Film Critic Roger Ebert Dead at 70 Of Cancer 198
New submitter AndyKrish links to the BBC's report that just two days after penning a "leave of presence" in which he says "I am not going away," Roger Ebert — "arguably the world's most famous film critic" — has died of cancer. Ebert was a long-time film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times, as well as (most famously along with Gene Siskel) for a string of television shows. In the course of dealing with persistent cancer that affected his thyroid and jaw, and which took away his voice, Ebert became a prolific blogger on movies as well as other topics, and drew on cutting edge technology to regain the power of speech.
Sad Day (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't agree with every review, but all in all he was damned good critic, and a significant part of his Great Movies list is a must-see for me.
Re:Sad Day (Score:5, Insightful)
I think a huge part of what made him a great critic was that even when you disagreed with his opinion, you could usually sympathize with him anyway. It takes an unusually talented critic to pull that off.
Re:Sad Day (Score:5, Insightful)
I think a huge part of what made him a great critic was that even when you disagreed with his opinion, you could usually sympathize with him anyway. It takes an unusually talented critic to pull that off.
I generally felt that way more about Gene Siskel, he always seemed to be down on movies I enjoyed, but he did articulate well why he didn't like something, rather than be a complete a** like Rex Reed.
Sneak Previews was one of the few television shows I'd free up some time each week to watch. It was a great show and taught that you don't have to agree with all or any one film critic(s). More often I'd agree with Roger, he seemed like he enjoyed basically fun films, where Gene was looking more at the quality of the production. As I grew older I'd appreciate both points of view and not just throw my money away just because Disney, Lucas or anyone else rolled out yet-another movie.
Re:Sad Day (Score:5, Insightful)
There is one thing that Ebert said about movies that stands above everything else:
“It's not what a movie is about, it's how it is about it.”
Form and content (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a great point. Form is separate from content. The point of a movie is not just its content, but also in the stylistic presentation form it uses to deliver that content. I've seen movies that had a nice "story" behind it but with poor execution of the plot by the actors or timing and editing of the scenes. I've also seen movies produced and directed by music video directors and by Michael Baye that are beautifully styled and paced and so well lit and with gorgeous sweeping camera movements that actually go with the underlying scene and with good music that punctuates and emphasizes the action but the content of the plot and the storyline is crap.
.
When both form and content deliver something beautiful, it's a wonderful movie. I like Ebert's side commentaries and I also like that he was part of some schlocky movie writing in the 1960s.
.
Ebert wrote the scripts for Who Killed Bambi? [wikipedia.org], a 1978 movie about the Sex Pistols that ultimately was not made because the financiers did not like what was in the script. Ebert's screenplay [suntimes.com] for the movie is on his blog. Bizarre.
.
He also wrote the for "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls," [wikipedia.org] a movie for which he wrote the screenplay in 1969.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Say "ass". You know you want to. We're all adults here, we can take a vulgar reference every now and then.
Seriously, either curse or don't; this *bleeb* business is simply pathethic.
Re: (Score:3)
work filters dude.
work filters.
Re:Sad Day (Score:5, Funny)
You sound rather sensitive for someone who doesn't mind belting out the f word in every conversation.
Are you by chance referring to the fuck word?
Re:Sad Day (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ebert had something taken off his bill, that's for sure.
Re:Sad Day (Score:5, Insightful)
I only read a few of his reviews because I found most of them to be rather thoughtless and lame. Take his review on "Team America" for example. He gave it a bad review mainly because it joked about those waging the war on terror. The content of the movie, even its purpose, was just completely lost on him. I later found out that he gave Fahrenheit 9/11 a good review for exactly the same reason, only that movie wasn't even entertaining unless you like watching the blooper reel of political messages. I know its purpose wasn't intended to entertain, but it wasn't useful for anything else unless you like watching political propaganda.
I really don't see any sense in respecting the opinion of such a person. My opinion of him isn't just based on that though - rather that is one of the most egregious examples of where I can think of him giving a movie an unfair review because it offended him. (And that's part of the message of the movie - they intended to offend everybody who watched it in at least some way.)
