Roger Ebert is a fat pig who is clueless when it comes to what makes a movie bad or good that also made a mockery of...

Roger Ebert is a fat pig who is clueless when it comes to what makes a movie bad or good that also made a mockery of entertainment journalism.

Other urls found in this thread:

clipd.com/stories/35931/16-classic-films-that-audiences-loved-but-roger-ebert-hated/#page=1
rogersworst.blogspot.com
youtube.com/watch?v=QNuzgDrUXP0
youtube.com/watch?v=Qz722F6Qu0I
youtube.com/watch?v=DjhO3NFfqUc
youtube.com/watch?v=LtYg1xz1A00
youtube.com/watch?v=Ug4TkRz3bUY
youtube.com/watch?v=uq1nYCn6Blk
youtube.com/watch?v=AnJ0-Ts6gh4
youtube.com/watch?v=TCmqkQXjeaE
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

The nail in the coffin was when I read his original review of Alien, shitting on it. He does a 180 some time later when it becomes apparent that everyone agrees it's actually good.

>...
>professional critics
>lawyers
>bankers
>-------the bottom--------

>-------the bottom--------
>Donald Trump

The reason I never take a professional critics opinion is the fact that they never make successful movies, if a critic has such intimate knowledge on what makes a good movie why is it there are never professional critics with widely praised or acclaimed movies. Critics are the thinking mans nigger

...

>is

Raging Bull was his favorite movie of the 1980s

Too soon.

He's all you think about isn't he.
Night and day it's just
> FUUUUKKKKKIIINNGG TRRUUUUUUUMMMP

fuck off Gallo, Buffalo 66 was a fluke

>-------the bottom--------
>Donald Trump

It’s a damn good film honestly

A broken clock is still right twice a day.

I hate to parrot Ebert, but he was well aware that he was hated. He has his miscues. I think he gave The Usual Suspects Zero Stars, for instance. But to paraphrase what he said, it all depends on the critic. The guy who was reviewing symphonies, operas, orchestral pieces and the like i.e the music critic, at the Chicago Sun Times, commanded respect and deference because his field was considered abstruse and highly technical. People would approach his desk with their breathes bated and heads bowed waiting to be acknowledged. The music critic would then offer criticism about some piece and off they would go reverently as if God Himself had deigned to give them some arcane aesthetic expertise. Whereas people would approach Roger’s desk ‘well lard ass i disagree.’

Regardless, in defense of Roger, he won a Pulitzer Prize and had chops and writing acumen. He excelled at what he did. He had a few duds. There’s no critic batting 1.000.

Go away Vincent gallo

>he gave The Usual Suspects Zero Stars
Good riddance to the pedophile who made it and the pedophile who starred in it.

Jesus Christ Gallo, go to bed.

If you want four stars from fatty that bad, just cast Jennifer Lopez or Jennifer Jason Lee in your movie and make sure no one does anythign skeezy to them (that includes unsimulated oral sex)

He gave The Usual Suspects 2.5 stars. He didn't like the concept.

He was actually kind of dumb. You'd read his reviews and you'd realize he failed to grasp basic plot points in pretty generic movies.

He also had a weird fetish for Jennifer Jason Lee and Jennifer Lopez (Lopez movies always got an extra star, Lee movies got pounded if they "disrepected" her).

>he gave The Usual Suspects Zero Stars
wtf I love Roger Ebert now

He said videogames arent art and gave revenge of the sith 3.5/5 glad the fucker is dead

When a mini-dwarf rich kid from Nashville like Harmony Korine flies first class and moves to New York City’s Soho in his ‘plush safe’ apartment, running around town quoting Godard with lines like, "Fuck the bourgeois", it’s insincere, it’s calculated, it’s unoriginal, and it’s the worst thing in the world, ‘trendy’. He already knows that he and his boring girlfriend Connecticut Chloe Sevigny are going to be on the cover of ‘The Face’. He knows he’ll get his run at The Angelica and be hip in Japan. But no one will ever make an important film because they saw ‘Gummo’ or ‘Donkey Boy’.

We’re both wrong. It was 1.5.

I could’ve sworn he nuked some beloved movies though. Like 1 star or zero for some landmark or classic films. Not that usual suspect is that.

He hated Fast Times. I always thought that was interesting. You’re right he’d mess up here and there or confuse a plot point or two. I attribute that in part to the sheer volume of film he had to watch, but who is to say...

>is
was

>Roger Ebert is
>is

He blasted Taxi Driver.

