- 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: "Hated hated hated hated hated this movie." Ebert's review turns 20
Posted on 7/24/14 at 11:10 pm to DelU249
Posted on 7/24/14 at 11:10 pm to DelU249
quote:
ebert most likely took payoffs to give shitty movies good review. I don't know how else to explain his lack of consistency.
No, it's because Ebert looked beyond "fun only," which is really the only drive of the general movie goer. His talent was in, most of the times, being able to communicate what that fun meant in movie terms. This meant...
quote:
also, if he morally objected to a movie, he would give it a bad review. Kick arse isn't a work of art or even a great/memorable movie, but it was a thumb up/over the threshold movie, and he slammed it because he didn't like kids committing violence...what a terrible critic.
Why is there something wrong with this? To believe that there should be some positive merit to a film is a good thing.
I like Kick-arse, but I'm ok with him not liking it for those very reasons. I get it. He's trying to communicate to a general populace, not just me, that a movie may be unacceptable for certain types of people like him.
That's a bit harsh.
quote:
And again, him making the movie review about him and not about the film.
Ebert believed in the responsibility of the artist.
quote:
Not that there are any movie critics I enjoy, but for instance there are several game critics who objectively review games, and yet movie critics always make it a statement of taste or personal choice.
For multiple reasons. First, the game audience is much narrower than the film audience. Second, games have literal, tangible outputs. A terribly controlled game is a terribly controlled game. You can tell. A game that's too easy, again is easy to tell. A game that has bad graphics is obvious.
Films are far more esoteric. People who review games are reviewing a reactive quality with something they can tangibly (for lack of a better word) get feedback from. There are few game reviewers who spend their time reviewing narrative structure, character, writing, cinematography and all the subjective things that are highlighted in films, and that are much more difficult to communicate.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News