MovieChat Forums > Mark Kermode Discussion > [deleted]

[deleted]

posted 4 years ago by [deleted]
8 replies | jump to latest

[deleted]

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

No, it would cloud his judgment.

What judgment? He's been wrong about so many movies, it boils my blood. Roger Ebert was the same for a few notable examples for me, but not as much.

[–] FootOfDavros (6869) 4 years ago

No wonder. The guy is a facsimile.

[–] filmgeek99 (606) 4 years ago

Agreed, Mark Kermode is a hack. The guy always comes off like he's trying to form some bullshit, pseudo-intellectual college thesis on a movie he just saw rather than just give some good, honest to God, off the cuff opinions. The RedLetterMedia guys manage to sound way more intelligent without coming off as though they're trying to pass their content off as academically approved media studies.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Roger Ebert was just an overly sensitive snowflake. Gene Siskel was even worse.

[–] filmgeek99 (606) 4 years ago

Yeah, Gene Siskel may as well have been retarded. For all the flack that he gets, Richard Roeper was honestly a tad sharper than Siskel.

[–] moviechatterer (13504) 4 years ago

Do we need film critics in this day and age?
I find skimming through a dozen amateur reviews on imdb will give me a far better opinion than one tired old cynical hack.

I mean , how is a guy watching movies all day for a living going to see the same things you and i do?

[–] huwdj (4562) 4 years ago

I quite like to watch Kermode's reviews after I've watched a film just to see if we agree - and I think most of the time we more or less do. Which I guess makes his reviews potentially useful if I need to decide whether to watch one film or another.