Are they the Siskel and Ebert of our generation?

No because Ebert and Siskel usually disagreed with each other. Jay just agrees to whatever Mike says

>>82481069
I agree with this statement.

They've disagreed with each other multiple times on many things, they just don't waste our time arguing about it.
Brevity is the soul of wit- William Shakesman.

>>82481031
Mike's awake. Time to spam /tv/.

Basically, yes. There are no other good film reviews out there.

Do they secretly hate each other, too?

https://youtu.be/OkwVz_jK3gA

>>82481031
>overrated hack duo who think they have taste
it's a perfect match

>>82481031
Yes, they're bad critics too

Siskel and Ebert shined the best when they disagreed with eachother. Now, I don't hate Mike and Jay like most of you do but they generally agree in all of their videos.

Is Jessi ever returning to the balcony, or is it closed to her forever?

>>82481603
You mean Jay sucking up Mike's dick every time?

>>82481561
>do they hate each other
Ebert just seems like a massive asshole. If there was any hate it was all his doing

>>82481561
>seskel and ebert hated each other meme
That's bants, they respected each other.

>>82481561
Was Siskel drunk?

>>82481031

In that one is hugely overweight and will soon die of a disease? then yes.

>>82481734
siskel died first. watch out jay

>>82481748
(Except Mike is based Siskel and Jay is film geek Ebert)

>>82481031
No, not until one of them have mouth cancer so that they can finally shut up. Youtube is cancer. Stop enabling mentally challenged lazy street beggars.

>>82481734
Who?

>>82481851
legacy media, pls

>>82481069
Yeeeep

>>82481031
No...
Siskel and Ebert reviewed everything, from art films to blockbusters. The only thing Mike and Jay review are capeshit movies.
Siskel and Ebert weren't paid shills unlike Mike and Jay who give favorable reviews to every mediocre piece of shit Marvel/Disney shits out because their livelihood depends on it.
Siskel and Ebert always broke down the films they reviewed and explained their thoughts behind their opinions, Mike and Jay's commentary is strictly limited to the effect of "I like this because it is fun", or "This is bad because I don't like it".
Siskel and Ebert took their jobs seriously, Mike and Jay are "ironic" reviewers and constantly shit on others for doing doing exactly what they do (but it's okay because irony is very cool :^)
Siskel and Ebert actually enjoyed watching movies and enjoyed reviewing them, Mike and Jay are failed filmmakers who lack talent and sincerity, which is why they can't do anything but be "ironic" reviewers on youtube.

>>82482003

this

genre movies are a safe space for lazy critics.

>>82482003
>Siskel and Ebert weren't paid shills
Siskel and Ebert L I T E R A L L Y worked for Disney. Fuck off and do your morning chores, kid.

>>82481706
he had a tumor in his brain

File: rex_loves_dix.jpg (116KB, 1000x799px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1000x799px

Are Rich Evans & Jessie Whatever the Rex Reed and Dixie Whatley of the '90s?

>>82481031
Yes. But what does that say about our generation though?

I like the RLM crew, but it is clear that Jay can't bring himself to disagree with Mike.

Like, during the Independence Day Resurgence ep, it was painfully obvious that Jay was about to destroy the movie, but Mike liked it so he (again, very obviously) refrains himself and goes nowhere near as ballistic as he did with the first movie.

Siskel and Ebert are the Siskel and Ebert of our generation, you fucking child.

File: IMG_1416.jpg (91KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1024x768px

>>82481031
Actually, they kind of remind me of somebody else more

>>82482433
> *breaks hip in autistic fit*

They are talentless and completely without charisma. They are inarticulate and cringe inducing. Only autistic neckbeard virgins that post on /tv/ like these losers. At least Siskel and Ebert wrote for legitimate papers and had an actual Television show on a real TV network.

>>82482867
Mike is charismatic as fuck

>>82482965
Suuuure, and you are a billionaire who fucks Victoria's Secret models and Leo is jealous of you.....