You're a soyboy faggot but you gave me a chuckle

>I could’ve sworn he nuked some beloved movies though.
Blue Velvet 1/4

>triggered Sup Forumssmoker just HAS to respond.

Good post

Kek
Got 'em

I could’ve sworn he loved that. He has two reviews of it I think. He and Gene Siskel boosted Martin Scorsese throughout his career. I think the only movie they hated of his was The Color of Money.

clipd.com/stories/35931/16-classic-films-that-audiences-loved-but-roger-ebert-hated/#page=1

Found it. If this doesn't give you enough reason to hate Ebert I don't know what will.

Huh. I always thought he gave it a mediocre review.

I know he nuked Fast Times and spends the whole review whining that they "defiled" Jennifer Jason Leigh or some shit.

>gave me a chuckle
>triggered

Same complaint he had about Fast Times

>MUH BEAUTIFUL LADY HOW COULD THEY EMBARRASS HER

He and Siskel would routinely go full bible thumper/sjw on horror movies too. They fucking HATED them.

His review for I Spit On Your Grave was breddy funny though.

>A vile bag of garbage named "I Spit on Your Grave" is playing in Chicago theaters this week. It is a movie so sick, reprehensible and contemptible that I can hardly believe it's playing in respectable theaters, such as Plitt's United Artists. But it is. Attending it was one of the most depressing experiences of, my life.

He then called the audience sex criminals.

His Exterminator one was pretty similar.

Not to mention his protracted fight with Dave "The Demon" DeFalco over "Chaos".

Ebert was one of those guys who acted smart, swung around his thesaurus like it was a big dick, but then he runs out of fancy-sounding synonyms that he knows and you realize he has no idea what he's talking about.

Ebert often amended reviews.

Big Lebowski and Shawshank were 3/3.5 and then he gave them 4 when he added them to the Great Movies list.

I know he hated Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

He hated that. You’re right.

What’s that movie where Marlon Brando stuffed a stick of butter in a woman’s ass? I think he hated that too.

Roger had an issue with abuse and sexualized violence. Any movie with rape or even remote sexual abuse or real denigration of women bothered him—from Black Snake Moan and I Spit On Your Grave to Blue Velvet or the Butter in ass movie, etc. I think he referred to them as geek shows.

Thanks

He gave a good review to Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. One day it will be as well known and respected as The Jazz Singer. 100% CG is the future. Live action is the new silent film. But he also gave a very bad review to Freddy Got Fingered, so his accuracy is inconsistent.

>videogames arent art
Correct.

>He was actually kind of dumb
i wouldn't go this far, i'd put him at the level of an autistically knowledgeable occasionally insightful normie. Loved movies, loved art, had decent taste, but there was a fair amount of stuff he was just blind to. he's still the mist consistent of any critic I'm aware of and i often read his reviews of classic movies after watching them myself. rarely catches anything i didn't but good for cultural context and stuff

A bald assertion isn't an argument. I've already refuted your representation based arguments. Give me something else.

You're welcome. You seen like an informed dude.

Consistent in that he's a bitch who doesn't stand by his opinions and "amends" them the moment he realizes the vast majority of people don't agree with him.

>What’s that movie where Marlon Brando stuffed a stick of butter in a woman’s ass? I think he hated that too
Last Tango in Paris, he loved it iirc

I do agree he was a bit of a white knight faggot in general though

He hated John Carpenter’s The Thing. I think it’s a great adaptation of Who Goes There? and that kind of soured me on Roger, but such is criticism.

That’s pretty bad admittedly. That’s a classic.
Really? Yikes, I had no idea. That kind of ruins things lol.
Exactly. He had an issue with denigration of woman for whatever reason. Not that I think Jennifer Jason Lee gets it that bad. I think he had the hots for her.

>Any movie with rape or even remote sexual abuse

Sure. But he gave Last House On The Left 3.5 stars, despite it being far nastier and cruder and more poorly made then I Spit On Your Grave.

Confusing and captivating audiences since being release in 2001, the sci-fi starring Jake Gyllenhaal quickly became a cult classic. Ebert recognized and appreciated many elements of the film, but obviously didn't like figuring it all out, writing, "Richard Kelly, the first-time writer-director, is obviously talented--not least at creating a disturbing atmosphere out of the materials of real life. His mysterious jet engine is a masterstroke. He sees his characters freshly and clearly, and never reduces them to formulas. In Jake Gyllenhaal, he finds an actor able to suggest an intriguing kind of disturbance; the character is more curious than frightened, more quixotic than eccentric, and he sets a nice tone for the movie. But somehow the control fades in the closing scenes, and our hands, which have been so full, close on emptiness. 'Donnie Darko' is the one that got away. But it was fun trying to land it."

