Classic Ebert...

Maybe not as epic as his review of Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo but Ebert is at it again with his review of the latest Nicholas Sparks movie. While he does not hate the movie I suspect he is not too fond of Mr.(Ms.?) Sparks.

"The Last Song" is based on the novel by Nicholas Sparks, who also wrote the screenplay. Sparks recently went on record as saying he is a greater novelist than Cormac McCarthy. This is true in the same sense that I am a better novelist than William Shakespeare. Sparks also said his novels are like Greek Tragedies. This may actually be true. I can't check it out because, tragically, no really bad Greek tragedies have survived. His story here amounts to soft porn for teenage girls, which the acting and the abilities of director Julie Anne Robinson have promoted over its pay scale.

To be sure, I resent the sacrilege Nicholas Sparks commits by mentioning himself in the same sentence as Cormac McCarthy. I would not even allow him to say "Hello, bookstore? This is Nicholas Sparks. Could you send over the new Cormac McCarthy novel?" He should show respect by ordering anonymously. But it seems unfair to penalize Miley Cyrus fans, Miley herself, and the next Peter O'Toole for the transgressions of a lesser artist.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100330/REVIEWS/100339997

God I loves me some Ebert.

 

That's fantastic. When Ebert attacks you, he makes sure you know you've been attacked.

I read a story about Sparks, and he really does seem like a horse's ass with an extremely inflated sense of self-importance.

 

If Sparks replies, he'd better not even mention whether or not someone ever won a Pulitzer Prize.

 

Let's see:
Ebert ... check.
McCarthy ... check.
Sparks ... not so much.

 

A friend of mine used to work at a Books-A-Million store in New Bern, NC, where Nicholas Sparks lives. Of course, corporate took full advantage of Sparks being local for promotionals ... or, more likely, they capitalized on one another. My friend felt that Sparks was an egomaniac, completely full of himself and quite a legend in his own mind.

Roger Ebert, as usual, is correct.

 

A nice little takedown of Sex and the City II

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100525/REVIEWS/100529986

 

That nicely sums up my view of the show Sex and the City. Tried to watch it a couple times, but couldn't find anything redeeming or clever about it.

 

Ebert hits it out of the park as usual.

 

His moralizing about 'Kick Ass' was ridiculous, but the guy is as good as his rep.

 

Just one nit to pick, but Shakespeare was not a novelist. He was a playwright and his works were meant to be performed more than digested by a solitary reader. But the larger point stands.

 

Like "Ally McBeal," S&TC appeals to women who think the world revolves around their social life. The rest of us don't get it, and aren't really intended to ...

 

I always assumed that was the point, or something. I guess now that I think about it, it doesn't make sense as a point.