I don't understand. His "reviews" all just read like a wikipedia plot synopsis...

I don't understand. His "reviews" all just read like a wikipedia plot synopsis. He doesn't review anything just explains what happens in the movie with maybe a line or two of opinion at the end.

Attached: Roger-Ebert.jpg (612x451, 78K)

>only now surprused kikes platform other kikes as being masterminds

I geniunely think Armond White is a better film critic

98% of the film industry never valued much of Roger Ebert's criticisms or reviews. Also, he liked movies that were always mostly dull and boring.

Siskel was the brain of their operation. Ebert is a marshmallow.

Both had their needed pros and cons, which was why listening argue with each other so fun.

For stuff like this. Chemistry is important, why hitb is so good while cuckman and youdogsucksdick.org are kinda mediocre.

>didn’t have a smug anthropomorphic wolf avatar give his reviews
Okay Ebert...sure

I will forever like this guy because he made pathetic man children seethe when he shit on video games

>reading critic's reviews
why do you do this? cant you form your own opinions?

Anyways, who's the christgau of cinema critique?

Armond unironically has 10000x worse taste than Ebert

Cuckman is legitimately autistic manchild and the other fucks dogs AND thinks old movies are bad.If you base your opinion on any, and I mean ANY youtube ''critic'' you're a retard.

He redeemed himself by digging House Party when all other critics ignored it

Yea Forums won't say it but Movieblob is one of the only genuine critics who don't just offer plot synopsis.

but his reviews are better quality

too be fair: he was writing reviews before you could get a full synopsis on line and re-watch the trailer and different clips before the film even came out.
he kinda had to explain the movie before reviewing it so people know what he was talking about and give some detail so the people reading would know if they should watch the movie.

>star wars?? more like Star BORES.

Attached: d39pck9-732f4b39-92cd-49cb-a292-754f4072e5cf.png (800x540, 118K)

No way, Ebert had shit taste

Armond White was right about this guy.

"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."

Based Armond does it again

>It's an Ebert gets details about the movie wrong review

This. Go through any old movie reviews and it would be of a similar style.

Ebert was very knowledgeable on cinema and some of the insights he provided on films made them worth reading. Honestly most modern reviewers don't compare(especially youtube reviewers and armond fucking white) though I like Matt zoller seitz and the glib facsimile guy.