Locutus of Bored wrote:
Oh, so Extraordinary Measures is not about pharmaceutical companies developing a cure for Pompe Disease thanks to the fundraising efforts of a family with two children suffering from it? It's not about getting FDA approval and eventually disseminating the Pompe Disease drug around the world to cure the children suffering from it?
To be fair - and I liked the movie better than Ebert did - no, not really. It's about developing and finding one fairly wealthy family a cure. The health care system doesn't really come into play because the protagonists' kids get into a free trial study, and the movie pretty much ends when the trial starts to work. Yes, there's a few other, poorer families featured, but the cost of the drug isn't really important if said drug doesn't even exist.
I'm all for discussions of politics in entertainment, and raising an eyebrow in the absence of same - IIRC, for example, Scrubs
made a few mentions of health care iniquities early in its first season, and then pretty much ignored the issue for the next few years at least when you'd think the characters would have to grapple with it fairly regularly - but in the case of Extraordinary Measures
, I think Ebert was a tad off-base. Still, I don't at all mind that he included that factoid in his review, and I find those who would censure a columnist for discussing the political implications of a movie to be full of it.
too many posters to count wrote:
I didn't agree with him all the time
Well, no shit, who would
? And sometimes the guy was just plain wrong. I would absolutely love to say that The Golden Compass
deserves a 4/4 star rating, but it simply doesn't. Tough beans; no one
can win 'em all. (Except the guy in the mirror, of course.
One thing I do
know, however, is it'll be some time before I stop thinking "I wonder what Ebert'll say about this
one" whenever a new movie comes out...