CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › The Roger Ebert Discussion Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Roger Ebert Discussion Thread - Page 2

post #51 of 229
6/25/08 at 4:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTMS View Post
Man, I hope Roger returns to Ebert & Roeper before the end of the year - I'm starting to get sick of Roeper & Phillips's antics. They need to bring back Richard Wilonsky - I loved it when he made Roeper look like a fool on numerous occasions.
He can't speak.
Reply
post #52 of 229
6/25/08 at 4:33am
What's with the "I approach his reviews with skepticism because he likes movie X, Y, Z"? There are plenty of movies endorsed by Chud that in eyes of a hyperbolic, self aggrandizing ceniphile would invalidate anything they say from here on out. He's enjoyed, and projected excessive praise on some films, but for the most part, he's got great taste, and is ultimately a compelling critic.

Seems to go on more tangents than usual these days, but they're usually enjoyable even when they have nothing to do with the film.
Reply
post #53 of 229
6/27/08 at 4:31pm
I'm starting to think that Ebert may never return. Roeper has stated that Roger's return in inevitable but i don't think so.

I actually like Roeper and Phiilips together they have pretty good chemistry. And it looks like the legal wranglings over the Thumbs Up/Down aren't over. I had heard that they thumbs would return by now but the fact they haven't leads me to believe that the negotiations fell through. The 'See It, Skip It' is fine with me.
Reply
post #54 of 229
6/27/08 at 6:08pm
Whenever I think of Wolonski I just think of how much he loved FF4: Silver Surfer. What an unbelievably awful film that was.
Reply
post #55 of 229
9/24/08 at 12:12am
How sad is it that there are people out there that don't realize what Ebert was up to with his recent Q & A about Creationism?

edit- some examples:

http://www.thatsjustnotright.com/for...howtopic=32740

Quote:
I honestly felt bad for what Roger Ebert has gone through the last few years. That was until he started spouting crazy creationism theories on his web site. The only good thing about this is that at least we get some insight into what the nutjobs believe... It scares me a little. I wonder who believes this same tripe in government?
http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthre...29#post2873529

Quote:
Let me lay my beliefs bare here: I believe in evolution, I believe in God. I do not believe God is David Copperfield. I dunno how long Ebert has believed in Creationism, but if it came around the same time as his recent consecutive 4-star reviews, then I've got my theories.

And no Mr.Ebert Creationism should not be taught as an alternative to Evolution in public schools. If its THAT important to parents then they should enroll their children in private school instead of being cheap and have the government teach their children about God.
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comm...eationism_wtf/

Quote:
This isn't satire. I've gotten essentially the same thing e-mailed to me by people who don't believe in evolution. I've seen the same talking points made by evangelicals in youtube videos and documentaries.

There's nothing in this that screams satire unless you have prior evidence that Ebert does not believe this.
http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=594939

Quote:
It's a shame to see such an articulate man with a grand readership spread this crap.
Quote:
Let him believe.

He's fat and old and he doesn't want the thousands of directors who prayed that he would go to hell get their way.

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment...lution_tw.html

Quote:
In what is surely the weirdest thing since his review of Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties, Roger Ebert has posted a defense of creationism on his Website, along with a FAQ ("Since living species were obviously not created through an evolutionary process, every surviving land-based mammal species had both ancestors on the Arc [sic]"), and a photo of a fossil that's "proof that man walked the earth with dinosaurs." [Roger Ebert]
Quote:
Wow, years of respect defeated with one post.
Quote:
Yeah, it's a shame. He seemed intelligent too. Perhaps it's the illness that prompted the faith. Or perhaps it was the Garfield movies.
http://www.democraticunderground.com...ress=228x44264
Quote:
I wonder whether, and if so how, it affects his politics. In other words, how literally he takes the rest of the Bible. Unusual for such a Christian fundie to be so supportive of the arts, as I know he is, but hey, I appreciate all exceptions to every rule. (Still wonder about his politics, though...)
Reply
post #56 of 229
9/24/08 at 1:25am
How can any one read this:

Quote:
Q. Was there a Noah, and did he have an Ark?

A. Certainly. There are many unverified reports of a massive wooden vessel on Mount Ararat. The Arc contained eight people, from whom we are all descended. It also contained two of each kind of animal. Since living species were obviously not created through an evolutionary process, every surviving land-based mammal species (about 5,400) had both ancestors on the Arc.
and not realize he was pointing out the ridiculousness of the claim?
Reply
post #57 of 229
9/24/08 at 1:40am
Quote:
Q. Why would God create such an absurd creature as a moose?

A. In charity, we must observe that the moose probably does not seem absurd to itself.
That to me seems to be the sly, sarcastic key to this cipher.
Reply
post #58 of 229
9/24/08 at 5:54am
I hope all those idiots read his follow up post:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008...f_the_age.html
Reply
post #59 of 229
9/24/08 at 6:14am
Seriously, when the fuck did everyone become so literal? It feels like the opposite was true just last year.
Reply
post #60 of 229
9/24/08 at 6:28am
I can't stop laughing. The insecurity of some of those evolutionists cracked me up (not indicting anyone here, of course).
Reply
post #61 of 229
9/24/08 at 8:21am
Quote:
Possible triggers have been identified in the comments I've read. The most cited was the Q&A about the moose. I didn't want to be obvious, because I hoped to reach readers who were uninformed about Creationism and would find the information interesting.
Oh yeah. Called that shit, muthafuckas.
Reply
post #62 of 229
9/26/08 at 12:19pm
From Ebert's Answer Man column

Question : Yo dude, u missed out on "Disaster Movie," a hardcore laugh-ur-@zz-off movie! Y U not review this movie!? It was funny as #ell! Prolly the funniest movie of the summer! U never review these, wat up wit dat?
S.J. Stanczak, Chicago

Ebert : Hey, bro, I wuz buzier than $#i+, @d they never shoed it b4 hand. I peeped in the IMDb and saw it zoomed to #1 as the low$ie$t flic of all time, wit @ lame-@zz UZer Rating of 1.3. U liked it? Wat up wit dat?

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...809119984/1023
Reply
post #63 of 229
9/26/08 at 12:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by User_32 View Post
Ebert : Hey, bro, I wuz buzier than $#i+, @d they never shoed it b4 hand. I peeped in the IMDb and saw it zoomed to #1 as the low$ie$t flic of all time, wit @ lame-@zz UZer Rating of 1.3. U liked it? Wat up wit dat?
He may have given Lakeview Terrace four stars, but I still love Ebert all the same. If he ever regains his ability to speak (I don't know just how much of long shot that is) he should do all of his reviews like this on his new project.
Reply
post #64 of 229
9/29/08 at 3:40pm
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008...tter_word.html
Reply
post #65 of 229
10/23/08 at 5:13pm
The Controversy, The Review, The Blog, The Follow Up Blog
Reply
post #66 of 229
10/23/08 at 6:07pm
I really wasn't bothered by that, because I thought it was Ebert trying to be funny. He does that a lot, write reviews in different styles and/or jokes that really don't work. And as he said in the first blog, he's only walked out of one other movie. I gave him a pass.

But it turns out that he wasn't joking around, and that second blog of his demonstrates a tremendous humility, especially for someone of his stature. One of the things I've always admired about the guy is that he admits when he's wrong. He'll fight you to the death over it, but he's a guy whose opinions can be changed.

Tangentially related to this, I like how I've been reading Ebert for over a decade and I just now realized he's a recovering alcoholic. Which has nothing to do with anything, but still.
Reply
post #67 of 229
11/8/08 at 12:22am
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008...get_you_i.html

Sniff.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008...at_mornin.html

Quote:
Do I blame George Bush? At the end of the day, I don't know that I really do. I agree with Oliver Stone that Bush never knew he had been misled until it was too late. I blame those who used him as their puppet. The unsmiling men standing in the shadows. On Tuesday the righteous people of America stood up and hammered them down.

Lots of people stayed up late Tuesday night. They listened McCain's gracious, eloquent concession speech. He was a good man at heart, caught up in a perfect storm of history. He had the wrong policies and the wrong campaign. At the end, let me tell you about a hunch I have. In the privacy of the voting booth, I think there is a possibility that Condoleezza Rice voted for Obama.

