• Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    11 months ago

    We used to have that back in the day with Siskel and Ebert. Two, classically trained film reviewers, who had a show that aired the week before the films they were reviewing were due to come out.

    Of the two, Ebert would go easier on pure entertainment movies than Siskel would. They didn’t always agree, but when they did, you could be assured it was either really good or really bad.

    We don’t really have an equivalent in this day and age with review embargoes and such.

    • adam_y@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Classically trained film reviewers?

      Not sure that’s even a thing. Sure, they were educated and well informed, still…

      If you are after a popular film critic that really engages with the material, we have Mark Kermode in the UK. I might not agree with everything he thinks, but he’s consistent enough that you can use his opinion as a yardstick. I strongly recommend you check him out.

      • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        Film criticism and journalism are both college level courses.

        I took classes in literary ctiticism, but that wasn’t my major.

        • adam_y@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Ah, yeah, ‘classically trained’ means something very different here. My bad.

    • snooggums@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      While S & E were great for explaining why they liked or did not like movies, their opinions were still opinions and at best they gave middling reviews to the types of movies they did not like even when those movies were the best of their type.

      Plus Ebert gave Anaconda a high rating and praise. Fucking Anaconda.

      • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        He liked Spawn as well which I still have not entirely forgiven him for! But like I say, of the two, he was the one who went easier on populist media than Siskel did. That’s probably why putting the two of them together worked better than anyone else who inherited the shows they left as they bounced around from one to the next to the next.

        Who else had their platform before Siskel died? Rex Reed + somebody else was one, and I think there was one more pair as well.

        Rex Reed sticks out because he turned into a giant bitchy queen when he really hated a movie and it was hilarious.

    • Haus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      I didn’t always agree with Gene & Roger, but I did watch them every Saturday. What made it a little weird for me was watching Roger’s magnum opus Beyond the Valley of the Dolls as a young adult, and trying - never succeeding - to reconcile that movie with this man I grew up listening to.

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I give props to Ebert for putting his money where his mouth is and actually writing a movie. While not a great movie, he was still willing to go through the process of writing a screenplay and getting the movie made.