Re:Sad Day (Score:4, Interesting)
Truth. Also, a good, consistent reviewer makes a great weather vane, even when you disagree with em. Ebert was a truly talented writer who always gave more than enough information for you to get a sense of your own (future) opinion, even if it was a movie you were likely to disagree with him on.
Plus he had that most essential quality: he genuinely loved movies and simply wanted to share that and them with everyone.
contrary to a lot of critics who simply want to flame everyone and everything, and dictate the opinion of the masses.
Re:Sad Day (Score:5, Insightful)
I generally agreed with his reviews much more than his partner Siskel. Roger recognized that not all movies have to have a greater purpose. Sometimes it is ok to just have fun.
Re:Sad Day (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I actually rather enjoyed Skyfall. It seemed back to the more "superhuman gentleman" of old Bond movies, which I prefer. Much better than the couple of "actionhero" movies that came before it; felt like they were just trying to follow Mission Impossible (which were horribly bland and boring IMHO).
Bond movies can have all the plot-holes and 1-dimensional story they want, I just expect them to be over-the-top and he'd damn well better get all the girls at the end.
Re: (Score:2)
His opinions were well founded and he will be sorely missed.
He would propably appreciate the irony that the biggest wreath of them all will come from Rob Schneider.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks odd. I remember the disagreement between the two about a Bengie movie. Ebert hated it while Siskel liked it as a fun movie for what it was. It was a hilarious disagreement because both were so passionate. They even went on Oprah later and got into it a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Pardon I was completely wrong. The positions were indeed reversed. Ebert was light hearted about the movie. But I still got a kick out of watching that segment again. I think it's interested they were more passionate about that film than about Full Metal Jacket.
Re:Sad Day (Score:4, Informative)
Dark City! He did a commentary track for the blu-ray even.
Re:Sad Day (Score:5, Insightful)
And put it on his Great Movies list, and it is indeed an astounding movie, the greatest of all of the children of Metropolis.
Re: (Score:2)
I loved it too. I don't know why Matrix got all the big press at the time when Dark City was a lot better in many ways with many of the same themes.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't know that. And I own the Director's Cut blu-ray, too.
I'll have to rewatch it now with his commentary turned on.
Re:Sad Day (Score:4, Interesting)
Siskel commented that Ebert may have been the better writer but that he was the better reviewer, to which I agree. Nevertheless I'm a big fan of his writing and appreciate his takes on Herzog and Scorcese, among others. It's rare I care at all about the
passing of a personality but for me this is a sad day.
Siskel & Ebert Sneak Previews (Score:4, Interesting)
These really opened up a lot more films to me, beyond the Hollywood pap. Miss them both. Massive, massive props to them both.
Never dreamed I'd ever converse with either of them, but did tweet a bit with Roger. Great guy.
RIP, Roger
Re:Siskel & Ebert Sneak Previews (Score:5, Insightful)
Siskel & Ebert was from a different time when you could turn on the TV and see two educated people have a lively and respectful disagreement about matters of quality. I don't expect I'll live to see such a thing again.
Re: (Score:3)
I remember we used to make a point of watching Siskel & Ebert every weekend - real "appointment TV". Even though sometimes we were laughing at them - even the best film critics can be rather pretentious at times - I thoroughly enjoyed their banter and was disappointed when I would miss a show.
It was a very sad day when Gene Siskel died fairly young, and now we've lost Roger Ebert as well. It's just movies, I realize - but it's also another part of my youth that's gone away.
Now please - show some respect
Re:Siskel & Ebert Sneak Previews (Score:5, Interesting)
It was a very sad day when Gene Siskel died fairly young, and now we've lost Roger Ebert as well. It's just movies, I realize
It isn't "just" movies - movies are a major part of modern culture. Once a society gets above the level of mere subsistence, culture is pretty much the entire point of human existence.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a very sad day when Gene Siskel died fairly young, and now we've lost Roger Ebert as well. It's just movies, I realize
It isn't "just" movies - movies are a major part of modern culture. Once a society gets above the level of mere subsistence, culture is pretty much the entire point of human existence.