I stayed up late. As I watched, I remembered. In 1968 I was in the streets as a reporter, when the Battle of Grant Park ended eight years of Democratic presidents and opened an era when the Republicans would control the White House for 28 of the next 40 years. "The whole world is watching!" the demonstrators cried, as the image of Chicago was tarnished around the world. On Tuesday night, the world again had its eyes on Grant Park. I saw tens and tens of thousands of citizens with their hearts full, smiling through their tears. As at all of Obama's rallies, our races stood proudly side by side, as it should be. We are finally, finally, beginning to close that terrible chapter of American history

President Obama is not an obsessed or fearful man. He has no grandiose ideological schemes to lure us into disaster. He won because of a factor the pundits never mentioned. He was the grown-up. He has a rational mind, a steady hand, and a first-rate intelligence. But, oh, it will be hard for him. He inherits a wrong war, a disillusioned nation, and a crumbling economy. He may have to be a Depression president.

What gives me hope is that a great idealistic movement rose up to support him. Some say a million and a half volunteers. Millions more donated to his campaign. He won votes that crossed the lines of gender, age, race, ethnicity, geography and political party. He was the right man at a dangerous time. If ever a president was elected by we the people, he is that president.

America was a different place when I grew up under Truman, Eisenhower and, yes, even Nixon. On Tuesday that America remembered itself, and stood up to be counted.
Double sniff.
Reply
post #68 of 229
11/25/08 at 12:58am
Good stuff.
Reply
post #69 of 229
11/25/08 at 2:28am
The thing about this blog is that it's probably the closest we're going to get to Ebert's full memoirs for a while, which is why the personal/backstage stuff is so interesting. And in this case, hilarious.
Reply
post #70 of 229
12/8/08 at 12:20pm
I was at my mother's yesterday so I took a look at the new "At the Movies" and discovered (surprise surprise) that the two guys in place are far worse than even Roeper was. There was no depth to their reviews and just seemed all around useless.

Not to mention, only three movies reviewed? Siskel & Ebert would get through three movies by the first commercial break. What a waste.
Reply
post #71 of 229
1/6/09 at 11:52am

Inaccurate?

Anyone notice innacurracies in Ebert's reviews? I love his critical analysis, but sometimes he throws out details that are just wrong for no discernable reason. For instance, I just read his review of Wanted (which he liked probably, as it's been pointed out, because of Angelina Jolie+bare ass), and these two popped out at me:

He states that Fox picked up Wesley in a bar (it was a pharmacy), and that Wesley's father was assassinated by Cross years ago (actually, like, the day before). Now I'm just nitpicking here, and I understand that he's writing reviews after one viewing in a theater without the benefit of a rewind button, but this seems to happen a lot.

He usually "gets" the message of a movie, but you've got to wonder what different details he's seeing in his head.
Reply
post #72 of 229
1/6/09 at 11:56am
Well Eberts also a pretty old guy. I'm sure his memory isn't quite what it used to be.
Reply
post #73 of 229
1/6/09 at 12:13pm
Yeah, but I've noticed this for years. Plus, 66 isn't all that old. He's around the same age as Stallone and Harrison Ford.
Reply
post #74 of 229
1/6/09 at 12:23pm
He gets mixed up sometimes, but it's usually with popcorn pictures. I've been seeing inaccuracies as long as I've been reading him, but he rarely misses the point of a movie.
Reply
post #75 of 229
1/6/09 at 12:27pm
He hasn't been the same since the surgery. Everything gets three stars now. And he loved Revolutionary Road, which leads me to believe he forgot that the past thirty years of filmmaking ever happened.
Reply
post #76 of 229
1/6/09 at 12:31pm
I'll read his reviews just to read him, but I like the blog and his Great Movies entries more than his commentary on modern stuff these days.
Reply
post #77 of 229
2/19/09 at 1:02am
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009...come_home.html

I've said this before in this thread, but even if a lot of his entries these days don't have to do with movies, this blog is probably the closest we're going to get to Ebert's memoirs.

And to lift up your spirits after that kind of depressing entry, here's a letter a Star Wars fan wrote to Ebert after he called Fanboys a depiction of "an idiotic lifestyle."

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...RS%2F902179997

A selection:

Quote:
An idiotic lifestyle? Tell that to the members of the 501st and the Rebel Legion who sacrifice their spare time to visit children hospitals all over the world just to bring a little joy into a sick kid's heart. Doing it for no money…Only the payment of a child's smile. Receiving hugs while dressed as Star Wars characters – tears streaming down their checks underneath their stormtrooper helmets.

