Nicely said.arizonabay wrote:I think Armond's review has finally made me come to an understanding of where he is coming from.I don't think he is a troll, he genuinely demands movies to be made according to a set of beliefs which exist in his own mind (in other words films have to agree with his own opinions). Therefore, if a movie is all shades of grey in terms of good and evil, the normal reviewer will admire its complexity, whilst Armond will bash its nihilism. If a movie has a message his own warped mind doesn't agree with (like Toy Story 3) he will bash it. Strangely, despite his clear intelligence, the films he ends up praising are dull and simplistic because they have to fit these stringent guide lines (which seem to be the opposite of what 99% of critics on the planet want out of film - he only wants them to tell him what he already knows because he thinks he knows it all). Egotistical, small minded and irrelevant yes, a troll? No.
Inception Review Discussion (240 total)
Posts: 236
Joined:
June 2010
it'll be up in the morning tommorow. sorceror's apprentice just got its review out earlier because it was released a day or two before inception.Christopher Nolan wrote:he keeps torturing us..micool wrote:damn, Ebert posted some new reviews, but none are Inception
Posts: 29
Joined:
July 2010
Yeah, he seems to operate on a "how 'good' is the movie at what it does" basis. I argued against that approach here (http://www.nolanfans.com/forums/viewtop ... 87&#p35587) but nobody gave a damn although many people were discussing this point back then (2 days ago, 102 pages back!)redfirebird2008 wrote:kanjisheik wrote:I remember Ebert explaining his rating system some time back. He said that his rating is based on other movies of the same genre. Since Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are the best superhero movies by a mile, they got 4/4. Since Memento and The Prestige are great movies but not the best, they got rated less. I don't particularly agree with his ratings, but its his system.
I love Ebert but that is a silly system. Very misleading.
George did reply though. Thank you George you made me happy.
Typical Armond White trolling, I'm sure he meant Mombasa, but again he was either not paying attention as usual or he's deliberately mixing the facts for attention.discoveringuy wrote:MUMBAI?????going from paris to Mumbai to nameless ski slopes, carelessly shifting tenses like a video game
Seriously Mr.White?
You are an idiot!!!
P.S. This is by far the most revealing post of about the critic himself.
My theory is the the harsher his reviews are, the more he enjoyed a film.
If she plays cranium she gives good brainium.
Posts: 148
Joined:
July 2010
George I need to point out a mistake.
You have the Boston Herald link as a negative review. it is not a review it is a blog posting by someone who does not post direct reviews.
the reviews for Boston Herald are here.....
http://www.bostonherald.com/entertainme ... ?type=mrev
and there are NO reviews of Inception from Boston Herald yet. that is just an opinion not a review of the movie.
You can take it off
According to Boston Herald only James Verniere reviews their movies. This guy is Stephen Shaefer
You have the Boston Herald link as a negative review. it is not a review it is a blog posting by someone who does not post direct reviews.
the reviews for Boston Herald are here.....
http://www.bostonherald.com/entertainme ... ?type=mrev
and there are NO reviews of Inception from Boston Herald yet. that is just an opinion not a review of the movie.
You can take it off
According to Boston Herald only James Verniere reviews their movies. This guy is Stephen Shaefer
You're pretty much on the right track, but he's a troll because many of his reviews are deliberately agitory and contrarian in order to attract attention for himself. But, most of the time I think that he DOES believe what he's writing (which is sad). He tends to trash a film based on highly specific philosophical or political objections. If a film introduces an analysis of morality, he'll label it as "nihilistic". If it's a populist film he'll label it as "hipster pandering". If it's an analysis of social issues he'll often label it as pandering to "liberals". He also has huge issues with race.arizonabay wrote:I think Armond's review has finally made me come to an understanding of where he is coming from.I don't think he is a troll, he genuinely demands movies to be made according to a set of beliefs which exist in his own mind (in other words films have to agree with his own opinions). Therefore, if a movie is all shades of grey in terms of good and evil, the normal reviewer will admire its complexity, whilst Armond will bash its nihilism. If a movie has a message his own warped mind doesn't agree with (like Toy Story 3) he will bash it. Strangely, despite his clear intelligence, the films he ends up praising are dull and simplistic because they have to fit these stringent guide lines (which seem to be the opposite of what 99% of critics on the planet want out of film - he only wants them to tell him what he already knows because he thinks he knows it all). Egotistical, small minded and irrelevant yes, a troll? No.
I don't read the reviews, but what is his main complaint about Inception (if it can be deciphered)?
Posts: 148
Joined:
July 2010
Another mistake by George:
The screendaily review is a positive review. Why have you put it in the negative column?
also for new page
You have the Boston Herald link as a negative review. it is not a review it is a blog posting by someone who does not post direct reviews.
the reviews for Boston Herald are here.....
http://www.bostonherald.com/entertainme ... ?type=mrev
and there are NO reviews of Inception from Boston Herald yet. that is just an opinion not a review of the movie.
You can take it off
According to Boston Herald only James Verniere reviews their movies. This guy is Stephen Shaefer
The screendaily review is a positive review. Why have you put it in the negative column?
also for new page
You have the Boston Herald link as a negative review. it is not a review it is a blog posting by someone who does not post direct reviews.
the reviews for Boston Herald are here.....
http://www.bostonherald.com/entertainme ... ?type=mrev
and there are NO reviews of Inception from Boston Herald yet. that is just an opinion not a review of the movie.
You can take it off
According to Boston Herald only James Verniere reviews their movies. This guy is Stephen Shaefer
one line I rememberEternalist wrote:You're pretty much on the right track, but he's a troll because many of his reviews are deliberately agitory and contrarian in order to attract attention for himself. But, most of the time I think that he DOES believe what he's writing (which is sad). He tends to trash a film based on highly specific philosophical or political objections. If a film introduces an analysis of morality, he'll label it as "nihilistic". If it's a populist film he'll label it as "hipster pandering". If it's an analysis of social issues he'll often label it as pandering to "liberals". He also has huge issues with race.arizonabay wrote:I think Armond's review has finally made me come to an understanding of where he is coming from.I don't think he is a troll, he genuinely demands movies to be made according to a set of beliefs which exist in his own mind (in other words films have to agree with his own opinions). Therefore, if a movie is all shades of grey in terms of good and evil, the normal reviewer will admire its complexity, whilst Armond will bash its nihilism. If a movie has a message his own warped mind doesn't agree with (like Toy Story 3) he will bash it. Strangely, despite his clear intelligence, the films he ends up praising are dull and simplistic because they have to fit these stringent guide lines (which seem to be the opposite of what 99% of critics on the planet want out of film - he only wants them to tell him what he already knows because he thinks he knows it all). Egotistical, small minded and irrelevant yes, a troll? No.
I don't read the reviews, but what is his main complaint about Inception (if it can be deciphered)?
"Chris Nolan is a clever con-man" or something like that, or "Inception is a video game" wtf
something like that stuck out
Posts: 23
Joined:
July 2010
I just read the thing, and I want to say that that post was awesome. Particularly your thoughts on how personal opinion should be the one thing that decides whether or not something is "good" or "bad". I'm glad I read it.Andrew_97 wrote:Yeah, he seems to operate on a "how 'good' is the movie at what it does" basis. I argued against that approach here (http://www.nolanfans.com/forums/viewtop ... 87&#p35587) but nobody gave a damn although many people were discussing this point back then (2 days ago, 102 pages back!)redfirebird2008 wrote:kanjisheik wrote:I remember Ebert explaining his rating system some time back. He said that his rating is based on other movies of the same genre. Since Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are the best superhero movies by a mile, they got 4/4. Since Memento and The Prestige are great movies but not the best, they got rated less. I don't particularly agree with his ratings, but its his system.
I love Ebert but that is a silly system. Very misleading.
George did reply though. Thank you George you made me happy.
Also, I think that Ebert is right to be judging a film based on its own ambitions, but wrong to judge them on a different scale. If nothing else, it's easier to understand just how good he thinks a film is when you know that a four star film is, in his opinion, better than anything he gave three stars.
Last edited by Doodlebug on July 14th, 2010, 11:42 am, edited 2 times in total.