C# Dành Cho Người Tự Học - Tập 2 tải về miễn phí cuốn sách

Rena Cugelman _ena_ugelman — even though a lot of what was thought to be true in this book isnt...I still found it to be a good read.

Stephanie Luz _unrise_elly — This is Roger Ebert's analysis of the oeuvre of Ashton Kutcher. Okay, that's an exaggeration, but only just. Kutcher's films do pop up in this book at a rate exceeding even David Spade and Rob Schneider (derp-de-derp-de-derp!), though Schneider is the subject of Ebert's best review ever, the one from which this book derives its title. When Schneider through a hissy-fit about a critic panning one of his movies (I think it was, The Stapler) and complained that the guy had never won a Pulitzer or anything and was thus unqualified to state a position on Schneider's cinematic out-put, Ebert glided in and pointed out that he does have a Pulitzer, which makes him qualified to state an opinion on the film, and that film does, indeed, suck. The book also contains a recapitulation of The Brown Bunny controversy. When the film premiered at Cannes in a rough form, it was universally panned, but Ebert's review, comparing it to his colonoscopy, was the one most widely quoted. Vincent Gallo shot back and the two engaged in a very public war of words. Eventually Gallo released a trimmed-down version of the film, which Ebert admitted was a pretty good movie, and he penned a mea culpa. By then the damage was done, and even today more people associate the film with the colonoscopy comment than Ebert's revised review. Since this book will, in the long run, be read by more people than the original review, hopefully it will undo some of the damage to TBB's reputation. The rest of the book contains Eberts greatest critical drubbings from c.2000-2006, including classic bad movies like Battlefield: Earth ("The director, Roger Christian, has learned from better films that directors sometimes tilt their cameras, but he has not learned why.") and The Lady's Man ("[Lorne Michaels'] average star rating for the last four titles is 1.125. Just to put things in perspective, the last three Pauly Shore movies I reviewed scored 1.5.") The amazing thing is that a book of this size can be culled from just his bad reviews from a small portion of his career. The lead critic at most newspapers only does one or two films per week, while Ebert watches almost every movie to come out -- at one point he says he watches 500 films per year. While Ebert isn't an intellectual heavyweight like Sarris or Kael, he makes up for it with sarcasm and incisiveness. (One thing that became clear from reading this book is that he's the godfather of TV Tropes.) And while people often complain that Ebert is a stuck up snob and ordinary film-goers shouldn't listen to what he says, history has borne out 99% of the reviews in this book. There are only two movies here that I think he made a bad call on -- Team America: World Police and Josie and the Pussycats (Josie and the Pussycats is the best movie ever!), and even I'm willing to admit that I'm a voice in the wilderness on Josie. Every other film he pans, even the ones that were hits, is forgotten today. The only flaw with the book is that it's weighted too heavily towards comedies (though "alleged comedies" might be more accurate). Ebert's critiques of them are very good intellectually -- the man is an expert on comedic structure and theory -- but they aren't very entertaining compared to his pans of serious movies, where he's able to let loose and skewer the film with his own wit.