Me N' Ebert

I have decided firmly that I have an enemy. That enemy is Roger Ebert. Let me explain.

So I'm on Netflix.com, I'm shirking doing my speech and I'm looking at this old movie I liked as a child, "The Borrowers" since the kids have been watching so much of "The Littles", you see the relevance. I click on "Reviews" and accidentally hit "Critic Reviews" and there is Roger again. "Good Lord! That man is everywhere!" but I click the link anyway, and read his review which is about as helpful as if I had said "There is this movie about people and they are small." Then I look at his review of the Muppet Movie. Then his review of Muppets Take Manhattan. Then Space Jam. Then Loony Tunes: Back in Action. And I have come to this conclusion; me and Roger Ebert are psychological opposites. If you put the two of us in a room together I think the universe would implode.
Ebert believes the Muppet Movie is good but nowhere near Who Framed Roger Rabbit. He compares it to getting to see the origins of Spider Man. He believes Kermit's character only really comes into his own in Muppet's Take Manhattan. (?!) Then things get worse. He calls Space Jam "...a happy marriage of good ideas..." I just about passed out "Dear GOD..." I thought "This man liked Space Jam and he is not in an asylum..." No, he is not. He is being payed out the wazoo to review movies while I am an unknown. And look, I know what you might be thinking- You didn't see Space Jam. Maybe you remember that it sold really well in the 90's. I read that. I'm willing to face the possibility that the population at large once thought it a decent film. All I'm asking is that if you think that, go and watch it. Right now. If it doesn't make you want to commit suicide in a violent way, tell me, and I will immediately seek help for my seriously delusional fantasy about what is obviously a remarkable movie.
Not only does he believe...that to be...you know...not...terrible, in his review of Looney Tunes: Back in Action he supports the uneducated view that Daffy Duck is the best looney Tunes character and Bugs Bunny would be nothing without him. I would love to argue this theory out with him in an informed adult way, but due to my lack of maturity I'm sure I would end up just whacking at him with a large blunt object until I forced him to take back what he said, because honestly and truly, Bugs Bunny rocks. Daffy is no where close. Seriously.
So now I'm forced to ask the question; what exactly makes a good reviewer? I mean really, if I wanted to be the next Roger Ebert (not that I do), what would I need to get good at? Is it based on recommendation? If I say "go watch this" and people do and the majority of them enjoy it, does that make me a good reviewer? Or vise-versa? Or is it maybe based on my ability to sell the film? If I write a review that makes you go "Oh my goodness! I have got to see this Space Jam film! It sounds awesome!!" is that it? Or...vise-versa? Or maybe the inevitable conclusion is that movie reviewing is really and honestly the easiest job in the universe because it doesn't actually matter a flyin' flip what you write about films? Gee. This could get real depressing and philosophical real fast.

But I ain't gonna go there. I know I'm nowhere near reviewing blockbusters from an office in New York or having my T.V. show and book, but look Ebert, I'm tellin' ya now- watch out. I am not discouraged. I am both younger, nicer, better looking, (but seriously, does he not look like a flesh-and-blood caricature of Carl Frederickson from UP?) And if you say one snide thing about Porky Pig, I'm comin' after ya man. No joke.








So that's what I've got for today. A slight cold, gloomy weather and too many episodes of "The Littles" have put me in a jealous, violent mood. Speaking of violence and the Littles, I want you to meet someone;

This is Dinky. Ruby had a dream about him and I have been continually taunting her with him all week. Although it has been one of the funniest things ever, it has made me realize a malicious, unstoppably evil side to myself I never knew was there. So I'm making the public announcement now that I'm going to stop before I end up searching the globe for someone who looks and sounds exactly like him (poor dope), acquiring a marriage license, fanangling Ruby into a wedding dress and forcing them both to an alter. A week ago I would have put it past myself.

And yes, before someone asks I do plan to review another movie. This time I think I'm going to try one of the popular (in the 1930's) comedies "The Dead End Kids" about a bunch of kids with goofy names like "Mugsy" and "Slick" who all talk like Bugs Bunny growing up on the streets of New York.


P.S. Well look, Ebert has been making fun of people for years, can't I just have a couple laughs before he kicks the bucket?'


P.P.S. If I rent "The Borrowers", it to will be reviewed. A million promises.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit- What Exactly Does PG Stand For?

For the first time in my career as a movie reviewer I actually rented a movie for the sole purpose of reviewing it. I was very proud of myself. The movie I rented to review was none other than "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" which got sparkling recommendations for it's creative style and amazing animation/live action mixture. Reviewers loved it- including Roger Ebert, the "big league" of movie critics. As he said "It is intended as universal entertainment, like "E.T." or "The Wizard of Oz" aimed at all audiences, but I have a sneaky hunch the adults will appreciate it even more than the kids." I must raise the question, who am I to disagree with Roger Ebert? Some punk with a blog? Yeah, actually...here I go disagreeing.
This movie is not universal entertainment (neither is dark and profanity-filled "E.T." for that matter) it was an adult-oriented comedy/mystery, without any mention of children whatsoever, and even the innocently funny and truly cartoon-ish title character Roger Rabbit is barely focused on. The movie starts out like a regular cartoon with Roger Rabbit playing the part of a beleaguered babysitter watching a mischievous kid. Just like any Looney Tunes, right?
Right. Right up until the directors cut the scene and the cartoon baby stalks off cussing at the crew, a scene Roger Ebert himself praises as "A whole new world for cartoons".
This theme is probably the biggest thing that bothered me. The whole idea that "Oh, cartoon characters are just as mean and sinful as the rest of the Hollywood stars, and the cartoons you watched as a child were just big production numbers. In fact, out of set, Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny and the rest are probably all evolved in affairs and scandals too." Wow. just what I wanted to come away with.
Another thing that kills me is that Who Framed Roger Rabbit is bubbling over with potential- Roger Rabbit, despite being a character created specifically for this movie, was hilarious and perfect for the part as a framed cartoon-bunny. Lovable and (can you believe it?) squeaky clean as far as humor went, so why is it that he got almost all the laughs? Because despite what the directors and writers seem to think, cartoon characters don't have to be adult to be funny. And speaking of potential, did I mention that Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Mickey Mouse and Donald are in this film?
Of course (and I expected this by the time we got there in the movie) they are completely overlooked, although hilarious. Daffy and Donald try to blow each other up as a double-booked piano act (Daffy- "Can anyone understand what this duck is saying?! This is the last time I work with anyone with a sthpeech impediment!") and Bugs and Mickey enjoy handing the falling detective a tire when he asks for a "Spare" parachute. Things like this- made more numerous and lengthy- could have made the movie a ball for adults who appreciate good laughs and kids who get to see the long-dreamed of meeting between their two favorite sets of toons. How often does a director get the chance to pair Mickey and Bugs in the same movie? And yet Steven Spielberg wastes his time and money trying to stuff kid's animation and a Tim Burton-style murder mystery into the same whacked-out dark film.
And here's another thing- the "amazing" animation techniques did not really seem that great to me. And no, I'm not playing the dumb blond- I know that this was 1988, and computer animation was the "dazzling graphics" of Tron. But there was a Looney Tunes episode made in 1940, which paired animation/live action techniques extremely well, grant it, nothing like the 3D looking brightly-colored characters of you-know-who-framed-what, but still, this stuff has been around for awhile.
Overall, if this one of those movies you remember fondly as a kid/adult/whatever, leave it as a nice memory. I can't tell you how many times my Mom has turned on something from the 80's that she remembered and then found out it has all sorts of adult content. The 80's were weird. But do not and I repeat not turn it on with the kids for a nice trip down memory lane...

P.S. Porky was only it for a brief second at the end. .......Ingrates.

P.P.S The second picture is from 1940's- "You Should Be in Pictures" I can't help but think the effects in you-know-what weren't that amazing.