From pinoydvd (I know it's bad poetry, but it's really a tribute to an annoying pinoydvd poster):
For what it's worth, his kind of soft shoeing
underneath the stars is kind of nauseating to look at.
can anyone understand that? Or is it
kind of a coded message I need to make clearer. To be
'xact, I mean Ebert's been doing this thing
all the time, and I for one don't think it adds to his credibility one bit.
god, what a moron.
until his kind gets bounced out of the media
press, we're still going to get that kind of wholesale whoring of mainstream and
hollywood movies no matter what.
it's kind of disgusting to think of, really, crass and
hindsight would tell us that
anything ebert praises
is probably too mainstream to be worth
reviewing, and anything he condemns is too provocative to be worth missing.
you have to go and see what he's got his panties in a bunch about.
so the best thing for us all
to do, probably,
is to not read him. ignore him.
can't be influential if he isn't listened to. he might as well go fly a
kite, jump a lake, something like that.
at least, that's how i
see it. so on with the
to arms, man, keep the good fight
in play, keep these darned 'critics
he needs a good trouncing,
i say, a good bouncing. well, his weight at least has gone down. that's progress of
some kind. if i
ever meet him, i'd probably tell the
nincompoop that he should
get a life; more, he should get a sensibility.
like he ever will, of course.
is it too much to ask him to at least improve his prose? it reads and
scans like newspaper wrapping.
hell on the eyes.
if you can stand him, good for you.
my tender senses can barely read five
pages before i start to nod off.
of course, he doesn't exactly inspire confidence as a
virtuous journalist. when a friend of mine, diane, spotted him in the street,
ebert had the choice of going into an arthouse cinema or a porn movie. ebert
shuffled into the porn movie theater.