File: Dead Company.jpg (265KB, 969x537px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 969x537px

>>82481031
>there are people on this site that like DC

>>82482003
>Siskel and Ebert actually enjoyed watching movies and enjoyed reviewing them, Mike and Jay are failed filmmakers who lack talent and sincerity, which is why they can't do anything but be "ironic" reviewers on youtube.
This is the key point.
It's very obvious these two cunts don't actually enjoy cinema, at least not anymore. They keep going through the motions because their only income is their Patreon account.

>>82481603
You seem to have watched the show a lot. Tell me, did Siskel have better taste? I think so.

>>82483075
>It's very obvious these two cunts don't actually enjoy cinema,
If I had to watch what they did, I wouldn't either.

>>82483276
Siskel was a pleb, much like Mike.

>>82483321
Ebert wasn't exactly "high brow" either.

>>82483303
Then they should stop. But they won't, because making internet videos where they pretend to be angry at things is their livelihood.
It's the inherent flaw of all "angry" or "cynical" YouTube personalities: Their entire existence is hinged upon being attentionwhores who can't stay away from things they don't enjoy. And stupid emotionally stunted teenagers will gulp it all down because being so overtly negative about everything (even deservedly so) just seems so much more witty than being intellectually honest.

>>82483404
>where they pretend to be angry at things is their livelihood.
Excepting the Best of the Worst segments, they don't do that that often. I wish they would get angry at new releases, because I enjoy those much more.
>And stupid emotionally stunted teenagers will gulp it all down because being so overtly negative about everything (even deservedly so) just seems so much more witty than being intellectually honest.
You are aware that RLM threads are being posted today because they made a positive review of GoG 2, right?

>>82483404
They can't stop because this is what the free market demands. Capitalism is the enemy of quality entertainment.

>>82483404
>Their entire existence is hinged upon being attentionwhores who can't stay away from things they don't enjoy. And stupid emotionally stunted teenagers will gulp it all down because being so overtly negative about everything (even deservedly so) just seems so much more witty than being intellectually honest.
Are you talking about RLM or /tv/?

File: 7653c598-bf24-420f-ba0e-c93ab0751c4b-1359x2040.jpg (134KB, 1240x1861px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1240x1861px

>>82483471
This. Have any Best Korea kino to share?

>>82483404
>the master is composing a new copypasta before our eyes

>>82483537
Norwegian cinema is superb, though.

>>82483404
You get that they'd probably laugh their ass off at this tripe if they ever read it, right?

File: Solyaris_ussr_poster.jpg (42KB, 200x322px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 200x322px

>>82483537
You're being sarcastic, but even "mediocre" Soviet cinema was objectively superior to 99% of the schlock in American theaters.
The general Soviet public would regularly watch (and enjoy!) stuff that we in the West would call "high-brow" or "arthouse".

They're the Nostalgia Critic of your generation

>>82483766
Meh, I really doubt in sheer quantity, they could match the number of masterpieces the West produced in the same period, so the latter had quantity and quality.

Besides, the best art was undeniably produced when the class divisions were greatest. I.e., no one has shittier taste than what Marx would consider to be the proletariat.

>>82483058
>there are "grown ups" on this board that like capeshit

>>82484011
There are people on this imageboard who actually like this RLM cancer.....

How do their views compare to Siskel and Ebert back in the day?

File: 1454015107296.png (202KB, 365x363px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 365x363px

>Wanting to be like Ebert

>>82484215
Ebert is the best film critic in the history of film critics you stupid millennial faggot.

File: download (26).jpg (12KB, 214x236px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 214x236px

>>82484362
People with non-shit taste say hello.

>>82484362
top kek

>>82484426
Pauline Kael. Now I know you're trolling.

