Faster Roger! Write! Write!

April 2, 2008 4:49 AM

Roger Ebert to return to writing movie reviews. Love him, hate him, disagree with him, worship him, whatever, but Pulitzer Prize winning movie critic Roger Ebert, after several operations that have left him without the power of speech, will return to writing movie reviews shortly after his 10th Annual movie festival, Ebertfest. Me, personally, I'm happy as heck about this.
posted by willmize (56 comments total)

I don't understand. He's been writing reviews for months.
posted by Class Goat at 4:51 AM on April 2, 2008

The bald guy was better.
posted by orthogonality at 4:55 AM on April 2, 2008

Looking at the Ebert website (rogerebert.suntimes.com) all the reviews but one are written by Jim Emerson. That's odd, though, because I don't remember the website saying that last Friday.
posted by Lucinda at 4:56 AM on April 2, 2008 [1 favorite]

There are thousands of movie reviewers out there, I don't understand why so many people care about one particular one. (A critic I guess I could see as a non-commodity, but I've never seen him talk about themes and metaphors and symbols and whatnot.)

But it's good to see a guy getting back on the horse, so kudos for that I guess.
posted by DU at 4:59 AM on April 2, 2008

(Awesome title, btw.)
posted by DU at 5:05 AM on April 2, 2008

@DU: That was my main motivation for doing this, showing him getting back into the good fight and writing reviews.

I think it's because I grew up watching Siskel and Ebert that I have such a seminal attachment to them. I actually preferred Siskel's reviews, but after his passing, adopted Ebert as my own to watch, read and enjoy.

To be honest, I just don't enjoy the other reviewers as much as I do Ebert. After he goes, I will probably just drift aimlessly through the movie review seas :)
posted by willmize at 5:07 AM on April 2, 2008

I know Jim Emerson has been taking up a lot of the slack, but Ebert has, indeed, been reviewing movies for months. At the very least, the Sun-Times has been printing them. I wonder if he pre-wrote the reviews before he went in for the last round of surgery. Either way, it's good to hear he's getting back on the beat.
posted by Faint of Butt at 5:16 AM on April 2, 2008

several operations that have left him without the power of speech

Can he still use his thumbs?
posted by three blind mice at 5:18 AM on April 2, 2008 [8 favorites]

Yeah, he was writing reviews for months, but had to go back in for more medical stuff. He talked about on the site somewhere before he left. Emerson has been picking up the slack, even more so lately.

Ebert is my favorite reviewer. I tend to agree with his reviews (75% of the time, maybe) but I don't really rely on the bad reviews to keep me away from a movie. After all, I go to be entertained, not to review. But regardless, his writing is always entertaining and insightful. He has a way of turning a phrase that often makes me laugh. So happy he is coming back, and I hope he can beat this thing once and for all.
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 5:37 AM on April 2, 2008

I think it's because I grew up watching Siskel and Ebert that I have such a seminal attachment to them.

Rule 34.
"The balcony is closed," said Gene, as the cameras switched off and the stage lights dimmed, "But I'm finally ready to open my heart, Roger. And my legs."
posted by Horace Rumpole at 5:49 AM on April 2, 2008 [8 favorites]

I've never seen him talk about themes and metaphors and symbols and whatnot.

Sure he does. I've been reading his stuff since 1990 (?), and I've learned so much about movies - from his reviews - that I don't even bother reading other critics anymore. As noted above, his reviews are entertaining -- I like them. He doesn't just review a movie - he analyzes it, explains what makes it good, great, or bad (in his opinion, natch), and does it with humor and insight. I don't always agree with his assessments (or his politics), but I always appreciate reading what he has written.

Simply put, he taught me how to appreciate movies, not just enjoy them.
posted by davidmsc at 5:52 AM on April 2, 2008 [1 favorite]

There are thousands of movie reviewers out there, I don't understand why so many people care about one particular one.

Well, he's intelligent, articulate, passionate and a solid writer all at the same time, which puts him above 99% of the thousands of movie reviewers you mention. I agree with Ebert about 50% of the time on current movies, but almost universally appreciate the same classics as he does. He's capable of amazing insights at times, and you can tell he really puts thought into his work, especially for movies he loves. His "Great Movies" series of essay reviews is excellent; the one for My Neighbor Totoro, for instance, really opened the movie up for me in a whole new way.

