Am I the only one who thinks he was a hack?

No, you know you're not. You know other memellenial retards start these threads and will be happy to join you.

>>82453244
who the fuck is he? tell me some of his good films i should watch and i'll let you know soon.

>>82453244
He knows his stuff about comedy movies but for every other genre he is a hack.

>>82453244
his analysis of the believer was fucking retarded he didn't get it at all.

>>82453244
His jaw was pretty hacked.

>>82453244
In what sense? He got things wrong, and had some weird (and hypocritical) opinions, but he was a very good writer, and he often seemed to know what he was talking about.

>>82453244
The most retarded opinions of his involved westerns

>The Searchers is bad because the main character is racist

>the good the bad the ugly deserves bigger score than the one I gave but it's Italian Western so it gets -1 out of factory(this was actually in a review)

>Brazil is hard to understand
RETARDED

>>82453244
Siskel was the better critic prove me wrong

>>82455200
>>the good the bad the ugly deserves bigger score than the one I gave but it's Italian Western so it gets -1 out of factory(this was actually in a review)
Where did he say that? He gave it 4/4 here
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-1968

File: mikeandjay.jpg (107KB, 1268x673px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1268x673px

He was the Mike Stoklasa of his generation.

>>82455469
It was in the review from when it came out(so obviously not on the internet). There was 5 star ranking there, and he gave it 3/5 but stated that it deserved 4/5.

you're not going to agree with a critic all the time

but he was The GOAT at eviscerating a steaming pile of shit with his writing

>>82454619
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHmDQqBOl38

Ebert is good when it comes to the "canon", but his critical mode is pretty narrow. His opinion of Taste of Cherry is telling, as was the response to it.

Basically he approachs films always in the same way, and when a film subverts this, he counts it as a negative. His articles on Godard are good examples of his misunderstanding of the avante garde.

>>82453244
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KiOlkqwYAA

>>82455531
>Ebert
>Out of 5

>>82455469
>>82455531
>http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-1968
>Looking up my old review, I see I described a four-star movie but only gave it three stars, perhaps because it was a "spaghetti Western" and so could not be art.

>>82455612
Even in your link you can read:
> I responded strongly, but had been a movie critic less than a year, and did not always have the wisdom to value instinct over prudence. Looking up my old review, I see I described a four-star movie but only gave it three stars, perhaps because it was a "spaghetti Western" and so could not be art.

>>82453244
DUDE, ALWAYS REVIEW BLACK PEOPLE MOVIES POSITIVELY, LAMAO

>Gave Fellowship 3 stars
>Gave Revenge of the Sith 3 1/2

No, you're not.

In an interview, when they asked him about what makes him think a movie is bad or good, he said more or less this: "I don´t know, I think it comes from my heart"


Yes, he was a hack

>>82456082

do you actually find the LotR movies to be good? lol

The throats cancer definitely had him hackin'

>>82457441
Fucking autist. It's not some objective rubric you spaz, it's subjective.

>>82457569
What makes them bad then anon?

>>82457669
The quality of a movie depends on the amount of elements it has; character development, character introduction, character´s objective and what makes him have it, the situation, which, by the way need to be justified, and the logic of every element; it´s not subjective.