Read the review at the link I just gave you. Go ahead, I'll wait.

I doubt I've ever read a more stupid critique in my life. I mean, what the hell? I could understand giving the film an incredibly low one star if he, you know, actually explained how the film was bad based on its artistic merits. That's what critics are supposed to do, right? Good critics, that is. Provide an objective-as-possible take on a movie, considering the quality of its acting, script, cinematography, and other important qualities.

Ebert didn't do this. Instead, he wrote a mindless  rant on how the movie is supposedly "immoral."

First off, newsflash, Mr. Ebert: it's a movie. If you can be offended by pure fantasy such as this, then you're an egotistical moron who's obsessed with upholding a moral code that has essentially become meaningless.

Secondly, there's a certain amount of hypocrisy at work here. Roger Ebert has actually worked on films in the past that could be considered "immoral" in the same way this film is. Also, why doesn't he complain about Tarantino? Tarantino directs all sorts of films with over-the-top violence treated in silly ways.

Is it because "oh, it's a cute little girl, she shouldn't be doing those things?" No. That's a stupid argument. Grown adults shouldn't be doing those things either. By using that argument you're essentially arguing, "well, it's not okay for little girls to kill people, but I have no problem with grown men killing other grown men! Da-derp-da-derpity-dumb."

Jesus Christ, this guy's going senile, I swear to God. He'll trash anything he deems too "immoral" for his pompous tastes and like shit like the Garfield movie just because it's "family friendly."