Roger Ebert deserves to have his throat slit.

[TrippingBalls]

Here is his review for Wolf Creek (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051222/REVIEWS/51220004/1023)

What pisses me off is not that he hates the film for bullshit reasons and can't even come up with a good argument to back himself, but then he proceeds to go ahead and insult anyone who liked the movie with this line:

"If anyone you know says this is the one they want to see, my advice is: Don't know that person no more."

Seriously, fuck him. How the fuck does he still have a job as a movie critic.

[Mr-Blonde]

Ebert is a strange little fat man. He lambastes Wolf Creek yet sung The Devil's Rejects praises. He seems to have changing standards as to what is acceptable and what is unacceptable vioplence.

For example here's a bit of his WC review:

“There is a role for violence in film, but what the hell is the purpose of this sadistic celebration of pain and cruelty?"

...and then from his Devil's Rejects review:

"Here is a gaudy vomitorium of a movie, violent, nauseating and really a pretty good example of its genre. If you are a hardened horror movie fan capable of appreciating skill and wit in the service of the deliberately disgusting, "The Devil's Rejects" may exercise a certain strange charm. "

So the excessive violence in WC has no purpose, but in DR it exudes a certain strange charm. I generally like Ebert's point-of-view but he definitely has been guilty of talking out of both sides of his mout on more than one occasion.

[The Postmaster General]

Yeah, but isn't Wolf Creek supposed to be realistic? Devil's Rejects is more camp, B-movie style, like House of a 1000 Corpses?

I haven't seen Wolf Creek, but it doesn't seem comprable to Devil's Rejects from the plot synopsis and trailers I've seen.

[slasherfan]

Originally posted by TrippingBalls

"If anyone you know says this is the one they want to see, my advice is: Don't know that person no more."


While I have no problem with Ebert stating his opinion of a movie, I really think comments like this are un needed.
Althought I think sliting his throat is just a tad bit extream reaction to the comment.

[The Postmaster General]

I think the crux of Ebert missing the point of a movie was his review for 1987's
Three O Clock High (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19871009/REVIEWS/710090303/1023)


Even if you haven't seen the movie, it's worth reading just to see how much he read into this movie, which essentially is just a silly high school flick. I mean, really - the movie is just silly and fun, and Ebert hints that the movie might be a sign of the decay of America.

Excerpt:

[Is this a warning sign of a national loss of innocence?

Hollywood teenage movies have been edging toward fascism for years. There once may have been a time when nice kids got ahead by being nice, but in today's Hollywood, muscle and brute strength count for everything.

If there is a pathological bully in the student body, no attempt is made to understand him, sympathize with him or encourage the audience in the difficult process of empathy.

The crazy part, is that Ebert seemed to of somehow - SOME HOW - missed that the whole movie was a partial homage to TWELVE O CLOCK HIGH....

Weird...

[KillaMyers]

What i don't understand is how someone can get so mad at another's opinion that they go to suggest that their throat be slit. Seriously if you like a movie very much so, but someone else depises it SO THE FUCK WHAT!! you like it they hate it end of story it's called an "opinion" everybody has one differences in this lead to "disagreement" which most of the time (with mature people that is) it is dealt with constructively not by suggesting the person should have harm come to them. Ebert thought that Wolf Creek's core was about nothing more then despair, torture, and just flat out nastiness and very little in the way of interesting characters, or a remotely compelling story soo...where's the entertainment factor? and ya know what i completely agree with him though i'd also add that the first 40mins or so were about as fuckin boring as watching paint dry and that the latter half only has maybe 2 effectively tense scenes. However his comment about "Don't know that person no more." is friggin lame, just cause i hate a movie doesn't mean i'm gonna put down someone who likes it.

[Backstabba]

Originally posted by KillaMyers
What i don't understand is how someone can get so mad at another's opinion that they go to suggest that their throat be slit. Seriously if you like a movie very much so, but someone else depises it SO THE FUCK WHAT!! you like it they hate it end of story it's called an "opinion" everybody has one differences in this lead to "disagreement" which most of the time (with mature people that is) it is dealt with constructively not by suggesting the person should have harm come to them.

I whole-heartedly agree....

Originally posted by TrippingBalls
[What pisses me off is *NOT* that he hates the film for bullshit reasons and can't even come up with a good argument to back himself, but then he proceeds to go ahead and insult anyone who liked the movie with this line:

"If anyone you know says this is the one they want to see, my advice is: Don't know that person no more."


..... :rolleyes:

But yes, Roger Ebert can get very confusing with his reviews. I know he has this whole system with acomplishments/suprisements making his number of stars...but 0 stars for "The Hitcher"...and 3 stars for "The honeymooners"...makes no sense whatsoever at all none, nada, zilch, bullshit.

[< a c e >]

Originally posted by TrippingBalls
Roger Ebert deserves to have his throat slit.

:D
No man deserves that.

Besides...If a man has to last for such a long time in this industry and become one of the most popular and respected critics...the least you can do is cut'im some slack!



Agreed! His reviews aint the cinema bible!
Agreed! He crosses the line with his comments every now and then.
Agreed! He shouldn't be making comments 'bout the people who like a certain movie.

But, he's getting old...so just let go!


It's all about subjectivity.

[AceD]

"I generally like Ebert's point-of-view but he definitely has been guilty of talking out of both sides of his mouth on more than one occasion"

True, but every film fan has done that.

"but 0 stars for "The Hitcher"...and 3 stars for "The honeymooners"...makes no sense whatsoever at all none, nada, zilch, bullshit."

.......................in your opinion. :D Which is all we are arguing about, really.

I agree that the comparasin between DEVIL'S REJECTS and WOLF CREEK is misguided. They are different movies with different styles and intentions. And I think if you read both reviews, you can understand why Ebert thinks what he does. You don't have to agree. He was offended by the violence if WOLF CREEK, and yet he praised LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT, another decadent (if less gory) horror flick that features a lot of violence against women. He can think what he thinks.

And even he has hinted at the fact that he tends to review movies a little easier since his fight with cancer. That's okay.

To wish that the man come to physical harm is childish and cruel. We all know this is the rant forum, but come up with something else.

[TrippingBalls]

You people seem to miss the point of the rant entirely. The whole point is is that he's been subjected himself to insulting a general audience of people that disagree with him. Saying stupid shit like ""If anyone you know says this is the one they want to see, my advice is: Don't know that person no more." and "you're an idiot if you like this movie" is what this rant is about. That is not being a professional critic at all. Of course he gets away with it because he's Roger Ebert.

[Mr-Blonde]

I think that the two films are entirely comprable. Rob Zombie included many scenes of torture and rape in his film to shock and disgust which is obviously the same effect that the makers of WC wanted to achieve. So if Ebert digs violence in DR and says that the film is representative of it's genre but that WC is a pointless sadistic celebration of violence and cruelty it smacks of doublespeak. Guess what Ebert? WC is ALSO A HORROR FILM! How is it any less representative of it's genre? To make a statement saying that anyone who enjoys the film is not worthy of association is just plain ignorant.

Also-- I assume that TrippingBalls throat slitting coment was purely hyperbole so everyone needs to chill out. It wouldn't be the first time that somebody exaggerated to make their point.

[aerocrystallake]

I just love how it's coming from the guy who has a glowing review of Last House on the Left posted on the back of the DVD box. Granted I haven't seen Wolf Creek yet, Last House on the Left was a disgusting, plotless film of sadism and torture. I'm glad I saw it and I feel it was an ambitious film, however it's disturbing to no end. There is no real redemption at the end of it. It is made up of mostly unpleasantness. For Ebert to love that movie and then blast a movie like Wolf Creek that sounds similar is hypocritical.

I also can't stand the whole: "My opinion on a movie is published, therefore it's more important than yours" attitude. Ebert has no right to chastize people who want to see or enjoyed this film. I can't stand the critics that try and act too intelligent for a movie in their review and I also can't stand critics who have the "it's a bad movie so you shouldn't see it and I'll save you time by describing every plot turn and spoiler" attitude.

[CMAGUS]

If you visit the ebert and roeper page and hear the review he said this film feels very realistic and devils reject felt like you were watching a movie wolf creek seemed very real

[Lost in Space]

Roger Ebert deserves to have his throat slit.

ya i agree no man deserves that



except roger ebert he is a fucking scum bag
wolf creak rocked

[inglourious basterd]

Originally posted by Backstabba
II know he has this whole system with acomplishments/suprisements making his number of stars...but 0 stars for "The Hitcher"...and 3 stars for "The honeymooners"...makes no sense whatsoever at all none, nada, zilch, bullshit.

Its very simple. He moderately liked the Honeymooners. He strongly disliked Hitcher.

What can you do? If the man dislikes the film, then he dislikes the film.

The best thing we can do is to actually read whether or not we agree with WHY he likes/hates a film and go from there. Believe it or not, he is rather good at explaining what he likes and dislikes. That is his job. If you disagree with his reasoning often, then you shouldn't listen what he has to say.

Even as someone who loves to read Ebert's opinion, I can honestly say that he has gotten it wrong before. Just like many of us have done that as well. When you miss the point of the film, it can often result in hating a film strongly. And missing the point of the film could happen for large variation of reasons including demographic, personal life, personal tastes, and mood.

[someguy]

To all those saying how nobody should get their throat slit, I THINK there might have been a little exaggeration in what he said.

As for the comments Ebert made, this review hits the nail on the head

An additional note on the film’s violence is in order, especially in light of Roger Ebert’s outrageous suggestion that this film has crossed some arbitrary line of decency. Sacking the film with his worst possible rating -- “Zero Stars” -- he wrote, “There is a role for violence in film, but what the hell is the purpose of this sadistic celebration of pain and cruelty? The theaters are crowded right now with wonderful, thrilling, funny, warm-hearted, dramatic, artistic, inspiring, entertaining movies. If anyone you know says this is the one they want to see, my advice is: Don't know that person no more.” This prim and proper analysis comes, of course, in the same week that he generously donated three fucking stars to Cheaper by the Dozen’s deplorable sequel, a review that was more about Roger’s pathetic youth of striking virginity than any real critical analysis. He fell for pandering, mindless, unholy garbage that might excite half-wits in red states, yet stood firm in sanctimonious judgment when confronted with a film that, at the very least, honestly declared its limited intentions from the outset. Three kids take a trip, have car trouble, are “rescued” by a sick killer, while two of the poor saps meet twisted, violent ends. Of course there’s no reason the film had to be made, but when has that ever been an excuse to miss a night’s entertainment? And the bloodletting is certainly no worse than anything made in recent years, and I’ve seen far more vile trash in my day. For him to punish this particular movie, then, seems a bit odd. So a screaming chick has her spine severed with a knife. And? So a good samaritan is shot through the eye, causing brain matter and blood to splatter a windshield? Your point is? Roger, you forgive film after film with mutilations, eviscerations, beheadings, tortures, and organ removal, yet this one pushed you to the exits? I agree that violence is best served by insight, humanity, and empathy, but it need not always be so. This is escapism; this is bullshit. Lighten up.