File: large_qVsaDvFLnGSH6WdTgatzc2nXt7e.jpg (72KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 400x600px

>>82484502
Nope. She had better taste than Ebert ever did. She didn't have this idea of, "Well, it was supposed to appeal to the lowest common denominator, brain dead masses, so I'll rate it for how well it did that." Guess what that hack gave Zoo Keeper? No, guess.

>>82484558
Zookeeper came out decades after Kael died. gtfo

>>82484654
And?

>>82484703
Aaaand she couldn't have rated Zookeeper. It's a trick question.

>>82484739
Well, you were mistaken in your assumption that I was talking about Kael. So you aren't even going to try to defend Ebert's review?

File: 1414071187539.gif (1MB, 285x285px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 285x285px

>>82484362
>Wanting to be a film critic

How about you make something instead of having a job that can be dismissed by enjoying a movie.

Millennial faggots are the people trying to emulate that.

>>82484859
Those who can, do. Those who can't do shit criticize because they're useless pieces of cunt.

>>82484859
When did I say I wanted to be a film critic? Everyone faggot here on /tv/ is a film critic. Or else they would not be here talking about films.

Siskel and Ebert are old school. They understand how to talk about films without diving into hip hype culture like all the other faggots these days.

You probably don't even have a job. Stay mad that RLM make bank while you are worthless piece of garbage.

>>82484800
I don't give a shit about either Kael or Ebert. They're both dead and Zookeeper came out 10 fucking years ago. WHOI GIVES A SHIT.

>>82484945
RLM is a useless piece of garbage.

>>82484959
K

>>82482003
>The only thing Mike and Jay review are capeshit movies.
I wish they'd branch out. I really enjoy their end of year wrap up videos where they review all the real movies they saw, but aren't popular enough to make an episode out of. I wish they'd try a show where they review movies from the Criterion Collection.

>>82482003
>The only thing Mike and Jay review are capeshit movies.
Not including their "Catch up" episode, they reviewed 22 movies in 2016. Out of those 22 movies, only 6 of them were capeshit.

>>82484978
>I wish they'd try a show where they review movies from the Criterion Collection.
But why? Their whole shtick is that they make comedic reviews. Do you really think they can bring that style of humor to a discussion of Cries and Whispers?

>>82484974
Not really. They make good money and support themselves. What are you doing? Just being a hating millennial faggot with a low IQ and no job on 4chan.

You know who I love? Peter Travers of Rolling Stone. What a critic. Is Doug Walker the Peter Travers of 2011?

>>82485103
Cool so by your metric, Adam Sandler movies are great because he supports himself with them. Meanwhile, isn't it time for your mom to bring you tendies?

>>82485193
Yes, Adam Sandler has done more in life than I. He's more successful. Making money > art.

A shout out to my man Owen Gleiberman, formerly of Entertainment Weekly. There should be more critics like him!

>>82481561
when they start dissing the protestants. Prime fucking bantz

>>82485233
He gave the Zookeeper a B- !!!!!!!!! Are you retarded?

>>82485233
Nice dubz. I prefer Almond White.

File: 1493494527118.jpg (17KB, 720x369px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 720x369px

>>82485103
Holyshit, are you this fucking autistic?

This shit is why being a film critic in general is a garbage profession. Low fucking standards.

And I wasn't even talking about RLM. They are successful because people keep watching them and find them funny. Also they created a few movies themselves and Rich is a VA on some cartoon.

I was actually referring to professional ones like Rotten Tomatoes. Anyone who actively wants to be like that are fucking worthless.

>>82485284
that's terrible. I am still very upset that hollywood foisted the zookeeper on us

>>82485340
>Rotten Tomatoes
They don't actually review movies, anon.

>>82485068
>only 6 of them were capeshit.
Still a little high desu.

>>82481069
It's called "friendly disagreement", you know, like non-autistic people do? Jay disagrees with Mike quite frequently on a lot of shit, but he's not flinging his feces across the wall and jumping down Mike's throat.

