A bad review for Ebert and Roeper
Roger Ebert and the late Gene Siskel could be depended on for poltical correctness more than for reliable guidance about the movies they reviewed. The arrival a while back of Siskel's replacement, Richard Roeper, hasn't changed that.
Sometimes these guys will steer you right. But all too often, what they serve up are idiosyncratic, parochial and narrow reviews which reveal a distorting political and social agenda, belie the affected sophistication of the hosts, and sometimes display a level of general knowledge as limited as their world-views. I had to chuckle, for example, when Ebert criticized the movie Luther, partially on the basis that lines which were actual, historical quotations from the characters being portrayed were implausible and badly written!
But they've outdone themselves this time. Believe it or not, they've just given Michael Moore's dishonest screed, Fahrenheit 9/11, two thumbs up.
Unless they're a fellow left-wing moonbat, it's hard to see how anybody can regard Ebert and Roeper as having any credibility ever again. No intellectually honest review could have approved of such a dishonest and slanderous film without a disavowal of all but the most basely partisan of motives.
Give me Michael Medved any time. He's equally open with his biases, and he displays a great deal more integrity in his reviews.
Sometimes these guys will steer you right. But all too often, what they serve up are idiosyncratic, parochial and narrow reviews which reveal a distorting political and social agenda, belie the affected sophistication of the hosts, and sometimes display a level of general knowledge as limited as their world-views. I had to chuckle, for example, when Ebert criticized the movie Luther, partially on the basis that lines which were actual, historical quotations from the characters being portrayed were implausible and badly written!
But they've outdone themselves this time. Believe it or not, they've just given Michael Moore's dishonest screed, Fahrenheit 9/11, two thumbs up.
Unless they're a fellow left-wing moonbat, it's hard to see how anybody can regard Ebert and Roeper as having any credibility ever again. No intellectually honest review could have approved of such a dishonest and slanderous film without a disavowal of all but the most basely partisan of motives.
Give me Michael Medved any time. He's equally open with his biases, and he displays a great deal more integrity in his reviews.
Comments