Yes, Roger Ebert is a racist.

He hates white people. ;-)

Edited, because I had to make sure people knew I'm joking. I seldom agree with Ebert's reviews, but the notion he's a racist is just mindless.

Thats exactly my point. Obviously this fimmaker has developed a niche in the African-American community with these "grandma movies" So why didn't he acknolwedge that the majority of audiences who attend this movie would recognize it for what it is - much like how people who go to popcorn movies and rate a popcorn movie not on a general scale buy how entertaining it was.

When are people going to stop looking for personal validation in movie reviews?

Quite honestly, this is no different then when LOTR or Star Wars fans complain that Ebert didn't give the movie the review that they wanted. If you enjoyed the movie, what does his review matter?

:thumbsup:

However, I will keep bashing Michael Bay and Keanu Reeves movies until the day I die.

Because he apparently didn't like the movie, and couldn't find many nice things to say about it...

Ebert never said "this popcorn fare was excellent entertainment, but I just thought it was so-so". He likes it, or he doesn't like it. The rest of the review is just the positives and negatives.

Big thumbs up to him not saying "I'm married to a black woman - na na na na na na - ******S!". :)

I thought Ebert's response and initial review were professional and to the point exquisite. But part of me kinda wishes the above quote was in his response:

"Besides, I've had a massive hard-on for Spike Lee for years. WTF?!" :D

YOu mean they don't?



Stew

:lol: :lol: :lol:
4/5

Pretty sad social atmosphere when everyone is dubbed a 'racist'. Goddamned political correctness.

Well, that's some proof on how "some" blacks like to play the race card when things don't go in their way. Ebert a liberal just got a wake up call on that.

But he gives movies grades based on what they set out to achieve and whether he feels the movie achieved that. For a popcorn movie, he would have lower standards because he knows they're making a popcorn movie. But he knows that from the movie itself, not from some outside knowledge of the movie.

Ebert apparently felt this movie failed internally by the "jarring" change. That's what he believed to be an internal inconsistency and he rated the movie accordingly. If the movie had been entirely the Tyler Perry character or consistent with the tone that character conveyed, it's entirely likely the review would've been more positive (I mean, even Big Momma's House got two stars from him), or at the very least, the standard he used to judge the film would've been different.

A viewer shouldn't have to have outside knowledge of a film, its stars or its history (or other appearances of that character) to be able to review it. Movies succeed or fail on their own (and that success or failure is subjective. One man's trash is another's treasure).

I can't stand Rosie O'Donnell, so I guess im homophobic. :(

This has got to be one of the most overblown and nonsensical collection of rants and tireades I have ever seen. He's a racist because he thought the film was poor?...I just don't get it. WHen you bandy (sp?) this about when there really is no boogeyman to speak of, it takes all the stuffing out of your arguments when there really is a racist move of some kind. Absolutely ridiculous...to the extreme.

I actually wrote Ebert a letter about his review. Not because I think he's a racist though. That picture with the African-American woman is his wife, she's a lawyer and they've been married for years. I remember when he got married and have followed his reviews for years. Racist never came into my mind.

I wrote the letter to him because upon reading his review it appeared he was unaware of Tyler Perry's following. Tyler Perry hasn't made "movies" this is his first. Perry's following is from his plays which are popular in urban cities. I wondered if the additional information about the plays and the meaning behind them would have had bearing on his review.

The plays are meant to be over-the-top, we all know that Perry is in drag, they are loud, overly dramatic, breaking out in song, and fun. And since he didn't seem to know the intent of Perry and his characters that's what I wrote about. The plays are a aquired taste and I wondered if the movie would translate to a national audience.

I like Ebert. He's no racist and I think it's classy that he didn't feel the need to say...check this picture out!

Before making my comments, let me make clear that I have not seen the movie in question, nor do I intend to. Not because I"m white, or because the idea of the movie offends me, but because my movie time is severely limited these days. I'm lucky to get in 20 movies over a year (between the theatres and home video) and this is nowhere even near the top of my stack. However, one comment in the criticisms at the top of the stack drove home an important point for me:

"You trash Tyler Perry for dressing in drag. Did you also trash Robin Williams for dressing in drag as “Mrs. Doubtfire” and Dustin Hoffman for “Tootsie”? And others?"

The big difference between Mr. Perry's performance and Mr. Williams, Mr. Hoffman's, Mr. Lane's or even Mr. Lawrence's was the fact in those performances, it was acknowledged that the performance was of a man trying to pass himself off as a woman. The drag performance is situational, not burlesque.

Mr. Perry's role, however, strikes me as unnecessary. We are constantly reminded (and justly so) about the lack of substantial roles for woman, esp. black women, in movies. And so here is a character, comic or not, that could have just as well been played, and likely better played, by a black actress. Unless, of course, there is nothing more to the character than the actor in drag.

Now, a more reasonable comparison might be the Eddie Murphy grandmother and mother roles in the Nutty Professor. Yet, part of the point of Murphy playing those roles is that he is playing the whole family. The fun is watching the schizophrenic scenario play out. It also helps you to understand who is Sherman is and why he is who he is. And to be honest, I think the characters are funny because they are written that way...not necessarily because of Murphy. I believe any competent actress could have been equally funny in those roles.

So my question to those familiar with Mr. Perry's work is: How well written is the Medea role? Is it transferrable to another actor/actress, or is it only grounded in Mr. Perry's burlesque?

Because, if its only grounded in the burlesque, it would likely only be dumbing down and reducing the merit of anything surrounding it. It would be like having Bozo walk into the room every five minutes during "Whose Afraid of Virginia Wolfe?" It might be funny, but no one would give a rat's *ss about George and Martha.

great point
where in reisterstown do you live?

I don't see all the reason for hate toward ebert. He grades his movies the way he grades them... I know there are some junk movies that i liked (the big hit... yea i know... *crawls back to the corner*) and some classics i hated (citizen kane). It's all based on preference and if you like ebert's preference then its all good if not then dont read the reviews. simple

Yeah, but people love slamming Ebert. There's a simple reason why...he's the most famous critic out there. And people love to scream bloody murder when he doesn't agree with them. I'm sure we've ALL seen numerous threads in sites all over the place saying "Ebert's lost his mind!!!" because he didn't like...whatever movie.

It's all pretty silly, but it'll keep happening until Ebert goes the way of Siskel. A lot of people forget what it is that critics do, and think it's an objective analysis.

In Franklin Mills (a little cul de sac across Franklin Blvd from the school).

Now I'm starting to wonder. Is the cow in your user location a reference to the one in front of the italian ice place on Main St.??

yep.

Hate is way too strong of a word. You can really hate someone you don't even know. His opinions on films don't bother me either. It's his logic, or lack thereof, from one film to the next.

Then again, I always though Siskel was the better of the two. But hate, no way.

By the way, Ebert is no racist. It is ridiculous to claim he's a racist when he's married to a black woman, unless the claim is he's racist against Jews or Mexicans.

It's so dumb the way all this works... all of these years he's been giving good reviews to movies about blacks...but when all of a sudden a BAD movie with blacks comes out, and he gives it a bad review, he gets all this crap. I don't think it's fair.

Wow! small world huh guys?... I live off of Owings Mills Blvd. Is there any more of us on here?

And what card are you playing in pointing out his politics?