Ebert's not an ignoramus!!! HE'S A FRICKIN' MORON!!!!(NM)

Posted by GCR from spider-tm062.proxy.aol.com on January 19, 2000 at 22:28:42:

In Reply to: Roger Ebert is an ignoramus posted by Mikal C Johnson (KtCym SOCAE) on January 17, 2000 at 10:04:54:

: My response to this below...

: >I was reading Roger Ebert's review of The Matrix and noticed >something
: >that concerns us Indyfan's a little. It's about Keanu Reeve's
: >performance in The Matrix. It's kinda interesting. Read for
: >yourself:
: >
: >Keanu Reeves goes for the impassive Harrison Ford approach,
: >"acting" as little as possible.
: >
: >Now obviously, Ebert is referring to Harrison Ford's performance in
: >his more serious movies I suspect (i.e. his films that are not Star
: >Wars or Indiana Jones). What's your take on this fellow Indyfans?

: I agree with the assessment that what Mr Ebert was trying to say is that he was going for a "toned down" character, but I just have to throw this in...

: Whatever he may be in his private life, Ebert as a movie reviewer doesn't always know what he's talking about. Almost every time I've read one of his reviews, I've noticed some glaring error in his judgement.

: For instance, he knocked Braveheart because "the concept of personal freedom did not exist in the middle ages" or some garbage to that effect. What he fails to realize is that is was the Scottish struggles for freedoms that brought about later revolutions (ever wonder why the Scots and French get along so well?).

: He has a tendency to pick some little piddly thing which he doesn't understand and can't get past because of his prejudices and failure to do a little studying, and make it the reason he doesn't care for a movie.

: He's the kind of guy who'd knock Indiana Jones because he endangers real archaeology.

: Sorry... I just really dislike the guy. He's an idiot.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: : My response to this below...

: : >I was reading Roger Ebert's review of The Matrix and noticed >something 
: : >that concerns us Indyfan's a little. It's about Keanu Reeve's 
: : >performance in The Matrix. It's kinda interesting. Read for 
: : >yourself:
: : >
: : >Keanu Reeves goes for the impassive Harrison Ford approach, 
: : >"acting" as little as possible. 
: : >
: : >Now obviously, Ebert is referring to Harrison Ford's performance in 
: : >his more serious movies I suspect (i.e. his films that are not Star 
: : >Wars or Indiana Jones). What's your take on this fellow Indyfans?

: : I agree with the assessment that what Mr Ebert was trying to say is that he was going for a "toned down" character, but I just have to throw this in...

: : Whatever he may be in his private life, Ebert as a movie reviewer doesn't always know what he's talking about. Almost every time I've read one of his reviews, I've noticed some glaring error in his judgement.

: : For instance, he knocked <i>Braveheart</i> because "the concept of personal freedom did not exist in the middle ages" or some garbage to that effect. What he fails to realize is that is was the Scottish struggles for freedoms that brought about later revolutions (ever wonder why the Scots and French get along so well?).

: : He has a tendency to pick some little piddly thing which he doesn't understand and can't get past because of his prejudices and failure to do a little studying, and make it the reason he doesn't care for a movie.

: : He's the kind of guy who'd knock <i>Indiana Jones</i> because he endangers real archaeology.

: : Sorry... I just really dislike the guy. He's an idiot.

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]