Hey, am I the only one - or does it get on your nerves as well with these reviews, both Ebert and Roeper AND also Siskel and Ebert reviews - that they interrupt each other all the god damn time? One of them tries to explain his opinion, but the other one interrupts with either "no" or "why"... pisses me off.
Ok Ebert is officially the dumbest reviewer. "there is no dialog until 15 mins into it" BULLSHIT Selene had the whole inner monologue at the very start explaining EVERYTHING.
@textthing ah I see we're going to change the definition of dialog now.
the so called "lazy" voiceover at the beginning explained the scenario it was words spoken that is dialog weather it was good or bad dialog is open to debate what isn't however is the fact that it is dialog.
No, you're the one who's changing the definition. According to you, words spoken in a film, regardless of context, count as dialogue. The meaning of the word is "words exchanged by at least two people." Hence, words uttered by one person in the absence of another count as monologue. A voiceover at the start of a film to explain the story strikes me as a lazy way to begin a film. It's not dialogue though. And I can't believe you're defending a movie like this.
@textthing Whaever I like the movie I find it very easy to defend as I still find it fresh every time I watch it. Your big paragraph on the difference between monologue and dialog is both pointless and retarded. The point I was making was Ebert complaining about nothing being explained in when theres shit being explained at the very beginning.
Your point included confusion as to the difference between an expository monologue and dramatic dialogue. My explanation was perfectly clear and to the point. If you have an objection to it, state it.
Having to include a lengthy voiceover at the start of your movie is just an admission that you haven't explained things well IN the movie, i.e. in the storytelling.
@textthing You should just ignore him - his arguments makes no sense anyway. He will never get that your points are actually more valuable than his own.
@rockworm503 Oh god, are you for real? How can you say his remark considering the "dialog" in the beginning that actually was a monolog was pointless when that was why you two started to argue? And you say Siskel says the movie doesn't explain anything? That's exactly what he says - he says it does nothing but explaining. Like you said from the start - he just said the 15 first minutes had no dialog. And he was right. Learn your facts and how to be consistent in your points.
@kurvos It is when I barely remember what the argument was about.
It seems so pointless. Sorry my stupid brain can't comprehend things like Dialog vs monolog. But at least I'm not a uber douche bag who has to be right all the time.
Excuse me I'm gonna go watch my stupid movies now.
I'd love to bite Richards neck. Obviously he's felt it before. Cool.
sammycut1 2 months ago
@sammycut1 Fucking psycho! LMAO Girl, you got that vampire fever!
Econ1260MetZRoberto 2 months ago
@Econ1260MetZRoberto Correction, you were right! LMFAO
Econ1260MetZRoberto 2 months ago
lol love Roeper's last comment
minglis88 3 months ago
Kate Beckinsale looked fantastic and the film looked great but the plot wasnt up to much
chinahands100 5 months ago
one of the only Vampire fims i like along with Blade and From Dusk till dawn
navylaks2 6 months ago
roaper is wrong. this film sucks lol
citizenjamie 6 months ago
@citizenjamie roaper just has really weird taste in movies, we can tell already
despairedboy 4 months ago
lol at ebert
"ITS A CONFUSING JUMBLE!"
slangshotstudios 7 months ago 2
Hey, am I the only one - or does it get on your nerves as well with these reviews, both Ebert and Roeper AND also Siskel and Ebert reviews - that they interrupt each other all the god damn time? One of them tries to explain his opinion, but the other one interrupts with either "no" or "why"... pisses me off.
kurvos 9 months ago
2:09...Roger's like "what a jackass"
WeaponXXIV 10 months ago
@WeaponXXIV lol yeah..that look ws priceless!
truepureblue 7 months ago
Good comments at the end about eroticism verse violence.
Capt777harris 11 months ago 6
Siskel would also give thumb down, that movie was horrible
MrConredsX 1 year ago
Ok Ebert is officially the dumbest reviewer. "there is no dialog until 15 mins into it" BULLSHIT Selene had the whole inner monologue at the very start explaining EVERYTHING.
damn idiot should've left after Siskel died.
rockworm503 1 year ago
@rockworm503
A lazy voiceover explaining the scenario to thick kids does not count as dialogue.
textthing 1 year ago
@textthing ah I see we're going to change the definition of dialog now.
the so called "lazy" voiceover at the beginning explained the scenario it was words spoken that is dialog weather it was good or bad dialog is open to debate what isn't however is the fact that it is dialog.
rockworm503 1 year ago
@rockworm503
No, you're the one who's changing the definition. According to you, words spoken in a film, regardless of context, count as dialogue. The meaning of the word is "words exchanged by at least two people." Hence, words uttered by one person in the absence of another count as monologue. A voiceover at the start of a film to explain the story strikes me as a lazy way to begin a film. It's not dialogue though. And I can't believe you're defending a movie like this.
textthing 1 year ago
@textthing Whaever I like the movie I find it very easy to defend as I still find it fresh every time I watch it. Your big paragraph on the difference between monologue and dialog is both pointless and retarded. The point I was making was Ebert complaining about nothing being explained in when theres shit being explained at the very beginning.
rockworm503 1 year ago
@rockworm503
Your point included confusion as to the difference between an expository monologue and dramatic dialogue. My explanation was perfectly clear and to the point. If you have an objection to it, state it.
Having to include a lengthy voiceover at the start of your movie is just an admission that you haven't explained things well IN the movie, i.e. in the storytelling.
textthing 1 year ago
@textthing You should just ignore him - his arguments makes no sense anyway. He will never get that your points are actually more valuable than his own.
kurvos 9 months ago
@rockworm503 Oh god, are you for real? How can you say his remark considering the "dialog" in the beginning that actually was a monolog was pointless when that was why you two started to argue? And you say Siskel says the movie doesn't explain anything? That's exactly what he says - he says it does nothing but explaining. Like you said from the start - he just said the 15 first minutes had no dialog. And he was right. Learn your facts and how to be consistent in your points.
kurvos 9 months ago
@kurvos bringing back an argument that was over 3 months ago lol.
rockworm503 9 months ago
@rockworm503 Yeah, because... 3 months are SOOO long. :P
kurvos 9 months ago
@kurvos It is when I barely remember what the argument was about.
It seems so pointless. Sorry my stupid brain can't comprehend things like Dialog vs monolog. But at least I'm not a uber douche bag who has to be right all the time.
Excuse me I'm gonna go watch my stupid movies now.
rockworm503 9 months ago
Ebert: the greatest. Roeper get another job, your comments are just trash getting into people's mind
colosal30 1 year ago
A Shakespearean werewolf vampire movie? :P
DNAngel2009 1 year ago
Ebert and Roeper are just bickering now instead of having a discussion about the movie, i miss Siskel and Ebert R.I.P.
1996bonny 1 year ago 9