Film critics Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune and A.O. Scott of the New York Times give their opinions on the latest new releases. The films are reviewed with the classifications 'See It', 'Skip It', or 'Rent It'. They also make suggestions as to excellent films they recommend for renting on video. Written by
Later, we're given reason to believe *Glover's* character could be the killer, or maybe it's... somebody else. Whoever it is, I guess he has the strength of Mr. Incredible, because he kidnaps all these victims, and he can carry them to the appointed torture chamber, and then he *watches* them self destruct, because, of course, he has more webcams than the girls at voyeurdorm.com.
See more »
The best thing about Siskel and Ebert was that I knew both of them so well that it didn't even matter if they liked the movie or not, I could tell that I still should see it based on why they liked or disliked it. Likewise, Gene was always more discriminating than Roger, so if they both liked it, then the movie probably was very good.
Now with Roeper, we've lost that. He's still a good movie reviewer, but the system of checks and balanced that worked with Siskel and Ebert don't work with Ebert and Roeper. I can no longer tell how good a movie really is since Roeper's taste in movies can be erratic some times. He's liked some really weird movies and hated some that I thought were OK. For a young guy, he's really more jaded than he should be. Likewise, he has a bad tendency to expect too much from certain types of movies, but at the same time, be too forgiving of some real flaws. Everyone does that to a point, but he's very unpredictable and inconsistent.
That's not to say that Ebert is perfect. I think he lets his mood color his opinion too often. Some weeks he'll hate everything and others he'll just love even the worst movie. I'll be watching and be like "He gave thumbs down to the Godfather! He must have slept badly last night."
7 of 10 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?