Films/DVD Asylum Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ] [ Edit ] [ Delete ]

---

Re: The most noteworthy film critic in film criticism?

207.81.84.149

Posted by RGA on July 18, 2005 at 10:53:25

In Reply to: Re: The most noteworthy film critic in film criticism? posted by Gee LP on July 17, 2005 at 00:51:50:

Ebert is the most noteworthy because he's the only film critic to win the Pulitzer. He teaches film school and he knows film as well as anyone.

This does not mean I agree with every thing he says -- But Pauline Kael had some bizzarre views on a lot of films. A film critic has to like all genres of film -- not all films but genres. Ebert cares not about what the film is about but how well the film achieved the goal it set out to achieve and THAT is the mark of a good film critic.

The best film critics are subjectively the ones we agree with the most and objectively the one's who can make their case and people can say well I disagree with you Roger on the Cronenberg Movie Crash but I can at least see WHY you liked it.

Ebert does not view himself as the best film critic but I suspect he will be viewed that way by both his peers the film industry and the public. What a few forumers, myself included, have to say is irrelevant. He's got his Star on the Walk of Fame, he's the critic chosen for the running commentary of film's like Citizen Kane not James Agee.

Again I'm not saying he is the best film critic in any objective way since that is silly. But what ebert is is not a Hack -- he is "in League" with the very best film critics and he writes in a realtively direct easy entertaining style (some may go further and call it formula style) but that does not or should not detract from "WHAT" he is saying.

I have read Janet Maslin and Kenneth Turan and many others even the self made wonder boy of the internet James Beradinelli. They all write differently some are a little more in depth than the others. Some of the art-house critics however often stick their foot in their mouth when trying to be "deep" shovelling absolute non-sensical kaka in their negative views of a hollywood film. To me it is easy to spot -- skeptics are always given more weight and more credibility because they are being skeptical (not that they are being more truthful) All tube amps suck , LP's suck, all amps sound the same because of some test. No different than eveyr hollywood movie sucks and only the no name box office failures which are forgotten in three years (except by 12 film critics)

Ebert is not viewed as an elite film critic for the simple reason that he isn't a big enough elitest snob. And he needs to live in New York.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

VH Audio

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---