XIXAX Film Forum

Film Discussion => News and Theory => Topic started by: filmcritic on June 18, 2003, 11:33:11 AM

Title: Roger Ebert
Post by: filmcritic on June 18, 2003, 11:33:11 AM
Roger Ebert is a great film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times. You can read his reviews and articles here...

http://www.suntimes.com/index/ebert.html

He also has a television show that is on every week called "Ebert & Roeper". You can hear and see reviews here...

http://tvplex.go.com/buenavista/ebertandroeper/today.html

Ebert has also done commentary on DVD's including "Citizen Kane" and "Dark City".
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Pubrick on June 18, 2003, 11:38:15 AM
well, at least this troll has an ambitious theme.

kinda like the ultimate newbie. like he was born yesterday, and he's trying to educate us, that's the twist.

u die now troll.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Sleuth on June 18, 2003, 11:43:41 AM
It's so confusing, I love it
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Pas on June 18, 2003, 11:55:17 AM
:lol:  :cry:  :lol:  :cry:  :lol:  :cry:
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Keener on June 18, 2003, 11:57:25 AM
I can appreciate this brand of humour.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: MacGuffin on June 18, 2003, 11:59:33 AM
Well, Mr. filmcritic, you forgot to mention today is his 61st birthday.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: filmcritic on June 18, 2003, 12:11:10 PM
Yes, that's true. I e-mailed him today and wished him a happy birthday. He is 61 and hopefully he'll be around for years to come.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: MacGuffin on June 18, 2003, 12:33:56 PM
Quote from: mogwai
What's his e-mail address, if you don't mind.


thumbs_up @ thumbs_down.com
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: ShanghaiOrange on June 18, 2003, 12:39:30 PM
You guys  :roll:


:(
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: dufresne on June 18, 2003, 12:40:44 PM
did roger ebert have a mini stroke recently?  why does his lip droop?
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: MacGuffin on June 18, 2003, 12:42:39 PM
Quote from: dufresne
did roger ebert have a mini stroke recently?  why does his lip droop?


Effects of his thyroid cancer surgery.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: filmcritic on June 18, 2003, 01:02:02 PM
There are some interesting things about him that maybe most of you know already. His favorite movie is "Citizen Kane". He has written a screenplay called "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls". He never prepared to be a film critic when he went to college, but of course he became one. He sees movies just about everyday. He always said that in the most typical day in Chicago, the first movie is at 10, the second movie is a couple of hours later, and the next one is a couple of hours after that. He had to work his way through college because after his father died, his family was tight on cash. He said that he's usually so busy that people will ask him if he wants to go to lunch with them and he says that he hasn't had lunch in 10 years.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Pedro on June 18, 2003, 01:19:41 PM
The fuck is the point of this thread?
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: bonanzataz on June 18, 2003, 01:33:39 PM
Quote from: filmcritic
He has written a screenplay called "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls".


and for that, I love him.

Quote from: Pedro the Wombat
The fuck is the point of this thread?


well...?

EDIT: thousandth post... you know what that means...
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: godardian on June 18, 2003, 03:25:21 PM
"Woody reserved special contempt for film critics on television. 'The Chicago morons' was his label for one high-profile pair." - Mia Farrow, What Falls Away.

Way to be diplomatic, Mia!

The nicest thing I can personally think of to say about Ebert's body of work is that it's better than Leonard Maltin's.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: SoNowThen on June 18, 2003, 03:38:11 PM
Quote from: godardian
"Woody reserved special contempt for film critics on television. 'The Chicago morons' was his label for one high-profile pair." - Mia Farrow, What Falls Away.

Way to be diplomatic, Mia!

The nicest thing I can personally think of to say about Ebert's body of work is that it's better than Leonard Maltin's.


I think he was being playful, because he was known to share lunch with Ebert every now and again (post-Moron comment).
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: ProgWRX on June 18, 2003, 04:18:47 PM
i find that i sometimes agree with him...  :oops:  (at least on the TV show reviews)
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Pas on June 18, 2003, 05:10:06 PM
Leonard Maltin ...

Batman and Robin : 2.5/4
Shawshank Redemption : 2.5/4

Interview with a Vampire : 1.5/4
Usual Suspects 1.5/4
Waterworld 1.5/4

He's a buff
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: ono on June 18, 2003, 06:09:57 PM
That's one skewed cross-section of Maltin reviews, Booth.  ;)

I don't get the backlash against The Usual Suspects here.  No, it's not a brilliant movie (not nearly as brilliant as what IMDB users would have you believe), but it's not a horrible one, either.

Waterworld wasn't really that bad, in my opinion, and IMO, The Shawshank Redemption is one of the greatest movies ever.  There's just nothing wrong with it, and there's so much right about it.  It's just like Amelie in that it portrays hope so well.

I find Ebert brilliant in pretty much everything he writes.  There are only a few reviews I've disagreed with him about, and most of the time I can see where he's coming from.  There's no critic like him.  Even if I hated the movie, I always enjoy reading the review, because he writes so well.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Ghostboy on June 18, 2003, 06:16:46 PM
Quote from: Onomatopoeia
Even if I hated the movie, I always enjoy reading the review, because he writes so well.


That's how I feel, too. Plus, you can tell that he really loves movies in pretty much everything he writes.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: SHAFTR on June 18, 2003, 06:21:59 PM
I became an Ebert fan after meeting him and hearing him talk (about Hard Days Night).  I have since bought his Book of Film and I have been reading it (although it is just edited by him, not written obviously).
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Ravi on June 18, 2003, 09:41:05 PM
Quote from: Ghostboy
Quote from: Onomatopoeia
Even if I hated the movie, I always enjoy reading the review, because he writes so well.


That's how I feel, too. Plus, you can tell that he really loves movies in pretty much everything he writes.


His reviews of bad films are especially fun to read.  See my sig...
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: ShanghaiOrange on June 18, 2003, 10:37:14 PM
This thread gets  :yabbse-thumbup:  :yabbse-thumbup: . :(
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: ©brad on June 19, 2003, 12:28:41 AM
Quote from: ShanghaiOrange
This thread gets  :yabbse-thumbup:  :yabbse-thumbup: . :(


i remember i saw u smile once. it was a happy day for me. can u smile again?
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: dufresne on June 19, 2003, 03:51:53 PM
Quote from: filmcritic
His favorite movie is "Citizen Kane".


i could have sworn his favorite film was The Third Man.  

 :?
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: modage on June 19, 2003, 03:59:00 PM
Quote from: SoNowThen
I emailed Ebert about it (since it's his fav movie). After a week of silence, he replied that he's heard rumours, but nothing in the near near future.


according to SoNowThen, its La Dolce Vita. :?
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: ShanghaiOrange on June 19, 2003, 10:10:58 PM
Quote from: ©brad
i remember i saw u smile once. it was a happy day for me. can u smile again?


:)


:(
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: ©brad on June 20, 2003, 11:03:51 AM
Quote from: ShanghaiOrange
Quote from: ©brad
i remember i saw u smile once. it was a happy day for me. can u smile again?


:)


:(


 :yabbse-cheesy:
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: SoNowThen on June 20, 2003, 11:12:37 AM
Quote from: themodernage02
Quote from: SoNowThen
I emailed Ebert about it (since it's his fav movie). After a week of silence, he replied that he's heard rumours, but nothing in the near near future.


according to SoNowThen, its La Dolce Vita. :?


I've tried to read all his classic reviews, as well as interviews, etc. The three movies he seems to talk about with the most enthusiasm are:

La Dolce Vita
2001
Apocalypse Now

Also, in the email I sent him, I did mention how I assumed Dolce Vita was his favorite, and he didn't dispute this...
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: pete on April 26, 2004, 07:52:52 PM
dopiest ebert and roeper exchanges in a while:
(on mean girls)

ebert: I think you need to have your movie-o-meter re-adjusted.
roeper: no, I think it feels very comfortable, thank you.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: El Duderino on April 26, 2004, 07:53:45 PM
hahahaha....classic!
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: ono on April 26, 2004, 08:02:02 PM
Quote from: pete
dopiest ebert and roeper exchanges in a while:
(on mean girls)

ebert: I think you need to have your movie-o-meter re-adjusted.
roeper: no, I think it feels very comfortable, thank you.

So who liked it and who hated it?  Seems to me like the type of movie Ebert would like.  I hope so anyway.  I have good hopes for it.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Dottie_Hinkle on April 27, 2004, 02:55:56 PM
I think Ebert's playing with his cock 1/2 the time INSTEAD of watching the films....  I find many mistakes in his reviews.  The most recent was for Kill Bill volume II where he claims UMA reads the info re: the Black Mamba....
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on April 27, 2004, 02:58:19 PM
Quote from: SoNowThen
[Also, in the email I sent him, I did mention how I assumed Dolce Vita was his favorite, and he didn't dispute this...

He has said "Citizen Kane" when asked what his favorite movie is.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: SoNowThen on April 27, 2004, 03:04:58 PM
He was lying that time.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: LostEraser on April 29, 2004, 02:03:09 AM
I've heard him say that his two favorite movies are both The Third Man AND Citizen Kane. So i guess it's a tie. But he has also referred to Kane as the single greatest movie ever made (so maybe he likes the Third Man more out of personal taste).

But, yes, I've also heard him talk a lot about 2001, Apocalypse Now, and La Dolce Vita. So I'm sure they are close seconds.

I really like reading Ebert. I wish he would explore some things a little further though and he can be a bit stubborn (his reviews of Lynch films is a perfect example). But I always enjoy reading him. I wish he would do more commentaries.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Just Withnail on April 29, 2004, 07:32:57 AM
He mentions countless times on the Casablanca commentary that Citizen Kane is his favorite.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: godardian on May 02, 2004, 01:35:03 PM
I've been watching Floating Weeds with the Ebert commentary, and... I have to say, it's very respectable. He gets Stephen King points for admitting he's no expert and just a fan, deferring to experts like Paul Schrader as having a more "awesome" body of knowledge and insight, and then proceeding to make a lot of blunt and fumbling yet accurate observations that I also had while watching the film, exploring and sharing interesting and relevant information about Ozu's style, history, and place in cinema. I really like his description of the shots and compositions, which of course are a very fecund topic in Ozu.

Anyway, this and his enthusiasm for Walkabout are two things I can appreciate about Ebert. And his ability to observe and articulate here just proves to me that he really is dumbing down when he writes for the local newspaper and talks on TV.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on May 02, 2004, 01:41:58 PM
Quote from: godardian
Anyway, this and his enthusiasm for Walkabout are two things I can appreciate about Ebert. And his ability to observe and articulate here just proves to me that he really is dumbing down when he writes for the local newspaper and talks on TV.

I see exactly what you mean. There is that feeling in each of his reviews that he's going back to the basics and starting all over again.

Also check out his Dark City commentary if you haven't. He literally doesn't stop talking.

I think he might be happier as a professor.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Ghostboy on May 02, 2004, 03:50:08 PM
His Citizen Kane commentary is also very good, as it should be considering the number of times he went through it shot by shot with a film class.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Pubrick on May 02, 2004, 10:06:51 PM
Roger Ebert Commentary Marathon!
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: pete on May 03, 2004, 02:52:10 PM
remember when he did the commentary to Dark City for free just because he loved the movie so bad and wanted it released on LaserDisc so he could watch it frame-by-frame?
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: cine on May 03, 2004, 03:14:55 PM
Quote from: pete
remember when he did the commentary to Dark City for free just because he loved the movie so bad and wanted it released on LaserDisc so he could watch it frame-by-frame?

Apparently he does them all for free..
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: tpfkabi on May 09, 2004, 06:50:15 PM
i saw Ebert and Roeper on TV for the first time in a long time. i was really surprised at how much his appearance has changed.

they heatedly disagreed on The Saddest Music in the World(i'm probably messing up the title there)......it's shot in b&w and made to look like a silent film
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: cron on May 23, 2004, 05:43:29 PM
(http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/20/film.ebertincannes.ap/story.ebert.ap.jpg)

He looks very healthy in this pic
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Sleuth on May 23, 2004, 07:50:46 PM
Even his voice changed
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: picolas on May 23, 2004, 07:53:22 PM
Whatever happened to the rumour he was killed in a motorcycle accident and Roeper replaced him shortly after the Ebert look-alike competition and that's why they never go on tour anymore?
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: MacGuffin on May 23, 2004, 07:59:45 PM
Quote from: Sleuth
Even his voice changed


Some people are just late bloomers.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Chest Rockwell on May 23, 2004, 11:54:11 PM
He's lost some 87 pounds.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: pete on May 24, 2004, 12:22:11 AM
he looks like an old harry potter.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Pubrick on May 24, 2004, 06:59:07 AM
he still looks like he's melting.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Just Withnail on May 24, 2004, 07:15:31 AM
That pic must be posted in the caption thread.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: The Silver Bullet on May 26, 2004, 09:52:00 AM
God, he doesn't look like he's melting; he looks like he's damned near dying...

:?
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: ono on May 26, 2004, 12:56:00 PM
He DID have an operation to have his thyroid gland removed (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22Roger+Ebert+had+a+stroke%22&btnG=Search) a while back, you know.  I think he had some paralysis in his cheek which caused it to look like that.  So like, give the guy a break or something.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Myxo on May 26, 2004, 02:40:30 PM
(http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/20/film.ebertincannes.ap/story.ebert.ap.jpg) "Somebody feed me!"
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: hedwig on June 15, 2004, 05:00:49 AM
changed my mind.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Pubrick on June 15, 2004, 05:21:17 AM
i don't care much for Girl 6, so, i dunno what to tell ya. Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, however, is quite alright by me.

i never went to ebert for black-feminist-cultural sophistication, didn't know that was a requirement for film critics. sumtimes he doesn't know what he's talking about, his star system sucks, and his commentaries are great.. that much i know.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: grand theft sparrow on June 15, 2004, 12:45:50 PM
Roger Ebert lost what little credibility he had left when he wrote these words:

"Is 'Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban' as good as the first two films? Not quite."
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: ©brad on June 15, 2004, 02:54:30 PM
whats wrong with that?

whatever. ebert is good.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: modage on June 15, 2004, 10:19:23 PM
Quote from: hacksparrow
Roger Ebert lost what little credibility he had left when he wrote these words:

"Is 'Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban' as good as the first two films? Not quite."

yeah, whats wrong with that?  he doesnt feel the need to automatically judge 3 as better because it was directed by someone with credibility like a lot of other people.  it SEEMS like it should be better because it has a better director, and has some better camerawork, acting and more adult themes but its still a bit of a mess of storytelling.  why cant the first two be better?
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: grand theft sparrow on June 16, 2004, 01:45:07 PM
Quote from: themodernage02
why cant the first two be better?


You answered your own question.

Quote from: themodernage02
it has a better director, and has some better camerawork, acting and more adult themes but its still a bit of a mess of storytelling.


The first two films weren't exactly tight either story-wise.  It's been discussed on the Azkaban thread that Steve Kloves is leaving a lot of stuff by the wayside.  I think it's more out of necessity than incompetence (every HP film would be at least 4 hours long if they included everything Rowling wrote).  But since the scripts seem to be on the same level of quality, all that's left to judge them on is the directing, the acting, cinematography, VFX, etc.   In those respects, Azkaban is clearly the best film in the series so far.  

What Cuaron did with Azkaban was he took the wizard world and made it realistic, as if it actually exists with our world.  Instead of doing the Chris Columbus eye candy thing, "Hey! Look at this!", Cuaron lets the viewers discover these things in the frame themselves.  That kind of filmmaking is what the film series needed all along.  I still like the first two films but the third one is just so far above and beyond what the first two accomplished that I can't imagine someone who knows as much about film as Ebert not seeing it as a step up.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: LostEraser on June 16, 2004, 09:26:35 PM
Quote from: hacksparrow
Roger Ebert lost what little credibility he had left when he wrote these words:

"Is 'Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban' as good as the first two films? Not quite."


Amen! ....Don't worry, I got your back. lol! :wink:
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Chest Rockwell on June 18, 2004, 08:34:58 AM
The problem with Ebert is that he judges some films on entirely personal bases. Take for instance, from his 'Girl Next Door' review: "That a porn king saves the day gives you an idea of the movie's limited moral horizons." And he also gave The Passion four stars for what seemed like Christian reasons. Mind you, this all isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I personally would rather havea critic review a movie based on its cinematic value and leave the moral value to the viewer.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Pubrick on June 18, 2004, 09:06:06 AM
Quote from: Chest Rockwell
I personally would rather havea critic review a movie based on its cinematic value and leave the moral value to the viewer.

chest: yeah well that's never gonna happen. all critics hav their personal opinions and biases, that's what their careers are based on, unless u only read reviews from robots ur always gonna get sumone's personal views affecting how they perceive a film.

everyone: all that matters from a critic i think, is that they know what they're talking about.. that doesn't mean in every area of every issue they encounter in the movies they watch. ebert seems to know quite a bit about christianity so his response to the passion was prolly more educated than most.

that's another thing, how can sumone EVER review sumthing purely on cinematic criteria, when the movies themselves are almost never made that way? it's a total lie that film students and pretentious robot-reviewers hav invented that movies are just about the angles or lenses or sets or even performances. a critic will hav a philosophy about what movies actually are, i imagine based not only how many films they've watched but equally on an acute perception of HOW movies hav affected themselves and others.

in the end that's all one can hope for from a critic, their honest impression on what they just saw in relation to other movies, themselves, and everybody else.

nobody: i find it unbelievable that anyone would criticize a critic if their reviews barely consist of more than "the directing was good". i wonder if anyone has ever actually thought about all the movies they've seen. i know some hav. it is evident that some hav wrestled with the same ideas, as ur insights into films, albeit different to mine, offer more depth than the artifice of their creation.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: FeloniousFunk on July 05, 2004, 05:22:39 PM
BEST OF 2004 SO FAR

EBERT & ROEPER:
SPIDER-MAN 2
FAHRENHEIT 9/11
THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST
BAADASSSSS!


WORST OF 2004 SO FAR

EBERT & ROEPER:
WHOLE TEN YARDS
SCOOBY DOO 2
CONNIE AND CARLA


ABSOLUTE BEST SO FAR

EBERT & ROEPER:
KILL BILL: VOLUME 2

ABSOLUTE WORST SO FAR

ROGER EBERT:
NEW YORK MINUTE

RICHARD ROEPER:
WHITE CHICKS
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: eward on July 05, 2004, 07:24:59 PM
wowwy
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: LostEraser on July 12, 2004, 01:28:24 AM
I stumbled upon his list of the top ten films of all time that he gave to sight and sound back in 2002 when they did that big top ten poll. Here it is if anyone is interested (he listed them in alphabetical order):
    
Aguirre, Wrath of God (Herzog)
Apocalypse Now (Coppola)
Citizen Kane (Welles)
Dekalog (Kieslowski)
La dolce vita (Fellini)
The General (Keaton)
Raging Bull (Scorsese)
2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick)
Tokyo Story (Ozu)
Vertigo (Hitchcock)
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: matt35mm on July 12, 2004, 03:05:13 AM
Yeah I just finished listening to his commentary for the Citizen Kane DVD.  After clarifying that lists are silly and stupid, he says that it's a part of his job and that he officially lists Citizen Kane as his #1.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Myxo on July 12, 2004, 05:22:48 PM
I saw Ebert's review of Resevoir Dogs on my DVD and basically wrote him off.

