Question: What did Alex Ebert say about the film?
About the article "All Is Lost", section "Music".

Candidate passages:
Reviews were generally favorable.
Film critic Roger Ebert gave the film 3 stars (out of 4) stating "Much depends on exactly what Emma and Murphy say to each other, and how they say it, and what they don't say.
The movie gets it all right."
The film holds a 93% on the film review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes. 
Critical response.
Based on 16 reviews, Rotten Tomatoes gave the film a rating of 6%.
When Chicago film critics Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel reviewed the film on their program "Siskel & Ebert", Siskel revealed that after viewing the film, he became so depressed that he considered quitting his job as a movie critic, but he saw the film "Say Anything..." on the same day, a film he liked very much and he declared that "all was right with the world, I'm still on the job."
Ebert gave the film the rare zero stars rating on his written review of the film, saying:What planet did the makers of this film come from?
What assumptions do they have about the purpose and quality of life?
I ask because "She's Out of Control" is simultaneously so bizarre and so banal that it's a first: the first movie fabricated entirely from sitcom cliches and plastic lifestyles, without reference to any known plane of reality.
Leonard Maltin also panned the film, stating that it was a "superficial expanded sitcom with Danza offering a one-note performance," concluding with "this one seems as if it was spit out of a computer.
"The film was remade in Serbia as "We Are Not Angels 2".
Tony Danza earned a Razzie Award nomination for Worst Actor for his performance in the film, but lost out to William Shatner for "". 
Upon release, the film received mostly positive reviews.
It currently (as of August 2009) maintains a 100% "freshness" rating on review aggregation website rottentomatoes.com, based on five reviews.
Roger Ebert gave the film three stars and called it "as fascinating for what it doesn't say as for what it does."
Ebert described his critical approach to films as "relative, not absolute"; he reviewed a film for what he felt would be its prospective audience, yet always with at least some consideration as to its value as a whole.
He awarded four stars to films of the highest quality, and generally a half star to those of the lowest, unless he considered the film to be "artistically inept" or "morally repugnant", in which case it received no stars.
When you ask a friend if "Hellboy" is any good, you're not asking if it's any good compared to "Mystic River", you're asking if it's any good compared to "The Punisher".
And my answer would be, on a scale of one to four, if "Superman" is four, then "Hellboy" is three and "The Punisher" is two.
In the same way, if "American Beauty" gets four stars, then "The United States of Leland" clocks in at about two.
Ebert emphasized that his star ratings had little meaning if not considered in the context of the review itself.
Occasionally (as in his review of "Basic Instinct 2"), Ebert's star rating may have seemed at odds with his written opinion.
Ebert acknowledged such cases, stating, "I cannot recommend the movie, but ... why the hell can't I?
Just because it's godawful?
What kind of reason is that for staying away from a movie?
Godawful and boring, "that" would be a reason".
In August 2004 Stephen King, in a column, criticized what he saw as a growing trend of leniency towards films from critics including Ebert.
His main criticism was that films, citing "Spider-Man 2" as an example, were constantly given four star ratings that they did not deserve.
In his review of "The Manson Family", Ebert gave the film three stars for achieving what it set out to do, but admitted that did not count as a recommendation "per se".
He similarly gave the Adam Sandler-starring remake of "The Longest Yard" a positive rating of three stars, but in his review, which he wrote soon after attending the Cannes Film Festival, he recommended readers not see the film because they had access to more satisfying cinematic experiences.
He declined to give a star rating to "The Human Centipede", arguing that the rating system was "unsuited" to such a film: "Is the movie good?
Is it bad?
Does it matter?
It is what it is and occupies a world where the stars don't shine.
"Ebert reprinted his starred reviews in movie guides.
In his appearances on "The Howard Stern Show", he was frequently challenged to defend his ratings.
Ebert stood by his opinions with one notable exception – when Stern pointed out that Ebert had given "The Godfather Part II" a three-star rating in 1974, but had subsequently given "The Godfather Part III" three and a half stars.
Ebert later added "The Godfather Part II" to his "Great Movies" list in October 2008 stating that his original review has often been cited as proof of his "worthlessness" but he still had not changed his mind and would not change a word of his original review.
When reviewing the 2009 remake of "The Last House on the Left", Ebert noted how he had given the controversial 1972 original three and a half stars and declined to make a comparison between the two versions: "I wrote that original "Last House" review 37 years ago.
I am not the same person.
I am uninterested in being 'consistent'".
Ebert occasionally accused some films of having an unwholesome political agenda, and the word "fascist" accompanied more than one of Ebert's reviews of the law-and-order films of the 1970s such as "Dirty Harry".
He was wary of films passed off as art, but which he saw as lurid and sensational.
He leveled this charge against such films as "The Night Porter.
"Ebert's reviews could clash with the overall reception of movies, as evidenced by his one-star review of the celebrated 1986 David Lynch film "Blue Velvet" ("marred by sophomoric satire and cheap shots ... in a way, Lynch's behavior is more sadistic than the Hopper character").
He was dismissive of the popular 1988 Bruce Willis action film "Die Hard" ("inappropriate and wrongheaded interruptions reveal the fragile nature of the plot"), while his positive 3 out of 4 stars review of 1997's "" ("Movies like this embrace goofiness with an almost sensual pleasure") is one of only two positive reviews accounting for that film's % approval rating on the reviewer aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes (the other having been written by his "At The Movies" co-star Gene Siskel).
Ebert's reviews were also characterized by what has been called "dry wit".
In August 2005, after Rob Schneider insulted "Los Angeles Times" movie critic Patrick Goldstein (who had criticized Schneider's film "") by commenting that Goldstein was unqualified because he had never won the Pulitzer Prize, Ebert intervened by stating that, as a Pulitzer winner, he "was" qualified to review the film, and bluntly told Schneider, "Your movie sucks."
Ebert and Schneider would later reconcile regarding this matter.
Ebert commented on films using his Catholic upbringing as a point of reference, and was critical of films he believed were grossly ignorant of or insulting to Catholicism, such as "Stigmata" and "Priest".
He also gave favorable reviews of controversial films with themes or references to Jesus and Catholicism, including "The Passion of the Christ", "The Last Temptation of Christ", and to Kevin Smith's religious satire "Dogma".
Ebert was described as an agnostic in 2005, but preferred not being "pigeon-holed".
He often included personal anecdotes in his reviews when he considered them relevant.
He occasionally wrote reviews in the forms of stories, poems, songs, scripts, open letters, or imagined conversations.
He wrote many essays and articles exploring in depth the field of film criticism.
Ebert was also an advocate and supporter of Asian-American cinema, famously coming to the defense of the cast and crew of Justin Lin's "Better Luck Tomorrow" (2001) during a Sundance Film Festival screening when a white member of the audience asked how Asians could be portrayed in such a negative light and how a film so empty and amoral could be made for Asian-Americans and Americans.
Ebert responded that "nobody would say such a thing to a bunch of white filmmakers: how could you do this to "your people"?
... Asian-American characters have the right to be whoever the hell they want to be.
They do not have to represent 'their people'!"
He was a supporter of the film after the incident at Sundance, and also supported a number of Asian-American films, having them also screen at his film festival (such as Eric Byler's "Charlotte Sometimes").
Ebert was a fan of Asian-American filmmaker Wayne Wang.
Ebert was accused by some horror movie fans of elitism in his dismissal of what he calls "Dead Teenager Movies".
Ebert clarified that he did not disparage horror movies as a whole, but that he drew a distinction between films like "Nosferatu" and "The Silence of the Lambs", which he regarded as "masterpieces", and films which he felt consisted of nothing more than groups of teenagers being killed off with the exception of one survivor to populate a sequel.
Ebert indicated that his favorite film was "Citizen Kane", joking, "That's the official answer", although he preferred to emphasize it as "the most important" film.
He insinuated that his real favorite film was "La Dolce Vita".
His favorite actor was Robert Mitchum, and his favorite actress was Ingrid Bergman.
He expressed his general distaste for "top ten" lists, and all movie lists in general, but contributed a top ten list to the 2012 Sight and Sound Critics' poll.
Listed alphabetically, those films were ""; "Aguirre, the Wrath of God"; "Apocalypse Now"; "Citizen Kane"; "La Dolce Vita"; "The General"; "Raging Bull"; "Tokyo Story"; "The Tree of Life"; and "Vertigo".
Ebert compiled "best of the year" movie lists beginning in 1967, thereby helping provide an overview of his critical preferences.
After ranking "E.T.
the Extra-Terrestrial" third on his 1982 list, it was the only movie from that year to appear on his later "Best Films of the 1980s" list (where it also ranked third).
He made similar revaluations of 1981's "Raiders of the Lost Ark", and 1985's "Ran".
"The Three Colors trilogy" (', ', and ""), and "Pulp Fiction" originally ranked second and third on Ebert's 1994 list; both were included on his "Best Films of the 1990s" list, but their order had reversed.
Ebert was an admirer of director Werner Herzog, whom he supported through many years when Herzog's popularity had declined.
He conducted an onstage public "conversation" with Herzog at the Telluride Film Festival in 2004, after a screening of Herzog's film "Invincible" at the Ebert's Overlooked Film Festival.
Herzog dedicated his 2008 film "Encounters at the End of the World" to Ebert, and Ebert responded with a heartfelt public letter of gratitude.
Herzog said he once exhorted Ebert to watch "The Anna Nicole Show" (which Ebert did) so he could gain a better understanding of the decline in American culture.
In 2005, Ebert opined that video games are not art, and are inferior to media created through authorial control, such as film and literature, stating, "video games can be elegant, subtle, sophisticated, challenging and visually wonderful", but "the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art".
This resulted in negative reaction from video game enthusiasts, such as writer Clive Barker, who defended video games as an art form, stating that they have the power to move people, that the views of book or film critics are less important than those of the consumers experiencing them, and that Ebert's were prejudiced.
Ebert responded that the charge of prejudice was merely a euphemism for disagreement, that merely being moved by an experience does not denote it as artistic, and that critics are also consumers.
Ebert later defended his position in April 2010, saying, "No video gamer now living will survive long enough to experience the medium as an art form".
He also stated that he had never found a video game "worthy of (his) time", and thus had never played one.
In a July 1, 2010, blog entry, Ebert maintained his position that video games can never be art in principle, but conceded that he should not have expressed this skepticism without being more familiar with the actual experience of playing them.
He reflected on the reaction to his blog entry, gamers' attempts to recommend to him games such as "Shadow of the Colossus", and his reluctance to play games due to his lack of interest in the medium.
Ebert did say that he enjoyed playing "Cosmology of Kyoto". 
Corliss has had movies on his top ten lists that fellow "Time" critic Richard Schickel has rated the worst of the year.
These included 2001's "Moulin Rouge!
", 2003's "Cold Mountain" and 2004's "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind".
In August 2004, Stephen King, criticizing what he saw as a growing trend of leniency towards films by critics, included Corliss among a number of "formerly reliable critics who seem to have gone remarkably soft -- not to say softhearted and sometimes softheaded -- in their old age."
Richard Corliss appears in the 2009 documentary film "", confessing that he was the film critic who, in the 1970s, coined the term "Paulettes" for the ardent followers of Pauline Kael, a label which has stuck.
Despite challenging Siskel and Ebert in his Film Comment article, "all thumbs", Corliss praised Ebert in a June 23, 2007 article "Thumbs up for Roger Ebert."
Corliss later appeared in Ebert's book "Awake in the Dark" in discussions and debates with Ebert about film criticism where "all thumbs" was reprinted.