Red Letter Media

[Dom Cruise]

I dunno man.

Ebert was kind of the Stephen King of film criticism. I don't mean that entirely as a compliment.

Otoh he was right about vidya (it's maybe more interesting to ask why nerds would want Super Mario to be "art" ) and he was right about horror movies. Horror is absolute trash*.

It's ok to like trash, and I'm not even judging - who doesn't enjoy a KFC Double Down? Just don't pretend it's a gourmet meal. But like Ebert's long-running feud with vidya dorks, it seems to enrage horror consoomers when you point out their masturbatory pastimes are dumb. But they are dumb. I saw the one where Jason goes to space and kills somebody on a giant corkscrew. It was hilarious. And dumb.

Ebert was also on point when he "reviewed" that disgusting Dutch weirdo's Human Centipede movie - "it occupies a world where the stars don't shine".

*The nihilistic exploitation stuff they started making from the 70's onwards, Texas Chainsaw Massacre and whatnot. Psycho and The Shining are legitimately great movies.

First of all he was wrong about video games and second of all it wasn't just that he was calling horror movies trash but that he believed violent content in movies would cause violence in real life.

I still liked the guy, but sometimes he was wrong.

 

[Love Soze]

Wasn't Ebert also famous for writing reviews of movies he slept through? I don't understand why anyone cares about anything he said anymore.

 

[Travoltron]

I miss Siskel & Ebert, but also I kind of don't.
I believe that Ebert would have been an insufferable SJW if he were alive today.

 

[Sexual Chocolate]

First of all he was wrong about video games

C'mon buddy

second of all it wasn't just that he was calling horror movies trash but that he believed violent content in movies would cause violence in real life.

I still liked the guy, but sometimes he was wrong.

He was a boomer (or boomer adjacent). Ebert reviewed tons of trashy horror movies without mentioning his theory that children would act out Jason Voorhees irl, but he did mention "disgust" a lot. This is the real reason he hated horror:

Sinking into my seat in this movie theater from my childhood, I remembered the movie fantasies when I was a kid. They involved teenagers who fell in love, made out with each other, customized their cars, listened to rock and roll, and were rebels without causes. Neither the kids in those movies nor the kids watching them would have understood a world view in which the primary function of teenagers is to be hacked to death.

Apart from the obvious generational divide, the RLM boys have a lot in common with Ebert's approach to criticism (casual and chatty). Only instead of being upset by slasher porn, our guys are depressed by watching their favorite 80's franchises turn to shit.

 

[Dom Cruise]

Wasn't Ebert also famous for writing reviews of movies he slept through? I don't understand why anyone cares about anything he said anymore.

He also gave a bad review to Die Hard which blows my mind.

I'm not an Ebert hater, when he was good he was really good, but sometimes he'd write something that just left you scratching your head.

I miss Siskel & Ebert, but also I kind of don't.
I believe that Ebert would have been an insufferable SJW if he were alive today.

Probably, it's really depressing to say this but just about every celebrity who passed away before SJW culture really took off now seems like a bit of a blessing in disguise because at least we didn't have to see them become retarded like so many celebs have become in recent years.

I think a lot about Chris Farley and how while it's tragic that he died when he did, at least he didn't have to see what a shitshow the 21st century has turned out to be.

C'mon buddy


He was a boomer (or boomer adjacent). Ebert reviewed tons of trashy horror movies without mentioning his theory that children would act out Jason Voorhees irl, but he did mention "disgust" a lot. This is the real reason he hated horror:



Apart from the obvious generational divide, the RLM boys have a lot in common with Ebert's approach to criticism (casual and chatty). Only instead of being upset by slasher porn, our guys are depressed by watching their favorite 80's franchises turn to shit.

Silent Hill 2 is as much a work of art as anything else produced by human beings, get da fuck outta here with that regressive attitude about video games.

 

[Pokemonquistador2]

I admit that even after all these years, I still don't get slasher films. The violence seems pointless, because I don't think a bunch of dumb teenagers deserve to get ripped apart for just being a bunch of dumb, horny teenagers. I much prefer my victims to be at least deserving of their fates, like the characters in the first Hellraiser film. But I can appreciate the craftsmanship of slasher movies, especially if their villains have personality and the setting has interesting aspects to it (The Nightmare on Elm Street series and the film Tourist Trap , for instance.) I always thought Jason was just a second rate Michael Myers, though. And Michael Myers didn't have much of a personality beyond "Implacable Killer/Boogey Man." He was more important for what he represented to the setting (a source of tension) than for who he was.

Siskel and Ebert getting Boomer-bent out of shape over slasher movies is always funny to watch. In that respect, they were very much like Christian preachers against Heavy Metal and Dungeons and Dragons... Criticizing some new form of media that they could barely understand.

 

[frozenrunner]

Siskel and Ebert getting Boomer-bent out of shape over slasher movies is always funny to watch. In that respect, they were very much like Christian preachers against Heavy Metal and Dungeons and Dragons... Criticizing some new form of media that they could barely understand.

Ebert was like that about video games until his death. Very strange for a guy who championed cinema as a form of art and was reviewing porn in the 70s like it was mainstream art.

 

[Dom Cruise]

I admit that even after all these years, I still don't get slasher films. The violence seems pointless, because I don't think a bunch of dumb teenagers deserve to get ripped apart for just being a bunch of dumb, horny teenagers. I much prefer my victims to be at least deserving of their fates, like the characters in the first Hellraiser film. But I can appreciate the craftsmanship of slasher movies, especially if their villains have personality and the setting has interesting aspects to it (The Nightmare on Elm Street series and the film Tourist Trap , for instance.) I always thought Jason was just a second rate Michael Myers, though. And Michael Myers didn't have much of a personality beyond "Implacable Killer/Boogey Man." He was more important for what he represented to the setting (a source of tension) than for who he was.

Siskel and Ebert getting Boomer-bent out of shape over slasher movies is always funny to watch. In that respect, they were very much like Christian preachers against Heavy Metal and Dungeons and Dragons... Criticizing some new form of media that they could barely understand.

I'm a big horror fan, but not the biggest slasher guy, I've seen a few, namely The Prowler, Sleepaway Camp and The Burning (Harvey Weinstein's first movie lmao) but they tend to be pretty simplistic, I like movies to have more plot to them.

But the early 80s ones at least have wonderfully gritty and creepy atmospheres.

I like the genre, I just don't love it.

 

[GhostButt]

The violence seems pointless, because I don't think a bunch of dumb teenagers deserve to get ripped apart for just being a bunch of dumb, horny teenagers.

It was just an excuse to SHOW dumb horny teenagers and sell the movie.

Plus that trend started with jason drowning because his camp counselors were too busy in tonsil tickling revelry to save him, I don't really remember, either way once something like that takes off people start copying it without realizing how the pieces actually fit together, like those folk-art movie poster paintings from third world countries where it is just all the memorable(??) scenes worked into cacophony:

 

[Idiotron]

I admit that even after all these years, I still don't get slasher films. The violence seems pointless, because I don't think a bunch of dumb teenagers deserve to get ripped apart for just being a bunch of dumb, horny teenagers. I much prefer my victims to be at least deserving of their fates, like the characters in the first Hellraiser film. But I can appreciate the craftsmanship of slasher movies, especially if their villains have personality and the setting has interesting aspects to it (The Nightmare on Elm Street series and the film Tourist Trap , for instance.) I always thought Jason was just a second rate Michael Myers, though. And Michael Myers didn't have much of a personality beyond "Implacable Killer/Boogey Man." He was more important for what he represented to the setting (a source of tension) than for who he was.

Depends on the type of a slasher movie.
The "teens getting murdered by a big dude with a bladed weapon" is mostly dumb fun.
The quintessential "dumb fun" slasher movie would be Friday the 13th part 6 for me, it might even be called a spoof of a slasher movie but the killer is still treated seriously.
I prefer when there's a mystery, when one of the characters is secretly the killer, that let's you play detective and have fun figuring stuff out. The most mainstream modern example of that is the first Scream.
There are also slashers without teens such as Mindhunters where a bunch of FBI trainees are on an island for training but one of them is basically Jigsaw and he's doing some creative murdering.
Then there are what I like to call "secret slashers" such as Predator where you think it's an 80's action movie but then a big killer wearing a mask shows up and starts murdering the action heroes one by one.
Then there are weird experimental slashers like this 2011 movie called Detention where genres are constantly mixed or Happy Death Day where it's Groundhog Day and the main character gets murdered over and over again by a masked killer while trying to figure out who he is.
It's like with any genre - you need to really look for the good stuff.

I'm a big horror fan, but not the biggest slasher guy, I've seen a few, namely The Prowler, Sleepaway Camp and The Burning (Harvey Weinstein's first movie lmao) but they tend to be pretty simplistic, I like movies to have more plot to them.

Damn... those might be some of the worst slashers ever made.
The Prowler has some nice set pieces and Sleepaway Camp has that ending but aside from that, they're horrible movies.

 

[Dom Cruise]

Depends on the type of a slasher movie.
The "teens getting murdered by a big dude with a bladed weapon" is mostly dumb fun.
The quintessential "dumb fun" slasher movie would be Friday the 13th part 6 for me, it might even be called a spoof of a slasher movie but the killer is still treated seriously.
I prefer when there's a mystery, when one of the characters is secretly the killer, that let's you play detective and have fun figuring stuff out. The most mainstream modern example of that is the first Scream.
There are also slashers without teens such as Mindhunters where a bunch of FBI trainees are on an island for training but one of them is basically Jigsaw and he's doing some creative murdering.
Then there are what I like to call "secret slashers" such as Predator where you think it's an 80's action movie but then a big killer wearing a mask shows up and starts murdering the action heroes one by one.
Then there are weird experimental slashers like this 2011 movie called Detention where genres are constantly mixed or Happy Death Day where it's Groundhog Day and the main character gets murdered over and over again by a masked killer while trying to figure out who he is.
It's like with any genre - you need to really look for the good stuff.

Damn... those might be some of the worst slashers ever made.
The Prowler has some nice set pieces and Sleepaway Camp has that ending but aside from that, they're horrible movies.

Sleepaway Camp sucks but The Prowler and The Burning had pretty creepy atmosphere at least, I mean I think I watched all those in 2008, so it's been a while, but I remember being entertained.

It was probably accidental but one thing I remember being interesting about The Prowler is that the killer's motivation is incredibly vague, almost no reason at all really, which accidently makes it more true to life as spree killers often have no real reason for why they do what they do.

I know it had something to do with him getting a Dear John letter but as to why he decides to kill a bunch of teens 40 years later isn't really explained, which makes it creepier in my opinion.

 

[Orange Rhymer]

I admit that even after all these years, I still don't get slasher films. The violence seems pointless, because I don't think a bunch of dumb teenagers deserve to get ripped apart for just being a bunch of dumb, horny teenagers. I much prefer my victims to be at least deserving of their fates, like the characters in the first Hellraiser film. But I can appreciate the craftsmanship of slasher movies, especially if their villains have personality and the setting has interesting aspects to it (The Nightmare on Elm Street series and the film Tourist Trap , for instance.) I always thought Jason was just a second rate Michael Myers, though. And Michael Myers didn't have much of a personality beyond "Implacable Killer/Boogey Man." He was more important for what he represented to the setting (a source of tension) than for who he was.

Siskel and Ebert getting Boomer-bent out of shape over slasher movies is always funny to watch. In that respect, they were very much like Christian preachers against Heavy Metal and Dungeons and Dragons... Criticizing some new form of media that they could barely understand.

Slasher films are a gift from Hollywood to get you pussy.
They start out with the teens either fucking or making out. If you are on a date with a slut, this gets her hot, and the rest of the movie is ignored while you 2 go at it.
or
If you are on a date with a more prudish girl:
The Act 1 violence ends. Act 2 has some more fucking, ending in more gore. The voltage on both is cranked up. Your date either starts on your dick (b/c of the fucking on screen) or she buries her face in your chest to hide from the gore.
Both give you an opening for :sum fuk:

 

[Oh Shit I'm Sorry]

He also gave a bad review to Die Hard which blows my mind.

I'm not an Ebert hater, when he was good he was really good, but sometimes he'd write something that just left you scratching your head.

One of the best episodes of MST3K was Laserblast (ARE YOU READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL!?) wherein Mike and the robots continuously made fun of Leonard Maltin for somehow concocting brain damage and giving it 3 fucking stars and the end credit (of the movie, not MST) sequence was just them naming various other actual good movies that he'd given a lower score. What made it even better was that Maltin took it all in stride because he knew how hard he'd fucked up and would even go on to guest appear in a couple of later episodes.

It's hard to imagine Ebert ever having that level of humility.

 

[RollerGator]

>hates slasher movies
>later in life looks like villain from slasher

 

[Orange Rhymer]

>hates slasher movies
>later in life looks like villain from slasher

View attachment 1672468

Some white foundation and we got Jigsaw

 

[Mola Ram]

Some white foundation and we got Jigsaw

Roger Ebert is ... JAW.

 

[starborn427614]

More of Rich and Mike discussing their favorite Star Trek episodes

 

[flight of ideas]

One of the best episodes of MST3K was Laserblast (ARE YOU READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL!?) wherein Mike and the robots continuously made fun of Leonard Maltin for somehow concocting brain damage and giving it 3 fucking stars and the end credit (of the movie, not MST) sequence was just them naming various other actual good movies that he'd given a lower score. What made it even better was that Maltin took it all in stride because he knew how hard he'd fucked up and would even go on to guest appear in a couple of later episodes.

It's hard to imagine Ebert ever having that level of humility.

every time i think about MST3K and RLM together i remember back in the early days of BOTW when they watched a cameron mitchell classic space movie that josh had clearly seen the MST3K episode of already, and dude was super eager to point out the amazing undead bridge lieutenant.

semper fi, bridge lieutenant. calm down, josh.

 

[Mola Ram]

every time i think about MST3K and RLM together i remember back in the early days of BOTW when they watched a cameron mitchell classic space movie that josh had clearly seen the MST3K episode of already, and dude was super eager to point out the amazing undead bridge lieutenant.

semper fi, bridge lieutenant. calm down, josh.

It really irritated the shit out of me, because other RLMers (definitely Jay and I think Mike or Rich) have said they don't care for MST3K, on the grounds they don't see the point of watching other people mock bad movies. Kinda odd given what they do, but I see their point.

Josh hit pretty much every major joke except for the many names of David Ryder, which would have been a dead giveaway.

 

[Preferred Penne]

It makes me sad to watch Mike and Rich go into about how and why these TNG episodes work, and all I can think about is how Discovery would fuck them up.