I typically never agree with Roger Ebert’s movie reviews. I can understand why he’s a good reviewer with his tendency to look at all of a movie’s components prior to passing final judgment, meaning it’s cinematography, writing, acting, production value, etc. instead of just “did it make me laugh.” I don’t think that the general public views movies like this either and for my money, I’ll head out for the latest horror flick instead of the latest David Mamet. The reasons why are for another discussion, as they are plentiful.

I started following Ebert on Twitter awhile back and much to my surprise, have found a genuine liking for the man and his writing, interests and general take on Hollywood. Aside from the belief that John Cusack hasn’t made a bad movie I find myself agreeing with his general stances on the way movies and the Hollywood money machine are only looking out for itself and doesn’t give us good movies, just crap that looks pretty.

I had the same general reaction to the Transformers movie (the first one). I went to see it in the theatre with friends and walked away stunned at how bad it was, yet everyone still seemed to like it because of the effects. Effects can’t make a movie stand on its own and shouldn’t, yet it’s come down to that. Disaster movies seem to be the worst perpetrators of this phenomenon. I’ve got 2012 burned onto my media center but just can’t bring myself to watch it, or remember why I rented it in the first place given that I’m so disenchanted with the glut of effects porn in movies today. Perhaps the pretty moving picture and nothing else aspect isn’t so hard to take when I’ve got nothing to lose, but lately two hours is a lot for me and I intend to use those hours wisely. Have a good day, I’m gonna go delete 2012 from my hard drive.