If you don't mind, I will steal and share that quote. With attribution, of course.
Re:Siskel & Ebert Sneak Previews (Score:4, Funny)
Siskel & Ebert was from a different time when you could turn on the TV and see two educated people have a lively and respectful disagreement about matters of quality. I don't expect I'll live to see such a thing again.
There's always the internet...
Re:Siskel & Ebert Sneak Previews (Score:5, Funny)
A respectful disagreement on the internet? Jane, you ignorant slut!
Re:Siskel & Ebert Sneak Previews (Score:4, Informative)
While it probably won't appeal to many Slashdot readers, the ESPN show, "Pardon the Interruption," is of similar style and caliber. The hosts, Michael Wilbon and Tony Kornheiser, were both veteran staff writers for the Washington Post (and were still active for the first several seasons), and their opinions are consistently well developed and expressed. Even my wife, who only watches the occasional big game, enjoys watching the show.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to respectfully disagree with you there. While some good points can be brought up on PTI, at most times the show seems so scripted that I cannot possibly accept that Wilbon and Kornheiser believe what's coming out of their mouths. It's like they are purposely given point and counterpoint by writers.
Re: (Score:2)
What did you guys say to each other? Are they still up?
One of the great public philosophers of our time (Score:4, Insightful)
On a regular basis his reviews lept from discussion of the movie to discussion of life and the questions and problems that we face. His clarity of writing was combined with a clear and solid morality. He illuminated whatever corner of life he looked in to. He will be greatly missed.
Very Sad (Score:2)
Absolutely my favourite film critic, he will be missed heavily. I didn't always agree with his reviews but there were almost always more well thought out and articulated than any other critic I can think of. I trusted his evaluation of movies and I think the world is lessened with his loss.
No reviewers worth reading, now. (Score:3, Interesting)
There are maybe 5 or 6 modern writers whose ability to think and penetrate issues I am in awe of, since Mark Twain, and he is one of them.
Winston Churchill, George Will, and former radio talk host David Newman from WJR in Detroit.
I guess that's just 4. :(
All other reviewers are, to borrow one of Ebert's phrases, like little kids banging pots and pans on the floor of the kitchen.
Re: (Score:2)
I liked Harry Truman's description of the usual critic the best: "eight ulcer man on four ulcer pay."
Re: (Score:2)
Epitaph (Score:3)
Two Thumbs Up for Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I'm thinking, there's bad ways to end a movie, and good ones. And all movies have ends.
He found a rather good one. I envy this.
Re:Epitaph (Score:5, Funny)
And all movies have ends.
What about "The Never Ending Story"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Er, Gene Siskel's been dead for some thirteen years now.
Re: (Score:2)
Excuse me, fourteen.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup.
Don't mess. (Score:5, Funny)
Speaking of Winston Churchill, Ebert is author of the biggest burn since Churchill. Rob Schneider took out an ad about a generic critic ragging on his Deuce Bigalow, or maybe that animal man movie, saying, "Who does his guy think he is, some Pulitzer Prize-winning movie critic?"
Ebert then writes, "Well, speaking in my official capacity as a Pulitzer Prize-winning movie critic, Mr. Schneider, your movie sucks."
Re: (Score:2)
What gave Ebert his ability to confront people like Schneider was the glass of Badger Milk he drank every morning.
Re:Don't mess. (Score:5, Funny)
My favorite burning Ebert review was the one he did about The Human Centipede, which had the incredible ending "I am required to award stars to movies I review. This time, I refuse to do it. The star rating system is unsuited to this film. Is the movie good? Is it bad? Does it matter? It is what it is and occupies a world where the stars don't shine."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He wrote an entire book about that incident. It is called ,"Your Movie Sucks." Most of the book is actually reviews of other really bad movies he wrote, but the Rob Schneider scenario was clearly the best part.
