Thanks Thanks:  0
Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Nowheresville
    Posts
    6
    Credits
    1,065

    Why is Dean Kish such a terrible reviewer?

    I'm dead serious, he's just not good at all.

    Take for example his review of Pearl Harbor :

    "This American interpretation of the Japanese invasion is very respectful to the Japanese and doesn't show them as tyrants. I liked that the Japanese were perceived as doing a strategic thing and that they knew that they were awakening a sleeping giant. I am not sure if this is actually the correct portrayal of Japan during this time period but it definitely won't harm anybody today."

    First of all, I had trouble finding any interpretation whatsoever. We're exposed to absolutely no background on the war or the Japanese involvment in it. Secondly, when Mr. Kish states that "it definitely won't harm anybody today," he's completely wrong. Godard said that the people who make movies write history. Well, that's true, and I'm sure the majority of people today don't want future generations believing that Pearl Harbor is an accurate portrayl.

    Or how about his most recent review of Die Another Day:

    "...the film opens with a thrilling hovercraft chase that pits our hero against a corrupt branch of the Korean army...This is definitely not my dad's James Bond.

    (I'm inclined to conclude that Kish is somewhere between 10 and 13 years of age.)

    A) It's actual North Korea. B) It's silly to refer to it as a corrupt branch of the army, because the entire government is corrupt to begin with and the writers/producers of the new Bond film simply don't want to spark any controversy.

    I'm not exactly sure why the moderators of this site continue to let the Kish monoply of reviews reign, but for those of you out there who rely on Kish weekly, let me save you from yourselves:

    http://www.suntimes.com/index/ebert.html

    Dean Kish: (0 of 5) So Says the Soothsayer.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    4,028
    Credits
    1,105
    actually "Pearl Harbor" did SUCK..... i would give the same score ..

    basically "Pearl Harbor" by Michael Bay, made it look like it was a Japanese surprise attack on an American Love triangle

    btw ... Roger Ebert said that....
    Last edited by trailergod; 11-24-2002 at 03:45 PM.
    http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/6324/fightclubmlzq1.jpg

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,576
    Credits
    1,105
    Shoundent it be
    "Why is Dean Kish such a terrible reviewer!"
    not
    "Why is Dean Kish such a terrible reviewer?"


    anyway. anyone who takes a big hollywood movies as pure facts are in truble in the first place. And this one isent even about pearl harbor, its about the 3 ppl whos around when it happened.

    anyway. Im pretty sure it did taught many ppl somehting. That US did bomb Japan early on.

    anyway. I dont read his reviews often, so I cant really say if hes good or bad as a reviewer, but if this is all ur arguments, I cant really see your point.

    anyway. Pearl Harbour isent a very good movie.

    anyway. im done now.
    "A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism." / Carl Sagan

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    MO, USA
    Posts
    63
    Credits
    1,105
    Originally posted by Gaumont
    Shoundent it be
    "Why is Dean Kish such a terrible reviewer!"
    not
    "Why is Dean Kish such a terrible reviewer?"
    Nope, it shouldn't. "Why is Dean Kish such a terrible reviewer?" is a question, therefore requiring a question mark. Had he only said "Dean Kish such a terrible reviewer" then a exclamation point would be in order. That or a period.

    (Don't mind me. I can be really picky when it comes to grammar and spelling and such.)

    And I'll chime in with the same opinion as everyone else: Pearl Harbor sucked. It sucked really bad.
    "Well, what if there is no tomorrow? There wasn't one today!"

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    nsw.bigpond.net.au
    Posts
    2,975
    Credits
    1,075
    Loved the fighter action in PH!

    But yeah..... oerall... not a good movie.
    /!\ Certified Bandwidth Abuser || ([)(]) Dolby Digital me bitch! || Alicia Keys || Game Trailers || FaceBook user ||
    || All-time Favourite TV Shows: Battlestar Galactica (2003+), Dead Like Me, FireFly, Invader ZIM, Space: Above & Beyond, Veronica Mars ||

    [ -- Music Festival Whore! -- ]

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    316
    Credits
    1,065
    umm.. who is this dean kish fellow anyway? just a member or he sends his reviews in? personally, i didn't find his reviews all that enlightening and so i don't usually (actually, never) read them anymore.

    poor dean, hope he doesn't read this thread!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    316
    Credits
    1,065

    Re: Why is Dean Kish such a terrible reviewer?

