I remember when Roger Ebert's Movie Answer Man column featured fun questions about movie mistakes and such. That day seems to be fading away. The column has now turned into Ebert's forum to rebut reader feedback. First it was Revenge of the Sith, which was awarded three and a half stars, but was a largely negative review. Now readers have set their sights on The Longest Yard, which got a thumbs up and three star review, putting it right along side of The Godfather, Part II and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

"My review of The Longest Yard has generated more feedback than anything I've written since Diary of a Mad Black Woman," wrote Ebert. "I was trying to do something rather complex in the review, and it was surprisingly well-received by many readers and hated by others. I was trying to balance on the cutting edge between conceding that a movie 'works' and knowing that life is short and one should ideally be making a better choice."

He goes on to explain that he "saw The Longest Yard in one mood and reviewed it in another." And that if stars were all that mattered, "why would I go to the trouble of writing a review?" But then goes on to explain that both The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and The Godfather, Part II are being entered into his Greatest Movies series, which somehow upgrades them to four star movies.

I'm actually one of the few people who likes reading Ebert's work. How can a movie be upgraded from three to four stars? Can anyone explain this to me?

(Note: Later in the column Ebert takes on Time's list of the 100 greatest films of all time, which is worth reading).
categories Movies, Cinematical