|
Ebert was way off on a ton of his reviews but his writing was so good that he was always worth reading.
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 17:55 |
|
|
MeatwadIsGod posted:Serious question: Do any of you use reviews or aggregators to determine if you're going to see a movie or not? I know there's one goon who openly admits to this. I forgot their name though. If I see their avatar I can point them out, lol.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Darko posted:I used to when reviewers like Ebert who really understood and new film were alive and around. They have a point of view I could base "is this worth planning around"...around.I could read their reviews and get a general idea of what I was in for and if I'd get something from it. Armond White 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
I'm a fan of Ebert but I've also seen all the Friday the 13th films. I found Ebert to be at his most  when he would digress from his review of a slasher film or whatnot to reminisce about the good, clean fun of the cowboy movies he watched as a child. But there were plenty of other times he stuck up for movies like Infra-Man. And frankly I was glad to see him favour movies like that while coming down hard on reprehensible mondo films.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
teagone posted:I know there's one goon who openly admits to this. I forgot their name though. If I see their avatar I can point them out, lol. Gotta be MisterBibs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
You always know exactly where Ebert's coming from which is way more useful than reviews that just agree with you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
My personal philosophy for what makes art good and worthwhile is significantly different from most critics I've read, so sometimes negative reviews can be a positive for me and vice versa.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:You always know exactly where Ebert's coming from which is way more useful than reviews that just agree with you. Yes, that's what I always liked about Ebert. He was a good enough writer that you could suss out the underlying foundations for his critique. How the gently caress you supposed to do that with the "another wild ride from Marvel!!!" crowd? Edit: Here's Ebert's 4 star review for Iron Man. The dude was a cut above. http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/iron-man-2008 Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Aug 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Gotta be MisterBibs. Nah, Bibs is all about box office takes - if critics pan a movie that made a billion, he's happy to dismiss them as pretentious and out of touch. It sounds more like Boob Marley, who made those really intense Rottentomatoes/Metacritic charts for superhero movies
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Jenny Angel posted:Nah, Bibs is all about box office takes - if critics pan a movie that made a billion, he's happy to dismiss them as pretentious and out of touch. It sounds more like Boob Marley, who made those really intense Rottentomatoes/Metacritic charts for superhero movies I love those charts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
The one problem with those charts is that they didn't go further, e.g. columns for average shot length or aspect ratio or other technical aspects. Other than that, they rule
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Gotta be MisterBibs. Nope, not him. Just remembered, I think it was Phylodox? Paging Phylodox. I think that's how you spell it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Jenny Angel posted:The one problem with those charts is that they didn't go further, e.g. columns for average shot length or aspect ratio or other technical aspects. Other than that, they rule I asked him to add box office numbers and he didn't think it was a worthwhile metric. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:I asked him to add box office numbers and he didn't think it was a worthwhile metric. That's not very rigorous.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
lol just lol if you don't get aggressively up in arms about your favorite movies RT score
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
MeatwadIsGod posted:Serious question: Do any of you use reviews or aggregators to determine if you're going to see a movie or not? They just seem pointless when you can watch a trailer within seconds and the theater-to-streaming/BluRay turnaround is like 3 months. Personally, sometimes I read them after the fact to help clarify my thoughts on a movie, but I decide on going to one if my friends want to go, it looks good from trailers, or both. I do, because I typically only have enough extra money to see a movie in theaters once a year, at most two and it feels like a third of movies released that I want to see make it onto netflix instant
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Burkion posted:Ebert wasn't always on point, honestly. When he was right he as dead on, but his entire tirade against, say, the Friday the 13th Films, which are dumb fun is just stupid and more damning was his review of Gojira. Roger Ebert posted:Going to see "Godzilla" at the Palais of the Cannes Film Festival is like attending a satanic ritual in St. Peter's Basilica. It's a rebuke to the faith that the building represents. Cannes touchingly adheres to a belief that film can be intelligent, moving and grand. "Godzilla" is a big, ugly, ungainly device to give teenagers the impression they are seeing a movie. It was the festival's closing film, coming at the end like the horses in a parade, perhaps for the same reason.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
The trick with the reviewers who end up on Rotten Tomatoes is that you can achieve identical results by just taking any random idiot and giving them a paycheque and an editor. Like go on the bus and ask the nearest person what they think about Jared Leto in Suicide Squad trailer, and you will gain as much insight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Just gimme a little bit to track down some free aggregation APIs, once we can get a Rotten Goon-matoes website up to get some exposure to this walled garden, the old guard institutions like RT are gonna be in hot water.Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Yes, that's what I always liked about Ebert. He was a good enough writer that you could suss out the underlying foundations for his critique. I had a chance to meet him once about 9 years back, he's from my town and we have an annual film fest (Ebertfest). He was super nice and insightful, saw The Fall and a Q&A he had with some of the people afterward (not Singh). He's missed around here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
teagone posted:Nope, not him. Just remembered, I think it was Phylodox? Paging Phylodox. I think that's how you spell it. What? Why would anyone think it was me? I don't have a gimmick. About the only strong opinion I've ever expressed was that I hated Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Okay, but you gotta love this: I do. The dude was loving great when one of his weirder buttons wasn't being pushed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The trick with the reviewers who end up on Rotten Tomatoes is that you can achieve identical results by just taking any random idiot and giving them a paycheque and an editor. In aggregate it is far more damning, thus the site.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
MeatwadIsGod posted:Serious question: Do any of you use reviews or aggregators to determine if you're going to see a movie or not? Yes. They at least give me a general idea if a movie is worth my time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
 https://www.instagram.com/p/BIkkfYhDgC4/
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
I use rotten tomatoes to decide if I'm gonna watch a movie that I have no firm feelings about. I honestly, truly just don't have a ton of time to watch movies, so if I'm trying to decide if me and the gf should watch like, the newest Paul Rudd movie that popped up on Netflix without any fanfare, I'm checking RT. If it's like 30% or lower, I'm out. Maybe I just missed out on the best, most misunderstood Paul Rudd straight to video movie ever, but I'm willing to risk it. If something I'm interested in gets bad reviews though, I'll still watch it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
RT seriously became whole less useful for me ever since I read CD. A lot of "Rotten" movies ended up being recommended by the people here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I know. Stupid loving plebes seeing advertisements and clips for movies they might want to see one day. Dumb idiots deciding to sample the tone and the general plot of something in order to gauge their interest in it. loving nerds. I just got sick of seeing every good scene in a movie, and then going to the movies and commenting afterwards about how I'd already seen every good scene in the movie. This was a huge part of why I was disappointed in Batman vs Superman, and its something none of the reviews really bring up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
My problem with these reviews..It's not that I think the DC movies are good, I'm more surprised by these same critics fawning over Marvel films I see about as equally disorganized and mediocre. Like I'm sure Suicide Squad is a stupid mess, but you didn't think Civil War was a stupid mess?  everyone knows the only superman we need is Darkman. BRING BACK RAIMI BRING BACK RAIMI
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
TheFallenEvincar posted:My problem with these reviews..It's not that I think the DC movies are good, I'm more surprised by these same critics fawning over Marvel films I see about as equally disorganized and mediocre. Like I'm sure Suicide Squad is a stupid mess, but you didn't think Civil War was a stupid mess? When a critic singles out something like 'bad editing in Suicide Squad', the crucial thing to take away is not the worthless 'good/bad' value judgement, but the fact that they noticed the editing at all. Nobody gives a poo poo about the editing in, say, Guardians Of The Galaxy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:When a critic singles out something like 'bad editing in Suicide Squad', the crucial thing to take away is not the worthless 'good/bad' value judgement, but the fact that they noticed the editing at all. If you're being entertained by a movie why would you notice the editing? You'd be caught up in the story / visuals / score / whatever it is you like in a movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
MrFlibble posted:If you're being entertained by a movie why would you notice the editing? You'd be caught up in the story / visuals / score / whatever it is you like in a movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
MrFlibble posted:If you're being entertained by a movie why would you notice the editing? You'd be caught up in the story / visuals / score / whatever it is you like in a movie. One of things some people like is interesting editing  It's part of the storytelling.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:RT seriously became whole less useful for me ever since I read CD. A lot of "Rotten" movies ended up being recommended by the people here. Even if you are the type of person who thinks CD is skewed by a bunch of purposely contradictory nerds or whatever, a recent example was GB16 which was floating on an 85% fresh score for awhile while general consensus was hovering around "average" overall. It's seriously just a bad metric for judging, a 90% can mean "rave reviews" of "a lot of reviewers thought it was just north of decent", that 10% who gave it negative reviews could be more insightful, etc. Seriously, find someone who aligns with your views on other movies and read the content of the review.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:That's not how that works. Why would there even be a Best Editing Oscar if that was the case? The same reason there are Oscars in general. So a bunch of industry insiders can jerk off about how great they are. I'm not saying editing isn't a thing. I'm saying that bad editing is much more visible than good editing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
MrFlibble posted:The same reason there are Oscars in general. So a bunch of industry insiders can jerk off about how great they are. Uhhh I strongly disagree, maybe u just like continuity editing or w/e it's called?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 05:51
|
|
MrFlibble posted:The same reason there are Oscars in general. So a bunch of industry insiders can jerk off about how great they are. Ah yes, the "retreat into nihilism at the first sign of push back" technique, old, but well-trod
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:Uhhh I strongly disagree, maybe u just like continuity editing or w/e it's called? "Invisible" editing is a common name for the style. Not that most people who will complain in general about the generic "editing" will really give a poo poo about the concepts of visible vs. invisible editing and how they exist in a movie. If you are going to complain about editing cite the highly visible cuts you are talking about or go for some other vague "it's not good" angle. I suggest ad hom attacks on the actors would do better in a pinch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:When a critic singles out something like 'bad editing in Suicide Squad', the crucial thing to take away is not the worthless 'good/bad' value judgement, but the fact that they noticed the editing at all. This isn't a meaningful criticism of the editing in Guardians of the Galaxy unless you're taking the same stance as Eisenstein: my old textbook posted:Eisenstein criticized the concept of linked shots for being mechanical and inorganic. He believed that editing ought to be dialectical: the conflict of two shots (thesis and antithesis) produces a wholly new idea (synthesis). Thus, in film terms, the conflict between shot A and shot B is not AB (Kuleshov and Pudovkin) but a qualitative new factor - C. Transitions between shots should not be flowing, as Pudovkin suggested, but sharp, jolting, even violent. For Eisenstein editing produces harsh collisions, no subtle linkages. A smooth transition, he claimed, was an opportunity lost. I think it's more of a stylistic thing. Suicide Squad's editing being noticeable doesn't necessarily mean it's good or not just noticeably bad in some way rather than being noticeable stylistically, but I have noticed sometimes people don't like harsher editing styles. My mom complained about the editing in Shaun of the Dead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
ThePlague-Daemon posted:This isn't a meaningful criticism of the editing in Guardians of the Galaxy unless you're taking the same stance as Eisenstein I am taking the same stance as Eisenstein.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 17:55 |
|
|
In this episode of CD, posters who haven't seen the film decide people who have seen it are wrong about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 09:17
|
|
