Ebert gives Nunziata a shout out in his Equilibrium Review.

Of course, you all know what this means.

Hello mr. Ebert! Nice to see you here.

Anyone wonder what's his CHUD name?

I think he's that "Devin" character.

As a twist, this would surpass that whole Keyser Soze buisness.

I've been really critical of Ebert over the past 2 years or so, but that's still kinda cool.

Should result in some heavy traffic as well. Everybody put their pants back on, we've got guests on the way.

Time to pull out the net.

Oh, and if you give The Two Towers under 3 1/2 stars, we're coming to get you!

The mention is nice, but does Ebert even pay attention to films anymore?

They refer to the gunkata in the first 5 minutes of the movie.

Simply watching the film attentively would allow you to learn that without having to refer to movie webmasters.

How schway.

HE'S THE ONE!!!

I knew the first person who ripped Ebert would be him. Trying to hide. Mikah...yeah right Mr. Ebert.

Keyser Soze....Verbal Kint....hmmmmm....

Well that is pretty cool indeed Nick.

Free advertising never hurt and especially in regards to something you have championed like this movie.

Ah Nick is on his way to world domination.

Plus, both Mikah and Ebert don't like FOTR.

Thread number 78,423... check.

As much as you guys may think it Ebert is Micah (unless you are joking), I can safely say that he is a real person, with a very dry sense of humor, I might add.

The hell you say. Mikah is the short pudgy white man I tell you!

Yes indeed.

Wouldn't it be funny then if Tony Ryan turned out to be Roeper?

Well, he has seen scads of movies.

Though I'm still mad at Ebert for giving 'The Cell' four stars, that's pretty cool.

Don't get too excited, Ebert mentions Facer in the same review...

Nah, he mentions Faceman. He's a huge Dirk Benedict fan.

"There are a lot more similar battles, which are pure kinetic energy, made of light, noise and quick cutting. They seem to have been assembled for victims of Attention Deficit Syndrome, who are a large voting block at the box office these days. The dispassionate observer such as myself, refusing to Sense Offense my way through such scenes, can nevertheless admire them as a technical exercise."

Well, Ebert is now critic #9,734 to refer to a fast moving action scene as pandering to folks with ADD, and he can't even fucking name ADD right.

It's great that Nick got props from Ebert but he stopped mattering or making sense a long time ago.

I disagree. I feel Nick continues to matter AND make sense.

Maybe the EBERT walked out for a bathroom break, because GUN KATA is named and clearly explained in the movie. There's even a computer animation showing it.

......But it's nice that he mentioned Nick and CHUD

i dig the guy. i don't always agree with him, but he usually give good support for his opinions, and i love the fact that he hates the rating system, blockbuster, and he's a nice guy. i've been to his film festivals at U of I, and he's always been cool. he truly loves movies.

Ebert's an old fool who's seen so many movies, his mind has been totally warped. He's only entertained when something shiny sparkles by his eyes.

"Oooo... Final Fantasy... it's purdyyy..."

Who isn't?

<a href="http://symetri.org/gray/dcon/pages/gray_meets_faceman.htm" target="_blank">http://symetri.org/gray/dcon/pages/gray_meets_faceman.htm</a>

Damn!!! Means I've got to strap this bra back on....

Oh and I think this is nice that Nick is mentioned specifically by Ebert. Not many would do this as they would go about it in a round-about way:

Instead of:
"I learn from Nick Nunziata at CHUD.com that the form of battle used in the movie"

It would be:
"I learned that the form of battle...."

You always make me laugh.

Ebert just got soft.

Has to do with getting old, losing his delightfully acerbic partner (RIP Siskel), getting married after 50 years of bachelorhood.......

And this guy:

<img src="http://www.donnaworld.com/rd2.jpg" alt="" />

Roeper could play Ned Flanders on broadway.

Best 2nd post ever.

I think he's gotten a little bit better about this, learning from the aforementioned 4-star Cell review. He's still strangely inconsistent though. In his feardotcom review, despite waxing lyrical about how great he thought the film looked, he gave it two stars, saying there were "a lot of 4-star elements in it."

All this after he famously raped Reign Of Fire, a fantastic looking film, with an ill-concieved and illogical 1-star review.

He's a great writer though, I'll even read reviews of films I'm not particularly interested in. I like how he gave props to Nick, even if he did miss a pivotal scene in the flick.

For some reason, I really dig Ebert, and I love watching his show. Even though sometimes he is completly insane with his reviews.

Roeper is a buttplug though, an even bigger buttplug than Micheal Rooker (I got that from a review I read of Replicant, this film critic actually called him a buttplug. HAHHA)

I agree. I may not agree with most of his opinions, but at least he always completely and genuinely backs them up.

Nice to see Ebert giving a little shout out to our man Nick.

You gotta love a critic who mistakes Beethoven for Jazz.

I'm not a big fan of Ebert and I miss Siskel dearly, but hey...this is still awesome for Nick and CHUD. Congrats!

To this day I think if The Cell had been made in, say, Japan...people would have hailed that movie as visionary.

Ebert doesn't care what country it came from... as long as it's got that sweet, sweet J.Lo ass he loves so much.

I completely agree. It is a godawful film, but as Robert Rodriguez said..."no one would have liked Mariachi if it was in english. You forgive a lot more in a foreign film."

You see, I'd argue differently. I don't care about Ebert's opinions. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinions. However, a critic's job is to do more than just state opinions, but they must support them too. Ebert, I say, does not support his arguments.

I know tons of people who didn't enjoy Gladiator. This is no big deal. But, why does Ebert hate it? Bad special effects. That's pretty much the only reason. There are many more examples of crap like this (he gave Spawn 3 and 1/2 stars because he loved that damn cape so much) and he never really supports half his arguments. He is a very talented writer... one of the best critics really if you look at how he writes. He writes very convincingly, like he could write a review of your mother and force you to hate her.

Reviews should be more than opinions. Look at CHUD. Hell, look at Blofeld’s famous (infamous) review of Beauty and the Beast. I've never had a problem with the movie, so my opinion is different than our man Blo... but Blo backs up his argument far... FAR better than Ebert ever has. Blofeld made sense and explained his some-what controversial and different point of view. Ebert is not skilled enough to pull that off.

I do agree with Ebert sometimes... but even when we agree on a movie, he'll like it or dislike it for the wrong reasons. Ebert has as much worth to me as a bowl of coleslaw... hell, I'll take the coleslaw over him any day... and I HATE coleslaw!

I am damn happy he mentioned Nick, though. And if he's out there... Mr. Ebert, thank you. We appreciate it. Now get yourself a therapist.

I think Ebert's reviews are still worth reading but he gives far too many mediocre movies a pass.

I did not know about this! From ten years ago none the less. I do agree with you about Ebert, he has always given mediocore movies a past. I think he grades certain movies on ambition and intent. For Tomb Raider, the intent and ambition where met and so it was given a good review. For something like Fear and Loathing it was not so he gives it a bad review. It is not fair but it is his method I guess.

What is up with non-spam bot people resurrecting these ancient fucking threads?