What the fuck was up with Ebert? His opinions were so consistently

Explain why you think so

He was a little gimp and got by solely on his looks.

>>85078911
Agreed. Anyone who disagrees should read his absurd one star review of Blue Velvet, or his review of the original I Spit on Your Grave, where he reviews the audience instead of the film.

>>85078911
Did you expect him to be omniscient and infallible?

Don't forget that time he turned Ryan Dunn's death into a punchline.

>>85078998
I can't really fault him for not giving a fuck about a rape revenge film back in the day.

Blue Velvet on the other hand, was a fuckup, and one he later acknowledged and reevaluated.

As opposed to your shitty opinion?

>>85079076
Ooh, burn. Whites absolved of all crimes.

>>85079076
Back from the dead, Roge?

>Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" is an ideological mess, a paranoid right-wing fantasy masquerading As an Orwellian warning. It pretends to oppose the police state and forced mind control, but all it really does is celebrate the nastiness of its hero, Alex.

>>85079162
>right-wing fantasy

WTF CLOCKWORK ORANGE IS MY FAVORITE FILM NOW

>>85079272
>right wingers
>watching film
Doubt it.

File: dunn.jpg (27KB, 500x338px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x338px

>>85079058

File: file.png (79KB, 251x201px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 251x201px

>>85079312
2 bizzy readin books and runnin the show

File: expectopatronum.jpg (110KB, 480x622px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 480x622px

>>85079312
>t.

>>85079530
>>t.
riggered. It's too easy.

>>85079616
>Responding
Triggered

>>85079672
>Responding
Triggered

>>85079672
>mocking someone means they're triggered
nice logic douche

>>85078911
He should've covered that shit with a bandana or something. What the fuck was he trying to prove?

What did the guy who posted>>85079616
in response to>>85079530
mean by >>85079700

File: nice try.jpg (18KB, 372x107px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 372x107px

>>85079867

>>85079530
>>85079616
>>85079672
>>85079700
>>85079743
>>85079867
>>85079904
All mine

I never read a review by this guy but the reviews written by other guys that get posted on his website are extremely shitty.

>>85079162
He's not wrong though. Kubrick messed with the book's message and fucked the politics up. Visually it's amazing but I can't say it's a great adaptation of the book.

>>85080870
Ebert never gave me the impression of being someone who read the books. He was that kind of reviewer I hate who assumes the adaptation is completely representative of the source material.

His great movies list is a great resource for finding kino

>>85078998
His reasons for disliking Blue Velvet are silly, but it is a vastly overrated film

>>85082532
this

>>85079162
>all it really does is celebrate the nastiness of its hero, Alex.
I don't get it, why does that make it right wing? That doesn't contradict at all with "pretending" to oppose police states

I really love his review on totoro

>>85079162

fun fact: he changed his mind on this because A Clockwork Orange is his wife's favourite movie

>>85078998
>Blue Velvet
oh yeah, i remember when you fedoras were shilling that garbage edgy flick

File: contact.png (178KB, 276x455px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 276x455px

how will /tv/ plebs ever recover

I bet you don't even read his reviews, just get angry when he rates your favorite shitty movies poorly.