http://ruthlessreviews.com/movies/w/wolfcreek.html

[AceD]

" This prim and proper analysis comes, of course, in the same week that he generously donated three fucking stars to Cheaper by the Dozen’s deplorable sequel, a review that was more about Roger’s pathetic youth of striking virginity than any real critical analysis. He fell for pandering, mindless, unholy garbage that might excite half-wits in red states, yet stood firm in sanctimonious judgment when confronted with a film that, at the very least, honestly declared its limited intentions from the outset"

Don't both movies declare their limited intentions at the outset? That whole set of statemnets, throwing in "Roger's pathetic youth of striking virginity" and "half-wits in red states," shows that that reviewer is a much bigger idiot than Roger Ebert will ever be.

[AngelDust06]

Originally posted by KillaMyers
What i don't understand is how someone can get so mad at another's opinion that they go to suggest that their throat be slit. Seriously if you like a movie very much so, but someone else depises it SO THE FUCK WHAT!! you like it they hate it end of story it's called an "opinion" everybody has one differences in this lead to "disagreement" which most of the time (with mature people that is) it is dealt with constructively not by suggesting the person should have harm come to them.

I agree....Ebert is just a man with an opinion and certain likeing for certain films. Even though I disagree with him about 85% ( and not just on the movie rating but just for his points) I respect him as a critic because he holds on strongly to his opinions.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by KillaMyers
What i don't understand is how someone can get so mad at another's opinion that they go to suggest that their throat be slit. Seriously if you like a movie very much so, but someone else depises it SO THE FUCK WHAT!! you like it they hate it end of story it's called an "opinion" everybody has one differences in this lead to "disagreement" which most of the time (with mature people that is) it is dealt with constructively not by suggesting the person should have harm come to them.

Well said. Been saying that for years. I also don't understand why people seem to think that since they liked the movie, EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD should like it as much as they did. There have been discussions on this subject on this site before - the most recent was regarding Crash.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
I think that the two films are entirely comprable. Rob Zombie included many scenes of torture and rape in his film to shock and disgust which is obviously the same effect that the makers of WC wanted to achieve. So if Ebert digs violence in DR and says that the film is representative of it's genre but that WC is a pointless sadistic celebration of violence and cruelty it smacks of doublespeak. Guess what Ebert? WC is ALSO A HORROR FILM! How is it any less representative of it's genre?


The similarities between Devils Rejects and Wolf Creek is like the similarities between Annie Hall and Happy Gilmore.

I suppose that you think it would be fair to compare Kill Bill and 3 Ninjas: High Noon at Mega Mountain, since they were both action/martial arts films, with excessive fights.

Or myabe The Shining and Evil Dead 2 - two horror movies where the lead character in runs around a single setting, going crazy.

Hey - how about Porkys and Rushmore - two comedies about boys in school!?

A Hard Days Night and Pink Floyd The Wall - two musicals based off a bands album, maybe you would like Ebert to compare these movies.

Oh, Mystery Men and Batman Begins - two comic book adaptations, faithful to their source!



Just because Wolf Creek and Devils Rejects have some similarities, even the same genre, doesn't mean they should be compared. As I stated before, it's obvious that Wolf Creek is attempting realism, and Devil's Rejects is a throwback homage to 70s slasher B-films.

[RustyRazor]

So to sum up:

No one deserves to have their throat slit.
You either like Wolf Creek or you don't, to each his own.
Roger Ebert is a big, cranky old bastard who is a "critic", which means he's bound to be critical.

(He liked the Honeymooners? Nurse, check that man's medication!)

Well, until Rex Reed pays another visit to my book store...excuse me for a minute? Rex, put that book back! Which one?! The one under your coat! Damn these movie critics! Call the cops!


end scene.

[domoarigato]

I just relistened to this week's Ebert & Roeper podcast with their thumbs-down review of Wolf Creek, and here's what Ebert says on the difference between Wolf Creek and Devil's Rejects, in the best way I can transcribe it:

"I think any reasonable person looking at Devil's Rejects sees a film. A film with a purpose, with performances, with a patted behind (I'm sure that's what he said), with artistry in it. It's a horror film. Horror films are okay. Even violent horror films are okay. Wolf Creek is not in that category. You can tell. I mean, there's just kind of... I have a meter, and at one point there in this movie, I just said, 'Why am I here?'"

