bingethinker: Amazing. They've found a format that's even worse than a slideshow.

You can add these 2 positive reviews (new window) to that list.

Also Sucker Punch wasn't devoid of entertainment value like many of those other monstrosities.

bingethinker: Amazing. They've found a format that's even worse than a slideshow.

Came here to say this. Didn't read a single review on that site.

My absolute favorite hard-to-understand review is by Mick LaSalle at sfgate.com:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/23/DDGENJI4U T 1.DTL&type=movies

where he calls the Adam Sandler movie "Click" : "one of the best movies of the year".

"The menu is for the DVD that's his life, for the life story that he's in the process of creating. That, in itself, is an interesting metaphor, because it speaks to a belief in self-improvement, a faith that life can be made into something magnificent -- and a concomitant narcissism that can infect such naive confidence."

um ... what? for Click?

bingethinker: Amazing. They've found a format that's even worse than a slideshow.

And thus it goes into the world, unread and uncaring.

\I HATE that format more than Subby's mom

What was the deal with the dickish jab at Lord of the Rings? How do you review one movie by bashing another? Somebody is a little jealous of Peter Jackson.

Sucker Punch wasn't unwatchable, it was simply eye candy with a convoluted back story. I could see a good review for it if you came to it with few expectations, or a schoolgirl fetish.

Speed 2 always get hammered, but I thought it was ok. The fact is that it is nowhere near as good as the original, but undoubtedly compared to it. If it wasn't a sequel, it probably would be has simply been reviewed like every other forgettable action movie.

The theatrical release of Daredevil is mediocre at best, but perhaps the reviewer got to see something closer to the director's cut, which is noticeably better.

Whoever thought Freddy Gets Fingered was a good movie however, deserves a swift kick in the nuts (maybe even twice).

I liked Speed Racer. It was pretty, and I was never bored. That's basically what I ask for in a summer blockbuster.

/also liked Freddy Got Fingered
//But not going to admit it.

Hint for people who hate the article's format: Use your mouse to click the pictures, and use your other hand to press "Esc" on your keyboard when you're done reading. That way you don't have to move the mouse back and forth, and back and forth, and back...

I remember Ebert saying how much "admiration" he had for Episode I. He lost lost credibility in my eyes then.

Nowadays, the only quote of his that I remember is: "blwaaaaahwawerrrrraaggh dfrrragggth. Thhhhssssrrrrup."

Mugato: How is it worse than a slide show? You can see them all at once and you don't have to click through each one linearly. I like it.

Because the content of note isn't the movie title but the review, so you still have to click each one to see what the issue is, and it's more annoying than clicking a "next" button.

I still remember that Roger Ebert was the person that stopped Speed 2 from receiving a 0% on rottentomatoes.

I think he was high that day.

"Eragon is a fun film that is certain to join the ranks of Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings in the world of fantasy films."

Technically, that last part is correct, in that Eragon is a fantasy film, like HP and LotR -- thus joining their ranks, not in terms of quality but simply in existing.

/a "fun film"? now that's crazy

Hey Freddy Got Fingered was not a bad movie, I really don't know what people were expecting from a Tom Green movie but I think it delivered at matching his usual schtick. Now, you could argue that his usual schtick is bad, but to a teenager during the height of his popularity, it was fine. Sure, it wasn't Shakespeare, but it was exactly what I wanted it to be, a dumb movie with Tom Green being a complete weirdo. Would I say it was even close to the top 200 films of all time? Hell no. However, it's not in the top 100 worst films of all times (see: Baby Geniuses, Manos:The Hands of Fate etc.)

Speed Racer was great. It's problem was that as a film and in marketing they had no idea what audience they were going after. It was too silly for adults at time, and too complex for kids at time. It was a movie that really didn't have a target audience. I found it enjoyable. My girlfriend and I were the only two people in the theater when we went to see it, and we understood that a lot of people either: didn't like it, or didn't know about it. The marketing for the film was pretty f-ing terrible. Again, probably helps if you are a Speed Racer fan.

The other movies on this list, yeah they deserve to be here.

bingethinker: Amazing. They've found a format that's even worse than a slideshow.

My thoughts exactly. Popups are infinitely worse than slideshows, especially considering more people are using their phones or tablets to browse.

Hilary T. N. Seuss: Hint for people who hate the article's format: Use your mouse to click the pictures, and use your other hand to press "Esc" on your keyboard when you're done reading. That way you don't have to move the mouse back and forth, and back and forth, and back...

Mouse? Is that an app I can download?

The one for "Chuck and Larry" doesn't belong, it's by Armond White. Now if you'll excuse me I suddenly have Jessica Beils ass on the mind.

FlashHarry: only two by armond white? though calling "i now pronounce you chuck and larry" a "modern classic" is a testament to his trollish genius.

I think his LOTR shot was worse.

\10/10, would rage again.

Mugato: I don't know why people take such stock in what Ebert says. He doesn't even understand a lot of the movies he reviews, especially the sci-fi/fantasy ones. And although not sci-fi, Die Hard (new window) went completely over his head.

Not sure if serious? I don't always agree with Ebert (if I did, there'd be no point reading him), but he nearly always makes his points well and makes me think.

As for Die Hard, what's not to get? It was a high-concept low brow archetypal 1980s action hero movie that has improved neither with age nor repetition. Nothing wrong with that per se, but as Ebert's review points out, it is flawed example of the type. If it went over Ebert's head, it went over mine too.

(It's also responsible for at least popularizing, if not creating, many of the tropes of the action hero movie including "the bad guys die in reverse order of seniority", "the chief baddie has to die in at least two ways, e.g. shooting and falling from a great height", and "just when you think it's over, a villain who was supposedly dead pops up so he can be killed again".)

People take such stock of what Ebert says because he has provided, over more than four decades, insightful commentary on movies without ever falling for the false dichotomy of art versus entertainment, demonstrating a rare ability to review a movie on its own terms, not against some abstract standard, and to tell you what he thinks, not tell you what you think. He doesn't give sci-fi a pass just because it's sci-fi, but holds it to the same standard as other genres (2001 is regularly cited as one of his all-time favorite movies.) Apparently, fans of sci-fi/fantasy movies are offended when he doesn't let a movie skate by on great visuals alone, or give it a pass because it comes from revered source material.

He is also a career-long supporter of films and film makers, especially those he believes to be overlooked or under-appreciated. In an industry filled with celebrity farkers, quote whores, and gossip mongers, Ebert treats the audience of mainstream movies as intelligent adults. And along the way, he became the first film critic to be awarded a Pulitzer prize.

So either you're indulging in very dry wit, or we should consider the possibility that a lot of the reviews he wrote went completely over your head, especially the sci-fi fantasy ones. I know where my money is.

Maybe they should look up the word "subjective" in the dictionary, seeing as they are virtually defining how it works with movies and other art forms. I liked a couple of items in their grid, and about a third of them were okay, and I can understand that other people would be the same but with a different selection to me, so given the hundreds or thousands of prominent reviewers around, there are bound to be plenty of reviews to choose from.

Flappyhead: The one for "Chuck and Larry" doesn't belong, it's by Armond White. Now if you'll excuse me I suddenly have Jessica Beils ass on the mind.

Two things:

Firstly, is there someone who's compiled the, if you will, "best of," if such can be called, reviews of Armond White?

Secondly: Why would it be sudden that Jessica Biel's ass would be on your mind? It's on mine all the damn time. For my money, it's one of, if not the, best one in Hollywood.

What you said: xria: Maybe they should look up the word "subjective" in the dictionary,

What I heard: "Haven't you heard of suspension of disbelief?"

There's subjectively bad movies. I know most critics hate Boondock Saints, but I like it. We can call these the artistic equivalent of a Twinkie. There are also objectively bad movies, which we can call the equivalent of dog shiat, and liking these movies tells other people that there is something wrong with you. Catwoman is a good example.

/Can we agree that the format is objectively bad?

I loved The Happening. It was everything that I love about a campy B movie with the production value of an A movie. In fact I enjoyed it enough to rent it more than once to share with different groups of friends (who also enjoyed it).

Of course, I expected it to be a crappy movie watching it the first time so I was more than pleasantly surprised. If you had even the slighest hope for a repeat of The Sixth Sense you would be hugely disappointed.

czetie:

If it went over Ebert's head, it went over mine too.


that about sums up your whole post.

30 inexplicably glowing paid for by the movie studiosreviews for unwatchably bad movies. Yes, Ebert features more than once

FTFY, subby

Catwoman - "It's an odd, idiosyncratic movie -- dark in look and dark in spirit -- that plays as a kind of pop culture investigation into the meaning of feminism and the options open to women in the modern world."

That's hardly a "glowing" review; it sounds more like "This is a really weird attempt to make a hybrid of a superhero movie and 'Sex and the City'."

SharkTrager: Mugato: How is it worse than a slide show? You can see them all at once and you don't have to click through each one linearly. I like it.

Because the content of note isn't the movie title but the review, so you still have to click each one to see what the issue is, and it's more annoying than clicking a "next" button.

I'm waiting for TMLO's review of the format to find out if I like it or not.

Any David Manning?

Also love this telltale sign of a shiat movie:

"GREATEST THING I'VE EVER SEEN" _{- Studman69, Fark.com}

That page isn't working at all for me but a couple of comments about the movies I could identify via thumbnail.

Daredevil wasn't that bad.

Speed Racer had some neat visual stuff going on at times.

And of course, Wicker Man is awesome for simply having this (new window) moment.