Silent Night Deadly Night (30th Anniversary Edition) - September 16, 2014

[sarah_wentworth]

"People do not need credentials to comment on art (which you are doing yourself) but should one wish to do it professionally they'd probably have to get some schooling before any publication would hire them."



i don't care if people comment. his comment's influence a lot of people and it can hurt a movies success. a lot of people actually believe he's qualified to judge a movie for them and because of that a lot of people miss good movies.



"if your words impact even one person from renting or viewing a film how is that any different than what a critic does?"



critics like ebert affect thousands.


"Ebert knew more about movies from one single year than you know about the entire history of film. He didn't "con" anyone into thinking he knows more about films than them. For 99% of the people reading his reviews he DOES know more."


cool. i work and don't have time research movies all day. it still doesn't quality him to tell the world a movie is bad or not. win a few directing or writing oscars and i'll change my mind.


I'm sure all the film studies courses and time he spent studying film and film theory couldn't possibly give him any more insight into film or art than a google search or wikipedia result would. The fact remains neither has anything to do with the other so your argument makes very little sense.


we're talking about movies not rocket science. wikipedia will suffice


"I again will challenge you to question if you've ever said to someone "do NOT see this film. It is terrible." The mere difference is more people care what Ebert's opinion on movies is than yours. Again, because he's actually knowledgeable about film in ways you're incapable of being."


he gave 'cop and a half' 3 stars and you think he's knowledgeable about film? i'm almost sure he took a payoff from the movie studio to do that its so insane


"So you dislike Cop and a half. You're telling people not to see it? BLASPHEMY! That's not right! Oh right, only the word of critics has any bearing on public opinion of films. If only the critics hadn't slammed Silent Night, Deadly Night in 1984 -- then the general public would have embraced the film for the masterpiece that it is."


i don't care if people like 'cop and a half.' unlike ebert i don't pretend to know what people like or don't like. i don't like it but i don't tell the world. my opinion means nothing.

[sarah_wentworth]

Originally Posted by AlexIlDottore

You've used this analogy before when talking about film reviewers and it's juvenile and ridiculous. I'll repeat what I said before : In today's overly politically correct times, you don't need to walk a mile in somebody's shoes to have the right to judge them.

I already posted these for you (in another thread), and you laughed and said you'd check them out, but quick question ? Are you able to tell if the following are "bad movies" or not. If you can't, there's a serious problem somewhere :

The Official BIRDEMIC: SHOCK AND TERROR Theatrical Trailer - YouTube

OFFICIAL Birdemic 2: The Resurrection Theatrical Trailer - YouTube

People who do review movies do tend to know about movies

are you an idiot? you don't judge a movie by watching a 2 minute clip. lol.

do you judge a video game by playing it for 2 minutes? or a person after meeting them 2 minutes?

i've spent two minutes thinking about you and conclude you are an idiot for judging an entire movie off a 2 minute clip. but is that fair? is there more to you? wouldn't i be an idiot for judging you after thinking about you for 2 minutes?

thanks for the clips again. i didn't watch. i'm not ebert. i don't pretend to think my opinion is of great importance

[sarah_wentworth]

Originally Posted by lolwut

They're film critics. It's their job. They're not directors or producers. That's not their job. Are you serious? Their opinions are way more valuable and important than yours.

lol

[sarah_wentworth]

Originally Posted by MTRodaba2468

Critics aren't paid to tell you whether you will or won't like a movie. They are paid to write or speak about their opinion on a film, and what led them to that opinion, so that you, the potential viewer, can make an informed decision on whether it's worth spending the money or time on a potential film. You can disagree with Ebert's star ratings all you like, but by actually reading his reviews, you can see exactly why he came to his conclusions. I liked The Usual Suspects, but his complaints on the film were perfectly valid points.

And for the record, critics do watch a lot of films; they don't all get to just pick and choose which ones they watch. The more films you watch, the more knowledge about films you gain. Since critics usually watch more films than the average folk, it stands to reason that they have more knowledge about them.

just the fact they think they know more about you or me in what makes a movie good or bad is wrong. movies are subjective. its just personal opinion but their opinion influences stupid people.

its like taking advantage of disabled people.

anyway, you seem nice. maybe i'm wrong.

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by sarah_wentworth

well i would take medical classes for ten years and perform some surgeries before i would feel qualified to criticize a brain surgeon on his surgery techniques. just because i watch surgeries being performed doesn't mean i know anything about them.

Originally Posted by sarah_wentworth

win a few directing or writing oscars and i'll change my mind.

Originally Posted by sarah_wentworth

we're talking about movies not rocket science. wikipedia will suffice

How many times can you contradict yourself ?

Originally Posted by sarah_wentworth

are you an idiot? you don't judge a movie by watching a 2 minute clip. lol.

do you judge a video game by playing it for 2 minutes? or a person after meeting them 2 minutes?

i've spent two minutes thinking about you and conclude you are an idiot for judging an entire movie off a 2 minute clip. but is that fair? is there more to you? wouldn't i be an idiot for judging you after thinking about you for 2 minutes?

thanks for the clips again. i didn't watch. i'm not ebert. i don't pretend to think my opinion is of great importance

Terrible acting, production values, dialogue, sfx. Are you serious ? You can't see that ? Oh wait, you "didn't watch". I guess you never watch trailers.

Keep on digging your ignorant hole. It's fun to watch.

[MTRodaba2468]

Originally Posted by sarah_wentworth

just the fact they think they know more about you or me in what makes a movie good or bad is wrong. movies are subjective. its just personal opinion but their opinion influences stupid people.

its like taking advantage of disabled people.

anyway, you seem nice. maybe i'm wrong.

First of all, thank you. I try to be nice.

Secondly, whether they know more about films than the average movie-goer or not really doesn't matter (although as I said earlier, it's more than likely that they do have a higher knowledge, just from the quantity of films they do watch). When I check out reviews, I don't just look at a star rating or a letter grade; I read why they felt that way. That's what a lot of people that just look at the Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic scores miss out on.

It's a shame when people are solely influenced by any one factor, regardless on whether it's what critics think or the box office. But that's not the critics' fault, that responsibility lies with the individuals whom choose to let that dictate their opinions for them. Speaking for myself, I use reviews as a tool. If it's a movie that I'm interested in, then bad reviews aren't going to necessarily steer me away (let's face it, I wouldn't have seen a good chunk of the films I have if I stuck solely to critically-acclaimed films; hell, I wouldn't have any reason to be in this thread if that were the case). But good reviews for a film that's not on my radar might get me to give that film a chance, which I might not have done otherwise. You just have to be wise with how you approach it.

[starman15317]

Let's be honest, Silent Night Deadly Night is not a good film and it's easy to see why critics would hate it because of how messed up it is. That being said, I enjoy it and have the DVD in my collection (and I'll buy the Blu-Ray unless it's upconvert quality) but I recognize that it's no Citizen Kane.

[mayorofsmpleton]

Originally Posted by MTRodaba2468

Critics aren't paid to tell you whether you will or won't like a movie. They are paid to write or speak about their opinion on a film, and what led them to that opinion, so that you, the potential viewer, can make an informed decision on whether it's worth spending the money or time on a potential film. You can disagree with Ebert's star ratings all you like, but by actually reading his reviews, you can see exactly why he came to his conclusions. I liked The Usual Suspects, but his complaints on the film were perfectly valid points.

And for the record, critics do watch a lot of films; they don't all get to just pick and choose which ones they watch. The more films you watch, the more knowledge about films you gain. Since critics usually watch more films than the average folk, it stands to reason that they have more knowledge about them.

Thank you for stating that the REVIEW is the point -- not the star rating. Which has been explained repeatedly shouldn't be used to validate how good a film is, in Ebert's eyes.

