I say "tentative" because I may be making an unfair assumption. However, in his review of "Role Models," he says,
"Danny gets Augie (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), whose life is entirely absorbed in a medieval fantasy game where bizarrely costumed "armies" do battle in parks with fake swords. There are mostly younger teenagers and lonely men with mountain-man beards. Sort of a combination of Dungeons and Dragons and pederasty."
Ahem.
Mr. Ebert, while I am a LARPer, I am not a pederast. Nor are my friends who participate in "boffer LARPs."
Now, to be fair, the movie may portray LARPers as pederasts and he’s only responding to the movie’s portrayal of the environment presented. I am going to assume this is the case until I am proven otherwise.
However, coupling this with his claim that games cannot be art, his complete and utter failure to understand satire, and his giving Disney’s Hunchback of Notre Dame the same number or more stars than Glenngary Glen Ross, Ran or The Usual Suspects (of which, he only gave 1 and 1/2 star), I now submit to you, humble reader, this question…
If this is the most trusted movie critic in America, then what the fuck do you have to do to be untrustworthy?