Is Roger Ebert partly responsible for the moronic belief that fictions

[deleted]

I can't comment on Ebert really as i don't really know if him that much but a movie like this would lift the spirits of most suffering from the disease, or so i would imagine anyway. My dad has had cancer and he loves the film.

Not all cancer is fatal, not everyone suffers in the same way and some have hardly any symptoms until its too late. That is one tfact that seems to be escaping Ebert.

I'm a quitter. I come from a long line of quitters. It's amazing I'm here at all.

I've noticed this phenomenon with a lot of professional critics and even from friends when they are giving me opinions on movies they've seen. People seem to teeter back and forth between "actual world discrepancies" in movies versus actual world events a lot. They suspend their disbelief for one movie and not for another. As an example, Ebert was rather forgiving in his review of Tomb Raider, saying it's just a movie and just enjoy it for the roller coaster ride that it's supposed to be, and who cares if the stunts are outrageously impossible. Well, this mentality is a direct contradiction to his review of The Bucket List, citing it's impossible for 2 cancer patients to go globetrotting. Why does he hold The Bucket List to a different standard? The most favourable reviews always come from people who were successful in suspending their disbelief. Obviously, Ebert wasn't able to do so for TBL.

I'm certain Ebert knows the difference between fiction and reality. Maybe having battled cancer himself, Ebert's perspective on TBL may be a little more personal. I can't speak for Ebert but that's what I gather from reading between the lines of his review for TBL.

Well, I think Roger does have some good points. When you have suffered cancer, you aren't going to be thinking about climbing a mountain. Also, hospitals make money on giving out private rooms so Edward could've had a private room to begin with. Only reason he doesn't is to have the Meet Cute with Carter.

Besides, I have had cancer. I had surgery in the morning, moved 200 miles in the afternoon (DH did all the work), and went to an MBA orientation the next day. When I had to go to another city for five weeks of radiation therapy, I talked a former employer into giving me a five-week job. I would work in the morning, get the RT on my lunch hour, and work all afternoon.

A friend had ovarian cancer. When she had chemo, she would be off for a couple of days due to fatigue but then come back to work until time for the next chemo. Cancer doesn't mean you just drop everything and it does give you a new perspective about what you want out of life. I ended up dropping out of the MBA program because I wasn't enjoying it. At one time I would have stayed in anyway, but I didn't want it in my life after cancer. I have done quite a few things on my "bucket list," even though I have been cancer free for 25 years.

I've never respected Roger Ebert. His film reviews are too much of the "I liked/hated it" variety - always have been. I think that reviewers should comment only on craft, not content.

I think that deep down everyone knows the difference between a script writer's or director's choice and a mistake. It's unfair to criticize choices. Mistakes should be criticized and should be the only rationale for criticism.

For example, if certain dialog or an event contradicts a protagonist's incitement, then it is sometimes reasonable to interpret that contradiction as a simple mistake or oversight and grade the film appropriately, unless of course the contradiction itself is part of the incitement (such as if the protagonist denies their plight or deludes themself about it).

Suppose the protagonist severely damages their foot and limps throughout the rest of the film except in one part in which the character is shown without a limp. That's a mistake showing lack of attention to detail (in particular, continuity).

The portrayal of cancer treatment and it's complications and whether those complications can and would restrict a victim's latitude of living is a choice. A mistake would be, for example, if Carter had decided he couldn't tolerate his catheter anymore and simply pulled it out.

Interested in collaborating on a new type of film rating system? Contact me.

It comes down to the whole willful suspension of disbelief which doesn't mean you credulously choose to believe everything you see on screen, but rather that each film comes with its own reality and you believe what happens within that reality.

So for example we can quite happily watch Alvin and the Chipmunks because the reality it's set in is a reality where cartoon chipmunks can really exist. But if suddenly Darth Vader came on screen and demolished the planet, that would shatter that reality and we'd all be complaining about it. Although I admit it would greatly improve the film.

What I guess Robert Ebert is criticising is how the reality of the Bucket List, which is meant to match that of our own real world because it's set in our own world but doesn't.

George Clooney fansite, news & gossip updated daily: www.clooneysopenhouse.com

It depends on the movie. I haven't seen BARNYARD but I know it's about talking animals. Therefore, it's fantasy. THE BUCKET LIST takes place in a grounded reality, so it should be judged as one.