Film Critics

MacGuffin · July 27, 2003, 04:49:50 PM

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetThe only thing I remember of him actually being away from physically directing was when his health got poor and he had to rest often to just keep pace while the film couldn't wait for him. But, even for Hitchcock's age, that was very late into his career when judgement of him as a filmmaker was already established into history.

~rougeurm

That was on "Psycho". He had an illness that kept him away for few days. They scrapped that footage shot without him anyway because Hitchcock said that the way it was shot, it told the audience that Arbogast was going to be killed. It was the wrong POV.

mutinyco · July 27, 2003, 06:29:22 PM

I really don't have the energy for this one. But my question is this: What did Hitchcock do that made him an auteur that Spielberg doesn't do?

Hitchcock was a director not an auteur. A conductor not a composer.

Gold Trumpet · July 29, 2003, 10:17:57 PM

mutinyco, previously, you commented in this trhead about how apparent it is when a critic will single out the director when putting blame to a movie. You used this an example that most critics are in belief of the autuer theory. I privately disagreed and figured it was for other reasons. Complements of the critic Stanley Kauffmann, I've found reason for that:

"When a critic says that 'Director Jones has done thus and such,' he knowshe may be speaking figuratively, that Jones may not be responsible for all defects or virtues, that the phrase 'Director Jones' is a convenience meaning 'Jones and those who affected work.'"

So, for the most part, critics use this term more in conveniance to keeping the text simple. I always figured it along the same lines of sort anyways. It just seems bad logic to believe all critics would think decision making was one guy in a major motion picture. Most general people even know it isn't.

~rougerum

mutinyco · July 30, 2003, 08:26:57 AM

Oh, I don't think that critics genuinely believe everything's the director's fault. But it's sort of like when people say they're "recovering Catholics"...no matter how far they try to get away from it, it's always going to be a part of who they are.

By the way, who's this director Jones? I haven't seen any of his films...

NEON MERCURY · August 17, 2003, 08:58:56 PM

Quote from: RegularKarate... Peter Travers who likes just about any piece of shit film he sees and probably takes bribes for his reviews ...

just wondering why you do not like him ..i find him THE MEDIUM....b/c IMO he writes great reviews that are true,harsh, and sometime very funny...seems likea smart guy ...i believ he's not over-cheesed out like the hot-ticket critics and not as over-critical-analytical Pauline K........he fits in the middle to me evn though his reviews are found in the ..unfortunately commercialized put any thing on the cover to seel now-a-days rolling stone

....also (this is just me )....his yearly "top 10" is always on par w/ mine...????

filmcritic · September 02, 2003, 03:58:32 PM

I actually think that Richard Roeper is really very good. He does talk really fast on the show and sometimes a little too loud, but he was never originally a film critic and was forced to become one. I've talked to him several times and he's more relaxed in real life than he is on the show. In this 30 minute interview he's a little more calm and mature. Click on the link and play the interview called "Thumbs Up".

http://www.wnyc.com/arts/articles/13211

Gold Trumpet · September 02, 2003, 04:19:43 PM

I like Roeper and the reason he seems more openly honest in appreciation of good Hollywood films and art films instead of one or the other. Ebert tends to shape some Hollywood films into higher meanings they aren't suppose to acquire. Roeper, in saying why he may like similiar movies, appreciates it on more honest terms. I disagree with Roeper a lot. I agree more with his criticisms than his likes. It must also be known that Ebert never intended to be a film critic either. He was already a fan and sorta got placed into writing for it.

~rougerum

filmcritic · September 02, 2003, 04:44:07 PM

That's true. Ebert started writing for a newspaper at the age of 15 but never reviewed movies. It wasn't until he was in college and started going to a local movie theatre that was old-fashioned and served coffee that he decided what movies could really be. At that theatre, he realized that movies (particularly the foreign films) were all works of art. After that, he wrote the first review ever for a Scorsese movie, became a critic and the rest is history.

I think the reason why so many people dislike Richard Roeper so much is because he's not Gene Siskel and because he didn't earn the position he's in. But that could have happened to any of the guest critics. People would say the same thing about Harry Knowles, Joyce Kulhawik or Elvis Mithchell. Roeper said himself that you're not going to get what Siskel & Ebert had. But Roeper says that he gives it his best shot on every show and if that's the truth, then that's all anybody could ask for.