Siskel was much better.

.. and skinnier ..
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Ravi on July 14, 2004, 02:12:11 PM
Quote from: Myxomatosis
I saw Ebert's review of Resevoir Dogs on my DVD and basically wrote him off.

Siskel was much better.

.. and skinnier ..


Siskel didn't like it either.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: abuck1220 on August 26, 2004, 03:53:21 PM
ebert sung the 7th inning stretch at the cubs' game today. he said that if he was stranded on a desert island and could only have one movie, he'd go w/ citizen kane or godfather. he also mentioned the third man, notorious and singing in the rain as some of his other favorites.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: diggler on September 02, 2004, 03:55:04 PM
man, maybe i'm the product of the short attention span generation, but i just can't watch citizen kane anymore. yea, the cinematography is incredible, yes it is a masterpiece.  but it's just so god damn boring. once was enough for me.

criticize me if you want, i wish i'd like it more.  my parents bought me the dvd for christmas and i still haven't watched it at all. just haven't been in the mood.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: grand theft sparrow on September 02, 2004, 04:04:00 PM
Quote from: ddiggler6280
man, maybe i'm the product of the short attention span generation, but i just can't watch citizen kane anymore. yea, the cinematography is incredible, yes it is a masterpiece.  but it's just so god damn boring. once was enough for me.



*says nothing, just shakes his head, looks down and weeps*
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: bonanzataz on September 02, 2004, 04:06:27 PM
Quote from: ddiggler6280
man, maybe i'm the product of the short attention span generation, but i just can't watch citizen kane anymore. yea, the cinematography is incredible, yes it is a masterpiece.  but it's just so god damn boring. once was enough for me.

criticize me if you want, i wish i'd like it more.  my parents bought me the dvd for christmas and i still haven't watched it at all. just haven't been in the mood.


just watch it a few more times and you'll see.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Weird. Oh on September 04, 2004, 03:20:32 AM
Quote from: ddiggler6280
man, maybe i'm the product of the short attention span generation, but i just can't watch citizen kane anymore. yea, the cinematography is incredible, yes it is a masterpiece.  but it's just so god damn boring. once was enough for me.

criticize me if you want, i wish i'd like it more.  my parents bought me the dvd for christmas and i still haven't watched it at all. just haven't been in the mood.


You can send it to me if you'd like.  :lol:
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Ravi on September 04, 2004, 10:57:09 PM
Quote from: ddiggler6280
man, maybe i'm the product of the short attention span generation, but i just can't watch citizen kane anymore. yea, the cinematography is incredible, yes it is a masterpiece.  but it's just so god damn boring. once was enough for me.

criticize me if you want, i wish i'd like it more.  my parents bought me the dvd for christmas and i still haven't watched it at all. just haven't been in the mood.


I couldn't get past the newsreel portion on my first try, but I tried to watch it again a few months later and was blown away by the film.  Watch it again with the commentaries.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Pubrick on September 05, 2004, 01:51:11 AM
Quote from: ddiggler6280
man, maybe i'm the product of the short attention span generation, but i just can't watch citizen kane anymore. yea, the cinematography is incredible, yes it is a masterpiece.  but it's just so god damn boring. once was enough for me.

criticize me if you want, i wish i'd like it more.  my parents bought me the dvd for christmas and i still haven't watched it at all. just haven't been in the mood.

too bad, ur loss.

ps. the one thing that can be said about our generation, is that there is enuff diversity within it from all types of media (not just tv, and definitely not just MTV), that it cannot blame itself at all for any shortcomings.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: NEON MERCURY on September 05, 2004, 09:11:01 PM
Quote from: ddiggler6280
man, maybe i'm the product of the short attention span generation, but i just can't watch citizen kane anymore. yea, the cinematography is incredible, yes it is a masterpiece.  but it's just so god damn boring. once was enough for me.

criticize me if you want, i wish i'd like it more.  my parents bought me the dvd for christmas and i still haven't watched it at all. just haven't been in the mood.


...... :? .you might like 'birth of a nation'...try that one... :yabbse-thumbup:
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: The Perineum Falcon on September 05, 2004, 11:43:39 PM
I've watched CK twice, both times for class, in class. Perhaps it's the atmosphere of the classroom that dulls a cinematic experience for me. I can't seem to concentrate on the film, always [trying to] analyzing it, taking notes, etc. This affected Memento, too, which wasn't as good as it had been in my room months before.
It was also shown on an awful projector. One of those normally used for slides or powerpoint presentations. I've thought about renting it again and watching it outside the classroom, but I've never gotten around to it. There are other movies I'm more concerned with seeing.
I appreciate the film, a lot (and I really can't stress that enough), but it never really grabbed me. There are scenes, shots, and/or sequences that I really love (the sequence at the table of Kane's first marriage, particularly). I've always felt a bit strange about my feelings on the film, especially since it's touted as the "greatest movie ever." And because of the title given to it, I've always felt like I should love it, hold it above all others, but I can't and I don't. I suppose that's where a lot of people find their disappointment with it, I mean how can anything live up to the title "the greatest [title] ever"?
It's a fine film, to be sure, but as of right now it's not one that I can hold in the highest regard that it may (or may not) deserve.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Finn on October 01, 2004, 07:07:18 AM
At the cruiseline back in March, Ebert said he was going to make a rogerebert.com website. Now he finally has and it looks really good. Check it out...

www.rogerebert.suntimes.com
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: diggler on October 01, 2004, 12:22:41 PM
yea ranemaka thats a good point.  having to sit in those desks at school through any movie is brutal.  i've since repented on my discontent for citizen kane. it's just one of those movies you have to be in the right mood for.  there is a lot of new things i notice every time i watch it. but i still stand by my opinion that i don't think it is the greatest of all time. i don't think any movie should receive that label.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: matt35mm on October 01, 2004, 05:19:56 PM
It's not the greatest of all time (I also just disagree with any Of All Time lists), but I don't feel like I have to be in any particular mood to watch it or that it's boring.  I feel like it's actually very entertaining and gripping throughout.  I just enjoy watching it, and that's part of what makes it so good--it's very entertaining.  And it benefits from having a very good story behind the making of it, because the more you learn about that, the more interesting the movie becomes.

But I think it's a good movie BECAUSE I personally enjoy it.  I think it's dangerous to create lists that make people feel like they HAVE to like the movie.  If you don't enjoy the movie, then what's so good about it for you?  It's not a bad thing to say that you didn't like Citizen Kane; it's a bad thing to say that you DO think it's brilliant when you really don't.  I try not to be swayed by silly lists, but I do actually enjoy this movie a ton.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: cine on October 28, 2004, 12:37:36 PM
Ebert, former paper's CEO trade barbs

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Chicago Sun-Times film critic Roger Ebert dueled with Conrad Black, the ousted CEO of the paper's parent company, in a series of sharply worded letters published Wednesday in the newspaper's commentary section.

Ebert said he felt betrayed by reports that the Canadian newspaper mogul used Hollinger profits for personal expenses while the Sun-Times building sat in disrepair and union employees threatened to strike over wages and benefits. Black scoffed at what he called Ebert's "ingratitude," citing the critic's $500,000 salary.

The exchange began earlier this month when Ebert, co-host of "Ebert & Roeper and the Movies," wrote in an open letter to publisher John Cruickshank during contract negotiations that he would not cross a picket line if the paper's staffers went on strike. He complained about reports of "millions of dollars winging away to the (former chief operating officer David) Radler and Black billfolds while we worked in a building where even basic maintenance was ignored."

Black was ousted as CEO of Hollinger International Inc. amid an internal investigation that accused him, Radler and others of systematically looting the newspaper publishing company of more than $400 million -- nearly all its profits from 1997 through 2003.

The report, prepared by a special committee of Hollinger's board, said Black had Hollinger pay for things like $8.9 million worth of Franklin Delano Roosevelt memorabilia while Black was writing a book about FDR. The company also financed nearly $25,000 for "summer drinks" and more than $42,000 for a birthday party for Black's wife, Barbara Amiel Black.

Black and Radler have denied doing anything improper. In his letter, which was also sent to the Chicago Tribune, Black reminded Ebert it was the "generous treatment from David Radler" that was responsible for his $500,000 salary and other compensation.

At the end of his letter, Black wrote that "your proletarian posturing on behalf of those threatening to strike the Sun-Times and your base ingratitude are very tiresome."

Ebert took the last shot.

"Since you have made my salary public, let me say that when I learned that Barbara received $300,000 a year from the paper for duties described as reading the paper and discussing it with you, I did not feel overpaid," he wrote.

The internal investigators reported that Amiel Black was paid "more than $1.1 million a year in annual salary and bonus payments" even though "she performed no meaningful work in return."

Ebert also reminded Black that while he and his associates were allegedly pocketing most of Hollinger's profits, the escalators in the Sun-Times building "were actually turned off to save on electricity and maintenance."

The Sun-Times reached a tentative contract deal with union reporters, copy editors and other news staff last week, about two hours after the union's strike deadline.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: 1976 on October 28, 2004, 08:53:51 PM
I think Ebert wants to bang his sister...cuz his essay on "Donnie Darko" kept mentioning incest...and I didn't get that AT ALL watching this movie. Shame on you Roger...you sick f*ck!
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: ono on December 11, 2004, 09:30:36 PM
Question on the game show "Greed":
What part of Roger Ebert's anatomy goes up when he likes a movie?
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: NEON MERCURY on December 11, 2004, 09:35:32 PM
Quote from: wantautopia?
Question on the game show "Greed":
What part of Roger Ebert's anatomy goes up when he likes a movie?


thats actaully a trick question ..it depends on the movie..

for example if he's watching citizen kane its his thumb....

if he's watching dark city ..its his penis...
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: eward on December 11, 2004, 11:42:12 PM
Quote from: NEON MERCURY
Quote from: wantautopia?
Question on the game show "Greed":
What part of Roger Ebert's anatomy goes up when he likes a movie?


thats actaully a trick question ..it depends on the movie..

for example if he's watching citizen kane its his thumb....

if he's watching dark city ..its his penis...


post of the week
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Myxo on December 17, 2004, 03:32:37 AM
Small excerpt from his "Million Dollar Baby" review. He's calling it the best film of the year.

I agree. :-D

Quote from: Roger Ebert
Clint Eastwood's "Million Dollar Baby" is a masterpiece, pure and simple, deep and true. It tells the story of an aging fight trainer and a hillbilly girl who thinks she can be a boxer. It is narrated by a former boxer who is the trainer's best friend. But it's not a boxing movie. It is a movie about a boxer. What else it is, all it is, how deep it goes, what emotional power it contains, I cannot suggest in this review, because I will not spoil the experience of following this story into the deepest secrets of life and death. This is the best film of the year.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: matt35mm on December 20, 2004, 03:04:01 PM
Ebert's Best and Worst of 2004 (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041219/ESSAYS/412190302)

His top 10 make sense, but his worst 10 are inconsistent with his reviews.  I guess some of the movies just left an increasingly bad taste in his mouth.  Dogville in there seems a bit extreme, plus I seem to remember a **1/2 review for it.

I haven't seen all of the movies in his top 10, but so far the only 2 movies I agree with him about is Spider-Man 2 (it's in my top three) and Sideways (probably would rank number 4).  I'm very curious about Million Dollar Baby, and I don't think Kill Bill Vol. 2 is nearly as good as all that.  And I think that his bottom 10 is just a silly list.

Eh, anyway, whatever.  I don't have to agree with him on everything.  But I think our opinions were much more similar 5 years ago or so.  I don't know which one of us is changing, but our opinions are becoming more and more different.  I still regard him as one of the must-read reviewers, though.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Pwaybloe on December 20, 2004, 03:19:52 PM
That reminds me...

Badasss! was a great movie.  I forgot to mention that.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Myxo on December 20, 2004, 04:10:32 PM
Quote from: Roger Ebert
4. "Spider-Man 2"

Here's the best superhero movie ever made. The genre does not lend itself to greatness, although the first "Superman" movie had considerable artistry and "Blade II" and "The Hulk" had their qualities. Director Sam Raimi's first Spider-Man movie was thin and the special effects too cartoony, but the sequel is a transformation. Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst bring unusual emotional complexity to comic book characters, Alfred Molina's Doc Ock is one of the great movie villains, and the special effects, while understandably not "realistic," bring a presence and a sense of (literal) gravity to the film; Spider-Man now seems like a human and not a drawing as he swings from the skyscrapers, and his personal problems -- always the strong point of the Marvel comics -- are given full weight and importance. A great entertainment.


I don't think it was the "best superhero movie ever made". It's marginally better than either one of the X-Men films and not even close to as cool as the first Batman.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: modage on December 20, 2004, 04:14:16 PM
yes, i've been scratching my head all year as to how that accolade keeps getting thrown around for that movie.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on December 20, 2004, 07:25:54 PM
Each year I'm more disappointed with Ebert's lists.

Where's Huckabees?
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: brockly on December 20, 2004, 08:53:52 PM
ive only seen 3 movies on that list
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on December 20, 2004, 10:19:23 PM
You know, I have a strong feeling that Ebert has a narcissistic "quote me on the cover" fetish and massages his prose to accomodate it. I mean... lines like "Here's the best superhero movie ever made" and "This is the best film of the year"... how else can you explain them?
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: modage on December 20, 2004, 10:32:05 PM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
Each year I'm more disappointed with Ebert's lists.

Where's Huckabees?

you mean why isnt it on his worst list?  because he didnt like it.  so, maybe he thought it was better forgotten.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: ono on December 20, 2004, 10:38:04 PM
Not only that, but I kind of wish he'd outgrow the star system.  It has its appeal, its use, but everyone seriously interested in film should outgrow it eventually.  It's a left-brained way of thinking in a right-brained medium.  Most telling/annoying is how (like matt35mm said) he has Dogville as one of the worst when it's a **(1/2) star review.  Alexander is **.  There are worse movies -- these just seem to be the ones that really rubbed him the wrong way.  I like Ebert, but some of those quotes just seem like money in the bank to him.

I (Heart) Huckabees and I (Heart) You!
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on December 20, 2004, 10:42:07 PM
Quote from: themodernage02
you mean why isnt it on his worst list?  because he didnt like it.  so, maybe he thought it was better forgotten.

To be honest, I just brought that up because you posted above me.

But the real question is Where's Greendale?
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on December 20, 2004, 10:49:35 PM
Quote from: wantautopia?
Not only that, but I kind of wish he'd outgrow the star system.  It has its appeal, its use, but everyone seriously interested in film should outgrow it eventually.  It's a left-brained way of thinking in a right-brained medium.

To his credit, though, he does acknowledge the absurdity of rating systems. But I've never agreed with his relative method of rating, i.e. it's a really good movie if it does what it was trying to do.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: modage on December 20, 2004, 10:50:44 PM
Quote from: wantautopia?
Most telling/annoying is how (like matt35mm said) he has Dogville as one of the worst when it's a **(1/2) star review.  Alexander is **.  There are worse movies -- these just seem to be the ones that really rubbed him the wrong way.

yes, i think thats probably what he's doing and what most people do with worst lists as such.  its obvious that there will be plenty of terrible movies made by hacks that are instantly forgettable, but to remember the experience it has to be really disappointing (or just horrendously awful).  thats what makes oliver stones bad movie worse than joe roths. because roth can be counted on for crap, but from stone he expected better.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: pete on March 06, 2005, 12:37:47 PM
from his column today, regarding the firing of Charles Taylor on Salon:

Film criticism is being swamped these days, not so much on Salon as everywhere else, by idiotic celebrity coverage, gossip, hype, and any possible way to discuss a movie without actually saying whether it is any good or not. Most of the entertainment-oriented TV shows are all foreplay: weeks of gushing and hype, "exclusive" interviews," "first looks" at trailers, and then, when the movie comes out, no critical opinion at all -- just a box-office report.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: life_boy on March 06, 2005, 01:02:49 PM
Ebert seems recently to mistake a great leading female performance for the greatest film of the year.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: ono on March 06, 2005, 01:10:11 PM
Nope, not this year.

Quote from: pete
from his column today, regarding the firing of Charles Taylor on Salon...

A more general thread about critics... (http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=2661)
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: life_boy on March 06, 2005, 01:47:47 PM
Quote from: ono mo cuishle
Nope, not this year.


Yes, I know you would disagree with that statement in regards to Million Dollar Baby.  I don't think it is the best film of the year by a longshot, but I look forward to reading your analysis of the film on Green Screen in a few days.  Perhaps my appreciation of that film will increase as a result.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: MacGuffin on June 23, 2005, 09:20:41 PM
Ebert Gets Star on Hollywood Walk of Fame

(http://us.movies1.yimg.com/entertainment.yahoo.com/images/ent/ap/20050623/carf101_people_ebert.sff.jpg)

Pulitzer Prize-winning film critic Roger Ebert isn't a movie star but he critiques them on TV so memorably that on Thursday he received his own star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

A crowd of family, friends and fans cheered as Ebert's star was unveiled in front of Hollywood's El Capitan Theatre. Attendees included director Werner Herzog, actress Virginia Madsen and actor Tony Danza.

"When I watch movies, I can feel what it's like to walk in another person's shoes," Ebert, 65, told the crowd. "Movies make us more decent people. This is a wonderful day for me."

Ebert, who began his journalism career as a 15-year-old sports writer for the Champaign-Urbana (Ill.) News-Gazette, was named the Chicago Sun-Times film critic six months after joining the paper in 1966. In 1975, he became the first film critic to receive a Pulitzer for arts criticism.

That same year Ebert teamed with the late Chicago Tribune film critic Gene Siskel on the TV show "Sneak Previews," which would evolve into the long-running "Siskel & Ebert and the Movies." Their "thumbs up, thumbs down" system of rating films became so popular that Ebert eventually trademarked his right thumb.

Ebert now co-hosts "Ebert & Roeper" with fellow Sun-Times columnist Richard Roeper.

A humorously unapologetic critic who once called a film "an assault on the eyes, the ears, the brain," Ebert has written 17 books, including "Roger Ebert's Book of Film" and "I Hated, Hated, HATED This Movie."

