Siskel or Ebert?

Siskel. Ebert was a complete hack and his opinions were largely garbage.

>>85246069
Siskel.
Ebert is a fucking pleb.

>>85246088
I don't even know what Siskel's opinions were. What the fuck were his opinions?

>>85246069
I heard he really hated Jaws.

Kermode

>>85246103
sometimes the same, sometimes different than eberts. op really needs to post some examples. i mean all their reviews are available

i know siskel used to be a police photographer and saw lots of crime scene photos and did not like horror movies or gore, but neither of them were really objective and would review movies based on their mood or the week they were having

File: IMG_1718.jpg (61KB, 419x249px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 419x249px

>>85246069

>>85246069
Siskel. I don't know anything about him, but Ebert had shitty opinions with shitty motivations. For instance, the man could not tell that Starship Troopers was satire. And then there was that debate about video games as art that show the man's opinions about art and movies were flawed to the core.

Roeper

>>85246069
Ebert

Siskel was a Jew, but then again at least he wasn't a fucking Protestant!

>>85246760
What the fuck is up with Protestants? They all seem nuts.

>ebert gave sky captain and the world of tomorrow 4/4 stars and shits on conan for being "white propaganda". Then people suck his dick because 70 years ago he wrote some half decent le post modern script about 60s culture

never knew much about siskel, but siskel i guess

>>85246726
I still don't understand why he decided to get in that big argument about video games. And the most embarrassing part is he didn't even offer up any good reasoning for his opinion. He basically just said "It's not because I say it's not."

>>85247088
Sky Captain was very good. Maybe not 4/4 good, but a good movie. Equilibrium is 4/4 good.

>>85247108
he was butthurt about sucking at them

>RAAAAH! FUCK YOU SUBZERO! NOT ART!!

>>85247121
dude sky captain is horribly written, filled with cliches, has retarded cameos, awful color grading and terrible action, half of which is cgi. 2.5/4 at best

>>85246726
really ironic that the guy who wrote beyond the valley of the dolls couldnt tell starshiptroopers was satire

>>85247178
And Equilibrium? That's the one I care about your opinion on. I love Equilibrium.

>>85246726
He literally said it was satire in his review. He just thought it was shitty satire. Which it is.

>>85247204
equillibrium is great. i find ebert's 3/4 rating to be very fair

File: IMG_0740.gif (1MB, 480x283px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x283px

>>85246069
Okay !! I go with this guy.

>>85247108
My point of contention is that he decided that they can't be art because they are interactive, and that means the user influences what is presented to him, and therefore dilutes the artist's vision with their own actions.

It's one of the dumbest opinions on art I've ever heard, and one that the art world at large quite obviously doesn't agree with. Nevermind that movies are very much like video games in that they are a giant collective effort, and as such the "artist's vision" is built up from the work of hundreds, even thousands of people, and with franchises like Star Wars we can now see clear as day that the artistic quality of the originals was influenced by more than one person.

That communicated, to me, that Ebert didn't actually know anything about art. He just had politically palatable opinions (in the first few years of his career he called Africa Adio "racist", for instance) and the movies he liked often correspond with movies that are generally seen as artistic. And he was an articulate, well read man who could clearly explain why he had his opinion.

But his reasoning behind the nature of art was nonsense, and in the end his reviews were simply well written personal opinions. Those are a dime a dozen, these days. The IMDB userbase has quite readily replaced Ebert and critics like him.

erbert understands video games are for children
that's good taste already

>>85247226
It's been a while since I read it.

Either way, it's not shitty satire. That's simply his personal opinion, but that's my problem with Ebert. It's all opinion, and no actual reasoning. Ebert was only a good critic if you had the same taste as him.

>>85246103
A lot of the time he judged movies on the basis of simply if he was entertained while he watched.

>>85246726
Why do /v/edditors have to bring up his opinions on videogames so much? I don't think anyone here has ever read a review of his, just saw that he doesn't think videogames are art and throw a fit.

Siskel hated everything hes our guy

>>85247681
Because it was a stupid and hilariously out of touch opinion. The moment Ebert stepped out of his comfort zone he started sounding like an angry, old man yelling at things he doesn't understand.

>>85246726
>the great ebert videogame debacle

That shit blew up, people were sending him ps3s with games that people were defending as art because he admitted he didnt have any games and had never played, even hideo kojima gave his opinion on the matter.

And he just kept going, it was interesting to see on happen in real time in his site back then.

Ebert was a dumb technophobe who ruined any chance of having a legacy by whining about video games.

Siskel was much more open minded about technology.

>>85248012
>tfw this all happened over 10 years ago
>tfw you used to read his opinions in the actual fucking newspaper in the 90s
>then you moved to the Chicago Sun Times website when your family got the internet in 96
fucking hell guys.

>>85248012
Oddly I'm pretty sure I remember him getting in Twitter arguments about it too.

So how fucking old is Twitter? How is it that he can be the kind of guy who uses Twitter but still have stupid opinions about video games?