Im really glad to see that some of you guys liked this movie, normally people jsut bash shyamalan jus for being him... the way i look at it is if you go into a theater knowing your going to see one of his movies then u wont be dissapointed because you should know not to expect anything because u never know thats gonna happen in one of his movies. Not his best movie but def good... then again i love all of his movies besides sixth sense which i think was good but not as good as his others... my advice see it with an open mind and thats all u can do

I dont understand why people give a **** about the critics.Just Look at Ebert.Sad little fatty who bashed 2001 and clockwork orange.Both masterpieces.
Dont know about american critics, in europe the reviews were good.
Conservative americans dont like it because...
You know why...Its on evreyone face.
Its a four star film.Very Good.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Fellini77,

quote:

Originally posted by Fellini77:
I dont understand why people give a **** about the critics.Just Look at Ebert.Sad little fatty who bashed 2001 and clockwork orange.Both masterpieces.

First, off Ebert is a great critic. He nevers gives a film an unfair chance and always evaluates and gives his best possible reasons for why he likes, dislikes or is indifferent to a film. He will see a film he hates 5 times to see why he doesn't like it. The least you can do, is have some respect for the man, Fellini. Making a personal attack like that on him is unwarranted and out of line. And to set the record straight, he gave 2001 4 stars...out of 4. Not exactly bashing. And they are masterpieces, in your opinion. I too believe they are, however, many have seen A Clockwork Orange as an exploitavely violent film a notch below pornogrophy. Again, I don't agree with it, but that's the view of some and you should respect it and don't call a man a bad critic because he likes films you don't. I call YOU a bad critic because you give so little reason as to why it is that you like films. So lay off the "sad little fatty" as you so offensively called him, and stick to writing what you think about a certain film. Anyway, I haven't even seen lady in the water, but I saw that my boy rog was being incorrectly bashed and I though it was my duty to help him out.

quote:

I dont understand why people give a **** about the critics.Just Look at Ebert.Sad little fatty who bashed 2001 and clockwork orange.Both masterpieces.
Dont know about american critics, in europe the reviews were good.
Conservative americans dont like it because...
You know why...Its on evreyone face.
Its a four star film.Very Good.

This is frankly ridiculous. What is there in Lady in the Water that would offend even a 'conservative' American critic (who you should probably know are usually leftist)?

We're not talking about The Brown Bunny. This is PG-13 pap made by a guy whose films are distributed by a Disney subsidiary. Again, it's absurd to claim that the reason the movie was bashed here is because of some abiding 'conservativism' on the part of critics, and frankly, it smacks of the ultra-cliched European tendency to irrationally link any unfavored opinion to (rightist) politics.

If you don't "give a **** about the critics," why mention that it received good reviews in Europe? I think I know the reason.

Besides, 2001 is far from unassailable. It's my least favorite Kubrick film.

"Fuc*in Fascist!": Ebert is nuts.Gave Garfield 3 stars and Donnie Darko, 2 stars.He´s not very plausible.
About the insults, I was kidding because I´ve got nothing against him.
I just dont like most of the critics, thats it. We dont need them because we have a brain and two eyes, do you know what I mean?
I just dont understand how a single man´s opinion can destroy months of hard work.

Evan: I like some critics. Maybe 2 ou 3 max.
Night´s latest work is extremely ideological and it touches on America´s weak points.
The Village, for example, symbolizes repression and the fact that the truth is being hidden. Its not a disney film, believe me. Night is smarter than you think.
I really like Night´s Work and the critics opinion is not plausible to me.
What ****ed "The Brown Bunny" in Cannes was the explicit scene.Evreyone talks about that scene and not about brown bunny.The same happened with the rape scene in irreversible and the masturbation scene in ken park.
About 2001, It was one the most important films of the late 60´s.Technical and Ideologically speaking.


Sorry for possible spelling errors.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Fellini77,

quote:

Originally posted by Fellini77:
"Fuc*in Fascist!": Ebert is nuts.Gave Garfield 3 stars and Donnie Darko, 2 stars.He´s not very plausible.

Before you begin to criticize what he thinks of films, you have to understand his rating system. He rates films by genre. If a film is a sci-fi, lets say, he rates the film based on its stance among other films of its genre, say other sci-fis. Therefore, Garfield is a 3 star CHILDREN'S movie. Now this, as with any film, is disputable, but most definately PLAUSIBLE. As far as the Donnie Darko comment, regardless of what YOU felt about the film, he felt the film was a 2 1/2 star (not 2 as you mentioned) film. AND, he re-reviewed Donnie Darko when the Director's Cut came out and gave it 3 stars, much in the same fashion he gave The Brown Bunny's theatrical cut 3 Stars after bashing the rough cut at Cannes. That being said, he gave good reasons as in WHY he felt Donnie Darko (the theatrical cut) 2 1/2 stars. I suggest you read the review yourself, which can easily be found on his website, rogerebert.com, instead of bashing every opinion of a film he has ever had without actually reading it and just looking at how many stars he gave it. Then, I hope, you will see that everything he says is fair, plausible, logical, and sensible, and he does not fail to give films praise when they deserve, and heavy critizism when warranted.

quote:

About the insults, I was kidding because I´ve got nothing against him.
I just dont like most of the critics, thats it. We dont need them because we have a brain and two eyes, do you know what I mean?
I just dont understand how a single man´s opinion can destroy months of hard work.

First off, people are, for the most part, stupid. Let's face it. There's a reason that huge box office successess are idiotic flicks with no merit. THAT is why we have critics. Critics have been schooled in what makes a film good or bad, and they add their own tastes to each review. A person also needs a critic to avoid wasting their hard earned dollars on mindless crap, or to watch something that is actually worth it. So what if hard work was put into these films? That's the filmmaker's loss! You made a poor film! Deal with it! Move on! Critics don't destroy films, they put the film's artistic merit into perspective for people who cannot see it for free. I mean, apparently the Euro is just falling from the sky wherever it is you live, and you have absolutely nothing to do all day, so you can afford to not only waste your time, but your money on every film, instead of read ANY reviews whatsoever. I hear Garfield is actually about a cunning detective of the Sherlock Holmes mold. It's supposed to be a masterpiece. Definately go see it.

quote:

Originally posted by Fellini77:
The Village, for example, symbolizes repression and the fact that the truth is being hidden. Its not a disney film, believe me. Night is smarter than you think.

Quoted for emphasis.

As for the whole critics thing, people(& critics themselves) need to understand that they aren't perfect and can sometimes be blinded by biases when viewin a film, and miss the meaning/intentions behind it, therefore giving it a crappy review. Critics are useful if you can't think for yourself.

Critics offer their opinion. What you and i think of a film is completely different. As with any good critic Ebert's judgments are justified if you actually read his review. That does not mean you have to agree, but still, dont call someone nuts for not having the same opinion as you.

Fuc*in Fascist!, buddy, that personal attacks were unnecessary .
I always respected evreyone´s opinion in this forum and you should do the same thing.

Quote: "I mean, apparently the Euro is just falling from the sky wherever it is you live, and you have absolutely nothing to do all day, so you can afford to not only waste your time, but your money on every film, instead of read ANY reviews whatsoever"

Do you know what are u talking about?
Since age 18 I´ve been working and studying at the same time. I have a degree and a camera operator course.
I took this second course because I have a huge passion for films and I want to make films.
I dont spend my freakin money on films: I also have a student film card because I write for the college newspapper/magazine.I´m no critic btw, I just write about stuff I like.
Is that a crime? Come on...

Quote: "wherever it is you live"
Thats so rude.
I´m from Portugal. We ruled the world before you guys in the late XVI century lol.
Actually, we are the oldest european nation and the first nation to discover the american continent (brazil). You guys were still indians back then .

cheers.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Fellini77,

quote:

the first nation to discover the american continent

You know there are two American continents, right?

Jesus! Of course!
I was talking about south america.
He denied Christopher Columbus services.

quote:

Originally posted by Evan Kubota:

quote:

the first nation to discover the american continent

You know there are two American continents, right?

I think he meant to say that Portugal colonized Brazil before England colonized the US. I don't even know if it's true or not, but regardless it shows how this discussion has stooped to the level of irrelevance and personal attacks, which we don't like here.

Unless people can stop flinging their feces at each other and get back to a reasonable, respectful, and relevant conversation, this topic will cease to be open for discussion.

quote:

I think he meant to say that Portugal colonized Brazil before England colonized the US.

I was merely replying to the strange wording of 'the American continent' which sounds like there is only one American continent.

That's all.

Your reading of that simple reply as a personal attack was misguided.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Evan Kubota,

Sorry, that's not quite true either - Leif Erikson landed on Baffin Island centuries before Cabral (from Portugal) 'found' Brazil.

Anyway, my comment had nothing to do with the respective histories of exploration but simply was to point out that the Americas are not a single continent any more than Africa and Asia are.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Evan Kubota,

Guys, Guys! I'm taking three University level History courses this semester (Early Comples Societies, Canada Before Confederation, and Early Modern Europe) and I come here to GET AWAY from that, please, PLEASE, help me get away from what should be more important again. It's getting to the point where I'm actually starting my term and research papers prior to the day before its due.

quote:

Originally posted by Evan Kubota:
Your reading of that simple reply as a personal attack was misguided.

I didn't mean to direct that towards you. Sorry for being unclear.

quote:

Originally posted by Fellini77:
Do you know what are u talking about?
Since age 18 I´ve been working and studying at the same time. I have a degree and a camera operator course.
I took this second course because I have a huge passion for films and I want to make films.
I dont spend my freakin money on films: I also have a student film card because I write for the college newspapper/magazine.I´m no critic btw, I just write about stuff I like.
Is that a crime? Come on...

Listen, I was just playing off my point that critics help people save money but getting them to see good movies instead of spending lost of money seeing a lot of bad ones. That's all, I'm not making "a personal attacks" on you, it just seems that you feel that critics are useless, and therefore I was considering the possibility that you had the financial means to spend your (clearly) hard-earned cash on all the shi*ty films that you weren't given ample review of. That's all. I was trying to have an argument with you and prove a point, but it is clearly very difficult when we have a few things lost in translation as we do hear. And I said "wherever it is you live" becuase I didn't know where you lived. I'm not sure where you pull an insult out of that, but hey, that's your journey. Anyway, I agree with Josh that this thread is getting out of hand and I will promptly stop.

I understood evreything. I just dont look at critics like you do man.To me, they dont got nothing to teach. A filmmaker´s opinion is 100 times more important.
I also agree with josh - end of discussion.
cheers.

quote:

I understood evreything. I just dont look at critics like you do man.To me, they dont got nothing to teach. A filmmaker´s opinion is 100 times more important.

Ebert IS a filmmaker. He wrote the screenplay for "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" shouldn't that give him enough credibility to become the most famous critic in the world?

the russ meyer film?! holly ****!Thats funny!