GoldenSTWarriors

You all gotta read the "F-ck Rodger Ebert" review at www.pastamafia.com under the movie section.

I've never read a review by this Ebert guy... and I don't think I will now.

Yeesh, Josh. That article seems a tad harsh.

I know you and CM got this Maddox-clone type of website going (so you're a bit over the top on your insults and stuff), but you seem to lose focus in the Ebert article. I think Roger Ebert is a clown shoe, myself (make no mistake, this is not a defense on his part). But what you said about not diving deeper into a film didn't sound correct to me. If Roger Ebert could simply sit back in a chair, watch a movie, and give it a thumbs up or thumbs down based on whether or not he, personally, liked it, than he'd have the easiest job in the world (this side of meteorologists).

Film reviewers need to pretend that they're diving into a 'deeper meaning' to give their jobs credibility, otherwise people would realize that they were useless and don't deserve to be making money off of this crap. All the average film critic does is describe something he just watched and use little tidbits from the movie to back up his point. It's like being a dryer at the car wash; anybody can do this. Ebert (and a host of other pompus assholes who do the same thing for a living) needs to keep up the mirage of work. Afterall, if people understood that reviewing movies took no talent and/or work, than his TV show would have been canceled long ago... not to mention his candy ass would have been kicked to the curb by every newspaper in history.

People who review movies are like sportswriters; they don't seem to understand that ANYBODY can do their job. Movie writers, athletes, car mechanics, poets, cartoonists, ect... all do things that take a degree of skill and/or talent. Not every Joe in the world can sit down and do their job (and do it JUST AS WELL) after one week of training. Movie critics and sportswriters (just like receptionists at Chuckie Cheese) can be replaced in a matter of days.

Therefore, in conclusion, you're unfair on Roger Ebert. The only reason he's claiming that movies "need deeper meanings to be good" is because... if they didn't, he'd be out of a job.

[fasted64]

now that is not cool

[TMC]

I've just seen Click, so here's the promised review...

Truth is I never got into this film's vibe. It was a commedy, but other than a couple of situation that made me chuckle, it has a pretty empty storyline.

Blame it to my dislike of Adam Sandler (only "Spanglish" looked, well... palatable, and that's because he acted more seriously in his role. Less Adam Sandler, if you want), but I've never been truly entertained by this movie. It never "clicked" with me.

But Kate Beckinsale adds another point to the rating. I was entertained just by her playing a role. And that's the only thing I can save from the movie.

Pretty disappointing (although probably that's just me)

[Josh Jamison]

The overall concept of The Pasta Mafia is (1) make the readers laugh and (2) stir up controversey while doing so... Not to really write a great review that reflects the depth and vision of a movie, establishment, or music album (akin to Roger Ebert's movie reviews).

Yes... some reviews we write are very harsh, but without harsh, hilarious reviews who's gonna say that The Pasta Mafia is different from let's say... Roger Ebert or any other critic. Who's gonna go up to their friends and say, "wow... did you read that Ebert review... it was so insightful." Maybe all the film dorks, but that's pretty much it. Wouldn't you rather hear "holy sh-t, did you read what The Pasta Mafia said about..." After hearing each of those responses, who's review are you going to read? That's what we're going for. Of course we are very biased; we want to turn heads.

We have our own identity and strive to be unique. We cause controversey to get reactions and try to do it in a hilarious manor. We are not critics... We are the average everyday pissed off human beings when something is not the way we want it to be.

Is the "F-ck Roger Ebert" review going to make Roger Ebert pissed off or maybe cry? Who knows? I garauntee he doesn't even know about it or even care, but I bet it probably made you laugh a little. The majority of people like to read the negative rather than the positive because the negative has more fancy. Just watch your everyday news broadcast and weigh the negative to the positive stories. People like to watch and read controversey. Look at all these soap operas, reality shows, TV shows, movies, and rap music. Is there controversey? Hell year there is! We are just giving the readers what they want... controversey... with humor. What more can you ask for!?

We know there are some who don't like what we do, but hey, we can't appeal to everyone.

[xbay]

How about a review on Cast Away or Forrest Gump? I love the movies but I could never find a way to summarize those movies.

[TMC]

How about a review on Cast Away or Forrest Gump? I love the movies but I could never find a way to summarize those movies.

I've never liked Tom Hanks... I think I'll pass this time. Someone less biased should do those reviews.

[Josh Jamison]

Biased? Who cares!? Go ahead and type up the review! HAHA!

Loved both of those movies by the way!

[migya]

Biased? Who cares!? Go ahead and type up the review! HAHA!

Loved both of those movies by the way!

I had completely forgotten about writing some reviews and sending it to you guys to see if you can put it on your site.

I figure like me can add a little something

FUK YEA!

[coltraning]

You all gotta read the "F-ck Rodger Ebert" review at www.pastamafia.com under the movie section.

I've never read a review by this Ebert guy... and I don't think I will now.

Yeesh, Josh. That article seems a tad harsh.

I know you and CM got this Maddox-clone type of website going (so you're a bit over the top on your insults and stuff), but you seem to lose focus in the Ebert article. I think Roger Ebert is a clown shoe, myself (make no mistake, this is not a defense on his part). But what you said about not diving deeper into a film didn't sound correct to me. If Roger Ebert could simply sit back in a chair, watch a movie, and give it a thumbs up or thumbs down based on whether or not he, personally, liked it, than he'd have the easiest job in the world (this side of meteorologists).

Film reviewers need to pretend that they're diving into a 'deeper meaning' to give their jobs credibility, otherwise people would realize that they were useless and don't deserve to be making money off of this crap. All the average film critic does is describe something he just watched and use little tidbits from the movie to back up his point. It's like being a dryer at the car wash; anybody can do this. Ebert (and a host of other pompus assholes who do the same thing for a living) needs to keep up the mirage of work. Afterall, if people understood that reviewing movies took no talent and/or work, than his TV show would have been canceled long ago... not to mention his candy ass would have been kicked to the curb by every newspaper in history.

People who review movies are like sportswriters; they don't seem to understand that ANYBODY can do their job. Movie writers, athletes, car mechanics, poets, cartoonists, ect... all do things that take a degree of skill and/or talent. Not every Joe in the world can sit down and do their job (and do it JUST AS WELL) after one week of training. Movie critics and sportswriters (just like receptionists at Chuckie Cheese) can be replaced in a matter of days.

Therefore, in conclusion, you're unfair on Roger Ebert. The only reason he's claiming that movies "need deeper meanings to be good" is because... if they didn't, he'd be out of a job.

Interesting points, 32 - here's my fave quote on critics, by Nabokov. "critics are like eunuchs in a harem - constantly frustrated at having to watch what they know they can never do"

BTW, US vs John lennon is completely worth seeing -5 snatches or whatever

[TMC]

Interesting points, 32 - here's my fave quote on critics, by Nabokov. "critics are like eunuchs in a harem - constantly frustrated at having to watch what they know they can never do"

That's another easy way to dismiss their work. They're critics so the idea about their job is the following: "what do they do?. Watch movies and say what they think of them?. That's all?. I can do that job... and better than them. They must be frustrated 'cos all they do is say their opinion and never create anything by themselves..."

Guess that what I'm saying is that is not an easy job, it's always on the line of fire. And that's 'cos it's just an opinion... and, well, opinions are like *ssholes... (you know the rest)

[coltraning]

Interesting points, 32 - here's my fave quote on critics, by Nabokov. "critics are like eunuchs in a harem - constantly frustrated at having to watch what they know they can never do"

That's another easy way to dismiss their work. They're critics so the idea about their job is the following: "what do they do?. Watch movies and say what they think of them?. That's all?. I can do that job... and better than them. They must be frustrated 'cos all they do is say their opinion and never create anything by themselves..."

Guess that what I'm saying is that is not an easy job, it's always on the line of fire. And that's 'cos it's just an opinion... and, well, opinions are like *ssholes... (you know the rest)

I think his point was the critics had no expertise in what they wrote. I know it is true in music. I have been reviewed a fair bit, mostly positive, but the people reviewing didn't have a clue. My fave was the guy from the NY Times reviewing Sonny Rollins and Branford Marsalis about 10 years ago, and he wasn't sure if they were playing a blues...that's like someone reviewing a car who wasn't sure if that was a carburetor...even a fisherman needs a license, but anyone can be a critic...the best site for movie reviews I have seen is rottentomatoes.com, cause they average out hundreds of reviews, so you get a sense...

[TMC]

the best site for movie reviews I have seen is rottentomatoes.com, cause they average out hundreds of reviews, so you get a sense...

Yep, the metacritic works that way, too. An average of notes helps defining how good a movie is.

Guess that my point is this (on a more general way, not only movies):

Who can be called an expert when it's a matter of taste?. Those so-called experts need to have a basic knowledge about how thinks are done (or, better yet, should be done), so they can measure one against the others... but, in the end, if it's technically well done, what else can they say?. The rest is just opinion. Doesn't mean one is better than other.

[coltraning]

the best site for movie reviews I have seen is rottentomatoes.com, cause they average out hundreds of reviews, so you get a sense...

Yep, the metacritic works that way, too. An average of notes helps defining how good a movie is.

Guess that my point is this (on a more general way, not only movies):

Who can be called an expert when it's a matter of taste?. Those so-called experts need to have a basic knowledge about how thinks are done (or, better yet, should be done), so they can measure one against the others... but, in the end, if it's technically well done, what else can they say?. The rest is just opinion. Doesn't mean one is better than other.

well, we could get into a long back and forth on this, but I won't bore everyone.It's actually a course i teach, how to judge a work of art...suffice to say that in music, art, theater, lit, etc...there are specific criteria requring knowledge to judge, just as much as in medicine, car repair or architecture. But because the arts also entertain non-experts, we often confuse what we like with what is good. If I gave my 4 year-old Chinatown to watch he would think it was horrible. Now that he is 14 he gets it and understands its brilliance. Did the film improve or did he get more knowledge? If someone comes to hear me play and they have no knowledge of what is involved in playing jazz, their judgment is not going to have the same value as Sonny Rollins..i.e. what do we MEAN by good (define our terms) and how do we KNOW (what is our knowledge of what we are judging). That is the problem with critics - as a general rule, they have no knowledge of what they are judging. All opinions are indeed equal when it comes to what we like. When it comes to what is good in jazz, Miles Davis' opinion has a lot more value and weight than does my mechanic's, and vice versa when it comes to cars. Maybe that makes some sense, maybe not?

[TMC]

well, we could get into a long back and forth on this, but I won't bore everyone.It's actually a course i teach, how to judge a work of art...suffice to say that in music, art, theater, lit, etc...there are specific criteria requring knowledge to judge, just as much as in medicine, car repair or architecture. But because the arts also entertain non-experts, we often confuse what we like with what is good. If I gave my 4 year-old Chinatown to watch he would think it was horrible. Now that he is 14 he gets it and understands its brilliance. Did the film improve or did he get more knowledge? If someone comes to hear me play and they have no knowledge of what is involved in playing jazz, their judgment is not going to have the same value as Sonny Rollins..i.e. what do we MEAN by good (define our terms) and how do we KNOW (what is our knowledge of what we are judging). That is the problem with critics - as a general rule, they have no knowledge of what they are judging. All opinions are indeed equal when it comes to what we like. When it comes to what is good in jazz, Miles Davis' opinion has a lot more value and weight than does my mechanic's, and vice versa when it comes to cars. Maybe that makes some sense, maybe not?

Yeah, I agree about that... the problem is that that applies when criticizing the technical quality of works that try to follow a pattern (of art or anything, which, must be pointed, it's most of the creations).. but what about the different ones, those that try to break with the previous line of work?. How can those be measured when there's no scale in which they can be valued?. There's a difference between learning to do something, and creating something completely new...

Doesn't matter much, tho. I was just bored and playing devil's advocate for the sake of it.

[migya]

Cinderella Man - Starring Russell Crowe and Renae Zellwegger

Brilliant movie!

Crowe and Zellwegger again show their great acting skills in this movie.


Movie is a true story about the former heavy weight boxing champion James Braddock and his comeback in boxing. Braddock was a champion and undefeated in his young days up to 1926 and then the great depression arrived and things got tougher for everyone in society. Braddock was older and had weakened due to several injuries over the years, including a broken right hand. He no longers boxers as well and no longer wins but does not ever get knocked out! He is seen as a no good fighter and has his boxing license taken away and can therefore not fight anymore for money. He works on the docks and it is there that he has to use his left hand more because of his hurt right hand and he gets a much stronger left hand. He gets a one off fight against the #2 contender for the heavy weight title and he wins! This sparks off his amazing come back as he beats a number of fighters and then beats the heavy weight champion, a guy who had killed two other guys in the ring!

A great movie about struggling to make ends meet, courage and inspiration!