He's also good at praising movies, which is much, much harder than just crapping on bad ones.

In terms of "I agree," I tend to align with the AV Club reviewers more than almost anyone else, but of all the "big" reviewers, Ebert has been the most consistently readable and enjoyable for me.
posted by Shepherd at 5:53 AM on April 2, 2008 [2 favorites]

I used to watch Siskel and Ebert a great deal when I was young, and I generally found myself agreeing most often with Siskel. But, as I age, I'm starting to appreciate Ebert's views more.

In retrospect, if I were going to sum it up, Siskel liked movies that were fun; Ebert liked movies that were good. They were a great pairing, and I wish Siskel hadn't died so young.

I'm glad Mr. Ebert is still with us, and even though he blasts computer games as not being art, at least his criticism is intelligent. It's ignorant, I believe, and wrong.... but it's intelligent. So I can forgive his viewpoint. :-)
posted by Malor at 6:04 AM on April 2, 2008

How did I not hear about his salivary gland? Where was I? I love Ebert, I can't believe I didn't hear about this before. I guess because I haven't been paying attention to movies lately.

I like Ebert in particular because he's a good writer and he makes me laugh. Even when I disagree with him, his reviews are enjoyable to read. Also, since I agree with him most of the time, it's kinda fun when his views on a movie are strange and ridiculous to me. I go, "Ebert, nooo!" and read in the review in good-natured shock. Does anyone else get what I mean? There's something hilarious in a "well, how about that" way when you think your opinions are similar to someone else's and they surprise you like that.
posted by Nattie at 6:15 AM on April 2, 2008

Anyone who wonders why Ebert's loved should listen to one of his commentary tracks. See, especially, his track on Dark City.
posted by Prospero at 6:15 AM on April 2, 2008

Anyone who wonders why Ebert's loved should listen to one of his commentary tracks. See, especially, his track on Dark City.

That's a good example, I think, because it's a love letter to a movie that is mostly -- and, to my mind, quite justly -- crapped upon. But it's a very well thought-out and passionate love letter, and that's kind of what counts. Ebert can no more convince me that Dark City was the best film of its year than he can that Blue Velvet is trash, but in both cases, he's worth listening to even though he is totally, totally wrong.

That said, I just noticed Jim Emerson's blog for the first time yesterday, and I gotta say, he deserves some love, too. Scanners reads a little like AV Club with a serious IQ boost (sorry, AV Club; it's not you, baby, it's your commenters).
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:24 AM on April 2, 2008 [1 favorite]

Prospero: "Anyone who wonders why Ebert's loved should listen to one of his commentary tracks. See, especially, his track on Dark City."

His commentary on Citizen Kain is outstanding, I wish that there were more commentaries by critics/historians and fewer by actors/directors who usually sound like they are just recording it to collect a quick paycheck.
posted by octothorpe at 6:29 AM on April 2, 2008

Because of my job I wind up reading and quoting a LOT of Ebert's reviews. And almost all of them leave me shaking my head. The guy is not an interesting or expressive writer, and never has been. Most of his reviews are equivalent to notes and plot-points jotted down during a screening. It's not about whether I agree with his opinions; I can barely bear to read what his opinions even are.

I had a talk about this with my roommate who was able to explain to me why Ebert is important (and I won't quote him, since for all I know he'll show up in this thread to explain it himself). But as someone who loves the written word and loves movie reviews, the most emotion I can muster for Ebert is admiration and awe for having gotten to keep a fun job for so long despite having no discernible talent at it.
posted by [NOT HERMITOSIS-IST] at 6:36 AM on April 2, 2008

I don't really know the guy beyond his reputation, but his review of the (underaged) audience reaction to Night of the Living Dead gave me an excellent framing quote for my dissertation. So, y'know, thanks Roger.
posted by slimepuppy at 6:56 AM on April 2, 2008

Being a Brit Ebert doesn't have the same cultural role for me that he does for many Americans. However, I checked his website and he fails the 'Starship Troopers' test quite badly, to the point of appearing to be a simpleton.
posted by biffa at 7:03 AM on April 2, 2008 [1 favorite]

I gave up on him after his anti-videogame rant. He's become a reactionary.
posted by aerotive at 7:04 AM on April 2, 2008

This is good news. I trust Roger Ebert. And that's saying a lot.
posted by sidereal at 7:06 AM on April 2, 2008

biffa: "Being a Brit Ebert doesn't have the same cultural role for me that he does for many Americans. However, I checked his website and he fails the 'Starship Troopers' test quite badly, to the point of appearing to be a simpleton."

