|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.183.82.136
'); } // End --> |
In Reply to: Ebert: A Critical defense of Crash posted by RGA on January 11, 2006 at 13:30:33:
"it was clear to me how inorganic the movie is and how severely it manipulates and contrives.""A suffocating tangle of ham-fisted ironies and belief-beggaring coincidences"
I totally agree with both comments. Crash is crap.
A few years ago Film Comment trashed both Siskel and Ebert in a very interesting article. I don't think that Ebert is taken seriously by any of the serious film critics.
Follow Ups:
"I don't think that Ebert is taken seriously by any of the serious film critics."Really? Like who? Janet Maslin has appeared on his show. Is she serious? Elvis Mitchell, who wrote for the New York Times, and the film critic for the Los Angeles Times, both of whom appeared on his show after Siskel passed away, during that period of time in which a variety of film critics were being "tested" for the other seat. They are not serious critics?
I suspect that their opinions, if they exist, largely stem from the fact that most film critics have no notoriety of their own, and are celebrity wanna bees. That Ebert has been smart enough, resourceful enough, and lucky enough to acheive a status of which they are jealous is the real source of their hostility. We call them sour grapes.
Soryr but they obviously didn't understand the film - pithy as they condemn Ebert clearly shows them their hat for not "getting it." it is clear these writers have no real education in the arts -- big vocabularies and pithy writing maybe but they leave much to be desired as understanding film. Especially their lack of insight in the scenes where Bullock requests the locks to be changed twise -- these critics completley misread the scene - Their conclusion about the scene is laughable.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: