Rogers sure got this one all wrong. Great movie. People in the real world in end in situations like the ones faced by Rossellini's character. I don't get how he can take offense to this, while six years later he lauded "Bad Lieutenant", which goes even further than "Blue Velvet" in terms of shock value.
His problem was that he could not get passed the shock to his own moral sensitivity. It doesn't make him evil or worth being called names. It makes him lacking in his professional ability to subjectively make an opinion. To make an opinion solely on his personal emotional reaction is totally the antithesis of his profession.
@nikosvault You have the wrong person, kind heart. You need to take it up with DrPepperAndSteak. You are disagreeing with he or she, not me. He or She said it. If that is what you mean by, not is not. I think you mean, no it's not.
Ebert's is a common reaction. I know alot of people, when I talk about Blue Velvet, they just say "Oh, I couldn't watch that movie, it was too much for me" or something similar. Too bad, they don't know what they're missing.
I don't think he gets that the purpose of her being naked was to further accentuate the sheer brutality of the frank booth character as well as pull in the viewer even deeper into the dire situation. he can't see past the fact for even an artistic appreciative standpoint that she was aware of how she was being portrayed on film and it really reflected something much deeper than simply porno and violence. it's iconic symbolism in it's purity, and this man just lacks the vision to comprehend it.
Considering how Ebert looks, his ideas on taste and style are worthless. Considering that he failed at his intended career as a movie writer he can't comment on others movies
I think Ebert missed the point, but don't dismiss him entirely as a critic. He's just a very politically correct ,liberally inclined, sensitive guy. I think Blue Velvet is pure genius, but I don't blame Ebert's reaction at all, it's completely human. He's still one of the best, if not the best, critics around.
I've never heard a review by this bloated hack worth a shit. He is an embodiment of every politically correct cliche, even engaged in the Full Bullock and married a black chic. The man has no talent or identity. He is nothing.
@MarcusCMarcellus I think Ebert missed the point, but don't dismiss him entirely as a critic. He's just a very politically correct ,liberally inclined, sensitive guy. I think Blue Velvet is pure genius, but I don't blame Ebert's reaction at all, it's completely human. He's still one of the best (if not the best, RIP Gene Siskel) critics around.
@Drkcirtap39 I appreciate your reply, but to be "politically correct' is to live and think in a straightjacket or prison. It is to place ideology over art. One can be a leftist or a rightist, but PC is something else entirely: it is a form of doublethink that prevents one from seeing physical reality. The man, btw, disliked Raising Arizona, and that's just criminally insane. I think he's awful.
@MarcusCMarcellus That is probably the best explanation of the evils of political correctness that I have read. I have always hated political correctness and you are correct that it is something largely independent of a particular political ideology. It is often used by the left these days, but I think it has been used by the right in the past, it just wasn't called political correctness. The net effect was the same, uncomfortable truths swept under the rug and deemed blasphemous to mention.
I love both these guys, but Gene, I agree with you, miss ya buddy. I often agree with Ebert, but I feel like he gets offended by movies way too easily.
@MoonIMover Kyle Maclachlan discovers a severed ear, notifies the police, but he and Laura Dern are too curious about it to leave it at that, so they go out and do some amateur detective work and get in WAY over their heads. In a nutshell, it's about the contrast between what happens during day and night in this seemingly idyllic American suburbia region, the dark underbelly of really anything that appears beautiful on the outside. Great movie.
If Roger reacts strongly against a movie I know I'll like it. He doesn't understand why Isabella Roselini's character is treated so badly in the movie - It's because she actually wants & enjoys the abuse. That's the weird, sick part of being a human, how nothing is simple or obvious, if you really pay attention. Roger is such a pompous, narrow dud. He writes well with efficient style, but his content, his opinion, is always so self righteous & puritanical, unless he thinks the chick is real hot.
I can actually understand where Ebert is coming from on this, and what's he's driving at is true for a lot of Lynch's films, which is that while his films are often excellent at manipulating it's audience and challenging your perception, they often feel hollow at their core. Of course this might be intentional, but with this removal of emotional reassurance and stability that takes place in Lynch's movies such as Blue Velvet and Lost Highway, there is little given to replace this loss.
Ugh I get so sick of people saying shit like "he dropped the ball" or, in the case of the lowest form of human life, making fun of Ebert's recent health problems and Siskel's death in retaliation to a review they did twenty years ago. So someone doesn't agree with you. Get the fuck over it and grow up you arrogant dickwads. Your opinion isn't the holy gospel. Would you rather they were dishonest drones who always agreed with the popular consensus?
I respect Ebert a lot, but his problem has always been his tendencies towards kneejerk reactions, especially when it comes to his confusion between depiction and glorification (his reviews of "A Clockwork Orange" and "Fight Club" are similar in nature).
Here, he assumes Lynch is somehow exploiting the actors (namely Rossellini), when as another person here pointed out, they're adults who know what they're doing. It all serves a purpose, and Lynch tells the story well.
I wonder what's more humiliating for Isabella Rossellini, making money to play a powerful role in a great film by an incredible director, one she was probably more than happy to take after multiple meetings with agents and casting directors, or having some old fat dude on TV imply that she's such a poor delicate woman, who needs him to protect her honor by condemning David Lynch and insinuating that she is incapable of making her own decisions.
I don't understand Ebert. He's an idiot, Gene Siskel (who I think is amazing), understands that Rosellini gave 100% consent to be "humiliated" for a particular scene. Does he not realise that or is he just hot for her?! He praised Crash (1996), in which all sorts of female characters are violated for sexual purposes, yet dismisses Blue Velvet - despite it's obvious reputation as an American classic. Fu** Off, Ebert.
blue velvet is suppost make you feel depressed, angry, hopeless and nothing to feel good about. Thats why its so great, david lynch is the best director in history
This was slap bang in the middle of Ebert's crusade against the slasher genre, he used to cry "mysogynistic" thrice weekly back then.. say it once or twice, fine, repeat it like a mantra and it becomes simplistic armchair philosophy at best.
First, the idea that Isabella Rosselini was humiliated by this is absurd. I've heard her interviewed about it and of course she wasn't humiliated. She loved the role.
Then, Ebert changes his argument and says he doesn't care how Rosellini felt, he only cares about how he felt and he didn't like the way her CHARACTER was treated. In other words, he can't handle the weird flick that BV is. He should have just stated that at the beginning rather than pretending her was so worried about women, lol.
I miss the skinny one. The fat one lived, the skinny one died. Such a misguided critic, full of his own fat opinions. Did Ebert not understand that women can choose to act, of their own volition? No, he didn't, at least back then. He reviews women as if they are props.
