Roger Ebert has something to prove to the world it seems, as he continues his asinine viewpoint that videogames "will never" be art. You know what art is, right? It's that completely subjective thing that by its very nature can't be exclusive to certain medium just because some out-of-touch hack says so. In his review of the Hitman movie, Ebert continues his tirade:
"The movie, directed by Xavier Gens, was inspired by a best-selling video game and serves as an excellent illustration of my conviction that video games will never become an art form - never, at least, until they morph into something else or more ... The troopers spring into sight, pop up and start shooting, and he has target practice. He also jumps out of windows without knowing where he's going to land, and that feels like he's cashing in a chip he won earlier in the game."
Apparently, this movie's style is proof that games will never become art, despite the fact that this is a movie which he says isn't art ... and yet he calls movies art ... except this one is not ... and ... and ... and shut up, for Christ's sake, Ebert. His use of this movie is as illogical and arbitrary as his founding argument, and I wish he wouldn't pluck random points from the sky, essentially setting his stance in a make-believe world where he picks and chooses the rules. Stating games, for example, will never be art because they're interactive is akin to me saying that planes can't fly because they have wheels ... the arguments and the reasons given simply have no correlation and nothing is proven.
Ebert claims that the movie might have been more like his utopian view of art if it did not have to fulfil "obligatory videogame requirements." I personally fail to see how this is different from a James Bond or Die Hard film, and yet movies are given far more respect by this man. What he needs to do is shut up, play some Half-Life 2, play a little BioShock maybe, and then stuff a sock down his throat so he can't keep expressing his jealousy that there's a new art medium in town.