I was watching this crappy Jennifer Aniston romantic comedy tonight on ABC and afterwards, I went to read Ebert's review. Here's a portion that I found very curious:

"[A] distraction during at least the last third of the movie, is Jennifer Aniston's neckline. After the agency boss advises her to buy a new dress, she appears in a series of plunging frocks that seem designed to advertise the powers of the Wonderbra. Aniston is pretty, and she has a swell body, but these dresses get to be a joke after a while; is she auditioning for Playboy's "Girls of Summer"?

It was W. C. Fields who hated to appear in the same scene with a child, a dog, or a plunging neckline--because nobody in the audience would be looking at him. Jennifer Aniston has the same problem in this movie even when she's in scenes all by herself."

Okay, he seems to be saying that her boobs take focus away from the storytelling. But I don't see how this is a big deal since he already mentions in previous paragraphs that the plot is stupid. Then I remembered his complaints about Erin Brockovich, so I dig up these quotes:

"[W]hat about those necklines? I know that the real Brockovich liked to dress provocatively; that's her personal style and she's welcome to it. But the Hollywood version makes her look like a miniskirted hooker, with bras that peek cheerfully above her necklines.

Oh, the movie tries to deal with the clothes. "You might want to rethink your wardrobe a little," her boss (Albert Finney) tells her. She inelegantly replies, "I think I look nice, and as long as I have one ass instead of two, I'll wear what I like." Yeah, fine, after she's already lost her own personal injury suit by flashing cleavage on the witness stand and firing off four-letter words. When she dresses the same way to go door to door in a working-class neighborhood where industrial chemicals have caused illness, we have to wonder whether, in real life, she was hassled or mistrusted.

Whether she was or wasn't, the costume design sinks this movie. Roberts is a sensational-looking woman, and dressed so provocatively in every single scene, she upstages the material. If the medium is the message, the message in this movie is sex."

He sure seems to be against plunging necklines. But this seems to be inconsistent with the fact that he is a sucker for big boobs. He constantly gives thumbs up to crappy movies with Halle "MAKE ME FEEL GOOD!" Berry, Jennifer Lopez, and Angelina Jolie. Is this more proof that Ebert is indeed insane? Or is he just against the push-up bra that Aniston and Roberts employs, preferring the natural jiggle and bounce of Jolie in Tomb Raider? Too bad the title is already taken, because Ebert's next collection of reviews could easily be called "I Lost It At The Movies."

I think you've got it!

Dang, I thought they were replacing Roeper with a pair of boobs. I'd certainly watch more often.

"Natural"?

Quickly becoming the most overused and lazy way of expressing disagreement with Ebert. Attributing insanity to people with opinions that differ from yours - so 1955 Soviet Union!

Ebert's probably upset more people looking at Aniston's breasts than his.

I wasn't actually being serious about his "insanity" -- it's just a term others have used to describe his inconsistency. A critic doesn't need to have some overall theory (like the Auteur Theory that the French critics of the 50s used), but they do need some guiding principles about how they judge movies. So concerning Ebert, are boobs a good thing (i.e. Lara Croft bouncing around) or a bad thing (i.e. Erin Brockovich's "distracting" cleavage)?

"Two boobs up!"

Duh, where are the pics?

Word.

Damm, I thought this thread was about Roger's boobs.

My god, he really is insane.

Who cares what Ebert thinks

He did write Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.

Ebert is a boob-lover and has always been one.

There is nothing wrong with that. I also love boobs and live an almost perfectly normal life.

So is that how simplified you like to break down principles into?

In this particular case, yes, the principles are quite this simple. Jennifer Aniston's Picture Perfect is not an art film. It's a commercial Hollywood movie. Angelina Jolie's Tomb Raider is also a commercial Hollywood movie. Yet for some reason, according to Ebert, Aniston looking great is a distraction in the former, but Jolie looking great contributes to the fun of the latter. The inconsistency is mind-boggling.

Here's an example of consistency of principles: Pauline Kael and "message movies." Kael was herself a liberal, but she hated movies with a political agenda, whether left or right. She slammed the Dirty Harry movies for promoting vigilante behavior and right-wing revenge fantasies. She hated Oliver Stone movies (like Platoon, Born on the 4th of July) for being overly preachy. Even though I love his movies, especially JFK, I have to acknowledge that being subtle is not an Oliver Stone trait.