Oh screw Ebert — he needs to grow a sense of humor

Damn, first the guy completely disses video games, now he’s scoffing at Snakes on a Plane and then going even further to berate anyone who has an ironic-heavy sense of humor.

Why doesn’t he just yell at the kids on his lawn? Guy is getting old.

Tried clicking the WPLJ link, but it doesn’t work? Is it just me? Could be…

Try it again, sometimes if there’s too many people trying to get files at the same time, the server will just reject some of them. That’s probably what happened to you. I tried to download it just now and it worked fine. If it’s still not working, let me know.

Despite his “back in my day…” old-man qualities, Ebert has a point. Granted, we all need moments of levity and release, but let’s be honest: if we’re watching “Snakes on a Plane” twenty years from now, it’s time to hang ‘em up. And by “em” I mean “your life.”

Actually, “shat” would make sense as it’s the past tense for “shit”.

Yes, but “shat your life away” does not make sense grammatically.

I agree with Ebert’s assessment of our generation and the age of irony. We DO lack sincerity and true originality and creativity in what we pass off as art. But that doesn’t mean one has to entirely abandon irony either. Nor should it mean that we can’t enjoy a little levity.

what an arrogant jackass. snakes on a plane is as much about poking fun at the bloated cynical movie industry as it is about irony. what constitutes “art”? “return of the king”? please.

Wow - that CBC show was quite the discussion

please Ebert is insane..,..he actually gave a thumbs up to the horrid crapfest that was “Serenity”

I can’t believe the moron is b!tching and whining about Snakes on a Plane. It will most definitely be better than the REMAKE of The Fall Guy, Magnum P.I. and Knight Rider?! I mean, hhheeelllloooooo and not to mention Poseidon and numberous other REMAKES. Those movies I can understand about no originality, etc.

But Snakes on a Plane, now come on… Samuel F’ing L. Jackson, it’s totally tongue in cheek, and hopefully pure fun and action.

Looks like I’m in the minority here, but I agree with him completely. I have as much love for junk cinema as anybody, but I think American culture has come to reward awfulness too much of late. So many reality TV shows make celebrities of wretched, terrible people, and Uwe Boll somehow still manages to get funding (yes, I know about the German tax loophole thing). A little campiness is good now and then, but now it’s becoming a marketing tool — which means we can kiss quality cinema goodbye for the next few years if SOAP makes big bank.

The problem with Roger Ebert is that he believes he actually knows more about movies than any of us do. He’s been a condescending, curmudgeonly ass-clown for as long as I can remember.
True enough, there’s plenty of “junk cinema” about, but for those who don’t get the utter awesomeness of “Army of Darkness”, “Boondock Saints”, “Shaun of the Dead” and the like should really take a look at themselves and try to figure out why they’re so damned serious. Loosen your ties and relax.

And I definitely agree with the post above, in that Snakes on a Plane is supposed to be about having a ton of fun at the theater… not sitting there with your thumb thoughtfully placed under your chin, acting like you’re a better movie director or that the CGI was “hokie.”

I vote for Snakes on Ebert… Sam Jackson can strike down upon him with great vengeance and furious anger. ;)

I think he is sort of missing the point. I can’t agree more with his comment about the American public rewarding middling, uninspired filmmaking, but SOAP in my opinion is working to that same end. The point is that it is very obviously taking a run at itself, and much like the classic ‘Airplane’ or ‘Hot Shots’, it is a parody. Maybe it isn’t as obvious or blatant with its criticism, but suggesting that everybody who is getting a kick out of it is somehow some drooling simpleton is just ignorant of him. I spend most of my time watching serious high art films, Ki-duk Kim, Bergman, or Tsukamoto for example are no strangers to me, but SNAKES ON A MUTHA FUCKIN PLANE!? Now that is golden! It isn’t just arsing itself, it’s turning that onto the audience as well. I think SOAP is a hilarious and accurate satire.

And for the record, ‘The Boondock Saints’ deserves no respect from anybody. The fact that you mentioned that ugly, mindless vehicle in the same point as ‘Shaun of the Dead’ is just disgusting.

GhostMint,
Seriously, was it all you could muster to bash ‘Saints? It’s opinion as to what’s good or not & I do not care if you disliked ‘Saints. As opposed to thinking it’s rubbish, you didn’t see the humor in its near-comic-book quasi-parody on how heroes aren’t always heroes? There’s far too much to ‘Saints to discuss here, as this is about the insipidness of Ebert…
You couldn’t maybe have mentioned that Roger Ebert’s a babbling ass-hat? That, at least, is an undeniable statement. ;)

I simply used ‘Saints as an example… maybe lighten up a tad.

peace

have you seen overnight?

troy duffy doesn’t have an ounce of talent in him…

there’s nothing to boondock saints.

now big trouble in little china, there’s a fuckin’ action movie.

[...] Snakes on the Radio with Roger Ebert [...]

So, movies can’t have camp value…so he therefore truly believes xxx2 is a good movie, not a its-so-crappy-its-fun-to-make-fun-of movie?

Ebert’s a douche. Atleast it’s better than all those movies that he gave RAVE REVEIWS that take themselves waaaaaaaaaay too seriously. Lord of the Rings? Pfffttt. The thing he fails to realize is that moving pictures were created as ENTERTAINMENT. Movies don’t always have to be art. Atleast in my oppion, as long as a movie keeps me entertained in some way, it’s done its job. What’s art and what’s not depends on the veiwer. I suppose he thinks comics are stupid too? Alan Moore is anything but stupid. If anything, Ebert is the stupid one. All he does for a living is TALK about movies. How about he makes a movie and see what all the other critics say about it? Point is, he has no talent. He doesn’t try to make this so called “art” he only critiques it. Leave us snakesonaplainiacs alone, ass-hole.

I respect Ebert as a critic but he’s being a bit shortsighted on this film.

He’ll see that it’ll be a classic and he’ll end up jumping on the bandwagon. Next thing you know, he’ll say “Two motherfucking thumbs up for Snakes on a Plane”.

ebert totally sucks a whiney bitch who likes gay cowboy movies and stupid cat movies

As a matter of fact, SOAP is not an example of irony. Rather, it is the first example of a mainstream, Hollywood movie i can think of that embraces what the radio show, The Sound of Young America dubbed, The New Sincerity. Wherein something is appreciated as both ridiculous and awesome at the same time. One example of The New Sincerity that the show’s host, Jesse Thorn, often uses to illustrate the point is Evel Knievel. He’s ridiculous because he wears a red, white and blue leather jumpsuit and jumps over cars on his motorcycle, BUT he’s also awesome because he wears a red, white and blue jumpsuit and jumps over cars on his motorcycle. SOAP fits perfectly into this new cultural paradigm. And if you’re really bored, you can read more about this theory here: http://splangy.com/radio/features.htm