An idiotic lifestyle? Tell that to the construction worker who had to take on two jobs to support his family. And the only time he gets quality time with his kids is on Friday night when they all gather in front of the TV to watch a new episode of the Clone Wars. Finding that Star Wars is the one thing that can bring a family together in these tough economic times.

An idiotic lifestyle? Tell that to the mother of a terminally sick kid who spends the entire morning standing in line during a hail storm in Indianapolis at Star Wars Celebration 3 so her son can get a glimpse of his idol George Lucas. And that kid not only getting that chance, but also the opportunity to jump onstage with the man to get a hug as his mom stood on the side of the stage weeping. A situation when fandom became medicine for the soul. The very emotion of that moment overwhelmed me and still does to this day.

Are these HUMAN moments the result of living an idiotic lifestyle as you like to put it Roger???????
I think the dude's just mad he didn't get any pizza.
Reply
post #78 of 229
2/19/09 at 2:00am
Quote:
Finding that Star Wars is the one thing that can bring a family together in these tough economic times.
You could publish this as an op-ed in the Onion and change nothing. I can just imagine that guy fuming and swearing for days after reading the review. I usually find it pretty stupid to look down on and insult other nerds on a movie message board, but when you see something like that, you realize that there is, in fact, a fairly substantial difference. There's not apologizing for liking nerdy stuff, and then there's wearing blinders to reality. Thinking a full knowledge of Sio Bibble's backstory is anything but a waste falls into the latter category.

Unlike most chewers, though, I can't find this stuff particularly funny. It's just kind of sad.
Reply
post #79 of 229
2/19/09 at 2:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobClark View Post
He hasn't been the same since the surgery. Everything gets three stars now. And he loved Revolutionary Road, which leads me to believe he forgot that the past thirty years of filmmaking ever happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RathBandu View Post
I'll read his reviews just to read him, but I like the blog and his Great Movies entries more than his commentary on modern stuff these days.
Yeah, Ebert's such a great writer that it doesn't matter if he's completely off-base, it's still worth reading.
Reply
post #80 of 229
2/19/09 at 3:01am
Quote:
An idiotic lifestyle? Tell that to the members of the 501st and the Rebel Legion who sacrifice their spare time to visit children hospitals all over the world just to bring a little joy into a sick kid's heart. Doing it for no money…Only the payment of a child's smile. Receiving hugs while dressed as Star Wars characters – tears streaming down their checks underneath their stormtrooper helmets.

An idiotic lifestyle? Tell that to the construction worker who had to take on two jobs to support his family. And the only time he gets quality time with his kids is on Friday night when they all gather in front of the TV to watch a new episode of the Clone Wars. Finding that Star Wars is the one thing that can bring a family together in these tough economic times.

An idiotic lifestyle? Tell that to the mother of a terminally sick kid who spends the entire morning standing in line during a hail storm in Indianapolis at Star Wars Celebration 3 so her son can get a glimpse of his idol George Lucas. And that kid not only getting that chance, but also the opportunity to jump onstage with the man to get a hug as his mom stood on the side of the stage weeping. A situation when fandom became medicine for the soul. The very emotion of that moment overwhelmed me and still does to this day.

Are these HUMAN moments the result of living an idiotic lifestyle as you like to put it Roger???????
This is both the funniest and saddest thing I've read in quite some time. What kind of a mother stands around outside in a hail storm with their terminally ill child? Quality family time is sitting zoned out in front of the tv watching inane cartoons? And those 501st guys self worth is probably directly related to how much adoration they are able to mine out of the fact they spent countless of hours of their precious spare time perfecting the most accurate scout trooper outfit. They're replacing interested glances from pretty girls with the smiles of dying children. It's the only attention they'll ever be shown, so they wouldn't trade it for the world.
Reply
post #81 of 229
2/19/09 at 3:13am
Not to be over-crotchety, but if this thread goes from a discussion of Ebert's writing to another bullshit Star Wars deal, I'm gonna snap...in TEXT form, no less.
Reply
post #82 of 229
2/19/09 at 3:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangy View Post
Not to be over-crotchety, but if this thread goes from an appreciation of Ebert's writing to another bullshit Star Wars deal, I'm gonna snap...in TEXT form, no less.
You're right. It shouldn't and hopefully won't go there. But I just couldn't help myself from commenting on that letter.
Reply
post #83 of 229
2/19/09 at 12:57pm
Ebert remembers Siskel.
Reply
post #84 of 229
2/19/09 at 1:58pm
Great, great piece on Siskel, and the comments are something else:

Quote:
By Brent on February 19, 2009 3:01 AM

I want to share a story with everyone about how Gene touched my life and changed it forever.

It was November of 1992. I had just turned 16 and I was at that stage in my life where people start to think about their future, such as where they want to go to college and what they want to do for a living. I was having dinner with a friend in a small diner in Hoboken, NJ. I was telling my friend that my parents wanted me to go to college very badly because neither of them had gone. It was really important to them and it was pretty much all they ever talked about. I told my friend that I felt a tremendous pressure to go to college because I didn't want to disappoint them. At the same time, I hated school with a passion and even though my grades were excellent, I didn't really feel that college was for me.

My friend and I talked for a while, then he had to leave. After he was gone, a middle-aged man in the booth next to us approached me and told me that he had overheard my conversation. He asked if he could sit down and talk to me and I told him he could. This man told me that the decisions I would make in the next year will change my life forever, for better or for worse. He said that right now I am building a road to my destiny and after I start upon that road, it is nearly impossible to go back, build a new road, and start over. He said that I need to live my life for myself and not for my parents, that if my parents truly love me, they will understand and support any decision I make, provided it is well thought out.

He told me that college was a great time in his life, but that college is not for everybody. He advised me to make a list of careers and decide which ones I wanted most. If those careers require a college degree, then college would have to be a consideration. When I read your essay about Gene and watched the videos above, I began to cry because I remembered one thing he told me very vividly as if he told it to me yesterday. He said, "Choose a job that you love." That's right, years before he made that speech to his daughters and the Chicago Museum of Broadcasting, he made the same speech to me.

In the end, I decided not to go to college, despite having scholarships from two Ivy League schools. I felt that if I despised school as much as I did, there is no way I could possibly make it through another four years. It turned out to be the best decision of my life. I started my own recruiting/headhunting firm. Now I am 32 years old with a six figure income and my mortgage is completely paid off.

I spoke to the man in the diner for 30 minutes. He told me his philosophy of life and the time flew by. Then he stood up, shook my hand, told me, "Good luck", and left. I sat there for a while thinking about what he had said. I then called the waitress over to pay my bill. To my surprise, the waitress told me that the man had paid my bill. She asked me, "Don't you know who that was?" I said no and she told me it was Gene Siskel, of the movie critics Siskel and Ebert. I had heard of Siskel and Ebert, but I was not much of a movie fan, so I had no idea what he looked like. Since then, I have become a big movie fan, that is why I am on your site, Roger.

Looking back, I can trace all the success I have had in my life to that 30 minute conversation that I had with a complete stranger on a cold, rainy night in a small diner in Hoboken.

Wherever you are now, Gene, I just want to say thank you.
Reply
post #85 of 229
2/19/09 at 3:17pm
That was a great piece. I was lucky enough to get into S&E in their very early days at PBS Sneak Previews and was a fan for life. I miss their show like crazy. It was a vital part of my love of film.
Reply
post #86 of 229
2/19/09 at 7:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangy View Post
That was a great read, thanks for posting the link. Despite his tendency to over-praise movies, I'm astounded by Ebert's non-review writing at this state of his life. I kinda wish he'd write a memoir or something that isn't film specific (although his reviews are still worth checking out).
Reply
post #87 of 229
2/19/09 at 9:41pm
Parker, that's a large chunk of what the blog is. He's written about his travels, his time as a student in South Africa, his dog, his car. You wouldn't think those would be interesting topics, but he makes all of it worth reading.
Reply
post #88 of 229
2/20/09 at 12:23pm
Wow, it's been ten years already. I remember when Gene phoned in his review on Lethal Weapon 4. Literally on the phone.
Reply
post #89 of 229
2/20/09 at 5:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdHocken View Post
Wow, it's been ten years already. I remember when Gene phoned in his review on Lethal Weapon 4. Literally on the phone.
I remember that too. It was such an odd episode. But even then I just figured he was recovering in his hospital and he'd be back soon enough. Then two weeks later he died. So tragic.
Reply
post #90 of 229
2/20/09 at 6:26pm
I feel bad for Siskel. The teenager he advised in that restaurant would grow up to be a cunt. "Just do what you love!" "I'm going to take money from other people's paychecks!" It's really sickening to me that was somebody's dream to make life worthwhile. Happening upon it, being a careerist to pay the bills, sure, it's still a scummy position though I can relate to why one would do it from those angles, but ah...a dream? Quite a cunt~y attitude in his post.
Reply
post #91 of 229
2/20/09 at 7:00pm
The fuck are you talking about?

