Luke Erik
Posts: 7527
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: June 12, 2012, 10:45:55 AM » |
|
Ebert could give Godfather II 2 stars and it wouldn't bother me.
His countless reviews and books have introduced me to dozens if not close to a hundred movies I would have not viewed because I simply didn't know they existed. I consider him to be a national treasure who obviously makes people take a second look at movies. His articles have always meant much more to me than his ratings.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
BrianLynch
Administrator
Posts: 9388
|
|
« Reply #16 on: June 12, 2012, 10:48:04 AM » |
|
Ebert is the best. So he's wrong a lot, everyone has crap they like and everyone has "great" movies that they just don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Lilley
Posts: 3779
|
|
« Reply #17 on: June 12, 2012, 10:48:58 AM » |
|
Nobody in their right mind should argue the guy's intelligence and impact. I guess it's just that, when you review *everything*, you're going to miss the mark a few times if you have that kind of output. And sometimes they're just hilarious - like how Ebert wanted Superman's kid to fly around with him in SUPERMAN RETURNS.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Magoonie
|
|
« Reply #18 on: June 12, 2012, 11:30:04 AM » |
|
Ebert is the best. So he's wrong a lot, everyone has crap they like and everyone has "great" movies that they just don't.
But see my point is he's never "wrong", I know reviewers aren't supposed to use options but at the end of the day that is what they are. His thoughts on how good this movie was. An opinion can't be wrong, no matter how much you disagree with it. I like Ebert, he's a very intelligent guy and like Luke has pointed me in the direction of movies I would have never tried. He's got a lot of great things to say and I gotta stand by a fellow thyroid cancer survivor. So it kinda bothers me to see some little shit who thinks he knows better rip apart his reviews and in some instances the man himself. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"IT'S STILL REAL TO ME DAMMIT!!!"
|
|
|
BrianLynch
Administrator
Posts: 9388
|
|
« Reply #19 on: June 12, 2012, 11:32:18 AM » |
|
Exactly, yeah. He's definitely tipped me off to some movies I otherwise wouldn't have known about. And watching SISKEL & EBERT was a ritual in my house for many years. It kind of birthed movie webboards, only without the knowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Dobbin
Posts: 6108
|
|
« Reply #20 on: June 12, 2012, 11:36:41 AM » |
|
I like Ebert a lot. I think he's smart and likable and has shown himself to be a real hero in a lot of ways. I just think he's a terrible judge of movies, which is the thing he's supposed to be the best at.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Dan
Posts: 3325
|
|
« Reply #21 on: June 12, 2012, 11:42:50 AM » |
|
Ebert's off on some movies, but what I'd also add is that he's very snarky in a lot of his reviews, so I don't really have any big issue with a random internet person being snarky towards him. It's not like he's making vicious personal attacks (from what i"ve read, at least), he's just taking the typical "I'm right, you're wrong, therefore I'm smarter than you" internet stance that people take all the time. On this very board, occasionally, as a matter of fact.
Plus, since Ebert linked it on his FB, I get the impression he probably doesn't care.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
sean
Posts: 7382
|
|
« Reply #23 on: June 12, 2012, 04:19:04 PM » |
|
He gave ANACONDA 3 stars, too.
I'm pretty sure Ebert has said that the only reason he personally assigns a star rating to his reviews is so that his editor doesn't arbitrarily do so; he's vehemently opposed to the stars on principle (specifically, the principle that it is a shortcut by which many people don't bother to read the review and then get mad at him for giving four stars to "violent trash" like Kill Bill). And, secondarily, he'd certainly point out that Anaconda gets three stars as a movie about a giant monster, and The Godfather, Part II, gets three stars as a movie about gangsters. That is to say, they're not the same three stars because the three stars is an approximation of how successfully the film achieved the goals that it attempted. (Like, whatever you want to say about 'Anaconda', it wouldn't be fair -- by his philosophy, at least -- to criticize it for not having the ambition of having a complicated non-linear structure like the aforementioned Godfather sequel.) |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 12, 2012, 04:21:40 PM by sean »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
MattKelly
Posts: 501
|
|
« Reply #24 on: June 13, 2012, 05:28:36 AM » |
|
Is anyone else more of a Siskel fan than an Ebert lover? When I had a more monotonous work load (I used to fact check copy against a database), I passed the time by listening to their archived reviews. I first started listening on YouTube, and then the mind blowing siskelandebert.org (thanks Dalton!). As a kid I thought Siskel was grumpy, so I preferred the lovable, squishy Ebert. But as an adult and actually LISTENING to their points, I think Siskel's opinions are far more balanced. I don't agree with him 100% of the time, but I align far more with Gene. Plus, Roger can come off a little holier-than-thou. He way too often says crap like, "but Gene, this is a KIDS movie. It's supposed to be BAD!" or "this movie is way too DARK for families!".
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Dobbin
Posts: 6108
|
|
« Reply #25 on: June 13, 2012, 05:40:26 AM » |
|
My favorite part about the show was their dynamic. They were very much Archie-and-Reggie with one another; like, they were clearly friends on a deep and abiding level, but they also were, at times, evident rivals who really wanted to prove the other one wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
