Mr. Woodcock [Journal 1]

The review I chose to review was by Roger Ebert. I don't normally read reviews because I prefer to not go into movies with any part of it spoiled for me. So since I just saw Mr. Woodcock, I thought it would be fine to check out his review.

Ebert gives everything you'd expect from a man who's most popular book is titled 'Your Movie Sucks', and I agree with his opinion on this particular movie, it sucked. However I think that Ebert has a bad opinion for all the wrong reasons. Throughout the review he throws out a million compliments to the acting of Billy Bob Thorton:

To laugh at parts of this film would indicate one has a streak of Woodcockism in oneself. But to gaze in stupefied fascination is perfectly understandable. That's what makes Thornton such a complex actor. He can play a tough coach like the one in "Friday Night Lights" as a three-dimensional human being, and then make Mr. Woodcock into a monster.

It seems like even though Ebert is not a fan of this over-done awkward comedy, he his however a fan of the over-done repetitive acting of Billy Bob Thorton. For the most part in his review, this is all Ebert talks about. He doesn't address why the the comedy fails at being just that. Instead he is more apt to go on for long periods of time about the one thing he liked. By saying there was only one thing he liked, Roger Ebert is saying that he hated everything else:

Billy Bob Thornton is in full "Bad Santa" mode in "Mr. Woodcock," an uneasy comedy about an adult who returns home to discover his mother is planning to marry the gym teacher who made his high school days a living hell. The thing about Thornton is, he makes no compromises and takes no prisoners when he plays guys like Woodcock. He's a hateful bastard, and he means it. That makes the movie better, actually, than if we sensed a heart of gold under the crust, but it doesn't exactly make it funnier.

It is hard to argue with Roger Ebert here, because the movie is bad like he said. I think that reading this before I had seen the movie would have impacted what I thought of it. Because Ebert only gives a brief summary and goes on about Billy Bob Thorton's outstanding acting and all the other characters dry attempts at comedy. I would have focused more on the characters, who were all well played. Instead of being unimpressed by the weak punchlines and frantic plot.
The only time Ebert points out the horrible story is at the end of his review:

Anyway, all is resolved in a rather contrived ending that might have something to do with the film's three weeks of reshoots, as reported by Patrick Goldstein in the L.A. Times and documented on IMDb. I would have been happier if young John Farley had torn his positive thinking book to shreds, slammed Mr. Woodcock in the gut with a medicine ball, and told him to drop and give him 50 quick ones or he'd do it again.

It still bothers me that Ebert has completely wasted a review on discussing the celebrities in the movie instead of the movie itself. However, I will say one thing for Ebert. He does a good job of trying to save people from wasting a couple hours of their time.