Every once in awhile, you just need to be reminded that Roger Ebert is the best. He’s smart and funny and earnest and doesn’t give an FFFFFF. He wrote Beyond the Valley of the Dolls for his friend Russ Meyer. Russ Meyer! He’s bananas. They both are, but Roger Ebert is more bananas because Roger Ebert is mainstream bananas. And he’s been reminding us how great he is all over the place this week. First there is this great excerpt (via Alex Balk) from an altogether great essay from his blog yesterday:

Let me give another example of credulity. The following paragraph appeared this week in a New York Post review by Adam Buckman of the season premiere of “Heroes.”

This show, which was once so thrilling and fun, has become full of itself, its characters spouting crazy nonsense. Here’s one I wish someone would translate for me: “There’s a divinity that shapes our ends–rough hew them how we will,” spouts the enigmatic industrialist Linderman played by Malcolm McDowell, who should win an Emmy for keeping a straight face while reciting these lines.

Perhaps McDowell kept a straight face because he knew he was quoting one of the most famous speeches in Hamlet. I don’t expect everyone to have read Hamlet, but I would hope a New York critic might have run across it once or twice. Still, we all have our blind spots. After I once quoted Dr. Johnson, I had an editor who asked me who the doctor was, and whether he practiced at a Chicago hospital. So let’s assume Buckman knew Hamlet by heart, but had forgotten that one sentence.

Nuts! Gotcha! Gotcha, Adam Buckman! The blog post that’s taken from addressed a seemingly straight-forward piece on Creationism that Ebert published in the Chicago Sun Times earlier this week. Which created a firestorm on the nets. But was a joke. A straight-forward piece on Creationism in a major newspaper as a goof. THIS GUY IS THE BEST.

Meanwhile, BuzzFeed points us to another recent moment in Ebert greatness when he answered a reader’s question about Disaster Movie.

Q. Yo dude, u missed out on “Disaster Movie,” a hardcore laugh-ur-@zz-off movie! Y U not review this movie!? It was funny as #ell! Prolly the funniest movie of the summer! U never review these, wat up wit dat?
S.J. Stanczak, Chicago

A. Hey, bro, I wuz buzier than $#i+, @d they never shoed it b4 hand. I peeped in the IMDb and saw it zoomed to #1 as the low$ie$t flic of all time, wit @ lame-@zz UZer Rating of 1.3. U liked it? Wat up wit dat?

GOTCHA! Gotcha, that guy!

That’s it. Just keeping you up to date on how Roger Ebert continues to be the best and how he is such a good little champion.

Run with me, Roger Ebert. The end.

Comments (15)
  1. &a3e ur my li++le ch@mpion, bro.

  2. Roger Ebert is indeed the best. I used to read him religiously before he got sick. Glad to see he’s still the man. I’ve differed with the guy on my fair share of movies (obviously with his pick of Crash as 2005′s best film), but what impresses me most is how he sticks to his guns. He defended Crash to the death, and did the same for Juno last year (although Juno is much better than Crash). This was also the guy way back in the 60′s who said films like 2001 and Bonnie and Clyde were masterpieces when everyone else hated them. Oh, and of course the TV show…jsut THE BEST.
    I can’t believe you didn’t link to his Rob Schneider piece, although I have no doubt you’ve read it and it just slipped your mind. The MASTER OF ZINGS (sorry gabe).

  3. and LOL i didnt even see that Answer Man piece. LOL.

    that’s not like him at all!

  4. How can anyone blame Buckman for not memorizing Shakespeare’s work? I mean, that’s not even the most famous verse from Hamlet, let alone a common Shakespearean line, and Ebert is chastising him! It’s the 21st century, man! As ironic as the comment is with Ebert’s rebuke, can’t we give a guy a break for not being a Shakespearean scholar?

    On top of that, Shakespeare is hard to digest when you sit down to intentional read Shakespeare!

    So, really, what hope do “Heroes” viewers have?

    • haha, wait, you’re joking, right?
      the dude is a critic, and his profession is in literature. doesnt get much more embarassing than not being able to recognize shakespeare.

      • Tony  |   Posted on Sep 26th, 2008 +5

        It’s not so much that he was unfamiliar with Shakespeare, it’s that he called it nonsense. Basically, he called Shakespeare a hack.

  5. On the other hand, he gave The Cell and What Dreams May Come four stars.

  6. That’s because The Cell is awesome.

  7. Selena  |   Posted on Sep 25th, 2008 0

    The Cell is Awesome…are you talking about the movie with J-LO??


    Is there some other movie named, The Cell , that I haven’t seen; but need to, because it’s so awesome?

    The only thing that was “awesome” about The Cell was Vincent D’Onofrio…and he is only “awesome”- because he’s Vincent D’Onofio- not for his acting in the movie…


  8. The plot for The Cell was horribly forgettable but the movie was visually beautiful in a scary way..talking about set and costume design..I don’t think I want to even think about the horrible 90s computer aid it had.

  9. Jason  |   Posted on Sep 27th, 2008 0

    I read his website every Friday morning. His ‘answer man’ column is amazing, if any of you have not read it.

  10. I adore him and he says things no one else does. From his review of Bad Boys II

    “What happens next is kind of sickening. The Hummer speeds down a hillside entirely covered by the tarpaper shanties of poor people. Walls and roofs, doors and windows, dogs and chickens, corrugated iron and curtains, all fly into the air as the Hummer cuts a swath through this settlement. And I’m thinking, people live there. There’s a quick mention that drug production takes place on the hillside, but still: Dozens of poor shantytown dwellers must have been killed, not that the movie notices.”

  11. I’m retarded, I skimmed this entry and didn’t read the part where you actually address creationism.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post, reply to, or rate a comment.