>>82485627
>ALL THEY REVIEW IS CAPESHIT

>Well actually, a pretty small percentage of what they reviewed is capeshit

>...moves goalpoats

>>82485758
That actually wasn't me. It's fucking obvious they don't only review capeshit. There's like, max, five capeshit movies a year, and they review far more than that.

>>82485641
I don't know why people say Jay always agrees with Mike. He's pretty much on the polar opposite opinion in their Me Him Her review (because Jay clearly doesn't give a shit about sucking up to Max Landis). They also disagree pretty heavily in their Escape from New York review. And even with this Guardians vol. 2 review, Jay brings up things that he didn't like about the movie and Mike says they didn't bother him.

/tv/ just wants them to bicker like whiny faggots and since they're adults that can disagree and still have a normal conversation about it, anons can't comprehend it.

>>82485813
Fucking this.

>>82485340
>anybody who wants to make easy money being above average articulate about flicks
>is worthless
You just sound bitter. If you can find a niche job and make good money, why do you care?

>>82485813
>He's pretty much on the polar opposite opinion in their Me Him Her review
What? That's total bullshit. Neither of them liked it. There are far better reviews to display their disagreements, including Anabelle, Jurassic World, Independence Day 2, and Battleship, (I think).

ebert is pretty good desu, but he occasionally gave less-than-perfect reviews to movies i like so i feel obliged to say he's shit

mike and jay are funny, but have a habit of hating things that aren't what they wanted/expected

>>82485977
Rewatch that review. Mike is tiptoeing around his opinion hardcore. He even says that he liked American Ultra in that review, despite shitting all over that movie in their actual American Ultra episode.

>>82485977
>Jurassic World
>B-but Jay said it was horrible as hyperbole in the intro and then expanded with his real thoughts on it that it wasn't totally horrible even though he clearly still didn't like it, therefore he changed his opinion on it to agree with Mike. ...Even though he still didn't agree with Mike.

>>82485990

rolling on 3 hours sleep, lemme unfuck this

> and jay are funny, but have a habit of hating things that aren't what they wanted/expected

what i mean by this is that if the movie isn't what they expected before watching it, they tend to just shit on it. gotta maintain some objectivity. overall they're great though.

>>82486105
>>82486130
The point is, in the reviews I mentioned, they were explicitly in disagreement, while they were mostly in agreement for the Me Him Her review.

>>82486155
This is also my biggest pet peeve with their reviews.

>>82486155
For example?

>>82486155
>what i mean by this is that if the movie isn't what they expected before watching it, they tend to just shit on it.
This is objectively false though.

>>82486333
No it isn't

>>82487211
Then you don't watch enough of their videos or are retarded?

No they're both Ebert, a hack fraud.

>>82486277

Rogue One versus TFA

They say Rogue One is a "boring movie with boring characters", shameless fan-service and easter eggs, and a un-interesting story. They talked about how bored they were by the end.

On the other hand, TFA has "new characters that are likeable right off the bat" and "scrappy characters".

I'm probably oversimplifying, but I remember watching both reviews back-to-back and having the distinct impression that most of the shit they ripped RO for was perfectly fine in TFA. They completely ignored entire scenes that explain character motivations in RO, but in TFA the character development was somehow much better.

They clearly hated RO because it had no Jedi shit, they just didn't admit it.

>>82487794
Ebert is the greatest film critic in the history of film critics though. RLM are also the best film critics in the history of youtube film critics.

>>82485340
How are you gonna be daddyofive if your glasses are welded to your head?

I don't even watch movies. I watch and read the critics. I like it when the critics are reaaaaaly critical. Yeah. Critics criticizing things. That's the best.

>>82488072
>They clearly hated RO because it had no Jedi shit, they just didn't admit it.
Or maybe they just felt like TFA was a stronger movie? You autistic faggot. Nothing you said reveals any inconsistency with their opinions, you realize that right? The two films are thematically and structurally different. R1 had absolutely shitty character development, TFA had stronger character development. Seems to me you are just asspained that they liked TFA more, for it being a stronger film...since it was.