Now, with this comment, it'll either calm down the debate or add more fuel to it. Either way, my mother, sister and brother really want to see Wolf Creek, and I know that I still love them the same for wanting to see it. No matter how their opinion of the film differs from or matches up with mine once we see it, I'll still love them. Ebert has an opinion, and I don't agree with it a lot of times, but it's an opinion. Whether I agree with or not, that's my opinion, and that to me is just the circle of life.

[Psychocandy]

I only have one thing to say.

NO!!! He doesn't deserve to have his throat slit for giving a movie a bad review. It's his opinion and he's entitled to it. I don't think i'll agree with him. I think i'll like Wolf Creek. And nothing any critic could ever say would negatively impact the possibility of that being the case.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
The similarities between Devils Rejects and Wolf Creek is like the similarities between Annie Hall and Happy Gilmore.

Just because Wolf Creek and Devils Rejects have some similarities, even the same genre, doesn't mean they should be compared. As I stated before, it's obvious that Wolf Creek is attempting realism, and Devil's Rejects is a throwback homage to 70s slasher B-films.

I hear you there but I guess what I'm trying to say what's good for the goose is also good for the gander. If a throwback homage to 70's B-flicks can present such racy content with nary a protest from the guy it shouldn't cause him to label anyone who enjoys Wolf Creek as a pyscho or whatever Ebert is trying to imply.

[TrippingBalls]

I'm going to go ahead and repeat myself by saying you people still misunderstood my rant. You're right, it is his opinion. I could care less if he hated Wolf Creek or not. That's not the point of this rant.

What I am ranting about is him making cheap potshots at those who disagree with him just like you people are accusing me of blasting him for his opinion. Saying stupid shit which could be summed up as "Dont' become friends with people who like this movie.", or "you're an idiot if you like this movie" is very unprofessional and very arrogant and pompous. This is what this rant is about, him insulting people for liking Wolf Creek or any other horror movie he hated. Ebert is the one who needs to respect people's opinions, not the horror fans.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by TrippingBalls
What I am ranting about is him making cheap potshots at those who disagree with him just like you people are accusing me of blasting him for his opinion. Saying stupid shit which could be summed up as "Dont' become friends with people who like this movie.", or "you're an idiot if you like this movie" is very unprofessional and very arrogant and pompous. This is what this rant is about, him insulting people for liking Wolf Creek or any other horror movie he hated. Ebert is the one who needs to respect people's opinions, not the horror fans.

I see what you're saying and I agree. He doesn't really say why he didn't like the movie other than it's extremely violent against women. Isn't that the point of horror movies - not the "against women" part - but to shock and scare the bejeezus out of people. And why the hell does he quote other reviewers? If I wanted other reviewers' opinions, I would've gone looking for other critiques.

Plus, I never put much stock in Roger Ebert or other reviewers. They seem to review movies as so called "experts," instead of movie fans. One of the reasons I like this website.

[Mr.HyDe807]

I guess im gonna be the most nlikeable person in my town since i saw and like Wolf Creek!:D

Its his opinion, and thats fine, but he cant bash people who like it, thats just mean.:mad:

[AWP82]

Man, you guys are killing me with the whole "opinion" speech over and over again. YES, WE GET IT. Everyone has an opinion (including Ebert/TrippingBalls), everyone is entitled to their opinion (including Ebert/TrippingBalls), and no one deserves to be blasted for their opinion (including Ebert/TrippingBalls). I think it's safe to say that, in this case, both parties are even. So please, everyone, LIGHTEN UP. Gosh! lol

It should be obvious that TrippingBalls throat slitting comment was simply exaggeration for the dramatic purposes of his rant, and most likely not to be taken so seriously. Give the guy a break, will ya?

This back and forth "opinion" thing is moot and will get no one anywhere. Some folks liked Wolf Creek, some didn't, some folks like Ebert, some don't. We ALL have opinions, we ALL talk shit, EVERYONE disagrees, and we ALL gotta vent sometimes when that happens. Big frickin' deal! It's nothing to get all bent outta shape about.

Besides, if Ebert gets to insult anyone who would disagree with his review, why shouldn't anyone who felt insulted (by the insult) get to blow off some steam? As far as I can tell, that's all that happened here.

Sorry, I just had to vent...and remember, it's my opinion. You all have yours, I have mine. So there! :D

EDIT: As for the review itself, I don't agree with it, even though I have mixed feelings about Wolf Creek (posted elsewhere on this site). I do also think that Ebert talks out of both sides of his mouth sometimes. A movie is a movie is a movie. In my opinion, no violence except REAL violence crosses the line. As long as it's all simulated, I don't mind.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
I hear you there but I guess what I'm trying to say what's good for the goose is also good for the gander. If a throwback homage to 70's B-flicks can present such racy content with nary a protest from the guy it shouldn't cause him to label anyone who enjoys Wolf Creek as a pyscho or whatever Ebert is trying to imply.

Yeah, I know, but I think a tongue-in-cheek factor can go along way. There is stuff in Troma Films that would be totally out of line and get the film closed down if, say, Martin Scorcese did them.

Don't worry though - even though I respect Ebert's opinion, like I was saying about his Three O Clock High review, sometimes he just weirds me out.

