HAHA... Reading Ebert's Review. He didn't WATCH the Movie.
This is all taken from one Paragraph in his(Roger Ebert's) review. Count the mistakes:
The plot: Harold ( Cho) has drifted away from Harold (Cho)
-Okay, one of those should be Kumar(Penn)
and become a successful Wall Street trader, where his office is under assault by protestors. Kumar (Penn) has split up with Vanessa and lives in the ruins of a bachelor apartment. Santa (Patton Oswalt) delivers a package for Kumar at Kumar's apartment.
-FALSE. Oswalt played a fake Santa. The REAL Santa in the movie is played by Richard Riehle. Most will probably recognize him from Office Space. It's Riehle who sent the package.
Second mistake with this sentence: the package was for Harold. Which is why Kumar delivers it to his house. If it was for Kumar, he would of stayed home and smoked it to his head and never met up with Harold.
Kumar delivers it on Christmas Eve to Harold's suburban manse, loaded with Christmas decorations to impress his Mexican father-in-law Mr. Perez (Danny Trejo), who hates Mexicans.
-The mexican father in law doesn't hate Mexicans (he and his whole family are mexicans). He hates Koreans. And Harold is Korean. (although at the end he says his dislike for Harold is for a completely different reason then him being Korean)
-Notice he says "Harold's suburban manse". The definition of a manse is a house inhabited by, or formerly inhabited by, a minister, usually used in the context of a Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist or United Church. The implication is that the minister has been called by God and will remain until he/she is called elsewhere.
I must of missed the whole MANSE subplot.
At least his following paragraph gets the plot right. But then in the next one he says:
The movie is about the disastrous adventures of H&K as two treacherous African-American tree-vendors sell Kumar's reserved tree to someone else,
-Well that's wrong. It's HAROLD's reserved tree. And the someone else who its sold to.... That's KUMAR.
At this point, it seems Ebert has no knowledge of what happens next in the film. He sums the rest up with ETC. leaving out a pretty big subplot involving the Ukrainian gangsters trying to kill them for the remainder of the film. I guess that wasn't as important as mentioning that the christmas tree was being sold by two African Americans.
I can see leaving out the details about the pregnancy or how the movie tacks on character arcs about them maturing. I even understand leaving out NPH or the Wafflebot(which stole the show). Its not an in depth review. But the Mob part is a big chunk of the movie, even if it is completely anti-climatic.
Next paragraph
It's my suspicion that Penn and Cho have outgrown the characters, but are contractually sentenced to continue doing remakes as long as the movies make money
It's not a remake. It's a sequel. The films have a set formula but that's like saying Every Bond film is a remake because they follow a similar pattern.
It's one thing to get a laugh with a lot of baby poo thrown at an SUV window.
I don't think it was Baby poo. But i guess it could be. We didn't see who took the poo. I wonder how he can tell it's baby poo.
How the hell does a reviewer make this many mistakes? Even if he didn't watch the film, you would think he'd find a synopsis to help him. share