>>82488245
>I don't even watch movies.
So how do you actually have context to what they are criticizing?

>>82488302
>context
Who needs it? Not me.

>>82481031
ebert was a faggot with no taste, so yes.

>>82488072
No, that's an argument that people use when they disagree with them. They make it perfectly clear how Rey, Finn, Poe, and Kylo all have characters with clear motivations that people can identify with. Rogue One had very little of this. This is the same feeling that a lot of fans have when comparing the two.

Also The Force Awakens has a far more unique story and deserves to be apart of the main saga. Rogue One is the beginning of these terrible spin off films that we are going to keep getting. At least TFA introduces brand new characters. RO just tries to expand on ANH in a way that actually weakens it. We don't need an explanation for why the Death Star blew up. That was because Luke used the force and made an impossible shot. It was never meant to be a weakness in the development of the Death Star. Rogue One is a very weak star wars film and doesn't stand alone. It will never be ranked with episodes 1-9 because it's just a fan film spin off.

File: 1452002395177.jpg (50KB, 398x431px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 398x431px

>>82485977
>Jurassic World
>Jay: I hated this movie
>Mike: I loved this movie
>Jay: Okay I didn't HATE the movie

Hmm...

>>82488445
>this meme

>>82488484
It literally happened in the GotG2 review

>>82488378
>Also The Force Awakens has a far more unique story and deserves to be apart of the main saga
It's almost 1:1 a copy of the original Star Wars.

>>82488522
So it literally happened today, this one time, exactly? Woah.

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

1MB, 720x360px

>>82484362
>Best film critic in the history
>Brazil is confusing

>>82488072
I agreed with them with R1, though they massively overrated TFA.

>>82488445
Yes, that was a bit pussyfooted of Jay, but the point was one liked the movie and the other didn't and they did it.

>>82488769
GotG2 review came out YESTERDAY. Ha ha ha. You've been out-pedanted.

>>82488554
This. I like TFA a lot more, but that's the stupidest defense of it ever.

>>82488260
>shitting on RO for fan service
>not shitting on TFA for fan service

There's one right off the bat.

>Finn is a stormtrooper who sees bad things he doesn't like, decides to help rebels and insta-friends everyone
This is great!

>Jyn has daddy issues, decides to help the rebels after finally seeing how fucked up the empire is. Former rebel with Saw explains how she learned to fight, etc.
Booooring!

Character development in RO was fine.

RO: Disillusioned rebels who did morally questionable things for the cause find a reason to renew their faith and sacrifice themselves for the greater good.

TFA fucking fast-forwarded through character development. Finn doesn't like killing and quits and suddenly has no qualms about smoking his former comrades left and right. All those years brainwashing right out the fucking window!

Rey can do everything because, well, the force. I have to save this droid! Hooray I'm a rebel now! And I can do Jedi shit!

>>82488079
Ebert was absolute shit with shit opinions and shit taste.

OK EVERYONE. GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY IS OVER BACK TO
>Star Wars

>>82488932
>shitting on RO for fan service
>not shitting on TFA for fan service
Holy shit you are asspained. You don't seem to understand that two movies can ATTEMPT to do the same thing, but that doesn't mean both films SUCCEED in doing that thing. Fucking christ, this isn't hard.

>>82484978

They've reviewed a few "real movies" on their show before and the results are always laughably bad, whether they were correct in liking it or not.

Mike and Jay's biggest problem is that they're shallow. They may have some idea of what a solid script is or solid film making, but they have no understand of film as a real artistic experience at all.

Jay's review of the VVitch is just "lol very spooky!" He says nothing about the themes of the movie, and how they relate to the historical context of the setting. at all.

>>82488932
>Character development in RO was fine.
Then you simply just don't watch a lot of movies, kid.

