Roger Ebert: Idiot
I used to have a certian amount of respect for Roger Ebert. Although I disagree with lot of his reviews, I suddenly feel that he may be one of the worst movie crtiics ever, after seeing.......
THIS!
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060615/REVIEWS/60606005/1023
Re: Roger Ebert: Idiot
Finally...I thought I was the only one, his reviews are becoming irrational and senseless. Roeper's walking along the same line as well.
I believe this individual wrapped it for me rather nicely:
Ebert and Roeper Shouldn't be Allowed to Rate Comic Book Movies Anymore
I'm used to Roeper showcasing his complete lack of knowledge and smarmy ignorance. Why, I recall him scoffing at the Fast and the Furious because they had those wacky nitrous oxide buttons on their cars, as if said technology doesn't exist. I remember him saying this on the Tonight Show, where Jay Leno informed him he owned three cars that possess that very feature.
However, I am NOT used to Ebert matching Roeper comment for comment in a stupefying Idiot Battle. Every dumbass comment that Roper made, Ebert would beat it with one of his own. I think maybe the diet he's on has sucked vital matter from his brain. Let's take a look at some of the reasons they disliked the Fantastic 4 movie.
"The Thing is too similar to the Hulk."
Well, both are big and strong and misunderstood, I'll grant that. But the Thing retains his intelligence and is a lovable, blue-collar type of hero, where the Hulk gets angry and smashes things until he gets sad or tired, presumably because whenever he looks down he realizes that Bruce Banner has been dressing him in purple pants. Their powers are similar but their characters are very different. Making this comparison is about as fair as saying Wonder Woman is too much like Superman.
"The Human Torch is like the Flash."
...Uh...what?? The Human Torch lights on fire, flies, and burns things. The Flash runs really, really fast. I'm not an accredited movie critic - I'm just a simple caveman -- but I fail to see the connection in any way on this one.
"The Thing is not to be confused with Swamp Thing; he's kind of like a dry, weathered Swamp Thing."
First, how the hell do you even know who Swamp Thing is, fatboy? Second, the Swamp Thing is a talking plant. You would be more likely to confuse Swamp Thing with Treebeard, for God's sake. Just because the word "thing" is in their names doesn't make them blood brothers.
"The Invisible Woman is sort of like Storm from the X-Men."
Oh sweet ****ing ****. Are you autistic?? Just because the Invisible Woman's given name is Susan Storm does NOT negate the fact that she is a white woman who can make invisible force fields and Storm is a claustrophobic black woman who controls the weather. Invisible kracka = claustrophobe darky? No. Does not compute.
"Mr. Fantastic is kind of like The Incredibles."
I'm sure what you meant to say, Roger I-get-paid-to-spout-nonsensical-tripe-on-tha-teevee Ebert, is that Mr. Fantastic is similar to Elastigirl from The Incredibles. Okay, that's very true in terms of their powers. But let's not forget that the Fantastic 4 was created in 1961, and that The Incredibles are either an homage or a ripoff of the FF comic book, depending on how you look at it.
Roeper: "Dr. Doom is kind of like the second cousin of the Silver Surfer."
What the f*ck is wrong with you?? DUURRRRR!!
Originally posted by Rapscallion
can someone really be an idiot because of their opinions??
I didn't say Ebert was, but if the shoe fits...
Point is he's suppose to be a world-renowned critic who has been reviewing films for the past 40 years, with that said he should know better than to say these foolish things (Roeper as well).
Originally posted by Rapscallion
can someone really be an idiot because of their opinions?? (with the exception of racism adn stuff)
Example, if I were to say that I didn't like Ferris Bueller's Day Off because there aren't enough explosions, I would be an idiot.
If I were to say that I hated FF because the Human Torch said, "Flame on" too many times, I would be an idiot, as he only said it once.
And that review is stupid. Is he so bored of reviewing movies that he has to speak as a character in the movie now?
Originally posted by Wolfie
Yes, they can, if their opinion is based on untrue material.Example, if I were to say that I didn't like Ferris Bueller's Day Off because there aren't enough explosions, I would be an idiot.
If I were to say that I hated FF because the Human Torch said, "Flame on" too many times, I would be an idiot, as he only said it once.
And that review is stupid. Is he so bored of reviewing movies that he has to speak as a character in the movie now?
Exactly, well said Wolfie. 🙂
There's really no excuse for Ebert & Roeper.
Ebert: "Spidey soars too quickly through the skies of Manhattan."
"Spidey swoops from great heights to street level and soars back up among the skyscrapers again with such dizzying speed that it seems less like a stunt than like a fast-forward version of a stunt."
Apparently he forgets Spider-Man can swing up to 100 MPH. 😉
Critics are going mad these days, we all heard what Siegel did during the showing of Clerks 2 where he cursed & screamed then left half showing and now Ebert is speaking as Garfield. 😕
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Yeah, I totally agree, plus Ebert gave Superman a shit review.