[Backstabba]

Originally posted by CMAGUS
If you visit the ebert and roeper page and hear the review he said this film feels very realistic and devils reject felt like you were watching a movie wolf creek seemed very real

Which is exactly why he liked "Henry: Portrait of a serial killer" which was filmed in a documentary style (as described by the director)...?

....If we keep asking questions like this, eventually his head will explode...

.....I don't know if anyone deserves that either...

And I might have judged his opinion, but hey...just something that made me feel...dissapointed in Mr. Ebert.

[KcMsterpce]

I don't read Ebert's reviews.

That way, I don't get annoyed with him.

[NightStalkerGtx]

He said the violence in Wolf Creek was mean spirited... What the fuck was it supposed to be done with a smile on the killers face and a nice christmas carol? If so I think the Devils Rejects was mean spirited... Was it? :confused:

[Backstabba]

Originally posted by NightStalkerGtx
If so I think the Devils Rejects was mean spirited... Was it? :confused:

Well....The Devils Rejects...had like a family message...so....yeah...thats technically...good-spirited...?

[The Heart Collector]

Originally posted by Lost in Space


ya i agree no man deserves that



except roger ebert he is a fucking scum bag
wolf creak rocked [/QUOTE]


hahaha this post was fucking awesome.

[The Heart Collector]

i bet ebert gives a positive review to HOSTEL

[CMAGUS]

The fact that he gave it a low score shouldn't surprise you at all.Ebert normally doesn't review to kindly towards horror films.He also gave Texas chainsaw remake a zero when it was much better than that.Anything that is really violent he rarely is kind too.Devils rejects was well written and it was rather tame compared to most horror films that's probably why he liked it alot if the story had been shit and it had been filled with alot more gore he probably would of dumped on it

[Lazy Boy]

May
Halloween

Two horror movies to which Ebert gave four stars and raves.

He does like horror films, just not crappy ones like Wolf Creek.

[ilovemovies]

He also loved The Blair Witch Project and Open Water, which I would argue are the two best horror movies in recent years.

[Backstabba]

Originally posted by ilovemovies
He also loved The Blair Witch Project and Open Water, which I would argue are the two best horror movies in recent years.

But you probably wouldn't win...
....
Hello, I am the comic relief for this thread...
Im not that good because im not paid alot....

But like I said before, Ebert isn't really a asshole, he just has a confusing rating system.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by AWP82
It should be obvious that TrippingBalls throat slitting comment was simply exaggeration for the dramatic purposes of his rant, and most likely not to be taken so seriously.

I'd imagine the same could be said for Ebert's comment about not being friends with people who like this movie.

Besides, if Ebert gets to insult anyone who would disagree with his review, why shouldn't anyone who felt insulted (by the insult) get to blow off some steam?

It's one thing to complain about Ebert's hyperbole, but it's a bit hypocritical to use hyperbole to do it. It's like saying "I hate people who advocate violence; I think they should all be shot." It's just stupid; unless he's being intentionally ironic, which I very seriously doubt.

[KcMsterpce]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
It's one thing to complain about Ebert's hyperbole, but it's a bit hypocritical to use hyperbole to do it. It's like saying "I hate people who advocate violence; I think they should all be shot." It's just stupid; unless he's being intentionally ironic, which I very seriously doubt.

What's a hyperbowl? Sounds awesome! There was this one time, a friend of mine had this killer - whaddaya call it? - 'HYPO-critical" shite, and put it in this super, ten foot hyperbowl, and MAN that shit was smooth! :D

Sorry... sort of.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by KcMsterpce
[B]What's a hyperbowl?

Isn't the Hyperbowl in January?

[someguy]

Ebert was exaggerating in his 'know them no more' statement in his review. I didn't take it as him being seriously when I first read it.

About his review, this quote from it pretty much explains why he hated it.

"Wolf Creek" is more like the guy at the carnival sideshow who bites off chicken heads. No fun for us, no fun for the guy, no fun for the chicken. In the case of this film, it's fun for the guy."

He had no enjoyment out of it, it just disgusted him. Obviously he felt differently about The Devil's Rejects since he found something to like in it.

[blk_flower]

I do like his reviews more than peter travvers from rolling stone. I do hate films like wolf's creek, the texas chainsaw massacre already did it for me.

[AWP82]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
I'd imagine the same could be said for Ebert's comment about not being friends with people who like this movie.



It's one thing to complain about Ebert's hyperbole, but it's a bit hypocritical to use hyperbole to do it. It's like saying "I hate people who advocate violence; I think they should all be shot." It's just stupid; unless he's being intentionally ironic, which I very seriously doubt.

OK man, fine...whatever. But don't look at me. I wasn't the one freaking out over anyone's hyperbole. THEY were all freaking out and arguing endlessly over "opinions" and such, so all I meant to do was diffuse that. Personally, neither Ebert or TrippingBalls comments bothered me. Like I said, they're both even, so it's all moot.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by AWP82
Like I said, they're both even, so it's all moot.

My point is that they aren't even. They both used hyperbole, but TB is the one who used hyperbole to rant about hyperbole. So while neither comment was all that big of a deal, TB's comment was hypocritical, while Ebert's wasn't.

[AWP82]

Gotcha.

[Sheriff Wydell]

No he doesn't, he's just stating his own opinion on each film. But insulting the viewer of Wolf Creek was not needed at all. That's the real problem. I can insult Ebert for giving pathetic ratings to crappy films.