    Originally posted by Serpico
    I'm not exactly sure why the moderators of this site continue to let the Kish monoply of reviews reign, but for those of you out there who rely on Kish weekly, let me save you from yourselves:

    http://www.suntimes.com/index/ebert.html

    Dean Kish: (0 of 5) So Says the Soothsayer.
    i think ebert is kind of a senile old fool now. he likes the stupidest movies and these days there aren't many movies he DOESN'T like.

    Feardotcom? Thumbs up! Jackass the movie? Thumbs up! Ghostship? Thumbs up!

    ok, i'm just kidding about those thumbs up, but i wish gene siskel were still around instead of ebert (or roeper).

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    4,028
    Credits
    1,105
    Originally posted by impetigo
    umm.. who is this dean kish fellow anyway? just a member or he sends his reviews in? personally, i didn't find his reviews all that enlightening and so i don't usually (actually, never) read them anymore.

    poor dean, hope he doesn't read this thread!

    dean kish is the movie reviewer in ML, he was also a reviewer at http://www.comingsoon.net/ , most of the time i read his reviews and they are ok, and somtimes they are not. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, even reviewers...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Equinox Reloaded
    Posts
    337
    Credits
    1,065

    Talking

    Originally posted by tisoy
    dean kish is the movie reviewer in ML, he was also a reviewer at http://www.comingsoon.net/ , most of the time i read his reviews and they are ok, and somtimes they are not. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, even reviewers...
    In May 2001 I started a topic on this forum, suggesting that Dean Kish receives money from Disney for his reviews. His 4/5 rating for PH looks just unbeleivable and untrue (most of critics gave to Pearl Harbot thumbs down). But now I think that he just have such weird and not objective taste in movies.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Equinox Reloaded
    Posts
    337
    Credits
    1,065

    Re: Re: Why is Dean Kish such a terrible reviewer?

    Originally posted by impetigo
    i think ebert is kind of a senile old fool now. he likes the stupidest movies and these days there aren't many movies he DOESN'T like.

    Feardotcom? Thumbs up! Jackass the movie? Thumbs up! Ghostship? Thumbs up!

    ok, i'm just kidding about those thumbs up, but i wish gene siskel were still around instead of ebert (or roeper).

    Read his review of The Truth About Charlie. Either he's gotten senile, or Universal Pictures is paying him off (either in cash or McDonald's cheeseburgers). But he reviews the film like Ronald Reagan answering a tough question from the media. He talks about more other films vaguely related (save Charade, which it is a remake of) to The Truth About Charlie, then gives Thandie Newton's filmography resume, then takes a paragraph to mention the events of the film, without giving any opinion of the film. At best, he don't take movies very seriously anymore. At worst, he is being paid off for reviews. This is disgusting - he is gone from Pulitzer Prize winner to schill. Since 1995, his opinion hasn't been worth crap (for example he praised John Carpenter's Ghosts of Mars, The Phantom Menace etc).

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    316
    Credits
    1,065

    Re: Re: Re: Why is Dean Kish such a terrible reviewer?

    Originally posted by Equinox
    This is disgusting - he is gone from Pulitzer Prize winner to schill. Since 1995, his opinion hasn't been worth crap (for example he praised John Carpenter's Ghosts of Mars, The Phantom Menace etc).
    totally agree...

    and truth about charlie was a pretty shabby remake of charade (but it's hard to remake a classic.. but then, why bother at all?).

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2
    Credits
    10
    Movie Critic Dean Kish is back... this time in front of the camera!

    http://www.youtube.com/user/themoviereviewtv
    http://www.twitter.com/tmr_tv

Similar Threads

  1. Just Say 'No' To Dean Kish
    By Serpico in forum General Chatter - Movie Related
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-25-2011, 03:18 AM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-07-2002, 04:31 PM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •