A certain trend of the Ebert review

Rating: 2/10 (10 May 2009)

I really admire the impressive body of work Mr Ebert built over the years. The quality of analysis and the knowledge gathered from relentless movie sessions. However, I'm starting to believe that his abilities to write reviews are starting to shift. I should be more accurate and say focus rather than abilities. Indeed, I think he is more preoccupied about metaphysical issues than movies. Therefore, maybe the reviews are based on how they echo with his concerns about death. Nevertheless, is it really a matter of concern? People going to his website are not going there to see how good the movie is, but what he thinks of it. It's fair, but it saddens me to see the whole body of work he so carefully and rigorously crafted being flooded by too much inconsistency. Though, it could also be seen as a last homage to Truffaut who constantly asked himself the question : "Is life more important than work?" Mr Ebert gives his answer.
What does that have to do with Knowing? Come on Mr Ebert... One of the best scifi movie you've seen? Really? But haven't you seen them all? Please, write an autobiography (suggestion: RogeBud)and keep providing us the sharpest and brightest reviews you almost always came up with. What? Am I judging him only on this review? No of course not, at the beginning of his career, he said Stallone was going to be the next Brando turned out he was the next Rambo. Waterfront under the bombed bridge, it didn't bother Mr. Ebert for his long career. I'm also referring to the movie he reviewed only after seeing 10 minutes... He did right doing it. Maybe he was trying to imagine how Godard feels like when he comes out of a theater after a couple of minutes? Whatever the reasons, it is a first time in his career. Then the top 10 list getting a top 20, why not? All of these seems to me like signs of bad auguries. Maybe it is time for us to accept that one day, the Roger won't be Wilco anymore.