PDA

View Full Version : Fulci - Roger Ebert


keith70
08-18-2001, 05:12 PM
Oh, what a suprise! Roger Ebert doesn't get Fulci.
www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/1998/07/070303.html

Oink
08-18-2001, 07:20 PM
I must say Roger Ebert is a very funny man. But very stupid as well.

skinnypuppy6
08-18-2001, 08:05 PM
ebert is a fat fuck who should give himself 2 thumbs up his ass

Erg0n
08-18-2001, 09:37 PM
ahahahhaahaaahahah

you shouldn't trust film critics like him. he's more of a "titanic" critic than a horror one.

Hellbilly
08-18-2001, 10:15 PM
isnt ebert cute? his review made me smile. (dont get me wrong, "The Beyond" is one of my all-time favorites)
its just funny how "professional critics" sometimes react to movies they cannot understand ... GET A FUCKING LIFE, EBERT!

AlkanFan
08-19-2001, 01:19 AM
Roger Ebert is entitled to his opinion like everybody else. While he may not support "The Beyond," he has supported many controversial films in the past, most notably "Dawn of the Dead." Don't get me wrong; I'm a huge fan of "The Beyond." I just don't think it's fair to blast a critic for disliking a movie.

skinnypuppy6
08-19-2001, 04:21 AM
yes its fair to blast ebert im his critic he's a big studio hack

AceRimRat
08-19-2001, 09:07 AM
Guy who likes Dark City enough to record an audio commentary can't be all bad. :)

Actually, as mainstream reviewers go, I find Ebert to be one of the more thorough and reasonable.

And he did write "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls." :)

Mario77
08-19-2001, 11:23 AM
I kind of like Ebert, even though he's a dick, like all critics, and get's threatened easily by that which he does not understand. I agree with Ace, he is one of the more thorough and reasonable. If you look at his collected reviews from over the past three decades, the man has championed many great films that few, if any, other mainstream critics have. He's not evil. He's just really fucking wrong about the art of Lucio Fulci.
It's a shame though, the man who collaborated with Russ Meyer and praised his work (as well he should have) can't understand Fulci's work. Whatever, Roger... you turd.

"The Beyond" is inspired genius.

Trout
08-19-2001, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by skinnypuppy6
ebert is a fat fuck who should give himself 2 thumbs up his ass


Please, tell us how you really feel :D

The only critic that matters to me is myself, all other people's opinions are just that...opinions.

mutleyhyde
08-19-2001, 08:59 PM
All this angst directed towards Li'l Tubby, and no mention of his cripple bitch Roeper?? He's the real ass. I can hardly watch the show anymore. I actually caught it last night, and it only reaffirmed why. Roeper reminds me of another cripple bitch who only argues for the sake of arguing, incessantly blabbers on about meaningless crap, and can't admit when he's talkin' bs when he's called on it, making more of an ass of himself by reiterating the same bs. ARRGGGHH! I just want Li'l Tubby to reach over and bitch-slap the barking chihuahua!

-breathe-

Yeah, I shouldn't watch that show anymore. ;)

keith70
08-19-2001, 10:26 PM
I definitely don't have the same taste in movies as Roger. He listed Death Race 2000 as one of the 25 worst movies ever made. And if he could destroy the original negative, he would. I loved Death Race 2000. Sure it's campy. But that's the way it was supposed to be.
Also, Ebert gave Bulletproof and Happy Gilmore were given worse reviews than Airheads and the Waterboy. Yet, Roger called Little Nickey "Adam's Sandler's best film." I strongly dissagree. I would have given Bulletproof & Happy Gilmore the better ratings out of Adam's films. And Little Nickey would have recieved the worst.
But I really disagree with the fact that Evert actually believes that some films should be destroyed. That doesn't sound like a film lover to me.

Hellbilly
08-20-2001, 05:21 AM
i would say that The Wedding Singer is mr. sandlers best film yet.:D

Mark Relford
08-20-2001, 07:12 AM
I don't mind Li'l Tubby, but this review was lame. His feeble attempts at being witty made my stomach turn.


I think Happy Gilmore was Sandler's best film.

The Chaostar
08-20-2001, 03:30 PM
Sandler should not make movies.

You know, Ebert IS a fan of Dario Argento and an even greater fan of George Romero. He has praised both frequently (and that's a fact).
Now we have to like him?
(He hated DAY OF THE DEAD though).


Anyone could write whatever he wants.
I once read a review of MAGNOLIA in a horror site that drove me sooooooo mad, but - hey - it's his opinion.

keith70
08-20-2001, 06:03 PM
More ratings from Ebert.

Roger Ebert gave both The Hitcher and Doom Generation 0 stars! That's zero out of a possible four. The Hitcher 0 stars? And yes the film is reviewed.

Check out his ratings for John Carpenter:
Big Trouble in little China (2 stars)
J.C. Vampires (2 stars)
Prince of Darkness (2 stars)
Escape from L.A. (3 1/2 stars)! Three and a half stars for EFLA?