It's a great read, and a great introduction to Ebert if you would like to know more about him.
http://www.amazon.com/Your-Movie-Sucks-Roger-Ebert/dp/0740763660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1365120593&sr=8-1&keywords=your+movie+sucks [amazon.com]
A huge loss (Score:2)
It seems that http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/ [suntimes.com] is melting under the pressure of people trying to read one last Roger Ebert review. I spent over a decade at university in Urbana-Champaign, and the Roger Ebert film festival was a yearly pleasure. I have especially fond memories of Ebert interviewing Werner Herzog on stage after a showing of Invincible.
Re: (Score:3)
Ebert should be given a helluva lot of credit for waving the flag for many years for Herzog, who really is one of the most daring and brilliant filmmakers in history. I suspect Werner will be grieving very much for him. If you want to read how just deeply Ebert admired Herzog, this is the open letter he wrote to Herzog upon hearing that Encounters At The End Of The World had been dedicated to him:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071117/PEOPLE/71117002 [suntimes.com]
Old school criticism (Score:3)
Something of a lost art in every genre, from restaurants to sports radio. The critics have become hyperbolic bomb-throwers because vitriol sells more papers and attracts more eyeballs. Second, he was a film connoisseur and enjoyed the art AND the craft of film making. I remember one review where he slammed the director for being lazy with fake snow and just dropping it in front of the lens!
I worked my way through the AFI greatest list a few years back and I've gained a whole new appreciation for film and Ebert was one of the exemplars of how to watch and enjoy film. I believe this was his quote (paraphrased). You judge a movie by what it's trying to do and not against some universal standard.
Re: (Score:2)
You judge a movie by what it's trying to do and not against some universal standard.
This is why I liked him. Plus his writing was entertaining.
Finbarr Saunders (Score:2)
Later in life he looked like Finbarr Saunders..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2010/aug/19/wankh-awards-rude-titles [guardian.co.uk]
Ebert was a demi-god. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ebert had a plain common-man love for the movies, but he was, at the same time, a sophisticated critic.
I'll miss him.
First Siskel, now Ebert (Score:3)
Very sad news... and terrible ad placement. (Score:2)
Unfortunate ad placement [imageshack.us]
Re: (Score:2)
Or.... it could have been the two "thumbs up" .... what? Too soon? I'm sure Roger would appreciate the humor. Or maybe I just got whooshed... yeah, probably more likely.
Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (Score:4, Interesting)
When I first saw this I wondered what sort of demented hack could write such trash. Then I learned roger Ebert wrote it. So I decided that it was a work of genius.
An entertaining, gifted critic. That's it. (Score:2)
I'm a little surprised to see the outpouring for Roger Ebert, frankly. I never wished the man ill, and I really enjoyed his work as a critic. Let's remember that this is the same guy who said that video games could never be art, which is fine as it's his opinion, but it's just a little more myopic than I'd expect to see Slashdotters ignore. Still, a matter of opinion. However, when he immediately made cracks about the death of Ryan Dunn following his death, he fell to a level of tastelessness and cruelty th
Re: (Score:3)
So you're against how he attacked somebody immediately following their death. I see. Tell me more about his -- in your words -- "tastelessness and cruelty" he demonstrated by doing so...
Re: (Score:2)
It's a shame that reading comprehension is so poor on this site that you, JabberWokky, are currently rated higher than Loosifur.
Loosifur's post was that it was tasteless and cruel to make cracks about a person immediately after his death, and he therefore, despite admiring Ebert's skill as a critic, feels less sympathy than he should. That's a well-reasoned argument, goes out of its way to point out that he was familiar with the person in question, and was certainly not in any way intended as humorous nor w
Re: (Score:3)
He lost me when he, like many celebrities these days, used his position to air his infantile political views instead of movie reviews. In particular, his over the top cheering of that despicable tub of lard Michael Moore, and even worse, cruelly mocking kids who were suspended from school for wearing an American flag on Cinco de Mayo. His reviews were all right, a bit on the lowbrow side. RIP, whatever.
