Wait Until Dark : Roger Ebert gave this ZERO stars?!!?!?

Roger Ebert is known to made ridiculous claims. The reason that he is so praised for this is that humans are stupid.


Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

I have to sympathise with Ebert's views. She does not shout for help, lock the door. When the lights came back on she throws down the knife and matchbox. Arkin is covered in petrol, just light a match!

Its that man again!!

I haven't checked thru the 80 comments in this thread, so I don't know if anyone else posted this, but I checked Ebert's original review. It did call it an idiot plot and gave it 3-1/2 stars anyway. OP should have done a little research.

I'm confused about this, too. Was that an edit made to the site or what? Reading through the review, it clearly comes off as a 2 1/2 - 3 star review anyway, so I'm unsure where all the controversy came from. Especially all of the typical "Ebert is a dumbass" lines.

People love to believe lies that suit their own beliefs. Someone said Ebert gave it 0 stars (something he rarely did and that becomes the story.

Even if the star rating was changed from the original review, they would have had to totally rewrite the original review. He calls it an idiot plot, but said he was highly effective and well done. And he's right - basic plot was stupid (why not just give the damn doll back?) but I watch it whenever it's on. She's beautiful, Richard Crenna's terrific, Alan Arkin is wonderfully creepy - what's not to love?

Ebert was a humanist, liberal politically - beliefs many people hate. So "Ebert's a dumbass becuase he gave this 0 stars" fits into their preconceived notion of Roger Ebert.

Roger Ebert was a grade A JackAss. Glad he is out of the picture. Enough said.

3 1/2 stars.


http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/wait-until-dark-1968

Ebert also gave zero stars to BLUE VELVET.

No, he didn't.

-
http://viverdecinema.blogspot.com.br/

No he didnt, he gave it 2/4 stars.

Favorite films of all time list
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls031708001

There are so many posts in this thread pointing out the FACT that Ebert gave it 3.5 stars out of 4.
The OP is an idiot, his thread title is misleading and I once again laugh at the douches who at once leap at the opportunity to throw craps at film critics.

Roger Ebert did NOT give this zero stars. Fact.
Roger Ebert wrote a pretty funny review concerning the fact that film's plot is a bit silly in that Hepburn's character doesn't lock doors. Fact.
Roger Ebert gave it 3.5 / 4. Fact.

Threads like this just creeps me out.
I never see threads informing us how Roger Ebert praised a film and most agree.
It's always something like: "Oh look! He didn't like this movie boohoo, critics are worst! Ebert is a hack! Boohoo"

Yeah, I don't blame him to be honest

I saw this movie as a kid and it stuck with me as one of the silliest movies that I ever watched. I searched it up all these years later and saw a rating of 7.9 so I can respect Ebert for giving it what he felt it deserved (which isnt much).

I read his review and he gave it ***1/2. Not sure where you got this zero stars nonsense. His only problem was she didn't lock the door. He says that four or five times in the review.










I did sixty in five minutes once

Well, the film has now an updated review in his site, and he gives the film a 3.5/4 stars rating.

Roger Ebert gave this 3.5/4 stars? What are you on about??

Favorite films of all time list
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls031708001