Ebert's review...

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 12:57am

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051122/REVIEWS/51116001

"When she's accused of flirting by Joanne, Maureen sings the show-stopper "Take Me for What I Am." I wanted Joanne to reply in her own song: "OK, You're a Promiscuous Slut, So Take Me for What I Am, Your New Former Partner." "

Don't worry though. This is the man who hated Brazil, Fight Club, Raising Arizona, much of the Tim Burton canon, and I Heart Huckabees.
Updated On: 11/23/05 at 12:57 AM

[Mother's Younger Brother]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 1:01am

Yeah...there's also an entire paragraph about the love triangle between Roger, Maureen, and Joanne.

Wonderful journalism as always, Mr. Ebert.

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 1:05am

I really don't think RENT is going to appeal to most critics simply because how sincere and emotional it is.

[ElphieDefiesGravity]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 1:05am

Interesting review...
He seemed to dislike the source material. Also, several glaring mistakes.

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 1:08am

But I really would not listen to him. This *is* the man who completely missed the point of Fight Club.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 1:11am

Well, FIGHT CLUB is a terrible, terrible movie.

I thought Ebert gave it a thumbs up...

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 1:13am

Awww what's wrong with poor lil' Fight Club?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 1:14am

What's weird to me is that I thought they gave it two thumbs up.

Anyway... love triangle? Roger, Joanne and Maureen? HUH?

[Fantabulous428]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 1:17am

well he put a little note on the bottom explaining why he gave it a "marginal" thumbs up on the show

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 1:17am

Bahahaha he gave Raising Arizona *1/2 because of the DIALOGUE, which was the BEST PART ABOUT IT!

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 1:19am

He's been a shoddy critic for years, and has an unjustifiable amount of influence in Hollywood. His only redemptive trait is that he's always been an advocate for animated movies; otherwise, he doesn't know what he's talking about. If it wasn't for his television show and his stupid "Thumbs Up/Down" gimmic (a real detriment to the craft of movie reviewing), he'd be a nobody.

Updated On: 11/23/05 at 01:19 AM

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 1:24am

Oh yes...I forgot one last thing.


The man called A Clockwork Orange "talky and boring"

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 1:28am

He also had some very silly things to say about the LORD OF THE RINGS films, including criticizing THE RETURN OF THE KING for being "too well-crafted," or something to that effect. If I remember correctly, his main gripe with the movie was that an old "man" like Gandalf shouldn't be so agile; he completely missed the point that it's a fantasy movie, and that the reborn wizard was supposed to be notably more youthful than his previous Grey self.

Ebert rarely has anything relevant to say about a movie, whether for or against it. Again: minor movie critic with a pretentious TV show.

Updated On: 11/23/05 at 01:28 AM

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 1:35am

Bahahaha this is the funniest negative review of RENT I've read until Mr. Cranky gets his hands on it:

http://www.lacitybeat.com/article.php?id=2909&IssueNum=129

"But Jonathan Larson is not Puccini. In fact, he isn’t even Neil Diamond. (Is that Diamond’s “Cherry Cherry” or the Capitols’ “Cool Jerk” that he retreads in “La Vie Boheme”?) His approach is a textbook case of throwing out the baby and keeping the bathwater. Then serving it to the guests. Then calling it champagne."

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 1:52am

This isn't surprising--Hollywood can be pretty freaking stupid when it comes to adaptations of theatre.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 2:03am

Did you all consider that the movie just may not be all that good? I mean it IS possible.

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 2:05am

Yes but all of these people sound like they've hated the original material from the beginning.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 2:08am

So just because they didn't like the source material means they don't know what they are talking about?

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 2:15am

Yes, the movie could be bad--I was referring to the errors and any ignorant comments made--where they clearly don't understand the genre or where it is coming from.

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 2:33am

No I'm just saying that all of us obviously love the original material and they all seem to find fault with it. It seems very faithful. It's probably like Christianity. If you like the source material, you'll probably like this thing.

[thetheatrekook]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 3:27am

to say you didn't like the movie is fine. to say you didn't like the source material is fine. but to say, and i QUOTE... "There is a romantic triangle involving Roger, whose girlfriend Maureen (Idina Menzel) dumps him for a girlfriend of her own, Joanne (Thoms)." well, you're gonna get called out on that. did he even SEE the movie?

[midnghtdolphin]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 4:16am

i love the whole roger, joanne, and maureen love triangle. umm... someone wanna tell him to check his facts?

[zzannahk]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 6:29am

Mark, who doesn't even know the handle of his hand-cranked 8-mm camera should not be revolving as he films, and whose footage looks like jerky home movies

i dont know anything about cameras but this seems like a stupid mistake


There is a romantic triangle involving Roger, whose girlfriend Maureen (Idina Menzel) dumps him for a girlfriend of her own, Joanne (Thoms). I believed the character of Joanne, but neither Maureen nor Roger

you mean Mark, right evil movie critic?

Updated On: 11/23/05 at 06:29 AM

[zzannahk]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 6:32am

i do like his end note, Note: I gave the movie a "marginal thumbs up" on "Ebert & Roeper" because I felt people might want to see it based on what was good in it, but I am fine-tuning that to a **1/2 rating because, on the whole, I don't think the movie really works on its own, without reference to the theatrical version.

[RobbO]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 8:09am

sandwich for those of us who don't like to have any advance knowledge of reviews, etc. could you please change your subject heading.