|
Post by mllemass on Dec 20, 2017 18:19:50 GMT
I didn't think he was still alive! He was always famous for his wacko reviews.
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Dec 20, 2017 19:28:30 GMT
Rex Reed is well known as someone who has committed a lot of inaccuracies in his mean-spirited reviews. He has been called out on this plenty in the past. The fact that twitter has just discovered this fact indicates to me that they don’t read. His mistake-ridden reviews are what I would consider “history” at this point. I really don’t think too many take his reviews seriously nowadays, do they??? Isn’t he better known as a “celebrity profile” gossip writer than a respected film critic?
:-))
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Dec 20, 2017 20:24:46 GMT
I always thought his reviews were more about him than about the movies. In the olden days, he was kind of entertaining to watch because he said such outrageous things!
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Dec 20, 2017 20:43:17 GMT
Mllemass said:
Spot on with that assessment of RR!
:-))
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Dec 20, 2017 23:35:46 GMT
Didn’t Frank Sinatra punch him at one point?
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Dec 21, 2017 0:14:34 GMT
After I saw all those “he is senile” and “he is one example of why old white male should stop writing reviews” (not “straight” this time, of course!) I was thinking maybe they are right in that he is from another time. He never was a respected film critic but was one of those old time reviewers who supposedly were entertaining because they were bitchy and extremely mean. They made fun of people physicality and racist or sexists comments were fair game when they bullied Hollywood’s rich and famous. Facts weren’t that important. It was just about being mean.
At the same time, I don’t think that kind of “journalism” is necessarily dead. I was thinking in particular in that girl from Buzzfeed, the one who wrote that hit piece against Armie Hammer. She wrote before something similar against Tom Hanks. I would dare to say she is the heiress of the old time gossipy pseudo-serious “journalism” which only function is to bullying some rich and famous. Now with extra self-righteous, of course, and without sense of humor. Facts, again, aren’t important!
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Dec 21, 2017 3:31:35 GMT
The complete opposite of RR were Siskel and Ebert. They were smart and funny, and could be brutally honest about movies without resorting to being mean. They were respected and yet they were never snobs. I loved watching their reviews, and it was always so exciting when I agreed with one of them!
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Dec 21, 2017 5:19:50 GMT
As mllemass said the era that RR came from had plenty of entertaining, knowledgeable and yet respected film critics. S&E are a prime example, but there were others. RR was easily identified as a lazy and cruel writer even back then. And he couldn’t be accused of being “senile” back then and yet was writing the same shit he does today. It’s his MO and it always has been.
And you are also correct sgev, in saying that kind of writer is still in existence today (so again, that kind of writing isn’t emblematic of a certain era). A lot of people still seem to think that being bitchy/snarky is somehow equatable to being clever. And it isn’t just an “old white male” problem either. There are people of all kinds that think that way - male, female, any ethnicity, any orientation. Just look at the blogs on tumblr. They are filled with people who think snark it the new “sexy”, so to speak. RR is just one of those people - it has nothing to do with his age or ethnicity.
:-))
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Dec 21, 2017 11:16:01 GMT
There were other like him. For example, John Simon. I think both of them were more in style of gossip columnists in tabloids than real film critics. We now have modern gossip columns in form of nasty blogs. That’s true! I though in that article because the apparent seriousness of it, then in form of film criticism now a woke pseudo profile, both ill informed and nasty. Although at least Reed tries (and fails) to be funny!
TBH I never was a fan of Roger Ebert! I was a little snob and disliked his style. I read him more than watched the show and I remember those long paragraphs talking about his personal experiences instead of the movie! Anyway, he clearly was a decent man and I really loved the documentary about his life. He was loved by everybody and in those images you can see why.
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Dec 21, 2017 12:02:12 GMT
Yes, of the two of them, Gene Siskel came across as the "nicer" one - more laid-back and friendly. But that was what I enjoyed about their reviews. I watched their show every Sunday, and it was interesting hearing two very different opinions about the same movie.
I remember one review in which RE ripped apart a remake of a movie from the 1940's. He said that the original writer:director would be horrified to see what had been done to his story. But the following week, he apologized! It had been pointed out to him that the scenes he objected to were, in fact, also in the original movie. He was so embarrassed because he seemed to know everything about movie history, but had made this mistake.
|
|