Roger Ebert dies at 70

[Davis 51]

I'm not seeing how he's a hack because he liked one more than the other and decided to compare them. If you read his review of TF2, you'll see that he loves Bay's visual sense and then goes on to talk more about it. You're picking two movies and judging his entire career on them. I think, deep down, you like TS3 and not TF2, and decided to use that cliche of an example.

And yet in his TF2 he ALSO praised the commercialism of it, in direct contradiction with his bashing of the commercialism of TS3. Now, he could have just liked the way TF2 handles it better, but that's exactly the kind of so-called 'lazy' film criticism Armond rails against constantly.

Seriously, its trolling.

[Lord Relvenous]

“Toy Story 3 is so besotted with brand names and product-placement that it stops being about the innocent pleasures of imagination — the usefulness of toys — and strictly celebrates consumerism.”

How does TS3 get that kind of response from him, but the 60+ product placements in TF2 don't? I read his review, and this is as close as he gets:
"There’s still advertising porn in Bay’s soul, but it’s so expressive ofthe media norm that it’s funny—proof we’re watching nothing more than fantasy"

Sooooo, Bay gets a pass because he's directing a "fantasy", but a movie that uses product placement because kids actually play with those toys gets knocked for consumerism. That's... a little odd to me.

Edit: Ninja'd

[Stark]

If someone's views (on anything, really, not just movies) have strongly aligned with mine in the past, I'm much more likely to take his opinions on future items to be very much worth listening to than others whose views are less strongly aligned. Unless you meant "like" in a personal sense, I don't see how this stance is silly.

Are you looking for a critic who agrees with you, or a critic who makes good points regarding the critical analysis of movies? Because the two are not the same.

[JLTucker]

I'm not seeing how he's a hack because he liked one more than the other and decided to compare them. If you read his review of TF2, you'll see that he loves Bay's visual sense and then goes on to talk more about it. You're picking two movies and judging his entire career on them. I think, deep down, you like TS3 and not TF2, and decided to use that cliche of an example.

And yet in his TF2 he ALSO praised the commercialism of it, in direct contradiction with his bashing of the commercialism of TS3. Now, he could have just liked the way TF2 handles it better, but that's exactly the kind of so-called 'lazy' film criticism Armond rails against constantly.

Seriously, its trolling.

This doesn't answer my question. It's contradictory, as you demonstrated (thanks for that), not hackery and likely indicative of a fanboy. Though I remain apprehensive to call him a Bay fanboy when he trashed TF3 for its post-9/11 insensitivity. Critics are guilty of contradictory statements. Ebert himself said Bond wasn't an action hero in his Quantum review, yet praised the hell out of Skyfall, which is Bond playing Last Action Hero. It's not a problem and contradictory statements are normal. Some filmmakers present some ideas better than others. It's not hackery.

Let's be honest, You clearly like Armond White because you are a contrarian yourself, and you actually agreed with his Dark Knight Review.

I am a contrarian, but I don't I like White because I agree with him in some instances. I think his TDK review if fantastic, but I dislike that movie for other reasons. I also disagree with everything he said about TS3, TF3, every Fincher film he disliked, comments on Paul Thomas Anderson, The Sopranos, and many other works of art. I just like that there is a critic out here who says what he wants to say, whether or not not he falls into the love, dislike, or hate crowd. I like how he uses his knowledge on the medium to express his thoughts. I like how he doesn't rate his movies. Rating a movie introduces the unfortunate viewing habit of looking at a score and not reading what the critic has to say.

As for his comparisons on nihilism in The Master and RE: Retribution, the keyword there is that the former is "dull." Something that is dreadfully boring can sour any topic it tries to represent. I haven't seen the Master, but I have seen RE: Retribution and I didn't see any of what Armond did. I just saw a repetitive director thinking he has the chops to make something visually interesting by implementing an over abundance of slow motion.

[Davis 51]

To be fair, a lot of critics lose their minds when a few touchy subjects are issued, 9/11 being one of particular touchiness given that many of them actually live in New York City. I'm not going to pretend Ebert was immune from that, see his review of Kick-ass.

[Junghalli]

Who cares. Fuck, it's nice to think him and his pal get to watch movies together again even if it is nonsense. I mean geezuz, you think a forum built completely around made up shit could handle some made up shit.

And to the point, the way most people think, they want him in heaven in whatever religion they believe in because they liked/admired/respected or just plain enjoyed the guy. It doesn't have to be some douchebag statement on HIS religion.

Yeah, like I said it honestly seems kind of sad to me that people would actually get offended by something like that. It seems to me like emotionally toxic politicization of your beliefs or paranoia or carrying some of the worst aspects of Christianity into your atheism ("get your evil heathen idols away from me!").

[Scrib]

Who cares. Fuck, it's nice to think him and his pal get to watch movies together again even if it is nonsense. I mean geezuz, you think a forum built completely around made up shit could handle some made up shit.

And to the point, the way most people think, they want him in heaven in whatever religion they believe in because they liked/admired/respected or just plain enjoyed the guy. It doesn't have to be some douchebag statement on HIS religion.

Yeah, like I said it honestly seems kind of sad to me that people would actually get offended by something like that. It seems to me like emotionally toxic politicization of your beliefs or paranoia or carrying some of the worst aspects of Christianity into your atheism ("get your evil heathen idols away from me!").

I don't know about Ebert, but I can see why a lot of atheists are offended by this passive-aggressive bullshit on the part of Christians. "I'll pray for you" and "He's in heaven now" when "he" is an atheist are accepted ways to condescend to people you know don't share your beliefs. It gets even worse when you hear that some groups apparently baptise people after death and "claim" them. It's disrespectful

If an atheist tried to do something similar they'd be seen as strident, yet Christians, because of their position, have no problem rubbing their shit into other people's faces. They make think they're being well intentioned but everyone does. They can back off. I don't care how comforting it is, stop trying to roll people into your religion if they don't belong there. Christians would hate this shit if this happened to them but they have the thoughtlessness of the privileged.

EDIT: Though Christians might not be as mad as Jews. *shrugs*

[ray245]

That because wishing a person to be able to enjoy a nice afterlife is generally accepted to be better than wishing him to be decomposed into nothingness.

If a nice afterlife is something real and proven, only an asshole would not wish a person to enjoy it.

[Scrib]

That because wishing a person to be able to enjoy a nice afterlife is generally accepted to be better than wishing him to be decomposed into nothingness.

Well, that's when they're wishing for a nice afterlife .

Regardless,if a person has a belief it's disrespectful to their memory to just ignore it and bulldoze on with your bullshit. Yes, I know, you feel that you're being good and righteous but it's gonna piss people off. Extend to atheists the same courtesy you ask, no demand, be extended to you. Don't shove your shit down other people's throats because you take it for granted that they'll eat it. I'm not usually one for "memory" arguments so I'll just add: just be aware that people will be rightly pissed.

If a nice afterlife is something real and proven, only an asshole would not wish a person to enjoy it.

[/quote]
It's not proven though so they can keep their shit to themselves.

And I think there's the element of claiming someone who might not want to be claimed. Wrapping someone into your tribe against their expressed beliefs is not nice. It's comforting to you and might be totally innocent but it's problematic and assholes use it as well. Like a lot of religious behavior it may be meant in a good way or may just be more emotional manipulation or subtle condescension. Most likely it's both.

[Broomstick]

I'm wondering what Ebert would think. His family saw fit to give him a Catholic funeral in a cathedral. It may be that while he was an atheist he still went through the motions of being Catholic because... well, for whatever reason he did so. Maybe he did it to please his wife who has sacrificed her career to care for him in his long illness and be his voice when he could no longer speak. Maybe he thought such a funeral would be comforting to those in his life who were believers. Maybe he wasn't consulted. If Ebert didn't have an issue with these things, even if he was an atheist, then it's disrespectful to him to make such a fuss over it. Purely my opinion, of course. I expect there will be at least a few who disagree.

[houser2112]

If someone's views (on anything, really, not just movies) have strongly aligned with mine in the past, I'm much more likely to take his opinions on future items to be very much worth listening to than others whose views are less strongly aligned. Unless you meant "like" in a personal sense, I don't see how this stance is silly.

Are you looking for a critic who agrees with you, or a critic who makes good points regarding the critical analysis of movies? Because the two are not the same.

I suppose both, but if I can have only one, I'd prefer the former far more. When I'm reading a review of a movie that I know I want to see, or haven't already made the "see/not see" decision, I want the critic to either reaffirm or reverse that decision, or help me make that decision in the first place (the critic is very unlikely going to get me to see a movie I've already determined is not worth my time or money). I'd only bother to read the latter after seeing a movie I really liked and craved more.

[Scrib]

If someone's views (on anything, really, not just movies) have strongly aligned with mine in the past, I'm much more likely to take his opinions on future items to be very much worth listening to than others whose views are less strongly aligned. Unless you meant "like" in a personal sense, I don't see how this stance is silly.

Are you looking for a critic who agrees with you, or a critic who makes good points regarding the critical analysis of movies? Because the two are not the same.

I suppose both, but if I can have only one, I'd prefer the former far more. When I'm reading a review of a movie that I know I want to see, or haven't already made the "see/not see" decision, I want the critic to either reaffirm or reverse that decision, or help me make that decision in the first place (the critic is very unlikely going to get me to see a movie I've already determined is not worth my time or money). I'd only bother to read the latter after seeing a movie I really liked and craved more.

What? Your equivocating language here is confusing. If you want to see a movie you want a critic to affirm your decisions and if you don't want to see a movie you want him to agree with you?

[houser2112]

Are you looking for a critic who agrees with you, or a critic who makes good points regarding the critical analysis of movies? Because the two are not the same.

I suppose both, but if I can have only one, I'd prefer the former far more. When I'm reading a review of a movie that I know I want to see, or haven't already made the "see/not see" decision, I want the critic to either reaffirm or reverse that decision, or help me make that decision in the first place (the critic is very unlikely going to get me to see a movie I've already determined is not worth my time or money). I'd only bother to read the latter after seeing a movie I really liked and craved more.

What? Your equivocating language here is confusing. If you want to see a movie you want a critic to affirm your decisions and if you don't want to see a movie you want him to agree with you?

1) Movie I want to see: consult trusted critic for reasons I shouldn't see it
2) Movie I'm on the fence about: consult trusted critic to push me one way or the other.
3) Movie I don't want to see: don't waste my time reading reviews because no one but my wife can possibly convince me to see a RomCom, to name one particular genre.

[Junghalli]

Christians would hate this shit if this happened to them but they have the thoughtlessness of the privileged.

Christianity has the whole exclusive monotheism thing where alternative belief systems are bad and evil and engaging in them is a form of sin, so it's pretty easy to imagine why they would be angered by any association of other religious practices with one of their own. I personally think this is a pretty toxic mindset, one of the worst aspects and legacies of Christianity, and I would hope most atheists don't carry over such toxic attitudes into their atheism (though, unfortunately, honestly my experience is a lot of atheists do seem to carry some of the worst parts of the Christian worldview - dressed up in new "rationalist" and "humanist" packaging - into their atheism).

I see where you're coming from, and I do agree when in doubt it's better to err on the side of avoiding something that might inadvertently disrespect a person's beliefs in matters like this, but I gotta be honest, getting offended at something like the cartoon posted earlier ... well, the term "stick up the ass" comes to mind. If I felt more charitable about a Christian acting in an equivalent way it would be because their religion has the legacy of thousands of years of exclusivism; it seems a pity to find the same kinds of attitudes in a group who have no reason to be bound to them.

[Elfdart]

Liking a critic more because you agree with their views is silly anyway. Reviews that show informed and reasoned contrary viewpoints are probably more useful, certainly for those trying to expand their tastes.

Not necessarily. I try to read reviews by critics who agree with my tastes so I can make an informed decision on how to spend my hard-earned money on things that will entertain me. I like seeing films in theaters. It's a totally different experience compared to renting or owning at home. I don't know if you've noticed, however, but seeing films in theaters is expensive. With Ebert, you can disagree with him, but he always gave enough information that you would know when his opinion differs from yours. It would be far more beneficial for me to read an Ebert review before I see a film, and a White review after I see a film, because only one of them will determine which film I see.

This is where Siskel & Ebert had a real advantage: familiarity. Both men and their quirks were so well known that moviegoers could read between the lines and figure out why the two critics liked or disliked a movie, and spend their ticket money accordingly.

One thing I didn't like about Ebert was the way he let himself get pushed into changing his mind about movies or about critics. After Vincent Gallo unleashed an obscenity-laced tirade against Ebert for panning Brown Bunny, Ebert gave it a more favorable review. After defending Armond White from comic store nerds who were outraged that he had panned a Batman movie, he then turned around and called him a troll for panning There Will Be Blood, the snob hit of the year -after fans showed him a cherry-picked list of White's likes and dislikes. He wasn't as bad on this score as Peter Travers or some others, but it's still annoying.

While I'm on the subject of Armond White, I think he's a shitty writer. His reviews are a textbook example of logorrhea, throwing around big words to seem all highfalutin when he doesn't quite get what they mean. However, his Better Than lists and suggestions for what he thinks are better movies than the ones he pans make for interesting reading and once in a while can lead to new discoveries.

I also think that a good chunk of the hostility against White is that he's giving away the game when it comes to movie reviews. It really is about whether the reviewer liked it or not -and that is not something that is entirely quantifiable, let alone rationalized. That's why it's so funny watching ass-hurt Batman fans (Oh I'm sorry "Dark Knight" fans ) demanding an explanation for why he didn't like it, since the reasons given in his reviews weren't good enough to justify panning their beloved film.

[Stark]

If a critic can't explain or 'rationalize' why they like something, they are fundamentally unqualified to be a critic.

Maybe qualified to present marketing to co pulsive consumers, though. Luckily that appears to be what 'critics' are for to many people.

[JLTucker]

Man. It makes me sad that people are so scared to venture out of their comfort zones that they need the affirmation from a critic on what to see. Thank Christ I don't have that insufferable habit.

[Scrib]

Christians would hate this shit if this happened to them but they have the thoughtlessness of the privileged.

Christianity has the whole exclusive monotheism thing where alternative belief systems are bad and evil and engaging in them is a form of sin, so it's pretty easy to imagine why they would be angered by any association of other religious practices with one of their own. I personally think this is a pretty toxic mindset, one of the worst aspects and legacies of Christianity, and I would hope most atheists don't carry over such toxic attitudes into their atheism (though, unfortunately, honestly my experience is a lot of atheists do seem to carry some of the worst parts of the Christian worldview - dressed up in new "rationalist" and "humanist" packaging - into their atheism).

I don't see what's so toxic about excluding a belief system based on the harm you think it causes. There are plenty of reasons to dislike the world's religions without believing in some weird pseudo-religious form of moral dualism where all religion must be purged by fire and sword.

Your argument is a bit vague so I'll just say: it's perfectly rational to dislike being used to further the narrative of something you consider a problem.

I see where you're coming from, and I do agree when in doubt it's better to err on the side of avoiding something that might inadvertently disrespect a person's beliefs in matters like this, but I gotta be honest, getting offended at something like the cartoon posted earlier ... well, the term "stick up the ass" comes to mind. If I felt more charitable about a Christian acting in an equivalent way it would be because their religion has the legacy of thousands of years of exclusivism; it seems a pity to find the same kinds of attitudes in a group who have no reason to be bound to them.

The cartoon is an easy thing to point to as an example of atheists going overboard. I just don't see a problem with the mindset. Sometimes it leads to people taking it to lengths that you disagree with but such is life. Using it as evidence of a toxic mindset seems unfair to me.

It being more acceptable for Christians to do: I don't see that at all. So if someone has the weight of tradition behind them their bad actions should just be allowed to fly while the people who call them on it need to stop being so sensitive? It's not the same thing at all. It's someone using the fact that they're in the majority position in society to push their viewpoint and someone else saying:" Don't do it to me, stop.". Why would you blame the person who is telling them to stop?

Your argument basically blames the minority for not eating the shit that the privileged unassumingly throw around day in, day out. Sure, some people have a stick up their ass about religion. Others do about sexism as well. Your argument is that they should dislike it, except when it becomes too pedantic for your tastes. If they're wrong it's one thing but I think that how seriously you take such things is a personal matter and highly variable.

We have a visceral dislike of people we consider nit-pickers, I get that, I just find it odd that the other person has to be an asshole if the issue doesn't set us off personally. If I were to switch the picture for something else using the exact same logic most people here would be mollified but some more conservative soul elsewhere will be complaining about how everyone has a stick up their ass about the word oriental or niggers or bosses making passes at their employees or something.

But just to say: I have no idea how Ebert felt about being rolled into religion so people may just be jumping the gun which would be another thing entirely.

[Terralthra]

One thing I didn't like about Ebert was the way he let himself get pushed into changing his mind about movies or about critics. After Vincent Gallo unleashed an obscenity-laced tirade against Ebert for panning Brown Bunny, Ebert gave it a more favorable review.

That's not quite true. Ebert responded to his insults in kind. Gallo recut The Brown Bunny, chopping out something like a quarter of the original cut, and Ebert approved of the recut, saying "Editing is the soul of movie direction," and that the editing done for the second cut had brought out the movie that was lost in the original cut.

[houser2112]

It makes me sad that people are so scared to venture out of their comfort zones that they need the affirmation from a critic on what to see.

For me, it's less "I'm not willing to venture out of my comfort zone" and more "time and money are limited and precious resources for me, so I need to be judicious in how I spend them". If I were single and childless, it wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue.

[Flagg]

Man. It makes me sad that people are so scared to venture out of their comfort zones that they need the affirmation from a critic on what to see. Thank Christ I don't have that insufferable habit.

Yes, you do. That's why you're saying how great a guy who loved the abominably awful TF2 is.

[JLTucker]

Man. It makes me sad that people are so scared to venture out of their comfort zones that they need the affirmation from a critic on what to see. Thank Christ I don't have that insufferable habit.

Yes, you do. That's why you're saying how great a guy who loved the abominably awful TF2 is.

You couldn't be more wrong and obviously haven't been reading everything I posted. Read them and come back and repeat what you've said with a straight face. Start here: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 7#p3768417

PS. The only good thing about the TF series is that it's amazingly shot. It's crap in every other department.

[Flagg]

Man. It makes me sad that people are so scared to venture out of their comfort zones that they need the affirmation from a critic on what to see. Thank Christ I don't have that insufferable habit.

Yes, you do. That's why you're saying how great a guy who loved the abominably awful TF2 is.

You couldn't be more wrong and obviously haven't been reading everything I posted. Read them and come back and repeat what you've said with a straight face. Start here: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 7#p3768417

PS. The only good thing about the TF series is that it's amazingly shot. It's crap in every other department.

Oh sorry, you were just fellating White.

[Channel72]

Crap. I used to love reading Ebert's reviews online. For the longest time I'd always check rogerebert.com and rottentomatoes before seeing anything in the theatre. It was like checking Zagat or Yelp before you visit a new restaurant. His reviews were always fun to read, and he predicted a lot of classics would in fact turn out to be classics.

[Channel72]

Man. It makes me sad that people are so scared to venture out of their comfort zones that they need the affirmation from a critic on what to see. Thank Christ I don't have that insufferable habit.

Clearly, you're a bold, independent, free-thinking man. That makes you awesome, and also it makes others respect you more. Man, I wish I had the ability to form my own opinions about things. Now that Ebert is dead, I don't know what to think about anything.