• Re: When Roger Ebert was mean

    From Pluted Pup@21:1/5 to Adam H. Kerman on Sat Sep 28 14:34:25 2024
    XPost: rec.arts.tv

    On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 18:04:41 -0700, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

    7 of Roger Ebert's Most Brutal Movie Reviews https://time.com/2957019/roger-ebert-life-itself-brutal-reviews/

    North (1994) has some good gags in it, that's better than a lot of
    Ebert's choices.

    He dumped on Walker (1987) for "anachronism". Parts were funny,
    and the music was great, the anachronism was a virtue, and
    an inherent part of the movie.

    He dumped on Clifford (1994), lots of funny stuff, but he
    and Siskel couldn't get over a 40 year old playing an obnoxious
    10 year old to find any comedy and that instead he thought it
    should be played by a real 10 year old, which wouldn't be funny.
    How would a real kid be funnier than a fake?

    I agree with him about Caligula (1980) being bad, but the
    ancient history history references are the most interesting
    thing about, except there was only about 1 minute of text
    diluted into a 3 hour movie. It's not porn, if pornography is
    defined as Appealing To The Prurient Interest, the X rating
    was for something other than porn, because in either the cut
    or uncut version there wasn't anything sexy in it.
    Medical pictures in textbooks are sexier.

    Ebert praised as 'hilarious' Larry Cohen's Bone (1970),
    a supposed comedy whose theme is that women like and enjoy
    being kidnapped and raped, a concept, and a movie, that I
    find not funny at all. But to Ebert, a Black man raping
    a white woman is supposed to be funny.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Arthur Lipscomb@21:1/5 to Pluted Pup on Sat Sep 28 17:45:32 2024
    XPost: rec.arts.tv

    On 9/28/2024 2:34 PM, Pluted Pup wrote:
    On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 18:04:41 -0700, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

    7 of Roger Ebert's Most Brutal Movie Reviews
    https://time.com/2957019/roger-ebert-life-itself-brutal-reviews/

    North (1994) has some good gags in it, that's better than a lot of
    Ebert's choices.



    I thought I was the only one who liked North. I remember them raging
    against it on their show. Then I saw it and it was OK. I haven't
    watched it since the original release, but I'd definitely be interested
    in watching it again.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Pluted Pup@21:1/5 to Arthur Lipscomb on Sun Sep 29 16:54:59 2024
    XPost: rec.arts.tv

    On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 17:45:32 -0700, Arthur Lipscomb wrote:

    On 9/28/2024 2:34 PM, Pluted Pup wrote:
    On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 18:04:41 -0700, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

    7 of Roger Ebert's Most Brutal Movie Reviews https://time.com/2957019/roger-ebert-life-itself-brutal-reviews/

    North (1994) has some good gags in it, that's better than a lot of
    Ebert's choices.

    I thought I was the only one who liked North. I remember them raging
    against it on their show. Then I saw it and it was OK. I haven't
    watched it since the original release, but I'd definitely be interested
    in watching it again.

    Ebert "ironically" endorsed North (1994), I saw it once,
    recently, based on his review.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)