Got around to watching the remake last night. The one Ebert said was better than the original. I began to wonder about his motives. (I can see Rock's motives---$$$) The remake does not improve on the original so what's the point? Surely Ebert can see this. I wonder if he wanted to appear loyal to American cinema, was afraid to be politically incorrect by not preferring the mainly African American effort, or just what. Oh, I know, we will have Ebert detractors here ("Well what did you expect?")and there is that. Perhaps it is just different tastes in what is funny. He thought Hangover hilarious and I thought it amusing.
Maybe it is me, I have thought few things funny since Richard Pryor.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Topic - "Death at a Funeral" and Roger Ebert - Albert B. Broman 07:59:30 07/20/10 (6)
- Can't agree with him this time... - Harmonia 15:59:11 08/02/10 (0)
- I usually agree with Ebert... - mkuller 10:22:47 07/20/10 (2)
- RCB! * - mr grits 17:42:01 07/20/10 (0)
- RE: I usually agree with Ebert... - Albert B. Broman 14:53:24 07/20/10 (0)
- If the movies has homosexuality in it - Brian A 09:38:04 07/20/10 (0)
- if a movie follows a certain formula Ebert gives it high marks - PhilJ 08:39:57 07/20/10 (0)