Other ratings:
Hellraiser (1 star)
Hellbound Hellraiser2 (1 1/2 stars)
Night of the Living Dead Remake ( 1 star)
Resevoir Dogs (2 1/2 stars)

This one's funny. Dick Tracy (4 STARS)!

You can read the reviews and search for films at www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebertser.html

The Chaostar
08-20-2001, 07:02 PM
Guys, what you are doing is silly.
So what if that's what he thinks? I don't get it.
What it matters to you?

Hey, I too would rate Dick Tracy with four stars and Doom Generation with 0.

What does that make me?

keith70
08-20-2001, 07:27 PM
I really don't care what Ebert thinks:D . I only posted this because I think it's fun to pick on Ebert because he's such a respected critic that in my opinion needs to be knocked off his high horse from time to time.
It's like Trey Parker and Matt Stone bitching about Barbera Streisand. I'm only having fun.
One thing that I like to say about Ebert is that he likes foreign subtitled films so much, because he doesn't have to stop stuffing his face to hear the dialog. That's the real reason he hates dubbing.
I really don't care what Ebert or any other critic thinks. But I would like to get an idea about the movie I'm going to watch and I don't think Ebert truely apprecieates low budget films.

Reasoning for this:
1. He complained about Troma not giving Stendhal Syndrome a wide theatrical release, yet he didn't go see Tromeo and Juilet or Terror firmer, which had a decent size release. In fact, he was invited to see those films, but declined.
2. That he hates Death Race 2000 so much that he wouldn't mind if it was destroyed is another. Death Race 2000 isn't supposed to be a big picture. It was just another Roger Corman quicke. Only I think it's a really good movie considering the budget and what they were trying to accomplish.

I agree Troma movies suck. But I don't think it was fair of Ebert to attack them the way he did. At least Troma offered Argento's film uncut, which is something a major studio would most likely not have done. Not to mention Troma is a very small company. The most any actor has made on a Troma film is $450 total.

Maybe I'm just jealous of Ebert. He has a great job. But I definitely would not pick on small movies as much as he has done.

keith70
08-20-2001, 07:34 PM
I would also like to state that we really need some younger film reviewers out there. Ebert, Maltin, Schallit and all of these older critics represent my parents taste in movies more than mine.

The only critic that I really connect with is Chris Gore. I don't agree with him on everything, but I think he's more in touch with a film fan like myself. For one thing, Chris Gore likes horror movies. He also supports independent cinema and even release some independant films in the early 90's. I also thought he had a better review show than Eberts.

The Chris Gore show was set up like politicaly incorrect. Four different people would give their view of the films, while Chris would introduce the film and close with his own opinion of the movie. He would also ask the panel what they liked and didn't like about the film.

Paff
08-20-2001, 08:25 PM
Personally, I don't think Ebert's too far off base in that review, with perhaps the exception of his ignorance about Seven Doors of Death (He doesn't seem to realize it's an American re-edit, with Americanized names).

I've been going through a bit of a Fulci revival lately, watching some of his movies for a second time. Sorry, but The Beyond is still a little too dumb for me. City of the Living Dead is slower, but it's a much better film. I think any average reviewer would come up with the same opinions about The Beyond as Ebert did.

Face it, if you're someone who "gets" Fulci, an Ebert review isn't going to make or break your decision to watch one of his films. Ebert wrote that review for everyone, and most everyone doesn't "get" Fulci either.

Oogie Boogie
08-20-2001, 10:43 PM
Although I like The Beyond, I gotta go with Paff on this one. I sure don't like Fulci movies for their strong scripts (they rarely exist). I don't like to assume things while watching a movie, that's the filmmakers job, and with Fulci films you have to. Hell, you have to make up whole parts!!! A lot of the effects are horribly ridiculous, and the dialogue and drama are silly and over the top. But, the films are stylish and engrossing, none the less.
Ebert has a defferent taste, so what? I love the Doom Generation!!!!!!!!! So he can can eat poo about that. But hey, that's his OPINION. I know I have some opinions that a lot of people don't like. (I just don't get paid for it!!!!!)

skinnypuppy6
08-21-2001, 04:15 AM
Hey, I too would rate Dick Tracy with four stars and Doom Generation with 0. ..........INSANE!! :)

Jason25
08-21-2001, 07:07 AM
Ebert is a large man. I don't think he gets laid often and I could care less if he likes the Beyond or not. I agree with Paff, you made some good points.

Andrew
08-21-2001, 07:22 AM
He's either a closet froggie or a reviewer with mainstream taste. You decide......:).

mutleyhyde
08-21-2001, 07:52 AM
LOL!

skinnypuppy6
08-22-2001, 05:08 AM
He's either a closet froggie or a reviewer with mainstream taste. You decide...... ..............................He's to fuckin fat to fit in a closet!:o