3 ms·

Roger Ebert had an unexpected impact on me in my 20s. In my late teens, I started religiously reading his reviews, and this continued until his death. I've neve

by dvt 6y ago

Roger Ebert had an unexpected impact on me in my 20s. In my late teens, I started religiously reading his reviews, and this continued until his death. I've never really been a "movie buff," but Ebert's witty prose and pointed technical critique reminded me of Scalia (whom I also loved reading). Thank you for putting this list together!

autarch 6y ago
Besides being a well respected film critic and incredibly knowledgeable about film, he was also just a great writer. I read his reviews every week simply for the pleasure of reading them, even if I wasn't interested in the films he reviewed.
Mediterraneo10 6y ago
The tragedy of Roger Ebert is that, although he had a vast knowledge of great cinema, he established a niche where he was expected to mainly write about ephemeral popular films. His time was mostly spent on Hollywood blockbusters and popcorn, and he was appearing in media where he could not go into any great depth due to space limitations, or because that would be a turnoff for his mass audience. So, only in a few Ebert productions like his "Great Movies" books can one get a sense of the films that really mattered to the man and to art. Compare this to a critic like Richard Brody, who in his career has been fortunate to focus entirely on art cinema (though of course Brody’s net worth is probably an order of magnitude less than Ebert’s was).
- ctchocula 6y ago
  I've only read a few Ebert reviews, enjoyed them and happened to be looking for a book to read, so I appreciate the recommendation! edit: The introduction alone makes the book worth reading: > Of all the arts, movies are the most powerful aid to empathy, and good ones make us into better people. Not many of them are very good.
WalterBright 6y ago
I enjoyed Ebert when he teamed with Siskel in the early days before they became great friends, and they'd argue. Their debates were better than the movies :-)
ShamelessC 6y ago
As someone who loves both movies and video games, it was disappointing to hear his thoughts that video games aren't art. Did he ever retract those views?
- govg 6y ago
  Not exactly retract, but he did write[1] about how he felt his initial statement was not completely fair, and at the end concludes with saying that it's hard to come up with a definition of art that would exclude video games but include other popular forms of media accepted as art, and that for gamers, they could possibly have experienced something that, to them, makes games equivalent to art. [1] - https://www.rogerebert.com/roger-ebert/okay-kids-play-on-my-lawn https://www.rogerebert.com/roger-ebert/okay-kids-play-on-my-...
atulatul 6y ago
Last few years, I have liked reviews by Berardinelli. If I remember correctly he has an engineering background (and I think has designed the site himself... not as polished as some others). Not great prose/writing style. But reviews are good. https://www.reelviews.net https://www.reelviews.net
at_a_remove 6y ago
I briefly had a review gig, highly amateur, that was even compensated. Ebert had an influence on me in at least two ways which immediately spring to mind. First, he has biases. Go and read his review of Leon (aka The Professional) and you will know what his gut reaction will be to something like Moretz's role in Kick-Ass. He didn't seem to pay much attention during "genre" flicks and a couple of his review shows that. However, he displayed his biases clearly. You could account for them. He did not dress them up in academic language or try to justify them in a manner that was beyond any reproach. I could mentally just adjust for what I would get out of his reviews of most horror films. Because people have biases, an open reckoning of them is as fair as you can get. Second, reviews are to be written on multiple levels, each accounting for a different audience. What I call the TV Guide review consists of stars granted, a few actors mentioned, and a very brief subject summary. At another level, he writes for people who want to know, "Given what I care about, would I want to spend my time and money seeing this film?" At a third level, he talks to people who have already seen the movie, people who have the ability to engage with the language of film and debate its merits. Each of these levels is valuable. Each is its own particular craft and requisite skills, not to be evaded no matter what the subject matter. I sometimes disagreed with his ratings but I rarely found a review which did not add something to my experience of a movie.

by dvt 6y ago

autarch 6y ago

Besides being a well respected film critic and incredibly knowledgeable about film, he was also just a great writer. I read his reviews every week simply for the pleasure of reading them, even if I wasn't interested in the films he reviewed.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago

The tragedy of Roger Ebert is that, although he had a vast knowledge of great cinema, he established a niche where he was expected to mainly write about ephemeral popular films. His time was mostly spent on Hollywood blockbusters and popcorn, and he was appearing in media where he could not go into any great depth due to space limitations, or because that would be a turnoff for his mass audience. So, only in a few Ebert productions like his "Great Movies" books can one get a sense of the films that really mattered to the man and to art. Compare this to a critic like Richard Brody, who in his career has been fortunate to focus entirely on art cinema (though of course Brody’s net worth is probably an order of magnitude less than Ebert’s was).

ctchocula 6y ago
I've only read a few Ebert reviews, enjoyed them and happened to be looking for a book to read, so I appreciate the recommendation! edit: The introduction alone makes the book worth reading: > Of all the arts, movies are the most powerful aid to empathy, and good ones make us into better people. Not many of them are very good.

WalterBright 6y ago

I enjoyed Ebert when he teamed with Siskel in the early days before they became great friends, and they'd argue. Their debates were better than the movies :-)

ShamelessC 6y ago

As someone who loves both movies and video games, it was disappointing to hear his thoughts that video games aren't art. Did he ever retract those views?

govg 6y ago
Not exactly retract, but he did write[1] about how he felt his initial statement was not completely fair, and at the end concludes with saying that it's hard to come up with a definition of art that would exclude video games but include other popular forms of media accepted as art, and that for gamers, they could possibly have experienced something that, to them, makes games equivalent to art. [1] - https://www.rogerebert.com/roger-ebert/okay-kids-play-on-my-lawn https://www.rogerebert.com/roger-ebert/okay-kids-play-on-my-...

atulatul 6y ago

Last few years, I have liked reviews by Berardinelli. If I remember correctly he has an engineering background (and I think has designed the site himself... not as polished as some others). Not great prose/writing style. But reviews are good. https://www.reelviews.net https://www.reelviews.net

at_a_remove 6y ago

I briefly had a review gig, highly amateur, that was even compensated. Ebert had an influence on me in at least two ways which immediately spring to mind. First, he has biases. Go and read his review of Leon (aka The Professional) and you will know what his gut reaction will be to something like Moretz's role in Kick-Ass. He didn't seem to pay much attention during "genre" flicks and a couple of his review shows that. However, he displayed his biases clearly. You could account for them. He did not dress them up in academic language or try to justify them in a manner that was beyond any reproach. I could mentally just adjust for what I would get out of his reviews of most horror films. Because people have biases, an open reckoning of them is as fair as you can get. Second, reviews are to be written on multiple levels, each accounting for a different audience. What I call the TV Guide review consists of stars granted, a few actors mentioned, and a very brief subject summary. At another level, he writes for people who want to know, "Given what I care about, would I want to spend my time and money seeing this film?" At a third level, he talks to people who have already seen the movie, people who have the ability to engage with the language of film and debate its merits. Each of these levels is valuable. Each is its own particular craft and requisite skills, not to be evaded no matter what the subject matter. I sometimes disagreed with his ratings but I rarely found a review which did not add something to my experience of a movie.