Two thumbs up for this headline, Subby.

Wow, that sounds like a REALLY boring movie.

Jaw-dropping headline, subby.

As a rule, I avoid movies directed by Backstreet Boys, even those who claim to be "bringing sexy back", so an Affleck movie would be off my radar completely.

Still, sad choice for Ebert's final thumbs down.

Funbags: As a rule, I avoid movies directed by Backstreet Boys, even those who claim to be "bringing sexy back", so an Affleck movie would be off my radar completely.

Still, sad choice for Ebert's final thumbs down.

I...what??

I avoid movies directed by Backstreet Boys

?

even those who claim to be "bringing sexy back"

??

so an Affleck movie would be off my radar completely

???

Congratulations, your comment is as confusing as a Terrence Malick film.

I've seen 'The Thin Red Line' - part of 'The Tree of Life' - most of 'Days of Heaven'.

How he keeps getting funding is a question for the ages.

When there is nothing 'there' in a film reviewers always fall back on the 'less is more' canard.

Yeah his movies are pretty but NOTHING happens and to say that is good - especially because films are a
story teller's medium - is missing the point of film.

Look: I don't want every film to be 'The Transformers' or 'Armegeddon'(sp) but geeze a movie that is the equivalent of going through someone's box of snapshots? Hell why would I want to see that?
I've got boxes and boxes of my own.

I'm starting to think that film - as a means for showing us something new about life - is dead.

"This movie is so bad, it will kill you."

That headline is awesome Subs.

douchebag/hater: I've seen 'The Thin Red Line' - part of 'The Tree of Life' - most of 'Days of Heaven'.

How he keeps getting funding is a question for the ages.

When there is nothing 'there' in a film reviewers always fall back on the 'less is more' canard.

Yeah his movies are pretty but NOTHING happens and to say that is good - especially because films are a
story teller's medium - is missing the point of film.

Look: I don't want every film to be 'The Transformers' or 'Armegeddon'(sp) but geeze a movie that is the equivalent of going through someone's box of snapshots? Hell why would I want to see that?
I've got boxes and boxes of my own.

I'm starting to think that film - as a means for showing us something new about life - is dead.

[stoplikingwhatidontlike.jpg]

Well that's weird...

I heard Ebert was dying to see it when it came out.

I loved Ebert, but:

To read the rest of the story, please register for free or, if you already have an account, LOGIN to your account.

No.

Triumph:I watch Malick's movies partly because he does something a LOT of people hate - encourage the viewer to think

Intentionally obfuscating a trite message is not the same thing as being deep or thoughtful.  In fact, the hallmark of genuinely thoughtful literature is that it doesn't need to pull the stylistic bullshiat characteristic of Malick's movies because, y'know, the premise itself is actually interesting.  Needing to "make people think" to figure out what you're saying is a red flag that what you're saying isn't itself worthy of any thought.

Malick's movies are basically those word jumble games from the back of the comics section of the newspaper.  All he's got for us is some sort of completely trivial platitude like "man is not measured by deed alone" or "it's the journey, not the destination", or some other old-wives' nonsense your mother used to tell you when you were too young and stupid to get the real explanation for something, but he's put it inside a set of incredibly easy narrative "puzzles" to give the less self-aware audience member a false feeling of intellectual accomplishment.

Or, to say the same thing in a single word, "pretentious".  As in, in the literal sense of pretending to be intellectual without actually achieving the real thing, like Britney Spears quoting Isaac Asimov in a pop single or something.

Triumph:, but if you have the right mindset going in, his films stick with you.

So... I should be high?

Confabulat: Anyone who comments on the submitter's headline rather than the review or Ebert himself is a shallow dickhead.

By definition, you are a shallow dickhead. How does it feel? Oh right, you don't feel much, dickhead.

Too soon would have been quicker for you to type.

The best thing about this review is that it means that awful stephanie meyer crap movie  the host wasnt the last movie he saw/reviewed. Because it would be terrible for people to imply that seeing it was what killed him.

Indeed, it doesn't even matter what this movie was or whether it was any good or not. It is enough that the review exists, so that Roger Ebert's last published review is not The Host. I was so depressed thinking that some Stephanie Meyer godawful thing was going to be a bookend on his career.

Dreamlike doesn't necessarily mean meaningful. I felt the opening half hour of The Tree of Life was magnificent, but the forward and backward father/son thing didn't work. This essentially applies to every movie he's ever made.

I've always felt that Terence Malick never really had the guts to face reality, choosing to apply a dreamlike state on everything from war to eating a bowl of cornflakes. Visually stunning, but his pacing kneecaps much of the drama with which he'd like for us to become involved.

I can't help but feel that he'd have like to made Solaris, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and maybe even Lost in Translation, but wouldn't have the patience to actually follow a character for long enough to see them develop. That's why people love looking at his films, but never really treasure them, you see the moments of crisis, but you never stay long enough with someone to develop the interest in them when they come out of the far side of the catharsis. You cut away to someone else, and by the time you've got back, the character in difficulty has reached some state of serenity. Malick cheats his audience when it comes to storytelling.

He wrote it back in 94'.....

//It might be DOO-DOO......

Confabulat: "Well," I asked myself, "why not?" Why must a film explain everything? Why must every motivation be spelled out? Aren't many films fundamentally the same film, with only the specifics changed? Aren't many of them telling the same story? Seeking perfection, we see what our dreams and hopes might look like. We realize they come as a gift through no power of our own, and if we lose them, isn't that almost worse than never having had them in the first place?

Aye, his philosophising is what I'll miss. My favourite review of his is for "Synecdoche, N.Y.".

Nuclear Monk: "This movie is so bad, it will kill you."

I wish he reviewed The Hobbit. He was alive when it came out. Too bad we won't know what he thinks of Ep 7. :(

The movie stars Ben Affleck and Olga Kurylenko as a couple who fall deeply, tenderly, transcendently in love in France.

Well that sounds just terrible.

Confabulat: Anyone who comments on the submitter's headline rather than the review or Ebert himself is a shallow dickhead.

By definition, you are a shallow dickhead. How does it feel? Oh right, you don't feel much, dickhead.

I am a big Ebert fan and I think this headline is funny. It's not taking a swipe at Ebert; it puts a new twist on an old Fark meme. If subby went for a "he's fat / he has no jaw" then yeah you'd be right. But as it is now, you're wrong.

darkedgefan: I wish he reviewed The Hobbit. He was alive when it came out. Too bad we won't know what he thinks of Ep 7. :(

Too bad he won't be around for the last Hobbit movie. But then again, who will?

The Sun Times will begin running a regular movie review column by Zombie Ebert.