Davinci Code

**Scourge** · 18 May 2006, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by Revoltor

This should work: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...mail_headlines

Thanks, I'd gone to Ebert & Roeper forgetting that Ebert still has a suntimes page.

**Diff-chan** · 18 May 2006, 02:29 PM

Three stars from Ebert is hardly high praise, he has given a lot of dreck three stars the past couple years, like Cheaper By the Dozen 2, Around the World in 80 Days, Bridget Jones 2, Elizabethtown, Ice Princess, King Arthur, Day After Tomorrow, Beauty Shop, Garfield, Get Rich or Die Trying, The Interpreter, Ocean's Twelve, Stepford Wives, and Transporter 2.

I dont know what his deal is. With these bizarre reviews and the buffoonery he displayed in the "are games art" discussions on his website, I dare say he's lost his touch. I hope he regains it.

**Revoltor** · 18 May 2006, 02:40 PM

Nah, 3 stars usually equals "solid rental". Looking at your list I'd have to agree.

**Dolemite** · 18 May 2006, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Three stars from Ebert is hardly high praise, he has given a lot of dreck three stars the past couple years, like Cheaper By the Dozen 2, Around the World in 80 Days, Bridget Jones 2, Elizabethtown, Ice Princess, King Arthur, Day After Tomorrow, Beauty Shop, Garfield, Get Rich or Die Trying, The Interpreter, Ocean's Twelve, Stepford Wives, and Transporter 2.

Garfield? Transporter 2?!?

You've got to be kidding.

Originally Posted by Revoltor

Nah, 3 stars usually equals "solid rental". Looking at your list I'd have to agree.

One star = Poor.
Two stars = Fair.
Three stars = Good.
Four stars = Excellent.

I would hardly call Transporter 2 worthy of a "Good" rating. Or even "Fair."

**Diff-chan** · 18 May 2006, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by Revoltor

Nah, 3 stars usually equals "solid rental". Looking at your list I'd have to agree.

If you honestly think Cheaper by the Dozen 2, Ocean's Twelve, or Elizabethtown are "solid rentals" I have a mighty fine bridge to sell you.

**Revoltor** · 18 May 2006, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by diffusionx

With these bizarre reviews and the buffoonery he displayed in the "are games art" discussions on his website, I dare say he's lost his touch. I hope he regains it.

I used to hate Ebert but the guy is just too cool for school. The guy really loves film and he never comes off as a pretentious ass. I'll take his opinion over the Gene Shalits and Joel Siegels of the world.

The games debate I'm not so sure about. I think he realizes the error he's making but sticking to his guns for the sake of argument. There's almost a sneaky undertone to his responses on the subject.

Originally Posted by Dolemite

I would hardly call Transporter 2 worthy of a "Good" rating. Or even "Fair."

Transporter 2 was retarded fun. Emphasis on "retarded" of course but yeah, solid rental and I didn't fall asleep once.

Originally Posted by diffusionx

If you honestly think Cheaper by the Dozen 2, Ocean's Twelve, or Elizabethtown are "solid rentals" I have a mighty fine bridge to sell you.

Ok, I'll modify what I said earlier and state that a 3 star rating in Ebert's world means that the viewer will not fall asleep. This may be due to a film's absurdity or general popcorn nature.

Ebert stated a few years ago that he changed his criteria for reviewing films. Now he criticizes them solely on entertainment value and not art value. I think this was how he rationalized giving Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle 2 1/2 stars while he gave the original 1/2 a star.

**Scourge** · 18 May 2006, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Three stars from Ebert is hardly high praise, he has given a lot of dreck three stars the past couple years, like Cheaper By the Dozen 2, Around the World in 80 Days, Bridget Jones 2, Elizabethtown, Ice Princess, King Arthur, Day After Tomorrow, Beauty Shop, Garfield, Get Rich or Die Trying, The Interpreter, Ocean's Twelve, Stepford Wives, and Transporter 2.

I dont know what his deal is. With these bizarre reviews and the buffoonery he displayed in the "are games art" discussions on his website, I dare say he's lost his touch. I hope he regains it.

I meant "Three stars for The Da Vinci Code is high praise because he hated that book." Not that three stars is high praise, but that from Ebert, for that particular title it's unexpected. Am I making any sense here?