Ebert was a shit critic
David Lynch is a shit filmmaker.
and OP is a faggot. Dude's been dead for years. Who cares?
Yes, he was.It's weird, because I don't remember it being so bad at he time, but whenever I see one of his old reviews,I'm shocked by how retarded this guy was.
No shit. He was a jawless hack and I’m glad he’s dead.
He was spot on with most of his reviews in my opinion.
maybe, but he's not wrong about lynch
Finally someone has the balls to call out this shit film. Lynch btfo
That review is 40 years old.
He's right. Lynch is a com-petent surface level director but try to understand the surreal shit and his films fall apart.
Because he disagrees with you?
He was essentially Mike Stoklasa but taken seriously for some reason
youtube.com
I do think it is fair to say that Roger Ebert destroyed film criticism. Because of the wide and far reach of television, he became an example of what a film critic does for too many people. And what he did simply was not criticism. It was simply blather. And it was a kind of purposefully dishonest enthusiasm for product, not real criticism at all…I think he does NOT have the training. I think he simply had the position. I think he does NOT have the training. I’VE got the training. And frankly, I don’t care how that sounds, but the fact is, I’ve got the training. I’m a pedigreed film critic. I’ve studied it. I know it. And I know many other people who’ve studied it as well, studied it seriously. Ebert just simply happened to have the job. And he’s had the job for a long time. He does not have the foundation. He simply got the job. And if you’ve ever seen any of his shows, and ever watched his shows on at least a two-week basis, then you surely saw how he would review, let’s say, eight movies a week and every week liked probably six of them. And that is just simply inherently dishonest. That’s what’s called being a shill. And it’s a tragic thing that that became the example of what a film critic does for too many people. Often he wasn’t practicing criticism at all. Often he would point out gaffes or mistakes in continuity. That’s not criticism. That’s really a pea-brained kind of fan gibberish.
Look at this shit. rogerebert.com
What an absolute faggot!
>How could they do this to Jennifer Jason Leigh? How could they put such a fresh and cheerful person into such a scuz-pit of a movie? Don't they know they have a star on their hands? I didn't even know who Leigh was when I walked into "Fast Times at Ridgemont High," and yet I was completely won over by her. She contained so much life and light that she was a joy to behold. And then she and everybody else in this so-called comedy is invited to plunge into offensive vulgarity.
>understand
>surreal
Not everything needs to have or pretends to have a deeper message. There is nothing inherently wrong with surreal for surreal's sake, and Lynch has never pretended otherwise. If you go looking for a message in something that has none, and then you are disappointed and mark it as a point against the film when you can't find the message, that is something wrong with you.
Ebert hated Lynch for some reason
Jaw dropping
Because he com-pletely misunderstood the film
He saw through his bullshit. Lynch is surrealism for brainlets.
absolute hack and sell-out
youtube.com
rogerebert.com
This but unironically. Goes for everything now, everyone is a critic
He didn't though, because he then loved Lynch's pleb pleaser Mulholland Dr
sell out of what
revenge of the sith is a great movie and so is the first prequel
I knew about him from pop culture but never really read his reviews until the Jaws 3 (I think?) review went viral and made the rounds a while back. I agree with you one hundred percent after reading it.
People said that it was amazing and that it was such a fantastic review when it said absolutely nothing of substance. It was a thousand words of him repeating himself and just saying "this film is bad" over and over again. You can't just say that a film is bad if you want to be a good reviewer. You have to explain how and why it's bad.
this guys was very clearly an ultra-shill. He just read scripts that were written for him.
>purposefully dishonest enthusiasm for product
>hylics pointing at the moon, and call it "Finger"
the post
>They Live, but everyone is a n--
Lynch has yet to make a surrealist film, or painting (though Inland Empire is bad enough to approach that).
>>hylics pointing at the moon, and call it "Finger"
>the post
Whether you agree with the semantics or not, the point still stands. The films never pretended to have a deeper message. If you go into something, search for a deeper message, and find none, then you are only allowed to complain if the film pretended to have a message in the first place. Lacking a message is not a point against a film in and of itself.
Sorry user, but you're wrong and you don't get to set the rules of engagement. Get over your nearsighted self-aggrandizing and stop saying things just to say them for a change.
pleb take
No, he was spot on in every siskel and ebert show. Lynchfags be seething.
Why is it wrong?
>hippo man vs elephant man
>Why is it wrong?
