For the first time in a long time, Roger Ebert has multiple reviews running in the Chicago Sun-Times. Here they are:
Shrek The Third | Fay Grim | Brand Upon The Brain!
He is sitll recovering from his medical issues, but with his “coming out party” at EbertFest last month, he apparently now is ready to go out to the screening rooms, unconcerned about the gawkers, to see the films and knock out some reviews each week. And that is great news, for him, and for us.
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
Man, I hate to be the first one posting (if I still am) something that amounts to pissing on a disabled guy on his first day back at work, but….
Did anyone else do a little groan when you realized that Ebert was coming back at the one time of the year when he is at his WORST? Going back to at least the way-too-early death of his better partner Gene Siskel (and some friends say earlier than that and remind me that he actually gave a positive review to the shitty remake of LA FEMME NIKITA, POINTLESS OF NO RETURN)
Ebert has become the guy whose reviews of big studio films amount to figurative throwing in the towell. The absolute crap that he gives a pass to each summer is jaw-dropping depressing. Smaller American films, foreign and obviously his overlooked are good bets, but his thumbs ups on any mega-dollar would-be blockbuster means zilch.
If you don’t believe me, try this test: write down 10 crappy summer tent-pole movies of the last 5 years or so. See how many Ebert gave a pass to. Prepare to be disappointed.
So you didn’t notice that he gave thumbs down to Shrek 3 and thumbs up to an obscure Guy Maddin film?
RoyBatty wrote:
Man, I hate to be the first one posting (if I still am) something that amounts to pissing on a disabled guy on his first day back at work, but….
As well you should. He gave a thumbs down to “Shrek the Third.” So much for your take on Roger giving a big wet kiss to all big studio pictures. If you had been reading Ebert for a while, he has explained that quite often he will give high marks to a “popcorn” picture, despite its many faults because in the long run, it acheives what it sets out to do whereas he may not give high praise to a more amibtious “small” picture because it falls short of its goals.
Is Tom Cruise or Adam Sandler in Brand Upon The Brain?
“better partner Gene Siskel”???
I’m sorry, but Gene Siskel was never a ‘better’ critic than Roger Ebert. His critical comments were of a different type. He was a bit too elitist and haughty at times for my taste, and he occasionally allowed the salaries or gossip surrounding a star or director, or the budget of a film to influence the tone of his review.
And frankly, after he bought John Travolta’s white suit from Saturday Night Fever, I never could quite look at him the same way.
Roger Ebert has always been a populist reviewer, and his views are more consistent with ‘dedicated movie goers,’ as opposed to ‘cinema connoisseurs.’ Many look down on him because of this, but I’ve always found him very easy to read, and entertaining.
Yeah, I agree — and I’m not just defending Ebert because he’s been sick, either. He’s an engaging read because he does give big studio films a chance, rather than immediately striking a tone of superior dismissal a la Anthony Lane. There have been plenty of fairly well-reviewed popcorn-type movies Ebert has given lukewarm reviews to, like War of the Worlds or Mission: Impossible III. Now, do I personally disagree with his endorsement of the Tomb Raider movies over those two? Sure. But I’ve never been of the school of thought that a critic must maintain a certain level of agreement with me to prove his worth. Does Ebert write well? Are his arguments well-reasoned? Is he engaging and entertaining to read? Does he love movies? Those are the questions that matter and the “yeses” to those should be deafening in Ebert’s case.
I hope that Roger gets out to see Brand upon the Brain with Crispin Glover when it plays at the Music Box, as it’s quite an experience… just to hear him screaming “Romania! Romania!” over and over is worth the price of admission.
He also gave thumbs down to Spielberg’s War of the Worlds, which I direct everyone to when a discussion about that movie ever pops up. Everything I could possibly hope to capture about that movie is present in Rog’s review. Every single word.
But, Roy, the reason why Rog is so good is because he’s not afraid to give popcorn movies high grades if they deliver what they promise. There’s no sense comparing The Day After Tomorrow to Babel or whatever, so he doesn’t attempt to.
Siskel was the perfect balance for Ebert. He was the stand-in for the portion of the audience who questioned Ebert’s apparent willingness to give 3-star passes to questionable movies. That’s why people jump on Ebert today about his track record. Siskel isn’t around to ask the questions some people on this very board are asking. I meant, Roeper is hopeless. How can you trust a guy who gives thunbs-up to Pay It Forward, 3000 Miles to Garaceland, and Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows?
It’s a fact of the marketplace that Ebert has to review the big movies. Whether he’s too soft or too hard on them, I don’t think he appreciates them in the same way the average viewer does. All too often it seems like he misses the boat, but we’re talking about movies that are mostly review-proof. How many of you really parse critical opinion (beyond Tomato or Metacritic ratings) before going to a popcorn movie?
Anyway…I’m glad Ebert is doing his thing, regardless of what he reviews.
Just blazed through Michael Apted’s “Up Films” this past week or so. A grand, life changing experience.
And sure enough there’s Uncle Roger on the 49 DVD chatting up with the director for half an hour or so. Just a warm conversation between journalist and artist. What cracks me up is that you can kinda see Ebert’s knowledge and enthusiasm for the 7 films overpower even that of Apted’s… a lot of “Gee I never thought of that, Roger” moments. It almost became Apted interviewing Ebert about HIS love of the series!
How great to have him back.
Ebert is the best. It’ll be a sad day when he does go.
I think all critics, as they get older, either start liking more and more, or start hating more and more. As I recall, Janet Maslin retired when she realized she was in the former category, after not seeing why people hated The Phantom Menace so much.
Ebert is easier on movies in general than he used to be, but his reviews are still well-written.
I think Maslin was one of the few who gave a positive review to Batman and Robin. It was definitely time for her to pack it in.