Re:An entertaining, gifted critic. That's it. (Score:4, Interesting)
This behaviour displays a wanton disregard for the life and safety of those around him. Would you bite your tongue in respectful silence when Patient Zero [radiolab.org] is freshly planted?
From Snopes:
In what way was Dunn's behaviour any better than Dugas? Was is the first time he ever drove over the speed limit? The first time he drove bombed out of his mind? The first time he combined being twice the legal limit and driving at twice the speed limit? Somehow I doubt it.
Ebert's tweet was really aimed at the jackasses who knew about and enabled Dunn's behaviour and decided to tolerate it, not caring enough about public safety to have him arrested and jailed (which he certainly deserved), and not caring enough about Dunn himself to prevent his foreseeable death. As a former alcoholic himself, Ebert had some strong personal opinions about the behaviours of his fellow alcoholics and those around them, the same way a sex offender might be harsh in condemning another sex offender. In-group vitriol is 200 proof.
What has it achieved this respectful biting of lips? Self-centered assholes like Dunn still put the public at risk after forty years of public awareness efforts. I would have been much happier with the outcome if Dunn had redeemed himself to "former asshole" by seeking treatment rather than killing himself.
Somehow the polite grieving process and the social institution of denial has become joined at the hip. Ebert decided to fire a cap into this unholy union before the glue dried. As a result, every time someone criticizes Ebert for his tweet intended as true, the message behind his tweet is reopened for examination. We might even be saving lives here if the message finally sinks into the public consciousness that people behaving like Dunn aren't much better than people behaving like Dugas. Or is there a subtle hierarchy on acceptable ways to expose people to mortal danger without their consent? Not for me, there isn't.
And who are we protecting by our polite silence? The people who either meekly or gutlessly enabled Dunn to continue his reckless behaviours? Well, guess what? Gutless sucks. And meek sucks, too. The respectful silence just serves to confirm in people's minds that they did the best they could, without forcing them to confront the public sentiment that it damn well wasn't good enough. The true enablers in this story? The phony friends who hung around and encouraged his outlandish behaviour because they found Dunn to be funny or entertaining, but didn't give a damn about his well being or the well being of the babies and children and parents and sisters and brother who shared the same highways with the drunken, hard-driving Jackass.
If I had a family member who was a hard-living alcoholic and he hung out with a bunch of enabling carousers and high-functioning deadbeats who let him (or her) walk out of a pub shit-faced to hit the highway with death-wish testosterone or toxic depression, and someone of Ebert's status tweeted about it that "friends don't let friends drink and drive" my own reaction would have been an angry "Damn straight!"
Or maybe I'm wrong about myself, and in my grief over my dead family member I'd be grateful for the social courtesy of respectful
Great Writing made him a better critic (Score:5, Informative)
Not only did Mr. Ebert love movies, but he could WRITE. His reviews were not just excellent and insightful movie reviews, but generally good, to very good prose. This made reading his often lengthy reviews a delight, not a chore.
Did you know Mr. Ebert was also a great fan of written SF? I did not until he recently wrote a guest column for Asimov's Science fiction. It was a warm, charming essay that showed off his writing skills in a whole new light for me who had only ever read his movie reviews.
Re:Great Writing made him a better critic (Score:4, Interesting)
Not only did Mr. Ebert love movies, but he could WRITE. His reviews were not just excellent and insightful movie reviews, but generally good, to very good prose. This made reading his often lengthy reviews a delight, not a chore.
Exactly. When I'm curious about a film I've not yet watched, I almost always look for Ebert's review first. I also like reading his reviews after I've seen a movie -- even if I disagree with his conclusions, I feel like I learn something from his insightful and interesting commentary. It's really sad that he's no longer with us.
I for one could care less. (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe im a cold hateful bastard, but i have no love with ignorant idiots so entrenched in their own ideals and times that they cannot accept new forms of media and entertainment.
Yes you are. Some people don't like the same things you do. Some people have different opinions than you. That's OK. It doesn't mean they hate you and it doesn't mean you have to hate them. Just relax and like what you like.
