Why does everyone hate Roger Ebert?
He may have said a heartless thing about Dunn's death, but everyone has had these bad slip ups at some point. The problem is that he's a celebrity and when one of them says it then people freak out when they really shouldn't. He said sorry at least. I think the only reason he's being trashed on YouTube is because of that Jackass comment. I've been watching/reading his stuff for years and I've never come across these comments about him before. I mostly agree with Ebert on his opinions, but there have been times where I haven't. I don't hate him though. He's one of my favorite film critics and for good reason. At least Ebert justifies why he does or doesn't like a film rather than just say 'It's boring and gay' like a lot of the people in this section (Not all people, obviously).
What happened to Roger Ebert?
In 2002, Ebert suffered a bout with papillary thyroid cancer. He underwent surgery in February 2002 which successfully removed the cancer. He later underwent surgery in 2003 for cancer in his salivary gland. In December 2003, he underwent a four-week course of radiation treatment as a followup to the surgery on his salivary gland which altered his voice slightly. He continued to review movies, not missing a single opening while undergoing treatment. He underwent surgery Friday, June 16, 2006, just two days before his 64th birthday, to remove cancer near his right jaw, including a section of jaw bone. On July 1, Ebert was hospitalized in serious condition after an artery burst near the surgery site; he later discovered that the burst was likely a side-effect of his treatment, which involved neutron beam radiation. He has told his fans that it is a search for ways to prevent future arterial bursts that has kept him bed-ridden. Ebert filmed enough TV programs with his co-host, Richard Roeper, to keep him on the air for several weeks. However, his extended convalescence has necessitated a series of "guest critics" to co-host with Roeper, including Jay Leno (a good friend to both Ebert and Roeper), Kevin Smith, John Ridley, Toni Senecal, Michael Phillips, Aisha Tyler, Fred Willard, and A.O. Scott. An update from Ebert on October 11 confirmed his bleeding problems have been resolved. He was receiving rehabilitation care at the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago to regain muscle strength lost during his convalescence. Ebert stated he planned to fully resume work early in 2007, and to hold his annual Overlooked Film Festival as scheduled. He returned to the Chicago Sun-Times with his October 13 review of The Queen, but has not resumed his television work.
What was so special about Roger Ebert?
Roger Ebert’s reviews had the effect of legitimizing film criticism; he was the first film critic to receive the Pulitzer Prize for Criticism, and he went on to inspire other critics who were inspired be his work. As a critic, he probably had some biases, such as a liking for Woody Allen, but he always did his best to be candid about how experienced and felt about the movies he wrote about, and not bullshit anyone; if he saw a movie that he hated, then he’d absolutely hate it, but there were many movies that he loved the hell out of, and would bring as much attention to them as humanly possible.He championed up-and-coming directors such as Errol Morris, Spike Lee, Werner Herzog, and Gregory Nava, especially early in their careers when they made movies like Gates of Heaven, El Norte, Do the Right Thing, and Aguirre, the Wrath of God, respectively. He was influential enough that Martin Scorsese has admitted to feeling encouraged by Ebert because of his tough, but ultimately loving attitude toward the medium of film.Overall, while he might’ve been biased towards certain directors and has probably admitted as such, and he and Gene Siskel were capable of being massive dicks to each other, he’s done a lot to champion the medium of film. He could be unequivocally caustic towards some movies if he saw the need to be, but it came from an actual love of the medium, and he genuinely wanted to see both the art of film and directors improve. He left a legacy that inspired others to analyze what they’re viewing, had a positive effect on many filmmakers that encouraged them to improve their craft, and always aspired to be as honest about his opinions and experiences as possible.
Have you seen “Caligula” (1979 film)? Roger Ebert gave it 0 stars. Is it that bad?
Yes, I have seen ‘Caligula’. I would not give the movie 0 stars - in fact, I’d say that the presence of so many legends in the film itself gives the film an automatic 2 and a half stars. The legends I allude to are - Malcolm McDowell, Peter O’Toole, and Helen Mirren, Man - such an awesome trio. Even if they tried to, they just cannot appear anything but classy. And, trust me, they tried their best to be loud and act-bad in this film, but that just isn’t going to happen. Their natural awesomeness prevents that - it’s sort of like expecting a Saltwater Crocodile to be gentle and kind with a drunken tourist waddling in Cahill’s Crossing. It simply isn’t going to happen. McDowell and O’Toole in particular are fabulous in the movie, even as they essay such repellent characters. Also, Helen Mirren is supremely beautiful here. This movie made me go back and watch many more Helen Mirren movies from her younger days.(Psst….can you teach me how to act poorly? I just don’t seem to be able to do it.)HOWEVER, and this is a capital letter one…. the movie is irrevocably damaged by the “genius” producer Bob Guccione’s decision to splice in actual pornographic shots and scenes into the movies. You can easily tell which portions of the film feature real actors, and which feature the porn actors. A hint - the porn actors aren’t doing any talking in their scenes. Gratuitous scenes, indeed. The movie isn’t helped by the spat between the movie writer (Gore Vidal) and its director (Tinto Brass). This resulted in Tinto Brass’ changing a significant portion of Vidal’s screenplay. This therefore lends the movie a certain, shall we say, schizophrenic character.(Honest….this screenplay isn’t mine. The director/producer pretty much tossed out all I wrote.)So, all in all, just by dint of the quality of the actors in the film, I’d say my rating remains at 2.5 stars. The story of the film itself, and the direction, as well as the awful spliced pornographic scenes in it do not add even half a star to the film. I’d say, watch the film for the trio (McDowell, O’Toole, and Mirren). After all, at the very least, it’ll give you something to brag about.(Wow! Malcolm McDowell played me? I wish I could have seen that. Aww shucks!)
How did Roger Ebert get so famous as a movie critic?
Because he's been working as a film critic for over 40 years now. Ebert's movie reviews are syndicated to more than 200 newspapers in the United States and worldwide by Universal Press Syndicate. He has written more than 15 books, including his annual movie yearbook which is predominantly a collection of his reviews of that year. In 1975, Ebert became the first film critic to win a Pulitzer Prize. His television programs have been widely syndicated and have been nominated for Emmy awards. In February 1995, a section of Chicago's Erie Street near the CBS Studios was renamed Siskel & Ebert Way. In June 2005, Ebert was awarded a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. He was the first professional film critic to receive such an award. He has honorary degrees from the University of Colorado, the AFI Conservatory, and the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. Since 1994, he has written a Great Movies series of individual reviews of what he deems to be the most important films of all time. This list and his associated reviews have now expanded to include over 300 movies. Since 1999, he has hosted the annual Roger Ebert's Film Festival in Champaign, Illinois
Anyone think Roger Ebert is a hypocrite?
but ebert gave that movie an overall good review, I think you're being harsh on the guy. He was just pointing out that the movie is not a perfect movie and he is right: "There Will Be Blood" is the kind of film that is easily called great. I am not sure of its greatness. It was filmed in the same area of Texas used by "No Country for Old Men," and that is a great film, and a perfect one. But "There Will Be Blood" is not perfect, and in its imperfections (its unbending characters, its lack of women or any reflection of ordinary society, its ending, its relentlessness) we may see its reach exceeding its grasp. Which is not a dishonorable thing. ' http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs... He should keep going, the alternatives are reviewers who are simply tv presenters who can be bought and sold for taglines on movie posters. He is a journalist and author and i have more faith in him more than others. would you prefer this douche reviewer instead? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmFC10MKH...
Why is Roger Ebert so hated?
Many of the answers on this page are asserting that Roger Ebert isn't hated. I agree that he's not particularly hated by the general population, and he doesn't seem hated within the film industry. But there is one area where he isn't very popular: the video game community.Video games are somewhat like comic books, in that the general population seems to consider them mostly frivolous works for youth, distractions at best, and certainly not in the same league as literature, music, or film. This reputation has created a very defensive community that reacts harshly to mainstream opinions that perpetuate such a position.So when Roger Ebert wrote a post called Video games can never be art it would be fair to say that the reaction was... excited. That post has almost 5000 comments now, with sentiments like:In the 40 plus years of writing you've given us this is without a doubt the stupidest, most idiotic and downright ignorant thing you have ever expressed in written form - this includes your positive review of Cop and a Half.Your statements are not only hypocritical, but they are utterly stupid, vapid, without any sort of intellectual backing.Who in the HELL are you to determine what is art and what is not? All of the sudden a fat-man who spends too much time eating popcorn and watching terrible movies is the end all be all on what is art?You are so mistaken it is not even funny. Fuck you and your lard ass. When you insult video games integrity as art, you insult my integrity as an artist.This wasn't the first time Ebert has made statements like this, and he's maintained his position. The negative opinion of him hasn't really subsided either (that post was originally written in 2010). At this point he's become an icon for the "video games aren't art" sentiment, a go-to reference in the critical community for how the medium is perceived.So Ebert might not be broadly hated, or even hated for 99.9% of what he does and says. But I do think it's fair to say there's a substantial population of people who make and play video games that strongly dislike him.
What were Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert's impact on society?
A "thumb up" is no longer strictly a hitchhiking move.
What will be Roger Ebert's legacy?
As a kid who grew up in a small town, I learned a lot about 1980s independent films and foreign films that I wouldn't have heard about otherwise if he hadn't done such a professional job reviewing movies on PBS and syndicated television. He was a relentless champion of bringing great films the widest range of people possible, constantly cheerleading for film preservation, VHS, laserdiscs, DVD--you name it. In addition to being the only film critic to have won a Pulitzer Prize, Roger Ebert also has the legacy of being indirectly responsible for the Oprah phenomenon. Ebert once dated Oprah Winfrey when she was hosting a local talk show in Chicago. Winfrey had been offered a deal to host a nationally syndicated talk show, so she asked Ebert if he thought taking the deal was a good idea. Ebert had only recently moved from PBS to syndicated television himself, so he began writing down some numbers about how much money he was making from syndication and showed them to Oprah. Evidently, Ebert's back-of-the-envelope calculations were the factor that convinced Oprah to go national, and the rest is history.