I just watched this a few weeks ago, and I was mesmerized again. It's terrific if you can handle movies with genuine artistic pretensions (or goals).
The thing about Ebert is that he keeps a sh!t list and a nice people list. And he doesn't, or hadn't, liked David Lynch until The Straight Story. But everything with Tom Cruise in it (his bromantic crush) gets an extra half-star.
one of the most pretentious, mediocre, and artsy films ever made. it looks like it was made by a first-year art student teenager who wanted to provoke his teachers and impress his pseudo-intellectual classmates. very forgetable and overrated. period.
That thing about women that Ebert says I totally agree with ABSOLUTELY. I feel him 100% and I have always like Roger Ebert alot. But I HATED Last House On The Left for the SAME exact reason as what he was saying he didn't like Blue Velvet. And he gave LHOTL 3 stars if I remember correctly. Ugh I hated that movie about as bad as I hated Starship Troopers. But that's another argument.
@Turtleclaw1 He didn't say it is not a good film. Just that is is sick and disgusting an he doesnt enjoy the multiple times he has sat through it. I feel the same way about "Requiem for a Dream". That movie is pure genius but I would slap you silly if you ever came to my house and suggested watching it.
i think some people aren't willing to cross the mental boundary in order to become lost in blue velvet. david lynch is a fine aritst. in film, painting, music and writing. the film is beautiful and most certainly not exploitation towards actors. i know this because issabella and david lynch both laugh at the "rape" scene. they laughed during the shoot of it and laughed after when they watched it. blue velvet is a beautiful thing and i'm glad the idea came to david lynch, and i'm glad he made it.
I get what Ebert was saying but he was wrong about Blue Velvet. This was not a shock / exploitation movie, or a porno. It was an artistic movie with themes that required a bit of shock value in order to work. By today's standards it is still weird but it isn't anywhere as disgusting as something like "Natural Born Killers" or most of the horror movies of the past 10 years. A lot of people will never like a David Lynch movie anyway, perhaps there should be a disclaimer at the start.
And that is all they discussed in a movie this deep...although going against the trend i am kindda on eberts side on that topic, but the movie was much much more then that....it was about voyerism...it was about curiosity, it was about surrealism and about mystery...it was undoubtedly one hell of a movie.
Great clip, nice to see film review the way it's meant to be done. Today everyone is a critic online and they all utterly suck and have no viable experience to back up the pap they blather on about. These two guys had it right in their approach and you could rely on them to make good calls. Thanks for sharing it.
Look lets put it this way. Ebert wanted valid reasons why rosellini's character had to go through humiliating s&m scenes with dennis hopper. Lynch used those scenes for black humor instead of treating them in a serious human manner ala Dead Ringers instead of pulling the rug from under the audience with injokes or catchy oneliners from the dialogue. He felt hoppers character could have been more than a monster but perhaps have more meaning of why he feels the need to find pleasure of giving int
Ebert's views are so... different to mine. His complaints are very stupid. Rossellini knew what she was getting into... How come he didn't have the same complaint about Mulholland Dr. where Watts has to masturbate on screen and said in subsequent interview that it was the most embarrassing moment of her life and that she was crying in between takes?
dear Mr. Ebert, a rebuttal to your statement, "if he wants to play me like a violin, he'd better have some music worth listening to"....."a witty saying proves nothing"-Voltaire. David Lynch made you feel disgusted and upset, as we do so commonly in the real world, Mr. Lynch did his job Mr. Ebert, but i guess we need the critic and sympathist archetypes to have aa believable review
Whenever they disagreed on a movie, I usually sided with Siskel. This is a great movie, Ebert is just flat out wrong. Ebert didn't like Untouchables, Siskel did, a good, not great movie. Ebert didn't like Full Metal Jacket, Siskel did, again a good, not great movie. Ebert gushed over Casino, Siskel correctly stated, that there was nothing fresh or new about it. Ebert gave Aliens, Scarface and Silence of the Lambs thumbs up Siskel thumbs down. All of which I feel are all vastly overrated.
David Lynch while being a talented filmmaker had made some real shit (inland Empire) but Blue Velvet is as gripping and visceral as it gets. While Ebert pisses me off to no end hes actually gotten better now since he cant speak. He seems to give way more positive reviews anyways yeah he completely missed the mark on this one. Siskel btw is a pandering douchebag whos favorite movie has to be Monkeybone.
If I am not mistaken Roger gave "Kick Ass" a negative review because he thought the character Hit Girl exploited a 10 year old girl with all the violence and cussing that she did. Go back several years Roger gives the movie Exorcist a big thumbs up.
I like Roger Ebert, but sometimes I don't understand him. He disliked this for humiliating Isabella Rossellini. He disliked "A Clockwork Orange" for humiliating Adrienne Corri. And yet he liked "Re-Animator," in which Barbara Crampton is strapped to a morgue table, her clothes are torn away by her own zombified father, and she screams and cries as her naked body graphically fondled and licked by another zombie who holds his severed head over her to do it. Ebert gave that a big thumbs up. Huh?
@racookster I agree completely. I've been an avid follower and fan of Ebert, even though he can often come across as inconsistent, and there are a good many flicks I disagree with him on.
@xxcrysad3000xx I think sometimes Ebert just reviews things based on his emotional weather at the time. I mentioned "Re-Animator." The first time I saw it, I hated it. I thought it was exploitative and over-the-top. I saw it again years later when a friend said, "You didn't like that? It was funny as hell!" So, I watched it again, and he was right. My original impression didn't change, but I also found it funny has hell. If I'd written a review of it the first time, I would have been stuck.
@racookster yeah, Roger Ebert is an intelligent reviewer, but he fails to mention bad things in films he liked, that were obviously similar in other films he liked
@racookster I don't think he was attacking the humiliation of Rossellini so much as he was attacking how he thought the scenes with her were made cheap by the small town satire. Because he thought they juxtaposed uneasily with the movie's humour I think he believed they were there simply to show a woman in pain. I strongly disagree with him, but I think he makes a valid point. Re-Animator on the other hand is an out and out horror story where in his opinion Crampton's torment was justified.
@TheSonomaDude: Like I said, I thought so the second time around. For some reason, the first time I saw it I completely missed the humor. Maybe it was my mood, maybe it was the name "H.P. Lovecraft" on the box, or maybe it was a bit of both. Lovecraft didn't generally seem to be writing with his tongue firmly in his cheek. I felt like they'd probably butchered his work, but I still haven't read the original "Herbert West – Reanimator" to this day.
critics. Just because Ebert doesn't like a movie you have a boner for, doesn't mean he is inept at what he does. Blue Velvet sucked. Again, just an opinion. (Mr. Hopper was freakin' great, though)
No matter how you slice it, the notion that someone's opinion is "dumb" is in itself an opinion. Doesn't mean it's true. It's subjective. I happen to think that while Ebert does sometimes become sidetracked with taking the moral high ground, he does share a lot of valuable insight into many other movies he reviews. Also I think that just maybe, these two critics were chosen specifically to have contrast between them to share different perspectives. It doesn't mean either of them are incapable c
@sidmute00 The notion that all opinions are equally valid simply because they're subjective is an opinion and an assumption too. I hate when people say that you can't criticize an opinion simply because matters of taste are subjective. That's just taking another rigid side of the same coin--your take on aesthetics is as limited as the people you're dissing. t's not that simple: there is such a thing as equally valid opinions and there is such a thing as uninformed 'dumb' opinions. IMO!
Ebert didn't like "The Elephant Man" either. He didn't start liking Lynch until "The Straight Story" and "Mulholland Drive". He gave an extremely positive review of "Inland Empire" also. Wonder if he's gone back to reevaluate the earlier Lynch films he dismissed.
@tenebrae23 he was actually extremely fond of Eraserhead (Lynch's Masterpiece in my opinion). it was understandable panning Dune, Wild At Heart, and Lost Highway. but not The Elephant Man or Blue Velvet to me. those were both great films
My Gay friend correctly remined me the other day Ebert ONLY LIKED MOVIES WITH "HOT GUYS W NO SHIRTS ON " IN THE 80's LMAO !!!!! Roger Your a Hollywood legend in your own mind . Never Liked him Dont wanna see his face anymore either sorry... BLUE VELVET RULED !!!!
no critic can be 100% correct, their point of view will always be biased. Ebert is no different. in his opinion diehard and full metal jacket were thumbed down. in my opinion Ebert has no right judging film as harshly as he does because he's never directed anything himself, all he's done is written an autobiography and a few essays, no stories, no screenplays. the best system would be to have individual reviewers for each genre but even then its opinion based.
It's one thing for a movie critic to state a personal reaction to a movie. But Ebert, here, has left the realm of criticism AND personal taste. He betrays a misunderstanding of the basis of criticism. We can, for example, hate to watch Michael Jackson because we believe he's a child molester, but we can't say that therefore the show is bad. Ebert purports to criticize the movie on the basis of how he imagines the actress to feel about the role? Puh-leeeze!
Ebert wasn't offended by the sex/rape/torture scenes, guys. He was offended at the fact that the movie then stepped back from those scenes into what was sort of a '50s sitcom parody.
It was an instance of, as Roger called it in his review of Wild at Heart, Lynch's case of "Only Kidding Syndrome."
Ebert makes a pretty good point here. The film was pretty controversial so you can expect this kind of stuff. Critics aren't likely to all agree on this one
Roger Ebert makes no sense in this interview.. He's too defensive..Great movie and it's only his opinion..But what makes this guy an expert on the movie or in fact any movie?
I've never liked Ebert at all. Even when I agree with him, the way he writes his reviews is completely asinine. This one, though, takes the cake. I mean, jesus, Ebert acts like it was a documentary or something. You'd think a fucking movie critic would know the difference between reality and fiction. The way he talks about how he feels sorry for the actress floors me. Now I have to wonder if he felt sorry for Sam Neill when he was being chased by all those mean dinosaurs.
@SparksDrinker That's an appeal to authority. I don't care how highly a person is regarded, a dumb opinion is a dumb opinion. If Stanley Kubrick himself made the same statement, I'd still disagree.
@jordanromaker . its an appeal to respected excellence, not authority. besides, i'm not commenting on eberts' review of this film, i'm commenting on his skills as a film critic.
@SparksDrinker "Appeal to authority" is just a general way of saying you're deferring to the opinion of the alleged professionals in that field. It's like saying, "so-and-so said this, and it doesn't make any sense to me at all, but, he's a smart guy, so he must be right." That's a logical fallacy. Ebert may be considered "well respected" in his field, but in my personal opinion, it's largely undeserved. And even if I agreed with him 99% of the time, THIS time, he's still wrong
@SparksDrinker What "skills" are actually required to be a film critic? C'mon Man! Ooh, the dialogue was interesting? The special effects, if any, were outstanding? The costumes and cinematography were excellent? What does it really take to be a "skilled" film critic other than a lethargic backside, a preference of popcorn, and an opinion? Oh, that's just it. An opinion!
@SparksDrinker If you believe that then you are ignorant. A chef creates things much like a film director. If you had said a food critic then I would agree with you. No matter how much experience a critic has, it simply boils down to their opinion. If opinion is the main basis of their trade, then no skills are required.
@DickLodge68 . so you believe it does not take skill or talent to be a good fim critic? i assume you have never read one of roger ebert's reviews. the ignorance is yours.
@SparksDrinker Some skill is required from any good writer. Talent? Not at all. When you suggest talent, I think of Mozart or Eddie Van Halen, certainly not Roger Ebert! If you want to blather for the sole sake of argument, I can't help you there. Twice now you have completely ignored my basic point ; That a critic's choice of a good or bad film is fundamentally just their opinion....just like every other type of critic.
@DickLodge68 . of course anyone can give their opinion of a film, what you are missing is that it's all about entertainment value. do you like to watch movie reviews? if you do then watch siskel and ebert, they were the best in the business. they offered insightful, educated opinions based on years of experience. have you seen their review of leonard part 6? you should check it out, its on youtube, very entertaining.
@jordanromaker Same here, he often praises movies that he feels have a certain probity, and demonizes movies that he thinks are devoid of a moral stance.Check out his review of A Clockwork Orange.He says that it celebrates the nastiness of the hero, so it gets two stars.These movies aren't simply amoral, they're lamentations on human cruelty. Just because they don't come right out and condemn this or that doesn't mean that they don't address moral issues in a thoughtful way. They do it better.
I think Ebert's review was a bit unfair. It came across like he focused on the degradation of Isabella Rossolini's character too often and didn't credit the film as a movie. Gene, on the other hand, got into the aspect of the movie and its direction.
bullshit rog even if you weren't an atheist you'd still be going to hell for hating blue velvet
AlecKronicle 2 weeks ago
Did you know that he gave one star to "Blue Velvet" while giving three stars to "The Honeymooners"?
ErichoTTA 3 weeks ago
Rogers sure got this one all wrong. Great movie. People in the real world in end in situations like the ones faced by Rossellini's character. I don't get how he can take offense to this, while six years later he lauded "Bad Lieutenant", which goes even further than "Blue Velvet" in terms of shock value.
oswaldwasaleftist 3 weeks ago
Are these guys a gay couple?
JimColyer 1 month ago
His problem was that he could not get passed the shock to his own moral sensitivity. It doesn't make him evil or worth being called names. It makes him lacking in his professional ability to subjectively make an opinion. To make an opinion solely on his personal emotional reaction is totally the antithesis of his profession.
mvies77 1 month ago 3
@mvies77 Beautifully said.
DrPepperAndSteak 1 month ago
Comment removed
nikosvault 4 days ago
@nikosvault You have the wrong person, kind heart. You need to take it up with DrPepperAndSteak. You are disagreeing with he or she, not me. He or She said it. If that is what you mean by, not is not. I think you mean, no it's not.
mvies77 4 days ago
Hey Ebert, it's called acting, douche nozzle!
TIMOTHYSAARINEN 2 months ago
Is that Chaz Bono?
dellgriff82 3 months ago 4
Ebert's is a common reaction. I know alot of people, when I talk about Blue Velvet, they just say "Oh, I couldn't watch that movie, it was too much for me" or something similar. Too bad, they don't know what they're missing.
ghostofandy 3 months ago
This supports the hypothesis that Roger Ebert attained movie critic stardom by kissing ass rather than having any taste in movies.
AirPickles 3 months ago 2
Is Ebert a sex change?
Charlenefabulous 3 months ago
yes, ebert is an ugly loser like his fans
gottfriedthegod 4 months ago
@gottfriedthegod loser i agree thats why he has more than thousands of fans and money right you stupid reject
KaijuKingGojira 3 months ago
I don't think he gets that the purpose of her being naked was to further accentuate the sheer brutality of the frank booth character as well as pull in the viewer even deeper into the dire situation. he can't see past the fact for even an artistic appreciative standpoint that she was aware of how she was being portrayed on film and it really reflected something much deeper than simply porno and violence. it's iconic symbolism in it's purity, and this man just lacks the vision to comprehend it.
rhombusskullvsteal 4 months ago
David Lynch can play me like a cheap fiddle any old time.
peymaania 4 months ago
@peymaania And Ebert me. I've taken all smelly two inches
CertifiedGooner728 4 months ago
EBERT=UGLY
FANS=LOSERS
TheBitchinbabs 4 months ago
I would need a blue velvet blindfold to continue to look at Ebert
Jorrietheman 4 months ago
Ebert is ugly and out of style for even then
bloboshitful 4 months ago
Siskel gets it, Ebert clearly doesn't. Shocking content stopped him reviewing it.
Randyhart 5 months ago
Considering how Ebert looks, his ideas on taste and style are worthless. Considering that he failed at his intended career as a movie writer he can't comment on others movies
Dottiecurran 5 months ago
'that's painful to me to see a woman treated like that..' ~classic line of a patriarchal douche. blue velvet was a great film.
on the other hand, he also gave 3 stars to zookeeper, so i'm not so sure i can take him seriously anymore.
breadXandXcheese 5 months ago
I don't think Roger ever grasped that Isabella's character liked the abuse. Did he somehow miss the scene where she demanded Kyle smack her around?
She could just as easily have demanded he get straight to the oral sex,. the oral sex, to quote Monty Python.
whodoesknow99 5 months ago
wow, I want to look and be way kewl like Ebert and her fans!
bloboshitful 5 months ago
Wow, what a idiot talking about exploiting an actress. Its art, dipshit.
dantedraco 5 months ago
I actually really miss Siskel.
thegunclub123 5 months ago
I think Ebert missed the point, but don't dismiss him entirely as a critic. He's just a very politically correct ,liberally inclined, sensitive guy. I think Blue Velvet is pure genius, but I don't blame Ebert's reaction at all, it's completely human. He's still one of the best, if not the best, critics around.
Drkcirtap39 5 months ago
I've never heard a review by this bloated hack worth a shit. He is an embodiment of every politically correct cliche, even engaged in the Full Bullock and married a black chic. The man has no talent or identity. He is nothing.
MarcusCMarcellus 5 months ago
@MarcusCMarcellus I think Ebert missed the point, but don't dismiss him entirely as a critic. He's just a very politically correct ,liberally inclined, sensitive guy. I think Blue Velvet is pure genius, but I don't blame Ebert's reaction at all, it's completely human. He's still one of the best (if not the best, RIP Gene Siskel) critics around.
Drkcirtap39 5 months ago
@Drkcirtap39 I appreciate your reply, but to be "politically correct' is to live and think in a straightjacket or prison. It is to place ideology over art. One can be a leftist or a rightist, but PC is something else entirely: it is a form of doublethink that prevents one from seeing physical reality. The man, btw, disliked Raising Arizona, and that's just criminally insane. I think he's awful.
MarcusCMarcellus 5 months ago
@MarcusCMarcellus That is probably the best explanation of the evils of political correctness that I have read. I have always hated political correctness and you are correct that it is something largely independent of a particular political ideology. It is often used by the left these days, but I think it has been used by the right in the past, it just wasn't called political correctness. The net effect was the same, uncomfortable truths swept under the rug and deemed blasphemous to mention.
beersgood7 5 months ago
I love both these guys, but Gene, I agree with you, miss ya buddy. I often agree with Ebert, but I feel like he gets offended by movies way too easily.
fishinwithguns 6 months ago
EBERT=UGLY
FANS=NERDS
TheBitchinbabs 6 months ago
So what's the movie about?
MoonIMover 6 months ago
@MoonIMover Kyle Maclachlan discovers a severed ear, notifies the police, but he and Laura Dern are too curious about it to leave it at that, so they go out and do some amateur detective work and get in WAY over their heads. In a nutshell, it's about the contrast between what happens during day and night in this seemingly idyllic American suburbia region, the dark underbelly of really anything that appears beautiful on the outside. Great movie.
fishinwithguns 6 months ago
Fuck off Ebert. The man never met a mallomar he didn't care for I'm sure.
garagerawk27 6 months ago
fucking fat prude.
godamndude 6 months ago
@godamndude
He's fat...but you're stupid. And that's your future and past.
Rexicano 6 months ago
oh ugly roger tell us what to think! oh tell us your feeling on someone ELSES work!
TheDeeFormed 6 months ago
How retarted is this guy?!
60s4everdude 6 months ago
Ebert is quite an enigma to me when he gives reviews like that.
williamhowe1 6 months ago
Comment removed
cinemaspaz 6 months ago 9
Comment removed
cinemaspaz 6 months ago
@cinemaspaz Pabst is a cheap Milwuakie beer that is popular with lowlife-type people like myself.
adamfox1028 6 months ago
Comment removed
cinemaspaz 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is this fat fuck for real???
MrBobbybab 6 months ago
FUCK OFF FATSO EBERT
kellygreen5556 6 months ago
@kellygreen5556 ditto
fran9860 6 months ago
Ebert is such a TOOL.
consciousnesswarrior 6 months ago
If Roger reacts strongly against a movie I know I'll like it. He doesn't understand why Isabella Roselini's character is treated so badly in the movie - It's because she actually wants & enjoys the abuse. That's the weird, sick part of being a human, how nothing is simple or obvious, if you really pay attention. Roger is such a pompous, narrow dud. He writes well with efficient style, but his content, his opinion, is always so self righteous & puritanical, unless he thinks the chick is real hot.
KingKook 6 months ago
Nice verbal sparring between the two here.
abermen 6 months ago
FUCK ROGER EBERT!
TheBitchinbabs 6 months ago
@TheBitchinbabs interesting idea let me get back to you on that
jxhensley 6 months ago
@jxhensley Sure, Ebert is already diseased anyway.
ZarahLean 6 months ago
I can actually understand where Ebert is coming from on this, and what's he's driving at is true for a lot of Lynch's films, which is that while his films are often excellent at manipulating it's audience and challenging your perception, they often feel hollow at their core. Of course this might be intentional, but with this removal of emotional reassurance and stability that takes place in Lynch's movies such as Blue Velvet and Lost Highway, there is little given to replace this loss.
xiombargify 6 months ago
they didn't really say anything about the movie
llamasarus1 7 months ago
i got to say she did look kinda gross when she was naked on the police captains lawn because she was all beaten
llamasarus1 7 months ago
We don't have as many great reviewers now like we used to with this pair
crazedmongoose2003 7 months ago
sounds like somebody needed to pour roger a fuckin beer!!
iago68 7 months ago
@iago68 It better not be Heinekenn fuck that shit. PABST BLUE RIBBON!
sonictrasher 7 months ago
@sonictrasher yes! pour the fuckin beer, man!!! lol
iago68 7 months ago
the movie was a piece of shock trash
MauricioElGata 8 months ago
What's 'Dooon'?
TheZoltanF 8 months ago
@TheZoltanF
I know. It's stoopid.
PurushaDesa 7 months ago
Siskel was usually wrong...but he was right on this one...
blaklodge 8 months ago
They made a whole lot of noise with no coherent message..... unless Dennis Hopper's awesomeness has made me deaf.
trichomeman420 8 months ago
Ugh I get so sick of people saying shit like "he dropped the ball" or, in the case of the lowest form of human life, making fun of Ebert's recent health problems and Siskel's death in retaliation to a review they did twenty years ago. So someone doesn't agree with you. Get the fuck over it and grow up you arrogant dickwads. Your opinion isn't the holy gospel. Would you rather they were dishonest drones who always agreed with the popular consensus?
MrHeslopian 8 months ago
coming from the guy who wrote beyond the valley of the dolls it's kinda weird
philipperholland 8 months ago
Siskel 1, Ebert 0
oncelosthorizon 8 months ago 24
@oncelosthorizon Aww, but I like Ebert. Haha.
MrGurujoe1985 1 month ago
@oncelosthorizon But yeah, Siskel was very awesome.
MrGurujoe1985 1 month ago
So, what critic do you like?
"Ebert".
EBERT?!?!?!? FUCK THAT SHIT!!!!! COLE FUCKIN' SMITHEY!!!!!
BlackHoleSun1921 9 months ago
Siskel won this one, but he lost Crash, which is strange, 'cause Ebert understanding that but not this...?
JesusLeeMcWashington 9 months ago
Heineken ? Fuck that shit! Pabst Blue Ribbon.
moosepk 9 months ago
But I like watching people being humiliated on the big screen.
stupidpdj 9 months ago
I respect Ebert a lot, but his problem has always been his tendencies towards kneejerk reactions, especially when it comes to his confusion between depiction and glorification (his reviews of "A Clockwork Orange" and "Fight Club" are similar in nature).
Here, he assumes Lynch is somehow exploiting the actors (namely Rossellini), when as another person here pointed out, they're adults who know what they're doing. It all serves a purpose, and Lynch tells the story well.
MrJimmyNapoleon 9 months ago
Ebert drinks Heineken.
SirBraxton1989 9 months ago 11
@SirBraxton1989 I lol'd.
MrGurujoe1985 1 month ago
You Blue Velvet idiots needs to get over ebert's comments.
ItBrandonSilver 9 months ago
BE POLITE EBERT!
CINEMADVENURIST 9 months ago
I wonder what's more humiliating for Isabella Rossellini, making money to play a powerful role in a great film by an incredible director, one she was probably more than happy to take after multiple meetings with agents and casting directors, or having some old fat dude on TV imply that she's such a poor delicate woman, who needs him to protect her honor by condemning David Lynch and insinuating that she is incapable of making her own decisions.
bayleyasher 9 months ago
FUnny thing about Ebert is how he likes to praise directors like Ridley Scott and David Lynch, but very rarely likes their films.
Retardretroguy 9 months ago
Isn't it a bit rich for the guy who wrote Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls to accuse Blue Velvet of containing pointless nudity?
andypandy474 9 months ago
Siskel was such a superior critic and had such better taste in films than Roger Ebert.
Satchel334 10 months ago
I don't understand Ebert. He's an idiot, Gene Siskel (who I think is amazing), understands that Rosellini gave 100% consent to be "humiliated" for a particular scene. Does he not realise that or is he just hot for her?! He praised Crash (1996), in which all sorts of female characters are violated for sexual purposes, yet dismisses Blue Velvet - despite it's obvious reputation as an American classic. Fu** Off, Ebert.
jayjay1184 10 months ago
blue velvet is suppost make you feel depressed, angry, hopeless and nothing to feel good about. Thats why its so great, david lynch is the best director in history
shitdick745 10 months ago
We all know Blue Velvet is a good song Gene, but what did you think of the movie? :P
Ashloomis 10 months ago
Roger, major fail .... you missed the mark here ... by about 10 miles ... one of the greatest films of the last 50 years.
devinmillermedia 10 months ago 33
@devinmillermedia
Actually, Ebert was brave to tell the truth. It was garbage. You probably wouldn't know a great film is you saw it twice.
Rexicano 6 months ago
Roger, major fail .... you missed the mark here ... did you have a thing for Isabella?
devinmillermedia 10 months ago
This was slap bang in the middle of Ebert's crusade against the slasher genre, he used to cry "mysogynistic" thrice weekly back then.. say it once or twice, fine, repeat it like a mantra and it becomes simplistic armchair philosophy at best.
slohand13 10 months ago
First, the idea that Isabella Rosselini was humiliated by this is absurd. I've heard her interviewed about it and of course she wasn't humiliated. She loved the role.
Then, Ebert changes his argument and says he doesn't care how Rosellini felt, he only cares about how he felt and he didn't like the way her CHARACTER was treated. In other words, he can't handle the weird flick that BV is. He should have just stated that at the beginning rather than pretending her was so worried about women, lol.
JoshH5000 10 months ago 2
I miss the skinny one. The fat one lived, the skinny one died. Such a misguided critic, full of his own fat opinions. Did Ebert not understand that women can choose to act, of their own volition? No, he didn't, at least back then. He reviews women as if they are props.
phallusbravo 10 months ago
I just watched this a few weeks ago, and I was mesmerized again. It's terrific if you can handle movies with genuine artistic pretensions (or goals).
The thing about Ebert is that he keeps a sh!t list and a nice people list. And he doesn't, or hadn't, liked David Lynch until The Straight Story. But everything with Tom Cruise in it (his bromantic crush) gets an extra half-star.
ChollieD 10 months ago
one of the most pretentious, mediocre, and artsy films ever made. it looks like it was made by a first-year art student teenager who wanted to provoke his teachers and impress his pseudo-intellectual classmates. very forgetable and overrated. period.
lesassassins 10 months ago
How can you not hate movie critics?
choirofhorrors 10 months ago
Fags dont like it when women are treated properly!
gardenofarcane 10 months ago
That thing about women that Ebert says I totally agree with ABSOLUTELY. I feel him 100% and I have always like Roger Ebert alot. But I HATED Last House On The Left for the SAME exact reason as what he was saying he didn't like Blue Velvet. And he gave LHOTL 3 stars if I remember correctly. Ugh I hated that movie about as bad as I hated Starship Troopers. But that's another argument.
HunterSThompsonFan 10 months ago
@ReformedPastorJude So sick and disgusting you watched it twice?
Turtleclaw1 11 months ago
@Turtleclaw1 He didn't say it is not a good film. Just that is is sick and disgusting an he doesnt enjoy the multiple times he has sat through it. I feel the same way about "Requiem for a Dream". That movie is pure genius but I would slap you silly if you ever came to my house and suggested watching it.
sumphoo 10 months ago
I dont always agree with Ebert, by any means, but BV was sick and disgusting. I have seen it more than once and neither time enjoyed it that much.
ReformedPastorJude 11 months ago
I love Blue Velvet, but Ebert's a smary guy, and I enjoy and respect his opinion.
Ashloomis 11 months ago
i think some people aren't willing to cross the mental boundary in order to become lost in blue velvet. david lynch is a fine aritst. in film, painting, music and writing. the film is beautiful and most certainly not exploitation towards actors. i know this because issabella and david lynch both laugh at the "rape" scene. they laughed during the shoot of it and laughed after when they watched it. blue velvet is a beautiful thing and i'm glad the idea came to david lynch, and i'm glad he made it.
rossmc72 11 months ago
I get what Ebert was saying but he was wrong about Blue Velvet. This was not a shock / exploitation movie, or a porno. It was an artistic movie with themes that required a bit of shock value in order to work. By today's standards it is still weird but it isn't anywhere as disgusting as something like "Natural Born Killers" or most of the horror movies of the past 10 years. A lot of people will never like a David Lynch movie anyway, perhaps there should be a disclaimer at the start.
MrXSpeaks 11 months ago
And that is all they discussed in a movie this deep...although going against the trend i am kindda on eberts side on that topic, but the movie was much much more then that....it was about voyerism...it was about curiosity, it was about surrealism and about mystery...it was undoubtedly one hell of a movie.
majesticmaniac 11 months ago
Great clip, nice to see film review the way it's meant to be done. Today everyone is a critic online and they all utterly suck and have no viable experience to back up the pap they blather on about. These two guys had it right in their approach and you could rely on them to make good calls. Thanks for sharing it.
bullmeecham 1 year ago
Look lets put it this way. Ebert wanted valid reasons why rosellini's character had to go through humiliating s&m scenes with dennis hopper. Lynch used those scenes for black humor instead of treating them in a serious human manner ala Dead Ringers instead of pulling the rug from under the audience with injokes or catchy oneliners from the dialogue. He felt hoppers character could have been more than a monster but perhaps have more meaning of why he feels the need to find pleasure of giving int
coolskater187 1 year ago
Ebert's views are so... different to mine. His complaints are very stupid. Rossellini knew what she was getting into... How come he didn't have the same complaint about Mulholland Dr. where Watts has to masturbate on screen and said in subsequent interview that it was the most embarrassing moment of her life and that she was crying in between takes?
mort1990 1 year ago
dear Mr. Ebert, a rebuttal to your statement, "if he wants to play me like a violin, he'd better have some music worth listening to"....."a witty saying proves nothing"-Voltaire. David Lynch made you feel disgusted and upset, as we do so commonly in the real world, Mr. Lynch did his job Mr. Ebert, but i guess we need the critic and sympathist archetypes to have aa believable review
dommer117 1 year ago
Whenever they disagreed on a movie, I usually sided with Siskel. This is a great movie, Ebert is just flat out wrong. Ebert didn't like Untouchables, Siskel did, a good, not great movie. Ebert didn't like Full Metal Jacket, Siskel did, again a good, not great movie. Ebert gushed over Casino, Siskel correctly stated, that there was nothing fresh or new about it. Ebert gave Aliens, Scarface and Silence of the Lambs thumbs up Siskel thumbs down. All of which I feel are all vastly overrated.
ertznay 1 year ago
LOL I love how Ebert says this cool line at the end to end that review then Siskel ruins it lmao
ZombieZifiction 1 year ago
David Lynch while being a talented filmmaker had made some real shit (inland Empire) but Blue Velvet is as gripping and visceral as it gets. While Ebert pisses me off to no end hes actually gotten better now since he cant speak. He seems to give way more positive reviews anyways yeah he completely missed the mark on this one. Siskel btw is a pandering douchebag whos favorite movie has to be Monkeybone.
myballsareunited 1 year ago
Lynch is gay! lol
negativefuckhead 1 year ago
If I am not mistaken Roger gave "Kick Ass" a negative review because he thought the character Hit Girl exploited a 10 year old girl with all the violence and cussing that she did. Go back several years Roger gives the movie Exorcist a big thumbs up.
rickman125 1 year ago
@rickman125
Of course The Exorcist is cool, and THIS SUCKS! lol
negativefuckhead 1 year ago
Roger Ebert is known for his ravenous sexual appetite for preteen boys. Someone needs to stop that man. That awful, AWFUL man!
johnd94 1 year ago
@johnd94
Dude, that's disgusting. Honestly, you can't possibly have any sort of proof for that.
JackKlompus13 1 year ago
The proof is in the pudding, and Roger Ebert ate it all, that fat disgusting pedophile faggot. Praise Jesus Christ.
johnd94 1 year ago
@johnd94
What the crap??? Hahaha! I must admit you made me laugh, but this still makes no sense.
JackKlompus13 1 year ago
Ebert 's first reaction was right, Rosselini complained about how she was treated during this filming of this movie for years.
Quadzilla99 1 year ago
@Quadzilla99 Ah, but his reaction was about how it made HIM feel, not her.
TheMrBlinx 1 year ago
@Quadzilla99 that is simply not true
severalyearslater 1 year ago
@Quadzilla99 citation needed
yeah she complains a lot here (not) watch?v=ster6pPRIsw
She essentially negates Ebert in the above clip.
Siskel, once again, was the better critic. Ebert's "concern" was misplaced.
sqmuth 1 year ago
It makes me angry that douches like ebert still live on while siskel died a slow, painful death.
kucoru16 1 year ago
@kucoru16 Ebert's had a rough time too, don't forget, he can't even speak anymore
urckrecords 1 year ago
I like Roger Ebert, but sometimes I don't understand him. He disliked this for humiliating Isabella Rossellini. He disliked "A Clockwork Orange" for humiliating Adrienne Corri. And yet he liked "Re-Animator," in which Barbara Crampton is strapped to a morgue table, her clothes are torn away by her own zombified father, and she screams and cries as her naked body graphically fondled and licked by another zombie who holds his severed head over her to do it. Ebert gave that a big thumbs up. Huh?
racookster 1 year ago 42
@racookster I agree completely. I've been an avid follower and fan of Ebert, even though he can often come across as inconsistent, and there are a good many flicks I disagree with him on.
xxcrysad3000xx 10 months ago
@xxcrysad3000xx I think sometimes Ebert just reviews things based on his emotional weather at the time. I mentioned "Re-Animator." The first time I saw it, I hated it. I thought it was exploitative and over-the-top. I saw it again years later when a friend said, "You didn't like that? It was funny as hell!" So, I watched it again, and he was right. My original impression didn't change, but I also found it funny has hell. If I'd written a review of it the first time, I would have been stuck.
racookster 10 months ago
@racookster yeah, Roger Ebert is an intelligent reviewer, but he fails to mention bad things in films he liked, that were obviously similar in other films he liked
SuperHeroMania 10 months ago
@racookster It's a strange world, isn't it?
blablaidontcarewhour 10 months ago
@racookster I don't think he was attacking the humiliation of Rossellini so much as he was attacking how he thought the scenes with her were made cheap by the small town satire. Because he thought they juxtaposed uneasily with the movie's humour I think he believed they were there simply to show a woman in pain. I strongly disagree with him, but I think he makes a valid point. Re-Animator on the other hand is an out and out horror story where in his opinion Crampton's torment was justified.
MrHeslopian 8 months ago
@racookster Well, to be fair, Re-Animator was a good movie,,,
TheSonomaDude 7 months ago
@TheSonomaDude: Like I said, I thought so the second time around. For some reason, the first time I saw it I completely missed the humor. Maybe it was my mood, maybe it was the name "H.P. Lovecraft" on the box, or maybe it was a bit of both. Lovecraft didn't generally seem to be writing with his tongue firmly in his cheek. I felt like they'd probably butchered his work, but I still haven't read the original "Herbert West – Reanimator" to this day.
racookster 7 months ago
Sorry Ebert, but you are terribly wrong with this one. People don't get Lynch's films, and I think this is why he hasn't been doing anything major.
ZombieZifiction 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My name is Mike from LA Although there busizz4me.info
aderesaddy 1 year ago
critics. Just because Ebert doesn't like a movie you have a boner for, doesn't mean he is inept at what he does. Blue Velvet sucked. Again, just an opinion. (Mr. Hopper was freakin' great, though)
sidmute00 1 year ago
No matter how you slice it, the notion that someone's opinion is "dumb" is in itself an opinion. Doesn't mean it's true. It's subjective. I happen to think that while Ebert does sometimes become sidetracked with taking the moral high ground, he does share a lot of valuable insight into many other movies he reviews. Also I think that just maybe, these two critics were chosen specifically to have contrast between them to share different perspectives. It doesn't mean either of them are incapable c
sidmute00 1 year ago
@sidmute00 The notion that all opinions are equally valid simply because they're subjective is an opinion and an assumption too. I hate when people say that you can't criticize an opinion simply because matters of taste are subjective. That's just taking another rigid side of the same coin--your take on aesthetics is as limited as the people you're dissing. t's not that simple: there is such a thing as equally valid opinions and there is such a thing as uninformed 'dumb' opinions. IMO!
MrJtorg 1 year ago
@MrJtorg Not in this case.
sidmute00 1 year ago
@MrJtorg I'm not really dissing anyone, either.
sidmute00 1 year ago
What Ebert is actually saying is that the movie is offensive. I'm on his side on this one.
1990osu 1 year ago
Ebert didn't like "The Elephant Man" either. He didn't start liking Lynch until "The Straight Story" and "Mulholland Drive". He gave an extremely positive review of "Inland Empire" also. Wonder if he's gone back to reevaluate the earlier Lynch films he dismissed.
tenebrae23 1 year ago
@tenebrae23 he was actually extremely fond of Eraserhead (Lynch's Masterpiece in my opinion). it was understandable panning Dune, Wild At Heart, and Lost Highway. but not The Elephant Man or Blue Velvet to me. those were both great films
1HalfASSreViewer 1 year ago
My Gay friend correctly remined me the other day Ebert ONLY LIKED MOVIES WITH "HOT GUYS W NO SHIRTS ON " IN THE 80's LMAO !!!!! Roger Your a Hollywood legend in your own mind . Never Liked him Dont wanna see his face anymore either sorry... BLUE VELVET RULED !!!!
muttilo 1 year ago
ebert the large feminist
RobertoWatchin 1 year ago
Ebert: Benji the Hunted > Blue Velvet & FMJ
Razersun 1 year ago
There used to be a clip on youtube of the entire "Blue Velvet" review, where Ebert starts-off with a great line about the movie:
"Blue Velvet has been called a Masterpiece by some, and sick and perverted by others. And still others are calling it a sick, perverted, masterpiece".
farmerne 1 year ago
well i used to think..."if these guys don't like it it must be good" and this reminded me how correct i was.