>>82485813
Jay is overall the more straight laced of the two. He has a stricter criteria for things he wants out of his film going experience. Mike is mostly looking for a good time. Which is funny to think about how Mike basically wrote the book on long form video essays about movies, but he's far less scrutinizing than Jay. It goes to show just how much Mike fucking hates the prequels that they'd make an otherwise laid back guy go through all the trouble of breaking them down.

>>82488554
>It's almost 1:1 a copy of the original Star Wars.
plot pleb

>>82489003
rogue one did it better though.

>>82489075
It didn't. How many people have to make fun of you or mock you or orchestrate entire video essays about you, to get it through your fucking head that Rogue One sucked?

>>82489124
>aww no redditlettermedia might make fun of me oh no!
literally you right now

>>82489040
>Jay's review of the VVitch is just "lol very spooky!" He says nothing about the themes of the movie, and how they relate to the historical context of the setting. at all.
I feel like you watched the first minute of the review then turned it off to write this up.

So many RLM threads a day, yet it seems like less than a handful of you faggots actually watch and mentally register these reviews.

>>82489164
If what I said wasn't true, this autistic as fuck board wouldn't cry every time RLM made fun of them.

File: actualinputrequired.jpg (10KB, 193x261px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 193x261px

>>82489042
>>82489003

>>82489226
That second post was indeed an argument, faglord.
>2 films try to do a thing
>1 film fails to do that thing

>>82489218
>calling rlm out on their bullshit = crying
jay pls

>>82489075
rogue one was a half-assed gritty war movie and a half-assed fun adventure movie. they should have scrapped it altogether instead of reshooting it in an attempt to salvage what they had.

>>82489271
>I need to act like I'm "le calling them out" for having an opinion I dislike, while at the same time bitching and moaning about it
Please, retard. You are embarrassing yourself.

File: 1494010753803.jpg (188KB, 749x903px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 749x903px

>>82489271
>h-hey Mike and J-J-Jay! I...uh...am calling you out! You stoopid head! Rogue one was great! HEEHEE TOLD YA!

>>82489189

Just rewatched their review. They talk about "le spooky atmosphere" and how it's so well made without going into too much detail. This is not insightful criticism.

>>82489044
Jay is the proverbial little brother trying to do what the big brother does and failing.

Mike likes movies where he can "turn off your brain". What people fail to add when they use that cliche is "...and open you heart."

The core of Mike's reviewing is "Here are all the things that happened in the movie that prevented me from turning off my brain."

/tv/ can't understand this because autistics are all brain and no heart.

>>82489266
>one films has easter eggs and this is bullshit
>one film was a complete ripoff and we're okay with this

My original point. It's not a question of what worked and what didn't, it's a criticism of the seeming contradiction.

>lel it's fine because TFA was better

isn't really a valid argument in this discussion

>>82489487
>it's a contradiction when I want it to be
I am not getting through to you, apparently. In terms of their opinions (not yours that you keep inserting), they are consistent.

>>82489363
So, you didn't watch it?

>>82489487
>one film was a complete ripoff and we're okay with this
Because the rip-off was better made and more enjoyable. Why do you have such trouble with this?

>>82481031
Hopefully they'll meet the same end.

>>82489714

Is there a secret review that I can't find in which they actually intelligently analyze the film?

>>82481031
Don't they have to actually review movies for you to make that comparison? How many new movies have they reviewed this year, 6? Any film reviewer goes through as much in a week.

Film Gob > RLM

>>82490477
How can Film Gob be better than RLM when literally all he does is steal RLM material?

>>82490573
Dont even lie. You love his Rotten Reviews.

File: hqdefault (1).jpg (13KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 480x360px

>Roger is the only guy in the history to ever answer "Yes" to every question he's asked at McDonald's!

>>82490704
that had me in stitches. also their banter about protestants

>>82490023
>waahhhhh!

>>82490733
ebert definitely had the upper hand, he was too sharp

>did you know for gene speech is a second language?

>>82490870
Yeah, Gene couldn't keep up. My mom used to know him, she says he was a really kind man.