Ebert losing grip on reality

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Writes 3-star Garfield sequel review entirely from Garfield's perspective

― deej.. (deej..), Friday, 16 June 2006 16:22 (nineteen years ago)

Dude, c'mon, after all those reviews over the years, wouldn't YOU be bored with the format a little bit?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 16 June 2006 16:25 (nineteen years ago)

'hey roger, can you pitchfork things up a little bit?'

― gear (gear), Friday, 16 June 2006 16:27 (nineteen years ago)

Hehehehe

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 16 June 2006 16:28 (nineteen years ago)

wizard's cap!!

― Bea Arthur - Lost COmic GEnius ? (dubplatestyle), Friday, 16 June 2006 16:28 (nineteen years ago)

There will be malcontents who claim I am not the real author of this review, because how could a cat know that after you mention a character in a movie, you include the name of the actor in parentheses?

OMFG. A comedy writer I am not. How embarassing for me, Garfield, the cat. Because I'm a cat, not Dave.

― The REAL Garfield (dave225.3), Friday, 16 June 2006 16:28 (nineteen years ago)

There's a Garfield sequel?!?

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 16 June 2006 16:33 (nineteen years ago)

Roeper, the other one, gave thumbs down and was particularly unkind. He went on forever attacking Ebert for liking "Garfield." This from a man with enough taste to praise "Duma."

Thats a pretty good burn.

― deej.. (deej..), Friday, 16 June 2006 16:37 (nineteen years ago)

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/roger_REVIEWS.jpg

― Q('.'Q) (eman), Friday, 16 June 2006 16:43 (nineteen years ago)

Whether I get "thumbs up" from Richard Roeper is a matter of profound indifference to me.

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Friday, 16 June 2006 16:46 (nineteen years ago)

um wow.

― Allyzay will never stop making pancakes (allyzay), Friday, 16 June 2006 16:57 (nineteen years ago)

If Garfield really were in charge of writing that review, wouldn't he lie around and eat lasgana instead, being lazy and all? NICE TRY EBERT!!!

― Aaron W (Aaron W), Friday, 16 June 2006 16:58 (nineteen years ago)

Ebert wrote a review in the voice of Garfield??

http://www.exploredc.org/images/presidents/20_01.gif

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Friday, 16 June 2006 17:01 (nineteen years ago)

EBERT = FURRY!!!

― mummy wrapped in bacon (nickalicious), Friday, 16 June 2006 17:02 (nineteen years ago)

I want to marry him.

― Abbott (Abbott), Friday, 16 June 2006 17:03 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/hist/wh9j.jpg

― Bea Arthur - Lost COmic GEnius ? (dubplatestyle), Friday, 16 June 2006 17:04 (nineteen years ago)

i'll write a counter-review in the voice of charles gaiteau

― gear (gear), Friday, 16 June 2006 17:05 (nineteen years ago)

I read all the movie reviews, especially those of Ebert, a graceful and witty prose stylist with profound erudition, whose reviews are worth reading just for themselves, whether or not I have any intention of viewing the movie.

Hahahaha! Like in Ghost World when Enid is crushing on Daniel Clowes.

― Abbott (Abbott), Friday, 16 June 2006 17:05 (nineteen years ago)

ebert writes from perspective of mc skat cat

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 16 June 2006 17:06 (nineteen years ago)

richard roeper is kind of like jon arbuckle. i wonder what nermal has to say about all this.

― ¨ˆ¨ˆ¨ˆ¨ˆ¨ˆ¨ˆ (chaki), Friday, 16 June 2006 17:07 (nineteen years ago)

I'm looking forward to his upcoming review of "Superman Returns" from the perspective of Mr Mxyzptlk.

― 100% CHAMPS with a Yes! Attitude. (Austin, Still), Friday, 16 June 2006 17:07 (nineteen years ago)

oh, a review in the voice of jinks the cat or snagglepuss would be worth reading.

― DAVE, for #1 Hits of yesterday and today! (dave225.3), Friday, 16 June 2006 17:08 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.garfield-es.com/imagenes/historia/personajes/jim_davis_garfield_odie.jpg

― Bea Arthur - Lost COmic GEnius ? (dubplatestyle), Friday, 16 June 2006 17:09 (nineteen years ago)

but is it better than SPEED 2: CRUISE CONTROL?

― timmy tannin (pompous), Friday, 16 June 2006 17:10 (nineteen years ago)

x-post -- Get that away from me.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 16 June 2006 17:10 (nineteen years ago)

Oh, you know you own a T-shirt with that patch, Ned.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Friday, 16 June 2006 17:14 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, and I put it on an effigy of you and BURNED IT.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 16 June 2006 17:17 (nineteen years ago)

Ned and Dan Perry:

http://www.modseriesscene.com/gallery/albums/album24/02_G.jpg

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Friday, 16 June 2006 17:18 (nineteen years ago)

In my role as Prince, I do the voice of Tim Curry, an actor I have admired ever since Jon took me to a drive-in to see "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" while he smoked human catnip.

ROFL

(xpost: Haha HOTLINKING DENIED)

― Jesus Dan (Dan Perry), Friday, 16 June 2006 17:18 (nineteen years ago)

That all of these animals can talk goes without saying. No doubt some carpers in the chat rooms will observe that Jon's other pet, a dog, does not speak but only barks. I could give you the name of Jon's dog, but (yawn) frankly I can't be bothered. In this movie, Jon's dog may not be able to speak but can apparently read, which was as much of a surprise to me as to everyone else. Dogs, in my experience, have hyperactivity disorders that prevent them from concentrating on reading, because they are compelled to leap up in a frenzy and bark at every moving object. Some dogs do this to frighten, but most do it as a pathetic attempt to draw attention to themselves.

HAHAHAHAHA This is glorious.

― Jesus Dan (Dan Perry), Friday, 16 June 2006 17:19 (nineteen years ago)

richard roeper is kind of like jon arbuckle. i wonder what nermal has to say about all this.

hahaha i was just saying this!!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 16 June 2006 17:21 (nineteen years ago)

(not the part about nermal).

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 16 June 2006 17:21 (nineteen years ago)

I vote we all write to Ebert and tell him his reviews should always be in the voice of the main character. Especially on the tv show.

― Jessie the Monster (scarymonsterrr), Friday, 16 June 2006 17:22 (nineteen years ago)

But this would mean Ebert talking like Al Gore.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Friday, 16 June 2006 17:23 (nineteen years ago)

He'd do Gore better than Gore.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 16 June 2006 17:26 (nineteen years ago)

http://sleepangry.overspun.com/images/ebert.jpg

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Friday, 16 June 2006 17:26 (nineteen years ago)

I definitely would have gone to see X3 if Ebert had reviewed it as Juggernaut.

― Jessie the Monster (scarymonsterrr), Friday, 16 June 2006 17:29 (nineteen years ago)

http://sportsmed.starwave.com/i/magazine/new/roger_ebert.jpg

"I'm Roger Ebert, bitch!!"

― Bea Arthur - Lost COmic GEnius ? (dubplatestyle), Friday, 16 June 2006 17:31 (nineteen years ago)

YIFF ME I'M FURRY

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 16 June 2006 17:44 (nineteen years ago)

"[...] I gloried in the freedom of the cinema. It allowed me to show off my body language: My languorous stretches, my graceful pirouettes, my daring leaps and bounds, my shameless affection for my owner, Jon"

-Roger Ebert

― sleep (sleep), Friday, 16 June 2006 18:03 (nineteen years ago)

Nermal:

http://www.laughingplace.com/files/Maltin/maltin.JPG

― weather1ngda1eson (Brian), Friday, 16 June 2006 18:47 (nineteen years ago)

http://republika.pl/blog_cm_651744/1219547/tr/garfield_nermal_1_.gif
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v212/etienne_saint/ebert.jpg

― gear (gear), Friday, 16 June 2006 18:52 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.howardschatz.com/portfolio/images/portrait/036.jpg http://nancysplushtoys.com/garfield/conv06/odie5.gif

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Friday, 16 June 2006 18:58 (nineteen years ago)

amazing. ebert is gangsta.

― M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Friday, 16 June 2006 19:02 (nineteen years ago)

I'd forgotten how ugly that guy is.

― 100% CHAMPS with a Yes! Attitude. (Austin, Still), Friday, 16 June 2006 19:07 (nineteen years ago)

"Now as you can see in this panel, Garfield doesn't care for Nermal. But like him or not, Nermal is here to stay! Or is he? Let's read on."

― literalisp (literalisp), Friday, 16 June 2006 19:25 (nineteen years ago)

two years pass...

now I am not gonna leap to judgement, because I haven't seen any more than the trailer of Knowing

but

― leigh exodus (country matters), Saturday, 21 March 2009 01:03 (sixteen years ago)

every year there's at least one movie that he drops four stars on that is just strange...last year it was lakeview terrace, i think.

― The Prices are .......... VERY AFFORDABLE!!! (omar little), Saturday, 21 March 2009 01:13 (sixteen years ago)

xpost. See the trailer.

― Blackout Crew are the Beatles of donk (jim), Saturday, 21 March 2009 01:20 (sixteen years ago)

no I mean I HAVE seen the trailer but not the movie and uh

― leigh exodus (country matters), Saturday, 21 March 2009 01:21 (sixteen years ago)

every ~~year~~ week there's at least one movie that he drops four stars on that is just strange.

srsly he LOVES four-star reviews. There aren't that many great films released one year.

― The Screaming Lobster of Challops (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 21 March 2009 01:24 (sixteen years ago)

that review made me recall the time my college gf's goofy male friend made us watch dark city on laserdisc with his sony RGB projector--thanks a lot ebert.

― He grew in Pussyville. Population: him. (call all destroyer), Saturday, 21 March 2009 01:29 (sixteen years ago)

3 1/2 for Spawn is a favourite.

― Blackout Crew are the Beatles of donk (jim), Saturday, 21 March 2009 01:32 (sixteen years ago)

useless ratings but like reading the guy.

― Blackout Crew are the Beatles of donk (jim), Saturday, 21 March 2009 01:32 (sixteen years ago)

my two favs are his v. positive review of congo and his review of the usual suspects where he clearly didn't comprehend the movie.

― He grew in Pussyville. Population: him. (call all destroyer), Saturday, 21 March 2009 01:40 (sixteen years ago)

oddities mentioned above in the past are true, but i think he's just really thrilled to be seeing movies again after all the surgery. at least, that was the excuse i made for him.

― The Devil's Avocado (Gukbe), Saturday, 21 March 2009 02:22 (sixteen years ago)

i'll stan for ebert

― k3vin k., Saturday, 21 March 2009 02:28 (sixteen years ago)

dude would be a great poster here actually, i'd like to see him bump heads with morbs

― k3vin k., Saturday, 21 March 2009 02:29 (sixteen years ago)

ebert himself says ignore the stars bcz they're pointless

― IRL Consequences by Godley & Creme (sic), Saturday, 21 March 2009 04:24 (sixteen years ago)

Ebert is a huge fan of Dark City (enough so that he recorded a commentary track for the DVD). Alex Proyas directed both Dark City and Knowing, so there's your link. I'm guessing that he wasn't actively cognizant of the fact that Proyas also directed I, Robot or that probably would have received more than two stars, as well.

― Manuel Doritos (Deric W. Haircare), Saturday, 21 March 2009 06:34 (sixteen years ago)

dude would be a great poster here actually, i'd like to see him bump heads with morbs

― k3vin k., Saturday, March 21, 2009 2:29 AM (11 hours ago) Bookmark

word up!

― be on the treadmill - uh! - like OK GO (M@tt He1ges0n), Saturday, 21 March 2009 14:26 (sixteen years ago)

4 stars for knowing is so so so so so so so so so insane

― s1ocki, Saturday, 21 March 2009 16:42 (sixteen years ago)

IMO 3.5 stars for "I Love You, Man" is almost as nuts, except that it's actually gotten similar reviews elsewhere, whereas "Knowing" really is a batshit crazy outlier.

― Simon H., Saturday, 21 March 2009 16:44 (sixteen years ago)

Variety liked a lot of the things Ebert talks about in Knowing, so maybe it isn't completely batshit.

He seems to be foregoing basic movie criticism for triumphing ideas these days. 4 stars for the Watchmen because of the interesting things in the story, same in Knowing for the ideas (determinism, etc...). It reminds me of his Golden Compass review. The film itself is not very good (flat, all over the place, too much crammed in) but he loved it for the ideas that came out from the book. Maybe he's eschewing formalism altogether for something he deems interesting and smart in mainstream films?

― The Devil's Avocado (Gukbe), Saturday, 21 March 2009 16:51 (sixteen years ago)

trust me it is complete batshit - hysterical incompetent xian lunacy

― s1ocki, Saturday, 21 March 2009 16:53 (sixteen years ago)

the movie that is

― s1ocki, Saturday, 21 March 2009 16:53 (sixteen years ago)

what a great thread title

― Surmounter, Saturday, 21 March 2009 16:56 (sixteen years ago)

He seems, lately, to be more in love with ideas put forth in films than necessarily the films themselves. See also, his review and blog post about Watchmen.

― Oh Why, Sports Coat? (Dr. Superman), Saturday, 21 March 2009 17:07 (sixteen years ago)

Most of all, though, see his blog post on his rice cooker: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/11/the_pot_and_how_to_use_it.html

― Oh Why, Sports Coat? (Dr. Superman), Saturday, 21 March 2009 17:11 (sixteen years ago)

Maybe he knows something we don't.

― kenan, Sunday, 22 March 2009 12:41 (sixteen years ago)

If you see only one bad movie this year, definitely make it Knowing. The first major disappointment from director Alex Proyas is a disaster movie, a horror picture, a "Da Vinci Code"-style thriller and an end-of-days religious film all at once.
--Peter Hartlaub, San Francisco Chronicle

I am honestly sold.

― kenan, Sunday, 22 March 2009 12:42 (sixteen years ago)

It's pretty much impossible to take the rest of a film seriously once you've seen a flaming moose running toward the camera in slow motion.

But at that point, who cares? It's a flaming moose!

― kenan, Sunday, 22 March 2009 12:46 (sixteen years ago)

Flaming moose in slow motion? So there.

― Oh Why, Sports Coat? (Dr. Superman), Sunday, 22 March 2009 17:00 (sixteen years ago)

ebert was otm about the usual suspects btw

― The Prices are .......... VERY AFFORDABLE!!! (omar little), Sunday, 22 March 2009 17:10 (sixteen years ago)

Yeah, he didn't understand it because it doesn't really make sense.

― kenan, Sunday, 22 March 2009 17:13 (sixteen years ago)

I thoroughly enjoyed that installment of Recession Cooking with Ebert.

― kenan, Sunday, 22 March 2009 17:24 (sixteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.