depechemodeone wrote:
I'd be the first to champion Ebert (he did work with Russ Meyer!), BUT even people we respect get it wrong from time to time...
And let's not forget probably my favorite "Ebert got it wrong" review... he loved Junior (yes, the Arnold Schwartzenegger pregnant movie
)
willcail wrote:
The late Roger Ebert is very respectable. I'll trust his reviews. ...Plus anytime that Transformers pop up on the EPG it have three stars.
Really - Ebert and the EPG's? Those are your definitions of quality? I guess I mistook you for an original thinker - one who had a brain of his own, and could evaluate the merits, or lack thereof, of a film without falling back on, "he said so."
But, ok - I guess you're happy sitting in that box, defined by someone ELSE's opinions.
Oh wait... but, Ebert did NOT like The Untouchables, but, you said - just a few posts up in the original thread - that it IS one of the few good DePalma films. So, I guess you DON'T always agree with Ebert, huh? I guess with so much going on in that brain of yours, it must be difficult to separate one sweeping generalization from the next, eh?
willcail wrote:
It is an contradiction in terms that saying that Transformers is a highly successful and a failure at the same time.
Also, I guess it must be as difficult for you to understand other people, as it is for you to express yourself, so perhaps I can shed a little light on Worldsfinest's comment for you. He meant to point out that box office success is not necessarily an indicator of quality. But I guess you only saw the words "success" and "failure" in the same sentence, and some kind of 3rd grade grammar fire alarm went off in your brain, so the rest of his words just looked like "blah blah blah?"
Or did you really mean to state that you DO equate quality with box office success?
Also - PS. for the moderators - sorry to have let the original thread derail so far! Thanks for splitting this off into a new topic!