Roger Ebert thought that Blade Runner was bad. He thought The King of Comedy was horrendous. Kick-ass was too violent and dark. Fast Times is terrible. Opinion invalidated.
"Roger Ebert thought that Blade Runner was bad. He thought The King of Comedy was horrendous. Kick-ass was too violent and dark. Fast Times is terrible. Opinion invalidated."
-Will Bigelow
Ebert gave fresh ratings to "Blade Runner" and "The King of Comedy", you dumb sh-t. He even put "Blade Runner" on his Great Movies list. And guess what? EVERY critic gave "Fast Times" a bad review upon its release. It was universally panned across the board. You're reading his review from the '82 release.
Same thing happened with "Blade Runner" and John Carpenter's "The Thing", which both polarized critics then but now has been acclaimed over the years. So, you can't trash Ebert for his archived reviews because everybody back then thought it was bad.
I love how people attack Roger Ebert personally because they liked Fast Times instead of explaining why they think he was wrong. True signs of fanboyism. Also, it was a pretty crappy movie with no story or character development. Just shallow teens having lots of sex.
He REVISED it? What a hypocrite, and if you think this movie is bad because it involves teenager having sex, you seriously need to get laid. And besides, did the classic American Graffiti have character development? Not much at all, does it make it crap? No. Fast Times was supposed to be light entertainment but deluded critics insist it should have more essence for some reason. BTW, I love how people defend Roger Ebert, saying it's only his opinion. Well the people who make fun of them also have an alibi: it's called THEIR opinion.
he's not saying its bad because the movies have teenagers having sex, he's saying its bad because there's ONLY teenagers having sex (2 scenes only might i add), and i agree that the rest of the movie isn't good. i felt the most sympathy to forrest whitaker for his car getting thrashed, i could care less about everyone else, they all fall under cliche movie trophs, which would be fine if they were funny and interesting, but they aren't. mediocre dialogue, mediocre humor, mediocre acting, and mediocre sex scenes make this movie, you guessed it, mediocre, and i think that's being too generous
i will agree with roger on some points and disagree on others. i saw this movie not a few hours ago and it didn't do a whole lot for me (except showcase young sean penn and forrest whitaker). the dialogue is boring, I understand this is mostly a look on teenage life and not all teenagers say interesting things, but nobody does and its very amateurishly written lines. none of the acting is that good, and i don't really care about any of the characters on screen. I disagree with ebert on the idea that sex has to be romantic and doesn't have consequence, but its sadly not always like that, and that might be where this movie sits right with me. 2 sex scenes and 3 breast shots slips don't warrant the acclaim this movie has as an explicit sex comedy, cause there's little sex and little comedy. its just not that good, and i'm 18 so its not some old guy who doesn't know where its at or how the young generation lives, i'm right there, and this movie still isn't very good.
Jake A
I'm a little less rude than him. But really..an actress should expand anyway. And this movie is great
Aug 6 - 10:41 PM