The Return of Roger Ebert

Summary

Since Rotten Tomatoes is a website dedicated to movies, movie fans and movie critics, we obviously think a lot of Roger Ebert around here. And after a series of surgeries and a long time spent on the road to recovery, it looks like the Pulitzer-winning movie man is about to get back to work. Back to Article

Comments

JudeEstlin

Jude Corsair

[b]wait a minute[/b]
The actual expression is: Those who can, do. Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, teach gym.

Apr 5 - 08:28 PM

ParisHeraldTribune

Zachary Granger

[b]To laugh[/b]
Suddenly, we've got a class monitor.

I'm astonished by the fact that someone can actually defend two hacks in one post; the hacks being Kevin Smith and Richard Roeper. For starters, the use of actors and/or directors on the show is a complete and total violation of critical standards and basic rules of journalism.

So you can't have it both ways; either the show is entertainment or it's journalism. And, if it's journalism, which I think it is - and i'm sure Roger Ebert does, then the appearance of Kevin Smith, and that equally idiotic Ayisha Tyler, violates standards all over the place. As for Richard Roeper, the guy actually gets worse with each show. How is that possible? He hasn't even grown into the job. What I think is this: I think he recognizes that the golden goose is over. He knows the show is on its way out. He knows the producers and the production company and distributors and TV stations carrying the show are having behind-the-scenes meetings over the show's future, and the outlook is not good. He knows he's about to lose a cushy gig, and one he didn't deserve in the first place.

But let's forget all that and get right down to the nitty-gritty. Richard Roeper, columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times and inveterate White Sox fan, is no more a movie critic than President George W. Bush is a great thinker. Roeper's critical insights are lazy and ill-formed. He's become a quote whore. He worships fame and the chance to sit on the right hand of another entertaiment world idiot, Jay Leno. By the way, has Leno ever been funny? Not really. Anyway, Roeper is nothing but a sponge for fame. He craves fame, worships it, and doesn't want to let go. But, I would cut him some slack for his fame glow if only he were a good movie critic.

But, he isn't. He's sloppy and uninteresting and the show is a pale ghost of the glory days with Gene Siskel and Roger, two men who knew about movies and the history of movies. Roeper is a fan - not a learned devotee, not a fellow to seek intelligent views about cinema. And, he's a terrible writer. Pedestrian and clunky.

No, Roger needs to return, which looks less likely with each passing day. And when Roger returns, he needs to fire Roeper and put in a real movie critic, maybe the Chicago Tribune guy, or, if the Gods were smiling, Richard Corliss from Time magazine or Anthony Lane from the New Yorker. And if the Gods really were smiling, how about letting Andrew Sarris sit in the chair?

Back to Kevin Smith for a second. He was lucky with Clerks, brilliant with Chasing Amy, clever with Dogma, and that's about it. He's in the same uninteresting school of moviemaking as Quentin Tarantino and Richard Rodriguez; three goofs who keep making the same movie over and over and over. One day, they're gonna get it right.

A prayer for Roger, to be sure. A hope that Roeper just quits. A hope Smith never shows up on television ever again, especially looking like a slovenly 40-year old teenager. Jeez, Smith, grow up. You're in the same league as Randy Jackson, with his teen-speak. Two middle-aged men acting like fools.

Apr 5 - 08:59 PM

Bigbrother

Big Brother

I didn't have the time to read this entire diatribe so pardon me if I missed something here. I focused on the Kevin Smith stuff since I'm a big fan of his. who cares how the man chooses to dress. Not everyone wants to fall into the cookie cutter of what you "should" wear. He wears comfortable fat guy clothes. What now you've got something against fat people? Hate monger. Also, how exactly was Clerks the same movie as Dogma or any of Tarantino or Rodriquez's movies that same movie. They all have their distinctive styles, but you could say the same about every director. Do Martin Scorcese's movies suffer for his distinctive style?

