- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 10 films that Roger Ebert really hated
Posted on 4/6/13 at 12:48 pm to Blue Velvet
Posted on 4/6/13 at 12:48 pm to Blue Velvet
quote:
Brazil, Blue Velvet, clockwork orange, hudsucker proxy, reservoir dogs, Delicatessen, full metal jacket, the elephant man, and just about every western. If you dig around he made a fool of himself dozens of times. The good movies he gave negative reviews on aren't funny once you see the filth that he gave a thumps up; those are the worst offenses.
Even though I see most of those films listed as being blasphemous in not liking them, no critic has a perfect record. As I said, I didn't always agree with Ebert, but I did appreciate his writing and point of view.
0
Posted on 4/6/13 at 12:51 pm to Blue Velvet
quote:
Read above.
Read what? We are talking about art, not math. It is all 100% opinion.
quote:
You may want to re-read the thread and start from the beginning.
I read the whole thread and watched the clip. He didn't like the movie because he thought it was exploitative of the actors. So what?
quote:
You may want to re-read the thread and start from the beginning
you might want to try not being such a condescending, pretentious prick.
I've never seen the movie and would be far less inclined to watch it based on reviews like yours than Roger Ebert's.
This post was edited on 4/6/13 at 12:52 pm
Posted on 4/6/13 at 1:01 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:Yes, hence the mention of the objective film myth. Except Ebert admitted the movie was quality and still rated it poorly for personal reasons; as he often did to other films for political or feminine reasons.
We are talking about art, not math. It is all 100% opinion.
quote:So people disagree with whether that is a legitimate critique of the final product of the art. Welcome to an internet forum.
He didn't like the movie because he thought it was exploitative of the actors. So what?
quote:There's no need to be emotional when someone disagrees with you. I've found great insight in posts of people I've disagreed with (read Baloo's posts above). Ebert downplayed many great movies because of his internal sensitivities. It's a topic of conversation when discussing why he hated many great movies.
you might want to try not being such a condescending, pretentious prick.
quote:Speaking of sensitivity and condescending, pretentious pricks...
I've never seen the movie and would be far less inclined to watch it based on reviews like yours than Roger Ebert's.
Oh, and your loss.
Posted on 4/6/13 at 1:24 pm to Blue Velvet
quote:
Blue Velvet
I got a miracle waiting for you in my penis
I know you like that sort of thing judging from your taste in film.
Posted on 4/6/13 at 1:25 pm to Lacour
Posted on 4/6/13 at 1:26 pm to Drank
quote:
So on this day of reflection I say again, thank you for going on this journey with me. I'll see you at the movies
Posted on 4/6/13 at 1:50 pm to DelU249
I'll often watch at least a few minutes of Groundhog Day if I'm scrolling through and notice that it's on.
Posted on 4/6/13 at 3:13 pm to Blue Velvet
quote:
Yes, hence the mention of the objective film myth. Except Ebert admitted the movie was quality and still rated it poorly for personal reasons; as he often did to other films for political or feminine reasons.
Which is perfectly within the realm of a professional critic. He explained his reasoning for disliking the film and said that he couldn't personally recommend it. If you saw his criticism and felt it was for reasons you don't care about, then you still would have seen the movie. His star ratings were completely irrelevant. It's what he wrote. He was a critic. He was criticizing.
Having a point of view is a good thing for a critic.
quote:
Ebert downplayed many great movies because of his internal sensitivities. It's a topic of conversation when discussing why he hated many great movies.
So he disliked movies because they violated his personal aesthetic? Isn't that what criticism sort of is? there is no objective truth about art. The art itself is trying to say something, and Ebert engages it and continues the dialogue. That's precisely what a critic should do. That's the job description. He's not there to tell you whether its any good. That's up to you. Make up your mind.
Posted on 4/6/13 at 3:59 pm to Baloo
quote:
Ebert admitted the movie was quality and still rated it poorly for personal reasons
You can say a movie was well made in certain ways without thinking it makes sense or works as a whole. In reading and listening to his review Ebert seems to make exactly this judgement with respect to Blue Velvet.
Is that judgement fair? At least partially yes. Lynch is fond of obfuscating his point in part at least because he doesn't actually know what he wants to say or how to say it better. Some key visual elements of his film are included without clear purpose and the audience is left to attribute more meaning than is probably intended. In small amounts this type of free cortical association can be useful or at least acceptable... but it has to be used lightly or you eventually find yourself considering a macguffin the purpose of the film rather than a device to move the film forward.
Posted on 4/6/13 at 8:37 pm to TigerMyth36
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/6/13 at 8:38 pm
Posted on 4/6/13 at 9:23 pm to OnCampusTiger
what a sweet gig criticizing the work of others while never doing anything of any import your whole life yourself
Posted on 4/6/13 at 9:29 pm to gthog61
quote:
what a sweet gig criticizing the work of others while never doing anything of any import your whole life yourself
Yeah, all those condolences and tribute articles from readers, journalists, admirers and fan threads on message boards discussing his impact in the world of motion pictures.
Yep, a man of no consequence...good thing he had that puny Pulitzer to fall back on.
Posted on 4/6/13 at 9:31 pm to gthog61
quote:
what a sweet gig criticizing the work of others while never doing anything of any import your whole life yourself
He wrote the screenplay for Beyond the Valley of the Dolls which a pretty popular and relatively influential 1970s sexploitation film. He did countless lectures and analytical workshops for aspiring film students. He won the Pulitzer Prize. Yea, ignorance is bliss I guess, right?
Posted on 4/6/13 at 9:35 pm to SilverSpurs13
Really is interesting to see the animosity toward Ebert.
Heck, he didn't hate everything. People on here must really despise me.
Heck, he didn't hate everything. People on here must really despise me.
Posted on 4/6/13 at 9:41 pm to Baloo
If you think Ebert an elitist, watch Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News