I didn't agree with him on video games, either, and didn't agree with several of his movie reviews, but the man was a brilliant movie reviewer nonetheless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, because of maybe three or four articles out of the thousands that he wrote, you've decided he was an idiot?
Re: (Score:3)
apparently you never actually read why he made that statement or held that opinion.
it wasnt about how entertaining something is. that's not what or how he defined "art".
if you actually listened to ebert he also considered very many books and movies to also "not be art". you must remember that he did view art in the old school way. people today think art is anything created. thus "entertainment" is a valid purpose for art. he didnt hold that view. he held a more traditional view that art should do more than
Video Games (Score:2)
If we make a video game about him, is it art?
(Disclaimer: I like the guy, I just have a sense of black humor. And he's had numerous long-winded arguments why video games aren't art -- I don't concur.)
World will miss you, kid (Score:2)
RIP, Ebert. You and Siskel were the one place I could go for honesty.
Re: (Score:2)
kid? Are you like, 80 years old?
Siskel & Ebert found my (Score:2)
two favorite movies for me.
I hadn't heard of either The Right Stuff or The Dark City, but I stumbled upon their review somewhere. Both Siskel and Ebert thought The Right Stuff was by far the best movie of 1983 and should've won the Best Picture Oscar. So I watched it, and I agreed... it became my favorite.
Then I saw the Dark City (much later), which Ebert thought was fantastic and his pick for the best picture of 1998. Siskel thought Ebert was out of his mind, he couldn't see what was so good about Dark Cit
Alas poor Ebert... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Mail Order Monsters and Paradroid were clearly art and a helluva lot of fun to play.
I'll get me walker...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He addressed that very question in his last blog post. He was always one of us; a science fiction fan from the beginning, and an enthusiastic adopter of technology as it arrived. While he was on the wrong side of the question of video games as art, at least he cared enough to think about it and debate it.
From http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2013/04/a_leave_of_presense.html [suntimes.com]
"And gamers beware, I am even thinking about a movie version of a video game or mobile app. Once completed, you can engage me in debate o
Re: (Score:2)
I would have loved to see him write a review for something like Planescape: Torment.
Hell, I'd love to see just creative and competent un-paid-for review of a given video game. Between the thirst for ad money, and pressure from gaming companies? Damn, you know?
Re: (Score:3)
Giantbomb doesn't take money for video game reviews. It was founded by a guy who was fired for giving a bad review, and the fellow reviewers who left with him.
They review games they think are interesting or their community is interested in, if they aren't sent a review copy, they'll just go buy one at retail after release. They know they can't cover everything, so if a gaming company wants to "pressure them", they'll just buy their own copy to review. They know that means they won't have a review on launch
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And I do know of Anglophone critics, one that I follow is Robbie Collin.
If you know of Anglophone critics, then you know of Ebert. Instead, you just know a person that happens to be an Anglophone critic. Ebert was the giant of Anglophone critics. He was big enough to get his own TV show, and it was very popular! This is astounding when you consider other types of art criticism.
Really, all your post is doing is professing your ignorance. Yes, he was American and Americans are going to remember him the most, blah, blah, blah. But if you watch English language movies and you haven
Re: (Score:3)
He was big enough to get his own TV show, and it was very popular! This is astounding when you consider other types of art criticism.
He was also the first writer to win a Pulitzer Prize ... for movie reviews. That achievement, in and of itself, deserves respect.
Re: (Score:2)
imdb.com:
Black Snake Moan / Critic Reviews / #1 - Roger Ebert
Look Who's Talking / Critic Reviews / #1 - Roger Ebert
Wall Street / Critic Reviews / #1 - Roger Ebert
The Remains of the Day / Critic Reviews / #1 - Roger Ebert
Santa Sangre / Critic Reviews / #1 AND #2 - Roger Ebert
Battleship Potemkin / Critic Reviews / #1 - Roger Ebert
I'm not saying he's ranked as the #1 reviewer on the site. He's just, pretty much *always*, the first on the list.
Re:Most world famous?? (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect if you talk to a Chinese or Indian film critic, they would know exactly who he was. In fact, he'd started to integrate foreign reviewers on his web site with his "Far Flung Correspondence", something I hope whoever takes over his job (I'm assuming Jim Emerson) will do.
Re:Most world famous?? (Score:5, Interesting)
I am very sure 1 chinese critic or indian critic will take his spot away easily.
. . . beautiful idea for a Saturday Night Live Sketch, with the Chinese critic and the Indian critic playing Siskel & Ebert . . .
Chinese Critic: "There was just too much missing from this plot. Take the hero, for example. His father didn't get killed by an evil tyrant. His son, our hero, didn't swear revenge against the evil tyrant. He didn't go to the Shaolin temple to learn Kung Fu. The Master there didn't tell him to learn sweeping the courtyard before learning Kung Fu. Just nothing of a plot was there."
Indian Critic: "I was waiting the whole time for half the state of Uttar Pradesh to sing and dance, but that scene never came. That bit with the Munchkins Ding Donging it was kinda sorta ok . . . but it just lacked the full gala of a real film."
Chinese Critic: "Yes, there is no reason for further discussing it . . . it is quite seldom that we agree, but we unanimously give two thumbs down to this 'Wizard of Oz' work . . . lest I dare call it a film."
Both Siskel and Ebert were good-humored enough to laugh at parodies of themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Both Siskel and Ebert were good-humored enough to laugh at parodies of themselves.
They were even willing to particpate in the parody [imdb.com] as themselves.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
As far as I know, he's primarily known in the United States.
I had never heard of him while growing up in the UK.
He and partner pioneered the 'low information' form of review, that amounted to 3 states, where all reviews were members of the set {two thumbs down, 1 thumb up, 2 thumbs up}
That's all I know on this topic.
Re: (Score:3)
The "thumbs" rating setup was just a gimmick. From what I remember of the show (and I'm old enough to have watched the earliest ones when they were new), they usually went in-depth into the movie at hand, often in ways that challenged the viewer to think it through. Also, their show began in the age before most of you even knew what an Internet was, and the only other way to get a sneak peek at the movie were the (incredibly over-hyped) TV ads or the (ditto) upcoming movie trailers at the local theater (whe
Re: (Score:2)
The chief difference between the earlier shows and the later ones was more about the camaraderie that grew between Siskell and Ebert. In the early days they were a lot more sincerely combative, and my brother and I (who were just nine or ten at the time we started watching them) genuinely thought the two didn't like each other very much. As it progressed into the mid-80s, I think they had spent so much time around each other that the nastier aspects of their relationship fell by the wayside, and I gather in
Re: (Score:3)
Quite correct. You have to realise that they were the head film critics for the two competing daily newspapers in what was at the time the second largest city in the USA. To make matters worse, Gene Siskel grew up in elite boarding schools and graduated from Yale, while Roger Ebert was the son of an electrician who graduated from Illinois. They were set up to hate each other from the get-go, and at first they did.
A large part of what made the early shows entertaining and informative was the arguments they
Re: (Score:2)
He and partner pioneered the 'low information' form of review, that amounted to 3 states, where all reviews were members of the set {two thumbs down, 1 thumb up, 2 thumbs up}
The idea behind the "thumbs" was that all people really wanted to know is if they should go see a movie, and no other rating system really gives that sort of yes/no answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully, he used vaseline on you, jerk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Do you have any other candidates for "world's most famous film critic"?
Re: (Score:2)
What is your favorite movie and where was it made?
List the last 10 movies you saw, sort by country of origin (descending), and note which one comes up first.
Re: (Score:2)
That film's lead actors were all Americans. I'll agree it is one of the best movies ever made, but Leone clearly was making an international film. You're trying to make a movie starring Clint Eastwood, Eli Wallach and Lee Van Cleef, filmed in Spain with a lot of Spanish extras sound like an Italian film.
Oh, and another Leone classic was Once Upon a Time in the West, again with most of the leads played by Americans.