World Series: Not going according to the Yankee script, huh?

Roger Ebert annoys me again: I respect Roger Ebert's talent and as a fan of movie reviews (reviews are like editorials, they try to condense and express what you believe into well written phrases) I often enjoy his material. All the same, he annoys me, which is nothing special, I guess ... commentators seem to annoy me more than I use ellipses in my remarks. Still, Ebert at times goes into pretentious mode or (perhaps worse) does something that other critics at times do as well -- make comments that lead to believe they really didn't see the movie.

An example of the former is his reeming of the remake of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," which he gives zero stars. He likes this film as much as Gregg Easterbrook liked "Kill Bill" (Ebert really enjoyed the movie). I checked the Rotten Tomato website and determined about one out of three critics gave positive reviews to the movie. I presume some of the rest felt it was bad, but not REAL bad. This leads me to argue that Ebert is a bit full of himself, and just doesn't like the sort of film involved here. His snide comment about the past employment of the director suggests this.

My problems with his review of Pieces of April is a bit more nuanced. It involves various comments found in the review that are not really based on opinion but on fact. A major thing that annoyed me is his discussion of the closing montage, which he suggests might be a result of the movie (a small independent effort) ran out of money. He basically misses the point, in my humble opinion, given the title -- "Pieces of April," snapshots of April, get it?

I also do not know what else was required in the film. The mother already had a telling moment in the bathroom. The family got to NYC, April had various dramatic and humorous experiences, and the dinner was done. Did he want some tacked on "conclusion" involving the family eating dinner and so forth? For what purpose? The fact they didn't interact much at all adds to the film. You want family interaction, see What's Cooking? The movie in my view was a good length, though perhaps a bit more time with the boyfriend might have helped. I agree with Ebert that his story was undeveloped. On the other hand, it was throughout, so extending the film itself might not have done much good.

I am also somewhat in disagreement with him on the boyfriend. I felt the subplot was a bit amusing, a "shaggy dog" story of sorts, that put him in a good light. I don't quite know how we are supposed to understand he is a middle class, unless some asides suggested as such, especially given where they live and all. Also, if he was middle class, would his "errand" be done in that way? It felt more that he came from a poorer family, thus finding a cheap suit would be special if a bit problematic to carry out gesture on his part. This might be a matter of undevelopment, but this is not surprising (but somewhat annoying, since if you set up a black boyfriend, why not give him more of a role in the story?) since the movie is mainly about her (original) family.

I also agree that the joke Ebert finds distasteful is somewhat "half-baked," but I did not take it as negatively as he did. Also, we already know he is a good guy, and why he looks like that. Why a comment on when "we find out" this out? Also, not only is it a realistic thing for the family to be scared (are they supposed to realize it is the boyfriend who looks like the dad?), it serves as an advancement of the plot. It is the direct reason why the family at first doesn't go up to April's apartment. Is this not relevant?

A couple other things. A whole scene is based on there never being a moment when April was a good daughter. Therefore, when we she the "good" daughter? The reason the youngest is annoyed is that she knows this not to be true, so feels April is wrong to force the family to go eat dinner with her. The grandmother really does not have many "perfectly timed zingers," and in fact the mother implies that she knows more than she lets on. This might actually be true; it is an intersting comment all the same. And, I do wonder if the next film made under less pressure, etc., will truly be better. After all, I found this film pretty good, and more money and time often only gives you the same flaws, just with a bigger budget.