The thing about Ebert is, now he gives good ratings to films that have major studios backing them. A long time ago he gave the best reviews, in the '90's his reviews were fair, now they're just pathetic. Didn't Ebert say that Full Metal Jacket wasn't good.

[blk_flower]

ebert's review (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19870626/REVIEWS/706260302/1023)

there's the review of full metal jacket,2 and half stars.

[Sheriff Wydell]

Originally posted by blk_flower
ebert's review (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19870626/REVIEWS/706260302/1023)

there's the review of full metal jacket,2 and half stars.

Thank you.

That's what I'm getting at. If only Ebert could review with that match critical insight. Now it seems like he's getting told, give this one a three out of four and give this one a one out of four.

*Not that I agree with his review on Full Metal Jacket, just that it was done fairly, unlike his current reviews.

[The Heart Collector]

It seems Ebert hasnt been too kind to Kubrick.

Since Kubrick was never wrong about anything, I can only conclude that Ebert fucked up.

[chinton]

I can actually understand Ebert idea of those two films are different although I completely disagree with him. The Devils Rejects served no purpose other than to disgust me. Since there was nothing else I particuraly loved about the film thats the only forgettable thing I could concentrate on. On the other hand Wolf Creek went for realism and that why it worked. It gave me an experience I wont forget for a while.

[TrippingBalls]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
My point is that they aren't even. They both used hyperbole, but TB is the one who used hyperbole to rant about hyperbole. So while neither comment was all that big of a deal, TB's comment was hypocritical, while Ebert's wasn't.

Well, according to that logic, I could punch you in the face, and if you hit me back I could sue you for being hypocritical.

And how do we really know if Ebert was using hyperbole? Maybe he really does shun upon those that disagree with his opinions. Or, maybe he's just really fat. And stupid.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by TrippingBalls
[B]Well, according to that logic, I could punch you in the face, and if you hit me back I could sue you for being hypocritical.

It would only be hypocritical if I whined and cried about how I hate people who punch others in the face and THEN punched you in the face. That would be hypocritical in the same way you used hyperbole to whine and cry about Ebert's hyperbole.

See the difference? I wouldn't whine and cry the way you did. I'd just punch you back.

[AWP82]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
It would only be hypocritical if I whined and cried about how I hate people who punch others in the face and THEN punched you in the face. That would be hypocritical in the same way you used hyperbole to whine and cry about Ebert's hyperbole.

See the difference? I wouldn't whine and cry the way you did. I'd just punch you back.

Well, it's a very minor, insignificant difference if you ask me. Nothing worth whining and crying about the way he did. If he's hypocritical for whining and crying about Ebert's hyperbole, the others were also hypocritical for whining and crying about TB's hyperbolic whining and crying. Then I whine and cry about their whining and crying, so I'm a hypocrite too. Arguably, you have whined and cried about TB's hypocracy for whining and crying, which, in theory, would make you a hypocrite too. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just say you came into this thread, observed all of our comments, and chose to make your own minor point about them, in a calmer fashion. Therefore, you and Ebert (calm, intelligent speakers) have the upper hand, while most of the rest of us have whined and cried. For that, you deserve a medal, and the rest of us, in theory, are beneath you and Ebert. Congratulations!

Seriously though, I hate to be so cliche, but a rant is a rant is a rant, and this IS a rant forum. So even though your points are valid, I still consider them moot like the rest of ours (including mine). Where does that leave Ebert? Who knows? But I don't care. His comments still bug people, and that's that. So in the rant forum, it sure feels good to be a hypocrite, and in my opinion, that's all that really matters here. See ya around! :cool:

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by AWP82
If he's hypocritical for whining and crying about Ebert's hyperbole, the others were also hypocritical for whining and crying about TB's hyperbolic whining and crying. Then I whine and cry about their whining and crying, so I'm a hypocrite too.

The hypocrisy is not the in the whining and crying. The hypocrisy is in using hyperbole to rant against hyperbole.

To my knowledge, you haven't used hyperbole to rant against hyperbole and neither have I. In this particular case, TB is the lone hypocrite.

[AWP82]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
The hypocrisy is not the in the whining and crying. The hypocrisy is in using hyperbole to rant against hyperbole.

To my knowledge, you haven't used hyperbole to rant against hyperbole and neither have I. In this particular case, TB is the lone hypocrite.

Yes, you've got a point, but does it really matter all that much in a rant forum? Is it really worth nitpicking? Call me weird, but his hypocracy is irrelevant to me. The points he made were still valid, and hyperbole wasn't the only one. The quality of Ebert's reviews were the main point, as far as I could tell, until everyone kept stressing over the hyperbole aspect. What was even the movie in question??? Oh yeah, I forgot, Wolf Creek, among other similar films. Sure, TB was pissed about Ebert's hyperbole and chose to use it himself, but I think his main point was Ebert's reviews in general, and his doublespeak. Even if TB ignored Ebert's hyperbole and still chose to use his own, it still would've been silly if people kept freaking out over the hyperbole while missing his main point(s). That's all I whined and cried about. So in a nutshell, I guess all I'm saying I don't really give a damn about the hyperbole (hypocritical or not) since it didn't bother me. To be honest, I found it humorous. I enjoyed his rant. If others didn't, oh well...*shrug*...to each their own. :)

Boy, it sure is funny how topics evolve...

