| 
                     Esteemed  American film critic Roger Ebert has had quite a rocky few past months.  
                    First  came the news the he, along with his At the Movies co-host Richard Roeper, were  leaving the popular show after Disney decided to take it into a new, more  commercial friendly direction.  
                    This  was followed by Ebert receiving criticism from Brad Brevet at Rope of Silicon, that  he gives away too many stars in his film reviews, after movies such as The  Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, and The Women, received 3 star verdicts.  
                    Ebert  responded, by stating:  “I like movies too  much. I walk into the theatre not in an adversarial attitude, but with hope and  optimism (except for some movies, of course). I know that to get a movie made  is a small miracle, that the reputations, careers and finances of the  participants are on the line, and that hardly anybody sets out to make a bad  movie.” 
                    An incident at the Toronto Film Festival followed,  where Ebert – who is unable to speak due to effects from thyroid cancer  treatment – casually tapped the shoulder of New York film critic Lou Lumenick,  who was blocking the screen, leaving Ebert unable to read the subtitles.  Lemenick responded by whacking Ebert with a folded up program.  
                    Being the good sport that he is, Ebert down played  the incident, stating: “I have had my problems, but I promise you I am plenty hearty enough to  withstand a smack, and quite happy, after the smack, to tap him again. I had to  see those subtitles. There was no pain. The incident is over. Peace.” 
                    Lumenick  has yet to respond, or apologise, about the incident.  
                    Then  came what Ebert described as a surprised reaction to his breakdown on  Creationism, with Evolutionists up in arms over whether Ebert has turned  Creationist, and why he has used his website and online journal to promote the  controversial, yet popular religious belief, that the world is in fact 10,00  years old, and that humans walked with the dinosaurs.  
                    Ebert  countered the controversy with an article on his online journal, which said: "Let me suggest that while satire was  certainly my purpose, creationists were not my intended audience. By stating  their beliefs accurately, my hope was that on a site such as mine they would  reach a wider readership that might have heard about creationism but didn't  realize what it actually believes. Only 4 percent of Americans are  creationists. Do you have any idea how many Americans don't know what it  teaches? I don't. I know the original article was linked far and wide, which is  encouraging." 
                    I must contend that while Ebert found it depressing  to find that many an Evolutionist took angry offence to his article, that I was  not the least bit surprised. After all, many of their leaders have displayed  ignorant, disrespectful and often immature behaviour towards different belief  structures, whether it is Richard Dawkins pseudo ravings about religious up  brining equal to that of child abuse; or, P.Z. Myers’ desecration of a Catholic  Eucharist host, which he described simply as a “cracker”.                     
                    And, no, I am not a Creationist. And even if I were,  would that make me less human? 
                    Finally  came a rather surprising and disappointing move by Ebert, who published a negative  review of independent film Tru Loved, after only having watched  the first 8 minutes of the film. This led to a wave of criticism from both fans  and fellow film critics.  
                    Gary  Susman from Entertainment Weekly wrote: "No other movie critic in America could  have pulled off such a stunt without getting fired. I fear that, even though he  corrected his mistake, he's still set a bad example. At a time when film  critics all over America  are losing their jobs, it can't be good for readers, editors, or filmmakers to  think that when he did passes for professional, acceptable behaviour among film  critics and the outlets that publish their work, even for a moment." 
                    Ebert  was quick to find the error of his ways, reviewing the film in full (it still  received 1 star), and issuing a statement which said: “I must apologize to  writer-director Stewart Wade, his actors and his crew. They did nothing to  deserve this. For them it must have been like a drive-by shooting.” 
                    Who  says that being a film critic isn’t dangerous business?    |