Author Topic: Roger Ebert  (Read 65514 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Weak2ndAct

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1153
  • Self Portrait
  • Respect: +11
Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
« Reply #120 on: November 24, 2005, 02:26:43 AM »
0
No one here will ever see 'Just Friends' anytime soon, but Roger has, and his review borders on drunk/insane/god-knows-what rambling.  Wow.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051122/REVIEWS/51120001

Pubrick

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • on the not-face of it
  • Respect: +781
Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
« Reply #121 on: November 24, 2005, 03:18:10 AM »
0
Quote from: Roger Ebert
... Awopbopaloobop, alopbamboom!

that's him eating his own head.
under the paving stones.

squints

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2239
  • Respect: +77
Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
« Reply #122 on: November 24, 2005, 04:04:02 PM »
0
I've been reading Ebert's reviews for a while now and his commentary on Citizen Kane helped me secure an A in my first film class

my favorite line from one of his reviews lately has to be from Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo, the last sentence made me laugh very hard
"Speaking in my official capacity as a Pulitzer Prize winner, Mr. Schneider, your movie sucks."
 
“The myth by no means finds its adequate objectification in the spoken word. The structure of the scenes and the visible imagery reveal a deeper wisdom than the poet himself is able to put into words and concepts” – Friedrich Nietzsche

JG

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1370
  • Respect: +55
Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
« Reply #123 on: November 24, 2005, 05:46:49 PM »
0
that review was all over the place.  But I love Ebert.   

How old do you think he was when he started writing reviews? [/sarcasm]

Gamblour.

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3465
  • Respect: +12
Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
« Reply #124 on: November 24, 2005, 08:49:33 PM »
0
Quote from: Roger Ebert
... Awopbopaloobop, alopbamboom!

that's him eating his own head.

Now I've seen everything.

That review's pretty nutty.
WWPTAD?

hedwig

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2144
  • Lazy bones ain't got no time to waste away
  • Respect: +2
Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
« Reply #125 on: November 24, 2005, 09:06:42 PM »
0
Quote from: Roger Ebert
... Awopbopaloobop, alopbamboom!

that's him eating his own head.

Now I've seen everything.

That review's pretty nutty.

i think he was doing that weird thing where he writes the review in the style of the film, purposely stylizing the writing the same disjointed way the film was stylized, creating a sense of confusion and rambling chaos that serves to reflect the film's own flawed structure

he did it with another review, too, where he basically described every plot point in this really dry, boring manner and then went, "That is how the film is made, showing each event unfold so blandly." or something like that.

maybe. crazy eggbert.

ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5894
  • :boxing:
  • Respect: +20
Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
« Reply #126 on: November 25, 2005, 01:05:17 PM »
0
I love how someone cross references Truffaut with Just Friends.
"As a matter of fact I only work with the feeling of something magical, something seemingly significant. And to keep it magical I don't want to know the story involved, I just want the hypnotic effect of it somehow seeming significant without knowing why." - Len Lye

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5798
  • Respect: +180
Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
« Reply #127 on: November 27, 2005, 08:03:45 PM »
0
No one here will ever see 'Just Friends' anytime soon, but Roger has, and his review borders on drunk/insane/god-knows-what rambling.  Wow.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051122/REVIEWS/51120001

HAH! I saw it. First day and first showing, too. Thats not bragging. Ebert does ramble and would have been better to offer a concise one paragraph shredding of the film. I think he has length requirements to fufill and had no clue what to really say for so long.

matt35mm

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3248
  • Bony old behind.
  • Respect: +494
    • My Films on Vimeo
Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
« Reply #128 on: November 28, 2005, 02:18:31 PM »
0
I'm assuming, just based on how it looks, that it's a movie of the sorts that he's seen many times before.  I don't know how good/bad Just friends is, but after having to see essentially that same kind of humor for every single time a movie like that comes out, it'd just get excruciatingly boring to have to write another review that covers the same ground as 100 previous reviews he's written.  So yeah, it came off as a "Man, fuck it" review.

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5798
  • Respect: +180
Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
« Reply #129 on: November 28, 2005, 03:03:05 PM »
0
I'm assuming, just based on how it looks, that it's a movie of the sorts that he's seen many times before.  I don't know how good/bad Just friends is, but after having to see essentially that same kind of humor for every single time a movie like that comes out, it'd just get excruciatingly boring to have to write another review that covers the same ground as 100 previous reviews he's written.  So yeah, it came off as a "Man, fuck it" review.

There is nothing remotely new about it. Its a romantic comedy mixed with gross out humor to appease more people. The reason I saw it is that I thought Ryan Reynolds and Amy Smart would have chemistry. They did and both will be in better movies someday. I got what I expected and when you are Middle America and tickets cost just $5, you can see these type of movies.

JG

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1370
  • Respect: +55
Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
« Reply #130 on: November 28, 2005, 03:09:20 PM »
0
The commercials look so stupid.  Literally ever joke relied on someone getting punched. 

Ah, I love Ebert.  I don't see how some of you don't like him. 

jigzaw

  • The Road of Trials
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Respect: +2
Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
« Reply #131 on: December 04, 2005, 01:00:00 PM »
0
He tends to like movies with hot chicks in them, and he often hates really good movies. 

matt35mm

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3248
  • Bony old behind.
  • Respect: +494
    • My Films on Vimeo
Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
« Reply #132 on: December 04, 2005, 04:41:04 PM »
0
We all like movies with hot chicks in them.  And no, I don't mean movies that HAPPEN to have hot chicks in them.  I mean we like hot chicks in movies.

Sure, I disagree with Ebert from time to time, but give us a few examples of the movies that you think are "really good" that he "hates."  Just don't say Reservior Dogs or Fight Club.

hedwig

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2144
  • Lazy bones ain't got no time to waste away
  • Respect: +2
Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
« Reply #133 on: December 04, 2005, 04:45:06 PM »
0
he didn't like Blue Velvet or Lost Highway.

he's said/done enough good stuff to outweigh the dumb shit, though.

matt35mm

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3248
  • Bony old behind.
  • Respect: +494
    • My Films on Vimeo
Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
« Reply #134 on: December 04, 2005, 05:10:01 PM »
0
I was going to mention those films as well.  However, I don't think it's stupid to dislike Lynch's movies.  They're not Ebert's taste (in the case of Blue Velvet and Lost Highway, anyway), and that's a reasonable thing.  Lynch is one of my favorite directors, but I don't really expect everyone to love him.  Just as long as they don't say "wtf was that?  that was WEIRD!  turn that shit off!"  That level of ignorance, my dears, I don't like.  Lynch's movies, to me, are so open to interpretation that there are good reasons to dislike them, as long as someone bothers to open-mindedly watch the film and think about it.  And Ebert certainly doesn't hate all Lynch movies; he loves many of them as well.

In the case of Blue Velvet, he disliked that it mistreated/exploited Rosellini, which is what he saw in it.  That's not what I see when I watch the movie, but if it really were, I would have given it a negative review as well.

The difference is, I don't think it was a simple-minded response to those movies.  So, I'm just trying to say that I don't think Ebert is a simple-minded critic, whether or not I agree with him on everything (and that would be simple-minded of me if I did agree with him on everything).  I would at least give him that.

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy