https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sn_vAcFGTJU
I completely agree. When this movie first came out, I checked out opinions on it. Angry Joe and co hated it. Armored Skeptic and ShoeOnHead liked it. Very strange split verdict from reviewers that tend to agree. It's like they were talking about the Ghostbusters reboot from two different universes. Comicbookgirl19 was the tiebreaker for me.
Probably not as horrible as the trailers led me to believe, but probably not actually good, either. So, I'm still going to sit this one out.
The reviews ive seen are, "it's a movie." Nothing special, nothing terrible... if it wasn't a Ghostbusters movie no one would remember it in 2 weeks.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 23, 2016, 04:23:19 PM
The reviews ive seen are, "it's a movie." Nothing special, nothing terrible... if it wasn't a Ghostbusters movie no one would remember it in 2 weeks.
I saw it and I actually thought it was better than that, but I'll add to that the usual addendum that it wasn't a whole lot better. There were some enjoyable moments, but I can't remember them. LOL
From all I've seen, I can conclusively say, that despite the name, this isn't ghostbusters.
This is every other trashy comedy movie thats come out post bridesmaids, every adam sandler happy maddison movie. Their is no subtly or nuance like the original had, the characters are attempted clones. The degrading mockery of all men in the movie, the bad cgi ghosts, all of this could have been acceptable as a one off trashy comedy. Its just that they slapped the ghostbusters logo all over it, associating a well loved franchise with this bottom of the barrel trash flick.
This is not ghostbusters, if they made the movie with everyone else except the gimmicks of ghostbusters, then it would have become just yet another forgettable comedy.
Since we're being honest here: I hated the original Ghostbusters. I thought it was dumb.
I thought the new Ghostbusters was a fun, light movie. It isn't bad, it isn't special. Some people seem to want it to be more than what it is.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on July 23, 2016, 06:53:01 PM
I thought the new Ghostbusters was a fun, light movie. It isn't bad, it isn't special. Some people seem to want it to be more than what it is.
Did you watch the video I posted?
Quote from: Mermaid on July 23, 2016, 05:20:58 PM
Since we're being honest here: I hated the original Ghostbusters. I thought it was dumb.
I kind of felt the same way. The original had a very unique premise, and that's worth a commendation. And for reasons I never could relate to, it became an icon of sorts. In fact, I can kind of understand how it could have that appeal, but it didn't grab my attention. It was one of those popular movies that I used to wonder why it was such a hit with others, but was lost on me. Well, to each his own, I guess.
Can we talk about how great the 80s cartoon series was? For me this captured the ghostbusters even more and held them in peoples minds for longer. Not forgetting most of us who grew up in the 80s onward probably watched the cartoon along with the movie, so having that expectation of how we look at the lore surrounding the series.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVd83QTO_1M
The funny thing is, ghostbusters already did have a continuation of the story, a next generation series, extreme ghostbusters, which despite it not being as good as the original series, what it did right was make sure it WAS a continuation of the original ghostbusters, with an older Egon and Janine teaching teenagers how to trap ghosts, and having cameos from the original characters Ray, Winston and Peter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEpCUB8IjzM
That is how to do a follow on from the series, not the shit they did with this movie. I originally thought extreme ghostbusters was to goofy a series to enjoy, but looking what they did to the original idea of ghostbusters with this 2016 movie, I could watch every episode of extreme ghostbusters to get my mind off what they made.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on July 23, 2016, 07:01:55 PM
Did you watch the video I posted?
I did not, but I am assuming someone got so bent out of shape about a movie that they spent time and effort into trying to convince other people to either watch it on not…..meh… I'll watch it someday. I don't go to many movies and I sure as hell don't think they rate anywhere near me caring enough to care enough to make a video……its a fricking movie.
I will say, I love Kristen Wiig ever since she used to do that routine on SNL as one of the Lawrence Welk singers, the one with the tiny mutant type hands, where she would always touch the guest star and repulse everyone with her freaky little hands. I thought she was incredibly funny.
Quote from: Mermaid on July 23, 2016, 05:20:58 PM
Since we're being honest here: I hated the original Ghostbusters. I thought it was dumb.
The Marshmallow Man gave me a chuckle, but other than that I totally agree. No reason to see a continuation of something you didn't care for to begin with.
