Was he pleb or patrician?
>>63363441
get real
http://www.rogerebert.com/great-movies
>>63363441
he occupies a category between them both and therefore is nothing. don't make this thread again.
DUDE MEN ARE MISOGYNIST PIGS THAT LIKE TOILET HUMOUR AND WATCH SPORTS LMOA
>>63363441
/tv/ posters literally have autism and they only seriously consider the opinions of other people with autism who offer up their critiques/reviews of films in the form of web videos. I know you don't actually give a shit about Ebert, or any professional film historian, despite the fact that they know an inordinate amount more about film than you ever will, and that you only make threads like this to rock the boat.
>>63363441
He's a great entry into reading criticism for the 14 and under set, and many of his reviews are great for explaining why some movies are great and why some are terrible.
That said, his far left politics began bleeding into his reviews explicitly after the 2000 election, and what he thought about a film was predictable if you knew in advance what the film was about.
Ebert did a lot of good and a lot of bad in the world of criticism, but at the end of the day, he was a cancer-riddled, bitter hack who happened to be at the right place at the right time.
pretty patrician he can defend his opinions pretty were even if they are a bit oldschool
>>63364084
pretty well*
neither, he was a troll
I was overjoyed when I heard on /tv/ 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.
>>63364125
What? No. Armond White is the only true critic troll
>>63364125
But the guy in the OP is Roger Ebert, not Armond White.
Definitely an even mix of both
>>63363441
I liked the show. Is there anything like that nowadays?
Can't stand the YouTube autists that use skits and memes instead of actually just reviewing the movie.
>>63363441
He was all right, but he opened the door for the plebs to get in on the job. Like Armond said, he "destroyed film criticism." But not personally.
Roger Ebert was as much of a writer/entertainer/personality as he was a critic, that was his appeal and that's perfectly okay. People liked his show with Siskel and enjoyed reading his reviews. All good stuff.
The problem is in the substance, Ebert wasn't a top-tier educated film professional, he was a guy who sincerely loved movies that people liked to listen to. That was enough for him to get the job and it worked for him, but the problem is that Ebert lowered the bar.
After Ebert it became particularly okay for anyone with no real qualifications on film to become a certified professional and expert, and now a few years after his death it's perfectly normal for a paid professional to be the type of person who sincerely praises capeshit and Nolantino as excellent film.
Ebert was a cool guy and real human bean but he shouldn't have gotten his job in the first place, the fallout of his career has destroyed American film culture.
Complete pleb
his writing/opinions have aged horribly like 99.999999% of critics
critics are parasites.
>>63364377
Damn.
>>63364341
this desu senpai
>>63364161
>>63364178
>implying implications
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427570/creed-all-american-movie?target=author&tid=1152026
>>63363441
"pleb" is what most of his words sounded like towards the end
>>63363441
Like anyone, it's subjective. No critic can be all things for all people. That said, I don't think anyone's ever filled the hole he and Siskel left.
>>63363464
Don't tell me what to do again.
The most patrician of patricians desu, acknowledged when he liked a movie honestly and didn't give a fuck about conforming to the norms set by the more pretentious critics in his circles.
>>63366416
Try and stop me.
>>63366454
I simply won't do what you say.try and make me.
>>63366235
>like anyone, it's subjective
no it's not. It's never completely subjective. There's always an element of taste but people can absolutely be divided into plebs and patricians.
>>63363441
He gave RotS 3 and a half out of 4
>>63363461
I thougt AI was a bad flop.
>>63367896
That's pretty based. It's a cool movie. Sheev Sheeving it up alone is worth three stars.
Hate to say but Almond White was totally right about him. Ebert's wan't a real film critic, just a movie fan with a talent for 'witty banter'.
His writings were amusing but offered no real insight into film.
>>63367971
Sounds like most these youtube guys /tv/ watches
>>63367869
So who's the most patrician reviewer now? The Nostalgia Critic?
>>63367971
And, so HE is? Everything Almond White did Ebert did more often. Call me when we read the Armond White book.
>>63368081
Good taste.
>>63368039
If he was the most patrician I wouldn't want to meet the other ones.
>>63367971
So who does offer real insight into film, so I can look him up?
>>63363441
Plebtrician
Best of both worlds
>>63368122
jonathanrosenbaum.net
>>63367971
Armond White is just a contrarian like most people in 4chan, that's why we perceive he is rigth most of the time
>>63364377
dude thyroid cancer laugh my ass off
![1393117062827[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/cOJQrrW.jpg "1393117062827[1].jpg")
>>63364377
Why even film this?
He said John Carpenter's The Thing was shit.
Enough said.
>>63363441
He was a Disney shill.
>>63368122
I honestly can't say I know of anyone. Most post internet critics are either just shills or 'witty' snark merchant.
Ebert was neither, but he parve the way with his 'movies for the masses' attitude.
Almond White offers an valuable critical insight on the current state of film criticism, but his movie reviews… At best they serve as a contrast to the common critical consensus. Lets just left it at that.
>>63368181
>>63364133
youre a faggot with ashitty heart and when you die your soul will wander the void a confused bitter asshole before coming back as some kinda even more bitter asshole.
>>63364050
Is his criticism ever insightful, though? It's never an academic criticism. You can tell he was employed by newspapers to write reviews as to whether you should or shouldn't go see a film based on if it was fun or not.
Cry harder faggot u know I'm right.