Apr 6 - 12:06 PM

Boss Fan

Ron Schuckert

Relax! You're an idiot. I'm a moderator because I chime in with an opinion different from yours or because I think you are stressing way too much when you people say laughable shit like RR has destroyed movies mean to people?! He's just a guy with an opinion for God's sake. No he was not a critic when he got the job, but I'm saying I think that was the point. Do you get what that means yet? It's fine if you wanna say he's shit compaired to Ebert, but to act as if he is the antichrist or something is pretty damn dumb. Same goes for Smith. Stop acting like your opinions about whomever are fact and anyone who feels differently is wrong. Talk about being the moderator.

Apr 7 - 01:39 AM

lamer

Nathaniel Bowman

Yes! He is back.

"The summer of everyone going towards crappy movies" occurred last year because of Ebert's absence. Now, he will help sort the garbage from the truly deserving ones.

Apr 5 - 10:47 PM

Mikeal420

David Goldman

[b]Too many Essays[/b]
This is a User Forum for posting comments, not a place to write essays. I love to read but I refuse to read an essay on a site meant to leave mere comments.

And for those who bash great Critics like Roger Ebert, Just look at the People's Choice Awards vs National Film Critic Awards, and ask: who do I trust the most?

Apr 6 - 07:30 AM

JudeEstlin

Jude Corsair

[b]oh brother[/b]
Uh oh, yet another hallway monitor.

Okay, I guess I'll bite, since I'm one of the people who seems to have upset you Mikey I guess I wrote an essay; I dunno, I thought I WAS commenting.

Anyway, hardly anybody has attacked Roger; most of the attacks have been against the godawful Roeper. Just to let you know, if you actually read the postings herein, you would realize what we've been writing about.

And, as for your refusing to read essays, what the heck kind of life do you lead wherein you join a website and refuse to read? What were your grades in school like? I actually never heard of somebody posting that they refuse to read. I find it amazing. I hope this post wasn't too long for you.

Apr 6 - 09:07 AM

JudeEstlin

Jude Corsair

[b]oh brother[/b]
Uh oh, yet another hallway monitor.

Okay, I guess I'll bite, since I'm one of the people who seems to have upset you Mikey I guess I wrote an essay; I dunno, I thought I WAS commenting.

Anyway, hardly anybody has attacked Roger; most of the attacks have been against the godawful Roeper. Just to let you know, if you actually read the postings herein, you would realize what we've been writing about.

And, as for your refusing to read essays, what the heck kind of life do you lead wherein you join a website and refuse to read? What were your grades in school like? I actually never heard of somebody posting that they refuse to read. I find it amazing. I hope this post wasn't too long for you.

Apr 6 - 09:07 AM

Bigbrother

Big Brother

I didn't have the time to read this entire diatribe so pardon me if I missed something here. I focused on the Kevin Smith stuff since I'm a big fan of his. who cares how the man chooses to dress. Not everyone wants to fall into the cookie cutter of what you "should" wear. He wears comfortable fat guy clothes. What now you've got something against fat people? Hate monger. Also, how exactly was Clerks the same movie as Dogma or any of Tarantino or Rodriquez's movies that same movie. They all have their distinctive styles, but you could say the same about every director. Do Martin Scorcese's movies suffer for his distinctive style?

Apr 6 - 12:06 PM

aknddon3

andrew kruzel

Lets not forget the true story, a retarded critic is coming back to attack movies that do not fit his small window of taste. Everyone lets remember, MOVIES ARE MADE TO ENTERTAIN, not to please critics. Critics need to be abolished, just look at their job, they blast movies that do not fill their quota instead of seeing if they entertain or not which is the purpose of a movie.

Apr 6 - 01:08 PM

Boss Fan

Ron Schuckert

Relax! You're an idiot. I'm a moderator because I chime in with an opinion different from yours or because I think you are stressing way too much when you people say laughable shit like RR has destroyed movies mean to people?! He's just a guy with an opinion for God's sake. No he was not a critic when he got the job, but I'm saying I think that was the point. Do you get what that means yet? It's fine if you wanna say he's shit compaired to Ebert, but to act as if he is the antichrist or something is pretty damn dumb. Same goes for Smith. Stop acting like your opinions about whomever are fact and anyone who feels differently is wrong. Talk about being the moderator.

