Search FAQ

Login | Register


All times are UTC [ DST ]


It is currently 01 Nov 2014




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 266 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 14  Next
Author Message

Subway Guard
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 12 May 2008
Notes left: 1683
Last seen at: Houston, Tx.
The most blatant ones (that I've read, and I don't read a lot of reviews because it's all just opinion anyway and I like mine most, thank you) were his Underworld reviews. In his online review of Underworld, he said he thought Michael might still be human after being bitten by a werewolf, despite every single legend saying you turn if bitten and the movie itself explaining this multiple times and even showing a scene of Michael turning into a werewolf.
In the videotaped review of Underworld, Ebert claimed it was never explained why the wolves and vamps were fighting; nevermind the fact that there was an entire flashback scene devoted to it, as well as no less than a dozen other scenes where characters talk about it and explain it. In fact, the meaning of the war is the single biggest plot point in the entire film.
He also gave a review for Baghead that has been complained about by fans on many websites. This is just one of them: http://www.gunaxin.com/does-roger-ebert ... more/35971
There's also his review of The Mist, where he claims Marcia Gay Hardin's character might be up for human sacrifice. Apparently, he missed the big scene of her stabbing the army guy and throwing him outside. And the scene where she tries to subdue the main characters, with the heavy implication that she intends to kill them in the name of God.
Quote:
other than "he didn't like Silent Hill, therefore he is ridiculous and obviously didn't watch the film"?

Where did I say that? I'd like to see the quote, if you don't mind. In fact, I'd like to see any quote from me that involves Ebert's review of Silent Hill.
I never said I was talking about Silent Hill. I said that Ebert doesn't seem to watch some movies, and I therefore don't feel like he's credible if he feels it's okay to give reviews on films he never actually watched.


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 31 Jan 2004
Notes left: 3774
JRamirez35 wrote:
Where did I say that? I'd like to see the quote, if you don't mind. In fact, I'd like to see any quote from me that involves Ebert's review of Silent Hill. I never said I was talking about Silent Hill. I said that Ebert doesn't seem to watch some movies, and I therefore don't feel like he's credible if he feels it's okay to give reviews on films he never actually watched.


Ebert was mentioned because of his less than favorable review of Silent Hill, in which he repeatedly comments on not understanding the plot. It's reasonable to assume your response was in regards to said review.

Still, the idea that Ebert would review a film without actually watching it, or that he has some sort of personal bias is ridiculous to me. His notorious review of The Brown Bunny is a good example of his objectivity. Ebert referred to the original as "the worst film in the history of the [Cannes Film] festival". He gave such an unfavorable review that the film's director publicly called Ebert a "fat pig" and wished him dead. Later, a much edited version of the film was released. Ebert gave the re-edited film a favorable review, giving it 3 stars. Ebert has also had a history of being very critical of David Lynch (some would say unfairly), and yet he gave INLAND EMPIRE (arguably Lynch's most bizarre film to date) 4 stars.

Ebert is payed to give his opinion, which for the most part, he does well. Personally, I think he actually makes an attempt at being reasonably objective (which is a hell of a lot more than I say for the majority of critics).

_________________
nobody is anybody


Top
   
 

Subway Guard
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 12 May 2008
Notes left: 1683
Last seen at: Houston, Tx.
VIVIsect wrote:
JRamirez35 wrote:
Where did I say that? I'd like to see the quote, if you don't mind. In fact, I'd like to see any quote from me that involves Ebert's review of Silent Hill. I never said I was talking about Silent Hill. I said that Ebert doesn't seem to watch some movies, and I therefore don't feel like he's credible if he feels it's okay to give reviews on films he never actually watched.


Ebert was mentioned because of his less than favorable review of Silent Hill, in which he repeatedly comments on not understanding the plot. It's reasonable to assume your response was in regards to said review.

I never stated anywhere that I had a problem with his review of SH. Had I been talking about SH, I would have said it, and provided examples from the review. That's not to even mention that I specifically said movie (s) , meaning that it was quite clear that I wasn't basing anything on "just because he doesn't like Silent Hill" and I'd be hard-pressed to think of how anyone could come to that conclusion based on my post. You chose to assume I said something I never said, and you ignored what I did say to make a baseless assumption that was quite wrong.