Based on the Hunter S. Thompson novel of the same name, the drug-fueled adventures of the two main characters was a success with audiences who enjoyed the strange trip. The altered consciousness of the film was too out there for Ebert, who wrote, "The movie goes on and on, repeating the same setup and the same payoff: Duke and Gonzo take drugs, stagger into new situations, blunder, fall about, wreak havoc, and retreat to their hotel suite. The movie itself has an alcoholic and addict mind-set, in which there is no ability to step outside the need to use and the attempt to function. If you encountered characters like this on an elevator, you'd push a button and get off at the next floor. Here the elevator is trapped between floors for 128 minutes."

I think his standing comes more from his early embrace of the internet (he was the first big "real" reviewer who was linked on IMDB) and also being the Cinemania program (it was included with every package of Windows 95).

meh, people are allowed to change their mind. sometimes his later review is the one that's wrong, as in the case of The Graduate, I think. (old man has less sympathy for disaffected youth and more for beautiful woman nearer his own age, go figure.) not like he tried to cover up the "wrong" ones. i din't have an issue with it

Stanley Kubrick's Vietnam War drama doesn't hold back, with R. Lee Ermey delivering one of the most iconic performances of his career. The film was an overall hit with audiences and has proven that it stands the test of time. The famous critic felt that it fell short of the director's potential, stating, "Stanley Kubrick's 'Full Metal Jacket' is more like a book of short stories than a novel. Many of the passages seem self-contained, some of them are masterful and others look like they came out of the bottom drawer. This is a strangely shapeless film from the man whose work usually imposes a ferociously consistent vision on his material."

Starring a 12-year-old Natalie Portman learning to be an assassin to avenge her family's death, the thriller was well received by most viewers as a powerful and gripping tale with solid performances by the entire cast. Although Ebert acknowledged that the film was well directed and well acted, he seemed to take main offense by the plot itself, stating, "But always at the back of my mind was the troubled thought that there was something wrong about placing a 12-year-old character in the middle of this action. In a more serious movie, or even in a human comedy like Cassavetes' 'Gloria' the child might not have been out of place. But in what is essentially an exercise - a slick urban thriller - it seems to exploit the youth of the girl without really dealing with it."

Oh, it was 100% because he had a boner for Lee.

See his zero star review of The Hitcher.

>OMG HOW COULD THEY DO THIS TO THE MOST BEAUTIFUL AND PRECIOUS WOMAN CURRENTLY ALIVE

And also see all his Jennifer Lopez reviews.

He hated Last House on the Left and Friday the 13th and A Nightmare on Elm Street.

He and Siskel really hated horror. I can only imagine what they’d think of that French wave of horror that included Tension and that movie where the woman steals the other woman’s baby from her womb lol.

Thanks again man
Maybe you’re right...I can’t recall. It’s hard to remember all the shit he wrote.

The Ridley Scott historical epic featured stunning performances by Russell Crow and Joaquin Phoenix in addition to plenty of high-stakes action to satisfy any adrenaline junkie. Winning 5 Oscars, including for Best Picture, it's safe to say "Gladiator" was a well-received and well loved film. Except when it came to Ebert, who wrote, "It's only necessary to think back a few months, to Julie Taymor's 'Titus' for a film set in ancient Rome that's immeasurably better to look at. The visual accomplishment of 'Titus' shames 'Gladiator,' and its story is a whole heck of a lot better than the "Gladiator" screenplay, even if Shakespeare didn't make his Titus the only undefeated champion in Roman history."

The pride and joy of filmmaker Quentin Tarantino, this drama following six criminals played by an all-star cast was an instant hit with viewers. Ebert acknowledged the talent for Tarantino's first film, but remained harsh on him, concluding that, "As for the movie, I liked what I saw, but I wanted more. I know the story behind the movie - Tarantino promoted the project from scratch, on talent and nerve - and I think it's quite an achievement for a first-timer. It was made on a low budget. But the part that needs work didn't cost money. It's the screenplay. Having created the characters and fashioned the outline, Tarantino doesn't do much with his characters except to let them talk too much, especially when they should be unconscious from shock and loss of blood. "

He's completely right about Fear And Loathing. It's absolute trash and a god awful adaptation. Just unmitigated garbage. It didnt have good reviews from any critics when it first came out really.

He gave Donnie Darko the same rating as Reservoir Dogs - basically "nice first film, hope the next one is better".

He's also right about Full Metal Jacket which is one half of a good movie and one half of a generic, mediocre war picture.

And I see where he's coming from on Leon, even if it doesn't bother me, personally.

Did he really? I can’t even remember now...I thought he hated both. It’s hard to recall honestly. Such is google, I should’ve looked...i could’ve sworn he hated Wes Craven and thought of him as a schlockmeister.

He didn’t defend Gigli, did he? I’ll feel betrayed honestly

He's right about Gladiator. It was mediocre.

You are really overly defensive of Ebert for some reason.

3.5 for Last House

>"Last House on the Left" is a tough, bitter little sleeper of a movie that's about four times as good as you'd expect. There is a moment of such sheer and unexpected terror that it beats anything in the heart-in-the-mouth line since Alan Arkin jumped out of the darkness at Audrey Hepburn in "Wait Until Dark."

Even gave the remake a passing review.

Gigli got "better than average". 2.5 stars.

He shits on it the whole review and says nothing works. Except for this part;

>Then she responds. She is backlit, dressed in skintight workout clothes, doing yoga, and she continues to stretch and extend and bend and pose as she responds with her speech in praise of the vagina. When she is finished, Reader, the vagina has won, hands down.

No, it's just that I've seen the reaction to Fear & Loathing change so much since it's release, and it's puzzled me because it's terrible, and I never really liked Gladiator and thought it was hugely overrated at the time and since.

I'd think you could find better examples of Ebert trashing movies.

Like Fight Club for instance.

Man Roggie went off the rails.

Vincent Gallo is the greatest auteur of this generation and the last, and it's because of plebs like you and Ebert that he no longer screens his movies for the public.

>ebert writes essays on film from multiple perspectives and backs up his opinions with evidence
>shitters spout I DINT LIKE DUH ENDING every single time
>same shitter plebs hate ebert

WOW WHAT LE EBIN COINCIDENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>blue velvet
>leon
>fear and loathing
>Butch and Sundance
>gladiator
>Straw dogs
>HAROLD AND FUCKING MAUDE

This mother fuck hated Harold and Maude. What the fuck you jawless fat fuck?
>harold

>He didn't like Gladiator
WTF I love Ebert now!!

>harold and maude
read the imdb bio, that looks kino as fuck

He often failed to grasp the intent of films. He didn't get the sexual overtones of Alien. His understanding of Unforgiven is horrendous. He thought Fear and Loathing was bad because the characters were nasty and you wouldn't like them. Which kind of was the point.

>Any movie with rape or even remote sexual abuse or real denigration of women bothered him
He really like both versions of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo though.

For the people going on about how he didn't like sexualised violence/rape/abused women etc - he gave A Clockwork Orange 2/4.

you're upset he gave 3 too high a score even though it was vastly superior to the first 2?

It's a touching film you need to watch with your mom on her birthday or something.

That reminds me that there's some movie where he thought two guys are gay for each other because he doesn't understand male relationships but I don't remember which movie.

Brokeback Mountain

He was iffy about Conan because a stereotypical Aryan hero kills a black man villain. He thought Clockwork Orange glorified Alex deLarge. He have The good, the Bad, etc a 3-star review, just barely. Then he realized people love it and turned around.

To his credit, he saved Halloween and Assault on Precinct 13, and he deserves every ounce of respect for those 2.

>entertainment journalism

I wanted to start this thread here or on /lit/ or wherever it would be welcome.

At what point do you actively disregard or discard someone’s argument or criticism or opinion? Examples?

Let me explain—if this even needs explanation. For instance, I hear this a lot on Sup Forums and elsewhere.
>x is the best/greatest
E.g. I had a friend tell me on a few occasions with all the sincerity in the world and not the hint of a smile on his face that The Red Wedding is the most powerful scene in the canon of literature. He literally said in the corpus of the written word that there was no greater scene. I won’t spoiler tag this, but him and I aren’t friends anymore. For a lot of reasons, but I think taste and opinions can indicate what kind of person one is.

I want to offer more examples, but I have to eat something and that involves cooking.

Just read the reviews on
>starship troopers
>die hard
>raising arizona
>THE FUCKING THING

His reading of films is often downright awful.

Alright, let's have a look at Raising Arizona since I saw that one pretty recently.

Hm, while I was looking for it, I came across this website.
rogersworst.blogspot.com

This should be good.

>I have a problem with movies where everybody talks as if they were reading out of an old novel about a bunch of would-be colorful characters. They usually end up sounding silly. For every movie like "True Grit" (1969) that works with lines like "I was determined not to give them anything to chaff me about," there is a "Black Shield of Falworth," with lines like "Yonder lies the castle of my father." Generally speaking, it's best to have your characters speak in strong but unaffected English, especially when your story is set in the present. Otherwise they'll end up distracting the hell out of everybody.

Okay this is some dumb shit right off the bad. WORDS TOO HARD FOR UNGA BUNGA FILM CRITIC

>throws his politics in his critique
>bad reading of the author's intent
>focuses too much on nitpicky plot inconsistencies
>doesn't review style, cinematography, lighting, sound design, etc.
>he doesn't appreciate comedy/horror
>he fucks up one too many times
>he gives a genuinely great movie a bad review, when, at most, he should respectfully say "it ain't for me but I get it"(which is what I do when talking to friends about Kubrick)

>He thought Clockwork Orange glorified Alex deLarge.

but Clockwork Orange glorified Alex deLarge and its totally ok. (or at least you can sense the glorification of violence from alex de large)

It didn't glorify him, it glorified him regaining his independence. Which of course, means he'll be rapekilling people ASAP. Still, since the film is from his perspective it means up is down and left is right, isn't it? I don't think Ebert ever got moral nuance.

>I don't think Ebert ever got moral nuance.
Truth.

>Roger Ebert gave the film three stars out of four and praised the decision not to attempt to rationalise and explain Bronson's behaviour stating in his review, "I suppose, after all, Nicolas Winding Refn, the director and co-writer of "Bronson," was wise to leave out any sort of an explanation. Can you imagine how you'd cringe if the film ended in a flashback of little Mickey undergoing childhood trauma? There is some human behavior beyond our ability to comprehend. I was reading a theory the other day that a few people just happen to be pure evil. I'm afraid I believe it. They lack any conscience, any sense of pity or empathy for their victims. But Bronson is his own victim. How do you figure that?"

Ebert probably would have liked the new Star Wars movies which really puts all his criticism into perspective.

>the red wedding
I had to look it up, it's when the northfags get butchered lmao. It was crude and boring and tedious. Also, why would anyone care about MUH HONOR AND FAMILY fags? If there's a time when an attempt on a character's life is done, it should strike you as vivid and nightmarish. There are a few examples I can think of on the spot that are so much better

>the godfather 2 times
youtube.com/watch?v=QNuzgDrUXP0
youtube.com/watch?v=Qz722F6Qu0I

>the sopranos(aping the Godfather a bit, but fine)
youtube.com/watch?v=DjhO3NFfqUc

>a history of violence 2 times
youtube.com/watch?v=LtYg1xz1A00
youtube.com/watch?v=Ug4TkRz3bUY

>eastern promises
youtube.com/watch?v=uq1nYCn6Blk

>no country for old men
youtube.com/watch?v=AnJ0-Ts6gh4

>the raid 2
youtube.com/watch?v=TCmqkQXjeaE

Yes it was superior but then again TPM and AOTC are pure unfiltered garbage so it doesnt mean anything

>Correct.
Wrong.

Well curated

Now this is falseflagging!

I enjoy reading criticism like Ebert's, which is just "opinions" (educated or otherwise).

But they're not opinions I take seriously.

Usually I prefer technical/craft analysis, like Every Frame A Painting. It's a bit more concrete, although can also be boring.

I absolutely disregard the academic/texual analysis style that is borrowed from literary criticism and applied to film. Anything where any even remotely suggests they offer "interpretations" that disregard the intent of the creator are special pet peeves.

Obviously Best. Ever. fags are instant no-go; See the predictions from Sup Forums that we would get at least a dozen opening weekend reviews for The Last Jedi that would lead with;

>Best since
or
>Best ever

Yes.

lmao

His point is that the dialogue is artificial and sounds silly because it's sorta anachronistic.

He actually is pretty hard on Coen Brothers films because he doesn't seem to like the arch quality. You can tell it just rubs him the wrong way.

rip

Such a weird nitpick though. I like a smartly written script, something that makes the characters and writers feel intelligent. Some films have such terrible dialogue but Coen films are always so satisfying in that regard.
>If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?

being a professional film/literature/food/music/wine critic is probably the best job in the world.

I think I could become a professional film critic, the guy who does it for my countrys state run channel is a massive pleb and definitively a brainlet as well.

It's not a weird nitpick. It's a major element of the movie. If the conceit doesn't work for you, the entire film is essentially ruined.

That's not Coen dialogue though. That's McCarthy dialogue.

Now THAT'S a nit pick.

Critic would be top tier.

But porn star is still the toppest tier.

Not if you plan on living past your mid 30's