RIP Roger Ebert

[+ Chris Eisenhower]

He died this morning, according to CNN and the Chicago Sun-Times.

 

[Rod Hagen]

SUCKS! I was sometimes baffled by the movies he liked, but I loved his blog. One less strong personality in my RSS feed.

[bigvalboy]

He died this morning, according to CNN and the Chicago Sun-Times.

 

 

For me this was still a shock, despite knowing about his long battle with cancer...Peace to his family, friends, and to all those that knew and loved him. He provided endless hours of enjoyment for a multitude of movie goers. R.I.P.

[+ Gar1eth]

I just read about it too. I always enjoyed watching At The Movies. His death brought to mind Gene Siskel. It's hard to believe he's been gone since 1999. It almost seems like yesterday.

 

Gman

[+ Chris Eisenhower]

Richard Roeper was just not the same. I'll miss Roger Ebert.

[+ Gar1eth]

Richard Roeper was just not the same. I'll miss Roger Ebert.

 

However I thought Roeper was handsome. I always wondered if he were gay. Apparently not though.

 

Gman

[+ deej]

When I read his last blog post (yesterday) announcing that his cancer had returned I was pretty sure the end was coming soon, but this is sudden.

 

RIP

[rvwnsd]

However I thought Roeper was handsome. I always wondered if he were gay. Apparently not though.

 

Gman

 

I'll second that! After Murdoch bought the Sun-Times, Richard Roeper (and his handsome face) and Roger Ebert were the only reasons to buy the paper.

[operalover21]

However I thought Roeper was handsome. I always wondered if he were gay. Apparently not though.

 

Gman

 

No, and apparently from what I hear from friends in Chicago a real big, first class, A number one, arrogant asshole.

 

I must admit I lost some respect for Ebert once he started his political blog. Mostly because I long for the days when people whose jobs (actors, artists, CEO's, you name it) had nothing to do with politics never opened their mouths on the subjects. It allows you to like them in a completely unfettered way. Today, sadly, everyone in the public eye feels the need to share every thought on every subject with the public. It's very tiresome.

[operalover21]

I'll second that! After Murdoch bought the Sun-Times, Richard Roeper (and his handsome face) and Roger Ebert were the only reasons to buy the paper.

 

Please. The Chicago Sun-Times was a piece of crap back in 1967 when Ebert started there, long before Murdoch had anything to do with it. I have no idea why he stayed at such a crap paper. As a matter of fact, I can't think of a single major respected film critic who worked for such a lousy paper for 45 years.

[wayout]

I remember watching Siskel & Ebert, I think in the 80s, and enjoyed it (I believe it started on PBS). I followed them and then just Ebert after Siskel passed. As is often the case with critics, not everything he wrote or said I agreed with but I still liked his style. I also perceived he had a true passion for movies. I am sad to hear of his passing. RIP.

[bigvalboy]

When I read his last blog post (yesterday) announcing that his cancer had returned I was pretty sure the end was coming soon, but this is sudden.

 

RIP

 

I love the line, I'm taking a "Leave of Presence." Loved his enthusiasm and energy...

[GoodFella69]

Roger Ebert was indeed an opinionated and strong personality and I didn't always agree with his perspectives, but all in all he seemed like a good and charitable man who made a great impact on popular culture and humanity. May he rest in peace.

 

Goodfella

[+ WilliamM]

The generation of film credits before Ebert, which included John Simon, Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris, were constantly at odds over many things particularly the auteur theory (the director has a personal style that stays with him/her throughout a career, whether or not most of the films are assignments by a studio...Hitchcock is one example). The aguments got very personal, but always passionate and interesting. (Kael in The New Yorker declared "Last Tango in Paris" a truly great film, and the battle would be joined by Sarris and Simon.). I feel that the conflicts raised the level of writing of all three critics and made film reviews into an art form in the 1960s and 1970s.

 

As much as I enjoyed Ebert's reviews, he did not have peers who constantly challenged him as Simon, Kael and Sarris did. So I wonder how he will be remembered in 10 or 20 years.

