>Ebert changed his scores for Blade Runner and The Good, The Bad and The Ugly because it was "pleb" to like spaghetti westerns back then
Fuck critics.
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/a-clockwork-orange-1972
>2/4
Why didn't this man die sooner?
My personal favorite stupid thing Ebert did was initially defend Armond White, not because of his reviewing technique, but because he was BLACK
What a fucking cuck.
>>70256709
Armond White is unironically the best film critic around.
Certain careers cause a person to not be a well rounded individual.
Movie Critic is one. They give full time attention to something that should only get a portion of attention in life.
Disregard them.
Read reviews from people who have other things going on in their life, or creating films is their livelihood.
>>70256906
damn you're smart
To be honest, the theatrical version of Blade Runner is shit. I'd probably give it a middle of the road review if I had just seen it and the other versions didn't exist.
But Ebert was a notorious back-pedlar.
>>70256650
What's wrong with his score for A Clockwork Orange?
It's a an awful film made by a hack director.
>>70257020
People are too hard on the theatrical version of Blade Runner. Yeah, Harrison Ford could have provided better narration. Though it doesn't ruin the film. It adds to the detective vibe. The only scene it hurt for me was Roy's death. The explanation took away from the beauty of that moment.
>>70257020
>But Ebert was a notorious back-pedlar.
and why not?
I don't know about anyone else but depending on the timing and what mood I'm in I can hate a film one day and the rewatch it a few years late and realize it's a masterpiece, and vice versa
>>70257020
Nobody is stupid enough to think the theatrical cut of BR is mediocre/bad, right?
>>70257443
But anon, you're not allowed to revisit things and change your opinion about them, especially years later.
>>70256650
he also said Alien (1979) was an unimaginative haunted house story set on a space ship, then later retracted it and called it "original"
critics are the biggest hypocrits and hacks dude. most are all open or closet faggots too.
I do 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 simply was not criticism. It was simply blather. And it was a kind of purposefully dishonest enthusiasm for product, not real criticism at all…I think he does NOT have the training. I think he simply had the position. I think 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.
The internet has become so pervasive and overwhelming that the internet has stolen the impact and prestige and effect that traditional professional film criticism used to have. As a result of that I think that people who are now employed by the mainstream media are so intimidated by the internet that it seems, when you read mainstream published film critics, that they’ve simply given up being film critics, because they’re afraid of losing readership, because they’re afraid of losing their jobs, probably because publishers and editors simply want to get readers and appease readers, rather than inform and instruct readers
I’ll answer you this way: If there were a whole bunch of critics who I thought were doing a good job, then I would stop. *laughs* Because really, the reason why I do what I do is because I think there are things that need to be said about movies, about culture, about the world, that nobody’s saying. And that’s why I do what I do. I can only ask you to read around, read as widely as you can. Whoever you read, hold them to a standard, and don’t simply enjoy a critic because they say what you want to hear. But read as many people as you care to, but ask yourself: Are they REALLY talking about what’s on the screen? Do they know the history of this form? Do they have any political awareness? Do they have any spiritual, or moral, or religious awareness even?
>>70257699
If you can't even agree with yourself on whether you like a movie or not then your opinions are meaningless.
This is why film critics are such shitheads.
>>70256709
>>70256823
This, Ebert can suck a Jewish dick with that fucked jaw of his, I love it when Armond shits on him.
>>70258179
>>70258212
>>70258249
>waaaahh people changed their opinions
kill yourselfebert was a fucking hack though
>>70258385
what did he mean by this?
>>70258385
fuck off plebbit
>>70257414
And the sappy "happy" ending in the woods completely goes against the tone set up in the beginning. You can still have a noir without expository narration. Maybe I could understand having affection for it if you saw it first, but in my eyes it's a vastly worse film .
Speaking about serious film criticism, is there anybody besides Armond?
Ebert a fucking shit.
Armond White is always right:
"I do 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 simply was not criticism. It was simply blather. And it was a kind of purposefully dishonest enthusiasm for product, not real criticism at all…I think he does NOT have the training. I think he simply had the position. I think 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."
Whats the point of in-depth film criticism?
I understand the concept of reviewing a film to spare some people the trouble of seeing a bad film. Quality is so subjective though that all you can really do is communicate if something is marginally decent or just outright terrible and let others decide what they'll see based on their preferences for genre and cast.
If you get really pompous about it and detach yourself from the general public and try to analyze a film objectively, you've basically detached yourself from a film's purpose (which is to find some resonance with a general movie-going audience) and you've basically become a cynical contrarian fuck who loses it whenever a film refuses to pander to your literati tastes.
>>70258485
>Often he would point out gaffes or mistakes in continuity. That’s not criticism. That’s really a pea-brained kind of fan gibberish
And the above statement is a shot at modern YouTube retards like YourMovieSucks and Screen Junkies.
>>70258433
more like what did he MEME by this
>>70258524
>Whats the point of in-depth film criticism?
faggots who literally sit around criticising how people dress, what they write and the direction of films with no creative abilities of their own needed a way to justify their existence
seriously
>>70258483
Walter Metz?
wait is that a jew name? does that discredit him?
>>70258524
to me it just seems like a watered down limp version of analysis with no practical use
>>70258524
Wrong, this isn't music we are talking about, this is film, criticism is very important considering the impact film has on culture, and you would be a fool to claim that everything is subjective. Films have political and cultural agendas, and these things can be looked at in depth.
>>70258560
Super pleb
"….In this age of conformity, unanimity hides bias and truth-tellers get ostracized. Film criticism has lost its independence. Group-think not only removes honor from consensus opinion, it also promotes hostility to the practice of journalistic criticism."
>>70258561
I don't really care if he's (((Jewish))) as long as he can deliver the goods, and I don't even know if that name is Jewish anyways.
>>70258616
You need to decide what the right fucking agenda is before you can start judging films based on their agenda.
>>70258648
i was just being flippant because that shit can lead to places i don't want to go feel me?
i don't know much about the guy but he seems to be a big name as far as critics go, obviously without the celebrity status that others have. he's actually studied film and written a book about criticism. as far as i can tell he actually talks about the contents of movies but it's not like he talks about the moment by moment craft of movies. as far as i can tell no one does that aside from what is called film analysis
armond white? never heard of him
>>70258757
Yeah, I understand, I'm looking at his website, and he seems to possess the erudition necessary to critique film, but his view point is more liberal than Armond's, which is interesting, thanks for the name.
>>70258483
Johnathan Rosenbaum is one of the best guys around in his long-form articles
>>70258483
>le meme nigger
>serious film criticism
kys
The only great critics worth listening to arre Jonathan Rosenbaum and Tony Rayns
The rest of them are worthless plebs and faggot shills
>>70256650
I remember reading his review of midnight cowboy after I watched it last year, I was shocked by how pretentious Ebert was.
everything looks better through capeshit splattered glasses
>>70258485
>I've got training
Is having the qualifications to write a review something to brag about? I really question how these pretentious cunts live with themselves.
>>70256650
because if god were merciful there would be no challenges to develop our character
Blade Runner is a spaghetti western?
>>70257414
>Harrison Ford could have provided better narration.
No he couldn't. The narration was not in the script. It was not part of the story. It was written by a third writer brought in especially for it not by the two writers who wrote the script. Harrisons delivery could do nothing for it.
>it adds to the detective vibe
unlike the character being a detective?
most noirs dont even have narration, its a contrived cliche strongly in the minority. Think of some the best noirs like Maltese Falcon and Big Sleep and Touch of Evil - no narration.
Critics are pathetic. They're talentless hacks and parasites.
I've never seen an artist/author/director who took a critic's word seriously. Not in consequences of the reviews on the commercial success of the work, but their actual opinions.
Creators respect the opinions of other creators, not critics.
The existence of critics offends me. There's this implication that not only the average movie goer, but the artist himself is too dumb to analyze a work and form an opinion on it. Like we all need critics because they're the only ones smart enough to have opinions. fuck critics.
>>70258616
>pleb
dont ever talk to me or my wifes son ever again
>>70256650
He did the same with The Shining. Said it was crappy then years later said it was one of the best horrors ever.
He's a hack.
For the record I don't think you can never change your opinion on something, but it's obvious when it's due to trying to appeal to the masses rather than gaining a new insight
>>70258485
Is there anything this man cant do?
Not that I necessarily disagree, but your argument is basically, "His work has embarrassments," and, "I am looking for complete agreement."
It's not enough to get me excited.
>>70262533
Says someone who is being a critic of critics.
I love hypocrisy because it is so human. It's very cute, actually.
>>70262863
I don't think you know what criticism is.
>>70262871
Are you criticizing my knowledge of criticism?
>>70262945
"Expressing an opinion or position about something" is not criticism, no.
>>70262963
How benign and meaningless.
He liked Kaurismaki. Can't be too bad.
>>70256650
Clockwork is shit so 2/4 is a fair score.
I've disagrees with Ebert a lot of times but the guy understood cinema
Unlike today's critics who are basically "ITS FUN XDDD"
>>70263145
Stop watching meme critics for a start.
>>70256709
>but because he was BLACK
No he didn't
>>70263145
How many months has it been since you've read one review? Be honest. We're anonymous, so it's safe.
>>70258621
He is 100% right in that quote
>>70256650
In the case of Blade Runner, he changed his opinion on it after watching the director's cut, so it's fair in my book
>>70256650
A Clockwork Orange is not a good movie. Ebert is right.
>>70263216
Taking criticism too seriously is the primary error.
>The women are also dressed in period threads, and many have big Afros. I am happy to say it brings back an element sadly missing in recent movies, gratuitous nudity. Sexy women would "happen" to be topless in the 1970s movies for no better reason than that everyone agreed, including themselves, that their breasts were a genuine pleasure to regard -- the most beautiful naturally occurring shapes in nature, I believe. Now we see breasts only in serious films, for expressing reasons. There's been such a comeback for the strategically positioned bed sheet, you'd think we were back in the 1950s.
Why do people praise this sexist fuck?
>>70263345
You thought this was a cool post, didn't you.
theatrical cut of blade runner was horrid
the dubbing on leone's stuff is also horrid
>>70258485
How exactly does one get trained in film criticism?
>>70263205
Probably when civil war came out
Fuck film critics. Are you so unable to think for yourself that you need somebody else to tell you why you disliked a movie?
>>70263243
>>70258166
what about alien then?
>>70258485
what a boss
how can white "men" even compete?
Wasn't this guy one of the first mainstream critics to give anime attention in the 90s by reviewing Ghost in the Shell? If so he is fine by my book but then again giving Django Unchained 4/4 stars is a criminal offense.
>>70256709
He defended White at first for his District 9 review saying, "Well he didn't say anything wrong here. It's a silly sci-fi flick!" but then changed his mind when people told him more about White's taste. Then he called him an "intelligent troll" or something.
>>70262533
>I've never seen an artist/author/director who took a critic's word seriously.
>Steven Spielberg... said that Ebert's "reviews went far deeper than simply thumbs up or thumbs down. He wrote with passion through a real knowledge of film and film history, and in doing so, helped many movies find their audiences... [he] put television criticism on the map".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU3gpqg_xP8
>The Raging Bull and Goodfellas maestro spoke with Steve James about Roger Ebert’s reaction to The Departed. The anecdote is captured and shared by The New York Times, which reveals that Scorsese believed the iconic critic figured out a crucial component to the filmmaker’s psyche before it even became clear to Scorsese. Roger Ebert, as the story goes, said The Departed carried extra weight because of Scorsese’s staunch Catholic upbringing, and how some men eventually confess to their wrongdoings, but admit to the parish priest that they had no real choice.
>"This movie is like an examination of conscience," Ebert wrote of the film at the time of release, "when you stay up all night trying to figure out a way to tell the priest: I know I done wrong, but, oh, Father, what else was I gonna do?"
>Upon reading that, Martin Scorsese amazingly confessed to Steve James:
>"When I saw he said that, I said, ‘Well, that’s what it’s all about.’ I mean, he may say, ‘Well, it’s not enough.’ I think it is, in terms of being a human being and saying, ‘I know it was wrong. But I had no choice, I couldn’t do otherwise.’ And it took me years to understand that that’s who I am. And Roger knew that."
Also here's a bonus video of Roger BTFOing an SJW
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSzP9YV3jbc
>>70257447
That's actually the general consensus from what I've heard/seen. People didn't start liking it until the Director's Cut came out (It wasn't really a director's cut though).
>changing ones opinion of a film after seeing it/a different cut of it.
wow, how dare he.
>>70262533
Imagine all critics have evaporated. So what then? How are you supposed to evaluate the upcoming movie, is it worth watching or not? Does it fit your interests, inclinations, and ideas of what a good movie is, or not? To go to the cinema every time a new movie comes out and "make your own mind"? Bullshit, no one's gonna waste their time and money on potential schlock.
Critics serve as a valuable instrument to determine if this film is worth your attention or not. Of course, it doesn't mean you have to adhere just to one or two "authorities", but use the amalgam of critical opinions, for example via review aggregators like RT.
Every single critic is full of bullshit to some extent. Ebert, for example, gave two stars BOTH to original Batman and Batman and Robin.
>>70256709
who?
>>70265790
you have to run around in liberal shithole circle jerk communities and have an innate talent for bullshit
>film critics
>an attempt at pseudo academic analysis of entertainment products
remind me again why anyone should listen to these people
>>70270753
things would be so much better because everyones tastes have been so skewed by what is supposedly 'good'
maybe everyone would like uwe boll movies or someshit
who cares
it'd be way better than having some faggoty barons of taste having way too much influence on others peoples creativity
and critics absolutely exert influence on what movies are made
they are fucking parasites
>>70256650
Wait, you mean critics are actually just extremely insecure frauds?
>>70258265
>opinions need to be built on foundations of bedrock
You have so much to learn, child
>>70271944
His opinions were entirely meant to impress his peers in the first place. Why do you think the Pitchfork reviewers use such flowery faggot vocabulary?
>>70256709
>implying his second opinion of Armond isn't correct
He's a clever troll. That's all there is to him.
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.
>>70272382
that's just an opinion and conveniently you agree so you take it as fact to make things simpler for you
>>70256938
i guess you're being sarcastic, but it's true.
they tend to over think things, and give them an inflated importance. it's like, you give mental energy to a movie, and then mental energy to what you do at work. it's balanced right. but they, they put ALL of their mental energy into analyzing a movie, without even knowing what it's like to be on the flipside of it, of making a movie. its like a mental equivalent of overeating.
and then they in turn, can influence YOU to over think things. That messes up the balance of where you give your energy and attention. And instead of spending a reasonable amount of free time thinking over movies and such, you put too much energy into it, and the more important things in your life suffer.