Apr 7 - 01:39 AM

arcadefire325

Angela Brannan

i am glad ebert is getting better. i wish him the best with his recovery.

Apr 8 - 08:25 PM

alohajoe1007

joe hall

[b]RIGHT ON!![/b]
I could not agree with you more. Even if you don't agree with all of Eberts choices (who does it's an opinion after all) there is not one critic who is a better writer. Also his love of movies is an honest one and it's that passion that comes across. I wish I could write a fraction as well as he does. The show is hurting for sure. Notice how the word "partner" keeps popping up by Roeper? That means he is more than a mere host. And yes it's quite evident that he likes to keep getting the hot chic critics to drool over. He has better taste in women than he does in film.

Apr 11 - 08:00 AM

alohajoe1007

joe hall

[b]RIGHT ON!!![/b]
Except for the "blonde chicks" comment which should have been; that really really gorgeous black chick critic she would have made a much better host even though she is acting not being a critic. She has taken the role of the YOUTH spokeswoman. But Roger is probably a lot sicker than even he knows. The are no other critics who have the ability to write as well as Roger. Whether you agree or not with his opinions does not matter. It's his ability to communicate with intelligent articulation that we need and desire. Roeper is a vain entertainer and that's fine for him. But I certainly don't ever think his reviews give any WEIGHT AT ALL. And that's sad for an alleged movie critic.
I miss Roger. I hope at least he will be able to write back to his old level of output but his speaking days may well be over.

Apr 11 - 08:14 AM

criddic

Bryan Keith

[b]The Return of Roger Ebert[/b]
Roger Ebert always made a distinction between entertainment and art, but loved it when they came together in the same film. The first priority of any film-maker should be to entertain. Sadly, this is not always the case (actually, it hardly ever is). Many production companies and studio heads are greenlighting movies for the sole purpose of making profits off of movie concepts they think will be an easy sell to the public, without any regard for quality. Mr. Ebert often pointed that out in his reviews, but never in a condescending manner. We get sequels to movies that clearly don't deserve them ("The Da Vinci Code"? "Fantastic 4"?), unnecessary remakes ("Texas Chainsaw Massacre," "Halloween") and rehashed stories (take your pick). There are so few daring, original filmmakers out there who are truly making interesting movies. Roger Ebert always sorted out the quality from the tasteless, while maintaining a common touch with his readers. He praised goofy movies for their entertainment value, sometimes even against the tide of the film-critic community ("Speed 2" for example). His reasoning was always more convincing than his TV co-host Richard Roeper. I don't think Reoper is a bad presence on the show. Occassionally he says funny things, and such, but he really doesn't add anything to the show. He agrees too easily with Ebert's ratings, and when he disagrees he rarely backs himself up well. Gene Siskel had more wit, more passion and better reasoning when he reviewed films. That is why Siskel & Ebert were so successful. They were smart about movies, but not condescending to audiences who were not as knowledgable, and they made film criticism fun. I have had the feeling all along that Reoper was chosen to succeed Siskel because he had similar interests to that of Ebert. They got along, unlike the early years of Siskel & Ebert, where the two were often at each others throats. It wasn't until later on that they became friends and you could see that they truly respected the other's opinions. That intensity was lost when Richard Roeper came on the scene, leaving the show as another show like "Reel Talk," where the critics are pleasant, know a few things about movies, but bring no real edge to the medium. Well, there will never be another "Siskel & Ebert."

Apr 11 - 10:00 PM

What's Hot On RT

Total Recall
Total Recall

Johnny Depp's Best Movies

24 Frames
24 Frames

Picture gallery of movie bears

Summer Movies
Summer Movies

10 most anticipated blockbusters

<em>Mad Men</em>
Mad Men

Read reviews for Season 7 premiere

Find us on:                 
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile