- 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: Watching old Siskel & Ebert Reviews
Posted on 2/17/13 at 7:36 pm to Hoodoo Man
Posted on 2/17/13 at 7:36 pm to Hoodoo Man
quote:
He's not so much of an elitist frickhead.
Roeper's more elitist than Ebert, but they've both mellowed a lot. I love Ebert, he's very much a fan right now, and not nearly as hard as he used to be. Ebert's in my top four film critics (Berardinelli, Red Letter Media, AV Club).
Now Michael Phillips is an elitist dickhead...
1
Posted on 2/17/13 at 7:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Jurassic Park (Ebert doesn't feel there is a "sense of aw" or "majesty" with the dinos)
He's right, the Dinos were no where near as frightening as the shark in Jaws
Posted on 2/17/13 at 7:38 pm to shutterspeed
quote:
he's in movies more for the pussy than his film legacy.
Weird.
Posted on 2/17/13 at 7:38 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Some movies are like a bottle of wine….they taste better as the years go by.
True and thats why he changed his opinion on several movies that he regarded as average and put them on his Great Movies list (like Unforgiven and The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly). He still has not changed or reanalyzed his A Clockwork Orange. His review of said movie is way off and should be changed:
Clockwork Orange review
Speaking of great movies, IMHO he has a few of those wrong as well.
Adaptation should not be on there, it is not a great movie. Being John Malkovich > Adaptation.
De Palma's Blow-out deserves to be on that list. He just did not want to put it on there right next to Blow-up. Blow-out was heavily influenced by Blow-up.
In The Mood for Love should be on there...clearly.
He already has a few Kubricks on there but Clockwork Orange is not one. The Shining is, however, included. I think thats deserving as it is one of the great horror films all time.
This post was edited on 2/17/13 at 7:39 pm
Posted on 2/17/13 at 7:39 pm to DanglingFury
quote:
Now Michael Phillips is an elitist dickhead...
As far as elitists go, how about A. O. Scott. That's got to be the most insufferable film reviewer on the planet.
Posted on 2/17/13 at 7:42 pm to shutterspeed
quote:
Well, just as "no one gives a shite about Ebert," yet they mimic his style, I can assure you even less give a shite about Sarris, though they may follow the career of certain directors.
And here we get to the crux of the debate -- whatever a "crux" is
Ebert's TV success made him a role model for wannabes who ended up at the Dayton Daily News and The El Paso Press. In that sense yes he was very influential.
Sarris, although unknown by most of the filmgoing public, was enormously influential with film students -- the people who grew up to teach film studies courses, write articles, and publish books. He was the John The Baptist in America for auteurism. Personally, I think his influence in that area was very damaging, but that's not the point. His huge influence, whether or not people know his name, is undeniable.
TL;DR: Ebert influenced people to see or not see certain movies. Sarris changed the film culture.
Posted on 2/17/13 at 7:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Gene Siskel was a total pussy.
Really? I valued his opinion more so than Ebert's.
Posted on 2/17/13 at 7:47 pm to Kafka
Roger Ebert hated Coming to America but loved "The Mighty Quinn"*4 stars*
Posted on 2/17/13 at 7:48 pm to shutterspeed
quote:
A. O. Scott. That's got to be the most insufferable film reviewer on the planet.
I would physically fight him.
Posted on 2/17/13 at 7:49 pm to Kafka
quote:
Ebert's TV success made him a role model for wannabes who ended up at the Dayton Daily News and The El Paso Press. In that sense yes he was very influential.
TV success or not, he was a helluva review writer.
quote:
Sarris, although unknown by most of the filmgoing public, was enormously influential with film students -- the people who grew up to teach film studies courses, write articles, and publish books.
But the thread is about Siskel and Ebert as film reviewers. No one is debating Sarris' worth as a film theorist, however quaint the auteur theory has become over the years (even my film professor poked fun at it by comparing it to Dante's concentric circles of Hell).
Posted on 2/17/13 at 7:50 pm to DanglingFury
quote:
I would physically fight him.
Dude is just diseased.
Posted on 2/17/13 at 7:51 pm to DanglingFury
quote:
I would physically fight him.
off to google...
Posted on 2/17/13 at 9:12 pm to shutterspeed
quote:
quote:
Ebert was a shitty critic from a writing standpoint, too.
What are you talking about? Ebert is a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer.
He imitated Pauline Kael, and badly
Not to say every review he ever wrote was bad, some were very good. Most felt like a cheapened Kael to me
This post was edited on 2/17/13 at 9:15 pm
Posted on 2/17/13 at 9:35 pm to REG861
I don't see how having opinions that do not precisely mimic critical consensus is somehow bad. He didn't like Die Hard or A Clockwork Orange. To which I reply, so what? There are plenty of people's whose opinions I respect who I do not always agree with. I'd like to think have a decent critical rep on this board, yet I intensely dislike Wes Anderson, a highly praised filmmaker. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the consensus is wrong, but that's not the point. It's whether I can defend my position and make a logical argument for it.
I feel Ebert can make a logical argument in defense of his reviews. And I do like how he has essentially protested the star system in reviews. Just ignore the stars. They don't matter. I enjoy Ebert mainly because he's an entertaining and engaging writer. I don't always agree with him (most notably on the Coen brothers, whom he was dismissive of and I pretty much worship).
As for the most influential critic, it is clearly Pauline Kael. To dismiss Sarris, it's not like he came up with the auteur theory (that would be Traffaut) and it's not even like he was the first to put it in English (that would be the magazine Movie). To think that the auteur theory would not have made it to the US, especially given the staggering influence of Cahiers du Cinema and the French New Wave, is entirely unconvincing to me. Also, it's not like anyone seriously believes in the auteur theory in the world of film criticism anymore. So Sarris is supposed to be the most influential critic because he advanced someone else's theory that no one really takes all that seriously anymore?
Kael (and Ebert to a lesser extent) don't have a theory to their names, but they did ifluence how movies were made. And they also gave a veneer of respectability to American mainstream movies. There's this silly belief that American movies aren't real films while European art films and American independent films are more artistically pure. And it's nonsense. Sure, there are bad movies from American studios, just as there are from indies and European companies, but movies should be judged on their own merits. And the idea that, say, the Batman movies can be legitimate art is a direct influence of Pauline Kael. And, a little bit less, Roger Ebert.
I feel Ebert can make a logical argument in defense of his reviews. And I do like how he has essentially protested the star system in reviews. Just ignore the stars. They don't matter. I enjoy Ebert mainly because he's an entertaining and engaging writer. I don't always agree with him (most notably on the Coen brothers, whom he was dismissive of and I pretty much worship).
As for the most influential critic, it is clearly Pauline Kael. To dismiss Sarris, it's not like he came up with the auteur theory (that would be Traffaut) and it's not even like he was the first to put it in English (that would be the magazine Movie). To think that the auteur theory would not have made it to the US, especially given the staggering influence of Cahiers du Cinema and the French New Wave, is entirely unconvincing to me. Also, it's not like anyone seriously believes in the auteur theory in the world of film criticism anymore. So Sarris is supposed to be the most influential critic because he advanced someone else's theory that no one really takes all that seriously anymore?
Kael (and Ebert to a lesser extent) don't have a theory to their names, but they did ifluence how movies were made. And they also gave a veneer of respectability to American mainstream movies. There's this silly belief that American movies aren't real films while European art films and American independent films are more artistically pure. And it's nonsense. Sure, there are bad movies from American studios, just as there are from indies and European companies, but movies should be judged on their own merits. And the idea that, say, the Batman movies can be legitimate art is a direct influence of Pauline Kael. And, a little bit less, Roger Ebert.
Posted on 2/17/13 at 9:43 pm to Baloo
quote:
it's not like he came up with the auteur theory
No one said he did
quote:
(that would be Traffaut)
It definitely predates Truffaut
quote:
And the idea that, say, the Batman movies can be legitimate art is a direct influence of Pauline Kael.
I would hardly call it her "direct" influence. That was more due to the overall influence of the 1960s. I would actually credit the Beatles more than Kael.
Posted on 2/17/13 at 9:50 pm to Kafka
Traffaut first used the term "auteur theory" or its French equivalent in his article "Une certaine tendance du cinema francais". So yeah. He did kind of come up with the auteur theory. Though, of course, he's not the first guy to say the director is important.
And Pauline Kael was the first major critic to truly champion "trash" to a wide audience and to the critical community. Which is why she is awesome. She's not a pretentious dillhole, like most of the film commentariat before and since.
And Pauline Kael was the first major critic to truly champion "trash" to a wide audience and to the critical community. Which is why she is awesome. She's not a pretentious dillhole, like most of the film commentariat before and since.
Posted on 2/17/13 at 10:02 pm to Baloo
This could be an endless argument, so I'll just say while Truffaut may have coined the phrase, the idea definitely precedes him
I'm not familiar with Leenhardt but I know Bazin was writing on this in the '40s.
There was a curious article published c. 1950 by someone in France (not Bazin -- I think), asserting the only great directors were (IIRC) Walsh, Preminger, Lang and another I can't recall. It's discussed in the book Midnight Movies. This very auteurist essay also predates Truffaut.
quote:
The definition of an Auteur was debated upon since the 1940s. Andre Bazin and Roger Leenhardt presented the theory that it is the director that brings the film to life and uses the film to express their thoughts and feelings about the subject matter as well as a world view as an auteur. An auteur can use lighting, camerawork, staging and editing to add to their vision
I'm not familiar with Leenhardt but I know Bazin was writing on this in the '40s.
There was a curious article published c. 1950 by someone in France (not Bazin -- I think), asserting the only great directors were (IIRC) Walsh, Preminger, Lang and another I can't recall. It's discussed in the book Midnight Movies. This very auteurist essay also predates Truffaut.
Posted on 2/17/13 at 10:08 pm to Baloo
Well said. Going to bookmark your post for when this thread inevitably pops up again.
Posted on 2/17/13 at 10:14 pm to Baloo
This is a good post. Disagreement does not equal terrible. And a great number of those movies Ebert has appreciated more over the years. (Though not Blue Velvet which is my biggest disagreement with Ebert).
Have seen many movie critics, and TV critics for that matter, speak of Ebert's influence on them. Undoubtedly a huge influence in that field. But with controversial figures, their other sides skew public perception of them, which is definitely happening in this thread.
Have seen many movie critics, and TV critics for that matter, speak of Ebert's influence on them. Undoubtedly a huge influence in that field. But with controversial figures, their other sides skew public perception of them, which is definitely happening in this thread.
Posted on 2/17/13 at 10:21 pm to Friend of OBUDan
let me reiterate that this thread was started more about siskel being a total pussy and not ebert
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News