I just went and read that review and think that he overrated it, I'd give give it 1 1/2 starts at most.
posted by octothorpe at 7:33 AM on April 2, 2008

slimepuppy, that 1967 review of Night of the Living Dead you linked is great. Thanks for that.
posted by sdodd at 7:43 AM on April 2, 2008

Can he still use his thumbs?

He can, but Roeper can't!

Despite his name still in the title of the weekly TV show, as of last August, Ebert withdrew his license to allow the show to continue using the trademarked THUMB rating when Disney offered him what he considered a paltry sum for the rights to use them. (ain't it cool news story)
posted by Dave Faris at 7:48 AM on April 2, 2008 [1 favorite]

Although I frequently disagree with Ebert, his insights into the films are always interesting. And he clearly loves film (which is not a sense I got from Siskel at all -- Siskel was never the same class of critic as Ebert). Sure, there are plenty of films Ebert doesn't get, but if he fails the Starship Troopers test (I love that film), he certainly passes the 2 Fast 2 Furious one.
posted by rottytooth at 7:58 AM on April 2, 2008

There are thousands of movie reviewers out there, I don't understand why so many people care about (Roger Ebert).

I myself was really impressed with the exchange of letters between Ebert and then-Tribune publisher Conrad Black.

My favourite movie reviewer, still, would have to be the New Yorker's Anthony Lane.
posted by KokuRyu at 8:02 AM on April 2, 2008

Ebert withdrew his license to allow the show to continue using the trademarked THUMB rating

Whoa, and I thought that IP in the technology world was out of control. A license to use a thumb's up? Incredible.
posted by damn dirty ape at 8:12 AM on April 2, 2008

Arrrg, is that AP style now? Using "says" after a quote previously identified as coming from a written letter?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:13 AM on April 2, 2008

Horace Rumpole: "a seminal attachment ... Rule 34."

How crass.
posted by lostburner at 8:15 AM on April 2, 2008

I'm sure this has been posted before, but the disdain between Siskel & Ebert was downright palpable...and funny as hell.
posted by VicNebulous at 8:16 AM on April 2, 2008

I'm quite agnostic about Ebert, but I'm curious:

he fails the 'Starship Troopers' test quite badly

.. the who-the-hey-the-what-now? What's the 'Starship Troopers' test?
posted by Drexen at 8:22 AM on April 2, 2008

That review of Night of the Living Dead linked above -- If you're over about 35, you've probably had the discussion with peers about how hilariously unsafe your childhood was, because parents really weren't sensitized that way: Hardly anybody wore seatbelts, lots of secondhand cigarette smoke, etc. Part of that was parents letting their kids see clearly inappropriate fare at the movies. (I saw Bonnie & Clyde at age 7.) Today, allowing a 6-7 year old to sit through today's NOTLD (I guess one of theSaws?) would be considered borderline child abuse. For those who haven't clicked through, I highly recommend the Ebert piece because it's not so much about the movie as it is one of the first warnings to parents (the movie is pre- MPAA ratings, barely) that movies ain't what they used to be anymore, and your kids could really be damaged at the movies without some supervision. It reads a bit like Sinclair's The Jungle, if moviemakers were meatpackers.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 8:27 AM on April 2, 2008

Siskel liked movies that were fun; Ebert liked movies that were good.

Their argument re: Blue Velvet makes it sound like the opposite is true.
posted by shakespeherian at 8:36 AM on April 2, 2008

As someone who would dearly dearly love to be a movie critic, news of eberts cancer hit me kind of hard. His writing has always been a bright spot in modern, junket driven, make sure to have a quote for the posters reviews. (I'm looking right at your lazy ass pete hammond.)

I'm glad he's gonna get back to it, because honestly, I'm not entirely convinced that when he does leave the position, by retirement or death, that another critic will be able to step up to the plate and do the same quality of work.

And honestly, as it is now, the only other critic I enjoy reading at all, besides Ebert, is Massawyrm from Aintitcoolnews.com
posted by tylerfulltilt at 8:52 AM on April 2, 2008

What's the 'Starship Troopers' test?