Quote:
Still, the idea that Ebert would review a film without actually watching it, or that he has some sort of personal bias is ridiculous to me.

The fact that there is evidence of this isn't enough? He's slammed movies that it's quite clear he never watched, or at the very least, missed important parts of, I think that's evidence enough.
Quote:
His notorious review of The Brown Bunny is a good example of his objectivity. Ebert referred to the original as "the worst film in the history of the [Cannes Film] festival". He gave such an unfavorable review that the film's director publicly called Ebert a "fat pig" and wished him dead. Later, a much edited version of the film was released. Ebert gave the re-edited film a favorable review, giving it 3 of 5 stars. Ebert has also had a history of being very critical of David Lynch (some would say unfairly), and yet he gave INLAND EMPIRE (arguably Lynch's most bizarre film to date) 4 out of 5 stars.

I never said he's never been unbiased with movies. I simply said there are some movies he seems to be biased against.

Quote:
Ebert is payed to give his opinion, which for the most part, he does well. Personally, I think he actually makes an attempt at being reasonably objective (which is a hell of a lot more than I say for the majority of critics).

On most movies, yes. But I find it useless to listen to him when I know the next review might be a review of a film he never watched.


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 31 Jan 2004
Notes left: 3774
JRamirez35 wrote:
You chose to assume I said something I never said, and you ignored what I did say to make a baseless assumption that was quite wrong.


I was trying to let it go, but since you insist...

DamienPales wrote "Roger Ebert was right" and you responded with a tirade about Ebert being "full of shit" and "biased". If you're going to pretend that you weren't alluding (at least in part) to his review of Silent Hill, then I call bullshit. You can use semantics and tack on a few other films for the sake of argument, but it was the comment of Ebert "being right" about Silent Hill that prompted your response. I believe that my assumption is accurate.

JRamirez35 wrote:
The fact that there is evidence of this isn't enough?


Your "evidence" consists of Underworld (of all films) and two jackasses on a random website verses a nationally syndicated critic whose reviews have appeared in the Chicago sun-Times for 40 years. A man who spent 23 years reviewing films on television, has had numerous books published, and has hosted his own annual film festival for 20 years. If we're going to question his ability to do his job, my money is on Ebert.

JRamirez35 wrote:
I simply said there are some movies he seems to be biased against.


No, what you said was:

JRamirez35 wrote:
I can't think of even one single well-known reviewer who is as biased and ridiculous as he is.

_________________
nobody is anybody


Top
   
 

Subway Guard
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 12 May 2008
Notes left: 1683
Last seen at: Houston, Tx.
You cannot be serious. You have not responded to even one single accusation I made against Ebert except to name-call people you don't even know for having the audacity to disagree with your opinions and talk about how wonderful Ebert is. Prove that there is another logical reason for Ebert missing the entire plot of Underworld and Baghead, or a large chunk of The Mist. As for who I was responding to, I was responding to your post about Ebert being usually right. You know, the post right above my first one?


Top
   
 

RESPECT
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 19 Jul 2003
Notes left: 19372
Last seen at: #lfk
There are many reasons I don't listen to reviewers. This discussion is yet another reason.

MMY's quick-capsule review of Silent Hill: the Film: too [expletive deleted] long.

_________________
. . . AND THAT'S THAT.


Top
   
 

Brookhaven Receptionist
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 09 Feb 2004
Notes left: 756
  • Remove all husband-related scenes.
  • Shave the movie overall by at least half an hour (I could tolerate a 1 1/2 hr. long movie).
  • Give it a new-yet-Akira-made soundtrack (I still think this was more lazy than fan service).
  • Remove Pyramid Head, entirely. Replace him with another (possibly new) creature instead.
  • Don't flashback and explain the entire plot at the very end. That was beyond insulting to me as a movie-viewer and just plain horrendous. Completely embarrassed me as a SH fan, too. Explain it fluently and well spread out throughout the entire movie.


