That's probably when I get the most angry at American movies, when they just so cynically manipulate the audience without even trying to give a good story.
Is this film more interesting than a documentary of the same actors having lunch?
Two things are not debatable: eroticism, and comedy. If you don't think it's sexy, or funny, there's no way I can change your mind.
There is a point when a personal opinion shades off into an error of fact.
As a critic, I try very hard to say exactly what I think. And in a medium in which we are well-known for the binary thumbs up and thumbs down, I try to be able to give the mixed review. But most pictures fall into that middle ground, so I wrestle over which way my thumb is going to turn. It's not flip.
A film that aims low should not be praised for hitting that target.
The result is a picture that represents so much of what I want and rarely get from a movie - a couple of hours filled with characters who are as exciting as the people I know in real life.
I would rather turn my head and cough than see any part of 'Patch Adams' again.
I'm not surprised that Spielberg was able to capture the heroism of Schindler; so many of his movies are about the better part of mankind.
John Goodman is more that just a big guy, he's a wonderful actor.
In fact, Cannonball Run II. I used to pick that as the worst movie ever made.
The only actor who I think probably might have possibly taken a swing at me if he could have would be Burt Reynolds. He used to call Roger and me the Bruise Brothers, out of Chicago.
But you know, really, if you think about it Roger and I and all critics really have one absolute essential part of our credentials and that is that you believe that that is actually what we think.
They know they got the TV ad, they know they got the name recognition, they know that they can do a tie in with McDonald's or some fast food outlet and the money is just gonna flow in.
We don't pretend to disagree.
I already shot my wad on the Protestants!
