- Joined
- Nov 20, 2018
Roger Ebert thread
- Thread starter BrunoMattei
- Start date
Nguyen Van Phuoc
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2018
The ironic thing is that Roger Ebert had actually given Barney's Great Adventure 3 stars, higher than that of his review of A Clockwork Orange, which he had only given 2 stars. Keep in mind, 3 stars is the lowest rating he can give to a "good" movie. So he considers toddlerschlock like Barney good, but a Stanley Kubrick classic he considers a mess. I'm not gonna state an opinion on him being dead now, I feel trying to state either side is gonna cause even more detractors.
He also gave shit like Zookeeper, the 2009 Land of the Lost remake and both live-action Garfield movies 3 stars and considers them good. So it doesn't surprise me that Ebert prefers these over A Clockwork Orange.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2019
Chris Cuckmann is a bitch. He was one of those that shilled for the Ghost in the Shell live action movie as one of the best of that year, completely dismissing people's concerns with it. And he's so close-minded.
I mean, look at one of his recent videos:
He ignores so many factors for why The Creator isn't doing well in theatres and just jumps to blaming the fans/consumers. How can people see something original if most people don't even know it exists?
This film had pretty poor marketing. And you can thank the WGA/SAG-AFTRA strikes for that. The writers/actors can't promote films while the strike was happening, so this film went five months with no advertising other than the trailers online. I didn't see a poster, a commercial, a billboard, nothing.
Nevermind the derivative nature of the film and the fact that many people are just done going to theatres. I haven't gone to theatres on my own accord in a very long time. Why bother when I can just see it at home?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2020
He also hasn't done Exorcist Believer, which is something he's absolutely cover except that he's afraid of backlash against 'Shelby Oaks'.
And speaking of 'Shelby Oaks' that's a whole cow disaster too. He raised a massive amount of money for it, then ran broke and asked for more, and it's STILL nowhere to be seen.
This is going to be another Doug Walker style 'mah movie' thing that's eating up over $2m and taking 3 years for the first trailer.
PeriodicTrouble
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 28, 2020
Years ago, he said in a video that he wasn't going to do negative reviews anymore.
Its even worse considering the goal was $250K and he got close to $1.4 million yet he still has the balls to ask for more money to finish the VFX for the movie.
His excuses on why he's begging for VFX despite already having fundings for a movie is such a DSP like move. It definitely is going to make the AVGN movie like fucking Citizen Kane.
Cuckmann's explanation as to why it failed is so myopic. He hasn't gone into full detail as to why it failed because of this year's two Hollywood strikes going on at the same time. He has failed to understand that people are no longer interested in going to theatres anymore, yet Cuckmann has that same mentality as W. Bush with his dumbass No Child Left Behind act and that no moviegoer must be left behind. He needs to understand that movies have gotten lazier and lazier, yet here he is just shilling on movies that are reboots or based off other properties based on the shiny, bold letters like a consoomer he truly is. No wonder Mike and Jay are still doing way better while Cuckmann is a complete manchild loser.
Last edited:
Xenomorphs Are Cute
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2019
That's what I've been saying. Someone please create a Chris Stuckmann lolcow thread
PizzaPoppa
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2023
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2023
@BrunoMattei didn’t this fat faggot trash John Carpenter’s “The Thing” when it came out, calling it nothing more than a pointless gore fest or some shit? It’s unbelievable how much of a hateboner he had for horror movies.
It’s part of what I call “The Critic Problem” where movie critics tend to make some of the most dogshit movies.
Iirc the change to “positive” reviews happened when Cuckmann started making his own movies, with the leading theory being that he didn’t want to be called a hypocrite for tearing into movies while his own movies are terrible.
It’s part of what I call “The Critic Problem” where movie critics tend to make some of the most dogshit movies.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2015
I did and the thread title was "Roger Ebert was a fucking faggot" until some Ebert fanboy mod who personally jizzed over their copy of 'I Hated, Hated, Hated, Hated that Movie' changed the thread title.
They're jannies that do it for free. They've been used to being butthurt and they keep correcting what they think should be a more appropriate title for a thread
TheHarbinger
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2022
I remember a beloved group of "critics" making a movie called Space Cop that seems to be largely ignored by their fans because it was a prime example of that very issue. Where these individuals were critical of woefully bad movies and low budget mediocrity. And it was practically their entire platform. Then they themselves produced something just as terrible or worse than everything that they had previously reviewed.
This happens in the mainstream and social media constantly. Someone becomes popular through either word of mouth or astroturfing or both. Or because they are part of a massive platform or built in audience. They, or the company that they work for, get offers from companies who are promoting their newest product for some advertising or exclusive access. The offer is that the company or reviewer cannot say anything negative though. Ever.
And sometimes you get miscommunication issues when this happens. Like Gamespot had a deal with the companies producing and publishing Kane and Lynch video games. They didn't tell the reviewer though. So he gave the game a 6.0 score out of 10 which in game terms is a negative number and on the level of massacring the personal families of the game designers and an unforgivable sin. So the reviewer, Jeff Gerstmann, was infamously fired over the review. Because he had no idea he was supposed to do a positive review.
And the "always positive" approach is basically all that is promoted anywhere. Mainstream media. Search engines. Social media. Nothing but advertisements and commercials disguised as 'user generated' and complete independent. If things like sponsor blocking and ad blocking programs could identify bot farms and shills then probably 99% of "content" online made in the last decade would vanish.
God of Nothing
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2016
People who deconstruct and destroy are hilariously oblivious to what it takes to build and create. I don't mean to lambast critics, but that's a job literally anyone can do. The benefit of the former is it helps if you can do the latter: you can see where your own pitfalls lay. RLM lacks the ability to create. The only thing really shameful about it is they didn't take a step back to really consider if they should've released that turd. Who knows, maybe we'll see something good from them eventually, but I doubt it.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2023
This is the type of criticism you get from an autistic 12 year old know-it-all. I dunno Ebert, would you rather get shot in the chest by a pistol or a goddamn Howitzer (he’d be safe either way cuz lol fat)?
He must've been REAL fun at parties...
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
He also unfavorably compared it to the original. I remember Siskel disagreed with him on the Sneak Previews show.
I've said this before, but it's ironic considering he actually gave The Devil's Rejects a positive review, which is far more gory and intensely fucked up than Carpenter. I think his opinion on gore evolved.
It's not that his taste on gore had evolve. Keep in mind that a few months after his review of The Devil's Rejects, he gave a harsh review on Wolf Creek for the same reason proving that Ebert was still a hypocrite.