Do those things and you'll have a much better movie. I really, really dislike the movie, a lot. Doing some of those things above would, at the very least, make it more tolerable for me (doubt I'd love it but perhaps would like it then).

_________________
Image


Top
   
 

Rosewater Park Attendant
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 25 Mar 2009
Notes left: 1345
Last seen at: Ann Arbor, Michigan
If you're going to judge the entirety of Roger Ebert's career by a handful of movie reviews he's made (out of, what, over 10,000?), then I might as well judge the entirety of The Beatle's career by that piece of shit Yellow Submarine album/movie they made.

Ebert gives his opinion. Which, you know, you're allowed to disagree with. It's nothing to throw a hissy fit over.


Top
   
 

Cafe5to2 Waitress
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 04 May 2006
Notes left: 236
Last seen at: Boston
The silent hill comic book series blows. I can't imagine anything else silent hill related being good :lol:

_________________
Image
The only thing Columbus discovered was that he was lost!

Xbox-GhastlyGrinner
Ps3- Ghastly_Grinner


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 01 Aug 2006
Notes left: 11304
Last seen at: I'm here, and waiting for you
Way to imply the entire Silent Hill series sucks via grammar incompetence.

_________________
BlackFire2 wrote:
I thought he meant the special powers of her vagina.


Top
   
 

Cafe5to2 Waitress
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 04 May 2006
Notes left: 236
Last seen at: Boston
I was being sarcastic (thus the laughing face is presented), I love the games. I was kinda laughing at what damien said. why do you have it out for me so bad?

_________________
Image
The only thing Columbus discovered was that he was lost!

Xbox-GhastlyGrinner
Ps3- Ghastly_Grinner


Top
   
 

Subway Guard
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 12 May 2008
Notes left: 1683
Last seen at: Houston, Tx.
DamienPales wrote:
If you're going to judge the entirety of Roger Ebert's career by a handful of movie reviews he's made (out of, what, over 10,000?), then I might as well judge the entirety of The Beatle's career by that piece of shit Yellow Submarine album/movie they made.

Making a bad music album and lying about whether or not you actually watched the movie you were paid to review are two different things.

Quote:
Ebert gives his opinion. Which, you know, you're allowed to disagree with. It's nothing to throw a hissy fit over.

A) I never said anything about his opinion. I specifically stated that I did not like how he reviews movies he clearly never actually watched.
B) I'm sorry, I didn't realize that expressing opinions that disagree with yours automatically constitutes a "hissy fit". I have presented my opinion, then backed it up with evidence that no one has disproved. If anything, the people who can't accept the fact that Ebert isn't perfect, and who seem to prefer pointing the finger at me rather than actually responding to or attempting to logically disprove any of my accusations are the ones throwing a hissy fit.


Top
   
 

Rosewater Park Attendant
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 25 Mar 2009
Notes left: 1345
Last seen at: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Quote:
Making a bad music album and lying about whether or not you actually watched the movie you were paid to review are two different things.


Do you have any evidence that Ebert has lied about watching a film when he really hasn't?

And what does this have to do with anything? I don't agree with his reviews sometimes either, but in the case of Silent Hill, he was absolutely correct. The film is complete and utter garbage.

It seems like you just don't like the guy because he said something that you didn't agree with, which means that the only logical reaction is that the guy is full of shit, ridiculous, and biased. Please. The guy obviously isn't a fan of mindless horror flicks, and has very little patience with them. I can't really blame him, because a lot (I'm willing to say 90% of them) really do suck something fierce.


Top
   
 

Subway Guard
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 12 May 2008
Notes left: 1683
Last seen at: Houston, Tx.
DamienPales wrote:
Quote:
Making a bad music album and lying about whether or not you actually watched the movie you were paid to review are two different things.


Do you have any evidence that Ebert has lied about watching a film when he really hasn't?

You mean, other than the examples I already presented showing that he could not possibly have watched any of those films all the way through?

Quote:
And what does this have to do with anything? I don't agree with his reviews sometimes either, but in the case of Silent Hill, he was absolutely correct. The film is complete and utter garbage.

Again, as I already said 500,000,000 times, I never once mentioned his review of Silent Hill, so that has no bearing on this discussion. I responded to Vivisect's remark about how often Ebert is correct about things, which I disagree with.

Quote:
It seems like you just don't like the guy because he said something that you didn't agree with, which means that the only logical reaction is that the guy is full of shit, ridiculous, and biased. Please.

Jesus Christ. You are absolutely ridiculous. Let me write this in all caps because some people can't seem to wrap their brains around this:
I NEVER ONCE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT DISAGREEING WITH EBERT'S OPINIONS
I responded to Vivisect's post about how often Ebert was correct, never once mentioned anything about Silent Hill, never once mentioned disagreeing with his opinion, offered proof that he did not watch at least 3 movies he claimed to "review", and yet people are still delusional enough to think that I'm motivated by his opinions? That's just ridiculous. Clearly, you don't intend to actually respond to any of my accusations or evidences. In which case, there's no debate. You're just making up stuff that there's no evidence for because you can't accept that someone might not like your beloved Ebert and have a valid reason for it. Please do not claim any motivation you "think" I might have unless you have direct evidence to back it up.
ETA: I never argued about Ebert's opinion on horrors. I pointed out that I don't like the fact that he pretends to review some movies that he clearly never watched.


Top
   
 

Rosewater Park Attendant
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 25 Mar 2009
Notes left: 1345
Last seen at: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Quote:
You mean, other than the examples I already presented showing that he could not possibly have watched any of those films all the way through?


I haven't seen any of those films, so I can't say he's lying about watching them. If you could explain how exactly his review contradicted something that happened in the movie, then maybe you'll have a point.

However, he could have misunderstood the plot because the director wasn't very good at explaining it to the audience. I know I've seen plenty of movies where I was almost certain I was missing something. But that's not my fault, that's the fault of the movie, and thus it deserves to lose points.

You're basically accusing Ebert of journalistic fraud, which is actually a pretty serious claim to make. I think if you're going to accuse a 40-year veteran of movie criticism with writing false reviews, you'd better have more evidence than just some links to a blog.


Top
   
 

Subway Guard
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 12 May 2008
Notes left: 1683
Last seen at: Houston, Tx.
I did outline all my points. I have yet to see a single person explain how he could possibly have claimed Underworld didn't explain why the vamps and wolves were fighting when literally almost every single dialogue scene in the entire second half of the film mentioned it. Or how he could suggest there was no human sacrifice in The Mist when there were two long scenes about just that and multiple implications of it beforehand. It's really hard to misunderstand a woman screaming 'We need a sacrifice!'


Top
   
 

Cafe5to2 Waitress
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 04 May 2006
Notes left: 236
Last seen at: Boston
JRamirez35 wrote:
I did outline all my points. I have yet to see a single person explain how he could possibly have claimed Underworld didn't explain why the vamps and wolves were fighting when literally almost every single dialogue scene in the entire second half of the film mentioned it. Or how he could suggest there was no human sacrifice in The Mist when there were two long scenes about just that and multiple implications of it beforehand. It's really hard to misunderstand a woman screaming 'We need a sacrifice!'


I don't remember much from "underworld", because I found it quite boring myself so I could see why ebert may have missed that. But I know if I was getting paid to watch it and explain it then I would care a little more to atleast follow the movie to find the plot.

And in the mist, i'm not going to throw out any names for spoiler reasons, but there were 2 seperate scenarios where people were or were not used as sacrifices. So if in fact Ebert did claim there was no plot/ nor any sacrifice, than he's just plain wrong.

_________________
Image
The only thing Columbus discovered was that he was lost!

Xbox-GhastlyGrinner
Ps3- Ghastly_Grinner


Last edited by TheGhastlyGrinner on 26 Nov 2009, edited 3 times in total.

Top
   
 

Subway Guard
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 12 May 2008
Notes left: 1683
Last seen at: Houston, Tx.
It's impossible to have missed why the war started and have watched the whole film. There's a long flashback scene showing it, followed immediately by a character saying 'That's how the war started', then another character giving a monologue about how the war started, and repeating what was seen in the flashback. It's then explained to the main character, after which she has two different scenes talking to other characters about why the war started. He could not have watched the film and not known that.


Top
   
 

Cafe5to2 Waitress
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 22 Dec 2006
Notes left: 295
Last seen at: Leeds, UK
DamienPales wrote:
I finally saw the movie last weekend after two of my friends cornered me and thrust it upon me.

It fucking sucked. One of the worst movies I've ever seen, and I'm being serious.

I was laughing through half of it, sleeping through the other half. Two hours...are you kidding me? It was just an orgy of every horror cliche in the book. Nothing happened for the first hour and a half of the movie, and too much happened in the last half-hour. I audibly groaned every time the movie switched to Chris' point-of-view. And then I audibly groaned again when it switched back to Rose.

Because really, I didn't give a shit about anyone in that movie. The janitor in the bathroom stall was more fleshed-out as a character than anybody else.

And whoever was in charge of royally fucking-up Akira Yamaoka's music can go straight to hell. I thought, "Well, at least the music for this movie is going to be pretty sweet." And then not even that is executed correctly. Adding all these little effects to his songs that only serve to make them more melo-dramatic and cheesy.

To quote Cybil, "What the fuck is wrong with you people?" Roger Ebert was right, this movie blows. This movie almost made me want to distance myself from the whole Silent Hill universe. I was embarassed to be a fan of this series, if only for a night. I spent the whole night basically saying, "Well, I'm not really big into Silent Hill all that much. I just own a couple of the games. Don't really play them all that much."

Don't they have meetings? Don't these movie people get together and look at the storyboards and assess the direction of the project? Because when I'm writing something for a project, sometimes I throw away entire pages and do them over because they suck.

I swear, man.


I must say, I'm always surprised when I see people who don't like the Silent Hill Movie this much, while granted I do think it wasn't the most amazing movie ever, it was alright, and in comparison to a lot of horror films that we get now a days it was great.

To DamienPales, I think you should try watching the film again by yourself, because you say you spent most of the film laughing/sleeping. In my own experiences I have done just that with The Grudge, not the best example of a film I know, (I went to see it in the cinema with my two brothers), however when I rewatched the film without the distractions from the people around me I could appreciate it for what it was and actually found it quite 'good'.

Without meaning to sound arsey here, when did a two hour long movie become too long? (I am assuming that you were complaing it was too long and not too short) :S

I didn't mind the scenes with Chris, sure, they could possibly have been left out, but it helped to portray that there were seperate worlds and not just that the whole town had changed into some nightmare world that anyone could walk into.

Also, the comment about the Janitor being the most fleshed out character isn't true, since the fact that all we get hinted at about the Janitor is that:
[spoiler]he sexually abused Alessa[/spoiler]
Now that right there seems like some fleshing out of 'the victims' character, plus 'the victim' then gets the rest of the movie about them too. :S

Akiras music wasn't used to the best effect, I do however like the changes that were made to the compositions, since all that was done was that the synthesised strings were replaced by real ones. (Ignoring You're Not Here at the end which sounded weird, lol)

Finally, don't disown one of the best computer game series' in the world just because your friends/you thought the film was lame! :P Like I say, try watching it again it might grow on you.

P.S. I know nothing about this journalist dude :P and this isn't meant to be a rant at you Damien, I just thought your post was the best post to reply to and share my opinions with in the thread.

_________________
My supply fell through...


Top
   
 

Subway Guard
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 12 May 2008
Notes left: 1683
Last seen at: Houston, Tx.
Actually, Silent Hill was almost 2 1/2 hours long, so Damien's right about it being overly long for the typical movie. Sadly, that's directly connected to the sexism of the studio- Chris wasn't supposed to be in the movie except at the beginning and the end, until the studio said they wouldn't run a film with all female characters.


Top
   
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 266 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 14  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: