Unpopular Entertainment Opinions • Page 367

How producer Jon Peters and a giant spider nearly ruined Superman – The Pop Cultist

I had no idea he finally realized his dream in The Flash. Good for him!

 

I have a core memory of me and my childhood friend going to burger King and getting the wild wild west themed burger and glasses before going to see the movie...... so yea wild wild west rules

 

I learned about this from watching An Evening With Kevin Smith in high school

 

It’s too bad that Superman movie never happened. Don’t know how much of a “good Superman movie” it would’ve been, but it surely would’ve been an interesting project that’d be fun to have.

 

There isn’t really a movie critic like Roger Ebert anymore, like someone that everyone knows kinda thing. I love the wide range of film reviews and analysis channels on YouTube but very, very few of them are notable and stand out imo.

 

There are a few that I could very well be "the next roger ebert" but the environment isn't conducive to that now. There are many people nowadays that seem to distrust of professional film criticism (people who have studied film theory, and critical writing, and are published) in general, and they tend to lean more on "amateur film buffs with cameras" type of YouTube criticism and there are a million of those guys and many of them are same.

I would recommend Christie Lemire and Alonzo Duralde from the Breakfast Everyday podcast. Christie was actually Ebert's protege for years, and Duralde was the longtime chief film critic at The Wrap.

 

fennessey is great imo, i think they just started doing youtube stuff.

 

I give weight to Bilge Ebiri and Matt Zoller-Seitz's reviews most. I also always want to read Richard Brody, even though I frequently (usually?) wildly disagree with him.

I was a big fan of Ty Burr with the Globe, too, but he's mostly retired.

 

LightsCameraJackson

 

It’s depressing that there isn’t a modern Ebert, but I think the monoculture is gone in general. We are living in an age where every great critic’s reviews are easily available, and there’s a million people on letterboxd that have seen more shit than I have that I can read if I’d like context.

My trick is to find a relatively obscure film (typically SOV horror for me) and scanning reviews for someone I like so that I can follow them. Get niche enough for various genres and you’ve got yourself covered.

 

Missing the days of Ebert is like when people talk about how everyone trusted Walter Cronkite on the news. It is just a different world now. People our age remember modern Ebert but their show started in 1975 when you had three channels on TV. There were also a lot less movies released each year so it was much easier for a critic to cover the films coming out.

Also, if we look at box office, audiences were much more willing to see a variety of films. People watched dramas and comedies and arthouse and foreign, and these are the things that lend themselves to interesting writing. There is nothing to chew on in X-Men 7 or Star Wars 11, so it ultimately becomes a product review like you are searching for a blender or a bicycle. The obsession with spoilers has led to reviews being written so vague and without context that you are not going to learn anything new or have your perspective on the film challenged in any sort of interesting way.

 

Ebert would get in so much trouble now for being horny on main and being like I think Vincent Gallo is a moron haha

 

Vincent Gallo’s beef with Ebert is one of the funniest one sided beefs of all time.

 

The Ebert review I think about a lot is his hatred of Blue Velvet. I don't agree with him at all, but he is looking at the film from his own personal and moral lens and being unafraid to say so. There are so many times modern reviewers will say something like "it is good but not for me" but Ebert rejects that framing entirely. Your personal opinion is the whole point; the only person the movie is "for" is each person's individual reaction to it.

 

New media has spilt up the role of classic film reviews. Previously they would serve as both advertiser and analyser. They would dance around the describing the film so you could guess if youd want to see it without hearing about the cool things that actually happen in the movie because that would be spoliers.

Film analyses has now risen as it own form without that limitation, you can watch an hour long video essay that will disect relevent elements from whatever branch of critical theory you choose, theres 20 videos on X - EXPLAINED! where theyll do the same but going over the plot. You can find technical anaylse on lighting and editing or sound design techniques by experts in that particular field.
Finding out if you want to see a film is now done spoiler free via agrigated online community vibes.

I like reading a good review from a talented writed who knows the dance, but they have moved from an essential role to just another part of the content landscape.

 

I think there’s a lot of over-explaining in film analysis YouTube. Like sometimes a hat rack is just a hat rack, bro.

 

All of it is just not for me, I truly have zero interest in someone's opinion that who I don't know, I really don't. I don't read/like reviews, recaps, video breakdowns, any of it.... The closest I get is literally just reading these forums and talking to my friends and family

 

@Morrissey is the new Ebert.

 

The great thing about a show like Siskel and Ebert was they were two guys that both respected each other, but weren’t really friends so they could just bust each other’s chops and not have to worry too much about damaging their relationship because they knew they’d have to be back at the balcony next week.

You wouldn’t really get that today because what psychos besides The Doughboys would willingly sit a room together week after week sharing their opinions on a thing they love while their hands are hovering right in front of the other’s neck?

 

I wouldn't want to talk to friends or family about movies. I took a lot of friends over multiple trips to see things like The Tree of Life and Spring Breakers and they mostly just got mad. I remember being at a Christmas party in 2019 and I was talking to a civilian who was panning The Irishman and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and as the conversation went on it was clear she had no idea that Jimmy Hoffa or the Manson family were real things.

Film critics tend to have degrees in film or English or journalism, they watch more movies in a week than most people do in a year, and they think about and edit their thoughts carefully. They are better at watching films than I am. Watching the film is only part of the experience, while reading critiques from a variety of critics colors in the rest of it.

It really depends what you are trying to get out of the experience. Anyone can just watch a movie and experience it at their basic gut level; we have been doing that since we were small children. However, if you are serious about learning about an artform, its history, and its meaning, you need to respect and absorb other voices. It doesn't matter if it is film or music or painting. I know a lot more about film history and auteur theory than I did when I first really started to analyze film, but the great critics forget more than I know and my experience is enriched by their reading.

Earlier today I watched a video essay about the Poochie episode of The Simpsons. The essay itself didn't reveal too much, but it made me think about how that episode might work for someone who doesn't have a lot of background knowledge and how criticism can fill in those gaps. The episode was funny to me as a child, but through getting older and reading criticism it is an even richer episode because I understand the deeper meanings. I was too young to experience the Scrappy Doo and Cousin Oliver situations they were making fun of, I did not know that it was a commentary on how The Simpsons itself was perceived as getting stale, and growing up in 90's pop culture I did not fully understand how they were tearing apart the faux-rebellion of 90's edginess.

The critic I probably agree with the most is Michael Koresky of Reverse Shot. Koresky is gay, and as a result he sees gay themes in films that are not explicitly queer-coded, and he can add authenticity to the perceptions of the accuracy of gay relationships and conflict in the film. Older critics are great because they are able to draw more on obscure older films rather than just the canon. I am not religious but critics of faith can look at works from people like Tarkovsky and Malick and add details I would not have seen the same way.

 

There is a lot of bad analyse that wouldnt have a place in tradional media because its stupid below the lowest common demoniator but now even that audience can be served. There are good creators that would benifit from the guidances and feedback of experienced producers and editors. That structure only existed in tradional media and its value for developing writers is not something that can be replaced.

 

Reading critiques gives you the language to talk about film.

 

That's great for you, I was just saying that it's not for me. I don't want someone else's opinion who I don't, I really just don't

 

I love reading or listening to other people's thoughts and opinions. It usually only strengthens my own thoughts and adds deeper appreciation for things, especially for very old or foreign films for which I'm often missing context. Even criticism of things I love is useful to see other points of view and better understand how different people think.

I love talking to my friends and wife about films too though, my wife more than anyone else really.