|
|
#21
11-18-2006, 03:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Roger Ebert is a hack
i stopped liking ebert when during his review of Timecop, one of his main points was that they didn't make enough use of Van Damme's best asset...what he said was that there weren't enough close ups of Van Damme's tight butt, i don't remember how old i was exactly, but i found this very disturbing
|
|
#22
11-18-2006, 03:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Roger Ebert is a hack
[ QUOTE ]
Why people place any credence in what a critic says is beyond me. You either like, don't like or are indifferent to a movie, piece of music, work of art or food based upon your own tastes. [/ QUOTE ] Well, the idea is to find a reviewer whose tastes are consistent with yours, and use them to help you filter through the mountain of stuff released every year. Let me know if you have further trouble understanding this concept.
|
|
#25
11-18-2006, 04:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Roger Ebert is a hack
I read some of his reviews because he was famous, and thought he could give me some insight into the movies and help me good ones. After a few reviews it was very clear he has horrible taste in movies.
|
|
#26
11-18-2006, 04:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Roger Ebert is a hack
[ QUOTE ]
TME, He does exactly what you said. He also gives way too favorable reviews to big budget hollywood films. However, he tends to write very good reviews for small budget movies. Read his review on Lost in Translation or The Virgin Suicides. Something else that I thought was comical is that he gave a very bad review to Reservoir Dogs, but then he goes onto give every Tarantino flick post PF a perfect review. How does Kill Bill get a perfect score, while Reservoir Dogs gets a bad review? He also seems to give some directors way to much credit, such as Oliver Stone, probably because he is ultra-liberal. Stones films, which I personally think suck (besides Platoon) are all over Ebert's best of the year. [/ QUOTE ] How come you don't like JFK or Nixon? I thought both of those were marvelous.
|
|
#27
11-18-2006, 04:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Roger Ebert is a hack
whether i agree with his opinions or not, i enjoy reading them and they often provide insights or perspectives that i can take with me to other things.
a clockwork orange is a book i read a long time ago and i'm not being booksnobby, but the movie (while still a classic) does seem to miss the entire point by omitting the real ending. i can understand how somebody that has either read the book, heard about the book's ending, or is a highly critical but still unbiased moviewatcher (i think ebert could have hit any number of those categories) could walk away from it saying "guy is a sociopath they try to fix it and fail oh well the end?"
|
|
#28
11-18-2006, 04:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Roger Ebert is a hack
Ebert has gone back and re-reviwed films and changed his mind on them.
He's by far one of the best critics around and is awesome to have a movie conversation with. He's also incredibly nice and down to earth.
|
|
#29
11-18-2006, 05:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Roger Ebert is a hack
[ QUOTE ]
Why people place any credence in what a critic says is beyond me. You either like, don't like or are indifferent to a movie, piece of music, work of art or food based upon your own tastes. Hell, critics don't even pay, unlike the rest of us, for what they critique. [/ QUOTE ] The first part of your post doesn't make very much sense to me, and the second part, since you used an absolute, is objectively wrong. I pay for the movies I see unless I happen to luck out going to a screening that wants press, like movies at the Boston Film Festival. This is a pretty rare thing for me, and many online film critics since there isn't a whole lot of money flying around for us. Even if I get in for free, I still consider the price of admission as a factor in whether I would recommend anyone pay to see what I just saw. As for the first part, if you have trouble using critiques to decide what to see, eat, etc., this is your own fault. Only the worst critics I've read go with simply saying "I like it" or "I don't like it." Critics have their opinions, and if they're worth reading they justify, describe, and elaborate on those opinions. If you're paying any attention at all, you can usually determine what to see or avoid based on that reasoning, not just the rating given. And it isn't just "personal taste." I've given films better reviews than I liked because I thought they were done very well, but just weren't for me, and vice-versa. As for Ebert, I often disagree with his opinions and his reasoning. But as far as he explains himself, I still consider him one of the better critics to consult.
|
|
#30
11-18-2006, 05:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Roger Ebert is a hack
[ QUOTE ]
walk away from it saying "guy is a sociopath they try to fix it and fail oh well the end?" [/ QUOTE ] Do you think that was Kubrick's intention Astro? I don't... I think the ending was much more cerebral than that. PS: You need to dance here more often, its rare to see you lately in the forums I spend time in. TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
