Originally Posted by
throatybeard
To me, the beauty of Ebert's career can be summed up in three reviews. The original review of Bonnie and Clyde, which he got spectacularly right at the age of 26, while the establishment got it spectacularly wrong; .
Ah, yes! Bonnie and Clyde! The death of long-time NY Times film critic Bosley Crowther. He panned it, and the readership rose up in arms. He was toast.
"It is a cheap piece of bald-faced slapstick comedy that treats the hideous depredations of that sleazy, moronic pair as though they were as full of fun and frolic as the jazz-age cut-ups in Thoroughly Modern Millie... [S]uch ridiculous, camp-tinctured travesties of the kind of people these desperadoes were and of the way people lived in the dusty Southwest back in those barren years..."
He was not alone, of course. Time Magazine had reviews on successive weeks by the same critic, the second one reversing the negative opinion of the first.
Sage Grouse
---------------------------------------
'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013