In fact, I can recall at least one year a film he gave just 3 stars to ended up on his 10 BEST OF THE YEAR list -- despite well over 10 other films receiving a 4 star review. I remember being a little perplexed but that's the point -- the stars are a general guideline the paper required him to place on reviews... despite his attempts to stop said scale from being included.

1 - Time waster
2 - Ok
3 - Recommended
4 - Superior

Also thanks for pointing out that critics see almost every film released in a given year (perhaps not as high a percent as 10-20 years ago -- due to the sheer number of releases these days) therefore they have a much higher ability to judge the material comparatively. If you've seen thousands of films as opposed to a couple of hundred you're likely going to be able to evaluate them much better.

[mayorofsmpleton]

Originally Posted by sarah_wentworth

are you an idiot? you don't judge a movie by watching a 2 minute clip. lol.

do you judge a video game by playing it for 2 minutes? or a person after meeting them 2 minutes?

i've spent two minutes thinking about you and conclude you are an idiot for judging an entire movie off a 2 minute clip. but is that fair? is there more to you? wouldn't i be an idiot for judging you after thinking about you for 2 minutes?

thanks for the clips again. i didn't watch. i'm not ebert. i don't pretend to think my opinion is of great importance

Yet your entire post seems to imply that your opinion IS of great importance. That critics aren't worth having in our world. Which is simply wrong.

[Lyle_JP]

Originally Posted by sarah_wentworth

he did that to Betsy Palmer? what a dochebag

He even published what he believed to be her home address in the review. Thankfully for Betsy, he had bad info.

[mayorofsmpleton]

Originally Posted by sarah_wentworth

mayorofsmpleton -- "People do not need credentials to comment on art (which you are doing yourself) but should one wish to do it professionally they'd probably have to get some schooling before any publication would hire them."

i don't care if people comment. his comment's influence a lot of people and it can hurt a movies success. a lot of people actually believe he's qualified to judge a movie for them and because of that a lot of people miss good movies. critics like ebert affect thousands.

Do you recycle? Because just your single hand in the cause is NOT important in terms of the overall effect it has on the environment -- yet I'm sure there's things you do that make a little difference that don't impact thousands (like recycling) that you still do because even one act does have some impact. So because a review by a critic impacts MORE people than you it's somehow inherently wrong... yet you've still not given an adequate response as to why it's okay when you personally slam a film to anyone... other than that's just one person. It's apparently ONLY an issue if your suggestion affects many. That's nonsense and hypocritical. Either it's wrong or it isn't. If an oil spill kills ten birds or ten thousand is one act more wrong than the other? Perhaps, but are they not still BOTH wrong? The answer is YES, they are both wrong.

mayorofsmpleton - "Ebert knew more about movies from one single year than you know about the entire history of film. He didn't "con" anyone into thinking he knows more about films than them. For 99% of the people reading his reviews he DOES know more." -----

cool. i work and don't have time research movies all day. it still doesn't quality him to tell the world a movie is bad or not. win a few directing or writing oscars and i'll change my mind.

That's fine... but that's YOUR opinion. Anyone with any knowledge of film criticism knows that seeing more films and having studied them gives you more insight into the craft and yes, probably a more valid opinion as to the quality of a piece than someone without said credentials.

Even film-makers that have won numerous awards are capable of making bad films or having trouble identifying quality of other films. Awards do not somehow make one better capable of judging the art of others. You can often win praise for something in a film that was brilliant but also a complete fluke or the work of someone else. Listen to some commentary tracks by some humble film-makers who point out some of the most brilliant moments from their films and then credit those same moments to other people on the production (James Cameron, Joss Whedon, etc.) There are plenty of films that have won awards that were made by young film-makers who had trouble repeating that success again -- possibly because those film-makers got lucky enough to have the talent of their crew at their side.

For that matter let's ask another philosophical question -- if the film wins awards does that automatically make it a "good" film? Why? Because some people who are members of an academy decided? Did you know that in order for academy members to vote on the best film of the year for the Oscars they aren't even required to have seen them all? So the opinion of a film-maker who has an Academy Award for Best Picture from some year is inherently better at judging a film than someone who has very likely seen THOUSANDS more and has studied the art of film, film theory, etc... Just making movies doesn't make you an expert -- and even the best film-makers enjoy the challenges of a new genre or style they've yet to try. Kubrick was a man who pushed himself with each new production to try something new and different he hadn't done or seen done before. It's why he's looked at now as such a brilliant film-maker even if some of his films didn't receive the highest acclaim upon first release. Hindsight has allowed some of his work to be better received for how good it really is (The Shining) -- typically because it was so different from what audiences and critics even were used to at the time. I'd trust Kubrick's judgment of how good a film is -- but something tells me he'd consider Silent Night, Deadly Night completely unwatchable and total garbage. Would that upset you? If he had come out publicly denouncing the film would THAT be a problem? He's not being paid but he's influencing many.

mayorofsmpleton - I'm sure all the film studies courses and time he spent studying film and film theory couldn't possibly give him any more insight into film or art than a google search or wikipedia result would. The fact remains neither has anything to do with the other so your argument makes very little sense.
---------
we're talking about movies not rocket science. wikipedia will suffice

I thought we were talking about brain surgery? I'm so confused.

mayorofsmpleton - "I again will challenge you to question if you've ever said to someone "do NOT see this film. It is terrible." The mere difference is more people care what Ebert's opinion on movies is than yours. Again, because he's actually knowledgeable about film in ways you're incapable of being."
---------------
he gave 'cop and a half' 3 stars and you think he's knowledgeable about film? i'm almost sure he took a payoff from the movie studio to do that its so insane

Or he compared the film to other films of that particular genre. "Kid-friendly buddy comedies" and rated it highly FOR THAT KIND OF FILM. He'd probably still rank it lower than Clockwork Orange in terms of actual quality but that's not how his star ratings are designed. It's not a scale system pitting every film against every other film. For formulaic buddy comedies aimed at children he thought it was deserving of 3 stars. How is that so hard for you to understand?

- mayorofsmpleton - "So you dislike Cop and a half. You're telling people not to see it? BLASPHEMY! That's not right! Oh right, only the word of critics has any bearing on public opinion of films. If only the critics hadn't slammed Silent Night, Deadly Night in 1984 -- then the general public would have embraced the film for the masterpiece that it is."

i don't care if people like 'cop and a half.'

It seems like you do. You've mentioned it no fewer than 4 times in multiple threads on this forum.

unlike ebert i don't pretend to know what people like or don't like. i don't like it but i don't tell the world.

You put your thoughts in writing on the internet. You just told the world.

my opinion means nothing.

That's the smartest thing you've said thus far.

[mayorofsmpleton]

Originally Posted by Lyle_JP

He even published what he believed to be her home address in the review. Thankfully for Betsy, he had bad info.

Actually that was Gene Siskel. Who funnily enough also slammed "Last House on the Left" in that review (a film that Ebert gave *** 1/2 stars to).

http://www.fridaythe13thfranchise.co...13th-mini.html

For the record I wasn't the hugest fan of Siskel's reviews or opinion on most film. I disagreed with him most of the time so I didn't take his opinion very seriously. Ebert I at least respected. The man had a way with the written word that was very charming and even when he bashed a film I adored I was hard pressed to find anything in his review I didn't actually agree with. It didn't stop me from enjoying the film.

The major criticism here seems to be the mere existence of his ratings system -- for one to complain about his actual reviews one would have to actually do some reading to see how he reached the conclusions he reached. Merely looking at his star ratings doesn't really suffice. I suppose it's too much to expect one to actually READ the review to understand -- thus the "why did he give X a bad rating!?" comment that happened every single week he was still alive and reviewing films.

[Lyle_JP]

Originally Posted by mayorofsmpleton

Actually that was Gene Siskel. Who also slammed "Last House on the Left" in his review (a film that Ebert gave *** 1/2 stars to).

Hey, you're right. I always though it was Ebert for some reason.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by starman15317

Let's be honest, Silent Night Deadly Night is not a good film and it's easy to see why critics would hate it because of how messed up it is. That being said, I enjoy it and have the DVD in my collection (and I'll buy the Blu-Ray unless it's upconvert quality) but I recognize that it's no Citizen Kane.

Just because it's not Citizen Kane doesn't mean it's not a good film. I consider it a good horror film. Not among the best by any means, but good.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Lyle_JP

If you want to understand Roger Ebert's "taste" in movies, just watch Russ Meyer's "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls", which Ebert wrote.

I had a hard time taking any of his reviews seriously after seeing that film.

He also tried to sic the general public on Betsy Palmer for having dared star in Friday the 13th. At times the man was simply contemptible.

Stop spreading falsehoods about the guy. He didn't do that. It was Siskel, as others have noted. If people aren't sure of their facts, they should be careful what they post, especially when it has the potential to hurt somebody's reputation. Have some respect for Ebert - he was a good man and loved movies, just as we all do here. We don't all love the same films. Ebert was also a very intelligent person. Smarter than many in here no doubt, including myself.

[Beachguy]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Ebert was also a very intelligent person. Smarter than many in here no doubt, including myself.

See, now this is one of the reasons that you don't make a 7 figure salary like Ebert -- you have no faith in yourself. Don't insult yourself. If you want to be smarter, find ways to do it. You can start with Amazon and a few hundred dollars in the books section.

------------

I do feel that the "It's no Citizen Kane" comment is overused. It's become verbatim and it just falls flat now from being overused. Citizen Kane seems to be missing something and I can't quite pinpoint what it is. I think I know -- Lilyan Chauvin (Mother Superior) does not star alongside Orson Welles. Imagine the 3rd dimension it would have added if Lilyan had taken Rosebud [the sled in the film] and chopped it into firewood.

------------

I have always thought critics are unnecessary. They really are for small minds that can't think for themselves. However, I have watched Ebert and Siskel various times just for kicks and found it slightly entertaining. Siskel getting angry at Ebert for giving Pee Wee's Big Adventure a good review was a nice time; I can understand why so many find this quotable for intelligent conversation. And I have seen various episodes of the Angry Video Game Nerd's movie reviews.

[donidarko]

Originally Posted by sarah_wentworth

just the fact they think they know more about you or me in what makes a movie good or bad is wrong. movies are subjective. its just personal opinion but their opinion influences stupid people.

its like taking advantage of disabled people.

anyway, you seem nice. maybe i'm wrong.

Everything is subjective, but after someone has experienced over a thousand movies, you'd be pretty dense not to be able to tell a well made movie from a piece of trash. Even Siskel & Ebert had " guilty pleasures" that they loved but would've never recommended to the general public.

[starman15317]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Just because it's not Citizen Kane doesn't mean it's not a good film. I consider it a good horror film. Not among the best by any means, but good.

Fair enough, but I think it's easy to see why critics didn't like this film.

Not a horror movie, but Blue Velvet (one of my favorites) is the same way. Ebert hated it and I can understand why, but I think it's a great film. Siskel liked it. But both Siskel and Ebert were great critics.

[Lyle_JP]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Stop spreading falsehoods about the guy. He didn't do that. It was Siskel, as others have noted.

Jeez. I said it once, someone corrected me, and I admitted I was wrong. Then you go quoting my post claiming I'm "spreading falsehoods after I've already been told".

[JimSmith]

Originally Posted by donidarko

Siskel and Ebert were two very fair and respected film critics. Your remarks and attacks are juvenile and ridiculous. Their film reviews reflected the times at which they were living. If you hadn't experienced what living in the 80s,was,like, than of course you don't understand their take on some slasher films.

How are my remarks juvenile and ridiculous?! What IS juvenile and downright creepily obsessive is publishing some actors personal address just because he doesn't like the person that was in the movie! siskel and ebert are both dead now and quite like the dump that I took yesterday they are a faded memory, flushed down the crapper of life! Oh and you can pawn ebert's pulitzer prize too!