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

>>85111833
just look at him

File: roger-ebert-esquire.jpg (43KB, 460x557px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 460x557px

>>85111833
>>85111922
JUST

Name 5 better critics.

>>85111833
yeah our King Armond White is much better xD

>>85112005
my ass
your ass
mike stoklasa
rich evans
jay bauman

:v)

>>85111833

No, he wasn't. As a film critic, his opinions were generally right (here, the criterion for being right is that the opinions offered are sensible and well-argued and agree often enough with my own, but not always, so as not to be too boring).

He understandably got angry at the world toward the end, but Ebert was certainly a better critic than the contrarian Armond White (that punning last name), who is loved by 4chan's /tv/ for no other reason than contrarianism for contrarianism's sake. That is, for no good reason at all.

You actually make a good horror picture and put some thought into it, Ebert will cringe, but he'll usually acknowledge its value. Early Siskel and Ebert episodes show Ebert to be the more relevant critic with the better staying power and better general understanding of life and art. And it is in these television programs, less the corpus of written work, that Ebert's talent for film appreciation is on its best display. Bad jokes aside, Ebert's talent was verbal communication.

>>85112510
I saw one thing where he went on this long ranting defense of Armond White then later edited it and said "Nevermind he likes Transformers 2 which means he's just a troll." He seemed incapable of understanding that people could enjoy more than his pretentious art flicks.

>>85111833
Can I get a brief recap?

>>85111833
He was pretty shit. Reminder that he changed his opinion on A Clockwork Orange and Dirty Harry when he found out that other people liked those movies.

>>85112510
you're just an idiot like Ebert

>>85111833
Am glad he died suffering like a dog

>>85113562
*whimpers*

Best film critic of the past 40 years.

>>85114643
I disagree.

One of the only good critics, now Roeper is one of the only good ones.

Eberts ratings
Philosopher's Stone 4/4
Chamber of Secrets 4/4
Prisoner of Azkaban 3.5/4

Fellowship of the Ring 3/4
The Two Towers 3/4
Return of the King

And he's right HP was and is better than LOTR

>>85115505
Return of the King 3.5/4*

>>85115505
HP movies went to complete shit after the second one because they had to start adapting actual long books.

>>85113348
So he was actually /ourguy/?

File: ourguy.jpg (26KB, 379x268px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 379x268px

>>85115615
Nah lad you are just a pleb bookfag. That's when they got extra kino. Don't think about the books and they are great. 4 is the worst adaptation wise but the climax like them all is very good. I dont know why you even watch films if you thinn 3 is bad because its different from a damn book. Films are a different medium.

>>85115811
>pleb
>kino
>ourguy
Reddit.

>>85115505
that's just a further indictment of Ebert then

File: 1499617620685.jpg (40KB, 960x743px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 960x743px

>>85115852
>can't handle memes
>calls anyone reddit
>when reddit can't detect kino since they have their heads in their books
Stop

The only reason I declared him our guy is because he's a white critic

>>85111833
He was a good man corrupted by SJW nigger loving ideology. He lost his talent in the sea of pointless kvetching and cucky apologia.

roeper was /ourguy/. Ebert is for pleb boomers.

>>85115887
t. Reddit lotrfag
They are all 3/4

>>85115505
Ebert was based. He hated Aliens.

>>85115944
>"can't handle memes"
Holy Reddit.

>>85112005
J. Hoberman
Jonathan Romney
A. O. Scott
Anthony Lane
Peter Bradshaw

>>85111833
He's a hypocritical hack because he tried to convince everyone that his visceral understanding of film was actually an intellectual one

File: maxresdefault-5.jpg (213KB, 2880x1620px)

213KB, 2880x1620px

>>85116013
>literally can't handle it
I'm you're Huckleberry

Ebert would give every movie that had good tits in it an extra bonus half a star. he truly was /ourguy/

>>85116043
What is a "visceral understanding" exactly?

>>85116065
>quoting Overwatch
Reddit.

>>85116103
That's a funny way to spell Tombstone

>>85116144
You're a funny way to spell Tombstone.

File: BA53EE9D-1B61-4E52-998E-837651A9161D-1202-00000118E6A58675.png (577KB, 544x649px) Image search: [Google]

577KB, 544x649px

>>85111833
>Implying anyone on /tv/ today was alive and old enough to watch or read Ebert's reviews as they came out.
He wasn't the best reviewer by any means but getting all butthurt that he gave your favorite movie 2.5 stars and posting on 4chan about his non-understanding of the medium is brainlet tier, anon. He's dead, who cares anymore? Move on with your life and stop making worthless threads.

>>85112198
you have to go back

>>85116080
>what is google

visceral
ˈvJs(ə)r(ə)l/
adjective

:relating to deep inward feelings rather than to the intellect.

I'm saying his perception of movies where based on an emotional level of consciousness instead of an intellectual one, but he tried to convince everyone (probably himself too) that he perceived films intellectually.

Basically, he was a Reddit pleb role playing as a classical Patrician

>>85116303
Here's a piece of trivia for you. Everything originates inside the brain. He wasn't autistic is what you're saying bitch.

>>85115985
HP is far more reddit, fag

>>85116472
Fuck, you really might be the stupidest person on /tv/

>>85116505
Not the movies you ignoramus. r/movies loves lotr and pro tip so does /tv/ because /tv/ is reddit, bookfags are sad!

>>85115425
Quite a substantial rebuttal.

You lose

>>85116850
"Wrong." - My idol, Donald Trump

>>85115505
>HARRY POTTER IS A JAW-DROPPING SPECTACLE! LITERALLY!
what did he mean by this

>>85116219
The point, my friend, is to trigger people who are, for whatever reason, so dedicated to defending the ideals of a dead film critic, who didn't even know they existed.

>He was a longtime friend of, and briefly dated, Oprah Winfrey, who credited him with persuading her to syndicate The Oprah Winfrey Show,[111]

>>85117168
Good taste.

>>85111833

He understood Falling Down which puts him above most.

>>85117565
I saw this post before. Seems weird that someone would bring up Falling Down in particular, so have you said this before?

>>85117594

Honestly couldn't tell you, but if it wasn't me, then that guy was all right.

>>85116023
J. Hoberman is the only good one in that list.
Scott and Bradshaw are cancer, worse than Ebert.

>>85117640
Eric Bauman
Neil Bauman
Hiroyuki Nishimura
Christopher Poole
Mahershala Ali

File: HOldingLaughter.gif (470KB, 499x277px) Image search: [Google]

470KB, 499x277px

>>85116917
holy kek

there is no such thing as a good critic, only permanently butthurt faggots who failed to succeed at their love and wallow in misery desperately trying to critique the people who succeeded

successful people laugh at the mere mention of the word "critic", they are like a insignificant subhuman life form more worthless than a parasite

>>85118256

Go to bed Dwayne.

>>85118904
Dwayne was vindicated by his movie kicking ass despite the critical beating. Critics are powerless.

>>85116240
you first

>>85118256
Well, most popular critics fit this bill but some critics like t.s Elliot are artists themselves and redefined both their chose artform and criticism itself. Without criticism we would not have a canon. Schools would have nothing to teach.

>>85118256
The value of art depends on the values of the art critic.
Most art is born as imitation, not innovation.
The critic, not the artist, is the one who defines innovation, and rates it.
The artist is merely a vehicle for the aesthetic/ideology of the critic.
The critic is the real artist.

>>85116023
>Peter Bradshaw

"No."

ebert wasn't a film critic. he never called himself a critic

he was a film reviewer

>>85117168

Patrician.

>>85111833
>His opinions were so consistently shitty.

The only issue I had with Ebert is that he didn't like horror movies, but that's just his personal taste.

>>85111833
His taste was terrible, I was happy when he died.

>>85120740
I don't see why anyone likes them.

>>85115505
He was somewhat disappointed with LOTRs because he was a bookfag and the films are nothing like the books

>>85121643
I just watched The Lovely Bones yesterday and I'm starting to think Peter Jackson isn't even a very good director.

>>85111922
This, I really don't get why anyone would take the opinion of an ugly """"person"""" seriously.

>>85121643
Same could be said about potter, films are always different. I liked both lotr and hp.

>>85121774
Fear and Loathing is basically as perfect an adaptation as you can ask for.

>>85116666
Well said super Satan

>>85117626
Who ever posted about Falling Down before
Don't go to the movies tomorrow
You're alright

>>85121815
True I love that movie

>>85116917
That it was great. You could read the entire reviews since you weren't self aware when they came out.

Sarris is the critic patricians would cite... If there were any on /tv/.

Armond is the only critic with any integrity anymore. All the rest are just whores for public consumption and feeding confirmation bias.

>>85122444
I give that full house a 5 out of 5

>>85117168
Black men CANNOT compete. Black women want WHITE BABIES.

>>85111833
If you had to go on tv and give a new opinion about every movie just about everyone would say the same thing.

Everyone is a retard when you hear every though.

>>85121675
He isn't, his early films are cheap apes of Raimi without his flourish. The Fellowship was a fluke pulled together by his preference for practical effects and good stuntwork, the excellent chemistry and bonding between the characters and actors on and off-screen, and the natural strength of being the opening act of a story.

>>85112198
You forgot Nostalgia Critic.

>>85122871
>my ass
No he didn't.

Ever noticed that Ebert looks suspiciously like Ebert?

>>85113348

Yet in his Dirty Harry review he turns it into a small diatribe about fascism, of which he had no understanding.

Even in movies I agree suck, Ebert seems to have the most nonsensical opinion of them.

>>85111833

>beginning a sentence with "like"

Opinion discarded.

>>85113459

Not an argument.

>>85125562
I'm gonna find an instance of Ebert doing that just to piss you off.

>>85125951
>Like all great works of art about war, "Apocalypse Now" essentially contains only one idea or message, the not-especially-enlightening observation that war is hell. We do not go to see Coppola's movie for that insight -- something Coppola, but not some of his critics, knows well.

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/apocalypse-now-1979

>>85115505
you can just tell it's the autist again
yeah hp is great, sadly emma watson is an ugly talentless tranny that can't act for shit. glad we agree

>>85126167
Nice.

>>85126167
that is one of the most half assed reviews of movies i have ever read in my life

Someone post the webm of the nurse cleaning his jaw flap.

He hated the funniest movie of all time (Freddy Got Fingered), but he did praise the massively underrated Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, so he's still better than most critics.

>>85111833
>>85111993
He looks like some fucking deep sea fish.

>>85125423
Why do people think Dirty Harry is a fascist movie? He was literally the hero San Francisco needed, but doesn't deserve.

File: 1500063714965.jpg (46KB, 500x528px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 500x528px

>>85126167
>"Apocalypse Now" contains only one idea or message
That's retarded.

Ebert did nothing wrong, /v/eddit is just mad about video games not being art

>>85127300
Hollywood types always call extra-judicial justice fascist. They don't actually know anything, like how fascism was a hugely authoritarian, collectivist ideology where the only street violence that was tolerated was that committed by state-approved gangs.

>>85127173
Please do not do that. I haven't been able to load webms for months and haven't bothered to figure out why and I still do not want you to do that.

File: 1488333356751.png (458KB, 655x704px) Image search: [Google]

458KB, 655x704px

>>85112013
at least the contrarian knows how to ruffle feathers and people took the bait when Rotten Tomatoes had a comment section

>>85127639
Amusingly this isn't even the first time he's did that thing in the picture. He was also the first critic to give District 9 a rotten.

>>85127505
So is this fascism or not?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSxlYDG3RS0

File: 23542345325225235.jpg (76KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 850x400px

>>85127682
>He was also the first critic to give District 9 a rotten.
fantastic, I like White more just for being a contrarian and making every pseudo intellectual critic and movie buff become butthurt over it. His Toy Story 3 rotten score comment section was filled with salty tears, I love it.

>>85127639
>>85127971
based armond

>>85127802
People's courts were typically employed by stalinist regimes. Of course in reality they were just to give a legal legitimacy of murdering someone. Like in Nolankino.

>>85128005
Really activates my Armonds.

If you looked up stupid fucking cunt in the dictionary you'd see a picture of Armond White.

>>85112510
>You actually make a good horror picture and put some thought into it, Ebert will cringe, but he'll usually acknowledge its value.

Dude, he despised Night of the Living Dead and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Truth.