Roger Ebert

Gamblour. · 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.

JG · January 17, 2006, 01:48:35 PM

Quote from: 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.

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

Gamblour. · January 17, 2006, 09:53:20 PM

Good god, that last comment is particularly ineloquent and obvious. Mine was so much better, oh well.

pete · 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.

jigzaw · January 22, 2006, 10:43:05 AM

The Human Absorption Rule was pretty funny.

modage · 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.

hedwig · 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.

Pozer · January 22, 2006, 04:39:03 PM

LEAVE ROEPER OUT OF THIS... what?

MacGuffin · 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.

Ravi · June 02, 2006, 12:19:33 PM

Gallo strikes again.

Kal · 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.

jigzaw · July 02, 2006, 05:52:44 PM

I hope he heals up and feels better.

Astrostic · 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.

Ravi · July 04, 2006, 12:15:16 AM

Quote from: jigzaw on July 02, 2006, 05:52:44 PM
I hope he heals up and feels better.

"I gave how many stars to the Garfield movies?!?!"

pete · 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.