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by AWP82
[B]Yes, you've got a point, but does it really matter all that much in a rant forum? Is it really worth nitpicking? Call me weird, but his hypocracy is irrelevant to me. The points he made were still valid, and hyperbole wasn't the only one. The quality of Ebert's reviews were the main point, as far as I could tell, until everyone kept stressing over the hyperbole aspect.

Does it really matter? I think it does for the very reason you illustrate. Instead of us discussing what would otherwise by a valid point, TB undermines it by using the exact same tactic he's railing against.

There's good ranting and there's sloppy ranting. And sloppy ranting distracts from whatever point it is you're trying to make in the rant.

[CMAGUS]

He is a critic if you don't like his reviews then don't read them.Not every critic is gonna like every movie and there will be times when people disagree.I like Ebert I think he reviews films fairly and fairly well sure there is times when I disagree but for the most part I think he reviews decently.Getting worked up cause Ebert doesn't like a horror flick is a little out there cause myself being someone who has been a horror fan for years knows he isn't always kind to the genre.Its his personal choice not to like it if he feels that a film where women are tortured and are protrayed suffering through out the movie then whatever not everyone likes that in their horror films shit saying he should have his throat slit cause you don't agree with him.

[AWP82]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
Does it really matter? I think it does for the very reason you illustrate. Instead of us discussing what would otherwise by a valid point, TB undermines it by using the exact same tactic he's railing against.

Huh? :confused: I'm not sure I understood that. But no, I personally don't think his use of hyperbole against hyperbole undermines the other points he made. Hypocritical? Sure, maybe so. But like I said, it didn't bother me, nor did Eberts. That's where my initial comments stemmed from. I thought people should lighten up and laugh it off. That's all.

There's good ranting and there's sloppy ranting. And sloppy ranting distracts from whatever point it is you're trying to make in the rant.

That's all based on perception. I guess yours and mine were different. That's cool. I didn't find it too sloppy or distracting. I enjoyed it, but if you didn't, fine. I'll agree to disagree.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by AWP82
That's all based on perception.

Whether or not it bothers you is your perogative, but the fact is that it's been a distraction for most of the responders to this thread. And if TB wanted to stick to the subject of Ebert's hyperbole (again, a legitimate criticism), he should have made his point in a more reasoned and less blatantly hypocritical way.

[AWP82]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
Whether or not it bothers you is your perogative, but the fact is that it's been a distraction for most of the responders to this thread. And if TB wanted to stick to the subject of Ebert's hyperbole (again, a legitimate criticism), he should have made his point in a more reasoned and less blatantly hypocritical way.

lol...dude, you're funny. But touche. If TB's hyperbole really bothered you guys that much, then that's your prerogative too. I guess my lame attempt to alleviate that failed. Oh well...

[TrippingBalls]

I don't think Ebert was using hyperbole. I think he's actually telling people to stay away from those who liked Wolf Creek. Why the hell do you people think Ebert wouldn't be dumb enough to stoop to insulting readers in his reviews. The guy liked Tomb Raider for fuck's sake. And XXX. I think Ebert rates his movies based on how his stomach feels going into it, then makes up shit in his reviews. "My name is Roger Ebert and one of those kids stole my donut, so I give Casablanca two thumbs down". I would only be a hypocrite if I was using hyperbole to rant against him using hyperbole, however, since I didn't know he was exaggerating (if he was at all, which none of us know except for a select few Ebert-mind readers like Beeblebrox) I can't be really called a hypocrite since I was using hyperbole to rant against something which I thought he was serious about.

[AceD]

"I don't think Ebert was using hyperbole. I think he's actually telling people to stay away from those who liked Wolf Creek. Why the hell do you people think Ebert wouldn't be dumb enough to stoop to insulting readers in his reviews. The guy liked Tomb Raider for fuck's sake. And XXX. I think Ebert rates his movies based on how his stomach feels going into it, then makes up shit in his reviews. "My name is Roger Ebert and one of those kids stole my donut, so I give Casablanca two thumbs down""

I don't have issues with the hyperbole, but you lose credibility when you try to say Ebert sucks because he likes or doesn't like a certain movie. That's just like everyone posting and saying, "well why should we listen to your rant, you like GOODFELLAS so you obviously are an idiot." It's a matter of opinion.

You don't have to agree, but I think Ebert's review of WOLF CREEK was fine and explained what he didn't like about the movie. He shouldn't have thrown that line in their about not knowing people who want to see it, but other than that it was a good review. And to say "I think Ebert rates his moives on how his stomach feels," however sarcastic yo uare being, is silly. Regardless of your opinion of his views, he's a fantastic writer and his reviews explain why he likes or doesn't like it. Yes, he gets sidetracked, but every reviewer has their tendencies. If it bothers you, don't read the reviews.

[leafboy]

Saying that anyone deserves to have their throat slit (especially over a movie review!) is disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[TrippingBalls]

I was exaggerating about Ebert having his throat slit at first, but now I've changed my mind and I really mean it. I hope he chokes on a fuckin Twix bar at the next anonymous arthouse foreign flick he sees.

