10 Bonkers Theories Roger Ebert Had About Famous Movies

1. The Godfather Part 2 Shouldn't Have Had The Flashbacks

What Ebert Said

Despite awarding Francis Ford Coppola's epic sequel four stars, Ebert wasn't totally a fan: he believed some scenes to be pointless, and most worryingly, claimed that the De Niro starring flashback sequences were a distraction.

"The flashbacks give Coppola the greatest difficulty in maintaining his pace and narrative force. The story of Michael, told chronologically and without the other material, would have had really substantial impact, but Coppola prevents our complete involvement by breaking the tension. The flashbacks to New York in the early 1900s have a different, a nostalgic tone, and the audience has to keep shifting gears. Coppola was reportedly advised by friends to forget the Don Vito material and stick with Michael, and that was good advice."

What?

The Reality

Seriously, no Robert De Niro?

His part in The Godfather Part II remains one of his most beloved and critically acclaimed performances of his entire career. Cutting them out would have robbed us not only of that, but would also have robbed the sequel of the clever narrative parallel to Michael's rise to power in his father's past.

What other crazy theories did you take from Roger Ebert's film criticism? Share your favourites below in the comments thread.