MMM ASCII Jigglies
*right click saves*

I guess we have a genre snob here.

And you know, we can repeat this until we're blue in the face, but 90% of the people out there will still misinterpret the "stars" in his reviews. It's all relative, but nobody cares. He gave "Tomb Raider" *** ? How dare he!

IYO

Tomb Raider 2 was a boring, unexciting over-the-top Hollywood crapfest action movie. It sucked, just like the first one did. Just because a movie is an escapist 'popcorn-flick' doesn't mean I go into the theater with lower standards than I do when going to see movies of other genres. Apparantly Hollywood thinks I should. Lord knows Ebert does, and I lose respect for him every time a review of his reflects that.

I pretty much ignore Ebert's reviews of popcorn-flicks as of late.

Muhahahaha. Man, you're so damn funny.

Due do popular demand, I think the admins should create a Ranting and Dissing Movies/Critics Forum.

Well he did give Original Sin a thumbs up. Anything with Jolie being in a major role in a movie = thumbs up. So Michael Bay, hire Jolie as the main female character and you will get a good review from Ebert.

Like the thumbs down for Girl Inturrupted, Gone in 60 Seconds, Playing By Heart, Life or Something Like It, and The Bone Collector?

well, its all relative... maybe tomb raider is a 3-star summer flick and what-ever-its-called is only a 2-star film considering whatever genre its supposed to be.

AFA "the most important filmmaker of the modern era", thats completely irrelevant... even great film makers can make a turd and a movie should receive no more or less praise based on who directed the film. It may be worth discussing elsewhere, but in a review of a film, it has no real importance.

j

It's not like Ebert hates Godard - you noticed that he just wrote about Breathless in The Great Movies, right? And A Woman is a Woman is nowhere near as good as Breathless, so on Ebert's method of review, two stars sounds about right. He's holding Godard to a higher standard because that is expected.

Tomb Raider, on the other hand, is not held to such a standard. It's pretty obvious that it is a mindless popcorn action flick, so Ebert assumes (correctly, in my case, and I am guessing many others') that the question is whether it is a good mindless popcorn action flick. If it is, then three stars sounds about right. Of course, Angelina Jolie might just have given the movie a bonus star - considering how reviled Godard's last film was, maybe he should recruit her if he really wants to get a favorable review from Ebert


And anyway, it's been said many times before that the star rating is not really important, it's the review. I wish that Ebert would just switch to a thumbs up / thumbs down rating or just drop the score entirely, so there wouldn't be all this petty quibbling about stars.

You should be nice to Ebert. He helped Russ Meyer bring us "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls".

I think when you compare his Sun-Times reviews to his TV reviews, his corresponds to his *** or higher write-ups.

As for Tomb Raider 2 I don't care what ebert gave it, or anyone else, but...

...If you were familiar with film and had seen the work of Godard (or at least could remember his name) I might listen to this arguement, but considering you have no frame of reference I really think this statement is rediculous. See the movie...then comment.

thanks for the sig

I don't know if Ebert has lost it, but to the people defending him, get real. We all know why he gave Tomb Raider 2 a positive review. He knows it, and after watching Ebert & Roeper, Roeper knows it as well. He even called Roger on it.

Everyone knows the reason why Ebert gave TR2 a good review. He gave it a good review because he's ga-ga over Angelina Jolie. He even used the lame excuse that you can't apply logic to a film like this. BS! I notice he doesn't extend that same idiotic courtesy to other summer popcorn fare he rips into. The fact is the film is awful and laughable. It has plot holes big enough to drive a dump truck through.

So please, let's stop with the Ebert is infallable crap. He can be criticized just like anyone else. On this issue, he deserves to be criticized, if only for his stupid logic and his complete aversion to the obvious flaws all throughout this film. People say movies and directors shouldn't be beyond criticism, then neither should critics.

Ebert's knowledge of film is well known. But the guy has absolutely no practical experience with making films. He's written or co-written 3 films, two of which were absolutely god awful. Beneath the Valley of the Ultra Vixens and Beneath the Valley of the Dolls. The third one is called Up! I haven't seen it so I can't comment on it. But I imagine it's bad as well. So if Roger Ebert is going to sit his fat butt in a chair and criticize the work someone has poured their heart and soul into, sometimes deservedly so, then I'll criticize him when I think he deserves it.

That's because in those films Jolie wasn't all fancied up with makeup and showing off her body.

I like Ebert. He judges by what he likes and what is fun. I've agreed with him on many occassions.

He gave Gigli 2 1/2 stars...

Criticism and praise are cut from the same thread -- so where's your "if Roger Ebert is going to sit his fat butt in a chair and hail the worsk someone has poured their heart and soul into" line? Or is effort your bottom line?

Good deal.

Ebert, Meyer and Pusser-three Americans that helped make this country what it is today! A playground for women with large breasts.

Ebert likes J. Lo, that's something I learned from dvdtalk.

I'm still mad at Roger for giving COP & A HALF three stars, but giving THE UNTOUCHABLES only two.

God, I miss Gene Siskel...

Why are you so mad about Ebert expressing his opinions? It's not like he cut somebody's balls off and used them as castanets.

Die Hard: **
Die Harder: *** 1/2*

Unexcusable.

So THAT'S how he got the job! Ebert has been programmed by the commies!

Another Ebert sig for Rypro's collection!