Profile
Search
Register
Log in
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Hall of Fame

Author Message
vintge
is vintge vince? vince vintge vincge?


Joined: 17 Jul 2002
Posts: 4333
Location: LA
 Reply with quote  

hugh grants hooker wrote:
vintge wrote:

this is so dumb dude. what, you have to watch a movie once make an opinion on it and set it in stone.

i mean do you realize how stupid this idea is.



whats his job again? haha


okay, so if a plumber comes to work on your house and he fucks it up and leaves leaks and shit... he can just come back later and do it again. and thats okay with you? hell no. he fucked it up.

his job is to see a movie and set his opinion in stone by stating it in a paper or on tv. so yes, thats what i expect of him.



first of all we are talking film and you pull a reference to plummers its like "apples and oranges" or moreso like kevin smith says "apples and blowjobs"

sorry i have no right arguiing with you, ill admit ive made mistakes before, by your logic you must not have made one single mistake in your whole fucking life.

yeah
Post Wed Aug 06, 2003 7:08 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Soul Khansenses



Joined: 12 Aug 2002
Posts: 2110
 Reply with quote  

"I saw it sitting in the front row of the balcony of the Oriental Theatre, whose vast wide screen was ideal for Leone's operatic compositions. I responded strongly, but had been a movie critic less than a year, and did not always have the wisdom to value instinct over prudence. Looking up my old review, I see I described a four-star movie but only gave it three stars, perhaps because it was a "spaghetti Western" and so could not be art. "

He concedes that his initial opinion was due to hasty judgment and inexperience. How egotistical.

You aren't much of a thinking or reading man are you?
Post Wed Aug 06, 2003 7:37 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Dee



Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7872
 Reply with quote  




Soul. Vintage. Join me, before it is too late.
Post Wed Aug 06, 2003 7:40 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Soul Khansenses



Joined: 12 Aug 2002
Posts: 2110
 Reply with quote  

djdee2005 wrote:



Soul. Vintage. Join me, before it is too late.


Hit me with a life preserver.
Post Wed Aug 06, 2003 7:49 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
hugh grants hooker
Guest




Re: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly  Reply with quote  

djdee2005 wrote:

I saw it sitting in the front row of the balcony of the Oriental Theatre, whose vast wide screen was ideal for Leone's operatic compositions. I responded strongly, but had been a movie critic less than a year, and did not always have the wisdom to value instinct over prudence. Looking up my old review, I see I described a four-star movie but only gave it three stars, perhaps because it was a "spaghetti Western" and so could not be art.



okay, khan.

i'll use the same part you quoted. its all in the fuckin wording.

note that rather than just saying 'i'm a terrible critic and i fucked up before', he chooses to state that he now has 'wisdom'. rather than draw attention to the past mistakes, he's trying to focus on the 'slight of hand' style attempt at correction.

i think since you dont know how to note small things like this, it makes you the one who's not much of reading or thinking man.
Post Wed Aug 06, 2003 8:49 pm
 
Jesse



Joined: 02 Jul 2002
Posts: 6166
Location: privileged homeless
 Reply with quote  

Ebert is an excellent reviewer, in my opinion, and the reason I think so is not because he always has the correct opinion or comprehension of a film. It's because when I read his reviews, I tend to get an idea of whether I would like the film. I tend to feel he's too forgiving - he likes almost everything I've ever read his review of - but I don't read reviews to find out whether someone likes a movie. I read them to help influence my decision of how to spend MY time.

Now as for critics going back and changing their minds, I think it's perfectly understandable and I think HGH is completely out of his mind to suggest that they should get it right the first time. Who gives a shit if they do or not? They're fucking movie critics, the efficient and meticulous execution of their job isn't really vital to our survival. However, I've seen some pretty obvious face-saving moves here and there... Heathers is a good example. As long as I've been hearing of that film, I've heard how amazing it was, how it's so many people's favourite film, how it so deftly satirizes this and expresses that... and imagine my surprise when I saw it, and it's with out a doubt ground zero the worst fucking movie I've ever seen in my life! Then I do a bit of research and find out that PRACTICALLY EVERY CRITIC IN THE WORLD panned it when it came out... until one dissenting (trendy) voice sung its praises... then public sentiment turns around... and ten years later, on the DVD reissue... everyone's lining up to kiss its ass. Fuck that.

Sergio Leone movies do rule, though, so this isn't like that.
Post Wed Aug 06, 2003 10:55 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19356
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

word jesse. I don't agree with Ebert's reviews most of the time. And I do notice some factual errors here and there, after I've seen a movie. However, when I want to decide on a movie I generally check for ebert's review, because I can tell whether it's a movie I might like or not, based on his reviews, not whether he likes them or not, just what he says about the movies.

