Shitty Movies - So bad, they're bad

[Jinsai]

that doesn't make him any less of a FILM CRITIC LEGEND

No, of course, and these are all just subjective opinions... but when you give Junior a higher score than The Godfather Part II... that's about as close to objectively wrong that an opinion can get.

[allegro]

No, of course, and these are all just subjective opinions... but when you give Junior a higher score than The Godfather Part II... that's about as close to objectively wrong that an opinion can get.

Look, to be fair, he wasn't even doing the same scoring system in 1972. And he just didn't like Part II relative to the original so he was making a deliberate point relative to the original. And Junior got ONE-HALF STAR MORE.

I didn't like Blue Velvet FOR PERSONAL REASONS and it doesn't matter that Rosellini gave Lynch a pass. It was gratuitous, not artistic. And Ebert had every right to base his review on "personal" reasons. It's his review. This is the same guy who loved Russ Meyer flicks. But he hated the original Brown Bunny, until Gallo reworked it so that Sevigny wasn't just blowjob whore.

We ALL have "flawed" opinions, but at least his were far more educated than ours. I didn't agree with all of his reviews. But I certainly respected them.

[Swykk]

You just made my point for me and contradicted that silly troll accusation. We do all have opinions. I'm not accusing you of anything because you hate Blue Velvet even if I don't understand. I was in no way disrespectful of Roger Ebert.

[Frozen Beach]

I didn't like Blue Velvet FOR PERSONAL REASONS and it doesn't matter that Rosellini gave Lynch a pass. It was gratuitous, not artistic. And Ebert had every right to base his review on "personal" reasons. It's his review. This is the same guy who loved Russ Meyer flicks. But he hated the original Brown Bunny, until Gallo reworked it so that Sevigny wasn't just blowjob whore.

Thank you for responding to me, yet not actually quoting my post so I'd know you were responding to me.

and it doesn't matter that Rosellini gave Lynch a pass.

It fucking does matter. Who the fuck is Roger Ebert to tell Rossellini who she's suppose to star as? He's not her fucking manager. And of course the film has scenes that would seem gratuitous, it's about a god damn psychopath and how small towns aren't always so innocent. It's about the underbelly where a kid who's practically a voyeur looks into a fucked up situation only to realize it's more fucked up than he originally thought. If anything, the disturbing content, which you said was gratuitous, is there to make the audience relate to the character in disgust.

And Ebert had every right to base his review on "personal" reasons. It's his review.

His job is to review a film. He didn't review the film, he reviewed the production of the film, which is him not doing his job.