It was... okay, I guess. I wasn't bored, and I did laugh many times. Still, many jokes fell flat. ("Where are my glasses? Oh, they're in my hand." - huh, am I missing an inside joke?)
But a "feminist" movie, like the MRAs are claiming? Other than hiring a "himbo" for a secretary (a role reversal of a stereotypical situation), I see nothing that makes a "feminist" statement. Merely having women in a lead role does not a feminist movie make.
Quote from: Munch on July 23, 2016, 07:49:27 PM
Can we talk about how great the 80s cartoon series was? For me this captured the ghostbusters even more and held them in peoples minds for longer. Not forgetting most of us who grew up in the 80s onward probably watched the cartoon along with the movie, so having that expectation of how we look at the lore surrounding the series.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVd83QTO_1M
The funny thing is, ghostbusters already did have a continuation of the story, a next generation series, extreme ghostbusters, which despite it not being as good as the original series, what it did right was make sure it WAS a continuation of the original ghostbusters, with an older Egon and Janine teaching teenagers how to trap ghosts, and having cameos from the original characters Ray, Winston and Peter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEpCUB8IjzM
That is how to do a follow on from the series, not the shit they did with this movie. I originally thought extreme ghostbusters was to goofy a series to enjoy, but looking what they did to the original idea of ghostbusters with this 2016 movie, I could watch every episode of extreme ghostbusters to get my mind off what they made.
I loved that cartoon.
The point of the video... one of the main points, at least, which, for those of you that have actually watched it already know... is that
Hollywood is getting more and more lazy. They don't write new movies. The make cheap un-thought out remakes. The movie was not up to par by many people's standards, but when they voiced their opinion, it became more than that because that is the publicity Sony wanted. Sony embraced it. I saw through that as many other people did. I didn't watch the movie. I don't plan to. Many of the people that I follow that critique videos and know have similar taste as I do have put their 2 cents in. And more people than even them agree that the movie was not up to par.
Like GSO said and many other people, including this video in the OP said, there were parts that were funny. The actresses did a good job with what they were given to work with, it just wasn't much to work with. Between bad directing and salvaging a should-be 9by now) dead movie, the actresses had almost nothing to work with.
I'm going to see if I can stream it somewhere and give it a go, but seeing an objective take on it like this video settles a lot of things.
The biggest thing in my opinion, even above the "feminism made this about men hating women" thing is the movie remake issue. Too many movie remakes. People need to stop littering the box office with shitty movie remakes because they're too lazy to write new ones. Actors need to take a stand and stop signing up for remakes because it results in a perpetuation of the same bullshit. Bad movie remakes. Sure there were a good handful of amazing remakes. Ocean's 11 comes to mind immediately for me. Ocean's 11 was a great remake and even though the original is still my favorite, the remake stands alone on it's own as a great movie. But most aren't and they need to stop being made.
Quote from: Atheon on July 23, 2016, 09:22:30 PM
But a "feminist" movie, like the MRAs are claiming? Other than hiring a "himbo" for a secretary (a role reversal of a stereotypical situation), I see nothing that makes a "feminist" statement. Merely having women in a lead role does not a feminist movie make.
I don't think it was a feminist movie, and most people that have honest reviews don't either. It does seem like the marketing team saw the comments going back and forth between the feminists and mras and used it to gain publicity for a movie they knew was not up to par, though.
Quote from: Atheon on July 23, 2016, 09:22:30 PM
It was... okay, I guess. I wasn't bored, and I did laugh many times. Still, many jokes fell flat. ("Where are my glasses? Oh, they're in my hand." - huh, am I missing an inside joke?)
But a "feminist" movie, like the MRAs are claiming? Other than hiring a "himbo" for a secretary (a role reversal of a stereotypical situation), I see nothing that makes a "feminist" statement. Merely having women in a lead role does not a feminist movie make.
Uh, the whole feminist angle was started by Sony after the overwhelmingly negative response to the first trailer. The director went on social media accusing any male who didn't like the trailer of being a misogynist and disliking it only because the cast was all women. Media outlets and SJW twits on social media clamped on to the idea, ensuring that it became impossible for a man to dislike the movie for any reason other than that he hates women.