There's a difference between a bad review and one you just don't agree with. I read a review of Saw in an Us Magazine (I believe it was Us, it was some girly mag). The critic gave it two stars and said it was bad because it was too gory and gross. That is a bad review. A review of Garfield 2 that speaks in the first person of Garfield is a bad review. A review of Superman that says his acting is unconvincing is a good review, though you may not agree with it.
Originally posted by Wolfie
Yes, they can, if their opinion is based on untrue material.Example, if I were to say that I didn't like Ferris Bueller's Day Off because there aren't enough explosions, I would be an idiot.
If I were to say that I hated FF because the Human Torch said, "Flame on" too many times, I would be an idiot, as he only said it once.
And that review is stupid. Is he so bored of reviewing movies that he has to speak as a character in the movie now?
i see your point
Originally posted by TheFilmProphet
Exactly, well said Wolfie. 🙂There's really no excuse for Ebert & Roeper.
Ebert: "Spidey soars too quickly through the skies of Manhattan."
"Spidey swoops from great heights to street level and soars back up among the skyscrapers again with such dizzying speed that it seems less like a stunt than like a fast-forward version of a stunt."
Apparently he forgets Spider-Man can swing up to 100 MPH. 😉
Critics are going mad these days, we all heard what Siegel did during the showing of Clerks 2 where he cursed & screamed then left half showing and now Ebert is speaking as Garfield. 😕
what happened at the showing of Clerks 2?
Originally posted by Wolfie
Was it a shit review or did you just disagree with it?There's a difference between a bad review and one you just don't agree with. I read a review of Saw in an Us Magazine (I believe it was Us, it was some girly mag). The critic gave it two stars and said it was bad because it was too gory and gross. That is a bad review. A review of Garfield 2 that speaks in the first person of Garfield is a bad review. A review of Superman that says his acting is unconvincing is a good review, though you may not agree with it.
I won't say, but let's just judge for ourselves here.
As for Superman, he's a one-trick pony. To paraphrase Archimedes: "Give me a lever and a place to stand, and I will move the universe." Superman doesn't need the lever or the place to stand, but as he positions himself in flight, straining to lift an airplane or a vast chunk or rock, we reflect that these activities aren't nearly as cinematic as what Batman and Spider-Man get up to. Watching Superman straining to hold a giant airliner, I'm wondering: Why does he strain? Does he have his limits? Would that new Airbus be too much for him? What about if he could stand somewhere?
Superman is vulnerable to one, and only one, substance: kryptonite. He knows this. We know this. Lex Luthor knows this. Yet he has been disabled by kryptonite in every one of the movies. Does he think Lex Luthor would pull another stunt without a supply on hand? Why doesn't he take the most elementary precautions? How can a middle-aged bald man stab the Man of Steel with kryptonite?
It would have been fun to give Superman a bright, sassy child, like one of the Spy Kids, and make him a part of the plot.
Originally posted by tabby999
what happened at the showing of Clerks 2?
I'll let you listen to what happened,
http://viewaskew.com/news/jul06/joel.mp3
Originally posted by TheFilmProphet
I won't say, but let's just judge for ourselves here.As for Superman, he's a one-trick pony. To paraphrase Archimedes: "Give me a lever and a place to stand, and I will move the universe." Superman doesn't need the lever or the place to stand, but as he positions himself in flight, straining to lift an airplane or a vast chunk or rock, we reflect that these activities aren't nearly as cinematic as what Batman and Spider-Man get up to. Watching Superman straining to hold a giant airliner, I'm wondering: Why does he strain? Does he have his limits? Would that new Airbus be too much for him? What about if he could stand somewhere?
Superman is vulnerable to one, and only one, substance: kryptonite. He knows this. We know this. Lex Luthor knows this. Yet he has been disabled by kryptonite in every one of the movies. Does he think Lex Luthor would pull another stunt without a supply on hand? Why doesn't he take the most elementary precautions? How can a middle-aged bald man stab the Man of Steel with kryptonite?
It would have been fun to give Superman a bright, sassy child, like one of the Spy Kids, and make him a part of the plot.
Is Ebert saying that he thinks that the kid in Superman Returns should be the kid from Spy Kids?!?! eer
Heck the kid was bad enough!
Does Ebert know anything about Superman?!? In his own review he contradicts himself.
I think he was criticizing the way Superman was portrayed in the film, not the actual character in the comic books. I think he is sorta of right.
My take is that an movie critic is to review movies, not source material. If he didnt like the movie because of the action scenes doesnt mean he's an idiot because he doesnt know Spider-Man's exact speed while flying the air. It means that the scene didnt work for him in the movie. And that's what his job is, to review the movie. Can you expect Ebert to know everything about anything when he reviews movies?
If