Except he's not very good with those either.
Roger made a career out of being the "brainy one" in contrast to Gene Siskel, the average guy who liked the popular stuff.
But when you look at Roger's reviews lately, he way overrates the popular stuff. It's like a movie only needs to have a big name in it to win his approval.
Why is there a need to interject politics in movie reviews? No need to answer, just a rhetorical question.
A lot of people become film critics because they wanted to be film stars -- or more correctly, film makers.
It's the same kind of "Look at me! Look at me!" attitude, but the critics are people you really don't want look at, and you don't really want to look at the kind of movies they'd make, either.
If they keep at it long enough and critics start to think that people are interested in everything you have to say, even your political opinions.
Plus, for critics and political junkies, what you don't like, what you disdain, determines who you are and how valuable your opinion is, so it's not hard to move from one category to the other.
Roger Ebert is a FRAUD.
He admitted when he got caught a year or two ago that he DID review an entire movie on the basis of a short (10 minute or less) clip and left the theater.
Phone it in.
Same as he’s doing here. Hasn’t seen Rush to even know how large his girth is or isn’t. Doesn’t listen to his radio show.
Just blogs into a liberal echochamber. What a pathetic old man.