Roger Ebert sucks. Consider:
1. Napoleon Dynamite- This is one of those movies you love because it is true to life. Not to your own life but to somebody’s. How do you know it is true to life? First, because it is original, second, because it resonates with something inside you. Ebert lacks that something. He doesn’t feel it. He doesn’t get it. He gave Napoleon Dynamite 1.5 stars, and he completely missed out on the fact that Napoleon Dynamite and Pedro and Kip are triumphant, and that the movie is about finding love and friendship by not giving into despair despite loneliness, alienation, etc. Ebert you’re a idiot!!! God!
2. Swingers- This was another true to life story. Again it was about finding love and friendship blah blah blah. Again, Ebert just sort of misses all that. Okay, Ebert, presumably, is friendless and loveless or he just can’t relate to young people finding love or friendship, or he’s never been lonely or… Whatever. He gave Swingers 3 stars because, this time, he recognized the film is very true to life. Which makes sense because he probably knows a lot of people like those in Swingers so he recognizes the type. Anyway, I’m not saying Ebert sucks because he gave Singers 3 stars, I’m saying he sucks because he gave Made 3 stars. What the fuck? Made was your basic waste of time. It tried to work the Daddy angle and failed. It tried to work the gangster angle and failed. It tried to work the friendship angle – and failed. The two main guys aren’t friends because they like each other- they’re friends because nobody else likes them. And it is not true to life at all.
3. Old School- Old School is brilliant. You might have to watch it a few times to figure that out. From the Heart cover during the reception (great direction) to the character development of its three stars to its recognition and playfulness with the formula it uses to its dumb but funny humor, this is a great funny movie. If you don’t like the genre, well, fine. But to give it 1 star is ridiculous. The movie wasn’t made for you, Cheese, er, I mean, Roger.
4. Fight Club- He gave it two stars. Again- a movie about love and friendship, basically, and Ebert doesn’t get it. Anyway, you saw the movie. It is a mind trip. And it tapped into something I guess Ebert doesn’t approve of, given his review; a latent anger at the way American men have given up on violence as a way to get what they want. Men feel that anger, sometimes, and there is something great about making a movie about that.
5. Fahrenheit 911- He gave it 3.5 stars. Now, I’m sure many Bush haters think it should have had 4 stars, and I’m not going to pretend I even saw the thing so that I can judge. But Ebert is supposed to be a film critic, and 911 was marketed as a documentary, and the movie is FULL of lies. It is also dishonest in that sneaky sort of way where you can’t call it a lie but you can call shenanigans. Ebert consistently allows his lefty politics to inform his movie critiques. It is sort of like a conservative professor giving a liberal student a bad grade on a brilliant paper because that paper criticized Bush. It is scummy. Anyway, that ranking of that documentary (don’t be fooled by the fact that
That is all, for now. I’ll add to this list as I go.