In Reply to: Most critics... posted by mkuller on July 25, 2014 at 09:35:50:
a depressing, semi-exploitive film about death, dying, suffering.
A far better title would have been "Death Itself."
This was a celebration of slow-mo death, not life.
Unless, of course, one thinks eating out of a tube and lying in a bed, immobilized, for seven years is "living."
In other words, it's a film that's supposed to be ennobling because it shows a human being wasting away yet soldiering on.
Nothing very unusual in that; most people wait till the bitter end, suffering just like Roger.
Watching a famous person undergo such misery TO ME isn't any more interesting than watching anyone else's death throes.
Mind, I have always been a huge fan of Ebert's reviews, his "Everyman" approach; I also thought that this film would have been better served by having it center on both Ebert and Siskel and that relationship. To me, that was the story that was unusual and needed more illumination.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- I think it's safe to say few critics will pan a film about the guy who pretty much made their careers. It's - tinear 13:11:17 07/25/14 (2)
- I don't agree... - mkuller 13:35:23 07/25/14 (1)
- Ebert was the best at selling his review, his words were so convincing, but I often disagreed with him - PhilJ 14:19:41 07/25/14 (0)