Jason Statham is once again a hard-boiled man carved from solid macho.

Share this:

Here’s a science-fiction film that’s an insult to the words “science” and “fiction,” and the hyphen in between them.

Share this:

Billy Bob (Thornton) creates a Cop who looks like it’s been all downhill for him since Bad Santa.

Share this:

It features actors we like doing things we wish were more interesting.

Share this:

I think there are a lot more Americans who think (Obama) is socialist than there are Americans who know what a socialist is.

You can read the rest of his rant against BP here.

Share this:

There’s more cleavage in this film than at a pro wrestler’s wedding.

Share this:

For most people a review is merely explaining who made it, who’s in it, what it’s about, and whether it’s worth seeing. A machine could probably complete that entire process with the “worth seeing” part being based on data compiled from Rotten Tomatoes.

What I like about Ebert’s reviews are the little bits and tibits, the jabs and praises, what he says and how he says it. Here are a few examples below. I’ll post more as he writes them.

How to Train Your Dragon

Some movies seem born to inspire video games. All they lack is controllers and a scoring system.

The Last Song

Now that Miley Cyrus is 17, it’s about time she played a 16-year-old.

Diary of a Wimpy Kid

Here is a family movie you don’t need a family to enjoy. You must, however, have been a wimpy kid. Most kids are wimpy in their secret hearts. Those that never were grow up to be cage fighters.

Clash of the Titans

Most of the film involves terrifying battles between mortals and special effects.

Iron Man 2

Mickey Rourke gives us all the Ivan Vanko we could possibly wish for, unless he had a third arm to provide space for more tattoos.

Robin Hood

“Robin Hood” is a high-tech and well made violent action picture using the name of Robin Hood for no better reason than that it’s an established brand not protected by copyright.

Share this:

It has been argued that universal health care is an offense against individual liberty. I’ve been told by readers that they’ll deal with their own health care, thank you very much, and have no interest in government interference. At root this is a libertarian argument; conservatives are more likely to oppose it on the grounds that it undermines the free enterprise system. They warn of a Nanny State.

But what, I ask libertarians, about your families? Your children? What if the day comes that you lose your job-based health insurance and can’t afford your own? What if you’re denied coverage? That’s their business, they tell me. I should butt out.

But it won’t remain their business if a family member suffers a major illness. I know from personal experience that few people have the financial resources to deal with such an illness, and I suspect no one reading this is ready to deal with two. You and I will end up paying for them, even though they were unwilling to help pay for us.

I’ve written about this previously. It’s simply impossible for a family to financially survive a catastrophic illness or injury without the government giving a handout.

Share this: