I don't know from good movies....apparently.

[Jester]

In recent days I've been watching a lot of Siskel & Ebert & Roeper reviews at www.atthemoviestv.com. In listening to their reviews I've learned one thing: I don't know what a good movie is. After watching reviews of most of the Sandler movies (I expected most of them to get 2 thumbs down, but a few I felt were more touching and might get at least one up turned thumb...nada.) and Robin Williams reviews as well as assorted movies I've liked or hated I'm surprised at some of the thumbs down movies. Both Patch Adams and Bicentennial Man, two strong Williams films got thumbs down. Heck, Siskel gave The Silence of thew Lambs a thumbs down. And in the most surprising move of all Ebert gave positive praise (albeit he gave it an over all thumbs down, but still he praised the film) to Gigli a movie almost everyone says was crap. Ebert and Roeper loved Lost in Translation saying it had subtle humor, I thought it had very little, with the plot about Murray and Johansson's relationship a little creepy, considering the age difference. Am I crazy for not really caring if a movie is a technical achievement but rather whither or not I was entertained by it? Isn't that what movies are all about?

*Kevin "Jester" McGill realizes that even Siskel, Ebert, and Roeper have praised movies that others hate and hated movies others loved. He also realizes that they have given praise to films that weren't technically dazzling and just entertained them like the 2 thumbs up for Short Circuit 2 and the thumbs up from Richard Roper to Not Another Teen Movie because "God help [him] it made [him] laugh."