Happy Panic Productions

Roger, Ebert, I read you

Every once in a while, after I see a movie, I like to read Roger Ebert's review just so I can remind myself how bad a writer he is. Which isn't to say he's not a good film critic; I have no real opinion of the matter, frankly. But he writes at a high-school level, and what's more, he consistently gets details of the movies wrong. By consistently, I mean that every single review of his that I have ever read (which is not a lot) has contained at least one factual inaccuracy. This really blows my mind because a) my memory is often not very good, b) my mind wanders a lot and c) unlike Ebert, I'm not taking notes. So how can I remember all these movies better than he can? Maybe, since he sees so many more than I do, he's remembering details from other movies.

So I thought it would be fun to start a new regular feature. I'll see a movie, I'll read Ebert's review, then I'll post all the details Ebert has gotten wrong (using no research but my own memory banks, so you can determine whether I judge Ebert too harshly), plus any particularly bad examples of high school-level writing. WARNING: passages of Ebert may contain SPOILERS, since the bulk of his critiques does nothing but describe the plot, in the course of which he gives away twists, sabotages suspense, and telegraphs punch-lines.

Here's my entry for Ocean's Twelve (2004):

Benedict is accompanied on his visit by evil-looking twins and has a off-putting practice of poking people with a putter.... It's a cane, or walking stick.

Damon's character is named Linus, a good choice, since he is forever imagining himself shooting down the Red Baron but rarely gets out of the doghouse. Um, that's Snoopy.

When one character is excoriated as agoraphobic (what a wonderful phrase that is, "excoriated as agoraphobic," don't you think it's almost musical?), .... No, I don't, but thanks for taking time out to admire your own turn of phrase.

...It appears that another thief, the Night Fox, is in business against them, and is either more skilled than they are, or a supernatural being. The possibility of supernatural beings is never addressed in any context. But surely, this is just Ebert's extremely clumsy attempt at hyperbole.

Rather than describe some of their other targets, such as a priceless jeweled egg, .... Poor Ebert doesn't know the meaning of the word "describe", or else he'd know that he's just done it (with two adjectives, or "descriptor words", even).

The genius is that one of the stars is really there, and the other star is not really there, although she is there in the person of the character who seems to be her. This will all become clear when you see the movie. Thank you for reassuring us. Then, having seen the movie, we will breathlessly re-read your column so that we can knowingly chuckle at your clever wording.