He has also dabbled as a screenwriter, with credits including "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" and "Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens."
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: modage on June 24, 2005, 09:07:46 AM
awww, thats nice for him.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Kal on June 24, 2005, 02:17:44 PM
He kinda looks like Mrs. Doubtfire
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: SiliasRuby on June 24, 2005, 02:25:43 PM
The guy in the background with his mouth open seems a bit too excited.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Finn on June 24, 2005, 03:12:53 PM
it's gonna be weird when Ebert dies cuz they'll have to get somebody who's even less popular than Roeper. but that's not to knock Ebert or Roeper, they're great. I actually agree with Roeper more than I do Ebert usually.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Ravi on June 25, 2005, 01:12:05 AM
Quote from: SiliasRuby
The guy in the background with his mouth open seems a bit too excited.


"That jacket is FRIKKIN AWESOME!!!!"
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: squints on July 08, 2005, 10:22:24 AM
So ebert was the first critic to win a pulitzer prize for his criticism...of what movie? what won it for him? was it just his overall work or one specific review or article?

Ebert makes me long for the days when fox has a show on called....that's right....The Critic
Ebert and Sherman, that would've been much better
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Finn on July 08, 2005, 12:17:23 PM
ebert and siskel were on that show for one episode. it was pretty funny
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Ravi on July 08, 2005, 01:59:55 PM
Quote from: Finn
ebert and siskel were on that show for one episode. it was pretty funny


They even sang.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Fernando on September 01, 2005, 01:10:34 PM
Roger Ebert's Chicago Townhouse.

Found here (http://www2.oprah.com/foodhome/home/spaces/spaces_20050509_rebert.jhtml).

When he shows the shelve of movies that are pretty good, which box set can you see?
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Gold Trumpet on September 07, 2005, 12:13:57 PM
I saw Kubrick collection, dreyer box set and orphic trilogy (last two criterion editions). But, its an impressive lay out. I always knew I'd be jealous of his set up.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: JG on September 23, 2005, 06:08:56 PM
i think i saw a keaton collection
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Alexandro on October 27, 2005, 04:18:14 PM
He's a great critic but his David Lynch reviews are some of the stupidest things I've ever read....specially the blue velvet and the elephant man...
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Myxo on October 27, 2005, 05:25:37 PM
Quote from: Alexandro
He's a great critic but his David Lynch reviews are some of the stupidest things I've ever read....specially the blue velvet and the elephant man...

If he doesn't get it, he won't give it a favorable review.

Ebert should just come out and say "I didn't get it" and move on.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: life_boy on October 27, 2005, 05:32:49 PM
Lately he seems to get everything.  What's with all the 4 star and 3 1/2 star reviews?  He's always been a little generous but it's getting ridiculous.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: cowboykurtis on October 27, 2005, 07:18:45 PM
Quote from: Myxo
Quote from: Alexandro
He's a great critic but his David Lynch reviews are some of the stupidest things I've ever read....specially the blue velvet and the elephant man...

If he doesn't get it, he won't give it a favorable review.

Ebert should just come out and say "I didn't get it" and move on.


Have you read the review for Blue Velvet?

He completely got the film - he just really really wishes it was something else.

He's so critical beacuse his response to certain parts were so positive, that he hated the movie for not continuing down his desired path.

(more or less he loved the parts with rosellini and thought that the satirical tone to lumberton trivailized the darker elements instead of juxtaposing and heightening the effect)
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Weak2ndAct on November 24, 2005, 02:26:43 AM
No one here will ever see 'Just Friends' anytime soon, but Roger has, and his review borders on drunk/insane/god-knows-what rambling.  Wow.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051122/REVIEWS/51120001
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Pubrick on November 24, 2005, 03:18:10 AM
Quote from: Roger Ebert
... Awopbopaloobop, alopbamboom!

that's him eating his own head.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: squints on November 24, 2005, 04:04:02 PM
I've been reading Ebert's reviews for a while now and his commentary on Citizen Kane helped me secure an A in my first film class

my favorite line from one of his reviews lately has to be from Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo, the last sentence made me laugh very hard
"Speaking in my official capacity as a Pulitzer Prize winner, Mr. Schneider, your movie sucks."
 
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: JG on November 24, 2005, 05:46:49 PM
that review was all over the place.  But I love Ebert.   

How old do you think he was when he started writing reviews? [/sarcasm]
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Gamblour. on November 24, 2005, 08:49:33 PM
Quote from: Roger Ebert
... Awopbopaloobop, alopbamboom!

that's him eating his own head.

Now I've seen everything.

That review's pretty nutty.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: hedwig on November 24, 2005, 09:06:42 PM
Quote from: Roger Ebert
... Awopbopaloobop, alopbamboom!

that's him eating his own head.

Now I've seen everything.

That review's pretty nutty.

i think he was doing that weird thing where he writes the review in the style of the film, purposely stylizing the writing the same disjointed way the film was stylized, creating a sense of confusion and rambling chaos that serves to reflect the film's own flawed structure

he did it with another review, too, where he basically described every plot point in this really dry, boring manner and then went, "That is how the film is made, showing each event unfold so blandly." or something like that.

maybe. crazy eggbert.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on November 25, 2005, 01:05:17 PM
I love how someone cross references Truffaut with Just Friends.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Gold Trumpet on November 27, 2005, 08:03:45 PM
No one here will ever see 'Just Friends' anytime soon, but Roger has, and his review borders on drunk/insane/god-knows-what rambling.  Wow.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051122/REVIEWS/51120001

HAH! I saw it. First day and first showing, too. Thats not bragging. Ebert does ramble and would have been better to offer a concise one paragraph shredding of the film. I think he has length requirements to fufill and had no clue what to really say for so long.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: matt35mm on November 28, 2005, 02:18:31 PM
I'm assuming, just based on how it looks, that it's a movie of the sorts that he's seen many times before.  I don't know how good/bad Just friends is, but after having to see essentially that same kind of humor for every single time a movie like that comes out, it'd just get excruciatingly boring to have to write another review that covers the same ground as 100 previous reviews he's written.  So yeah, it came off as a "Man, fuck it" review.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Gold Trumpet on November 28, 2005, 03:03:05 PM
I'm assuming, just based on how it looks, that it's a movie of the sorts that he's seen many times before.  I don't know how good/bad Just friends is, but after having to see essentially that same kind of humor for every single time a movie like that comes out, it'd just get excruciatingly boring to have to write another review that covers the same ground as 100 previous reviews he's written.  So yeah, it came off as a "Man, fuck it" review.

There is nothing remotely new about it. Its a romantic comedy mixed with gross out humor to appease more people. The reason I saw it is that I thought Ryan Reynolds and Amy Smart would have chemistry. They did and both will be in better movies someday. I got what I expected and when you are Middle America and tickets cost just $5, you can see these type of movies.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: JG on November 28, 2005, 03:09:20 PM
The commercials look so stupid.  Literally ever joke relied on someone getting punched. 

Ah, I love Ebert.  I don't see how some of you don't like him. 
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: jigzaw on December 04, 2005, 01:00:00 PM
He tends to like movies with hot chicks in them, and he often hates really good movies. 
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: matt35mm on December 04, 2005, 04:41:04 PM
We all like movies with hot chicks in them.  And no, I don't mean movies that HAPPEN to have hot chicks in them.  I mean we like hot chicks in movies.

Sure, I disagree with Ebert from time to time, but give us a few examples of the movies that you think are "really good" that he "hates."  Just don't say Reservior Dogs or Fight Club.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: hedwig on December 04, 2005, 04:45:06 PM
he didn't like Blue Velvet or Lost Highway.

he's said/done enough good stuff to outweigh the dumb shit, though.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: matt35mm on December 04, 2005, 05:10:01 PM
I was going to mention those films as well.  However, I don't think it's stupid to dislike Lynch's movies.  They're not Ebert's taste (in the case of Blue Velvet and Lost Highway, anyway), and that's a reasonable thing.  Lynch is one of my favorite directors, but I don't really expect everyone to love him.  Just as long as they don't say "wtf was that?  that was WEIRD!  turn that shit off!"  That level of ignorance, my dears, I don't like.  Lynch's movies, to me, are so open to interpretation that there are good reasons to dislike them, as long as someone bothers to open-mindedly watch the film and think about it.  And Ebert certainly doesn't hate all Lynch movies; he loves many of them as well.

In the case of Blue Velvet, he disliked that it mistreated/exploited Rosellini, which is what he saw in it.  That's not what I see when I watch the movie, but if it really were, I would have given it a negative review as well.

The difference is, I don't think it was a simple-minded response to those movies.  So, I'm just trying to say that I don't think Ebert is a simple-minded critic, whether or not I agree with him on everything (and that would be simple-minded of me if I did agree with him on everything).  I would at least give him that.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Ravi on December 04, 2005, 06:01:12 PM
And Ebert certainly doesn't hate all Lynch movies; he loves many of them as well.

I think the only ones he liked were Mulholland Drive (we all know why) and The Straight Story.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: matt35mm on December 04, 2005, 06:29:40 PM
And Ebert certainly doesn't hate all Lynch movies; he loves many of them as well.

I think the only ones he liked were Mulholland Drive (we all know why) and The Straight Story.
I can only find 5 reviews on his site.  2 out of 5 isn't too bad, considering those 2 are 4-star reviews.

I wonder what he thinks of Eraserhead.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: JG on December 04, 2005, 07:04:09 PM
I can think of plenty of movies he loved or even liked that i hated . 

i love him, personally.  but even if you disagree with him, you can't not respect him.  he's an exceptional writer.  and very witty. 
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Gold Trumpet on December 04, 2005, 07:14:52 PM
This board definitely moves in waves. I haven't seen this much love to Ebert in a while.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: SHAFTR on December 04, 2005, 07:20:45 PM

In the case of Blue Velvet, he disliked that it mistreated/exploited Rosellini, which is what he saw in it.  That's not what I see when I watch the movie, but if it really were, I would have given it a negative review as well.

The difference is, I don't think it was a simple-minded response to those movies.  So, I'm just trying to say that I don't think Ebert is a simple-minded critic, whether or not I agree with him on everything (and that would be simple-minded of me if I did agree with him on everything).  I would at least give him that.

I had an uneasy feeling after watching Blue Velvet (I didn't really like it much).  I read Ebert's reviews and found that my feelings to that film were similiar to his.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: NEON MERCURY on December 04, 2005, 07:25:49 PM
And Ebert certainly doesn't hate all Lynch movies; he loves many of them as well.

I think the only ones he liked were Mulholland Drive (we all know why) and The Straight Story.
I can only find 5 reviews on his site.  2 out of 5 isn't too bad, considering those 2 are 4-star reviews.

I wonder what he thinks of Eraserhead.


i thought that there was a post on here about ebert apologizing for being an idiot and dissing blue velvet...he later gave the film props and said something to the effect of  "blue velvet was so far ahead of its time i didnt know what to think of it so i felt bad for the eyetalian chick and so i said it sucked"....but now ebert likes it.

and yes matt, if you dont like lynches movies you ARE an idiot. :yabbse-grin:
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: abuck1220 on December 18, 2005, 11:54:12 AM
ebert's top 10...

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051218/COMMENTARY/512180302
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: eward on December 18, 2005, 12:14:09 PM
are you fucking kidding me??   
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Pubrick on December 18, 2005, 12:22:55 PM
are you fucking kidding me??   
it's alrite. remember Monster? yeah, neither does anyone.

he's given a lot of good movies credit tho.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Gamblour. on December 18, 2005, 12:24:27 PM
I'm going to think that because he's always been a sucker for films about racism, that's why Crash is first. New World is way at the bottom. And he calls "Wallace and Gromit" one of the most delightful films ever made. Such a hyperbolic statement makes one wonder why it wasn't in his top ten then. And the idea that there's this nine ten page thread for Ebert is  ridiculous, I mean as the top American critic, he often makes little sense, I rarely agree with him, and it would probably as deserving for Jo Blo to share this title. Speaking of, I haven't been there in a while, I'm gonna check it out.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Pas on December 18, 2005, 02:14:55 PM
I'm going to think that because he's always been a sucker for films about racism, that's why Crash is first. New World is way at the bottom. And he calls "Wallace and Gromit" one of the most delightful films ever made. Such a hyperbolic statement makes one wonder why it wasn't in his top ten then. And the idea that there's this nine ten page thread for Ebert is  ridiculous, I mean as the top American critic, he often makes little sense, I rarely agree with him, and it would probably as deserving for Jo Blo to share this title. Speaking of, I haven't been there in a while, I'm gonna check it out.

Haha totally. Ebert has a real problem with exagaration. One of the most delightful movie ever made isn't in the top ten while one of the most annoying movie is first.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: JG on December 18, 2005, 03:28:33 PM
he's given a lot of good movies credit tho.


Right.  I mean it's great to see "Me, You, and Everyone We Know."   But Syriana and Crash are the two most overrated movies of the year.  I usually love Ebert but this weak is list. 
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: grand theft sparrow on December 18, 2005, 04:15:25 PM
I'm going to think that because he's always been a sucker for films about racism, that's why Crash is first.

I think it's because he has a boner for ensemble films as well but it's the same difference.  I could deal with him putting Crash in the top 10 - we knew it was going to happen - but number 1... I'm done with Ebert.  Siskel wouldn't have fallen for that bullshit.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: pete on December 18, 2005, 05:41:34 PM
I also think Ebert has a real weak spot for movies with some type of political or religious message, I mean, aside from movies that are really really bloated like the Kevin Spacey one, he'll usually go along with political movies.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Gamblour. on December 18, 2005, 05:44:02 PM
but this weak is list. 

ftw?

Ebert did say one interesting thing about Crash, that today's racism is transcendent and every race is affected. it's just an obvious thing that I knew but really didn't think about.

Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: polkablues on December 18, 2005, 06:34:00 PM
But Syriana and Crash are the two most overrated movies of the year.

Please don't lump together the smartest and dumbest movies of the year so casually.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: JG on December 18, 2005, 06:48:50 PM
Syriana>Crash.  Syrianna is smarter than crash.  Both both are very overrated. 
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: eward on December 18, 2005, 11:14:01 PM
and dont be happy that me and you and everyone we know was acknowledged, thats almost as bad as crash being number 1 (okay, maybe not that bad)
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: JG on December 18, 2005, 11:33:48 PM
no.  me and you and everyone we know was good.  while it's not a four star movie in my book, it is cool to see it get recognition cause it's so much better than other shit
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: matt35mm on December 19, 2005, 12:30:39 PM
Well, Junebug's in about the right place.  I'd also put Me and You in about the same place.

Out of that list, I have only seen Junebug, Me and You, and Millions.  And Millions doesn't belong in the top 10.  It was sweet, decent, and I even saw it twice.  But it was not one of the top 10 of the year.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Pozer on December 19, 2005, 06:37:25 PM
No, it doesn't at all.  I spit on that movie.  And I spit on Eberts list.  Siskle must be spinning in his grave.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: hedwig on December 19, 2005, 08:34:11 PM
Siskle must be spinning in his grave.

ouch.

anyway, it's a good list with a glaring flaw.

PS - it's Siskel
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: ono on December 22, 2005, 04:17:59 PM
I sent this note to myself over two years ago, so I forget where I got it from.  But, in Ebert's defense...

Quote from: Roger Ebert
I think about him all the time. And many of the dictums and principles and standards that he had are things that I agree with. He had policies on things that I often feel were right. For example, he didnt like to see trailers. He wanted to see the movie without seeing the trailers because the trailer gives away all the best parts. That was just one. I could write a whole book: The World According to Gene and His Rules and Regulations. And most of them were correct. One thing he had that I found true in my life, he got from Stanley Kubrick. He called it Kubricks Law. Occasionally, if we were in a situation where he couldnt say what he really meant, he would just turn to me and say, Kubrick, and I would know what he really meant. Kubricks Law was when you asked someone for a piece of information or for some help or for directions or for an answer, whatever it is, and what they tell you may be correct and it may be incorrect, but whatever it is, it is the easiest for them to do or say or tell you.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Gamblour. on December 22, 2005, 06:04:11 PM
I don't get it.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: matt35mm on December 22, 2005, 06:23:33 PM
I don't get it.
Kubrick.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: NEON MERCURY on December 24, 2005, 07:13:19 PM
haha...crash at number one will invalidate you for life...
his list doesnt reflect someone who has seen plenty of films over his life, critqued them, and analyzes their importance...


poor siskel...he must be rolling in the eternal balcony...
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: hedwig on December 24, 2005, 08:33:12 PM
LEAVE SISKEL OUT OF THIS.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: matt35mm on December 24, 2005, 08:51:50 PM
LEAVE SISKEL OUT OF THIS.
This struck me as a good banner quotation.  An important quotation, for all times.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: pete on January 08, 2006, 03:59:33 PM
I couldn't even read his "answerman" column today, it was so vapid and just full of readers that agreed with everything he said and a few cutesy disagreements.  On top of that, he also wrote a long-ass defense for "Crash."  I hope it haunts him the way "Do the Right Thing" haunted that New York critic who hated it.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Ravi on January 08, 2006, 04:14:36 PM
On top of that, he also wrote a long-ass defense for "Crash."  I hope it haunts him the way "Do the Right Thing" haunted that New York critic who hated it.

It won't, since a lot of viewers and critics liked it.

His defense of Crash was weak.  The nice cop kills the black guy out of racist suspicion and the racist cop helps Thandie Newton.  Therefore the movie is complex.  I didn't think Crash was the worst movie of the year (that is probably Waiting or Deuce Bigalow), but it sure as hell was the most overrated.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Gamblour. on January 08, 2006, 05:25:32 PM
I wrote a reply to him, saying how he just picked two bad, bombastic writers so he could easily defend the film. I hope he replies, because I agree with what they're saying, but now how they say it, and I want him to answer my criticisms, which will probably just end up being disappointing.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: JG on January 17, 2006, 01:48:35 PM
I wrote a reply to him, saying how he just picked two bad, bombastic writers so he could easily defend the film. I hope he replies, because I agree with what they're saying, but now how they say it, and I want him to answer my criticisms, which will probably just end up being disappointing.

See if your criticism made it.  Theere are some pretty good attacks on Crash in here. 

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060116/COMMENTARY/60116002
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Gamblour. on January 17, 2006, 09:53:20 PM
Good god, that last comment is particularly ineloquent and obvious. Mine was so much better, oh well.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: pete on January 17, 2006, 11:15:21 PM
man, that adds to what I've been saying about the new recent Ebert--he doesn't really publish letters that challenge him anymore--only readers that agree with him and readers with disagree with the more obvious, more easily debateable points.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: jigzaw on January 22, 2006, 10:43:05 AM
The Human Absorption Rule was pretty funny.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: modage on January 22, 2006, 11:13:52 AM
ebert never reviewed Hostel.  and after Wolf Creek i was looking forward to what he thought of it.  i dont believe it got the 'wagging finger of shame' either.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: hedwig on January 22, 2006, 11:37:38 AM
i just saw a Richard Roeper blurb on the advertisement in the newspaper comparing "The New World" to "Titanic."

sigh.  :yabbse-angry:
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Pozer on January 22, 2006, 04:39:03 PM
LEAVE ROEPER OUT OF THIS... what?
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: MacGuffin on June 01, 2006, 05:38:49 PM
Ebert undergoing cancer surgery again

CHICAGO (AP) -- Roger Ebert, who has battled cancer in recent years, will undergo surgery again, according to a published report.

