Published on Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Movie critics off-base with many reviews
By TONY MARTIN
Last updated on 00/00/0000 at 12:00 a.m.

Certain people tend to believe everything they read. These people often find themselves on the short end of their wallets, as people have become professional liars bent on taking one’s money.

I work at a video store and I watch people spend their money every day on movies they know nothing about. This is not a bad trait. However, when people are undecided on a movie, sometimes they look on the cover and see the cleverly paraphrased quotes from movie reviewers. This is an endorsement that should be given the same level of merit as weight-loss commercials on television.

I am a movie reviewer. I know that sometimes my odd opinions may encourage someone to see a terrible movie, but my opinions will never grace the cover of a Hollywood movie. There are two movie critics I take issue with, not only from having to see their lame quotes on every movie, but also from looking at their actual reviews: Peter Travers from “Rolling Stone Magazine” and Pete Hammond from “Maxim Magazine.” These two represent all that is backward about movie watching and critiquing.

Travers has been a movie reviewer for “Rolling Stone” for what feels like forever. However, it appears that he lacks any sort of judgement about film: “Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle” received three-and-a-half stars out of four. This implies that it was not a terrible movie, which it was, even for a stoner comedy.

Yet in 2001, he gave the classic “Saving Silverman” half a star. Back then, Travers was on a five-star scale. Now that he uses a four star scale, there is even more separation between these two movies.

He really lost it when he gave both the Peter Jackson train-wreck remake “King Kong” and the laughably forgettable “Nurse Betty” perfect scores. These are movies that not only failed on screen, but also continue to fail after their DVD releases. Both could probably be found under the “free movies” section of Comcast On Demand.

One man who never seems to give out high scores is Hammond. Yet while he rarely gives out the five-out-of-five rating, he gave fours and above to the following wastes of money: “Pirates of the Carribean: At Worlds End,” “Spiderman 3,” “World Trade Center” and quite possibly the worst movie of all time, “Bobby.”

Yes, I am being a “hater.” I understand that one might disagree with me completely. I encourage anyone who can honestly say they enjoyed any of those movies to come talk to me about cinema. Just remember, next time you want to see a movie, ignore the critics. They should have no say over you, because they are consistently wrong.

Also, go see “Juno.” It was really good. Seriously.


By Roger Ebert  |  Thursday, February 14, 2008  |  2:03 am
Bobby was the worst movie ever? I think I could say, with at least some warrant, that it was better than Saving Silverman.
Comment On This Article

All comments are moderated before being published. We will not edit your comments, but we also will not approve those that are abusive, off-topic, attack another poster or contain information we know to be libelous or false.

During peak weekday viewing times, most comments will be reviewed within six hours. For more detailed information, click here.

After submitting your comment, check below for a confirmation message.


  • Your name:
  • Enter text from image:
  • Your comment:
Question of the Day
Only who can prevent forest fires?
you
me

Sign up to receive Northern Star headlines in your inbox, delivered weekdays at 6 a.m.


Feedback? E-mail us.
Real-time updates of recently viewed articles on the site.

1  SA Senate will wait to make changes to...

2  "Back to the '80s" rocks the Egyptian Theatre

3  Comic books hold a special meaning for everyone

4  Men's soccer settles for draw with late strikes

5  Loss to Bowling Green means postseason rematch