http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19981225/REV IEWS/812250305/1023
...
-MattsGirl6093, Wife to NinjaMatt3628 since 25 February 2009
Yeah, but you can't expect anything more from retarded critics. Ebert, Roeper, all critics, are as dumb as ****... except for me.
shareI disagree with tons of his reviews, but he's dead on with this one
what a pathetic, boring, pitiful movie
It's not *beep* easy for doctors to do their job (saving your life), but NAH, they should drop the treatments and just MAKE PEOPLE LAUGH. The real "Patch Adams" is a real physician, and cared about the well being of patients (like all good doctors). Like anyone with any shred of intelligence, he found this movie "loathsome."
Pathetic. Stupid. Incredibly cliche.
One of the most offensively stupid movies ever made.
And to think I was all ready to get upset at Ebert, expecting him to LIKE this film, when I opened this thread...
I'm not actually sure I can add anything to what Ebert said. He pretty much explained everything I hate about this movie, quite succinctly so I don't have to ground my teeth in rage typing a similar post.
This is should have been a made for TV movie or maybe a sitcom. Something to watch with the family. There are good performances from Williams, Hoffman and Coyote, but really just a vehicle for Robin Williams.
I didn't really think the movie was very funny. The scenes with the psychiatrist in the mental hospital and when Coyote throws Williams out of his room when they first meet were OK.
As Ebert mentioned, the plot was predictable and the dialog was cliché. I think Williams could have ad libbed better dialog. The writers should have either tried to make this an R rated movie biting satire like MASH or else go for a G rated movie. Instead it's a middle of the road PG13 and really doesn't work that well.
Ebert is brilliant. This review is evidence of that. He points out everything that is wrongheaded and manipulative about this movie.
"Ebert is brilliant. This review is evidence of that. He points out everything that is wrongheaded and manipulative about this movie. "
He is. (Now I sound, as a fan of it, like the biggest traitor to other fans by agreeing with Ebert's critique).
....doesn't the trivia on here say that those kids are real cancer patients? If that's true then making fun of little kids with cancer is pretty low. Even for Ebert. That's really the only disappointing thing about this review, I expected him to hate it, he hates pretty much everything.
shareEbert never makes fun of kids with cancer, either real or fictional. He makes fun of a movie that would take children with compromised immune systems and trot them into a crowded room in the name of cheap dramatic plot contrivance.
As to your notion that "he hates pretty much everything" ... this suggests to me that you've never read a single review of Roger Ebert's other than "Patch Adams."
His excuse for why this film was a box office hit is really poor.
shareExcept... the real Patch Adams agrees with Ebert. He even told him so.
"What I don't understand is how we're going to stay alive this winter."
Who cares? Obviously audiences didn't agree.
shareSo this is a good movie because it made money?Give me a break, it was Williams star power and good marketing and that's it.
Just because a film makes money doesn't mean a critic who disliked the film is wrong and vice versa.
Plenty of people hate and like this movie, it wasn't like he was the only critic who hated it, it was one of the most poorly reviewed films of that year.
It was a poorly recieved by the critics is a fact, but by the audience is another story.
shareI suppose this is his 1.5 star review, right? I agree with him. I don't think that when he ended up having that surgery in 2006 that almost killed him, he would've wanted a doctor to come in the room tap dancing with bed pans on his feet and wearing a red rubber clown nose (he even hates clowns). You have to look at the way the film handles the material and you can see yourself being jerked around.
shareWell, have some respect for him now since he just died. And I'll bet during his recent cancer battle he didn't want to have a doctor in there wearing a clown nose. I just hope that something bad happens to you and you are in a hospital and the doctor comes in with a clown nose. Maybe you'll understand then.
shareWhy not? He died anyway didn't he? Doesn't seem like the lack of humor and compassion helped save him.
Not saying every situation calls for humor or foolishness, but some stuck up asswipe that's so full of their own crap to even speak to you like another human being isn't some sort of amazing cure either.
Honest compassion, humor and respect are not mutually exclusive with "being a good doctor".
He died because the cancer came back and this time it wasn't treatable. He was 70 years old anyway. The point is that when he went through all the treatments he didn't want to have a doctor come in the room wearing a red rubber clown nose and tap dancing with bedpans on his feet. I wouldn't want to either. But if you want to, go ahead.
shareGood thing you represent all under 12 year olds. I will alert the medical community that you've announced this, they can then start focusing less on keeping kids in hospitals happy, cos kids just love and respond very well to clinical, professional people.
Nothing reassures children like a cold demeanour and medical science. Right?
Isn't it just too bad there isn't the potential for people to be treated differently at different ages? Man, that would be something.
Just because he has an opinion about this film that differs from yours doesn't make him an idiot. I happen to think his review is dead on. Does this make me an idiot?
An opinion is just that... an opinion. If you like this film that doesn't make you an idiot. On the other hand, saying what you did does.
If your nose runs and your feet smell, you were built upside down.
You think Patch Adams is a good movie?
share