In Thursday's Chicago Sun-Times, where Ebert has been the movie critic for nearly 40 years, columnist Robert Feder reported that Ebert will have surgery June 16 to remove a cancerous growth on his salivary gland.

"It's not life threatening, and I expect to make a full recovery," the 63-year-old critic and host of the nationally syndicated movie review show "Ebert & Roeper," told Feder. "I'll continue to function as a film critic during this time."

Feder reported that Ebert is not expected to require radiation treatment as he did when he underwent surgery in 2002 and 2003 to remove tumors on his thyroid and salivary glands.

 
"This is known as a slow-growing and persistent cancer," Ebert said. "You live with it."

Ebert said he plans to tape enough shows with Sun-Times columnist Richard Roeper that the program will continue to air during his recovery.

Ebert has been a film critic at the Chicago Sun-Times since 1967. He won the Pulitzer Prize for criticism in 1975, the same year he teamed up with Gene Siskel of the rival Chicago Tribune to launch their movie-review show. Siskel died in 1999.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Ravi on June 02, 2006, 12:19:33 PM
Gallo strikes again.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Kal on July 02, 2006, 05:49:29 PM
Ebert condition serious after operation

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Film critic Roger Ebert, who has battled cancer in recent years, was in serious condition Sunday following an emergency operation to repair complications from an earlier cancer surgery.

Chicago Sun-Times columnist Richard Roeper -- co-host of the "Ebert and Roeper" movie review show -- told the paper that Ebert's vital signs appeared to be good after the hours-long operation.

Ebert had surgery June 16 to remove a cancerous growth on his salivary gland. He told Sun-Times columnist Robert Feder at the time that the condition was not life threatening and he expected to make a full recovery.

About 8 p.m. Saturday, a blood vessel burst near the site of the operation, the Sun-Times reported Sunday on its Web site. Northwestern Memorial Hospital officials did not immediately return a telephone call Sunday afternoon from The Associated Press.

The 64-year-old has undergone cancer surgery three times before -- once in 2002 to remove a malignant tumor on his thyroid gland and twice on his salivary gland the next year.

Ebert has been a film critic at the Chicago Sun-Times since 1967. He won the Pulitzer Prize for criticism in 1975, the same year he teamed up with Gene Siskel of the rival Chicago Tribune to launch their movie-review show. Siskel died in 1999.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: jigzaw on July 02, 2006, 05:52:44 PM
I hope he heals up and feels better.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Astrostic on July 03, 2006, 11:15:04 PM
That's gotten me kind of depressed for some reason.  I've got a hunch that he'll ok, but, even though I don't always like what he has to say about many films, I get the feeling that my tracking of film criticism just wouldn't be as exciting without him.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Ravi on July 04, 2006, 12:15:16 AM
I hope he heals up and feels better.

"I gave how many stars to the Garfield movies?!?!"
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: pete on July 05, 2006, 11:20:13 AM
yeah, I mean, for a star movie critic with a voice and a column and a tv show and books (basically, a franchise), Ebert is really knowledgeable and solid.  all the rest suffer from critics cliche one way or the other--richard corliss overpraises and overhypes every filmmaker and movement, ao scott reuses the words like he's never read the critics cliche dictionary, roeper is an asshole, maltin is boring, david denby is dumb...etc. etc., but Ebert is fresh, even his weird taste in movie is only half-explanable.  he's every bit as jolly as his weight, and for a movie critic, he's rarely ever cynical.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Gold Trumpet on July 05, 2006, 04:21:08 PM
I like Roger Ebert. I may disagree with him. I may think something he wrote wasn't very good. But the truth is, like Pete said, he's always a friendly personality with his criticism. I think too many people are too apt to personally attack him. Disagreeing with him or thinking less of one of his pieces doesn't merit an attack.

I also don't mind the way he recommends casual films. Sometimes his best sense is being able to rescue films that looks like duds. This summer has been pathetic on good quality entertainment and he's been in line with my opinion almost every step of the way. And if Over the Hedge didn't have funny trailers, his review could have been the reason I saw it. His review for the Da Vinci Code was also my only interest in the movie. I also live in a cheap market and my theater can get away with $4 tickets so I can see a lot of movies.

My main argument against him is that he doesn't stand up against more films. He's a critic who is a surveyor of all the beliefs and trends and philosophies going in film but he's too easy to see good in all of them. It feels like he doesn't want to offend any major base of viewership. The friendly personality in him can translate to a complacent attitude for films.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: JG on July 05, 2006, 05:06:16 PM
Ebert's still the best.  He sorta educated me on film and guided my DVD collection to where it is today.   My tastes have certainly evolved so I now disagree with him quite often, but I still think the guy is great.  My main problem with him comes from his belief that film is not a medium for ideas, rather creating an emotion.  I think cinema is so wonderful because it is capable of achieving a synthesis of the two.   Recently his reviews have been a mess, but that good ol' Ebert witticism still shines through once in a while:

Quote
Like many other Sandler movies, [Click] lingers studiously over bodily functions. After losing enormous amount of weight, for example, Michael plays with a big flap of loose skin around his stomach, plopping it up and down long after any possible audience curiosity has been satisfied. During an argument with his boss (David Hasselhoff), he freeze-frames the boss, jumps on his desk and farts. When he puts his boss back on "play," the boss inexplicably decides his secretary has put feces in his salad. Anyone who can't tell poop from lettuce doesn't deserve to be a senior partner. They teach you that in business school.

 :)

Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: MacGuffin on July 28, 2006, 08:28:51 PM
Leno thumbs up for reviews

Jay Leno will step into the critic's chair next week as he takes on guest co-hosting duties for "Ebert & Roeper." The host of NBC's "Tonight Show" will be the first guest co-host for the syndicated movie review show while regular co-host Roger Ebert recuperates at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago after surgery last month. Leno will join Richard Roeper for the Aug. 5-6 episode of the show, which is distributed by Buena Vista Television, to review the films "Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby," "Miami Vice," "Little Miss Sunshine," "The Night Listener" and "Shadowboxer." "America knows Jay as the country's most popular late-night talk show host, but I know him as a guy who loves movies and loves to debate movies with Roger and me -- both on camera and backstage at 'The Tonight Show,' " Roeper said.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Derek237 on July 29, 2006, 12:48:22 AM
The two greatest things I love to watch on TV have finally merged.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: jigzaw on July 29, 2006, 10:50:06 AM
ugh
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: I Love a Magician on July 30, 2006, 12:41:55 AM
Ha. What the fuck.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: MacGuffin on August 18, 2006, 11:01:49 AM
Roger Ebert Letter
Here's a letter from Roger Ebert from his hospital bed:

By Roger Ebert Aug 17, 2006
I have always believed in full disclosure. When I announced that I had a recurrence of salivary cancer that required surgery, I had no idea when I went into the hospital on June 16 that I would still be here on August 16.

On June 16 they removed the cancer in my right jaw area, including a section of my jaw bone. It was successfully reconstructed. On July 1, I was packing to leave the hospital when my blood vessel ruptured. We have since learned that the rupture was caused by a break down of tissue surrounding the artery as a result of radiation treatments I had three years ago.

I had a particularly intense form of radiation called neutron beam radiation, which is more effective for certain cancers, but which is also more debilitating to healthy tissue than conventional radiation.

Finding a solution to protecting the arteries is what has kept me in the hospital, and in bed, since July 1. As you can imagine, it is no fun being hospitalized this long. Fortunately for me, I have received excellent medical care at Northwestern Hospital led by Doctors Harold Pelzer and Neil Fine. This is a unique situation and the doctors are moving cautiously, but they are enthusiastically optimistic about my recovery. I have also had the loving support of my bride Chaz, and good friends and colleagues. I am a lucky man.

I have learned, however, just how quickly one loses strength when confined to the bed for a long period of time. I will need rehabilitation to regain my strength, including voice rehabilitation to strengthen my vocal cords. The doctors have had me on a tracheostomy collar to keep my airways open during the period of surgeries for the ruptured blood vessels. Your vocal cords are like other muscles, they get rusty when they are not used daily. I may have other treatments or procedures as prescribed by my doctors, and so I hope you understand that while I believe in full disclosure, I also need the time and privacy to heal.

I am happy to report that despite all, I am doing well. I started physical therapy, I communicate with friends on a daily basis, I play my iPod and listen to songs with Chaz and the doctors and nurses, and I write. Don Dupree, the Executive Producer of “Ebert & Roeper” installed a plasma TV and DVD player in my room. I am going to watch "Half Nelson" and I hope Kevin Smith was right. I also thank my good friend Jay Leno for sitting in my chair in my absence, and, of course, thanks to Richard Roeper.

I thank all of you for your prayers, your well-wishes, your gifts, cards, e-mails and flowers. I don't have a crystal ball, so I can't tell you when, but I sure look forward to being back on the movie beat.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: modage on August 18, 2006, 01:34:52 PM
aw, i hope he's ok!  :yabbse-sad:
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: pete on August 18, 2006, 01:42:11 PM
wow I guess if he doesn't retire now he's never gonna retire.  when he said full disclosure, I was prepared for the worst!
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: MacGuffin on August 19, 2006, 12:34:59 PM
'Ebert' will rely on guest thumbs

Film critic Richard Roeper, the co-host of the syndicated "Ebert & Roeper," said that the program will continue using guest critics on an ad hoc basis to fill in for the ailing Roger Ebert. It could be a long series of replacements: In a statement released Thursday, Ebert said that doctors are "enthusiastically optimistic about my recovery" but cautioned that he could not predict when he'll be released from a Chicago hospital.

Roeper told Channel Island he'd prefer to rely on a series of substitutes rather than naming a single guest critic to serve for the duration of Ebert's recovery from cancer surgery. So far, Roeper has squared off against "Tonight Show" host Jay Leno, director Kevin Smith and, this week, TV host and screenwriter John Ridley.
 
The guest selection has been a collaborative process, Roeper said, among himself, Buena Vista Productions executives, Ebert and Ebert's wife, Chaz. "I want to be clear: They [the studio] haven't forced us to choose anyone," Roeper said. "They've been great throughout this whole thing."

Some writers have complained that the show has been relying on celebrities rather than professional film critics to fill the shoes of Ebert, perhaps the most recognized movie reviewer in the world.

"This is an indicator of how Disney perceives the show," said David Poland, columnist and editor of the Movie City News website. Poland served as a guest critic on the show before Roeper was hired in 2000 to replace Ebert's original partner, Gene Siskel, who died in 1999. He said: "I think Disney's just trying to keep ratings up during this period. I do think they're having a hard time figuring out what to do next."

Ebert has been a TV fixture for more than 30 years. He and Siskel began a movie-review program on a Chicago PBS station in 1975. Walt Disney Co.-owned Buena Vista Television has syndicated the show under various titles since 1986.

In June, Ebert underwent surgery for a recurrence of salivary cancer, and has been hospitalized ever since.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Derek237 on August 20, 2006, 11:30:17 AM
Man, I really hope Ebert gets back soon. Seeing Jay and Silent Bob guest host was fun and all, and it's not as if they were idiots who had no business being there, but it didn't really feel like a film review show. It felt more like they were having casual film conversations. I really miss Ebert's insight, and I never realized how fucking obsessed Roeper is about the Oscars and won't shut up about it. "I felt Heat should have won best picture of 1995," "I think all the performances here are Oscar-caliber," "Gangs of New York should finally win Martin Scorsese his best director Oscar," Alright, we get it.

I first got really bummed when Pirates Of The Carribean 2 came out, and realized that I would not be able to see an Ebert review of it, and many many other films to come. It never occurred to me how much of a routine it had become to me to check Ebert's reviews every single Friday. Hope he gets better.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: MacGuffin on October 12, 2006, 10:29:56 AM
Roger writes from rehab
by Roger Ebert

For 40 years, I didn't miss a single deadline, but since July, I have missed every one. I also, to my intense disappointment, missed the Telluride and Toronto film festivals. Having just written my first review since June ("The Queen" -- for 10/12), I think an update is in order.

Faithful readers and viewers will recall that I expected a speedy recovery from surgery for salivary cancer last June. My expert (and now beloved) doctors had an encouraging game plan, and I expected to be back at work right away. Then I had several episodes of sudden and serious bleeding.

They stabilized me, operated on me to deal with the arteries, kept me sedated to avoid disturbing the affected areas -- and then I essentially spent July and August completely out of it. I remember only fragmentary episodes.

In September, my bleeding hazards stabilized, I came off sedation to find I had lost track of two months of my life, and starred in several prayer vigils for which I am eternally grateful to my wife and tower of strength, Chaz; my family and friends, and the many clergy who came to see me.

I was so touched when Chaz described those lost months. And now I am at the famous Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago -- learning to walk again! My muscles were atrophied by the weeks of inactivity, and I became a rehabilitation candidate. It's been quite an adventure, made easier by the tireless good cheer and expertise of Dr. Jim Sliwa and his RIC team.

During all of this, I didn't lose any marbles. My thinking is intact and my mental process doesn't require rehabilitation. Visits from colleagues at the Chicago Sun-Times, "Ebert & Roeper," ABC-7 and the film world kept me informed -- although, curiously, I found myself more interested in plunging into the depths of classic novels ("Persuasion," "Great Expectations," "The Ambassadors") than watching a lot of DVDs. I prefer to see the new Oliver Stone, Martin Scorsese and Clint Eastwood films on a big screen, for example. But our "Ebert & Roeper" producer Don DuPree brought around a DVD of "The Queen," and when I viewed it, I knew I wanted to review it.

A few more recent movies also will be reviewed, but I won't be back to full production until sometime early next year. The good news is that my rehabilitation is a profound education in the realities of the daily lives we lead, and my mind is still capable of being delighted by cinematic greatness.

I plan to have my Overlooked Film Festival again in April, and cover the Academy Awards and Cannes. I can't wait to be back in the Sun-Times on a full-time basis, and to rejoin Richard Roeper in the "Ebert & Roeper" balcony. Dr. Harold Pelzer and Dr. Neil Fine of Northwestern Memorial Hospital, and my personal physician, Dr. Robert Havey, also of Northwestern, assure me I will eventually walk, talk, taste, eat, drink and live, more or less, normally. But it will be a struggle, involving another surgery to complete what began in June.

I have discovered a goodness and decency in people as exhibited in all the letters, e-mails, flowers, gifts and prayers that have been directed my way. I am overwhelmed and humbled. I offer you my most sincere thanks and my deep and abiding gratitude. If I ever write my memoirs, I have some spellbinding material. How does the Joni Mitchell song go? "Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone"? One thing I've discovered is that I love my job more than I thought I did, and I love my wife even more!
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: MacGuffin on October 13, 2006, 11:15:46 AM
Having just written my first review since June ("The Queen" -- for 10/12)

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061012/REVIEWS/61012001/1001
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: MacGuffin on November 20, 2006, 12:51:27 PM
Welcome Home, Roger!

Here's one thing to be thankful for on Thanksgiving: Movie City News reports that after five long months in the hospital, film critic Roger Ebert is now recuperating at home, continuing his physical rehab, and going to select screenings.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: MacGuffin on January 12, 2007, 02:38:59 PM
Roger Ebert Update
January 12, 2007 - Our friend, and ABC7 film critic, Roger Ebert has given us an update on his recovery from treatment for cancer of the salivary gland.

Roger's statement:
"It's been some time since I checked in to let you know how I'm doing. I had hoped to be back in my seat in the balcony alongside my partner Richard Roeper, but the surgeons tell me they will have to take a staged, multi-phased approach to getting me back in shape. To borrow from the Chicago Bears, we tried for the long pass, but now we're going for a series of shorter passes until we score a touchdown.

Although I won't be able to conduct my red carpet interviews at the Academy Awards, I plan to conduct my OUTGUESS EBERT contest in the Sun-Times, and I intend to work with WLS/ABC 7 to make my predictions for the Oscars. In fact, I am eagerly awaiting watching the Academy Awards like a regular spectator for the first time. And Richard and the guest hosts will carry on our tradition on EBERT & ROEPER of telling who they think should win.

All of the tickets for my Overlooked Film Festival have sold out, and we expect to have some nice surprises in Champaign-Urbana April 25-29. I published two books this past fall: AWAKE IN THE DARK, and the MOVIE YEARBOOK 2007. And I am working on the follow-up to I HATED, HATED, HATED THIS MOVIE, tentatively called, YOUR MOVIE SUCKS.

In the meantime, my dear wife Chaz and I want to thank my loyal viewers and readers for keeping us in their thoughts and prayers. We have been receiving a steady stream of calls, letters, flowers and e-mails and they have sustained us through this time out.

I am especially grateful to Gwynne Thomas and Janice Marinelli at Buena Vista for their staunch support during this ordeal. They have also worked so hard with Richard Roeper and Don Dupree to get the best guest critics to help maintain the mission of the show. The show has been consistently interesting and informative thanks to all of them. A big thanks also to Sal Sardo who is launching the newly redesigned Ebert & Roeper website
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: MacGuffin on April 04, 2007, 12:00:07 AM
Ebert plans 'return to action' after surgery
Source: Hollywood Reporter

Pulitzer Prize-winning film critic Roger Ebert said he plans a "return to action" at his upcoming Overlooked Film Festival in Illinois later this month as he continues recovering from cancer surgery.

"I'll watch from the audience," he said in a posting on Tuesday on his Web site, rogerebert.com.

"I think of the festival as the first step on my return to action. Because I will be under scrutiny there, I'll tell you what to expect: a sick guy, getting better, who still loves the movies and the festival," Ebert added.

Ebert, 64, posted the statement dated April 2, to mark the 40th anniversary of his being named film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times. He said roughly nine months have passed since his latest surgery for salivary cancer, and his recovery "has been a long and unexpected ordeal."

"I plan to gradually increase my duties in the months to come. I still love writing about the movies. Forty years is not enough," he said.

Last June, Ebert underwent surgery for salivary gland cancer, but about two weeks later, an artery burst in his jaw and kept him hospitalized. It was the start of a series of issues that has prolonged the noted film critic's recovery.

Ebert said he was in bed so long that he "experienced serious deconditioning" for which he underwent physical therapy.

"Because of a tracheostomy, my speaking voice is on hold until my upcoming completion surgery. I am feeling better every day, and my wife Chaz says we can see the light at the end of the tunnel," Ebert said.

In recent months, Ebert has written some reviews for the Sun-Times, held an Oscar contest and contributed to a local Chicago TV station. Meanwhile, his seat on the weekly film review show, "Ebert & Roeper" has been filled by various guest critics.

His Overlooked Film Festival is in its ninth year, and Ebert is the programr and host of the event that takes place April 25-29 at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, south of Chicago.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: john on April 04, 2007, 12:21:28 AM
That does my heart good to hear.

I dig Ebert.

In high school, I was a pretentious dick who didn't like Ebert purely on principle. I don't know what that principle was, though, so I guess it didn't hold weight.

Same way I avoided films like East of Eden and Casablanca and the Maltese Falcon and anything else staid old folks would come into the video store I worked at to rent. "None of that nostalgic American bullshit for me, no sir, give me some Godard goddammit. And Ebert? Fuck him. Dude gave a good review to the silly haunted house film with Lily Taylor just because he liked the HOUSE? Pssshhh!"

Now I like Ebert and fucking love East of Eden and realized I snubbed my nose at a lot of real, real good stuff.

Still can't understand how the house saved that film, though.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Pubrick on April 04, 2007, 09:58:34 AM
i'm no doctor and i hate to say it, but i think this is a losing battle.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: MacGuffin on April 24, 2007, 04:22:14 PM
(http://media1.suntimes.com/nixoncds/image/042407ebert.jpg_20070424_01_26_29_320-282-400.imageContent)(http://media1.suntimes.com/nixoncds/image/ebert2.jpg_20070424_13_15_57_348-281-400.imageContent)

‘I ain’t a pretty boy no more’
BY ROGER EBERT Film Critic

My Ninth Annual Overlooked Film Festival opens Wednesday night at the University of Illinois at Urbana, and Chaz and I will be in attendance.

This year I won’t be speaking, however, as I await another surgery.

Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn. As a journalist I can take it as well as dish it out.

So let’s talk turkey. What will I look like? To paraphrase a line from “Raging Bull,” I ain’t a pretty boy no more. (Not that I ever was. The original appeal of “Siskel & Ebert” was that we didn’t look like we belonged on TV.)

What happened was, cancer of the salivary gland spread to my right lower jaw. A segment of the mandible was removed. Two operations to replace the missing segment were unsuccessful, both leading to unanticipated bleeding.

A tracheostomy was necessary so, for the time being, I cannot speak. I make do with written notes and a lot of hand waving and eye-rolling. The doctors now plan an approach that does not involve the risk of unplanned bleeding. If all goes well, my speech will be restored.

So when I turn up in Urbana, I will be wearing a gauze bandage around my neck, and my mouth will be seen to droop. So it goes.

Won’t be hiding illness

I was told photos of me in this condition would attract the gossip papers. So what?

I have been very sick, am getting better and this is how it looks. I still have my brain and my typing fingers. 

Although months in bed after the bleeding episodes caused a lack of strength and coordination, the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago restored my ability to walk on my own, climb stairs, etc.

I no longer use a walker much and the wheelchair is more for occasional speed and comfort than need. Just today we went for a long stroll in Lincoln Park.

We spend too much time hiding illness. There is an assumption that I must always look the same. I hope to look better than I look now. But I’m not going to miss my festival.

Comfiest seat in the house

Why do I want to go? Above all, to see the movies. Then to meet old friends and great directors and personally thank all the loyal audience members who continue to support the festival.

At least, not being able to speak, I am spared the need to explain why every film is “overlooked,” or why I wrote “Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.”

Being sick is no fun. But you can have fun while you’re sick. I wouldn’t miss the festival for anything!

P.S. to gossip rags: I have some back pain, and to make it easier for me to sit through screenings, the festival has installed my very own La-Z-Boy chair.

Photos of me in the chair should be captioned “La-Z-Critic.”
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Derek237 on April 24, 2007, 06:46:32 PM
Good, I'm glad for Ebert. Clearly he has more affection for movies than any self-conciousness about his appearance. Ebert should just come back to Ebert & Roeper right now and just jot things down on a notebook and show it to the screen. It would still be better than most of the guest critics they've had for the past almost-year. It's hard to believe it's been so damn long.

PS

Anyone else think Roeper is just getting all these mediocre, young, attractive female film critics on the show 'cause he's hoping to get laid?
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: polkablues on April 24, 2007, 06:58:48 PM
Anyone else think Roeper is just getting all these mediocre, young, attractive female film critics on the show 'cause he's hoping to get laid? stop watching the show entirely now that the main critic is Richard fucking Roeper?

Totally.



But wait... female, you say?  Young and attractive, you say?  Mediocre, you say?  Could be worth it....
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: The Red Vine on April 24, 2007, 07:43:47 PM
It would still be better than most of the guest critics they've had for the past almost-year.

Absolutely. This past weekend they had John Mellencamp. What the fuck?

Anyone else think Roeper is just getting all these mediocre, young, attractive female film critics on the show 'cause he's hoping to get laid?

I have no respect for him if he didn't bang Kim Morgan.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: MacGuffin on April 24, 2007, 08:27:17 PM
It would still be better than most of the guest critics they've had for the past almost-year.

Absolutely. This past weekend they had John Mellencamp. What the fuck?

I didn't mind Mellencamp. He was very smart with his reviews; even picked Grey Gardens for his DVD recommendation.


What I can't stand is when they get some third rate, z-"actress" from Ghost Whisperer to guest...

"From the title, I was expecting a film about mentally challenged kids going to school. Instead, it was a film by a mentally challenged filmmaker who should have gone to film school" -- Aisha Tyler on Shortbus
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: bonanzataz on April 25, 2007, 01:08:43 AM
"it was a film by a mentally challenged filmmaker who should have gone to film school" -- Aisha Tyler on Shortbus

yeah, but can you really disagree with her?

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1770000/images/_1772664_globes_hedwig300.jpg)
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Fernando on August 02, 2007, 02:00:45 PM
Ebert, Siskel, and Roeper's Reviews Go Online

Some 5,000 movie reviews by film critics Roger Ebert, Richard Roeper and the late Gene Siskel will be available on the Internet beginning Thursday at http://www.AtTheMoviesTV.com. Ebert, who is currently unable to speak following a tracheostomy two years ago, issued a statement on Tuesday saying, "For years, this was a dream. ... Now I am exhilarated that it is a reality, thanks to the enormous effort of digitizing something like 1,000 programs." The site will also feature recent reviews from guest critics who have filled in for Ebert since his recent operations.


FMJ isn't there yet, but it's the 90's special with Ebert and Scorsese, not complete but they talk about EWS, Goodfellas and other xixax favourites.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: The Red Vine on August 02, 2007, 04:00:04 PM
Awesome.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: MacGuffin on August 06, 2007, 03:17:50 PM
FMJ isn't there yet

It is now:

http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/ebertandroeper/index2.html?sec=1&subsec=1119
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: MacGuffin on August 25, 2007, 01:55:56 PM
Ebert: No Thumbs, Up or Down, on TV Show
Film Critic Roger Ebert, Negotiating New TV Show Contract, Bans Thumb Reviews for Now
Source: ABC News

Roger Ebert has turned thumbs down on thumb reviews for "At the Movies with Ebert & Roeper."

Ebert, who is negotiating a new contract with the syndicated TV show's distributor, Disney-ABC Domestic Television, is a copyright holder on the signature "thumbs up-thumbs down" judgment that's part of each film review.

He has "exercised his right to withhold use of the `thumbs' until a new contract is signed," the Walt Disney Co.-owned company said in a statement released Friday to The Associated Press.

Health problems have kept Ebert from appearing on the show for more than a year, with guest hosts filling in. In the new season starting this weekend, co-host Richard Roeper will be joined for the first few months by movie critic Robert Wilonsky of the Dallas Observer.

Two episodes have been filmed so far without the catchy thumb assessment, which has become a staple of movie marketing and, in turn, a big part of the show's influence.

Major releases including "Superbad" and "The Bourne Ultimatum" boast in newspaper ads published Friday of receiving "two big thumbs up" from the show, and at least five other films cite their favorable thumb treatment.

Ebert, 65, holds the copyright to the critique with the estate of Gene Siskel, his original co-host. Ebert, a film critic at the Chicago Sun-Times since 1967, and Siskel, who was at the rival Chicago Tribune, launched the show in 1975. Siskel died in 1999.

A request for comment from Ebert was made Friday through a publicist for the show and by e-mail. He did not immediately respond.

The Pulitzer Prize winner has co-hosted the show with fellow Sun-Times columnist Roeper since 2000. Although he has continued to write reviews and books, his health problems have raised questions about his future on TV.

Ebert underwent a series of cancer surgeries, most recently in June 2006 when he had a growth on his salivary gland and part of his right jaw removed. Two weeks later, he had emergency surgery after a blood vessel burst near the site of the operation.

A tracheostomy, a procedure that opens an airway through an incision in the windpipe, left him unable to speak, a condition he's said would have to be remedied by further surgery. But he is cancer-free, he told the AP earlier this month.

"We remain hopeful that Roger will return to the show," the Disney company statement said. "We have kept his `seat in the balcony' open for the past 14 months and will continue to do so, utilizing guest critics who have appeared with Richard Roeper."

Ebert wrapped each episode by announcing "the balcony is closed."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ebert Gives a Big 'Thumbs Down' to Disney's Statement
Source: Cinematical

Here's an interesting kerfuffle to kick off your weekend. Yesterday, Disney released a statement, published by the Associated Press, stating that film critic Roger Ebert has exercised his contractual right to withhold use of the famous "THUMBS UP/THUMBS DOWN" which has been a part of the critic's television program (distributed by Disney-ABC Television) since way back when it was Gene Siskel sitting opposite Ebert on the balcony.

In response to Disney's statement, Ebert this morning sent out the following email, which I'm reprinting here in its entirety, so that Ebert can have his say in his own eloquent words:


I am discussing with Disney my association with the show that Gene Siskel and I started more than 30 years ago. In addition to my personal involvement, we are discussing the continued use of our THUMBS trademarks, owned by myself and the Siskel family.

Contrary to Disney's press release, I did not demand the removal of the THUMBS. They made a first offer on Friday which I considered offensively low. I responded with a counter-offer. They did not reply to this, and on Monday ordered the THUMBS removed from the show. This is not something I expected after an association of over 22 years. I had made it clear the THUMBS could remain during good-faith negotiations.

During my absence from the balcony, I have been excited to participate in the show in ways other than being on the set. I love the show and I love the THUMBS and I hope we will all be reunited soon.


Ebert further notes, for the record, that he was "not contacted by a Disney publicist or by email." We at Cinematical have followed Ebert's long illness and his recent return to writing about film on his website, and we look forward to the day when he will return -- THUMBS and all -- to his place on the balcony.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: grand theft sparrow on December 21, 2007, 02:04:07 PM
I think we've lost him forever. No Blood but Across the Universe?


The year's ten best films and other shenanigans

by Roger Ebert

It was a time of wonders, an autumn of miracles, one of the best years in recent movie history. One great film after another opened, and movie lovers found there were two or three, sometimes more, must-see films opening on a weekend. I gave up rationing my four-star ratings and went with the flow. The best films of 2007:

1. "Juno": How can I choose this warm-hearted comedy about a pregnant teenager, when the year was rich with serious drama? First, because of all the year’s films I responded to it most strongly. I tried out other titles in the No. 1 position, but my heart told me I had to be honest: This was my true love, and I could not be unfaithful. It is so hard to make a great comedy at all, and harder still to make one that is intelligent, quick, charming, moving and yes, very, very funny. Seeing “Juno” with an audience was to be reminded of unforgettable communal moviegoing experiences, when strangers are united in delight. It was light on its feet, involving the audience in love and care for its characters. The first-time screenplay by Diablo Cody is Oscar-worthy. So is Ellen Page’s performance in the title role, which is like tightrope-walking: There were so many ways for her to go wrong, and she never did.

2. “No Country for Old Men”: A perfect movie, I wrote after the premiere at Toronto. And so it is. The Coen brothers supply not a wrong scene or even a wrong moment. A story bleak and merciless, played out by characters who are capable of almost anything except withstanding the relentless evil of its serial killer. Based on the Cormac McCarthy novel, it builds on his eye and ear to create a world in which ordinary assumptions go astray, and logic is useless. With spare, wounded performances by Josh Brolin, Tommy Lee Jones, Woody Harrelson and many others, and Javier Bardem as not a man so much as a force of destruction.

3. “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead”: It was a year for the great character actor Philip Seymour Hoffman, so different and so good in this film, “The Savages” and “Charlie Wilson’s War.” In “Devil,” he and Ethan Hawke play brothers, unlike except in their urgent need for cash, who plan a “victimless” hold-up of their family’s jewelry store. Everything goes wrong, they feel anguish and panic in the pits of their stomachs, and in the eyes of their father (Albert Finney), the hurt is almost unbearable. They lie and deceive first others and then themselves, and it all turns to ashes. Another masterpiece by Sidney Lumet, who is 83 and at the top of his form.

4. “Atonement”: The momentary misunderstanding of a child destroys all possibility of happiness in three lives. Saoirse Ronan plays a young adolescent in a wealthy English family, who sees her older sister (Keira Knightley) and the family groundskeeper (James McAvoy) in a confrontation she misunderstands, which later leads her to telling an unforgivable lie. Against the canvas of World War II, the love of the two older characters is prevented from realizing itself, in a stunning period picture that centers on a tracking shot at Dunkirk that is one of he most elaborate ever staged. Directed by Joe Wright, based on an Ian McEwan novel that saves a final ironic insight until the end.

5. “The Kite Runner”: The beloved best-seller by Khaled Hosseini about two boys in peaceful pre-war Kabul, before the Russians, the Taliban, the Americans and the anarchy destroyed Afghanistan. The boys and their parents are seen in tender detail, then revisited years later after devastation has overthrown their lives. Homayoun Ershadi, who plays the father, has such expressive eyes he makes many of the film’s points without speaking. Director Marc Forster, filming in local languages in Afghanistan and the United States, interlaces the fabric of these lives with a heartbreaking story that leads to a powerfully uplifting ending.

6. “Away From Her”: The Canadian actress Sarah Polley makes her directing debut with a heartbreaking story of the destruction of Alzheimer’s. Julie Christie, in one of the year’s best performances, plays a woman whose memories are inexorably slipping away. Gordon Pinsent plays her loving husband, who cannot comprehend how he could so quickly come to mean so little to her. Based on a story by Alice Munro, the film sees through his eyes the disappearance of love, history, life itself, as he lives on in loneliness.

7. “Across the Universe”: Possibly the year’s most divisive film; you loved it or hated it. Julie Taymor brings all of her gifts of visual invention to a story centering on a group of friends living in Greenwich Village and expressing their lives through the Beatles songbook. They encounter people not unlike those in famous Beatles songs or albums, and the music sheds light on their experiences — sometimes unexpectedly, as when “I Want to Hold Your Hand” tenderly expresses the deepest feelings of a lovelorn lesbian cheerleader. The movie captures the best of what the Beatles represented. I want to see it two or three more times, experiencing it like a favorite CD.

8. La Vie en Rose : A virtuoso performance by Marion Cotillard as the beloved “Little Sparrow,” the legendary singer closest to the hearts of the French. Raised in a brothel and then the “property” of a gangster, she was only 4’8” tall, but had a voice that filled the city. Cotillard portrays her rising from the gutters to international stardom, and then dying of an overdose at 47. The title refers to her most famous song, about life through rose-colored glasses. The film ends with “Non, je ne regrette rien” (“No, I regret nothing”). The period is vividly re-created by director Olivier Dahan. One of the greatest of musical biopics.

9. “The Great Debaters”: Denzel Washington’s spellbinding film based on the true story set in 1935 about a debate team from Wiley College, an obscure black institution in Texas that defeated Harvard for the national championship. Washington plays their coach, who demands the highest standards, but the film is not another story about an underdog championship, but a searing reminder of the racist society the team lived in. On a night journey, Washington and his students happen upon a lynching; the horror and danger are overwhelming. With Nate Parker touching as the team researcher who becomes a last-minute substitute, Denzel Whitaker as debater and future CORE founder James Farmer Jr., Jurnee Smollett as a debater who calls on her deepest feelings, and Forest Whitaker as a local preacher who becomes galvanized. It’s a deep emotional experience.

10. “Into the Wild”: Sean Penn’s bleak but sympathetic drama is based on the real story of Christopher McCandless, an idealistic loner who trekked into the Alaskan wilderness and died there. The movie shows him meeting mentors along the way, who are concerned about him, especially a rugged individualist (Hal Holbrook) and a spirited hippie (Catherine Keener). Emile Hirsch plays the role to within an inch of his life, somehow expressing without seeming to try how his tunnel vision leads him through his dreams to his disaster. Could have been dreary, but Penn’s screenplay and direction are compelling.

Special Jury Prize

John Carney’s “Once”: At film festivals, the jury sometimes singles out a film for special qualities that especially impressed them. As a jury of one, my award this year goes to the charming, low-key, quietly appealing “Once,” starring Glen Hansard as a Dublin street musician and Markéta Irglová as a Czech immigrant who meet and slowly grow closer while, yes, making beautiful music together. Very little dialogue, but the music and their eyes and silences say it all, in a bittersweet and aching love story.

The Tie for 11th Place

In a way, it’s silly to rank films in numerical order. I do a Top 10 because tradition requires it. But here are 10 more films for which I have equal affection. Alphabetically: David Cronenberg’s “Eastern Promises,” with Maria Bello, who becomes the protector of an orphaned child, and Viggo Mortensen as a driver for the Russian mafia in London, whose values are challenged by his assignment; Todd Haynes’ “I’m Not There,” using six actors to represent aspects of the elusive Bob Dylan (Cate Blanchett is the best); Paul Haggis’ “In the Valley of Elah,” with another powerful performance by Tommy Lee Jones, as a father not satisfied with the official explanation of his son’s death in Iraq; Tony Gilroy’s “Michael Clayton,” with George Clooney as a fixer for a law firm who gets mired in the messiness of truth and conscience; Gavin Hood’s “Rendition,” starring Reese Witherspoon as a wife whose Egyptian-American husband “disappears” on a flight from Cape Town, and Jake Gyllenhaall as the CIA temporary station chief who is shocked by discoveries he makes about the outsourcing of torture.

