View Single Post
Old 08-26-2014, 10:08 AM   #30
crich70
Grand Sorcerer
crich70 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.crich70 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.crich70 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.crich70 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.crich70 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.crich70 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.crich70 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.crich70 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.crich70 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.crich70 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.crich70 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
crich70's Avatar
 
Posts: 11,310
Karma: 43993832
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Monroe Wisconsin
Device: K3, Kindle Paperwhite, Calibre, and Mobipocket for Pc (netbook)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luffy View Post
I think Ebert on his own has made more embarrassing decisions than with Siskel. He gave the Usual Suspects 1.5 stars, Unforgiven 2.5, Reservoir Dogs 2.5, Gladiator 2 stars among others.
You may be right, but my point stands. Critics don't always get it right whether it's how good/bad the newest movie is or how good/bad a new book is. I hadn't known Mr. Ebert had given Gladiator such a low rating. I rarely pay attention to what the critics say (no matter the media). Gladiator is special in that two actors had their last roles in it (Richard Harris & Oliver Reed). I have no idea who is the critic who gives the reviews of the books in the NYT or even what is 'good' among new books reviewed, but I still think there is some (natural) bias in any critical review. There has to be as long as critics come from within the ranks of the human race.
crich70 is offline   Reply With Quote