haha ebert and roeper give this 2 thumbs down
just what this movie deserves
sharedid you see it?
share
MovieChat Forums > Home on the Range (2004) Discussion > haha ebert and roeper give this 2 thumbs...
hm,they almost always give disney movies two thumbs up. oh well...
------
I'd give her a HA! And a HI-YA! And a OUU-WA! And I'd kick her, sir.
[deleted]
ebert and roeper are brain dead idiots who don't know what they're talking about
I wonder what it's like to be paid well to be a "brain dead idiot".
I highly respect Ebert and I love reading his reviews, but I hardly ever base my decision to see a movie on what he or other critics say. That's just a part of being a consumer with a mind of my own. But I cannot say that I am surprised that both gave a thunbs down...Disney has been turning out lousy movies for a number of years. The last best one was, in my opinion, Aladdin.
True worth comes from the self.
Two thumbs down sounds harsh.
It's not a bad movie. Just not a good movie.
Eh everyone has their own opinion. I say if you really want to go with the ciritics you have to read a bunch of reviews but ultimately make your own decision and I'm sure most do but I have seen people who won't see something because of other's opinions.
What did you think of the movie Moogle? Let me guess are you one of those people who voted it a one and bash it even though you have not seen it and probably never will?
Because of the ADD syndrome of many moviegoers, the thumbs up / thumbs down system has become a monster. If you were to actually read Eberts well done review on the movie, you would find that he has many reasons to recommend it but, in the end, finds it too slight to give his full stamp of approval. He has not totally condemned the movie and your fist shaking sense of triumph is just ugly.
shareDid you see it?
Its actually kinda funny.
Well, critics are just people with opinions who've seen more films than we have, that's all. Still, it's odd that they gave it two thumbs down, that's really rare for Ebert. Didn't they even give stuff like Titan AE and Brother Bear a thumb up somewhere?
"I kick ass for the LORD!!!"
-Kung fu priest, "Dead Alive"
i saw it i thought it was a good movie for anyone to watch.
shareI have seen this movie twice with my 2 year old and other friends with children. WE ALL LOVE IT!!!! It has great music, awesome characters, and a cute story. Why would you trust the opinions of some old men over the opionions of children. That is who this movie is geared towards anyways.
shareNo one should really listen to critics. Judge for yourself. Anyways, i did catch that show reviewing HOTR. They said the film took comedy western pieces from other films and put them in HOTR. That's a reason they didn't like it. BUT at the very next review, Kill Bill Vol. 2, they rave about it! HUH?! Kill Bill has recycled chinese martial arts scenes very very similar to many other foreign chinese martial arts films. I can't believe this. They just contradicted themselves. Same thing with Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. I didn't like it. That film had like 3-4 plots. I've seen those kinds of martial arts before. Yet it is great for Americans. Kinda weird how one country sees another country's pretty much standard films.
Oh, yeah. I liked HOTR. My favorite character from the film is Lucky Jack.
"...when Pirates of the Carribean breaks down, the pirates don't eat the tourists."
[deleted]
Oh, and I guess we don't need a whole website with hundreds of uninformed know-it-alls talking about movies either. Ebert and Roeper are not there to give Yes or No, black and white answers. Their show serves the sole purpose of educated guidance--- if you ignore the finality of the thumbs up / thumbs down system, you'd find that what they actually say is fairly balanced and well thought out, and often includes positives that are canceled out by their personal preference. And there's a difference between exploiting cliches and recycling them--- this difference is what they were acknowledging in their reviews of Home on the Range vs. Kill Bill.
shareStop insulting people with ADHD, it's not clever or funny to make light of it. I do read movie reviews in full anyway.
shareI am not making light of ADD. It's a label used to identify a starting point for therapy, and I was just applying the label to a certain fragment of moviegoers who see in black and white. If you'd have read my whole post, previous and recent, you would've understood the analogy. We all have some sort of ADD imposed upon us by the 'right now' of society and I find your too emotional investment in my lightweight words offensive and irresponsible. I didn't say that people with ADD do not read movie reviews fully--- the previous poster reveled in the simplicity of Ebert and Roepers thumbs down for this movie without acknowledging their comments about it both written and said. This is what i was attacking. Next time, make sure you're under fire before you shoot back.
shareI wouldn't really say that their purpose is to give guidance. Who listens to reviews? Not smart people. Smart people go to the movies they think look appealing and make their own judgements. I would argue that their purpose is really just what any critics has been over the years -- to try and give feedback to the artists themselves. To try and examine artistic trends over time and deliver opinions on how it got there, what it's going to accomplish, and where it's going. But since they are also good at coming up with taglines or cute ratings systems involving thumbs and/or tomatos (etc), and since the public doesn't seem to be able to think to itself, and since society loves entertainment to death, so much so that they will sit and watch entertainment that does nothing more than talk endlessly about OTHER entertaiment or read magazines about magazines about newspapers about television shows based on movies starring celebrities who arrived on the silver screen from the legitimate theater (did I make my point yet?), then we have the mass marketed reviewing system for movies. And some people listen to it, some don't. Some people, like the one who started this thread, seem to identify with the critics and find at least some sort of happiness in sharing the same opinion, thereby validating his/her own existence because he/she agrees with Ebert & Roper -- who are we to judge? :p
But if you look to Ebert and Roper for educated guidance, well, then what a sad state of affairs we have in this world.
Anyway, about Disney -- what's with their recent movies always having to contain a fart joke here and a eubonics pun there and a catchy, tasteless phrase over there? I think this must be the terrible quality of their television cartoons seeping into their major motion pictures. Maybe they fired all the screen employees and told their TV department to do it from now on. Maybe I'm just too stupid or was too young at the time to recall, but I am pretty sure there was none of the smut we see nowadays in Disney TV & film in such classics as Ducktales... Ok I do remember a little bit of it in Rescue Rangers. I remember when Ducktales was a testimony to the quality of Disney when it was miles above other animation at the time in terms of quality and frame-rate. Now look at their stupid cartoons. They make me want to rip out my eyeballs and dip my throbbing head in acid (in the hopes that this will somehow help to make me smarter after just being dumbified by the antics of the 'Recess' gang).
Disney is dead, literally. There will be no revival. They have discovered that it is much more profitable to make 1,000 crappy products per year than 10 quality ones. They will only find their way again under fresh new leadership. The next big thing will be for another big, perhaps new, animation company to return us to the quality and taste that we are used to and take the world by storm, stealing the spotlight from Disney and then, maybe THEN, Disney will see the light and transform themselves.
Or maybe I'm just full of hot air. But seriously. When someone with the history and morals of Roseanne Barr is hired to voice a Disney film, you know that it's game over for Disney.
I would agree with you, somewhat, concerning that smart people don't listen to reviewers--- in that they don't make their final opinion or elitist judgement based on what another says--- but as far as using them to identify what qualities a film does or does not have, the dedication of those involved, and the backstory of how a film came to be, reviewers are excellent guides to wha you may want to spend your money on. Good reviewers rarely give black and white recommendations, and are often able to point out things that may appeal to certain personal preferences. They certainly are a more formidable and honest tool to rely on than effects laden and marketing influenced previews that often give too much away or misdirect the audience as to the focus of the film. How can you say reviewers don't offer educated guidance and, moreover, how can you label those that use them for such as 'not smart'? Before using shrugged shoulder phrases such as 'a sad state of world affairs', you may want to clarify your all inclusiveness.
shareEverything you said is true.
You are right, I am mainly concerned with those who let the reviewers dictate their final decision rather than making their own judgements. There are probably not many people who completely hand their decision-making over to reviewers by blindly following their ratings scales to decide what movies to go to (although some tub-thumping religious folks might do that when it comes to their websites dedicated to choosing quality entertainment).
But, there are probably still a large portion of people who will take even Ebert's detailed opinion and apply it as their own without putting a whole lot of their own thought into the process. Which, to me, is sad.
We don't really need them to do that research for us, though. We could get on the Internet and do the research ourselves in just as much time on a site such as this one (as far as movie history, backstory, etc goes). By the same token, I would rather hear the opinions of 20 "regular folks" than the opinions of one (1) stodgy old-timer being overpaid to tell me what he thinks, as if his findings and opinions are somehow something I should revere.
Finally, you'll probably never read this, but here's a word of advice. Welcome to the Internet. It's a place full of people who try to convey, in small boxes of static text, opinions to one another. Don't take apart every phrase that is obviously a generalization used either for emphasis, effect, or in the interests of time. It sickens me to see people who need to be babied with disclaimers before someone says something like "people who follow the advice of reviewers don't think for themselves." I could have padded that particular statement with all manners of polite words and clauses so that people like you would not see it and think "oh, dear word, this person is not very nice!" But, why? Just to appease poor little people who can't stand up for themselves and who, for some reason I have yet to figure out, take the opinion of a complete stranger so nearly and dearly to heart that it causes them so much inner suffering that they take the time to complain to the person for having used generalizing language?
Welcome to the Internet. Where blowhards with something to say lord their half-thought out rants over those they think will be taken in and swayed by over generalization and motto-themed deductions. Where people pretend to rail against a system by breaking that system into easily shaded stereotypes, i.e rich vs. poor, overpaid old-timers vs. us regular folks. Where, once cornered and marginalized, scream accusations of PC and label appeals for clarification and honest thought progression as unwarranted demands for politeness.
You pretend I am the one being over-serious and sensitive, yet I am not the one being 'sickened' or 'sad'. I don't need babied, or shielded, especially from such soft, elitist posts such as yours. Generalized language is only okay when used correctly, but your use of it changes the meaning of what you're claiming. When you say 'Who reads reviews? Not smart people.', it's pretty clear, there's no grey area. But you're claiming you meant people who read reviews and take them at face value, as be all end all. But this is not what you said. I don't think you are using 'generalized language' to save time. Especially since your posts are rather long and redundant. I think your backtracking and trying to twist the meaning of what you originally stated because you're halfway smart and instead of concede that you painted in too broad of a stroke, you'd rather go back and change the colors in hopes of making me think I'm looking at a different picture. I am not appeased. Get a new welcome committee.
Ebert is ok but Roeper is picky he wants everything to be perfect he gave Mean Girls thumbs down while most critics liked it.Thats why I liked Ebert he understands the movie and what it was made for like he gave Van Helsing 3 stars out of 4 stars, he knew its supposed to be a fun action movie and didnt grade it so harshly like most of the other critics.I know everyone has their own opinion but you cant be nice once in awhile.
shareWell, I figured you were one of those types who believes himself to be above the "flame-war" and would thus leave it alone and not insist on having the last word. But, I see you are no better than I! :)
While I will credit your bordering-on-brilliant (highest compliments intended) use of metaphor to describe your theory of how I operate, I will try to explain why it is wrong.
Whether or not you agree with this approach to thinking about things, I tend to reach into myself and pull out whatever gut instinctual response I feel at the time. Then, I spew it forth to the audience before me. Now, I know well before anything leaves my mouth that the world is not black and white and that there is never a right or wrong answer. But from what I have experienced, the exchange of knowledge and ideas is much more rapid and exciting when those involved in the discussion don't hide behind lengthy interjections of ettiquette befitting chatter with old women while having tea and cakes. I would rather scream bloody murder and see where it goes from there. And, it is in my inquisitive (or perhaps just arrogant) nature to always want to be the devil's advocate on any topic. If you say one thing, I'm likely to want to say the other just to see how it tastes. Fortunately, the Internet that we have now both been formally welcomed to by one another allows us to do that. I'm not trying to "lord" any rants over anyone else. If you want to continue talking from any such initial outburst of mine, I won't shy away from the conversation and might even take a complete 180 degree turnaround in opinion by the time it is all over with. This is just how I tend to operate.
And, if you don't believe me, or you think that even this discussion is more evidence of my (self-proclaimed?) prowess at rewriting history in my favor, then you just need to look at what comes after the generalization you quoted.
"Who listens to reviews? Not smart people. Smart people go to the movies they think look appealing and make their own judgements."
I did go on to classify what I believe "smart" people do. In this statement, I do believe there's no grey area. People who think for themselves are thinkers. Thinking -> intellect -> smart. People who "listen" to reviews is the part you must be unsure about -- what did I mean by "listens"? Did I mean reads and mulls over? Or did I mean reads and completely adheres to as if the word of God? Or some other degree in the gamut of possible implications.
Well, I suppose this phrase is of the sort that only my mind knows what it originally was thinking in that fiery instant of time in which I chose to bellow my half-thought-out rant over the nations. But it's the sort of thing that is revealing about the reader -- you can interpret it however you want. Am I to take it that you were predisposed, perhaps due to the overall perceived tone you took from my statements, to believe that I must have meant anyone whose eyes fall upon a review?
At any rate we did go on down my usual path of development, which was for you to be upset by the sheer arrogance you perceived and try to reprimand me for it, and then for me to attempt to further clarify the argument to satisfy you and re-examine days later the state of my thoughts on the matter.
It sounds like you want to think and think upon what you say before you say it so that you don't end up saying something you regret later, or that proves to be the wrong thing to have said. Well, the reality is that no matter how much you think about your answer there's always an exception* to your rule. So I have abandoned that on the Internet (though I still observe it as best I can in real life) and taken to just shouting it out there and seeing what happens.
I hope this hasn't been too redundant for you. If redundancy bothers you, shouldn't you find life rather boring since everything is merely a broken record?
* The exception to THAT rule is that, if you take 20 minutes revising your words and insert hoards of "maybe"'s, "usually"'s, "generally"'s, "in my opinion"'s, "not to be too brash"'s, "allow me to daringly suggest"'s, "while certainly not true in every single case"'s, and on until infinity, you will have pretty much taken all usefulness out of everything you have said because it has become nothing more than a pile of wishy-washiness. And this is what bothers me about people reading other peoples' opinions on the Internet. You should always assume that a person realizes there are other ways of looking at things than their own. But is it you who has the superiority complex, since you seem to be unable to believe that I was capable of being aware of this prior to you pointing it out to me?
I'm not sure where to begin, or if I should even try, and we may have to agree to disagree BUT just as I may be wrong about you, I must destroy your narrow argument about 'tea and cakes' and the wrong headed stereotypes it evokes. I, too, write from the heart, or 'gut', and try to be instructionally strong and sometimes confrontational. I do not water down my opinions nor do I wallow in 'wishy washy' mediocrity, or in conversation to hear myself talk. I appreciate the passion and explanation in your posts, but cannot agree and actually diametrically oppose the theory that talking in black and white or posting from extreme spectrums elicits any more of an honest reaction. A reaction, yes, but not an honest one. So while you may think that I am wasting text by trying to cover all the grey areas of discussion, it is actually your dishonesty and artificial straightforwardness conjuring incorrect rises from those who would normally be posting to something truthful that is the waste. You write your page, then they write theirs, and then you tell them they were wrong to post because they did not read between lines that weren't there. Again, I do thank you for your continued posts, but do not criticize me for 'blowing' up my posts unnecessarily when your posts could do without the fat of sweeping generalization, i.e. 'and if you hate redundancy don't you find life rather boring since it's all a broken record?' What? Did you get that from Dr. Phil or Oprah?
shareI see what you are saying and agree that some people operate that way... However, a "pet peeve" of mine has always been people who cannot take a generalization for what it's worth without becoming somehow "offended" that someone might actually employ stereotype or generalization in something they are trying to say.
Do you honestly expect me to make a statement such as "people who listen to reviews are not smart" (or whatever the heck it was) and then expound for paragraphs upon paragraphs about what I actually meant and supply supporting data? Perhaps some charts and graphs? No. And granted, this situation is a little different but my initial outburst toward you was geared just at the basic act of getting bent out of shape at hearing a generalization.
Stereotypes and generalizations (and a close relative, caricatures) exist for a reason, you know. If I were typing a dissertation or some other sort of body of work, I would certainly refrain from using them as much as possible, or use them only in summary after I have presented all the facts that lead to such conclusions.
I could say "the only way to overcome adversity is for the underdogs to unite", which is a generalization if you ask me. Or, I could sit down and type up The Grapes of Wrath for your reading pleasure. My compromise is closer to (if not) the former extreme, while your compromise is closer to the latter.
Imagine, if you will, a physics professor who suggests to his students for the first time that light acts as both a wave and a particle. If he's going to get very far with the majority of them (there, I said "majority", happy?), he's going to have to explain it, show evidence, blah blah blah. But when he retires to the lounge between courses and participates in a debate with colleagues about string theory or other some such, if he makes certain statements (be they accepted as fact or mere opinion) it is pretty likely that the others in the conversation will not ask him to go into a ton of detail because they can imagine how/why he might have arrived at the statement he made. It's because they know enough about physics and its language, etc, that they are able to accept a reasonable argument in the interest of applying it to the matter at hand and moving on to bigger uncertainties. Is this really all that different from what happened here? I made a statement in the midst of a discussion that drew on social observations I have made, one which is NOT that farfetched and one which you've certainly heard before and can manifest your own assumptions about how I arrived at it. Do you really need a particular assertion to be dumbed down so as not to possibly offend your father-in-law's mailman's 2nd cousin twice removed, or are you worried I may be talking about you and am in some sort of position to halt your pay for thinking you are "not smart"?
I think we may both be talking so heatedly that we're firing down different tangents and not directly responding to each other. Again, I will agree to disagree and leave it at the following bare bones issue that I think is at the core of my disagreement. Let me clarify that I feel differently and disagree with you---- this is not the same as being angry, sensitive, or offended. (wouldn't want to ignite any of those pet peeves)
You wrote:
'But if you look to Ebert and Roper for educated guidance, well, then what a sad state of affairs we have in this world.'
Just as you would look to a physics professor or a speech therapist for educated guidance because they've gone through the experience of hands on learning, why not look to those that have, as you say, been there to identify artistic trends etc... through their essays and criticism?
If I would have taken my son's speech therapist 'at face value', he would've been diagnosed, incorrectly, as autistic. However, methods of learning that the therapist suggested did help my son somewhat begin down the right path, at least with one foot in front of the other. Now, I used the guidance of the therapist, but not the final destination. I use movie reviewers in the same way, and would have to vehemently disagree that this brings about a 'sad state of affairs'.
With all our carrying on, this is the basic statement I had a problem with. The rest can, well, rest.