Also, John Turturro’s bold, unconventional musical “Romance & Cigarettes,” starring James Gandolfini and Susan Sarandon as a couple at war in Queens, and Kate Winslet as his fiery mistress. The characters sing along with their favorite songs, in a story that starts out rambunctious and grows serious; Andrew Wagner’s “Starting Out in the Evening,” with Frank Langella as a 70-year-old great novelist, and Lauren Ambrose as the young student who wants to know why he hasn’t published a novel long in progress; Tim Burton’s “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street,” a blood-soaked musical starring Johnny Depp as a cutthroat barber and Helena Bonham Carter as the meat-pie baker who recycles his clients; Kasi Lemmons’ “Talk to Me,” with its virtuoso performance by Don Cheadle as Petey Greene, who brought an authentic voice to radio in Washington, D.C., at a crucial time, and Paul Thomas Anderson’s “There Will Be Blood,” with Daniel Day- Lewis as a single-minded oil well wildcatter who runs roughshod over everyone in his way.

The Best Foreign Films

Julian Schnabel’s “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly,” inspired by the extraordinary achievement of French editor Jean-Dominique Bauby (Mathieu Amalric), paralyzed except for his left eye, which he used to blink out a memoir; Cristian Mungiu’s “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days,” about a Romanian girl’s attempts to help her friend find an illegal abortion; Ang Lee’s “Lust, Caution,” about a passionate sex affair between a spy and her quarry during the Second World II; Juan Antonio Bayona’s “The Orphanage,” about a woman who returns to the orphanage where she ws raised, and finds it haunted, and Rajnesh Domalpalli’s “Vanaja,” abour a lower-caste Indian girl who is befriended by a rich woman and learns to be a gifted dancer, only to find caste barriers in the way of her heart.

The Best Animated Films

Robert Zemeckis’ “Beowulf,” using motion-capture animation to create a vast scale warrior-and-monsters epic from the dark ages, with a rich subtext of humor; Vincent Paronnaud and Marjane Satrapi’s “Persepolis,” about an Iranian girl who rebels against the rise of the mullahs, and Brad Bird’s high-spirited, riotous “Ratatouille,” about rats taking over a kitchen with excellent results!).

The Best Documentaries

David Sington’s “In the Shadow of the Moon,” revisiting many of the surviving astronauts to talk about their great Apollo adventures and re-create their triumphs; Seth Gordon’s “The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters,” about an epic struggle between two competitors for the title of champion of an almost-forgotten arcade game; Tony Kaye’s “Lake of Fire,” filmed over a period of 17 years, about the battle over abortion in America; Charles Ferguson’s “No End in Sight,” using first-person testimony from government and military eyewitnesses to document the mismanagement of the Iraq invasion; Jim Brown’s “Pete Seeger: The Power of Song,” about the long and productive life of America’s folk troubadour, and Michael Moore’s “Sicko,” contrasting America’s health-care system with the way it’s done elsewhere.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: cine on December 21, 2007, 02:46:08 PM
I think we've lost him forever. No Blood but Across the Universe?

i'm convinced he hasn't seen it.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: ©brad on December 21, 2007, 03:33:09 PM
yeah he's lost it.

It was a time of wonders, an autumn of miracles-

i stopped reading after that.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Gold Trumpet on December 21, 2007, 05:29:48 PM
The Tie for 11th Place...Paul Thomas Anderson’s “There Will Be Blood,” with Daniel Day- Lewis as a single-minded oil well wildcatter who runs roughshod over everyone in his way.

He's at least seen it. Ebert doesn't love love it, but who gives a shit. You guys have been questioning him for a while anyways.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Chest Rockwell on December 21, 2007, 07:34:52 PM
I was more confused by
Quote from: Roger Ebert
David Cronenberg’s “Eastern Promises,” with Maria Bello...
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: MacGuffin on January 24, 2008, 01:29:06 PM
Roger Ebert Will Have More Surgery

After undergoing a series of cancer surgeries, Roger Ebert says he'll have yet another operation.

According to a statement in the Chicago Sun-Times, Ebert was to have surgery Thursday in Houston to address complications from previous operations.

Ebert, 65, has been a film critic at the newspaper for more than 40 years.

He has undergone a series of operations, including the removal of a growth on his salivary gland and a tracheostomy, a procedure that opens an airway through an incision in the windpipe, that left him unable to speak.

Though he has been unable to appear on "At the Movies with Ebert & Roeper" for more than a year, with guest hosts filling in, Ebert has been writing reviews regularly.

He said he's written several advance reviews and other columns to appear while he recuperates.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: MacGuffin on April 02, 2008, 09:31:12 AM
Ebert to resume writing movie reviews

Roger Ebert will resume writing reviews later this month, but will not rejoin his syndicated TV show because he's still unable to speak.

In a letter published in Tuesday's Chicago Sun-Times, the Pulitzer Prize-winning film critic and co-host of TV's "Ebert & Roeper" said surgery in January ended in complications, and his ability to speak was not restored. He said the return of speech would require another surgery.

"But I still have all my other abilities, including the love of viewing movies and writing about them," Ebert said.

Ebert, 65, said he's looking forward to his annual film festival starting April 23.

"I will resume writing movie reviews shortly thereafter," he said.

Ebert, famous for his "thumbs-up" or "thumbs-down" critiques, had surgery in 2006 to remove a cancerous growth on his salivary gland. He also had emergency surgery that year after a blood vessel burst near the site of the operation.

He had undergone cancer surgery three times before the 2006 operation — once in 2002 to remove a malignant tumor on his thyroid gland and twice on his salivary gland the following year.

Ebert said he remains cancer-free, and is not ready to think about more surgery.

"I should be content with the abundance I have," he said.

The 10th annual Ebertfest at the University of Illinois runs April 23-27. Ebert chose 13 films for the festival.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Reinhold on April 15, 2008, 07:09:26 PM
Why did he ever stop writing his (worthless) reviews? Did his condition remove his ability to use his thumbs?
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: jtm on April 16, 2008, 12:38:52 AM
maybe he was more concerned with not dying, rather than letting us know what films he likes.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: pete on April 16, 2008, 12:53:19 AM
bullshit.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: jtm on April 16, 2008, 01:15:40 AM
bullshit?!?!

put yourself in his shoes. you've been on this earth for 60 something years and find out you have a potentially fatal disease and may not live much longer...  would watching and reviewing movies be something on your list of priorities?
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: cine on April 16, 2008, 01:48:05 AM
oh my god


uh, yyeah, pete. watch it..
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: pete on April 18, 2008, 01:53:32 PM
bullshit?!?!

put yourself in his shoes. you've been on this earth for 60 something years and find out you have a potentially fatal disease and may not live much longer...  would watching and reviewing movies be something on your list of priorities?

sarcasm.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Alexandro on April 18, 2008, 03:27:04 PM
i love the guy, but he's been off the mark for a while. he should stick to write as many of his great movies reviews as he can. in that he excels. but trying to connect with the new stuff is not something he's doing very well. juno? before the devil knows you're dead? he's getting old having old people reactions to films.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: jtm on April 19, 2008, 02:28:47 AM
bullshit?!?!

put yourself in his shoes. you've been on this earth for 60 something years and find out you have a potentially fatal disease and may not live much longer...  would watching and reviewing movies be something on your list of priorities?

sarcasm.

you know what? after reading your post i was pretty sure you were being sarcastic, but with this place you can never really tell, so i guessed the opposite.. i mean, i'm pretty sure reinhold was NOT being sarcastic when he was pissed that Ebert wasn't giving us reviews, and i guess i lumped you in with him and his frame of thought. sorry about that.

Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Gold Trumpet on April 19, 2008, 09:13:25 AM
i love the guy, but he's been off the mark for a while. he should stick to write as many of his great movies reviews as he can. in that he excels. but trying to connect with the new stuff is not something he's doing very well. juno? before the devil knows you're dead? he's getting old having old people reactions to films.

I don't know. I look back at older reviews of his and still see the same critic I do now. He's always over praised a lot of films. He's also taken barely any stands against critical favorites. Full Metal Jacket, Blue Velvet and a few others I know he has taken exception to, but he's always been a candy critic. He's always willing to see the good in every film trend.

He's happier with giving out four star reviews today, but that's the only new thing. I just think we all got older and became more wise to his criticism.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Alexandro on April 19, 2008, 10:03:23 AM
he's always been a candy critic, and his willingness to find the good in each film is one of the things i like about him. that's why i prefer his great movies reviews, cause more than once he has made me see a film i initially disliked in a different light. back in the day he may not have taken a lot of opposite stands against critical favorites, but he was good at choosing bad treated films for certain recognition. he championed jackie brown when everyone else was complainig about it being boring. and he's good at combeying what he thinks in an always respectful, smart, comprehensible for anyone way. now he champions crash and juno and his arguments to defend them are awful. when he trashed blue velvet, or even a clockwork orange, even in disagreement he could make a valid point. now he sounds like your grandpa being stubborn. independently of there will be blood's status as a good, bad, great, awful film, his criticism of that film because it has no female characters is one of the dumbest things he's ever said.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Reinhold on April 25, 2008, 05:21:46 PM
his criticism of that film because it has no female characters is one of the dumbest things he's ever said.

agreed, but wrong thread.

i've never found his reviews to be enlightening, and rarely ever insightful. accessibility doesn't matter much to me if he's not really helping anybody access anything.  :yabbse-thumbdown:
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Gold Trumpet on April 25, 2008, 07:16:13 PM
he's always been a candy critic, and his willingness to find the good in each film is one of the things i like about him. that's why i prefer his great movies reviews, cause more than once he has made me see a film i initially disliked in a different light. back in the day he may not have taken a lot of opposite stands against critical favorites, but he was good at choosing bad treated films for certain recognition. he championed jackie brown when everyone else was complainig about it being boring. and he's good at combeying what he thinks in an always respectful, smart, comprehensible for anyone way. now he champions crash and juno and his arguments to defend them are awful. when he trashed blue velvet, or even a clockwork orange, even in disagreement he could make a valid point. now he sounds like your grandpa being stubborn. independently of there will be blood's status as a good, bad, great, awful film, his criticism of that film because it has no female characters is one of the dumbest things he's ever said.

I think as a critic you need to have standards. One can say Ebert does have standards, but no critic has accepted every film movement. Every noteworthy critic has taken stands against one movement or another, but Ebert tries to find the good in every major trend. The fact he rarely picks any battles makes him to be more of a reporter of film movements than an actual critic. I also don't know if I found many of his essays in his Great Movies series to be that good. Some are OK, but a lot of them always were overly light comments on films that already have extensive comment. Of course any critic who tried what Ebert has would run into similar problems.

I have to give the man his credit. He was very influential to me when I was younger. A lot of films and filmmakers became first known to me because of him, but I never found him that trustworthy as a critic. But he is still the only film critic who has ever won a Pulitzer for their reviews.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Alexandro on April 26, 2008, 12:53:22 AM
reinhold, we have already discussed how wrong he is in his there will be blood criticisms in the there will be blood thread, i know. and i can bring that up here too because this is the roger ebert thread. so fuck it.

i wouldn't see the point of him taking a stand against some film movement if he doesn't feel like it. again, he probably has helped more to get people interested in film movements than any other critic precisely because of his enthusiasm. however, this is not a discussion worth having. the guy is not a film theorist, he's basically a reviewer whose main achievement i guess is communicate his love of movies to such a wide audience for whom his opinion matters.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Reinhold on April 27, 2008, 12:32:41 AM
reinhold, we have already discussed how wrong he is in his there will be blood criticisms in the there will be blood thread, i know. and i can bring that up here too because this is the roger ebert thread. so fuck it.

oh, i just meant the stupidest thing said about a movie thread.


Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Alexandro on April 27, 2008, 10:34:46 AM
i'm sure someone will bring it up there...
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: MacGuffin on July 21, 2008, 12:44:30 PM
Ebert and Roeper leaving popular movie review show

Chicago Sun-Times film critic Roger Ebert says he's cutting ties with the television show that he and the late Gene Siskel made famous.

In an e-mail to The Associated Press on Monday, Ebert said Disney-ABC Domestic Television had decided to take the show "in a new direction" and he won't be associated with it.

His announcement came a day after Chicago Sun-Times columnist Richard Roeper said he was leaving the nationally syndicated "At the Movies With Ebert & Roeper."

Roeper said in a statement Sunday that he had failed to agree on a contract extension with Disney-ABC Domestic Television so his last appearance on the show will air the weekend of Aug. 16-17.

"Several months ago, Disney offered to extend my contract, which expires at the conclusion of the 2007-08 season," Roeper said. "I opted to wait. Much transpired after that behind the scenes, but an agreement was never reached, and we are all moving on."

A message seeking comment was left for a spokeswoman for Disney-ABC Domestic Television early Monday.

Roeper said he intends to "proceed elsewhere ... as the co-host of a movie review show that honors the standards established by Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert more than 30 years ago."

"I will be free to share the details on that program in the near future," he said.

He also said he wishes Disney "the best of luck with their new show, whatever form it may take."

Roeper joined Sun-Times movie critic Roger Ebert on the show in 2000, after Ebert's original co-host, Chicago Tribune film critic Gene Siskel, died of a brain tumor in 1999.

Siskel and Ebert had begun reviewing movies on television together in 1975 on Chicago public broadcasting's WTTW, which eventually took their program national. The pair jumped to commercial television through the Tribune Co.'s TV syndication wing in 1982, switching to Disney in 1986.

Roeper was chosen from among a large group of contenders to be the permanent replacement for Siskel after his death.

Ebert has been sidelined the last two years because of health issues that have robbed him of his voice.

"Over the last two seasons, as Roger has bravely coped with his medical issues, I've continued the show with a number of guest co-hosts," Roeper said. "It's never been the same without Roger, but I'm proud of the work we've done and I'm grateful to all the co-hosts who stepped in — and to the viewers that stayed loyal to the show."
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Stefen on July 21, 2008, 09:18:51 PM
Everytime this thread gets posted in I'm scared to click because I don't want Ebert to be dead.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: hedwig on July 21, 2008, 11:36:02 PM
Everytime this thread gets posted in I'm scared to click because I don't want Ebert to be dead.
thats how i feel about the woody allen thread.  :(
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: MacGuffin on October 22, 2008, 05:14:15 PM
Roger Ebert gives a thumbs down to his own review

It's definitely been the media kerfuffle of the week: Roger Ebert's admission that he wrote an entire review of a new film after only watching eight minutes of the picture has inspired a storm of outrage. It turns out that everybody's a critic, especially when it comes to judging movie critics. Now a clearly chastened Ebert has acknowledged that he was wrong, posting a follow-up post to his original explanation admitting that he wishes he had never published the review (of a small indie film called "Tru Loved") in the first place. As he puts it:

"It sent the wrong message. If I had seen the entire film, a review, however negative, would have been appropriate. But in reviewing the first eight minutes, I was guilty of too much affection for my prose. I have learned a great deal from the intelligent, opinionated, useful comments from all those readers.... I will never, ever, again review a film I have not seen in its entirety. Never. Ever." He adds: "I must apologize to writer-director Stewart Wade, his actors and his crew. They did nothing to deserve this. For them, it must have been like a drive-by shooting.... I feel like a jerk. In even my negative reviews, I try to give some sense of why you might want to see a film even if I didn't admire it. Here, I failed."

Once you get past the fact that Ebert's abject apology sounds a lot like one of those blacklisted '50s Hollywood screenwriters telling HUAC that "I am deeply sorry for ever joining the Communist Party--I let my country down, I let my family down, I let my therapist down," basically saying anything to get his job back--you get the feeling that this is just another nail in the coffin for the credibility of film critics with the average moviegoer. If there were ever an act that indelibly painted critics as elitist snobs, it would be America's best-known critic reviewing a movie after only bothering to watch for eight minutes.

I remain a loyal fan of Ebert, who was a huge influence on me as a young writer and has sprung to my defense when I've been under attack. So I'm definitely not an objective observer. I also read critics religiously, looking to them for guidance and inspiration. But I am part of a vanishing breed. The average newspaper reader has less and less use for critical opinion, increasingly preferring to rely on aggregated critical judgment from websites like Rotten Tomatoes over individual critics--or solely relying on recommendations from friends. As one Ebert basher wrote: "After learning that Roger Ebert defends writing a full-column review based on a 8-minute scrap of film, I don't feel so bad about not reading movie reviews."   

Ebert's blunder, one of the few he's made in a four-decade-long career, will probably take on a life of its own, cited in future years in various broadsides against the critical establishment, probably in a sentence that reads something like: "After reading Kenny Turan's dismissal of 'Quantum of Solace,' one wonders whether Mr. Turan was dozing off during the film's breathtaking action sequences, or whether he simply walked out of the screening room after eight minutes, in emulation of Roger Ebert's rude dismissal of a movie earlier this year." All critics have is their credibility. I'd be lying if I told you I've never walked out of a film. At film festivals, I do it all the time. Like Roger, I am convinced that you can tell after 20 or 25 minutes, almost within the shadow of a doubt, that a movie has been directed by a clumsy amateur or a deluded auteur. At a festival, when you're trying to see 4 or 5 movies in a day, you are pretty ruthless about cutting your losses and moving on to the next film.

But I don't review movies. I see them looking for stories. If a movie is so bad that I walk out, I simply scratch it off my list. If you're a reviewer, you're held to a higher standard. Trust me, it's why critics often sound so cranky--they knew the film was a dog right away, but had to stay to the bitter end, just to make sure. But you have to stick it out. I guess it's a lot like being a sportswriter. You have to stay to the last out. It was just the other day that the Boston Red Sox were down 7-0 going into the seventh inning of a big playoff game, before storming back to beat the Tampa Bay Rays 8-7. You wouldn't have wanted to leave in the middle of that game, right?

The same goes with movies. Maybe the plot kicks into gear, maybe an actor shows up, delivering a graceful performance, maybe (at the very least) the story takes us to the South of France and we get to see some beautiful scenery. If a movie has a hidden surprise, you want to be around to see it. Yogi Berra probably never read Pauline Kael, but he knew this much about being a critic: "It ain't over 'til it's over." 
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: JG on November 06, 2008, 04:21:05 PM
have you guys been keeping up on ebert lately, both his blog and his reviews? for better or for worse, his writing has certainly gotten more interesting within the past few months. he also keeps making references to suttree, so he certainly earns brownie points from me.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: MacGuffin on December 27, 2008, 12:11:46 AM
Critic Ben Lyons gets many thumbs down
The new 'At the Movies' reviewer's detractors find him a celeb-loving shill for film marketers.
By Chris Lee; Los Angeles Times

Is Ben Lyons the most hated film critic in America?

In the four months since the fresh-faced 27-year-old "movie dude" for the E! Entertainment Network was installed to co-host a revamped version of the venerable movie review program "At the Movies," he has gotten a resounding thumbs down from an angry mob of film bloggers, columnists, professional movie critics and fans of the show. Consensus is that Lyons, the son of New York film critic Jeffrey Lyons, is unworthy of the balcony seats once occupied by Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel on the TV mainstay that has rallied audiences into theaters for more than three decades.

"His integrity's out the window. He has no taste," said Erik Childress, vice president of the Chicago Film Critics Assn. "Everyone thinks he's a joke."

Lyons became infamous in film circles for calling Will Smith's 2007 zombie-vampire movie "I Am Legend" "one of the greatest movies ever made." That appraisal became a key part of the movie's print advertising campaign.

"One of the 'greatest movies ever made'?" said Childress, who's also a movie reviewer for eFilmCritic.com. "Next to 'Lawrence of Arabia' and 'Citizen Kane'? The only way you can say that with a straight face is if you've only seen 50 movies in your life. Or you're trying to give quotes to appease someone who can do you a favor later."

Lyons declined to be interviewed for this story. But among the accusations flung his way: that he landed his job through nepotism, is unknowledgeable about movies, sucks up to celebrities and, most damaging, is a "quote whore" -- a shill for movie marketers whose all-too-frequent raves are repurposed as gushy pull quotes on movie ads, usually accompanied by several exclamation points.

Which would be of hardly any consequence were it not for the drastic transformation of film criticism. Long gone are the times when a vaunted single critic such as the New Yorker's Pauline Kael could inject a film into the national consciousness with a single positive review. These days, moviegoers are just as apt to check a movie's rating at Rotten Tomatoes, the popular movie-review aggregating website, as to read an actual review from a major news organization.

Worse, with readership plummeting, newspapers and magazines have had to drastically thin their ranks of critics. In recent months, the Chicago Tribune, New York Daily News, Newsweek, Newsday, the Village Voice and The Times, among other outlets, have let critics go. Meanwhile, movie marketing has never been more pervasive, and many studio summer blockbusters are now described as "critic proof," meaning that negative reviews do nothing to affect the box office.

In this light, Lyons' ascension to the "throne" of televised film criticism has come to represent something more than just the changing of the guard -- many view it as yet another example of the dumbing down of media and of celebrity triumphing over substance.

With his meat-and-potatoes good looks, frat-boy bonhomie and straight-down-the-pike delivery -- more reminiscent of a "SportsCenter" commentator than an erudite cultural arbiter -- Lyons is certainly not your father's movie reviewer. But it's his way of shrinking a sweeping critical pronouncement down to glossy sound-bite size that seems to most affront Lyons' detractors. Especially when held up to his predecessors' standards.

"It crystallizes everything that's wrong with American pop culture right now," said Scott Johnson, the blogger behind the website StopBenLyons.com. "I don't expect to agree with a critic all the time. But his approach is to throw out blurbs just so he can get on a poster."

S.T. VanAirsdale, senior editor of the entertainment-industry-skewering blog Defamer, framed the debate around the so-called "Ben Lyons Hate Storm" in more direct terms. "It's a pretty microcosmic phenomenon, when you look at who hates him," VanAirsdale said. "But for people who take film criticism seriously, he's an imposition. If he's established himself as the benchmark for where popular criticism is headed, we're all kind of [in trouble]."

Setting a standard

Regime change has always been hard for fans of the show, many of whom began watching in the mid-'70s when it was hosted by Siskel and Ebert and known as "Sneak Previews." By 1979, it had become the highest-rated weekly entertainment series in the history of public broadcasting. Evolving into "At the Movies" in 1981 -- Jeffrey Lyons was hired to appear on "Sneak Previews" when Siskel and Ebert left over a contractual dispute -- it set the standard for subsequent movie review talk shows and remains the only such program to both brand itself in the American mind and change the face of film criticism -- some might say grossly oversimplifying it -- with its patented "thumbs up, thumbs down" rating system.

"Two thumbs up conveyed a seal of approval," said Jason E. Squire, instructor of cinema practice at the USC School of Cinematic Arts and editor of "The Movie Business Book." "It was so powerful, the expression became part of the general lexicon." Added Bill Mechanic, former chairman and chief executive of 20th Century Fox Filmed Entertainment: "For marketing purposes, a 'two thumbs up' was great to have." (Ebert, who stopped appearing in "At the Movies" after medical issues robbed him of his voice in 2006, exercises the sole right to use his thumb for rating purposes; Siskel died in 1999. Richard Roeper joined the show in 2000, and hosted with revolving guest critics in Ebert's absence.)

Last summer, producer Disney-ABC Domestic Television decided to take the syndicated show "in a new direction," prompting Ebert and Roeper to announce that they were severing ties with the program. In their places, "At the Movies" executives hired Ben Mankiewicz, a host on Turner Classic Movies who is the grandson of famed screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz ("Citizen Kane") and nephew of Oscar-winning director Joseph Mankiewicz ("All About Eve"), and Lyons, a New York native whose academic pedigree consists of a few semesters at the University of Michigan and whose first professional critic gig was talking film on his father's movie review program "Reel Talk." The younger Lyons also reviews movies and interviews celebrities for E! Online, "E! News," "The Daily 10" and "Smash Time Saturday's" and hosts the game show "My Family's Got Guts" on Nickelodeon.

Viewers haven't been quite so rankled by Mankiewicz, 41, who comes off a bit more measured when giving his critical appraisals. ("You put anyone next to Ben Lyons and they're going to look bulletproof," notes VanAirsdale.) But Lyons' installation released a torrent of negative blowback, most of it online. "I don't like Lyons," blogger Jeffrey Wells wrote on hollywood-elsewhere.com, "because you can tell right off the bat he's too much of a glider and a glad-hander." Variety.com's deputy editor and columnist Anne Thompson also derided Lyons, describing "At the Movies" as "a train wreck," complaining that discourse between Mankiewicz and Lyons is "dismayingly shallow."

"It's like Johnny Carson being replaced by Dane Cook," said Childress, who also writes a feature called "Ben Lyons Quote of the Week" on eFilmCritic.com that deconstructs and ridicules Lyons' critiques. "It's going from the top echelon in the profession to the absolute lowest."

Then there's StopBenLyons.com. Established in September by Oakland computer programmer-turned-blogger Scott Johnson, the blog is largely devoted to highlighting Lyons' perceived critical trespasses and advocating his dismissal. A die-hard fan of the show, Johnson was motivated to create the site by what he views as righteous indignation.

"If [Lyons] wants to sit in Siskel's or Ebert's seat, he's got to prove he's worthy of our attention," Johnson explained. "What Ben says about movies, it's not worthwhile. He seems to be doing the show more because he wants to be on TV than because he has something to say about the movies."

Some of Lyons' pronouncements certainly seem to show a certain lack of seasoning. While recently reviewing " Quantum of Solace," he proclaimed that "GoldenEye" was his favorite James Bond film, eschewing many of the franchise's most heralded installments. His rationale? "It was the first one for Pierce Brosnan," Lyons said. "And that was also. . . when the first-person action video game Bond franchise was launched, which I wasted many hours of my childhood playing."

A show's ratings

It's unlikely that Lyons will be mentioned in the same breath as heavyweight critics such as Ebert, who writes for the Chicago Sun-Times, the Wall Street Journal's Joe Morgenstern, The Times' Kenneth Turan, or the New York Times' Manohla Dargis any time soon. But then again, you don't see any of those critics posing for snapshots with many of the same celebrities they write about, as you do on Lyons' blog The Lyons Den -- a professional habit that has given the reviewer a reputation for kissing the hand that feeds. (See the accompanying article.)

But critical standards aren't the only issues being debated when it comes to "At the Movies." Some industry observers think that the show's relevancy may have gone with the dawn of the Information Age. "I . . . wonder if the era of sitting passively in front of a TV screen and listening to a couple of guys trade opinions about movies has the same vitality that it had when Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel started 'Sneak Previews' on PBS in 1977," Wells wrote on the Hollywood-Elsewhere blog. ". . . Audiences these days like to talk back and argue and engage interactively."

The show's numbers are far below what they used to be. Ratings for the new "At the Movies" are at 1.8 million total viewers, down 21% compared with the same period last year, according to figures from Nielsen Media Research. Comparative viewership also dropped by double digits in every key demographic except for males 18 to 34, for whom it's down only 4%. A spokeswoman for ABC Media Productions, which oversees "At the Movies," pointed out the revamped program has shown improvement among total viewers since its September premiere.

Disney-ABC Television Group's Brian Frons, who heads up the creation, production and delivery of shows for ABC Media Productions, voices unqualified support for Lyons.

"This is a guy who, if you sit and talk with him, he really does have an enormous love and knowledge base of movies," Frons said. "Did he spend 20 years as critic for a major newspaper? No. He's very much of the TV generation who don't spend time reading newspapers. I think we have a guy who is giving the information that audiences want to hear about film to make decisions about what to see."
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: pete on December 28, 2008, 01:43:49 PM
ok ok, sometimes the shitty gossip nature of the LA Times articles are great.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Stefen on December 28, 2008, 03:49:32 PM
Alison Bailes is the hottest critic ever.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: MacGuffin on August 06, 2009, 12:49:32 AM
Somewhat related to the thread...

'At the Movies' swats away its flyweight critics
Source: Los Angeles Times

NBC only had to take a gander at the ratings for one episode of its much-ballyhooed "Quarterlife" series before the network gave the show the old heave-ho last year. It took ABC nearly a year before it realized that Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz -- the fresh-faced "At the Movies" hosts who had replaced Richard Roeper and the one-and-only Roger Ebert -- were an embarrassment to all, meaning the previous hosts, the network and the critical profession in general.

 So I can't say I'm shocked to read the news that ABC has dumped Lyons and Mankiewicz and hired a new pair of critical heavyweights, the New York Times' A.O. (Tony) Scott and the Chicago Tribune's Michael Phillips, to anchor the long-running syndicated series. I've rubbed shoulders with both guys on the film festival circuit and happily endorse the appointment. Scott and Phillips are lively, intelligent writers with a keen grasp of what makes films work, which in itself makes them a huge improvement over the previous duo, who were critical bantamweights, especially Lyons, who had a bright smile but about as much gravitas as an Alabama beauty show contestant.

To be fair, Mankiewicz, the scion of a fabled Hollywood family who hosts Turner Classic Movies presentations, was clearly more knowledgeable than his counterpart. As my colleague Chris Lee reported last December, Lyons, son of film critic Jeffrey Lyons, was held in such low esteem in the critical fraternity that others in the profession were lining up, happy to be quoted by name ridiculing his work, with Chicago-based film critic Erik Childress saying of Lyons: "He has no taste. Everyone thinks he's a joke."

Well, everyone except for Disney-owned ABC TV. The network clearly believed that the venerable TV show, which traced its roots to the mid-1970s, when the Pulitzer Prize-winning Ebert and his Chicago newspaper pal, the late Gene Siskel, launched the first nationally known TV film critic program, needed a re-branding to appeal to younger audiences and boost its ratings. Of course, the opposite happened. As ABC reported on its own website, the show's ratings dropped sharply, slipping from 2.1 million to 1.7 million after Lyons and Mankiewicz took over.

The network made one simple miscalculation: It thought that by hiring younger, more effervescent critics that it could get a younger audience to watch a cobwebby network TV format. That's never going to happen. Just ask the great minds at CBS, who hired Katie Couric, thinking that a younger, more effervescent newscaster could get a younger audience to watch a cobwebby network TV format. Film critics are in the same boat as evening news anchors -- their core audience is people 50 and over, and getting older by the day. You could hire Jessica Alba to read the evening news -- or review "G.I. Joe" for that matter -- and younger audiences still wouldn't care.

Don't get me wrong: I grew up reading film critics -- it's what helped me understand the history and meaning of film, not to mention how to appreciate such exciting filmmakers as Nicholas Ray, Howard Hawks, Sam Fuller and Hal Ashby. But expecting Phillips and Scott to deliver network-sized ratings in an era where hardly anyone under 40 pays attention to critics is a fool's errand.

Despite their intellectual heft and engaging personalities -- when you have dinner with Michael Phillips, you are sure to enjoy a sparkling evening of good conversation -- they are being asked to revive a format that is as moribund as a black-and-white detective series. 

The best thing ABC could do is keep improving the show's presence on the Web, where expectations are lower and where fans -- like myself -- could sample the new critics' take on specific films on demand. One of the cult hits on the Web last year was Reel Geezers, where Lorenzo Semple and Marcia Nasatir, two eightysomething old film pros, fussed and bickered on YouTube over various recently released films. Film criticism remains an honorable trade, but it's now a niche business, which is why it feels especially wrong-headed for ABC to cast two wonderfully gifted critics in a role where they are doomed to fail if the network's only priority is bringing more eyeballs to TV screens.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Gold Trumpet on August 06, 2009, 03:39:35 AM
I tried watching a couple shows with Mankiewicz and Lyons. Happily I didn't give a shit and went in with no rooting interest or preconceived notions, but it was pathetic how Lyons said so many dumb things all the time it was like a haywire act for him. He reminded me of Sarah Palin by trying to make stupidity sound eloquent and considering he didn't have a political policy that annoyed me, I kept feeling bad for him and hoping he would balance himself out. After a while I was just happy when he agreed with Mankiewicz and kept himself out of trouble.

The new show should be better, but limiting film critics to sound bite reviews is never good so I'll never be an ardent fan.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - UNINVALIDATED
Post by: Gamblour. on August 06, 2009, 11:23:24 AM
I propose that this thread be renamed because, while off the mark like every other critic from time to time, Roger Ebert has recently been writing some of his best and more cogent reviews. He's re-become my favorite critic and I definitely think his opinions are far FAR more valid than A. O. Scott who's becoming less and less of a good critic.

I'm alone here?
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: SiliasRuby on August 06, 2009, 11:27:37 AM
I'm with you except when he HATED 'Blue Velvet'...hehe. Glad that the two bens are off the show, especially Lyons...Fucking hack!
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - UNINVALIDATED
Post by: socketlevel on August 06, 2009, 03:07:26 PM
I propose that this thread be renamed because, while off the mark like every other critic from time to time, Roger Ebert has recently been writing some of his best and more cogent reviews. He's re-become my favorite critic and I definitely think his opinions are far FAR more valid than A. O. Scott who's becoming less and less of a good critic.

I'm alone here?

not even just recently, always.  he is a great critic, if not the best.  though yes at times i disagree with him, but that shouldn't matter should it?  In fact i don't need a critic to agree with all my choices, i need one to challenge them.  much like this site i like it when people challenge rather then gush about something in unison.  i like where Ebert comes from in his reviews, it's usually a good story or anecdote regarding something in his life or how he views it. i like how he's romantic about the artform and views the whole industry with resentment, hinting at longing to better times.  I like that spirit of wanting change, something better.  I also like how he's not always pragmatic about his reviews, sometimes he just gets his hate/love on regarding a certain film. 

Herzog dedicated "Encounters at the End of the World" to him.  on the dvd when he was asked why, he said something to the effect that Ebert was one of the dying breed in cinema; one of the last soldiers.  i couldn't agree more.  Ebert has a heart and tons of enthusiasm for the artform, so even if i disagree with him (which happens often enough) i know it's coming from a genuine place.  and shit... he's almost doing it posthumously in the last few years, that's fucking love.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Gold Trumpet on August 13, 2009, 03:58:46 AM
I'm with you except when he HATED 'Blue Velvet'...hehe. Glad that the two bens are off the show, especially Lyons...Fucking hack!

I wish he took stands against more films. Blue Velvet is just one of a few trendy art films he dissented against. Usually Roger Ebert is happy to accept every new cutting edge art film and movement with some approval. Some critics hate to look too traditional and not up with new film movements so they seem to find something to like in every new trend. Every critic who is willing to take stands against new critical approaches occasionally get burned very badly because sometimes they are very wrong about the intentions of a movement. Roger Ebert has been able to skirt controversy because he rarely ever takes tough or bold stances besides saying something is best this or that.

I like Roger Ebert personally, but he never illuminates me with knowledge about films. He picks a lot of good films in his Great Movie series, but I don't know of any piece that is an insightful review of the film. I see an overlap of previous critical comment mixed with a few general ideas thanks to Ebert himself, but nothing truly revealing of a critical insight. The most memorable piece is his E.T. one because he formatted it differently.

Then around the time of Muholland Drive, Roger Ebert also made the cardinal sin in criticism by saying that there likely was nothing more he could learn about film art. That's insane for anyone to say.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Pas on August 13, 2009, 05:48:33 AM
I'm with you GT about critics just ''jumping on the bandwagon''(is that the word?) on arthouse flicks.

I think people still hold Blue Velvet against Ebert for the reason he didn't like it, which is that he thought it was bad treatment of women or some weird shit like that.

I hate every world war 2 movies because of the treatment of the jews. it's just silly.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: socketlevel on August 14, 2009, 04:51:29 PM
yep I'm with you two, both make good points.  however i only half agree with your sentiment that he shouldn't make a statement about film art; which limits himself greatly. i must admit i feel that way at times myself.  it's like shock value mixed with disjointed images creates meaning... well that's kinda easy to do, it takes more talent imo to create a story and plot with the same images, and have the audience leave the theatre with the same reaction.  really making fucked up art cinema is easy, it's not remotely hard.  some of it stands out among the rest and i love it.  but maybe him saying that there likely was nothing more he could learn about film art, is really just saying there isn't much to learn from film art period.  like what do we really take from it through osmosis, how does it really change us?  it's cool, emotional, etc... but do we really have anything to learn from it?
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: JG on August 14, 2009, 07:14:40 PM
coincidentally, his most recent blog past has something to do with film critics as contrarians. (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/08/in_defense_of_armond_white.html) its not an especially great entry, but his blog is consistently pretty great.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Gold Trumpet on January 15, 2010, 02:43:41 AM
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/01/nil_by_mouth.html

Roger Ebert's blog about not being able to eat or drink anymore. The subject is harsh, but Ebert comes off as amazing because he mixes humor with rationality and fully explores the whole situation of not being able to eat or drink anymore, but his sanity is inspirational because I can only hope to meet my physical ends with a similiar upbeat approach.

Lately Ebert has been on a blogging frenzy, but his personal blogs are great because he allows his conscious (the best part of his reviews) to be fully exhibited on a spectrum of different subjects, which allows him to be a great moral voice. He's also a constant Twitter poster, but it feels like his new immobility is allowing him to pen the auto-biography of his conscious that many of us felt he was capable of.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: polkablues on January 21, 2010, 11:28:33 PM
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/roger-ebert-twitter-450.jpg)
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: hedwig on January 21, 2010, 11:41:33 PM
VALIDATED
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Stefen on January 21, 2010, 11:42:14 PM
Does anybody else get scared anytime this thread is posted in because you're scared Ebert may have passed away?  :(
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: pete on January 22, 2010, 12:18:08 AM
I propose that we change the thread title to "roger ebert - don't leave us yet"
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: matt35mm on January 22, 2010, 12:31:50 AM
How about we change it to: "Roger Ebert - This Isn't About His Death," and then, when the time comes, whoever's posting about it can change the subject line to: "Roger Ebert - Okay, Now He's Dead."
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Pubrick on January 24, 2010, 01:23:18 AM
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/roger-ebert-twitter-450.jpg)

he's just mad they cut the sex scene.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: MacGuffin on February 16, 2010, 02:52:36 PM
Read This: The Dying Days of Roger Ebert
Source: Cinematical

Esquire has written an incredibly personal and insightful article about Roger Ebert that goes into great detail about all the surgeries he's been going through, how he nearly died, and how life has changed for him these past few years. It's very touching and well worth your time. Ebert might be a polarizing guy ... people either love him or hate him, but there's no denying that he knows more about film than most people have forgotten. His film commentary track on the Citizen Kane DVD is worth the price of the disc alone.

