Posted: 24 Nov 2009
The most blatant ones (that I've read, and I don't read a lot of reviews because it's all just opinion anyway and I like mine most, thank you) were his Underworld reviews. In his online review of Underworld, he said he thought Michael might still be human after being bitten by a werewolf, despite every single legend saying you turn if bitten and the movie itself explaining this multiple times and even showing a scene of Michael turning into a werewolf.
In the videotaped review of Underworld, Ebert claimed it was never explained why the wolves and vamps were fighting; nevermind the fact that there was an entire flashback scene devoted to it, as well as no less than a dozen other scenes where characters talk about it and explain it. In fact, the meaning of the war is the single biggest plot point in the entire film.
He also gave a review for Baghead that has been complained about by fans on many websites. This is just one of them: http://www.gunaxin.com/does-roger-ebert ... more/35971
There's also his review of The Mist, where he claims Marcia Gay Hardin's character might be up for human sacrifice. Apparently, he missed the big scene of her stabbing the army guy and throwing him outside. And the scene where she tries to subdue the main characters, with the heavy implication that she intends to kill them in the name of God.
I never said I was talking about Silent Hill. I said that Ebert doesn't seem to watch some movies, and I therefore don't feel like he's credible if he feels it's okay to give reviews on films he never actually watched.
In the videotaped review of Underworld, Ebert claimed it was never explained why the wolves and vamps were fighting; nevermind the fact that there was an entire flashback scene devoted to it, as well as no less than a dozen other scenes where characters talk about it and explain it. In fact, the meaning of the war is the single biggest plot point in the entire film.
He also gave a review for Baghead that has been complained about by fans on many websites. This is just one of them: http://www.gunaxin.com/does-roger-ebert ... more/35971
There's also his review of The Mist, where he claims Marcia Gay Hardin's character might be up for human sacrifice. Apparently, he missed the big scene of her stabbing the army guy and throwing him outside. And the scene where she tries to subdue the main characters, with the heavy implication that she intends to kill them in the name of God.
Where did I say that? I'd like to see the quote, if you don't mind. In fact, I'd like to see any quote from me that involves Ebert's review of Silent Hill.other than "he didn't like Silent Hill, therefore he is ridiculous and obviously didn't watch the film"?
I never said I was talking about Silent Hill. I said that Ebert doesn't seem to watch some movies, and I therefore don't feel like he's credible if he feels it's okay to give reviews on films he never actually watched.