April 29, 2024
The Hot Blog
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"]
Quote Unquotesee all »
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
Read this article early this morning. God bless you, Roger.
Great pic. Love the look in his eyes.
Incroyable. I love Roger’s uber-fearlessness these days.
Not bad.
what a fantastic picture.
I chocked up at the photo, and several times while reading the piece. His passion. His fearless personality. His remembrance of Gene Siskel.
choked up.
“Why So Serious?”
Agree with AH. There’s something great in his eyes. A joy/defiance combo.
“I’ve never said this before,” the voice says, “but we were born to be Siskel and Ebert.”
Hell. Yes.
Godspeed to CereProc. The words will remain forever, but damn do I miss the voice.
Wow, that’s pretty shocking. I wouldn’t have been able to tell that’s Ebert. He still has some serious balls, like he always has. Love that he doesn’t hide from his problem like a lot of people would. You can’t keep that man down.
That was a great article. The bits about Gene Siskel were particularly great. Ebert is a legend.
MCM – “not bad”? really? haha ok.
As in, considering that he’s described himself as looking like the Phantom of the Opera, relatively speaking, he looks not too bad.
Annie Liebowitz could take note of this portrait.
EBERT POWER
Love that on Twitter today, he said that he was gonna give up eating and drinking for Lent.
Every time I read him, I still imagine him healthy and vibrant as ever.
Good ol’ Bill Shakespeare said “There’s no art to find the mind’s construction in the face.”
And to that, I paraphrase his next line…
He is a gentle man on whom I build an absolute trust.
I love Roger Ebert. I grew UP on Roger Ebert. He is synonymous with film. Bless his heart.
I love Roger Ebert and grew up on him. Roger has never held back on his opinions so out of respect for what he influenced on me, I will not hold back on mine. I bought all of his books through the eighties and nineties and watched him religiously. I even corresponded with him a few times via email in the early days of the internet.
Roger is a brave man and a very intensely intelligent man when it comes to film.
He has also squandered much of his reputation in the past several years by being far too easy on crap and giving into cheap political hate and anger that very obviously seems a result of his health problems.
He is entitled to his Hollywood inspired opinions on politics, but it makes him a lesser man and makes his critical views suspect. His review of The Lovely Bones, was childish and seemed rooted more in the anger of a man who knows he has fewer days ahead him than behind. A man with much hate and resentment for his Catholic upbringing…but is wondering if maybe it is true and he has made the wrong choice. Perhaps it takes one to know one.
I know this post will piss many off…but it is not meant to. I am only doing what many of you will not and be honest.
I suspect that is the best way I can show my respect for Roger who is someone I have admired since my youth but in recent years have found wanning.
To allow his health to sugar-coat my views, I feel would not be something that his still alert mind would respect.
I do wish you the best Roger and hope you find inner peace. In your current writings…it is very obvious you are have not found it.
God bless if you read this.
“I know this post will piss many off…but it is not meant to. I am only doing what many of you will not and be honest. ”
And thus the entirety of your post is made invalid.
Because a man facing the abyss squandered his clout by calling out the projected hatred of folks like Sarah Palin — who accused the President of pallin’ with terrorists, suggested his birth certificate was fair game and came dangerously close to the WH by way of unhaters like-minded Nicol D’s. Point taken. And duly ignored.
Nicol, you suck.
What makes Ebert’s opinions on politics worse than yours, except that you don’t agree with him? Ebert’s pretty much always been a leftie, that hasn’t changed.
Why why WHY don’t you ever post here without bringing up politics? No one cares about your politics, asshole. Shut the fuck up about them!
Thanks for listening.
Nicol, you only mention your “respect” for Roger Ebert as a transparent means to spend most of your post bagging on your favorite political straw men.
Talk about dumb cosmic luck. We live in a world where Roger Ebert can no longer talk and you won’t fucking shut up.
How does one find someone else “wanning,” I wonder?
BTW: As fate would have it, I’m currently reading Rick Perlstein’s “Nixonland.” And, funnily enough, I’m finding ample evidence in the book that suggests Richard M. Nixon was a classier guy than Nicol.