I think he does a pretty good job of telling you the gist of what you can expect without giving too much away. His opinion is his opinion, but he does do a good job of helping me make an informed decision, for the most part.
Post Wed Aug 06, 2003 11:02 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
hugh grants hooker
Guest




 Reply with quote  

i like to judge based on plot, writers, actors, and director... but to each his own.

and yes he should get it 'right' the first time.
however i dont want to call it 'right', as you did.

i just think he should go back years later and suddenly have a completely different opinion of it. to me, it means one of two things, either he didnt pay attention the first time (which means he didnt do his job), or he is doing this just to agree with the public.
Post Wed Aug 06, 2003 11:45 pm
 
duke_city



Joined: 05 Jul 2002
Posts: 3208
Location: San Diego,CA
 Reply with quote  

Whats up with going to see movies based off of reviews anyway?

What happened to looking at the title, actors, and director and finding out for yourself?

This may however confirm my theory that half the kids on this board rarely even go to the movies, they would rather rent the DVD based on an e-review then go on the internet and talk about it.

Brian
Post Thu Aug 07, 2003 12:00 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Soul Khansenses



Joined: 12 Aug 2002
Posts: 2110
Re: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly  Reply with quote  

hugh grants hooker wrote:
djdee2005 wrote:

I saw it sitting in the front row of the balcony of the Oriental Theatre, whose vast wide screen was ideal for Leone's operatic compositions. I responded strongly, but had been a movie critic less than a year, and did not always have the wisdom to value instinct over prudence. Looking up my old review, I see I described a four-star movie but only gave it three stars, perhaps because it was a "spaghetti Western" and so could not be art.



okay, khan.

i'll use the same part you quoted. its all in the fuckin wording.

note that rather than just saying 'i'm a terrible critic and i fucked up before', he chooses to state that he now has 'wisdom'. rather than draw attention to the past mistakes, he's trying to focus on the 'slight of hand' style attempt at correction.

i think since you dont know how to note small things like this, it makes you the one who's not much of reading or thinking man.


No, tard, one ought to be able to imply that he lacked sufficient expertise then, otherwise he or she shouldn't be reading something that isn't explicit to the point of absurdity. And by saying that he now has wisdom isn't anything more than him stating that he knows shit. That isn't egotism, it's an honest assessment of his understanding of film. He didn't write, "Before I became the cinematic sage I am today, I was just a young pup, far from the genius of film you regularly worship on television and in print." You were bound to misread the tone when you were so bent on proving your point that you imposed your idea of what the writer's trying to imply.

And no, you must not not understand: I am the thinking and reading man.
Post Thu Aug 07, 2003 3:12 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
TILTEDmurder



Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 427
Location: San Jose, Cali
 Reply with quote  

ebert is a fucking idiot.

that's just the way it is.

most critics are. not all, but most.

i perfer going to see a movie, then deciding for myself.
Post Thu Aug 07, 2003 5:15 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Jesse



Joined: 02 Jul 2002
Posts: 6166
Location: privileged homeless
 Reply with quote  

hugh grants hooker wrote:
i like to judge based on plot, writers, actors, and director... but to each his own.


No-one said anything about "judging" a film based upon a review. I use reviews to help me decide what to SEE. I can't watch every frigging movie that comes out, as much as I'd like to.


Quote:

and yes he should get it 'right' the first time.
however i dont want to call it 'right', as you did.

i just think he should go back years later and suddenly have a completely different opinion of it. to me, it means one of two things, either he didnt pay attention the first time (which means he didnt do his job), or he is doing this just to agree with the public.


(1) That didn't happen AT ALL with the film in question. He reviewed it positively to begin with, but in hindsight doesn't feel he reviewed it positively enough. His explanation is perfectly plausible.

(2) Who gives a shit what he does? He's a movie critic! He could hang himself in a kindergarten playground and you'd make less of a fuss about it!

[quote="dallasbboy"Whats up with going to see movies based off of reviews anyway?

What happened to looking at the title, actors, and director and finding out for yourself?[/quote]

Why in the world should one be held above the other? I don't care much about a film's TITLE (there's no way "Zoolander" alone indicates into "hilarious") and not much more about the actors (directors make movies and use actors to do it, that's all), but that's my personal priorities. You say that like "man, things these days are messed up. when *I* went to movies, we chose them on REAL criteria, not this sissy critic stuff!" and that's weird.


Quote:

This may however confirm my theory that half the kids on this board rarely even go to the movies


I do rarely go out to the movies, except during the annual film festival. Basically I don't have that much money to burn and I fucking hate the way audiences behave in theaters. My TV's big enough that I can live with that.
Post Thu Aug 07, 2003 5:18 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
hugh grants hooker
Guest




 Reply with quote  

khan - you proved me right.

you once again judged by words not tone, context, etc...

because this whole "before i was the cinematic sage i am today..." thing you wrote, thats basically what he really was saying. however if you take things at face value and dont look into them, you wouldnt notice this.

and once again vintge, you wanna bust out that quote? check who's being adult and who's trying to be offensive. as usual khan.
Post Thu Aug 07, 2003 9:36 am
 

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Thu Apr 17, 2014 12:40 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon