Powerpuff Girls: Ebert strikes again

As in not off. If you want to post about mainstream flicks, this is the forum.

Moderator: Chris Slack

Post Reply
User avatar
Remo D
Posts: 1266
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2000 10:00 pm
Location: Marina, CA U.S.A.
Contact:

Powerpuff Girls: Ebert strikes again

Post by Remo D » Tue Jul 09, 2002 11:03 pm

I honestly wasn't planning to post about this movie at all. Those of you who know me probably already figured I was going to take my children to see it--they loved it, and I thought it was all right (but I still prefer the TV show). The "Dexter's Laboratory" cartoon at the beginning is only for those who can't get enough of the Ren-and-Stimpy-style closeups of oozing chicken pox sores, though...

If you're not into the Powerpuff Girls, it's not my mission to convert you. I love cartoons, and I love twisted humor, and the show has the right attitude for me, along with a surprising amount of belly laughs. No apologies, no defense.

But then Roger Ebert comes along again...

Can't quote his review--for some reason, it's not on his website. But he and "the other guy" reviewed it on TV. I'll let "Delirious Writer" from rec.arts.animation do the honors...

Quote:

He and Roeper reviewed it on their TV show.

The worst review I've ever seen. The only reason Ebert was able to get away
with that shlock without being fired is because he's been in the business for
so long.

He called the film "vile", the violence "dark and creepy", and then made a REAL
cheap blow by connecting PPG to September 11th. Asshole. He of course followed
up this review with "I hear there are adults that like this show. I hope I
never meet them."


I didn't know that working in the industry for 20 years allows you to be a
retard.. I want to get in on that..

- Matt

Unquote.

Opinions are one thing--but cracks like that take me all the way back to Jeffrey Lyons and his on-air review of VIDEODROME, in which he actually said "There has to be something wrong with anyone who likes this." Ebert has always made a point of telling his fellow critics that "we review the movies, not the audience." Obviously, there are exceptions to his rule.

PPG is good, clean fun in my book. Yes, cities get trashed (but doesn't the big guy also claim to like Godzilla? or Superman?) How can anyone take cartoon violence seriously when it involves, for instance, an ape doing a Jimmy Durante impression?

And 9/11, my ass. American audiences aren't afraid of films like THE SUM OF ALL FEARS (which Ebert thumbs-upped, by the way)--but this freaking CARTOON is somehow offensive? Subversive? Tasteless? Screw it. We can tackle anything we want to in the name of entertainment and still be able to deal with our real lives on a real life basis.

I take personal offense at the implication that I did a bad thing by allowing my children to see THE POWERPUFF GIRLS. I've never resorted to name-calling in such debates, but I must now deal with an overpowering urge to tell a certain Pulitzer Prize winner to shove it up his fat ass.
My dog's breath smells like peanut butter...

...and I don't even have a dog!


User avatar
Griff [Mola]
Posts: 626
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 1999 10:00 pm
Location: Perth, Australia.

Post by Griff [Mola] » Wed Jul 10, 2002 5:14 am

1. Never seen more than 1 minute of The Powderpuff Girls so 'scuse me if I refrain from commenting on the series but rather Ebert and recent animation happenings instead...

2. What is up with Ebert? I've noticed many of his reviews are biased based on some simple irk that didn't sit well with him. He didn't like SPIDERMAN because he felt the effects stank. Yeah, and what about the rest of the movie? He didn't like FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING because its portrayal of Hobbits didn't adhere to his recollection of the book. So, what about the rest of the movie?

3. Who gives a shit what this fat fuck thinks anyway? Well, I guess there's a few of us. He's not exactly a household name down here but I check his online reviews out because the guy can write. And sometimes he can surprise you. Which is entertaining.

4. Ren and Stimpy fans rejoice! You may have heard already, but John K and his Spumco team have been commissioned to produce 9 more episodes and a feature length TV movie. Not only that but his original eps will restored with everything Nickolodean took out. Now, if only they could convince us the Games Animations episodes never existed...

5. So, Joe Dante's set to resurrect the Looney Tunes characters on the big screen. I don't think they'll ever come close to replicating the genius of their heyday, nor sustaine a full length flick without the characters losing their charm but they couldn't have picked a better director. If anything, its gotta have more appeal than SPACE JAM. Ultimately, I think I'll let Remo's kids review this one. "Mother!"

User avatar
Remo D
Posts: 1266
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2000 10:00 pm
Location: Marina, CA U.S.A.
Contact:

Post by Remo D » Wed Jul 10, 2002 6:58 am

2. What is up with Ebert? I've noticed many of his reviews are biased based on some simple irk that didn't sit well with him. He didn't like SPIDERMAN because he felt the effects stank. Yeah, and what about the rest of the movie? He didn't like FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING because its portrayal of Hobbits didn't adhere to his recollection of the book. So, what about the rest of the movie?

I think he liked RINGS enough to recommend. He also spent his LILO & STITCH review bitching and moaning about how it wasn't going to do as well as SCOOBY-DOO (even though it did in the long run). He started his SCOOBY-DOO review by admitting that he was the wrong man for the job--but of course he finds a new way to blast it whenever he can (I'm not sticking up for the film--which even my daughter didn't like--just questioning his style of "review.")

3. Who gives a shit what this fat fuck thinks anyway? Well, I guess there's a few of us. He's not exactly a household name down here but I check his online reviews out because the guy can write. And sometimes he can surprise you. Which is entertaining.

Unfortunately, many people take his word as law. Like I said, I don't care if we disagree on a film--but self-righteous tirades like this often fuel other self-righteous zealots. Neither Ebert nor anyone else who doesn't know me has any business questioning my parenting (or the sort of person I am for liking the movies I do, for that matter).

5. So, Joe Dante's set to resurrect the Looney Tunes characters on the big screen. I don't think they'll ever come close to replicating the genius of their heyday, nor sustaine a full length flick without the characters losing their charm but they couldn't have picked a better director. If anything, its gotta have more appeal than SPACE JAM. Ultimately, I think I'll let Remo's kids review this one. "Mother!"

What he said. SPACE JAM was a misfire, but nobody has a better attitude towards cartoons than Joe Dante!
My dog's breath smells like peanut butter...

...and I don't even have a dog!

User avatar
ROBERT
Member
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 1999 10:00 pm
Location: Toronto,Ontario,Canada

EBERT should retire

Post by ROBERT » Wed Jul 10, 2002 3:25 pm

I saw his review of ppg. Along with that other guy, he does the show with. I guess the studio that produced it, didn't give Ebert enough of a kickback this time. I believe he also blasted the audience that would like I Spit On Your Grave once as well. Very intolerant coming from someone who wrote a sexually explicit Russ Meyer film, and married a black woman. Ebert has become increasingly Politically Correct and critical of the audiences he's supposed to review films for. A sure sign of his waning respect and outright contempt for the lovers of subversive genre cinema. It's about time for him to through in the towel, or better yet not review such film at all. We already know how he feels about them.
"I don't want to be called an "artist." "Acting like an "artist" is synonymous to acting like an asshole."

Asia Argento

User avatar
Darth Tanner
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 1999 10:00 pm
Location: Midlothian, VA U.S.A

Re: EBERT should retire

Post by Darth Tanner » Wed Jul 10, 2002 3:56 pm

Originally posted by ROBERT
Very intolerant coming from someone who wrote a sexually explicit Russ Meyer film, and married a black woman.



Whoa! Ebert married a black woman. I never knew that before. That really surprises me Robert. On a semi-related note, I can't honestly call BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS "sexually explicit" despite the bullshit NC-17 rating. Sure it may be racy but it doesn't approach the erotic/explicit levels of other Meyer films such as VIXEN or UP!. Just my two cents.

As for POWERPUFF GIRLS...haven't seen it and have no desire to either. There are a load of other movies I have yet to see that are probably more deserving of my time and money.
"I have existed from the morning of the world and I shall exist until the last star falls from the heavens. Although I have taken the form of Gaius Caligula, I am all men as I am no man and so... I am a God." - Malcolm McDowell, CALIGULA
------------------

[url=http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=ctanner5]My DVD collection[/url]


User avatar
ROBERT
Member
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 1999 10:00 pm
Location: Toronto,Ontario,Canada

Ebert

Post by ROBERT » Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:22 pm

Yeah, he seems to keep her away from the limelight. Wonder why? Apparently she was his lawyer or something. As for Dolls, it was considered pretty explicit when it was first released. Originally with an X rating ,(I think). But, yeah it's tame,now. Point is,Ebert should really check his atitude when reviewing genre cinema.
"I don't want to be called an "artist." "Acting like an "artist" is synonymous to acting like an asshole."

Asia Argento

User avatar
Darth Tanner
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 1999 10:00 pm
Location: Midlothian, VA U.S.A

Re: Ebert

Post by Darth Tanner » Thu Jul 11, 2002 2:53 pm

Originally posted by ROBERT
As for Dolls, it was considered pretty explicit when it was first released. Originally with an X rating ,(I think). But, yeah it's tame,now.


My point exactly. There is no reason BVD should have gotten an R instead of an NC-17. Films like SWEET SWEETBACK'S BADASSS SONG and MIDNIGHT COWBOY were originally X-rated, but they have since been re-rated R. So why can't the same be done to BVD? Could it be Meyer's reputation as a skin-flick director that embarrasses a Hollywood studio and the MPAA? Makes me wonder.

Point is,Ebert should really check his atitude when reviewing genre cinema.


You're telling me. This is the same guy who slammed THE BEYOND and HANNIBAL, yet gave GHOSTS OF MARS three stars. Go figure.
"I have existed from the morning of the world and I shall exist until the last star falls from the heavens. Although I have taken the form of Gaius Caligula, I am all men as I am no man and so... I am a God." - Malcolm McDowell, CALIGULA
------------------

[url=http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=ctanner5]My DVD collection[/url]

User avatar
shawn
Senior Member
Posts: 754
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2000 10:00 pm

Post by shawn » Thu Jul 11, 2002 7:15 pm

So whats the big deal with Ebert being married to a Black woman? You guys say that like he married a fucking a fucking billy goat or fucking Chimp or something. Pussy is pussy. And I got two words for you losers: Tyra Banks.
Check out my MOVIE: Black Devi Doll

[url]http://www.blackdevildoll.com[/url]

[url]http://www.myspace.com/blackdevildolldvd[/url]

User avatar
Griff [Mola]
Posts: 626
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 1999 10:00 pm
Location: Perth, Australia.

Post by Griff [Mola] » Fri Jul 12, 2002 12:40 am

Ain't nuthin' wrong with chimps, either...

User avatar
Remo D
Posts: 1266
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2000 10:00 pm
Location: Marina, CA U.S.A.
Contact:

Post by Remo D » Fri Jul 12, 2002 5:27 pm

Couldn't care less who Ebert married--but for what it's worth, I've only once noticed him allowing it to show in a review: I think the character of the white network executive in BAMBOOZLED (who was so proud of being married to a black woman) troubled him to a degree--in any case, this was one of the few Spike Lee films he thumbs-downed.

And it's not so simple as "Ebert hates horror movies," either. It's tempting, but we have to remember that he gave superlative reviews this very year to BLADE II and to FRAILTY (and I agreed with him both times). As I see it, though, the fact that he does, indeed, recommend some great genre films (and also blasts some undeniable stinkers) doesn't mean that he truly, thoroughly, utterly UNDERSTANDS the genre on a practical level. No one person (myself included, of course) can understand every kind of film there is, and I've had to accept his "blind spot" for a long time. I only react the way I just did when he sounds off on an audience about which he understands virtually nothing at all.
My dog's breath smells like peanut butter...

...and I don't even have a dog!

User avatar
ROBERT
Member
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 1999 10:00 pm
Location: Toronto,Ontario,Canada

Ebert

Post by ROBERT » Fri Jul 12, 2002 10:02 pm

I could give a shit if he married a treestump.the first paragraph of shane's post hit it. Ebert wants to appear tolerant, but he knows it's superficial veneer he's crafted. He not only doesn't understand the audience for genre cinema, he has contempt for it.
"I don't want to be called an "artist." "Acting like an "artist" is synonymous to acting like an asshole."

Asia Argento


Post Reply