I don’t think writing a single bad review or even a few bad reviews over the last few years negates decades of important work, but Nicol is dead-on regarding Ebert’s Lovely Bones review. I didn’t care much for the movie either, but Ebert’s fanatical disgust seemed rooted almost entirely in the film’s believe in a heaven-type afterlife and character motives that seemed complete outside the scope of the film itself (ie – that Susie was ‘lucky’ to have been raped and murdered and enjoyed her time in heaven).
As for his politics, Ebert has always been a fire-breathing liberal but then so am I.
So wait you psychos are saying Ebert is slipping now for writing excessive bad reviews? I’m confused, I thought he was too forgiving these days? Which is it. Well no matter. Long after you’re forgotten dust Ebert will be known by anyone who reveres film criticism.
roger ebert’s eyes just bore into my soul in that photo, as if to say, “this is me, i’m ALIVE, right here, right now”
it makes my chest tighten with a flurry of emotions. i see you, mr. ebert. my admiration for your moxie is deep
It’s good to see so many people taking a page from Roger’s book and being honest and forthright. Unlike Nicol, who persists in being deceptive and intelletually phony.
Nicol lost all claims to intellectual honesty when he tried to blame liberal humanities for a college gun massacre. Truly the dumbest and most disgusting thing I’ve ever read here. And that’s saying a lot.
I differ with Nicol on everything, but mainly that Ebert “has also squandered much of his reputation in the past several years by being far too easy on crap.”
Firstly, one man’s crap is another man’s chocolate.
Second, Roger has always had a soft spot for popcorn junk. If you are as much of a life-long follower go back and read the favorable notices he gave films like PREDATOR (for which I specifically recall Siskel accusing him of “slumming.”). Or the Tomb Raider films. Ghosts of Mars. Trying to go back further off the top of my head. Up The Creek (80’s “slob comedy”). Red Heat. I’m sure there are many, many more examples.
The thing about Roger is that he always makes me understand WHY he liked or didn’t like a film. Even when I don’t agree I at least understand where he’s coming from, rather than just getting the bland checklist of “the story isn’t good, characters need to be better, etc.” He explains, he examines his own motivations and weaknesses, and makes it clear. The man can fucking write.
AND HE NEVER EVER TELLS ME HOW I WILL FEEL ABOUT A MOVIE. HE TELLS ME HOW HE FELT. The absolute worst thing about film criticism, the thing that 99% of film writers do is use “you” rather than “I.” It’s pretty fucking simple. Don’t say “the movie leaves you bored and unsatisfied.” Say it “left me bored and unsatisfied.” Because that’s what it did. You don’t know how it will leave me or how it DID effect me. I am reading this because i want YOUR opinion. Not your egotistical final judgment on the whole of moviegoing. I hate that so fucking much. And it stems from the cookie-cutter mentality that goes into most criticism. Roger, at least to my memory, has never told me how I would feel about a movie. He told me what he felt, thought and concluded. And many times has even admitted that others may and/or will not feel the same. That takes fucking guts.
He is the gold standard for film criticism, and 99.8% of the film criticism community has eons to go before catching up to him.
Exactly, a lot of times when he hates a movie, you can tell if you may enjoy it or not…same as when he loves one. One of my favorite reviews of his is for Rapa Nui, where he outright says it’s a terrible movie but then gives it a decent review anyway and says that’s because it’s weird and has a lot of naked breasts in it. I love that!
It’s been his three-star reviews of Sahara and The Mummy that have been just as useful (if not more so) as his four-star reviews of a Scoresese picture or the like. I may not agree with him (Transformers and Tomb Raider), but his willingness to embrace popcorn fun and admit when a studio picture had achieved greatness has been unvaluable. As a film fan, there are few things more exciting than an Ebert rave for a popcorn film (Lethal Weapon, Avatar, Speed), even when I don’t end up quite agreeing with him (Watchmen, The Golden Compass, Spider-Man 2).
Ebert definitely has a soft spot for old-school adventure movies. As he ought to, as a staple when he grew up and they don’t really make those anymore. I like them too, so I usually agree with his reviews on stuff like The Mummy.
That doesn’t excuse his thumbs down for BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA.