From his own comment about his review: "Four stars. Yes, it has imperfections, but I don't give a damn, so don't rain on my parade."
He give Snow white an the huntsman four stars.
[quote]He give Snow white an the huntsman four stars.
??? No he didn't.
He gave John Carter four stars.
I think some of you are missing the point of OP's post. It wasn't whether Roger gave the film a thumbs up or thumbs down it's the familiar phrase that he used to describe it.
Maybe "cosmetic lower mandible prosthesis-dropping" would have been more apt.
OP in this thread is the same creepy fuck who has posted in the Luka Magnotta threads. And posted about dismembering Matt Bomer. And instead of getting banned, he gets in W&W.
[quote]He gave John Carter four stars.
Whether he did or not (I don't recall that he did), the movie was good.
He also gave "Magic Mike" two cocks up!
In other movie review news....
Zsa Zsa Gabor raves, "Madagascar 3 is a real knee slapper."
"The mother-fucking ride of my life!"
-- Carly Simon
"OP in this thread is the same creepy fuck who has posted in the Luka Magnotta threads. And posted about dismembering Matt Bomer. And instead of getting banned, he gets in W&W."
Some people review movies. Others review DL posts.
I always liked Roger, and was an at the movies viewer since it was Sneak Previews on PBS (really liked Siskel!), but he's always been off his rocker with his reviews, loves handing out 4 stars like it's candy on Halloween...I can't remember the last movie I would give 4 stars.
Eat shit and die, OP.
The new Tyler Perry/Madea movie is so funny, it is guaranteed to make you piss yourself.
I'm just back from seeing it, and I have to disagree with Ebert.
I found it tedious, laughable, non-scary, ridiculous, annoying, disappointing, and ... wait, I already mentioned tedious.
And I was clearly not alone. There were wide-spread giggles during scenes which were supposed to be scary. And the audience was clearly as restless as I was toward the end, and I can tell you it was clear that most people could not wait for it to be over so they could leave. Me included.
Really horrible writing. Pretty visuals, but plotting was utterly awful. Characters? Motivations? Bah, who needs that. Coherent story? Not that either.
What a completely wasted opportunity.
I thought it was thoroughly and completely disappointing... a narative mess, filled with horrible story-telling, cardboard characters, and completely arbitrary "events" that made no sense other than the further the artificial, forced "plot". And that's before we even get to the horrible plot holes and general ridiculousness of the entire thing.
I watched it last Friday. What plot holes?
So good, I cried.
[quote]And the audience was clearly as restless as I was toward the end, and I can tell you it was clear that most people could not wait for it to be over so they could leave. Me included.
What's sad is, the movie isn't even ridiculously long, it's a perfectly reasonable 124 minutes.
Wait, that sounds really sarcastic. I'm being sincere, the movie's a good length, so for viewers to be restless means it's a crap movie.
And it is, imo. Pretty, but crappy.
I loved it. Plus I buy Jesus as an alien more than I do the son of god.
It was okay. The movie did not take place on LV-426 which was where Alien and Aliens took place. Plus, the Alien at the end was a new-breed of Alien when he popped out of the space jockey. I don't like change...
I just hope the franchise isn't dead.
It seems like Ridley Scott rushed through it to get this done. That's a shame. The Alien franchise is amazing.
Serious question from a foreign film-buff.
Why does people respect him has a critic ?
Thank you for an appropriate reply, R22.
It fucked the living daylights out of me.
I remember the time when Siskel was the hard-assed reviewer of the pair, but when he got cancer his reviews started becoming much more positive. When they reviewed the craptastico movie [italic]At First Sight[/italic] with Val Kilmer and Mira Sorvino, Siskel gave it a thumbs up, much to Ebert's disbelief. He seemed almost upset by Siskel's review. By that point, Siskel was very retiring and almost child-like in his own defense.
Ebert's been given a second lease on life and is behaving like Ted Baxter after his heart attack, seeing beauty in mundane and boring things.
I hope Ebert gets to the end of this MTM episode, where everyone is admiring the beautiful sunset and Ted says, "Eh, so what!"
R15, there's a difference between reviewing posts and noting that a particular poster needs a yellow-tape perimeter around him. There are enough DL poisoners here, for all the breadth bitchery allows.
He's obviously on some kind of "feel good" drug that inhibits his judgement.
I don't get the Carly Simon reference, [R14]. Could you explain, please? Thanks.
He is quite often very off in his judgement. He gave The Master a miss. I don't know, but I really think certain critics are associated with the film industry and give good or bad reviews according to their ties with certain studios. Other wise I don't understand how an intelligent movie like the Master is reviewed with less acclaim than Tom Cruises Rock of Ages.
Oh, R34. Ben just gave his mom a little help at the pool when she was feeling vulnerable. It's so easy to misunderstand that special bond that exists between mother and son, especially when he's trying to climb back into the hole from which he emerged at birth, penis first.