Breaking: Roger Ebert Gives the Batman Colorado Massacre a Thumbs Down, “We’ve seen this Movie before”
July 21, 2012 in Entertainment
In another pathetic attempt by the media to merge reality with fantasy, Roger Ebert, who has dated CFR media queen Oprah Winfrey in the past, has recently published his review of the massacre in Aurora, Colorado during the screening of the latest Batman sequel, and gave the massacre a solid “Thumbs Down” for lack of originality,
“Whenever a tragedy like this takes place, it is assigned catchphrases and theme music, and the same fragmentary TV footage of the shooter is cycled again and again.”~Roger Ebert~
So, according to Roger Ebert, the government scripted Colorado false flag massacre suffers from predictable dialog sequences, and bad scene editing. Sort of like a sequel to a typical Comic book movie that’s absent of a complete 3 act movie structure where there’s an Act I:The Setup, Act II: The Confrontation, and then finally ending with Act III: The Resolution. Apparently, Roger Ebert has never read the governments script of a false flag terror event called “Problem, Reaction, Solution”, and doesn’t realize that we’re now in Act II of that false flag script, with Act III coming very, very soon. Quick, someone fax Roger the governments false flag terror script, so he can re-edit his review of the Massacre in Colorado before it goes viral!
Also, Roger apparently doesn’t approve of a musical score either, that will inevitably accompany the coverage of the Colorado Massacre. Perhaps, Roger is suggesting here, that the mainstream media’s coverage should go more for the, low budget independent style of “Realism”, over the phony manufactured Hollywood style of “idealism”, like Dog Day Afternoon, or the Blair Witch Project for example.
Ebert continues his scathing review of the Colorado Massacre during the Batman sequel, by describing the media’s portrayal of the government latest manufactured false flag terrorists character, James Holmes, as a cheap rip-off of Travis Bickle from Martin Scorsese’s “Taxi Driver”, released by Columbia Pictures in 1976, and now available on DVD, which starred Robert DeNiro playing a far more original and artistically inspired version of a psychotic homicidal maniac than James Holmes could ever hope to be portrayed by our bankrupt mainstream corporate controlled media. Travis Bickle was a totally fictional character, who was in the military before becoming a “Taxi Driver”, and could be described as someone screwed up by a type of mind control dysfunction. But, I’m not going to go into the world of the crazy conspiracy theorists here, and I see no connection between the two. Now, moving on to an actual quote by Roger Ebert in his review.
“Somewhere in the night, among those watching, will be another angry, aggrieved loner who is uncoiling toward action. The cinematic prototype is Travis Bickle of “Taxi Driver.” I don’t know if James Holmes cared deeply about Batman. I suspect he cared deeply about seeing himself on the news.”~Roger Ebert~
I hope you’re taking notes mainstream media? You haven’t heard directorial advice this good since James Lipton interviewed Sydney Lumet on “Inside The Actors Studio” years ago.
Also, included in Ebert’s review of the Colorado Massacre, is his review of the 2nd amendment. So readers are getting a 2 for 1 double feature here. Unfortunately, for the 2nd amendment, Roger doesn’t like that either, and gives it a thumbs down as well with this review.
“Our gun laws are also insane, but many refuse to make the connection. The United States is one of few developed nations that accepts the notion of firearms in public hands. In theory, the citizenry needs to defend itself. Not a single person at the Aurora, Colo., theater shot back, but the theory will still be defended.”~Roger Ebert~
OK, Roger, so you’re saying that in theory “citizenry needs to defend itself”, but because no one probably had any guns to shoot back with, therefore, we need more gun restrictions so the citizens can’t have a gun to shoot back with. Is it just me, or are you having as much trouble following Roger’s train of logic as I am?
I believe that Roger attempts to explain his baffling logic on the issue of the 2nd amendment with a personal antidote from his life experience, away from his daily grind of watching movies and critiquing them.
“I was sitting in a Chicago bar one night with my friend McHugh when a guy from down the street came in and let us see that he was packing heat.
“Why do you need to carry a gun?” McHugh asked him.
“I live in a dangerous neighborhood.”
“It would be safer if you moved.”
OOHH, SNAP!!! (Roger Ebert’s friend) you sure told that guy didn’t you. I wonder if Roger and his friend would have felt sorry for the guy packing heat, if he was later killed in a knife attack in his dangerous neighborhood, because he didn’t have a firearm to defend himself? Or, maybe the gun owner should’ve just moved to avoid being killed.
So far, I’ve only been able to identify the number of drinking buddies that Roger Ebert has to just one. Check back for further updates on the number of Roger Ebert drinking buddies.