[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

About Cheaper by the Dozen: Roger Ebert is wrong, and pretty clearly wasn’t paying close attention to the movie anyhow, since he has a couple of factual errors in his review. So, no, it’s not a three star movie. 1.5 stars, maybe. Not funny, not charming, kind of depressing. Me, I like my cheerful uplifting Christmas movies to be about success rather than failure.

Comments

[rollick.livejournal.com]

Every time I bother to read Roger Ebert, I notice factual errors in his reviews. And this has been going on for a decade at least. Drives me nuts, and makes me wonder why the hell someone isn't fact-checking him, and/or why there hasn't been a public outcry for him to get his stories straight.

[multiplexer.livejournal.com]

Bryant, you want to use http://www.rottentomatoes.com. Roger Ebert liked it, but so many other people didn't I knew to stay well away.

[totient]

Of all the reviewers out there, Roger Ebert provides the strongest, most consistent correlation with how much I'll actually enjoy a movie.

Of course, it's a negative correlation, but it's not the polarity that makes a correlation useful.

[thebitterguy]

Okay, so what kinda factual errors did he put in his review?