Andrew 'Ange Hamm' Hamm
Supporting Actor
- Joined
- Apr 7, 1999
- Messages
- 901
Wow, Bergan. What an insightful and well-thought-out remark.
Ebert's opinions over the last two years have become incoherent at best and a total sell out at worst.
Care to provide some examples?
He just felt that the film needed some closure at least
Yeah, cause a film about the Fellowship of the Ring would not get closure by the breaking of said Fellowship. He was probably more confused by all that dialog specifically discussing the breaking of the Fellowship right at the end.
Or maybe he was secretly one of those people who stood up and yelled "What?!? That's it!?! You can't end it on that!?!....oh, there's 2 more...hmm". I saw one of these people so I know they exist.
Wow, Bergan. What an insightful and well-thought-out remark.
I dont need a long and inciteful post to defend Ebert's honor. It's widely accepted that his reviews are pretty on, aside from that fact that even if you disagree with him, he IS well spoken, he is a good writer, and he is a film reviewer for a major newspaper, which gives him more respectability than most.
He needs to get rid of Ernie.. I mean Roeper
Ernie was the round jovial one, Bert was the thin uptight annoying one.
perhaps our very own Internet critic, Scott Weinberg, should co-host...
I'd tune in this week to see the Chicagoan and the rabid Eagles fan debate. Something tells me they wouldn't stay on films very long....
Rob
That's correct, Mark. He is a fine critic. Also, being human, Mr. Ebert can't be expected to "get it right" all the time. He has made some calls that have raised my eyebrows. But the depth and breadth of his film knowledge command my respect.
I agree, he (Ebert) is a very fine critic.
And there is no such thing as "getting it right" w.r.t. movie reviews, they are one person's opinion of a film, opinions can not be wrong about a subjective medium like art, as that is what that person though, and you can't tell him/her that his thoughts are wrong. IMHO