Now, I love Ebert just as much as the next person but what really gets me is the attitude that Ebert seems to have toward Roeper. He treats Roeper like he is just the new co-host and only a replacement. And almost every opprotunity that Ebert gets, he brags about the fact that he is such an experienced and legendary critic and that Roeper is just some guy. I feel sorry for Roeper actually.

cine · September 02, 2003, 05:55:52 PM

I'm sure Roeper had a clue going into it that he wasn't going to get the royal treatment and have Roger Ebert talk to him like Siskel. Because he's not Gene Siskel. Siskel was clearly a more passionate movie critic and Roeper is just a fellow columnist on the Sun-Times who happens to now see movies regularly now and criticizes them on Ebert's show. So if Roeper makes a dumb statement, if Ebert wants to talk him down (such as when asked Roeper if he ever wrote an NC-17 movie before like him) then by god, I think he can bloody well do so. You know why? Because he's Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper is just Richard Roeper.

ono · September 02, 2003, 07:10:42 PM

Quote from: CinephileSo if Roeper makes a dumb statement, if Ebert wants to talk him down (such as when asked Roeper if he ever wrote an NC-17 movie before like him) then by god, I think he can bloody well do so. You know why? Because he's Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper is just Richard Roeper.

Do you recall what movie this was in reference to? Not Ebert's (Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, I'm assuming), but Roeper's.

cine · September 02, 2003, 07:34:45 PM

Sadly, I really don't recall. I wish I did.

filmcritic · September 02, 2003, 08:33:03 PM

Well, you can always play a game and go up against Richard Roeper at...

http://zone.msn.com/outsmart/game.asp?EpisodeNum=204

AK · September 02, 2003, 10:17:42 PM

I am really political about film critics....they will aways be hated and so on but i got the conclusion they dont know more or less than us (they are just luckier to be paid for do what we do in here for free)...they are really perjudice about actors, directors, say increduble stupidites and write certain things once and a while (like any other film geek does )....

The best thing is read, get happy or furious about the article and go check the movie no matter what...

AK · September 02, 2003, 10:19:02 PM

I am really political about film critics....they will aways be hated and so on but i got the conclusion they dont know more or less than us (they are just luckier to be paid for do what we do in here for free)...they are really perjudice about actors, directors, say increduble stupidites and write certain things once and a while (like any other film geek does )....

The best thing is read, get happy or furious about the article and go check the movie no matter what...

NEON MERCURY · September 18, 2003, 08:50:36 PM

well hands down the worst film critique show is MtV's movie house..Damn that show is stupid..Maybe I am being too anal but.It's very annoying to see these idiots talk about film..I think their should be a show (hour long) that focuses on film critique discussions, ETC,.Yadda Yadda..but this show is awful ..Its one of those things that I watch just to amuse myself at how stupid people are ..

STUPID OBSERVATION # 1.0
.. . when one of their pop singing looking vj's creep into the theatre all "James Bond" style and sneak up on an unsuspectiong "mtv generation" style audience member and say.."dude ...so what do ya think so far..?". the filmwatcher responds.."Man this is so dope!!".....or the vj's may say.."damn!.. j-lo be looking hot when she puchned that guy.." and the filmwatcher responds.."Yeah!..she's SUCH a great actresss"..that is freaking stupid and anoying for ANYONE who likes cinema....

STUPID OBSERVATION # 2.0
..also, ..at the end of the show after the "exclusive sneak speak" of the film they round out certian audience members and then we are fortunate enough to get their "critique" on the film VIA "slapping velcro played out high school slang words" to describe the film in question....and when slappin down these words they get all excited like their acting in the WWE (for example)..::chugs 7 beers and crushes all the 7 cans on forhead::.."Man 2 fast was so Ill!!!!!!..I can't believe all the tight menuivers Paul was Pull'n off!! I give this film a "holla b/c I wana holla at all them ladies in da film!!!!!!!!"".

that 's pretty much as close as its gonna get to hearing the real thing if any of you guys watch that show......Why hot ticket is a big ball of 100% wisconsin cheese (what's up w/leonard maltin's wierd smile throughout the show?) its' still has nothing on that MTV garbage..but i guesss w/MTV I should expect this so I apologize for rambling..........on