He was such a goddamned hack

>>78912518
Here's your reply

>>78912518
Nah he actually knows a good or great movie when he sees one better than /tv/

Of course you don't need to listen to a critic. But he was mostly right. For example the first two lotr are only 3/4. They aren't amazing.

>>78913235
>the phantom menace was good
>the ring was bad

File: genesmiling-thumb-200x261.jpg (10KB, 199x261px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 199x261px

>>78912518
Childhood is idolizing Roger Ebert.
Adulthood is realizing Gene Siskel made more sense.

>>78912518
the RLM of the mainstream

>>78913235
No the LOTR is complete fucking shit.

I have to agree

Literally a revisionist hack

>>78913704
Correct

>>78913804
I know but lotrnerd neckbeards jerkoff to it

He was alright for the most part but he got triggered by Isabella Rossellini getting manhandled in Blue Velvet so badly he gave it 1 star. That was so unbelievably to me, like it's a movie it's not happening for real lol

beat it, bam

>calls a movie shit
>ends up being popular
>sends out a new review i-i-its good i was only pretending

>>78913739
Childhood is knowing this is bait.
Adulthood is responding for your own amusement.

Agree, he gave a negative review to that one movie with Depardie that has the hottest(admittedly rapey) almost sex scene.

He understood the language of cinema
Even when I disagreed with him he still generally gave a good critique

He , rarely, let his politics get in the way of a review
It's unfortunate but forgivable

A worthless morbidly obease alcoholic left-wing radical progressive Democrat Nigger-loving atheist
Fuck him
Glad the pedorast croaked