What did he mean by this?

It didn't succeed

*visual key that is basically a yes/no"

*witty meme quote to attract attention*

>>80020400
He meant that I laughed at this image

Some tines u fall to the it follows monster

Rip in peace big guy

What movie

>Rating: 2.5/4

That's not a rotten

File: dream_b981471d18.jpg (245KB, 800x642px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 800x642px

>mfw trying to figure out what 2.5/4 would be out of 5 or 10

>>80020831

It's a slightly negative review on Ebert's scale. 2.5-3 stars is the dividing line between thumbs up/down for him.

>>80020400
I thought he was dead

File: zCI0F86.jpg (34KB, 655x527px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 655x527px

>>80022054
3,125/5
6,25/10

>>80020811

Head, the Monkees movie.

Some choice lines from the review:

>I suppose it flopped in 1968 because Monkees fans were offended by it, and non-Monkees fans (i.e., anyone over 14, in either age or IQ) devoutly stayed away.
>The Monkees themselves are a harmless lot, little pop-idol puppies who can't sing, can't dance, can't talk, don't need to.
>But the Monkees, dismantled or not, aren't really at the heart of the film, and their songs are so forgettable that you have trouble remembering how they began, before they end.

>>80022415
He was honestly a great writer despite his shit taste

>>80022469

He didn't have a shit taste. For the most part he had great knowledge of the medium and its history, could intelligently watch a movie (as evidenced by his dvd commentary tracks), and praised a wide variety of indie, art, and foreign films. Plus he genuinely loves cinema and showed his passion in almost every one of his reviews. Of course he had a lot of wrong opinions, but nobody's perfect. Nevertheless, he's leagues ahead of your average fa/tv/irgin.

>>80022690
this. i always trusted ebert because he drew a line between ENTERTAINMENT and NOT ENTERTAINMENT. which is very different to good movie/bad movie, which many critics want to believe is the main criteria for watching something.

if you want a this is good/this is bad review, go read consumer reports

>>80020400
Ebert was a hack, he never had his own list of objective criteria for what makes a movie great and just made shit up on a day to day basis

>>80022372
>3,125/5
>6,25/10
Why is it rotten?

>>80024460
>objective criteria for what makes a movie great

>>>/reddit/