AuldFook 1 year ago
no critic can be 100% correct, their point of view will always be biased. Ebert is no different. in his opinion diehard and full metal jacket were thumbed down. in my opinion Ebert has no right judging film as harshly as he does because he's never directed anything himself, all he's done is written an autobiography and a few essays, no stories, no screenplays. the best system would be to have individual reviewers for each genre but even then its opinion based.
ZigZagRunner 1 year ago
@ZigZagRunner He did some screenplays..most notably "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls."..so in a sense you're right..
Jim382 1 year ago
OOOH A NAKED WOMAN! HOW HORRIBLE!
Fuck you, fatass
Osthropek 1 year ago
It's one thing for a movie critic to state a personal reaction to a movie. But Ebert, here, has left the realm of criticism AND personal taste. He betrays a misunderstanding of the basis of criticism. We can, for example, hate to watch Michael Jackson because we believe he's a child molester, but we can't say that therefore the show is bad. Ebert purports to criticize the movie on the basis of how he imagines the actress to feel about the role? Puh-leeeze!
LeoNobles 1 year ago
Ebert wasn't offended by the sex/rape/torture scenes, guys. He was offended at the fact that the movie then stepped back from those scenes into what was sort of a '50s sitcom parody.
It was an instance of, as Roger called it in his review of Wild at Heart, Lynch's case of "Only Kidding Syndrome."
pronkb000 1 year ago
Ebert makes a pretty good point here. The film was pretty controversial so you can expect this kind of stuff. Critics aren't likely to all agree on this one
clutchcityrockets 1 year ago
" *inhale* *inhale* Those fuckers are DEAAAAD!"
- Dennis Hopper upon watching this review-
PrimericanIdol 1 year ago 11
"it's painful to see here naked on the lawn"...yeah,thats the fucking point,good sir!
clone63742 1 year ago 2
Roger Ebert makes no sense in this interview.. He's too defensive..Great movie and it's only his opinion..But what makes this guy an expert on the movie or in fact any movie?
ekavet 1 year ago
I've never liked Ebert at all. Even when I agree with him, the way he writes his reviews is completely asinine. This one, though, takes the cake. I mean, jesus, Ebert acts like it was a documentary or something. You'd think a fucking movie critic would know the difference between reality and fiction. The way he talks about how he feels sorry for the actress floors me. Now I have to wonder if he felt sorry for Sam Neill when he was being chased by all those mean dinosaurs.
jordanromaker 1 year ago
@jordanromaker . i don't always agree with him either, but he his widely regarded as one of the top film critics of the 20th century.
SparksDrinker 1 year ago
@SparksDrinker That's an appeal to authority. I don't care how highly a person is regarded, a dumb opinion is a dumb opinion. If Stanley Kubrick himself made the same statement, I'd still disagree.
jordanromaker 1 year ago
@jordanromaker . its an appeal to respected excellence, not authority. besides, i'm not commenting on eberts' review of this film, i'm commenting on his skills as a film critic.
SparksDrinker 1 year ago
@SparksDrinker "Appeal to authority" is just a general way of saying you're deferring to the opinion of the alleged professionals in that field. It's like saying, "so-and-so said this, and it doesn't make any sense to me at all, but, he's a smart guy, so he must be right." That's a logical fallacy. Ebert may be considered "well respected" in his field, but in my personal opinion, it's largely undeserved. And even if I agreed with him 99% of the time, THIS time, he's still wrong
jordanromaker 1 year ago
@SparksDrinker What "skills" are actually required to be a film critic? C'mon Man! Ooh, the dialogue was interesting? The special effects, if any, were outstanding? The costumes and cinematography were excellent? What does it really take to be a "skilled" film critic other than a lethargic backside, a preference of popcorn, and an opinion? Oh, that's just it. An opinion!
DickLodge68 1 year ago
@DickLodge68 . by that logic, what skills does it take to be a chef? you read the recipe and follow the instructions. anyone could do it.
SparksDrinker 1 year ago 2
@SparksDrinker If you believe that then you are ignorant. A chef creates things much like a film director. If you had said a food critic then I would agree with you. No matter how much experience a critic has, it simply boils down to their opinion. If opinion is the main basis of their trade, then no skills are required.
DickLodge68 1 year ago
@DickLodge68 . so you believe it does not take skill or talent to be a good fim critic? i assume you have never read one of roger ebert's reviews. the ignorance is yours.
SparksDrinker 1 year ago 2
@SparksDrinker Some skill is required from any good writer. Talent? Not at all. When you suggest talent, I think of Mozart or Eddie Van Halen, certainly not Roger Ebert! If you want to blather for the sole sake of argument, I can't help you there. Twice now you have completely ignored my basic point ; That a critic's choice of a good or bad film is fundamentally just their opinion....just like every other type of critic.
DickLodge68 1 year ago
@DickLodge68 . of course anyone can give their opinion of a film, what you are missing is that it's all about entertainment value. do you like to watch movie reviews? if you do then watch siskel and ebert, they were the best in the business. they offered insightful, educated opinions based on years of experience. have you seen their review of leonard part 6? you should check it out, its on youtube, very entertaining.
SparksDrinker 1 year ago 2
@jordanromaker Same here, he often praises movies that he feels have a certain probity, and demonizes movies that he thinks are devoid of a moral stance.Check out his review of A Clockwork Orange.He says that it celebrates the nastiness of the hero, so it gets two stars.These movies aren't simply amoral, they're lamentations on human cruelty. Just because they don't come right out and condemn this or that doesn't mean that they don't address moral issues in a thoughtful way. They do it better.
MrJtorg 1 year ago
@jordanromaker btw I was responding to your post from three weeks ago. Didin't see that you'd already dropped Kubrick's name.
MrJtorg 1 year ago
Comment removed
jordanromaker 1 year ago
Comment removed
jordanromaker 1 year ago
eberts a fucktard
kane5000 1 year ago
I think Ebert's review was a bit unfair. It came across like he focused on the degradation of Isabella Rossolini's character too often and didn't credit the film as a movie. Gene, on the other hand, got into the aspect of the movie and its direction.
ThanhLS88 1 year ago