Don't Panic, But Ebert & Roeper Are Pretentious Douchebags*

I saw The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy last night, and then today I watched a TiVoed Ebert & Roeper today to see their review of it.

I loved the movie¹. I thought it was funny, and did a really good job of keeping the wit of the book. I also thought Sam Rockwell did a good job as a W-esque President of the Galaxy, and Alan Rickman did a great job as Marvin, the Paranoid Android, as did Warwick Davis (you know, Willow) who actually had to crawl within the body suit of the robot.

Maybe they are good at reviewing dramas, but I am now convinced that Ebert & Roeper wouldn't know a good comedy if it bit them on their left nut², as the idiots gave Hitchhiker's Guide 2 thumbs down. I don't know why I keep watching these pricks. They never like funny movies unless they are cute enough, they never like action movies unless they have some deep, underlying meaning, and they never like anything that you might actually have to think about (instead of just pretend like you are thinking by saying how "interesting" a movie is). I'm betting these morons would have given bad reviews to Monty Python and The Holy Grail because it was too silly, Star Wars because it was trying to fuse Science Fiction and Fantasy, and Gone With the Wind because Scarlett O'Hara was too full of herself and Rhett Butler's hair was too greasy.

---

* This is NOT news.
¹ I should mention that I have read the first book in the Hitchhiker's Guide series and enjoyed it, which may have influenced my review... but I still stand by my assertion that this is a funny movie.
² Which, incidentally, would be hysterically funny.