It was a brilliant marketing move, ensuring that critics were too terrified to give it an honest (bad) review. It also pressured men into going to see it lest they be labeled a bigot, while also drawing the SJW/feminist audience because now the film was about more than just entertainment. A simple, baseless accusation on twitter doubled their first week box office while simultaneously ensuring that critics could not be too harsh with them, all made possible by the toxic atmosphere that SJW's have created over the last decade in regards to gender issues. The wonderful hilarity is that SJW's either wont realize or wont care that their world view was directly manipulated for corporate profits.
Sony had a lot riding on this Ghostbusters remake. Sony picture studios is in financial trouble after having made a series of terrible movies that have either done average at the box office or totally bombed. They were hoping to make a marvel-esque cinematic universe out of the ghostbusters franchise and this reboot was supposed to be the seed for that. They couldn't afford for it to do poorly or be reviewed poorly and, apparently, they had no qualms about manipulating people to protect themselves from the natural consequences of having made a bad movie.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on July 23, 2016, 09:29:13 PMThe point of the video... one of the main points, at least, which, for those of you that have actually watched it already know... is that
Hollywood is getting more and more lazy.
Given that you're having a tough time getting people to watch a 14 minute youtube movie review (with one person assuming the contents of a video he hasn't watched, LOL) I'd argue that the laziness is just Hollywood matching their audience, unfortunately.
QuoteThey don't write new movies. The make cheap un-thought out remakes.
I agree. After my earlier rant about this reboot/remake craze, I was genuinely curious about why this is going on and looked for a reason behind it all. Comicbookgirl19 gave a pretty plausible explanation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOttfoJ4ygU
tl;dw for the lazy: studios are making films more for international audiences than domestic audiences. To do this, they take successful IPs and get the turd train rolling. Even if it bombs in the States, it's novel and exciting for Chinese and Russian moviegoers. Ca-ching.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 23, 2016, 10:15:50 PM
I'd argue that the laziness is just Hollywood matching their audience, unfortunately.
Yes. Similarly with the gaming industry and all these remasters. Bethesda is even doing it now. Skyrim hd? how about work on a new game
They perpetuate each other.
Quote from: Mermaid on July 23, 2016, 05:20:58 PM
Since we're being honest here: I hated the original Ghostbusters. I thought it was dumb.
I liked it, but I didn't think it deserved all the raves it got back in the day.
Case in point: back then everyone laughed at the "This man has no dick" joke, but I didn't find it that funny, and I still don't. I mean I get the joke, but it's just not a very good one, certainly not deserving of the laughter and meme status it received back then.
Quote from: Atheon on July 23, 2016, 10:18:31 PM
I liked it, but I didn't think it deserved all the raves it got back in the day.
Case in point: back then everyone laughed at the "This man has no dick" joke, but I didn't find it that funny, and I still don't. I mean I get the joke, but it's just not a very good one, certainly not deserving of the laughter and meme status it received back then.
Eh, I liked it. Granted, I was like 5 at the time, so dick jokes were a big hit. Like I tried to explain before, I think the series was more fun than funny. Bill Murray's antics were like 50% of the appeal of the movie.
a sober review which cut through all the bullshit. I probably will not go see it.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 23, 2016, 10:15:50 PM
Given that you're having a tough time getting people to watch a 14 minute youtube movie review
14 minutes? On a movie review? Somebody spent 14 minutes reviewing a remake of a third rate movie and you guys spent 14 minutes watching it? LOL…..oy
Quote from: aitm on July 23, 2016, 10:32:34 PM14 minutes? On a movie review? Somebody spent 14 minutes reviewing a remake of a third rate movie
A reviewer reviews something. Weird, huh?
Quoteand you guys spent 14 minutes watching it? LOL…..oy
Ummm...yes? :eh:
Quote from: PickelledEggs on July 23, 2016, 07:01:55 PM
Did you watch the video I posted?
Yes. I didn't expect Ghostbusters to be art and I wasn't emotionally attached to the original. The comic book girl has different expectations for movies. I don't expect movies like Ghostbusters, Vacation, House Bunny or Anchorman to be anything other than formulated ridiculousness with some funny jokes. As far as the online controversy, I didn't read about it because I wasn't that interested. I have read about the whole Leslie Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Twitter drama, which does have some interesting aspects regarding censorship.
See Flight of the Phoenix 1965 with Jimmy Stewart (who flew a bomber in WW2) and the 2004 remake with Dennis Quaid. The first movie was original and nailbiting. the reboot will make you puke. OTOH, the Batman reboot was better than the originals. Most cases I agree. Reboots are just Hollywood cons for making bucks. I won't see the latest Star Wars movies until I can see them free on TV. I haven't been in a movie theater in more than a decade.
Quote from: stromboli on July 23, 2016, 11:06:20 PM
See Flight of the Phoenix 1965 with Jimmy Stewart (who flew a bomber in WW2) and the 2004 remake with Dennis Quaid.
I had no idea that Hollywood did a remake of the Flight of the Phoenix. I would have gone to see it if I knew. Although, the original was such a good movie, I don't know what could have been done to make it better. Actually, it seems to me that the whole point of a remake is to make it better the second time around, but sometimes it just seems more like a repeat. If you can't make it better, why not just re-release the original?
All honesty aside, what a great movie and great video about a bunch of halfwits thinking their opinions are worth so much more than a failed embossing pattern on a brand of toilet paper that didn't sell very well anywhere because shit doesn't stick to it.
Yeah..I could fucking care less..didn't care for the first one and don't care about any subsequent remakes.. What IS important is who are the people designing toilet paper embossing patterns? Is there a special college curriculum dedicated to obtaining a PhD in toilet paper embossing pattern technology? Maybe it's a specific artistic endeavor being kept hidden from the public at large that only the elite of the elite get to work at.
AHHA! I KNEW IT! I knew that it's limited to the professional elite class!
QuoteAn Oxford professor, Sir Roger Penrose, who claims the makers of Kleenex quilted toilet paper used his designs, is seeking destruction of all stocks of the paper. He designed a special pattern for tiles in 1974 which gives a series of distinctive star shapes and owns the copyright for the pattern, according to a High Court writ.
Makers of Kleenex quilted toilet paper, Kimberly Clark Ltd, have made and sold the paper, which uses his pattern the writ says.
Sir Roger, Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at Oxford, is demanding the makers hand over all copies of his copyright pattern and an order for all articles or documents to be forfeited to him and his company, Pentaplex Ltd, or to be destroyed.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/kleenex-art-that-ended-in-tears-1266536.HTML
Now that shit's important!
Quote from: PickelledEggs on July 23, 2016, 07:01:55 PM
Did you watch the video I posted?
You haven't given me a reason to watch it, yet.
Quote from: Atheon on July 23, 2016, 09:22:30 PM
It was... okay, I guess. I wasn't bored, and I did laugh many times. Still, many jokes fell flat. ("Where are my glasses? Oh, they're in my hand." - huh, am I missing an inside joke?)
But a "feminist" movie, like the MRAs are claiming? Other than hiring a "himbo" for a secretary (a role reversal of a stereotypical situation), I see nothing that makes a "feminist" statement. Merely having women in a lead role does not a feminist movie make.
the feminist statement was not the movie itself but it's marketing campaign made by the production team themselves with the girl power photo and their comments on the media and by many independent media and social media publications wanking themselves over smashing the patriarchy by watching and defending a movie that had a shitty trailer because obviously only misogynerds would hate on a painfully average reboot.
QuoteIt was a brilliant marketing move, ensuring that critics were too terrified to give it an honest (bad) review.
Apparently not brilliant enough, since it has gotten alot of "meh" to bad reviews.
QuoteMedia outlets and SJW twits on social media clamped on to the idea, ensuring that it became impossible for a man to dislike the movie for any reason other than that he hates women.
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/5DlwRpCbY156w/200_s.gif)
Just watched it. It actually isn't HORRIBLE. It isn't good, but at least it was better than the Warcraft movie. I'd rate it a 3.5.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 24, 2016, 05:29:52 PM
Apparently not brilliant enough, since it has gotten alot of "meh" to bad reviews.
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/5DlwRpCbY156w/200_s.gif)
I think the trailer disappointed a lot of folks, which prompted hardcore social justice types to jump on them because, "u just haet teh wimminz." This then prompted anti-SJWs to jump on the bandwagon simply because their opponents picked a side.
All this for a mediocre title that likely would have flown under the radar otherwise.
Quote from: aitm on July 23, 2016, 10:32:34 PM
14 minutes? On a movie review? Somebody spent 14 minutes reviewing a remake of a third rate movie and you guys spent 14 minutes watching it? LOL…..oy
better than investing 1,5+ hours and money on a shitty movie. You know, the whole point of reviews?
Sounds to me like this flick has caused quite the triggering!
That aside.. a Ghostbusters with an all-women lineup instead of the original lineup of boys with their toys? I mean.. really? Shall we also have a female Rocky, or replace Michael Knight with a blonde hottie?
Ok, so let's apply some equality, then, and remake, say, Bridesmaids and replace all the female characters with men and swap-out Melissa McCarthy with Jason Mews (irony alert).
SJW's can rejoice!
Just sayin'.
Jake ;[size=78%])[/size]
Quote from: jakeeey on July 24, 2016, 07:08:26 PM
Sounds to me like this flick has caused quite the triggering!
That aside.. a Ghostbusters with an all-women lineup instead of the original lineup of boys with their toys? I mean.. really? Shall we also have a female Rocky, or replace Michael Knight with a blonde hottie?
Ok, so let's apply some equality, then, and remake, say, Bridesmaids and replace all the female characters with men and swap-out Melissa McCarthy with Jason Mews (irony alert).
SJW's can rejoice!
Just sayin'.
Jake ;[size=78%])[/size]
female rocky would promote violence against women obviously it cannot be allowed. Like that problematic poster of Apocalypse choking Mystique. (http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/03/is-this-x-men-apocalypse-poster-really-p)
Quote from: mauricio on July 24, 2016, 07:02:57 PM
better than investing 1,5+ hours and money on a shitty movie. You know, the whole point of reviews?
I just watched it.
I still don't think it's worth the money for a movie ticket. If it comes to netflix, it would be worth a watch. I wouldn't go out of my way to watch it again, but I think it's worth a one-time watch. for free. It's not as horrible as people said it was, and this is coming from me, someone who was adamantly against it.
Quote from: mauricio on July 24, 2016, 07:02:57 PM
better than investing 1,5+ hours and money on a shitty movie. You know, the whole point of reviews?
If you life your life by other peoples opinions..then…well….good for you.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on July 23, 2016, 10:17:35 PM
Yes. Similarly with the gaming industry and all these remasters. Bethesda is even doing it now. Skyrim hd? how about work on a new game
They perpetuate each other.
They are working on a new game. The next Elder Scrolls game won't come out for "many years," according to Tod Howard, though. They seem to be working on creating the means to even use the ideas they have in mind for TESVI. So to fill in the gap and tide over fans, they made an improved version of the game for the modern systems, with mod support for console versions. Very likely, they took the improved engine of Fallout 4 and applied it to Skyrim. Because I'm a PC player with all of the mods, I'll get Skyrim Remastered for free. I'm just waiting to see if people will be willing to put forth the effort of reworking their mods for the new version. The main incentive for PC players is better performance, with the improved graphics taking over for the mods that dropped the frame rate in the original version.
But anyway, back to the new Ghostbusters... I haven't seen it and don't ever plan to see it. In my opinion, there are only two legitimate reasons to do a remake:
1. Improved technology allows Hollywood to better tell the story.
2. The writers have new ideas to improve on the original concept, or to at least keep it fresh.
Many people didn't like the glowy CGI ghosts. This seems to be up to the individual to decide which version had the "better" look. As for new ideas, the only thing they've got is "we've genderbent all of the original characters." Sorry, but that's just a stupid idea, and it's not enough to keep things fresh and interesting. Judging from what others have said, this movie is either average or terrible, so I'm not going to bother. The only reason for this movie to exist is to make money off of the popular franchise.
Quote from: jakeeey on July 24, 2016, 07:08:26 PM
That aside.. a Ghostbusters with an all-women lineup instead of the original lineup of boys with their toys? I mean.. really? Shall we also have a female Rocky?
