How Ebert Defiled Movie Cricism

File: PutAhexonU.jpg (7KB, 197x256px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 197x256px

>>64634989
>oh hey ebert

>>64634989
>>2. If you want to go further in depth, give a summary outline of the plot.
I actually agree with that. In fact, I think the only possible cinema criticism can exist amongst people who already have seen the film. Anything else is plebby "should I spend $10 to see this" reasoning.

File: Pantano2.png (674KB, 606x611px) Image search: [Google]

674KB, 606x611px

99% of critics are worthless parasites

I miss him, he had decent taste and his reviews for terrible movies were always funny.

I will never not get aggravated by his review of Predator. I'd rather he disliked it like every other critic than the stupid shit he came out with.

File: SLACKJAW.webm (1MB, 720x360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 720x360px

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.

>>64634989
>Cricism

>>64635724

I just read this review because of your post.
This guy was a real retarded piece of shit.

>>64634989
>>1. Thumbs up, or thumbs down; is it good or bad?
He gave star ratings.

>>2. If you want to go further in depth, give a summary outline of the plot.
He was writing 200-300 word reviews in popular newspapers (later websites), it's not Introduction to Cinematic Language 101. His point was to be high-brow TV Guide, not low-brow Cahiers de Cinema.

>>3. Finally, for ultimate Ebert patrician status, apply your mores to the overall theme of the film.
Why is this bad?

>>64635724
>[after criticizing some of the problems with the movie and the shallowness of the plot] None of these logical questions are very important to the movie. "Predator" moves at a breakneck pace, it has strong and simple characterizations, it has good location photography and terrific special effects, and it supplies what it claims to supply: an effective action movie.

What's the problem?

>>64636231
Ebert is a self-described snob (he admitted this during the on-line 'video games aren't art' debates on his blog) so you're just not sensitive to condescension. Ignorance is bliss.

>>64636125
>He was writing 200-300 word reviews in popular newspapers (later websites), it's not Introduction to Cinematic Language 101. His point was to be high-brow TV Guide, not low-brow Cahiers de Cinema.

>He was doing it because he was doing it.

I don't debate geniuses like you. I don't dare to.

>>64636375
Reading the TV Guide and expecting Godard is plain misplaced and retarded.

>>64636307
No, it's not condensation.
None of the people who went to see Predator were watching it for the depth of the plot and profound cinematography. They were looking for just that: "breakneck pace, it has strong and simple characterizations, it has good location photography and terrific special effects". He's doing exactly what a good reviewer should do, which is judging a text in its proper context. Are you mad because he failed to poo poo on a popular action film for not being True Kino?

>>64635745
What the fuck happened to him?

File: jim.gif (407KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

407KB, 250x250px

I don't take a critic seriously unless they can give a score to the nearest decimal. it shows they put real thought into their review.

>I give this film a 8.4 out of 10.

>>64634989

I hate this fat fucking piece of shit so much. I'd rather take Leonard Maltin's fucking advice.

>>64636881
His reviews were so cancerous that he got cancer himself.

>>64636977
Did they get rid of his lower jaw or something? Jesus fuck. I couldn't live like that.

>>64634989
This is the faggot who said video games couldn't be art.

Face it, he was a hack, a dinosaur. He kept his position in media because he got famous before internet times. Had he been born today he would be a complete nobody.

What a pretentious piece of shit.

>>64636660
>judging a text in its proper context

Wow, how revolutionary. We must get the word out.

>>64634989
Sounds like /tv/ to me

>>64637333
>This is the faggot who said video games couldn't be art.

Hi /v/, he was right about this.
btw he said that in their current state, they aren't, he didn't find a game worthy enough of being called art. But he still said that in a distant future, maybe they will.

siskel wasnt bad

he just seemed like a normal dude

ebert was a pretentious shitbag

>>64634989
http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/10/training-wheels-for-consumerism-us-film-culture-is-psychoanalysis-in-reverse/

>>64637499
http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/video-games-can-never-be-art

>>64634989
He was a good friend.

>>64637460
yep, nerd culture

>>64637500
agreed. yet the gimmick was Siskel was the patrician, Ebert the pleb

>>64637555
He says literally in the first paragraoh
>Perhaps it is foolish of me to say "never," because never, as Rick Wakeman informs us, is a long, long time. Let me just say that no video gamer now living will survive long enough to experience the medium as an art form.

So according to him, in a distant future (more than 100 years), maybe. The title was just clickbait because he's a fucking hack.

File: frankenstein.jpg (66KB, 595x468px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 595x468px

>movie: good
>movie: bad

>>64637662
See? Nerds can't accept irony. It does not "compute."

>>64635697
I like Anto but fucking hell he hates on some good albums.
>Oh but if it's Death Grips - Soft 10/10

>>64636882
>the IGN method of reviews

>>64637821
Right? God forbid we should take the time to learn the concepts one has taken away from a film. That would be a waste of time. Human interaction is over-rated. kek

File: Armond Critic.jpg (30KB, 296x271px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 296x271px

>No one should be allowed to make a movie before they’re 40. There should be no film critics younger than 30. Before that you don’t know enough about art, you don’t know enough about life. I started out as a young person interested in writing about film, but I know more now than I knew then.

>I 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 was not criticism. And it was a kind of purposefully dishonest enthusiasm for product, not real criticism at all… He does NOT have the training. I think he simply had the position. 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.

>In mainstream media and the internet, most people who are writing about films are simply writing from a fan’s perspective instead of a truly critical perspective. So what used to be termed "film critics" now is almost meaningless, because you just got a free-for-all of enthusiasms rather than criticism.

>>64638345
how is one homosexual negro contrarian so consistently based

>>64638345
>>No one should be allowed to make a movie before they’re 40.
That's a giant load of bullshit. A ton of great filmmakers made their masterpieces in their youth. Plus a ton of films Armond loves were made by people under the age of 40. For example, Jean-Luc Godard was 30 when he made Breathless.

I lost respect for Siskel and Ebert when saw how butthurt they got over slashers/horror movies.

>>64638345
This kind of thinking is why he's never made a film of his own. He's being too absolutist for art, too absolutist for anything but academia.

>>64638345
Yet his favorite film, The Magnificent Ambersons, was made by Orson Welles at 27

File: 1408671333791.jpg (20KB, 300x318px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 300x318px

>>64634989
His reviews were certainly jaw dropping.

>>64638345
>No one should be allowed to make a movie before they’re 40.
Why does anyone take this hack's opinion seriously?

>>64638749
WELLES HAD THE CREDENTIALS AND IS A 0.1% EXCEPTION TO THE RULE

HE WAS THINKING OF HACKS LIKE DOLAN

>>64638961
>0.1% EXCEPTION TO THE RULE
Fuck off, Armond has praised a bunch of films that were made by people under the age of 40.

>>64638345

Jealous, prideful and pretentious.

>>64638345
>Often he would point out gaffes or mistakes in continuity. That’s not criticism. That’s really a pea-brained kind of fan gibberish.
BASED
A
S
E
D

File: wat.jpg (18KB, 328x225px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 328x225px

I'm on page 28.