[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

I'll respond by saying that Ebert is known for usually being the "people's critic" but there seems to be one film per year that people LOVE that he LITERALLY campaigns against.

I'd agree, but he doesn't seem to be doing that here. Every word he says about the movie, in movie terms, seems to be positive, this is definitely not a hit piece. But what it is, I haven't figured out yet.

[Long Cut]

Ebert is old news as a critic. The 'net provides a wide range of opinion and, most importantly, context. A horror movie, for example, should be viewed by a fan of the genre, not a snobbish, self-important slob who, in the words of Ambrose Bierce, "Boasts himself hard to please because no one tries to please him". Obviously, he felt the need to be "contrary", just slightly, to the rave reviews flying fast from PCs the world over. Sorry, Roger, I'll listen to those who still have a passion for movies like this.

[JoeSchem]

Every word he says about the movie, in movie terms, seems to be positive, this is definitely not a hit piece. But what it is, I haven't figured out yet.

The books made no mention of Christianity and the movies are no different in that respect, but in the back of Ebert's secular liberal mind is the thought, "This stuff is based on something written by a Christian, I've got to shoot it down." But maybe the movie is so good, he knows he can't openly criticize and retain his credibility, so he tries to damn by faint praise, and it comes out this way.