Classic, unfiltered Roger in action. [yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCOf91smkXU[/yt] Sorry, Cos. You were Fleebledy-Flabbledy Zip-Zab awful and he called you on it.
I was looking for one of my favorite reviews by him and Siskel on the X-Files: Fight the Future and haven't been able to find it . Dang it. It was nice seeing those two getting along in terms of a review. Loved how Siskel wanted to know when it was on the air so he could watch it. It was a very funny review and one I'll always remember from the both of them .
I watched Citizen Kane with Ebert's audio commentary tonight. Really remarkable. It was like a film class in a box. He was pointing out all sorts of things in the film that I'd seen but never observed. It definitely made me appreciate both Welles as a director and artist at the top of his game, as well as Ebert's love for and knowledge of film history and filmmaking.
I respect this man for the way he respected sci-fi & fantasy movies. For that alone, I love and mourn him. Rest in peace, Roger, and tell Gene to save you an aisle seat when you meet up with him.
Kestral posted this tribute link to Mr Ebert. Farewell great, funny, insiteful man. http://www.theonion.com/articles/roger-ebert-hails-human-existence-as-a-triumph,31945/
I think here it's appropriate to post two of my favorite reviews, both of which were Trek films. Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home and a companion piece Star Trek First Contact
I relate to this. I also grew up watching Siskel & Ebert back in the 80s and 90s as well. I remember being a child and watching them in the 80s when they were "At the Movies". I was telling this younger co-worker yesterday that's in her earlier 20s that before the late 90s, Siskel & Ebert were the best way for ordinary people to get a sneak peek at a new movie and get a review of eagerly anticipated films. These guys predated Harry Knowles and AICN. I still remember them reviewing many 80s and 90s films from Gremlins in the mid 80s to Terminator 2: Judgement Day back in 1991. You feel the tug of time when so many of these people that you grew up with and took for granted start to pass away, and then you meet young adults who are 7, 10 or 12 years younger then you who have no clue who they are. *sigh*
Didn't think much of him as a film critic, especially regarding his prejudice of the horror genre, but he was clearly a huge movie lover and it is sad he had to end his life so painfully.
He lambasted Star Trek V back in 1989 and said some pretty biting and unflattering things about the film (but then it's difficult to find a critic who didn't) and I remember being taken aback at the time because it was the first Trek film he didn't like. In fact, he thought it was just plain terrible. As time went by I came to recognize that most of his criticisms were valid and correct in spite of my personal attempts to make the fifth movie seem better than it was. Cheesy special effects: check. Villains (specifically the Klingons) you don't care about: check. Secondary supporting characters who are introduced with a lot of dialogue and setup and then given nothing to do: check. Sloppy direction from Shatner: check.
Yep. No doubt. It hits you hard, and reminds us all that time passes fast and stays still for no one . So sad about that, that the younger adults (some of them at least) have no idea who he was/who they were.
I will say that one thing I didn't like about his reviews, particularly in his later years, was how he bluntly infused his personal politic into his reviews. Check the last sentence of this one, which comes out of the blue, zings the reader, and leaves unchecked, with no sense of balance.
You know what? When you write an opinion piece, about anything, you're allowed to express your tastes and opinions. Ebert was a master essayist. You can not "like" it, but he wasn't doing anything wrong or by mistake. If you think his remark about health care in that particular review was "out of the blue," you flunked the exercise.
Roger's politics never bugged me. I could have cared less what side of the spectrum he fell on because I didn't read or listen to his film reviews for what he thought about the political situation in the country or which candidate or side he felt more favorable toward. I wanted to know if the movie was worth seeing or not. Have you read Michael Medved? The man's a far more political film reviewer than Ebert ever was.
Precisely. I became quite familiar with Ebert's reviews while in grad school (my thesis was on cinematic history and my research included a large dose of film criticism). I was, of course, familiar with his work before then, but in a casual way. I came to appreciate a number of aspects of his reviews--the way he judged films against their ambitions (rather than the oh so tedious "if it ain't Kurosawa it's crap" approach of many others I had to wade through); his writing style; his willingness to praise or skewer the same actor, director, screenwriter…based on the work being evaluated (generally, no one got a "pass" based on reputation alone); his sheer enthusiasm for the medium of film… I did not always agree with his reviews (my disagreements were almost always about things he disliked that I enjoyed--but it was rare when I did not enjoy a film that he praised), but there is no other critic (dead or alive) I've read whose views more closely match my own about film. I can certainly make my own way through the cinematic world without someone to hold my hand, but I am saddened at the loss of a reliable guide to my cinematic enjoyment. I will also miss the deft wit of the author of "Thoughts on Bill O'Reilly and Squeaky the Chicago Mouse".
That was the beauty of Roger. You could disagree with his points, you could like a movie he seemed to hate, but if you were honest about it all, you could see where he was coming from because you knew he was really watching & understanding the movies. I think a lot of other reviews are based on more superficial viewings by people that are just trying to make a splashy sounding review.
Yeah, there's just no way a credible review of anything without imparting your own bias, opinions or politics into it. A bare review or summary is exactly that - a summary. Ebert excelled at sharing his opinions and the ideas that sprung forth from the interaction of those opinions and the movies he watched to review. It's something of a lost art form in this day and age of the blogosphere where just about anyone can write what they think constitutes a "review." Besides, if anyone is going to have to kvetch about the electricity on the starship Enterprise, I'd think Ebert would have earned the right to do so ages ago.