|
|
Post by mstreepsucks on Jan 19, 2020 19:07:11 GMT
Well at least I agreed with him one time, and 1 time only....
Hellraiser 2---0 stars.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Jan 19, 2020 19:36:22 GMT
If I have one complaint about Ebert, it's that he was too generous with his 4-star rating in his later reviews.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 0:43:31 GMT
Ebert wrongly criticized a lot of now classics: Blade Runner, The Thing, Starship Troopers, Blue Velvet, Die Hard...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Jan 20, 2020 1:03:01 GMT
Ebert wrongly criticized a lot of now classics: Blade Runner, The Thing, Starship Troopers, Blue Velvet, Die Hard... He would sometimes reassess films and change his opinion. But I like that he went beyond movie reviews and actually critiqued films. There is a difference. Movies can be highly entertaining, but when analyzed fall short of superior cinematic achievement. Blade Runner in its original release definitely isn’t as good as the director’s cut. The Thing remake, Starship Troopers, Die Hard, I agree with him, though Die Hard is an entertaining action movie. Blue Velvet is very good, though not Lynch’s best...in my opinion. It’s mostly subjective.
|
|
|
|
Post by msdemos on Jan 20, 2020 1:11:49 GMT
I don't know......can't tell you HOW MUCH I miss the old back-and-forth between he and his "nemesis" Gene Siskel on their old movie review shows.....  Thankfully though, they live on with a number of their shows available on YouTube: SAVE FERRIS
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jan 20, 2020 1:14:33 GMT
I first learned about him and Gene Siskel from that Roland Emmerich Godzilla film.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Jan 20, 2020 1:34:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jan 20, 2020 1:48:54 GMT
Whether I agree with them or not, I can trust that both Maltin and Ebert at least watched the film in question. Other critics, like Rex Reed, it's a crapshoot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jan 20, 2020 1:58:59 GMT
Ebert was an interesting critic, writing acceptable, but never really warmed to his take on many films. I don't think he got many of them half the time, back-peddled a lot and was full of contradictions. He just had confidence of persona and character to make his shtick work.
I never liked his 4 star rating system either, 5 stars seems more feasible to me and what general consensus would be when rating a film, now it is out of 10. This way you can half a rating to get it out of 5 stars. All subjective anyway.
By the way, I thought Hellraiser 2 was an improvement over the first and where horror was concerned, I wasn't interested in listening to what Ebert had to say. It wasn't his genre so he was biased and shortsighted.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnspartan on Jan 20, 2020 1:59:37 GMT
Well at least I agreed with him one time, and 1 time only....
Hellraiser 2---0 stars. Hellraiser 2 is a very effective, gory, intense, great looking horror movie. You and fatboy Ebert couldn't be more wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jan 20, 2020 2:02:35 GMT
Whether I agree with them or not, I can trust that both Maltin and Ebert at least watched the film in question. Other critics, like Rex Reed, it's a crapshoot. I found Pauline Kael perhaps the most interesting of reviewers. Again, I may not have agreed with her, but she was very intelligent and great at dissecting and expressing herself, that she could make it understandable and believable to buy into any reservations she had, even if one liked a film more than her. I guess she was more objective with her subjective take. Owned more of it from her own perspective for herself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 2:49:40 GMT
I liked Ebert. Doesn't mean I agreed with him all the time. I think he gave thumbs up to Ghosts of Mars, which might be the only reason I watched (and hated) it.
More often than not, when he gave a positive review for a movie it was usually worth checking out.
But Gene Siskel didn't like Aliens or Field of Dreams! I thought sure they would both love them both. I think Ebert gave them both thumbs up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jan 20, 2020 3:02:15 GMT
I liked Ebert. Doesn't mean I agreed with him all the time. I think he gave thumbs up to Ghosts of Mars, which might be the only reason I watched (and hated) it. More often than not, when he gave a positive review for a movie it was usually worth checking out. But Gene Siskel didn't like Aliens or Field of Dreams! I thought sure they would both love them both. I think Ebert gave them both thumbs up. Ghosts Of Mars is very middling and mediocre Carpenter. Just shows what a chump Ebert was when it came to horror.
|
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Jan 20, 2020 3:52:43 GMT
I miss him. Agree or disagree, I always liked having him around, and I don't see anybody yet with strength of thought or charisma enough to step up and fill the empty void.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Jan 20, 2020 4:50:49 GMT
Ebert wrongly criticized a lot of now classics: Blade Runner, The Thing, Starship Troopers, Blue Velvet, Die Hard... Blue Velvet is very good, though not Lynch’s best...in my opinion. It’s mostly subjective. What's your favorite (or best IYO) Lynch film? I flip between Blue Velvet, one of his more straight-forward efforts and INLAND EMPIRE his most out there and divisive, but I pretty much love everything he's done..
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Jan 20, 2020 5:04:33 GMT
Blue Velvet is very good, though not Lynch’s best...in my opinion. It’s mostly subjective. What's your favorite (or best IYO) Lynch film? I flip between Blue Velvet, one of his more straight-forward efforts and INLAND EMPIRE his most out there and divisive, but I pretty much love everything he's done.. Lost Highways, The Straight Story, and Eraserhead. I love his art work too. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Jan 20, 2020 5:31:36 GMT
What's your favorite (or best IYO) Lynch film? I flip between Blue Velvet, one of his more straight-forward efforts and INLAND EMPIRE his most out there and divisive, but I pretty much love everything he's done.. Lost Highways, The Straight Story, and Eraserhead. I love his art work too. I like those three as well. The Straight Story is so beautiful and understated. I did say "pretty much", I'm not the biggest fan of his paintings.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Jan 20, 2020 5:43:58 GMT
I heard a great point about pre-90's or so reviewers, who 'got it wrong' the first time & changed their minds, via The Ringer's Rewatchables The Godfather Part II pod.
A critic in the all the way into the 80's went to see a film once, maybe twice. It wasn't being rented for home release, barely on tv, etc.
I've changed my own tune on countless films, not least the likes of 2001 ASO, The Big Lebowski, etc...
That critics are panned for their first takes isn't a well aged fad. If they change their minds, so be it.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Jan 20, 2020 5:47:48 GMT
I liked Ebert. Doesn't mean I agreed with him all the time. I think he gave thumbs up to Ghosts of Mars, which might be the only reason I watched (and hated) it. More often than not, when he gave a positive review for a movie it was usually worth checking out. But Gene Siskel didn't like Aliens or Field of Dreams! I thought sure they would both love them both. I think Ebert gave them both thumbs up. I feel like both of them would reward an underdog production more for effort, & penalize harsher ones with greater budgets & expectation. An indie film on the cheap that got its point across usually probably got thumbs ups. Blockbusters which went lazy seemed to often get railroaded into dirt. Even if they both managed a similar enjoyment level.
|
|
|
|
Post by OrsonSwelles on Jan 20, 2020 6:20:20 GMT
Ebert wrongly criticized a lot of now classics: Blade Runner, The Thing, Starship Troopers, Blue Velvet, Die Hard... As a Heinlein fan Starship Troopers is watchable, but as a movie fan it's nowhere near being a classic.
|
|
