It depends on the filmmaker

Same here. He never did anything I liked.

I couldn’t agree more. I _despise_ Pauly Shore and I couldn’t fathom how he ever got as popular as he did in the 90s.

@@olaoluwaafolayan6554 his mom owned comedy clubs

@@stevejohnson1577 ah I see... good ole nepotism at work folks lol

It's not a bad picture the screenplay was subpar & Caruso was miscast. Nothing against him but he was too layed back as what Roger Ebert said, But i enjoyed Cage's performance so i gave it a moderate thumbs 👍 2 & a half stars out of 4

I am surprised neither critic mentioned that the film was a remake of the 1947 film noir of the same name !

@@ricardocantoral7672 They probably hadn't seen it and didn't read the press book.

@@flaccidusminimus2170 Very unlikely. Critics back then were expected to have a good knowledge of film history before being hired; nowadays, they hire any youngster who thinks the history of cinema began in 1977.

​@@KRhetor Everything about that comment is mistaken. Pre-requisites for obtaining a journalism job were much lower for the baby boomer generation than they are today. Neither Roger or Gene had any special knowledge of film history to distinguish them from the average theatregoer when their careers began. They each obtained film critic jobs because their predecessors retired and they got lucky with these openings. No other reason. Newspapers have much higher standards today for their hiring processes and greater competition for openings. Academic film classes are widespread now whereas they barely existed in the 1960s outside of major cities. Furthermore, prior to the advent of home video, no one had "a good knowledge of film history" like people do today. If you didn't see a film when it came out, chances are, you'd never see it again unless you were lucky enough to catch it at a repertory screening. Most film history books written prior to the 1980s were quite bad and full of mistakes because the authors didn't have any reference points other than memory. Gene and Roger were too young to have seen Kiss of Death in 1947. Home video availability for classics was scattered and unreliable in 1995. Neither one of them were big home video fanatics. Gene was reluctant to embrace it for a long time, but adapted for the sake of his kids. Roger collected his favorites, and in 1997 he began a weekly Great Movies column where he revisited a classic from the past, but even then he was very particular about what he watched. Given the nature of their careers, neither one of them spent a lot of time watching movies at home. It also doesn't follow from a logical standpoint that just because someone may not have seen the original Kiss of Death by 1995 that they *didn't* have "a good knowledge of film history".

Dragon's Lair? Those games don't come close to the quality of Secret of Nimh. Whatever you feel of the rest of his career, I think it's Bluth's best work.

" because he totally inept when it comes to creating compelling stories and characters." Secret of NIHM, Land Before Time and American Tail diagree

That’s not ironic. They don’t predict box office numbers.

Hence why audiences deserve as much blame for bad movies as the studios

Jury Duty wasn't really a hit though; it (apparently/somehow) cost over $20million. Also it was given a very wide release for the time, unlike Stuart which was on way less than 1,000 screens.

I’m sorry why are we supposed to trust the review of a guy who can’t even remember the end of the movie? Very interesting take by the way that basketball diaries was Leonardo DiCaprio’s big break considering he was nominated for an Oscar for what’s eating Gilbert grape two years before. I guess you just didn’t remember that the same way you didn’t remember the ending to this movie you claim is very memorable.

@@evilsWa You need to explain what part of my comment is not trustworthy. If it about Jim Carroll's life post-high school, then I am correct. Also, my comment about DiCaprio's "big break". This is a timeline error. Did I know about "Gilbert Grape"? Of course I did. Did I know if "Basketball Diaries" or "Gilbert Grape" was first? No, but I was also around 10 years old when these films came out. I saw the film "Basketball Diaries", which was the first time I saw a film with DiCaprio, in the theaters. I saw "Gilbert Grape", probably on HBO shortly after. It isn't too odd of an error to get DiCaprio's timeline mixed up.

I can understand not liking the film-you can tell it was directed by someone who had previously only done music videos-but you're right, DiCaprio was absolutely superb.

Mark has always been a far more impressive actor than Leo.

I mean, Tommy boy is far better than Stuart for sure, but comparing two movies box office tells us nothing just as often as it indicates quality.

@@Harkness78 They're referring to the fact that _Tommy Boy_ got poor reviews but audiences knew better

The recommendation was “Leave Her To Heaven”....?

It definitely gave the underrated Gene Tierny her best role. Because of her beauty she was too often cast in lightweight roles or simple decoration. She had a tragic life and should have had a better career.

I think id rather watch pauly shore over the nostalgia critic....

@@standarsh8056 true!

The "light vs dark" paradigm is as old as time. It has far more to do with day time and night time than any 19th or 20th century "racist" notion or view. We make a primal association with "evil" and "darkness" because humans--and all their early predecessors--have traditionally feared the dark; it was that time we were at our highest risk to be susceptible to our natural predators. This sort of outdated mechanism can still be found in who else, but children. Hence, the obvious reason to convey the themes and message to them in their entertainment. Not everything has to do with systemically oppressing minorities, but if some people look hard enough, they will find that shit in their breakfast cereals if it so pleases them.

@@hamupinhere wow you really just dismissed all of racism based on light versus dark paradigm… I guess based on your own logic you can dismiss it if you just try hard enough as well… by the way you’re kind of full of it… Because see filmmakers use light and dark in their lighting all the time. They use dark to show scary parts and they use light to show not scary parts. Because that’s the dynamic you’re talking about. Which has nothing to do with casting dark people as the villains and white people as the heroes… You know how I know? Because in other countries that’s not what they do… Notice how in India it’s not white people in the good people roles and Black people in the bad people roles. Because your stupid paradigm Is just that: stupid.

@@evilsWa Exhibit A. What color is your favorite breakfast cereal?

Yawn.

Ebert showed what kind of a D-Bag he was with that take.

Dig him up from his grave and tell him that.

Amen

KZfaq critics aren't in the same league as Siskel or Ebert.

@@CoolhandLukeSkywalkr nowhere near at all

Downvote