90% of his reviews were just recounting the plot
Why did people take this boomer seriously
Isaac Robinson
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Adrian Turner
He worked for a reputable paper, had his own show, and wore glasses.
Julian Lee
Powerful friends and good publicity.
Nathan Flores
before 2000 there were only a dozen respected film critics who all worked for major newspapers and magazines. The emergence of internet amateur film critics like Harry Knowles ruined this once noble profession.
Juan Turner
That doesn't explain the reverence of Ebert
Matthew Ortiz
he became a household name along with Siskel because of their weekly show
Ian Ortiz
One of his only credits is writing this movie
Wyatt Miller
There was no i internet
Aiden Wood
Wow... Ebert... A true writing prodigy
Chase Russell
I had pic related, which included film reviews by Maltin, Ebert and Kael. Unfortunately they stopped giving updates in 1998.
Angel Murphy
>read Burgers on the internet write about him all the time
>start reading old reviews of my favorite, most hated or notorious movies
It's most of the time:
>give opinion of the movie in the first paragraph
>most of the time doesn't tell you WHY he thinks this
>tell you who's in it
>give short and often confusing or misrepresenting plot-summary
>end it with repeating with his opinion
I don't get the hype at all.
Caleb Hall
There was no YouTube.
Nathaniel White
lmao I respect whores more than I respect professional critics
Brayden Roberts
wouldn't it have been easier or at least equally easy to make good long-form written reviews+analysis?
I mean, there are analyses of Shakespeare's works longer then the works themselves and they are around of centuries.
Jack Green
He was based, something zoomers will never be.
Carter Rivera
Just a thought, but
>Hey, how can we make more people watch our increasingly shitty movies?
>I mean, we could artificially inflate the importance of movie 'experts' and then tell them what to say about our movies. People listen to experts, right?
>Only about things that aren't important, so this'll be great!
Christian Lopez
because it was boomers reading the book reports
Wyatt Flores
it was camp
Nathaniel Torres
Because he was right
Jonathan Gonzalez
>once noble profession
Kevin James
is this CavemanDCJ? Kek
Justin Bell
The jawless fuck was one of the biggest hacks ever and I’m glad he’s dead.
Nathan Cruz
>Roger Ebert
>tries to pass himself off as having cultured, urbane opinions
>co-wrote "Beyond Valley of the Dolls" with Russ fucking Meyer
sorry Ebert, but we all know you're a fucking hack
Angel King
he was also a waifuist
>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.
>Leigh looks so young, fresh, cheerful, and innocent that we don't laugh when she gets into unhappy scenes with men -- we wince.
Colton Martinez
9 out of 10 movies are shit. Did you think he should have made a big deal over a mediocre glut of 90s films? A conscientious glowing review means more than, "omg, watch this dude it rocks, every movie in history should burn"!
Ayden Young
>be celebrated movie critic
>everybody expects this movie to be a hit
>it's written by the great Roger Ebert after all
>ends up writing a shitty exploitation movie solely to casting-couch young girls for months
>gets away with it
Absolute legend.
Adrian Garcia
he doesn't explain why a movie is bad, good or mediocre most of the time, especially in his video-reviews, he just says they are. (his written ones are a bit better in that regard) That is my point.
Lucas Jackson
because you werent around then user, to give them your "based" reviews.
Matthew Hill
post an example. they seemed pretty up front about why something was good or bad. keep in mind their video reviews are made for tv plebs.
roger had great written reviews but there's only so much you can fit in a column at chicago sun times
Gabriel Carter
ok, I must confess was wrong:
I just looked up 5-6 written movie reviews at random and his written reviews were WAY better than I remembered them being.
Jaxon Brown
His complacency is a symptom of how jaded he was with film. Would you require somebody to review a cartoon for preschool kids, to know it was shit or not? You'd just know, so. Most likely what he had to review wasn't his cup, so to speak. Plus, Ebert was never a slash and burn critic, he got off a good one every now and then, that's it. And now for the part you probably missed. He and Siskel's thing was thumbs up or thumbs down and it was huge. You wanted to know what they thought....? And they'd just stick out a thumb essentially.
Oliver Lee
the funniest reviews are when he misunderstands the movie
Carter Jones
what the fuck
Chase Walker
"Its ok baby , we got the reviewers paid off "
Bentley Brooks
people were still able to read more than a paragraph
Elijah Cooper
Don't insult such writing talent!