For what it's worth, Roger Ebert was a constant presence around Sundance this year. At the opening press conference, he sat a couple of seats away from me, and when the conference was over, Robert Redford made a point to come down and speak with him personally. Ebert himself can't talk these days, but he communicates through notes and hand gestures, and it was quite a moment to see this renowned film critic with one of Hollywood's most iconic actors.

We also saw him in multiple film screenings throughout the opening week of the film festival, and after reading this article and realizing how much that means, I'm honored to have shared a row with the guy. There's blogging about film news, writing reviews, and doing interviews, and then there's what Roger Ebert does. When you've lived and breathed movies as long as this guy has, you're on a different level.


http://www.esquire.com/features/roger-ebert-0310
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: cine on February 16, 2010, 07:39:25 PM
i love how twitter is bringing out the unusually bitter soundbytes in us.

Quote from: Cinematical
His film commentary track on the Citizen Kane DVD is worth the price of the disc alone.

Quote from: Roger Ebert, 2010
Avatar for Best Picture? Give me a fucking break.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: pete on February 16, 2010, 08:42:18 PM
I don't think he's a polarizing figure.  everyone loves him.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Pubrick on February 17, 2010, 12:48:56 AM
I don't think he's a polarizing figure.  everyone loves him.

everyone except your fellow hex-maker

(http://www.austinchronicle.com/binary/74aa/screens_feature12-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Stefen on February 17, 2010, 01:56:33 AM
haha.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: pete on February 17, 2010, 03:38:19 AM
that man's a total pussy.
he made a hex in PUBLIC, and unlike the hexes I or most of us make - it actually fucking came true - like the whole world saw the power of his voodoo, but then he had to like apologize and take it back, which didn't even matter because his hex came true and he gave ebert all this misery just because ebert shat on his film that no one would've remembered otherwise.  so he's like benefitting both from the added longevity of his film and the proof that he's got true voodoo behind his short-lived media darling status, and he dares to take it back!  How dare he betray his super powers.  I wish I had his hex powers so I could hex him for being so afraid of his goddamn power.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Stefen on February 17, 2010, 04:15:56 AM
Did Vincent Gallo really give Roger Ebert cancer?
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: mogwai on February 17, 2010, 07:31:39 AM
Did Vincent Gallo really give Roger Ebert cancer?

Yes, in reward gave Ebert Vincent Gallo's film career cancer.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on February 17, 2010, 03:26:26 PM
Vincent Gallo is awesome.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: MacGuffin on March 25, 2010, 05:29:18 PM
Roger Ebert plans to produce new movie review show

CHICAGO - Roger Ebert says he and his wife are going ahead with plans to produce a new movie review television program with the working title "Roger Ebert presents At the Movies."

The famous movie reviewer wrote Thursday on his Chicago Sun-Times blog that he can't give details, but they're "deeply involved" in talks. Ebert says they've held video tests with potential hosts and they know who they will use. He says the new show would have a strong presence online.

The Pulitzer Prize-winning reviewer writes that he would like to make "occasional appearances" on the air. Ebert lost his ability to speak after cancer surgery.

Ebert also writes: "the Thumbs will return," referring to the well-known "thumbs up" and "thumbs down" reviews.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Gold Trumpet on March 25, 2010, 08:16:59 PM
At the Movies has been canceled so this is good news because toward the end, the two hosts helming it were decent. Their names elude me now and my lazy bone is kicking in to even check who they were, but they were real critics who felt competent at handling the words they were trying to say. Ben Lyons had to search for any jargon he could muster to defend some of the movies he liked.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: MacGuffin on May 19, 2010, 07:15:58 PM
Ben Kingsley to Roger Ebert: Video games are SO Art
Source: SciFi Wire

Roger Ebert's been on a tweeting/blogging bent saying video games are not art. I mean, geez, you don't have to play them, but why so harsh?

Well, some bona fide artists are jumping to defend video games now. Oscar-winner Sir Ben Kingsley, who stars in the movie version of Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, says video games are a new form of art worthy of his own mad acting skills.

"I think it's a beautiful field of work for graphic designers, inventors, actors, technicians," Kingsley said in an exclusive interview by phone on May 18. "I have voiced a video game very recently, and I so enjoyed bringing that character to life and all the choices that he has in this game."

Just imagine Sir Ben sitting in a dark room hunched over an Xbox controller. Kingsley admits he doesn't play games himself. He just knows art when he sees it. "I don't play video games," Kingsley said. "Prior to Prince of Persia, I was on the set with Mr. Scorsese filming Shutter Island, so I had no time, for better or worse, I had no time to indulge myself in the video game."

Still, Sir Ben doesn't have to be a gamer. He did agree to do the movie, and movies are a different art form. When you hire Sir Ben, you want him to bring Sir Ben to the movie.

"I did my own thing," Kingsley continued. "I felt it better to do that than to try to bring to it baggage that I'm perhaps not very adept with. I just read the script, really appreciated the character of Nizam through that screenplay, with his nephews and his brother and his lust for power. I really enjoyed reading it and acting it on my own. I think most of my fellow actors in the film felt the same, that it was a chance to reinvent something for ourselves."

Prince of Persia creator Jordan Mechner, designer of the original Apple II side-scrolling game, was involved with the production of the movie. He responded to Ebert's criticisms in an online junket on May 8.

"I think video games, whatever Roger Ebert may think, are an art form in their own right, but they're an art form you have to play to experience," Mechner said. "Whereas movies are watched. Those two things are very different. It's a very different kind of relationship between the player or the viewer and the storytelling."

Mechner was happy with the conversion of his baby from playable art to watchable entertainment. He shared his kudos with Sir Ben. "Jordan loved seeing it all come to life, the inventor of the great video game," Kingsley said. "Jordan was with us sometimes on the set. He was with us at the premiere. He's so happy with how it's all turned out."
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Pubrick on May 19, 2010, 07:34:08 PM
haha, what an easy target.

poor ebes is obviously just scared of technology, he's always been this way.. his 3D rant comes from the same place. it surprises me he even knows how to blog.

this is an easy target for the prince of persia ppl cos it seems to be a co-ordinated attack. why is Sir King and the creator of the thing bringing it up in two separate occasions unless it was planned. Sir Bentley yesterday in a phone interview and the other douche in an press junket may 8th.. did they plan to bring up this in anticipation that the film is NOT gonna get reviewed nicely and that Ebert, being the most vocal popular critic right now, is doing it cos he doesn't like GAMES.

it's an easy target cos OBVIOUSLY ebes is wrong about that. Benjamin Kingsly the Sir is obviously defending the medium cos it pays the bills (as the article explains, he voiced some game in one of his infamous "i'll say yes to anything that's offered to me" career moves), and the other dude CREATED the game. something's fishy here and i think it's the Prince of Pisces.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: pete on May 20, 2010, 03:09:35 AM
he'd already somewhat backed down from the argument.  he'd written a lot about it.  he said he just liked saying "it will never be art" while know that he might be swayed.
but yes, he was against video projection and this and that.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: modage on June 10, 2010, 05:07:21 PM
http://twitter.com/ebertchicago/status/15881587240

(mutinyco)
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Pubrick on June 10, 2010, 07:11:05 PM
what the fuck was that?

anyway, i'd hate to be around when mutinyco starts boasting about THIS to everyone.

(remember when he used to do that? pete does.)
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: polkablues on June 10, 2010, 08:47:14 PM
what the fuck was that?

anyway, i'd hate to be around when mutinyco starts boasting about THIS to everyone.

(remember when he used to do that? pete does.)

A reference, no doubt, to this...

Hmmm...

I don't recall saying anything to Pete, so his swipe at me is a little odd.

Suffice... Pete, of the two of us, you're the one with the Herzog quote as your signature. I'm the one who met him, filmed an interview, and generated several thousand hits from the encounter.

Remember your place.


The post itself earned its place in Xixax history, but ShanghaiOrange's reply was like the tawny port after a fine meal:

One time I saw Matt Damon in a clothing store on Rodeo Drive, so I guess that makes me Jesus fucking Christ.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Gold Trumpet on June 10, 2010, 08:54:07 PM
Very happy for Mutinyco.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: ono on June 10, 2010, 10:08:57 PM
Using "tawny port" was the finest tawny port of all.  :yabbse-thumbup:  Who car's about mutinyco?  He's just doing it to get into Spielberg's pants.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: cronopio 2 on June 23, 2010, 08:54:27 PM
ebert's been an asshole about videogames on twitter lately, but i still respect the man in an big way.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Stefen on June 24, 2010, 03:54:07 AM
As soon as Ebert starts playing video games, one of them will BLOW HIS MIND. Knock it clean off. His face will be a mess.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Pubrick on June 24, 2010, 04:36:16 AM
poor guy never had any kids (to the best of my knowledge). he never had a chance of relating to anything youthful. by the time household videogame consoles became the norm in the 80s he was already 140 years old.

what's weird is that he likes using the internet and other kinds of technology, especially now that he can't talk and he's half robot. i think he just finds the nudity on video games not as convincing as good old fashioned gonzo, which as an internet connoisseur he must be well versed in.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Alexandro on June 24, 2010, 09:31:28 AM
I'm under the impression he has grandchildren and wrote his ET review as a letter to them (?).

Anyway, I don't know shit about videogames, couldn't care less about them. Stop playing them after the Super Nintendo. But precisely because I know next to nothing about them I would never say something as fucked up as "they will never be art". He's just old.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: cronopio 2 on June 24, 2010, 10:19:23 AM
and you know the worst part is  he's never struck me as an art buff like robert hughes or jonathan jones, he's always branded himself as a film geek exclusively, so for him to start dissing videogames for their artistic value is as tired and boring as a person who doesn't watch 'the idiot box'.    if you want to be cruel to me, put me in the middle of a conversation about what's art and what's not.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: MacGuffin on September 07, 2012, 12:52:43 PM
Martin Scorsese & 'Hoop Dreams' Helmer Steve James Team For Documentary Based On Roger Ebert's Memoirs
Source: Playlist
 
As probably the most celebrated and beloved film critic around, a man whose work has appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times for 45 years, who co-hosted "At The Movies" with Gene Siskel for almost 25, and who was the first film critic to win the Pulitzer Prize, it's almost surprising that Roger Ebert has never been the subject of a movie himself. He's had some limited involvement behind the scenes of other films -- he wrote scripts for exploitations maestro Russ Meyer in the 1970s, but no one's ever made a major film about Ebert.

But all that's about to change, and with some serious talent involved. Ebert tweeted this morning that his memoir, "Life Itself," which was published last year, and recently hit as a paperback, "has been optioned for a doc by Steve James ("Hoop Dreams") and Steven Zaillian, with Martin Scorsese as exec producer" And Ebert has expanded on the news a little, telling Matt Singer at Criticwire "This dropped out of the blue. They say they have a good idea for an approach. I believe Steve James' 'Hoop Dreams' is one of the greatest documentaries ever made, and my hopes for this are so high. I never thought of my book as a doc. I'm keeping hands off any involvement, such as with the screenplay, because I don't want to be a third wheel. Whatever they do I will be fascinated."

We'd certainly agree on his assessment of James (whose "The Interrupters" was one of the best films of last year), and having Zaillian, who will presumably produce through his Film Rites shingle, is a boon as well, to say nothing of Scorsese -- who Ebert has always described as one of his favorite filmmakers, and who was the subject of the book "Scorsese by Ebert." It's clearly early days -- there's as yet no word if the film will be a straight-up biography of Ebert or something more wide-reaching about cinema, but either way it's exciting news. We'll bring you more news on the project as it comes in.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Sleepless on September 07, 2012, 01:41:36 PM
Scorsese -- who Ebert has always described as one of his favorite filmmakers, and who was the subject of the book "Scorsese by Ebert."

No shit?
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Fernando on April 04, 2013, 02:43:25 PM
RIP Roger Ebert.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: ono on April 04, 2013, 02:45:26 PM
News travels so fast.  Wow.  *sniffles*  That whole "who's next to croak" thread, and none of 'em, save maybe Andy Griffith, matters as much, to me anyway.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert - INVALIDATED ..again
Post by: Kellen on April 04, 2013, 02:51:11 PM
RIP
Title: Re: Roger Ebert
Post by: Reelist on April 04, 2013, 05:18:27 PM
Rest In Peace, Roger. I Love You
Title: Re: Roger Ebert
Post by: Frederico Fellini on April 04, 2013, 06:24:54 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VastXQ_hPb0



Never imagined I would feel like this about Ebert...  But damn, a part of Cinema died today....   May flights of angels sing thee to thy rest. Good-night, sweet prince.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert
Post by: ono on April 04, 2013, 07:33:01 PM
http://www.theonion.com/articles/roger-ebert-hails-human-existence-as-a-triumph,31945/?ref=auto

Michael Moore will be on Piers Morgan tonight at 9 PM EST, remembering Roger Ebert.  It'll rerun again at midnight.
Title: Roger Ebert/Mark Olsen
Post by: jenkins on June 14, 2015, 05:37:50 PM
This is actually -- I think it's called propaganda. Specifically, agitprop, and my thoughts are Soviet Montage. There you go. Since recently here at Xixax I remembered telling a person that storytelling isn't your perspective requires legwork, which is always interesting in that one never has to explain the advantages of a story to a person, anyway of course I rest on the shoulders of giants about stories being kinda silly sometimes, and there is another option if you wanna think about it. The first quote is Ebert, then "totally unrelated actually, except by theme" there's a Tsai Ming-liang quote, which is funny because Ming-liang was brought up today in a separate conversation linked by me disagreeing with people. It's all rather cosmic to me, but that's just because I read and watch movies often, and talk about them here.

I've quoted this irl like 5x and it's my new favorite thing to say, it's from Ebert's '68 review of Thomas Crown Affair, and Ebert is actually describing what Thomas Crown Affair lacks to him:

Quote
But that was a narrative film; that is, it had a story and told it. I am not so old-fashioned as to demand that every movie explain itself, that every plot mesh like the great grind-wheels of Victorian literature, that everything be tidied up at the end. The best directors often choose mood and effect instead of plot, as film.

I bet it's actually easy for you to picture me saying "I am not so old-fashioned as to demand that every movie explain itself, that every plot mesh like the great grind-wheels of Victorian literature."

The second quote is from an interview Mark Olsen had with Tsai Ming-liang:

Quote
Why do we always assume that shooting a film is to tell a story? “Rebels of the Neon God” apparently is not about telling a story. Even now, I still don’t think it is conventional. My works have always been about expressing life experiences and sensations. In terms of the format, I am not passionate about “storytelling,” but rather I approach movies more in the prosaic or poetic way. “Rebels of the Neon God” has been just like this. When I was shooting a film, I would constantly remind myself that “I am shooting a film, but not telling a story.” With this approach, I have been freer.

I'd like to drop my mic now, mother fuckers. Jk kinda and xx.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert
Post by: wilder on June 14, 2015, 06:18:57 PM
Shock to no one I vibe, Rebels has to be my favorite old movie discovery in forever. Damn near perfect in my book. And look at this beauty (http://www.criterionforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=6555&start=50#p514781)
Title: Re: Roger Ebert
Post by: Something Spanish on April 05, 2018, 09:02:49 AM
I consider myself lucky to have grown up in a time where Siskel & Ebert was being aired. Admittedly, from the time I first became aware of the show in the mid-90's it did not have such a strong impact on my moviegoing habits, more of a passing interest than seminal influence. I always enjoyed hearing the duo's opinions and quibbles, as well as viewing the movie clips they'd play. I loved movies as a kid, but thanks to a little film known as Pulp Fiction, I became obsessed with the medium beyond the adolescent blockbuster offerings and definitely remember watching the boys' show dedicated solely to my new favorite film as they espoused its influence on contemporary releases. Siskel & Ebert was a show I didn't seek out with a weekly dedication, but certainly would not change the channel if it was on. Through the years I watched less, but read Ebert's reviews almost regularly. That stopped, too, around 2004. It wasn't until Ebert's passing that I became the great admirer of the man I am today, where I get a little sentimental after seeing a truly great movie and thinking Ebert will never see it, know how great it is. It even gets me thinking about all the great movies I'll miss out on when my time comes.

A few months before the release of Life Itself I began reading his archived online journals. I was stunned. So many entries were filled with such love, insight, poignancy. I began reading his Great Movies books followed by his autobiography of the same name. Reading his Great Movies books is very different from his reviews. A lot of his weekly reviews were made up mostly of Ebert writing a plot synopsis with very little about how he felt, the Great Movies essays were made up mostly of why he felt these titles were great. Not many writers loved movies as much as Ebert did, his love as infectious as any great piece of writing. That is what endures me to his reviews/essays to this day. I read a lot of writing on film, not many have nakedly display their affection as Ebert does. I enjoy reading Pauline Kael's books, too, but her cynicism is off the charts, which is actually part of her appeal in a way. There are certain critics I still read regularly, mostly those writing for New York publications and a few online, but I don't usually look for their reviews of older films. Ebert has been gone for five years now and I probably read a little something from him every other day if not every day. I love his love of movies because it mirrors my own, taste notwithstanding. For anyone who hasn't read Life Itself should do so, it's so touching and heartfelt. His writings of Gene Siskel, in particular, get me very emotional. Their bond, the love/hate relationship. He was a very witty man, as displayed on the many talk show appearances he did, and always game to poke fun of himself, as evident in the many times he was a guest on the Howard Stern show, getting weighed by the crew and facing humiliation with comedic humbleness. Just wanted to share some thoughts on the man five years on, as my admiration for him grows stronger with the passing of time.
Title: Re: Roger Ebert
Post by: wilberfan on April 05, 2018, 03:49:48 PM
Thank you for that love letter to Roger.  I, too, watched "the boys" regularly--but my viewing started back with their oribinal PBS show(s).  Of the two of them my tastes matched Roger's the most closely.  I found Gene often a little too gruff and mean spirited, somehow.  They certainly had a chemistry together--but I'll admit it often felt like parents fighting when they disagreed a little too strenuously.  (They didn't really like each other--especially at the beginning--but I think they developed a deep regard for each other eventually.)  I missed him when Gene died, and even more so when Roger did too.  I never read Roger's book--I may have to put it on my list.