eBert aLert
Jul. 30th, 2004 09:47 amThere'd been disappointed tones recently that good ol' Roger Ebert was growing complacent in his old age and was steadfastly refusing to dish out a glowingly wonderful bad review, you know, the kind he was known for and the kind you read movie reviews for. He even had to go so far as to defend his 3-star habit recently, explaining he awards stars for films based on what they're supposed to accomplish, or somesuch nonsense. That is why Garfield, a stupid kid's movie, gets a good rating because it is a stupid kid's movie and tries not to be anything else. Er, ok.
This week, however, he deftly beats the tar out of The Village in such a way that makes me want to give the chubbly Chicago curmudgeon a big hug.
Of the film's Big Shockeroo Twist Ending, he notes "to call it an anticlimax would be an insult not only to climaxes but to prefixes." Sure, it's no "She runs the gamut of emotions from A to B" (thanks, Dorothy) but it's a whole lot better than those clueless half-wits who just had to make a "kitty litter" joke in their Catwoman reviews. (Ebert mentions a litter box in his, but not for snarky soundbite purposes.)
There's life in the ol' codger left.
This week, however, he deftly beats the tar out of The Village in such a way that makes me want to give the chubbly Chicago curmudgeon a big hug.
Of the film's Big Shockeroo Twist Ending, he notes "to call it an anticlimax would be an insult not only to climaxes but to prefixes." Sure, it's no "She runs the gamut of emotions from A to B" (thanks, Dorothy) but it's a whole lot better than those clueless half-wits who just had to make a "kitty litter" joke in their Catwoman reviews. (Ebert mentions a litter box in his, but not for snarky soundbite purposes.)
There's life in the ol' codger left.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}