Do Ebert & Roeper give everything two thumps up?

[Captain Beefheart]

Honestly can't remember the last DVD I flipped over that doesn't say "Two Thumbs Up" - Ebert & Roeper.

Personally, I find that Roger Ebert and I frequently have divergent opinions in regards to the moving pictures, so I tend to take what he says with a grain of salt and rely more on the recomendations of friends who's taste is more akin to my own.

The true test will be Snakes on a plane. If he gives that a favorable review we will know he is crazy.

[BlackWolf]

Is he still alive?!? I gave up listening to him long ago.

[Gumby]

Ebert judges movies on whether or not he thinks they've achieved their goals within the context of its genre. So, him giving four stars to Batman Begins isn't the same as him giving four stars to American Beauty. He's said himself that he hates the star system, and only uses it as an easily recognizable guideline to give people an idea how much he recommends a movie.

Besides, his reviews are a joy to read, and he can almost always justify giving the stars that he does. Especially when he reviews bad movies. You can tell he has a little too much fun tearing them apart.

Anybody remember his brief feud with Vincent Gallo? Ebert tore The Brown Bunny apart, and in response, Gallo called him a "fat pig." Ebert responded with (paraphrased), "yes, I'm fat, but someday I will be thin, but Vincent Gallo will always be the director of The Brown Bunny." Gallo responded by saying he hoped Ebert got cancer, and Ebert said, (again paraphrased), "the other day I went for a colonoscopy, which I got to watch a small video camera as it traveled through my colon...and it was more entertaining than The Brown Bunny."

[farsighted]

I've never liked the TV show, but I think that Ebert's write ups and columns are a bit better and give more insight into what he's rating and why he's doing it.

[Captain Beefheart]

Vincent Gallo is one interesting character.

I don't think Brown Bunny is the "worst" film ever made, but I probably didn't see the version Ebert saw. It's certainly not narrative, at least not until the end, but I don't think that's a minus...

So yeah, depressed dude drives hundreds of miles, gets bugs on his windshield and a blowjob from Chloe Sevigny. He can't really connect to women he meets along the way; this really unfolds more like a home movie or road journal about grief. The grindingly slow pace forces you to focus on important details like subtle face/body language. That's where the storytelling is.

Buffalo 66'=Untouchable

Ebert flat out doesn't get Wes Anderson movies either. To add to the Blue Velvet flap and Clockwork Orange. 2 stars? Wack.

[darko.]

dont start evil!