I was expecting to see a pic of Roger Ebert's balls... missed your opportunity, Ebert..

Tags for this video have been changed from 'rachel, maddow, freedom of speech, distress, unconstitutional, crime, ebert' to 'rachel maddow, freedom of speech, distress, unconstitutional, crime, ebert' - edited by lucky760

*actionpack *cinema>> ^MikesHL13:

I'm with you; miss them too


Ditto.

I have no problem with your comment, and I like Ebert despite his being an irredeemable liberal. He knows a lot about movies. I know some people that will go see movies because Ebert dislikes them.



>> ^Payback:

I've wondered why I've never felt any real compassion for him, then it dawned on me. Before the cancer, he was such an uptight, sanctimonious prick, so in love with his own voice... just seemed kharmically balanced to me. At least he seems to have learned some humility.

>> ^Smugglarn:
Go fuck yourself.
Then die.>> ^Payback:
I've wondered why I've never felt any real compassion for him, then it dawned on me. Before the cancer, he was such an uptight, sanctimonious prick, so in love with his own voice... just seemed kharmically balanced to me. At least he seems to have learned some humility.



Bravo Smugglarn! As eloquent as any of Ebert's critiques! Well said!

Personally, I'm impressed you can actually type so well with your "two thumbs up" your ass.

To anyone else who might not share my derision of the man, and are unable to access their extensive vocabulary with such ease and aplomb as Smugglarn, please take my previous comments as being from someone who absolutely despised Ebert, even back when he had his health. While I wouldn't wish his fate on anyone, I still note he makes a SHIT TON of money as the newpaper critic that started his career. I just have a hard time feeling bad for someone whose benefits far outweigh their challenges.

Go fuck yourself.

Then die.>> ^Payback:

I've wondered why I've never felt any real compassion for him, then it dawned on me. Before the cancer, he was such an uptight, sanctimonious prick, so in love with his own voice... just seemed kharmically balanced to me. At least he seems to have learned some humility.

Your video, TED Talks - Roger Ebert: Remaking my voice, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 2 Badge!

Naturally, the must be included in the *cinema channel. Mr. Ebert is inseparable from the theater as anyone.

Thanks, I updated the embed.>> ^hamsteralliance:

This video is on Youtube too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNXOVpN8Wgg

Not wishing to be merely contrary, I find reviews by Roger Ebert to be highly insightful. The recent half-star review of Battlefield: Los Angeles, for example, is hilarious and quite useful to those of us who have historically identified with Mr. Ebert's cinematic prowess. The television program Siskel & Ebert, when it was on, can be forgiven for its rare misstep, like the review of The Professional, even though, as I've pointed out, the version screened was quite compromised. Those who systematically regard their reviews with, as stated above, an "inversion principle" have my pity as surely possessing an abating sum of cognitive capacity. In short, lick my balls. Siskel & Ebert rule.

Great title, Shuac. You make a valid, well-said point that the scenes deleted - now fail to give the movie it's 'bones'. The reasons S&E gave for not liking the film, were completely due to the trickle-down effect of those important removed scenes.

And the hanging scene Ebert mentioned...is just pure Hollywood, bad-ass fun. If he is picking apart 'impossible' gun scenes in movies, he had better start rewriting all of his review books now. Watch out Matrix.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Good points - and I agree completely. I enjoyed this movie - but in a cringing, guilty way. Something to do with being a parent with kids close to this age.

>> ^entr0py:

I get the criticism of Roger Ebert and others; I might even agree with them if the movie had been done differently. But it worked because the violence was cartoonish, while the relationship between the hit girl and her father seemed sincere. None of the butchery had an emotional impact, but the humor and sentiment did. The movie was a wonderful accomplishment in selective humanization.

I get the criticism of Roger Ebert and others; I might even agree with them if the movie had been done differently. But it worked because the violence was cartoonish, while the relationship between the hit girl and her father seemed sincere. None of the butchery had an emotional impact, but the humor and sentiment did. The movie was a wonderful accomplishment in selective humanization.

Roger Ebert tore this movie a new one.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110112/REVIEWS/110119995

This whole "games can't be art" thing is silly. From Wikipedia:

"Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging symbolic elements in a way that influences and affects the senses, emotions, and/or intellect."

Simple, all games can be considered art. Maybe not high art all the time but art none-the-less. I suppose we'd have to know how Ebert defines art and then punch him in the nose for being an idiot.