TMC wrote:Josh Jamison wrote: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.