 

(Note: Kael died first; Sarris died just recently, and Simon is still alive and writing.)

[JackTwist]

RIP Mr. Ebert...

 

http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/i/2013/04/05/Roger-Ebert_612x451.jpg

 

 

“Kindness covers all of my political beliefs. No need to spell them out. I believe that if, at the end, according to our abilities, we have done something to make others a little happier, and something to make ourselves a little happier, that is about the best we can do. To make others less happy is a crime. To make ourselves unhappy is where all crime starts. We must try to contribute joy to the world. That is true no matter what our problems, our health, our circumstances. We must try. I didn’t always know this and am happy I lived long enough to find it out."

 

-Roger Ebert

[operalover21]

The generation of film credits before Ebert, which included John Simon, Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris, were constantly at odds over many things particularly the auteur theory (the director has a personal style that stays with him/her throughout a career, whether or not most of the films are assignments by a studio...Hitchcock is one example). The aguments got very personal, but always passionate and interesting. (Kael in The New Yorker declared "Last Tango in Paris" a truly great film, and the battle would be joined by Sarris and Simon.). I feel that the conflicts raised the level of writing of all three critics and made film reviews into an art form in the 1960s and 1970s.

 

As much as I enjoyed Ebert's reviews, he did not have peers who constantly challenged him as Simon, Kael and Sarris did. So I wonder how he will be remembered in 10 or 20 years.

 

(Note: Kael died first; Sarris died just recently, and Simon is still alive and writing.)

 

You're spot on. They were also writing at a time when it really seemed to "matter." It no longer feels that way. And I think they were completely uninterested in what Hollywood or its filmmakers thought about them. It was often obvious how much Ebert cared what the people he was reviewing felt about him. I think that's why he gave so many films 3 and 4 stars because, let's face it, very few films are really that good.

[bigvalboy]

http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/i/2013/04/05/Roger-Ebert_612x451.jpg

 

 

“Kindness covers all of my political beliefs. No need to spell them out. I believe that if, at the end, according to our abilities, we have done something to make others a little happier, and something to make ourselves a little happier, that is about the best we can do. To make others less happy is a crime. To make ourselves unhappy is where all crime starts. We must try to contribute joy to the world. That is true no matter what our problems, our health, our circumstances. We must try. I didn’t always know this and am happy I lived long enough to find it out."

 

-Roger Ebert

 

Brilliant and worth remembering...Thank you for the post.

[+ WilliamM]

You're spot on. They were also writing at a time when it really seemed to "matter." It no longer feels that way. And I think they were completely uninterested in what Hollywood or its filmmakers thought about them. It was often obvious how much Ebert cared what the people he was reviewing felt about him. I think that's why he gave so many films 3 and 4 stars because' date=' let's face it, very few films are really that good.[/quote']

 

Yes. I believe that Simon, Kael and Sarris were part of the reason films seemed to "matter" so much. I remember waiting with huge expectations to read Kael in The New Yorker and Sarris in The Village Voice each week. I never felt that way about Ebert. I shall never teach a course on film reviews, but if I did I would spent far more time on the critics I mentioned in my first post than Ebert.

[Michael Wayne]

thumbs up, way up! Who could have imagined that NOW we are all critics and we all write reviews whether it be of a hotel, a restaurant or a rentboy! As a movie bugg I can say that this man will be missed.

[Rod Hagen]

Yes. I believe that Simon, Kael and Sarris were part of the reason films seemed to "matter" so much. I remember waiting with huge expectations to read Kael in The New Yorker and Sarris in The Village Voice each week. I never felt that way about Ebert. I shall never teach a course on film reviews, but if I did I would spent far more time on the critics I mentioned in my first post than Ebert.

 

Kael: My copy of I lost It At The Movies is dogeared and torn. Sarris, not my favorite. The only one I can find today doing anything remotely important in film now is Richard Brody at The New Yorker, who, operalov you'll be glad to hear, did not think much of Amour.