Reread the post you replied to
All critics are shit. They literally write a few paragraphs and call it a day. What they do doesn't deserve to be called criticism. Reviews at best, summaries at worst.
Who is the Harold Bloom of film? Is this really such a shallow medium?
>They're shit because I described what they do
Ok, but why?
They offer very little insight. Do nothing to progress the field.
Who the fuck are you?
You used a whole bunch of smart sounding words to say nothing. Pretend I'm an idiot and please explain it to me simply why it's wrong for something to lack a message. How is it nearsighted? Why is it self-aggrandizing?
Honestly, I would say that saying "My work has no message" is the literal opposite of self-aggrandizing since it's saying that you are not important enough to present a moral. Can you define how you're using that term for me so I know we're arguing the same thing?
it's gene siskel posting from beyond the grave
>to say nothing
If you really think that I have a strong feeling you'll be deaf to anything anyone says to criticize you and your opinions. Your post is nearsighted because you insist on defining everything within your narrow understanding of the purpose/method of criticism. Your post is self-aggrandizing because you're too arrogant to realize no one sets their watch to what you think. The post I'm replying to makes evident that my original critique was beyond accurate.
>my original critique was beyond accurate
>accuses others of self aggrandizement
Oh I am laffin
You don't know what self-aggrandizing means either, do you?
I'm still confused. All you're doing is talking about me and not my point. You didn't refute anything I said and, in fact, you've gone to great pains to avoid even mentioning my original point.
I'll give you one more chance before I give up. What would you say the purpose or method of criticism is? My understanding of it is that it provides an objective measure of a work's quality.
He died? I didn't even know he was sick
>>hylics pointing at the moon, and call it "Finger"
>the post
The fuck does this even mean in context of film criticism or in response to those posts?
Can you define it, please?
Unironically one of the greatest reviews in the history of film criticism
rogerebert.com
If you couldn't figure it out on your own to this point, I don't see why I should bother.
>I'll give you one more chance
>asks a question for the first time
I never aimed to refute your points or what you said in your post. What does it matter if I've avoided addressing your point. I'm replying to you about yourself, because you're such a clown, and deserve being ridiculed for having such a narrow understanding of something you decided to use to proselytize to others. Your post doesn't merit a serious reply because that in and of itself would be a bigger joke than the post itself.
You're responding to at least 3 people now you obtuse fuck. And you're talking absolute shit, put your trip back on so I can filter you, you circumlocutory faggot
>you're responding to at least 3 people
Sure, but what does that have to do with the phenomenonally valid point I made in this post?:
Well, nice to know that you're really taking Ebert's criticism to heart and you're completely ignoring the message just to make fun of someone.
I would have liked to have a discussion. That's kind of why I posted. Seems like you're only interested in wasting everyone's time.
>greatest
This adjective doesn't really work here. Maybe
>one of the most existing reviews
Or
>one of the most review-like reviews
Something like that
The only post that was wasting everyone's time was this absolutely laugher of an 'opinion'
You're as shit a critic as Ebert if you don't explain why and how. Repeating a point doesn't make it true.
You must struggle with literacy user, I've already addressed why I won't validate your 'point' by replying to it.
All perfectly good examples of
Self-aggrandizing
definition is - acting or intended to enhance one's power, wealth, position, or reputation; especially : boastful often in disregard of the truth.
expression without meaning or purpose is degenerate.
That definition doesn't apply at all holy shit lmao
To properly analyze a film you need to look at it frame-by-frame which you can't do at the cinema, you need to wait for the home release and for someone to bother going through it.
yet you fail to refute it
But you're replying right now. And in fact, the fact that you can't come up with even a simple counter to something that you believe to be so obviously incorrect is only making me believe my point even harder.
Never trust critics with shitty enough taste to marry black women
>Yes, he was.It's weird, because I don't remember it being so bad at he time, but whenever I see one of his old reviews,I'm shocked by how retarded this guy was.
People had to rely on critics more in the past and had no way of judging how good they were. Today you have every movie trailer at your fingertips and you can watch them over and over, pause them, etc. You can access hundreds of different critics from a wider range of people at any moment. The internet gives you access to way more information that you didn't have in the 80s and 90s.
His point refutes itself, whether or not that's a product of his poor command of english is up to the viewer to decide.
I'm replying to you. I'm criticizing you for being a clown. I haven't bothered to stoop low enough to reply to your actual point, though. Are you really having trouble understanding this or do you just like talking to me that much?