakers who lack talent and sincerity, which is why they can't do anything but be "ironic" reviewers on youtube.
This is the key point.
It's very obvious these two cunts don't actually enjoy cinema, at least not anymore. They keep going through the motions because their only income is their Patreon account.

You seem to have watched the show a lot. Tell me, did Siskel have better taste? I think so.

>It's very obvious these two cunts don't actually enjoy cinema,
If I had to watch what they did, I wouldn't either.

Siskel was a pleb, much like Mike.

Ebert wasn't exactly "high brow" either.

Then they should stop. But they won't, because making internet videos where they pretend to be angry at things is their livelihood.
It's the inherent flaw of all "angry" or "cynical" YouTube personalities: Their entire existence is hinged upon being attentionwhores who can't stay away from things they don't enjoy. And stupid emotionally stunted teenagers will gulp it all down because being so overtly negative about everything (even deservedly so) just seems so much more witty than being intellectually honest.

>where they pretend to be angry at things is their livelihood.
Excepting the Best of the Worst segments, they don't do that that often. I wish they would get angry at new releases, because I enjoy those much more.
>And stupid emotionally stunted teenagers will gulp it all down because being so overtly negative about everything (even deservedly so) just seems so much more witty than being intellectually honest.
You are aware that RLM threads are being posted today because they made a positive review of GoG 2, right?

They can't stop because this is what the free market demands. Capitalism is the enemy of quality entertainment.

>Their entire existence is hinged upon being attentionwhores who can't stay away from things they don't enjoy. And stupid emotionally stunted teenagers will gulp it all down because being so overtly negative about everything (even deservedly so) just seems so much more witty than being intellectually honest.
Are you talking about RLM or Sup Forums?

This. Have any Best Korea kino to share?

>the master is composing a new copypasta before our eyes

Norwegian cinema is superb, though.

You get that they'd probably laugh their ass off at this tripe if they ever read it, right?

You're being sarcastic, but even "mediocre" Soviet cinema was objectively superior to 99% of the schlock in American theaters.
The general Soviet public would regularly watch (and enjoy!) stuff that we in the West would call "high-brow" or "arthouse".

They're the Nostalgia Critic of your generation

Meh, I really doubt in sheer quantity, they could match the number of masterpieces the West produced in the same period, so the latter had quantity and quality.

Besides, the best art was undeniably produced when the class divisions were greatest. I.e., no one has shittier taste than what Marx would consider to be the proletariat.

>there are "grown ups" on this board that like capeshit

There are people on this imageboard who actually like this RLM cancer.....

How do their views compare to Siskel and Ebert back in the day?

>Wanting to be like Ebert

Ebert is the best film critic in the history of film critics you stupid millennial faggot.

People with non-shit taste say hello.

top kek

Pauline Kael. Now I know you're trolling.

Nope. She had better taste than Ebert ever did. She didn't have this idea of, "Well, it was supposed to appeal to the lowest common denominator, brain dead masses, so I'll rate it for how well it did that." Guess what that hack gave Zoo Keeper? No, guess.

Zookeeper came out decades after Kael died. gtfo

And?

Aaaand she couldn't have rated Zookeeper. It's a trick question.

Well, you were mistaken in your assumption that I was talking about Kael. So you aren't even going to try to defend Ebert's review?

>Wanting to be a film critic

How about you make something instead of having a job that can be dismissed by enjoying a movie.

Millennial faggots are the people trying to emulate that.

Those who can, do. Those who can't do shit criticize because they're useless pieces of cunt.

When did I say I wanted to be a film critic? Everyone faggot here on Sup Forums is a film critic. Or else they would not be here talking about films.

Siskel and Ebert are old school. They understand how to talk about films without diving into hip hype culture like all the other faggots these days.

You probably don't even have a job. Stay mad that RLM make bank while you are worthless piece of garbage.

I don't give a shit about either Kael or Ebert. They're both dead and Zookeeper came out 10 fucking years ago. WHOI GIVES A SHIT.

RLM is a useless piece of garbage.

K

>The only thing Mike and Jay review are capeshit movies.
I wish they'd branch out. I really enjoy their end of year wrap up videos where they review all the real movies they saw, but aren't popular enough to make an episode out of. I wish they'd try a show where they review movies from the Criterion Collection.

>The only thing Mike and Jay review are capeshit movies.
Not including their "Catch up" episode, they reviewed 22 movies in 2016. Out of those 22 movies, only 6 of them were capeshit.

>I wish they'd try a show where they review movies from the Criterion Collection.
But why? Their whole shtick is that they make comedic reviews. Do you really think they can bring that style of humor to a discussion of Cries and Whispers?

Not really. They make good money and support themselves. What are you doing? Just being a hating millennial faggot with a low IQ and no job on Sup Forums.

You know who I love? Peter Travers of Rolling Stone. What a critic. Is Doug Walker the Peter Travers of 2011?

Cool so by your metric, Adam Sandler movies are great because he supports himself with them. Meanwhile, isn't it time for your mom to bring you tendies?

Yes, Adam Sandler has done more in life than I. He's more successful. Making money > art.

A shout out to my man Owen Gleiberman, formerly of Entertainment Weekly. There should be more critics like him!

when they start dissing the protestants. Prime fucking bantz

He gave the Zookeeper a B- !!!!!!!!! Are you retarded?

Nice dubz. I prefer Almond White.

Holyshit, are you this fucking autistic?

This shit is why being a film critic in general is a garbage profession. Low fucking standards.

And I wasn't even talking about RLM. They are successful because people keep watching them and find them funny. Also they created a few movies themselves and Rich is a VA on some cartoon.

I was actually referring to professional ones like Rotten Tomatoes. Anyone who actively wants to be like that are fucking worthless.

that's terrible. I am still very upset that hollywood foisted the zookeeper on us

>Rotten Tomatoes
They don't actually review movies, user.

>only 6 of them were capeshit.
Still a little high desu.

It's called "friendly disagreement", you know, like non-autistic people do? Jay disagrees with Mike quite frequently on a lot of shit, but he's not flinging his feces across the wall and jumping down Mike's throat.

>ALL THEY REVIEW IS CAPESHIT

>Well actually, a pretty small percentage of what they reviewed is capeshit

>...moves goalpoats

That actually wasn't me. It's fucking obvious they don't only review capeshit. There's like, max, five capeshit movies a year, and they review far more than that.

I don't know why people say Jay always agrees with Mike. He's pretty much on the polar opposite opinion in their Me Him Her review (because Jay clearly doesn't give a shit about sucking up to Max Landis). They also disagree pretty heavily in their Escape from New York review. And even with this Guardians vol. 2 review, Jay brings up things that he didn't like about the movie and Mike says they didn't bother him.

Sup Forums just wants them to bicker like whiny faggots and since they're adults that can disagree and still have a normal conversation about it, anons can't comprehend it.

Fucking this.

>anybody who wants to make easy money being above average articulate about flicks
>is worthless
You just sound bitter. If you can find a niche job and make good money, why do you care?

>He's pretty much on the polar opposite opinion in their Me Him Her review
What? That's total bullshit. Neither of them liked it. There are far better reviews to display their disagreements, including Anabelle, Jurassic World, Independence Day 2, and Battleship, (I think).

ebert is pretty good desu, but he occasionally gave less-than-perfect reviews to movies i like so i feel obliged to say he's shit

mike and jay are funny, but have a habit of hating things that aren't what they wanted/expected

Rewatch that review. Mike is tiptoeing around his opinion hardcore. He even says that he liked American Ultra in that review, despite shitting all over that movie in their actual American Ultra episode.

>Jurassic World
>B-but Jay said it was horrible as hyperbole in the intro and then expanded with his real thoughts on it that it wasn't totally horrible even though he clearly still didn't like it, therefore he changed his opinion on it to agree with Mike. ...Even though he still didn't agree with Mike.

rolling on 3 hours sleep, lemme unfuck this

> and jay are funny, but have a habit of hating things that aren't what they wanted/expected

what i mean by this is that if the movie isn't what they expected before watching it, they tend to just shit on it. gotta maintain some objectivity. overall they're great though.

The point is, in the reviews I mentioned, they were explicitly in disagreement, while they were mostly in agreement for the Me Him Her review.

This is also my biggest pet peeve with their reviews.