Red Mosquito

i have a hard time praising critics.

he had a pretty hilarious beef with kevin smith, right?

VinylGuy wrote:i have a hard time praising critics.

he had a pretty hilarious beef with kevin smith, right?

In the end it is only one man's opinion. I had to google it but Ebert and Smith exchanged a few good barbs over the years.

TheDapperGent wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:i have a hard time praising critics.

he had a pretty hilarious beef with kevin smith, right?

In the end it is only one man's opinion. I had to google it but Ebert and Smith exchanged a few good barbs over the years.

I think some of them have a lot of more power than that...specially in the art business. Not talking about this guy anyway...

Ebert was a good writer, first and foremost, and one of the most influential figures in modern film. He had keen insights and a passion for movies, and even when you disagreed with his opinions they were always presented with eloquence and thoughtfulness. He was great.

theplatypus wrote:Ebert was a good writer, first and foremost, and one of the most influential figures in modern film. He had keen insights and a passion for movies, and even when you disagreed with his opinions they were always presented with eloquence and thoughtfulness. He was great.

im sure he was a good writer, its just that i dont care that much for critics. Its not him, its just something i have against the idea of considering the critic of something like art, influential or important.

It's only important if you make it important. I think they have a role, they are able to articulate what they think about whatever they are criticizing and sometimes it makes for an interesting analysis. They're like anyone else, some you may like reading and others just annoy.

Yeah. In my opinion, the problem with art criticism is when people take the attitude of "this person knows more than me about ____, so I should pay attention to him", instead of "this person may have interesting things to say about this piece of art." I often find, with good reviews-- even if I disagree with the reviewer on the very subjective idea of whether the film is "good" or "bad"-- that I'll come away from the review with a new insight, a different way of seeing things, or even just a clever turn of phrase.

We are all critics here anyways!

theplatypus wrote:Yeah. In my opinion, the problem with art criticism is when people take the attitude of "this person knows more than me about ____, so I should pay attention to him", instead of "this person may have interesting things to say about this piece of art." I often find, with good reviews-- even if I disagree with the reviewer on the very subjective idea of whether the film is "good" or "bad"-- that I'll come away from the review with a new insight, a different way of seeing things, or even just a clever turn of phrase.

Exactly...and another problem is when the reviewer feels his work is more important than the piece itself.

TheDapperGent wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:i have a hard time praising critics.

he had a pretty hilarious beef with kevin smith, right?

In the end it is only one man's opinion. I had to google it but Ebert and Smith exchanged a few good barbs over the years.

Smith on Ebert:

theplatypus wrote:

TheDapperGent wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:i have a hard time praising critics.

he had a pretty hilarious beef with kevin smith, right?

In the end it is only one man's opinion. I had to google it but Ebert and Smith exchanged a few good barbs over the years.

Smith on Ebert:

Cool clip. Thanks for posting.

yea, pretty much.

I'm only refering to his video reviews (never read much of his written reviews), but I thought he was an inconsistent, rather capricious critic. I liked Siskel and Roeper much more. But he seemed like a nice guy and a big movie fan.

yet he didn't appreciate the considered capriciousness of Blue Velvet.