RIP Roger Ebert

Sports Journalists Forum – Media, Newsroom & Reporting Talk

Help Support Sports Journalists Forum:

I was at the Art Institute of Chicago once, looking at the miniature rooms and I had a nice conversation with the guy standing next to me. Normal small talk, I looked up to see who I was conversing with and it was Roger Ebert, he was there with his wife and I assume her family. He could tell that I suddenly new who he was and we smiled. I said I was jealous of him because he could visit the Art Institute any time he wanted and he chuckled and said, "Yes, I am lucky". I said have a nice day and that was that. Sure seemed like a nice man.
 
Steak Snabler said:
Songbird said:
They were cutthroat, and they were great friends.



They were Kornheiser and Wilbon before Kornheiser and Wilbon.

Their two thumbs up always was a quality review because they had very different tastes. Siskel was more of a technical snob, deconstructing the plotting etc. while Ebert seemed to go at it from a "did the film deliver on its potential, did the filmmaker succeed in making you feel what you expected" kind of thing.
Mixed with their Chicago earthiness, it made for good viewing.
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change.
Sepinwall's tribute:

www.hitfix.com/whats-alan-watching/the-balcony-is-closed-roger-ebert-1940-2013
 
Wow, Ebert was not that much older than me (so when I was a kid turning on "the Balcony" Ebert was barely over 30).

Thanks for the Sepinwall link, he really does put Ebert in perspective. I read Ebert's reviews just like Sepinwall lays out, whether he believed the movie accomplished what it set out to do.
 
It sounds trite, but in his writings, you could tell that he loved life. He loved the high minded stuff, but on their merits and if a fart joke made him laugh, he said so.

I loved reading his reviews and also respected his opinions. And when faced with his medical struggles, he hit them head on and simply kept on working.

I've linked it here before, but my favorite of his negative reviews.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20011005/REVIEWS/110050304/1023
 
68529_10151535509008256_30433894_n.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
8 Things About Ebert:

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/roger-ebert-eight-things-might-not-known-225253026.html
 
When I was a kid, before the Interwebs and because my local paper didn't run a lot of Hollywood news in the features section, Siskel & Ebert were the place to learn about new movies. They gave you an honest opinion, but showed enough clips to let you decide whether to see it. I went crazy in the summer of 1989 with all the genre movies that came out: "Ghostbusters 2," "Batman," "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade," to name a few. Siskel & Ebert had all the clips. It was awesome.
 
Ronnie "Z-Man" Barzell said:
Without Ebert, there would be no Ronnie "Z-Man" Barzell...

RIP

Damn right. If he'd never written a movie review, revolutionized televised criticism, showed bravery and humility in the face of adversity or proven through his writing that his conscience was as well-honed as anyone's, he'd still be able to take that wonderful, bizarre script to his grave and be proud.

RIP to a legend.
 
His recent review of Movie 43 was pretty hilarious as well:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130123/REVIEWS/130129973/1023
 
Ebert had a kind of egalitarian, sly style of writing and criticism that was Internet style decades before the Internet hit big. But his talent exceeded about 99.99999 percent of the people who will ever write for the Net. His review of a movie would often be the deciding factor as to whether I would go. I think he had a weak spot for Woody Allen, but other than that, the standard against which all critics should be judged. R.I.P.
 
One of the few times that The Onion reads like more than just satire: http://www.theonion.com/articles/roger-ebert-hails-human-existence-as-a-triumph,31945/.
 
He was really the first movie critic with a national following and the first to be accessible to a wide variety of people. He knew as much as anyone about movies, but he never lost sight of the fact that his role was to tell people whether a movie was worth the price of admission and the time.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top