Arrers said:
I should porbably give this one a look then. By the way bob, what did you make of Roger Ebert's review of the film?
Honestly, I was dissapointed to read it. NOT, I stress, because I "wanted" him to like it - generally speaking, "eff-the-world" satire isn't Ebert's thing (he didn't like Fight Club, either) - but because his review basically boiled down to "the violence involving children shocked me so much that the rest of it isn't worth commenting on," and... I dunno, I guess I expect him to be more thoughtful than that.
Ebert is THE most important American film critic still working. His breadth of knowledge is unmatched, his ecclectic experience as a onetime screenwriter and "man of the world" is legendary, and NO ONE - including me - would be able to make a career of doing film criticism as TV/web entertainment without Siskel & Ebert having existed.
But on this one... I don't think that "moral outrage" is a particularly worthwhile form of art critique. He didn't like the movie, fine, but I'd be more interested in knowing what it was in the execution of it that lowered his opinion of it instead of just "ick, kids and guns, no thanks." That's weaksauce. That's the sort of non-criticism you get out of "morality police" websites like CAPalert or the "parent's guide" folks. Hell, Ebert is a guy who made his early bones as the lone voice championing "Bonnie & Clyde" when all the other critics were dismissing it as "too violent;" so it's distressing to see him on the other side of that attitude on this.