[leafboy]

Originally posted by TrippingBalls
I was exaggerating about Ebert having his throat slit at first, but now I've changed my mind and I really mean it. I hope he chokes on a fuckin Twix bar at the next anonymous arthouse foreign flick he sees.

Seek help. Honestly. You are proving Ebert right.

[AWP82]

Goddamn, you people are WAY too uptight.

Don't worry, TrippingBalls, I got where you were coming from with your rant. Some people just like to blow things out of proportion.

[TrippingBalls]

Especially photo editors using Photoshop.

[blk_flower]

this could have been just a thread on what your thoughts could have been on wolf's creek and a disscusion on his reviews but now some of you guys simply hate him. I've agreed with some of his reviews and some others not so much, who cares if his reviews are far different than yours.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by TrippingBalls
I can't be really called a hypocrite since I was using hyperbole to rant against something which I thought he was serious about. [/B]

Well, if you thought he was serious, then you could certainly be called other things, but I concede to you that hypocrite wouldn't apply in that case.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by AWP82
Goddamn, you people are WAY too uptight.

Don't worry, TrippingBalls, I got where you were coming from with your rant. Some people just like to blow things out of proportion.

And yet you're defending the guy who said a reviewer should have his throat slit because he didn't like the review.

Who's uptight?

[AWP82]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
And yet you're defending the guy who said a reviewer should have his throat slit because he didn't like the review.

Who's uptight?

AARRRGH!!! Damn it. I KNEW you would get on my case for that. :D

It's all good though. I was defending TB on his hyperbole against what he thought was serious. I thought the others took TB too seriously, so I thought they were uptight. I don't see how that makes ME uptight, but if you say so, that's fine. I won't argue.

You love giving us a hard time, don't you? lol ;)

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by AWP82
I thought the others took TB too seriously, so I thought they were uptight. I don't see how that makes ME uptight, but if you say so, that's fine. I won't argue.

I'm not saying you're uptight. Far from it. I'm saying that out of all people you choose to defend, you pick the MOST uptight poster in this thread. In other words, if you consider us uptight for mentioning TB's alleged hypocrisy, then how uptight would that have to make him for saying that a reviewer should have his throat slit because he disagreed with the review. Now THAT'S uptight (by your definition). ;)

[AWP82]

Mkay.

[Mr.HyDe807]

Originally posted by AceD
"I don't think Ebert was using hyperbole. I think he's actually telling people to stay away from those who liked Wolf Creek. Why the hell do you people think Ebert wouldn't be dumb enough to stoop to insulting readers in his reviews. The guy liked Tomb Raider for fuck's sake. And XXX. I think Ebert rates his movies based on how his stomach feels going into it, then makes up shit in his reviews. "My name is Roger Ebert and one of those kids stole my donut, so I give Casablanca two thumbs down""


HAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!!! the donut thing killed me!

[TrippingBalls]

I'm throwing in the towel. I am done arguing in this thread.

[MisterTwister]

Roger Ebert is a fucking hypocrite, plain and simple

[TheDeadWalk]

Gentlemen, we can't fight in here, this is the war room!

[Criminal Rock]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
Gentlemen, we can't fight in here, this is the war room!

Ha! Exactly!:D

I look at this thread and I laugh...

[The Postmaster General]

It seems to me that both are right.

I see Beeblebrox's point that it was hypocritical, and I see trippingballs point about not liking Beeblebrox's point.

[AceD]

"Roger Ebert is a fucking hypocrite, plain and simple"

Why?

If anyone is calling him a hypocrite based solely on the WOLF CREEK/DEVIL'S REJECTS comparasin (or a similar comparasin), then that is silly because every one of us on these boards could be called a hypocrite if we posted everything we liked and everything we didn't like.

So, again, I ask why you believe he's a hypocrite.

[TrippingBalls]

Because Roger Ebert gets away with insulting readers in his reviews. Those whose opinions may differ than his. So I insult him back. And he's fat.

[BigRedNeck]

I pretty much go opposite of what ever his lard ass says.

[jimmyjdmb]

In the last couple months, there have been two weekends when Ebert gave THREE movies a four star rating. THREEEEE.

[AceD]

"Because Roger Ebert gets away with insulting readers in his reviews. Those whose opinions may differ than his. So I insult him back. And he's fat."

I still don't see how that makes him a hypocrite, but okay.

Anyway, I don't like the way he took a stab at people who wanted to see WOLF CREEK. That doesn't change the fact that he's a fantastic writer and an honest reviewer. I don't always agree, but I like to read his opinion.

"In the last couple months, there have been two weekends when Ebert gave THREE movies a four star rating. THREEEEE"

How is that relevant? Are good movies not allowed to come out on the same day? This time of year, I don't see a problem with it. It's not like he's handing out 4-star reviews to a slew of January releases that the studios are just throwing out there. Recently he's given 4-star reviews to:

MATCH POINT

CACHE

MUNICH

KING KONG

PRIDE & PREJUDICE

BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN

SYRIANA

Amongst some others...doesn't he have the right to hand out reviews how he pleases? Aren't we only attacking his opinion?

[blk_flower]

see I see the same view as you AceD