Christ, what a way to piss all over that story.
Reply
post #92 of 229
2/20/09 at 8:23pm


He became the head of a staffing agency.

They are some of the biggest cocksuckers in our society.
Reply
post #93 of 229
2/26/09 at 2:03pm
Ebert calls out Nikki Finke.
Reply
post #94 of 229
2/26/09 at 2:12pm
Everytime this thread is bumped, I think Ebert died.
Reply
post #95 of 229
2/28/09 at 12:01pm
I'd like to give some big ups to Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, since no one else has in this thread yet.

Just wish I could find a copy of Beneath the Valley of the Ultra Vixens somewhere...
Reply
post #96 of 229
2/28/09 at 12:25pm
Ebert rarely disses actors, but when he does, it's pretty epic:


"You know me. I'm easy on actors. These are real people with real feelings. When I see a bad performance, I'm inclined to blame anyone but the actors. In the case of "Exit to Eden" I'm inclined to blame the actors.

Starting with Rosie O'Donnell. I'm sorry, but I just don't get Rosie O'Donnell. I've seen her in three or four movies now, and she has generally had the same effect on me as fingernails on a blackboard.

She's harsh and abrupt and staccato and doesn't seem to be having any fun. She looks mean."

Exit to Eden (1994)

"Raquel Welch, who shares top, billing, appears briefly in the movie, exhibits her body and mouths lines by rote as we have come to expect. She can't act; it's cruel to force her. She may be the first pizza waitress discovered as a movie star. Lainie Kazan, who makes a cameo appearance, is everything Miss Welch is advertised as: beautiful, talented, sexy."

Lady in Cement (1968)

"And so it goes, with Elvis buying a station wagon for a poor family, and Elvis arguing with the tax man, and Elvis climbing into his Plymouth, and Nancy Sinatra still desperately trying, at this late stage of her career, to sing."

Speedway (1968)

"Cybill Shepherd is a wonder to behold, but she isn't a gifted singer and no regimen of voice lessons is going to make her one. She didn't do a very good job on her Cole Porter album, and she's no better here, although at least we're permitted to see her as she sings, and that provides a certain compensation."

At Long Last Love (1975)
Reply
post #97 of 229
2/28/09 at 2:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RathBandu View Post
I think it would benefit a lot of Chewers to read that column.
Reply
post #98 of 229
3/23/09 at 10:23am
Quote:
"Crossing Over" borrows the structure of "Crash" to tell interlocking stories about several immigrants, their problems and their families. All of their lives connect in some way, if only through U.S. immigration officials. "Crash" wove its pattern fairly naturally. "Crossing Over" seems to strain, with too many characters, too many story strands and too much of an effort to cover the bases.. We meet immigrants new and established, legal and illegal, from Mexico, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Iran, England, Korea and Australia. It feels like a list.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...IEWS/903119988

Does. Not. Compute.
Reply
post #99 of 229
3/23/09 at 11:10am
Do you mean to say you disagree and Crossing Over is "as bad as Crash?" "Better than Crash?" In what sense? Haven't seen it yet, so I can't have an opinion. But what I've heard in the general consensus is that Crossing Over is crap.

By that same token, I wasn't really one of Crash's biggest fans either. So ultimately I don't know what to think about this. I will say that after Running Scared I was really pooling for Wayne Kramer and am disappointed if this movie is not that great. Not to mention that it would have given Harrison Ford a chance to make up for skipping out on Traffic (One of the worst career moves in history, if you ask me.)
Reply
post #100 of 229
3/23/09 at 11:23am
I wouldn't use Crash as an example of a movie that wove its stories together effortlessly.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › The Roger Ebert Discussion Thread