Million Dollar Baby
Quote from: aitm on July 24, 2016, 08:18:22 PM
If you life your life by other peoples opinions..then…well….good for you.
it's clear you do not understand the point of reviews. A good review is more than just "me likey!" I have a very peculiar taste and access to so much media that I hate wasting time on things that ultimately disappoint. So i search for reviews which are detailed descriptions of the aesthetic, tropes and themes to quickly make an analysis of what the content is most likely going to be to determine whether I should give it a shot or move on to the other millions pieces of culture which exist out there.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on July 24, 2016, 11:52:58 PM
Million Dollar Baby
That was on my to-watch list for a long time and then I forgot about it. I heard it was really good. Maybe I'll watch it tomorow
I read reviews mostly for their entertainment value. I started out reading them a few years ago looking for help in deciding what movie I would watch, but now I treat them more like idle gossip. I look to them because they're entertaining, but only marginally helpful. To some degree, my impressions match up with reviews. If a movie is over 90%, there's a chance that I'll like it. If it's under 10%, probably not, but not necessarily. And I factor in the likelihood of payola and hype. There seems to be a lot of bullshit in reviews, but it's still kind of interesting to read people's reasons for liking a or not liking a movie. But at best, reviews offer a rough guide to the quality of entertainment.
Ghostbusters reminds me of Hillary Clinton, and to a lesser extent Donald Trump, It seems to be centered in some kind of weird controversy that is following it everywhere, and it involves factors which may or may not be relevant to the quality of the film itself. It carries around of cloud of disapproval and people are focusing on the cloud, rather than the film. And this thing about female ghost busters and the message it sends about empowerment strikes me as ultimately silly. Whether or not it's an entertaining film has been lost.
I would recommend viewing it as a comedy. You're better off going to it cold without the reviews. Just grab a large popcorn and settle into your seat, and see how many chuckles it gives you. If it doesn't give you any, it wasn't a movie for you.
Quote from: SGOS on July 25, 2016, 08:02:49 AMI read reviews mostly for their entertainment value. I started out reading them a few years ago looking for help in deciding what movie I would watch, but now I treat them more like idle gossip. I look to them because they're entertaining, but only marginally helpful. To some degree, my impressions match up with reviews. If a movie is over 90%, there's a chance that I'll like it. If it's under 10%, probably not, but not necessarily. And I factor in the likelihood of payola and hype. There seems to be a lot of bullshit in reviews, but it's still kind of interesting to read people's reasons for liking a or not liking a movie. But at best, reviews offer a rough guide to the quality of entertainment.
I prefer video reviews over text reviews, which might seem strange coming from a guy who communicates primarily by text, so hear me out. I used to whip out the newspaper and read the reviews and here's basically what I'd see:
Quote from: stereotypical review
Wharf Werewolf howls at Box Office
The legendary mangy monstrosity clawed its way to the top of the weekend US box office, leaping to $59.6m in the Midatlantic states alone in just 13.95 days, knocking White Powder Fever from the #1 spot, according to studio estimates last sennight.
Director Donatello di et Fortuno had this to say: "I'm pleased my movie did well."
Et Fortuno's most daring film yet; Ben Affleck was a tour de force in this mysterious murder mystery. Powerful performances. 4/5 stars.
All this really tells me is that 1) this is a murder mystery 2) it sold a lot of tickets 3) he/she liked Ben Affleck's acting and liked the movie.
With video reviews, I get a more comprehensive review in a format that much more closely resembles plain english. I can pick up emotions from the person's tone. I can follow a couple reviewers with tastes similar to me whose judgment I trust rather than whoever the newspaper picked to write a review. And I can listen to the review while gaming, so even lengthy reviews aren't much of an imposition for me.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 25, 2016, 11:44:16 AM
With video reviews, I get a more comprehensive review in a format that much more closely resembles plain english.
I've only watched a few video reviews (well... does Siskel and Ebert count?), and I haven't thought about how well they mirrored my own perceptions of the movie, not very well come to think of it, but probably at least as well as written reviews. One thing, I've wondered about is what it takes to be a movie critic? If you work for a newspaper, the first qualification would seem to be writing skills, or at least at one time that would have been true. In the written example you used, the writer flows along well enough, and he does offer a kind of wordsmith flair, but I agree that he doesn't have a whole Hell of a lot to say. Actually, I'm suspicious that he's more of a pitchman than a seriously reviewer.
Quote from: SGOS on July 25, 2016, 12:03:48 PMIn the written example you used, the writer flows along well enough, and he does offer a kind of wordsmith flair, but I agree that he doesn't have a whole Hell of a lot to say. Actually, I'm suspicious that he's more of a pitchman than a seriously reviewer.
Yep. Could be a shill who never even saw the movie. We wouldn't know the difference. By relying on a long-established critic like Ebert, that risk is significantly reduced.