Well, the review begins

``Starship Troopers'' is the most violent kiddie movie ever made. I call it a kiddie movie not to be insulting, but to be accurate: Its action, characters and values are pitched at 11-year-old science-fiction fans. That makes it true to its source. It's based on a novel for juveniles by Robert A. Heinlein. I read it to the point of memorization when I was in grade school. I have improved since then, but the story has not.

and continues

What's lacking is exhilaration and sheer entertainment. Unlike the ``Star Wars'' movies, which embraced a joyous vision and great comic invention, ``Starship Troopers'' doesn't resonate. It's one-dimensional. We smile at the satirical asides, but where's the warmth of human nature? The spark of genius or rebellion? If ``Star Wars'' is humanist, ``Starship Troopers'' is totalitarian.

Watching a film that largely consists of interchangeable characters firing machine guns at computer-generated Bugs...

My guess is that someone who is a bit older than 11 sees deeper things in the film.
posted by pracowity at 9:13 AM on April 2, 2008

I don't get how come we can post about Roger Ebert every fucking 10 minutes. ENOUGH about Roger Ebert already! There are millions of other interesting topics already. At some point, don't the Roger Ebert posts count as doubles?
posted by serazin at 9:29 AM on April 2, 2008

My guess is that someone who is a bit older than 11 sees deeper things in the film.

I was in my 20s when I saw it and thought, "Wow, Verhoeven likes to make his points with a fucking sledgehammer."
posted by COBRA! at 9:46 AM on April 2, 2008 [1 favorite]

Roger Ebert is duh bomb.
posted by zzazazz at 9:53 AM on April 2, 2008

One of my favorite pasttimes is browsing the film theory/criticism shelves at my local used book stores. Over the years, I've picked up some terrific books on the subject of movies by some truly great writers. While I've enjoyed much of Roger Ebert's film writing (particularly his snarkier reviews), I wouldn't rank him among my favorites in the field; those would be the following (in no particular order):

James Agee

Manny Farber

Pauline Kael

Andrew Sarris

Stanley Kauffmann
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:58 AM on April 2, 2008 [1 favorite]

Don't forget Jonathan Rosenbaum
posted by rottytooth at 10:03 AM on April 2, 2008

Previously on MetaFilter: "I ain't a pretty boy no more." (And according to MetaTalk the Chicago Sun-Times printed some get-well messages from the thread, but they're not on their site any more.)
posted by kirkaracha at 10:14 AM on April 2, 2008

I was glad to see this post--it's good to know he'll be around at rogerebert.com again.

Ebert is a man with a project, and he's been working on his project for decades. He takes movies seriously and attempts to be a voice of conscience to an industry not known for its conscience. He's a very moral reviewer. There is a great line in the opening paragraph of the Starship Troopers review: "I have improved since then, but the story has not." That gave me a great deal of information about both the story in question and the reviewer. I respect that after recovering from cancer the one thing he wanted to do was get back to his project.
posted by ftrain at 10:57 AM on April 2, 2008

And don't miss the Austin Chronicle's Marrit Ingman.

Some random opening lines:

Hollywood sure loves to teach magnificent bastards the true meaning of Christmas, and The Family Man is this week's lesson, sweeter than an intravenous glycogen drip and roughly as invasive.

Napoleon Dynamite (Heder) is a teenage dork. Not a hey-let’s-put-glasses-on-Rachael-Leigh-Cook kind of teenage dork, but a unicorn-lovin’, lip-balmin’ Future Farmer of America with Dragonslayer posters on the wall of his Preston, Idaho, bedroom.

Somewhere between the pop jouissance of Guy Ritchie and the social realism of Ken Loach, this ballsy drama freeze-frames bleak Thatcherite Yorkshire and exposes its racist underbelly.

Though it’s as estrogenic as dong quai, this amiable adaptation of Karen Joy Fowler’s eponymous bestseller about six friends and their book club is thoughtfully rendered with a certain universality of spirit – in that sense not unlike the books of Jane Austen herself.
posted by nonmyopicdave at 12:39 PM on April 2, 2008

So, I'm confused, now. Is it fashionable to love Ebert or to hate him? I want to be sure I'm on the right side of the debate.

Also, can someone please tell me which obscure reviewer is a better bet? Preferably one with obscure literary references a-plenty and a dense writing style so I can feel all intellectual-like.

Ebert is like Stephen King, in a way. Too popular to be taken seriously by anyone who feels the need to reject anything and everything mainstream, but a good writer, engaging storyteller, and someone who clearly loves what they do. For shame!
posted by maxwelton at 1:41 PM on April 2, 2008

The "Siskel (Or Roeper) and Ebert" phenomenon reminds me of Oprah's Book Club .

I have no problem with people liking the personalities involved, and maybe some of them get exposed to good art as a result. But it's a bit creepy how the commercial fate of a work can rise and fall based on one not particularly well-informed opinion.
posted by drjimmy11 at 1:46 PM on April 2, 2008

I did get a laugh out of Ebert's review of "The Village" though, when he completely, totally and utterly blew the big surprise:

"...takes place in what appears to be an 1800s village..."

He didn't bold, underline, and draw huge red arrows pointing at the word "appears," but he might as well have.
posted by drjimmy11 at 1:46 PM on April 2, 2008

Well, Jonathan Rosenbaum has always been the cinephile's critic of choice, but his recent retirement leaves the mantle up for grabs. Nathan Lee at the Village Voice was a real up-and-comer — until last week, when he was fired for "economic reasons."

If you're really interested in boning up on the film-critical landscape, better do it quick — the way things are going in the pro-film-critic world, half the critics worth reading could be out of a job by 2009.
posted by Joey Bagels at 1:54 PM on April 2, 2008

Ebert is truly a film historian who knows so much more about film than he is given credit for. I didn't appeciate this fact until I saw him on seminars and panels at film festivals. He manages to be both a populist - championing mainstream Hollywood films - as well as someone who knows silent films, rare foreign language cinema, experimental films and the rest. In this way he is open-minded in ways many critics are not. Meaning he knows more about film than most popular film critics but he is more receptive to mainstream cinema than the 'upper crust' critics.
posted by Rashomon at 1:59 PM on April 2, 2008 [2 favorites]

I disagree with Ebert on most things (including Starship Troopers), but he 's an entertaining writer, and I loved his description of Pearl Harbor:

"Pearl Harbor" is a two-hour movie squeezed into three hours, about how on Dec. 7, 1941, the Japanese staged a surprise attack on an American love triangle.

posted by brundlefly at 4:35 PM on April 2, 2008 [1 favorite]

I did get a laugh out of Ebert's review of "The Village" though, when he completely, totally and utterly blew the big surprise:

To be fair, I guessed the big "surprise" when I first saw the trailer.
posted by brundlefly at 4:36 PM on April 2, 2008

And Ebert hated "The Village" so much, it probably hurt not to be able to spoil it for everyone - but he's respectful like that. To be honest, people need to be warned about how terrible "The Village" is.
posted by crossoverman at 4:54 PM on April 2, 2008

Brundlefly, that quote is one of my all-time favorite Ebertisms.
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 5:16 PM on April 2, 2008

Despite his name still in the title of the weekly TV show, as of last August, Ebert withdrew his license to allow the show to continue using the trademarked THUMB rating when Disney offered him what he considered a paltry sum for the rights to use them. (ain't it cool news story)
posted by Dave Faris at 10:48 AM on April 2 [+] [!]

That's what Disney claimed during negotiations, but Ebert publicly denied it. The show stopped using it, but not because Ebert made them.

Ebert (along with Siskel's estate, I think) owns the registered trademark on "two thumbs up."
posted by pmurray63 at 6:12 PM on April 2, 2008

I don't get how come we can post about Roger Ebert every fucking 10 minutes.

The most recent post using the tags you used is almost seven months ago. Hyperbolate much?
posted by Cyrano at 9:52 PM on April 2, 2008

Sure he does. I've been reading his stuff since 1990 (?), and I've learned so much about movies - from his reviews - that I don't even bother reading other critics anymore. As noted above, his reviews are entertaining -- I like them. He doesn't just review a movie - he analyzes it

In all due respect, that's a shame. Ebert is by far my favorite reviewer. But he's human with his own ideas and prejudices. There are some genres he simply doesn't get, and doesn't care for. And movie analysis is a deep and varied topic. To only take Ebert's opinion is putting your head in the sand. It's like eating at mcdonalds every day. You might as well only read stephen king novels.

There are a lot of great reviewers with different strengths. Ebert is just one of them.
posted by justgary at 12:23 AM on April 3, 2008 [1 favorite]