ROTTEN TOMATOES: The Return of Roger Ebert

The Return of Roger Ebert

by Scott Weinberg | April 04, 2007

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.

Slowly but surely is what we're talking about here. Mr. Ebert has been on the mend for just about nine months, but he's definitely planning to be in attendance at his ninth annual Overlooked Film Festival. Beyond that he plans to keep penning a few reviews here and there as he continues to recover from cancer treatments.

The widely-admired film critic seems just as enthusiastic about his job as ever: "I plan to gradually increase my duties in the months to come. I still love writing about the movies. Forty years is not enough."

Films scheduled to screen at the Overlooked Fest (in late April) include "Gattaca," "Holes," "The Weather Man," "Perfume: The Story of a Murderer," and "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls," which was written by Roger Ebert way back in 1969. (For more on the "Ebertfest," click here.)

Source: The Hollywood Reporter

Related Items

Movie:	Gattaca
	Holes
	The Weather Man
	Perfume: The Story of a Murderer
Celeb:	Roger Ebert

(1-20 of 32 posts) | Reply

Scroozle writes:
on Apr 04 2007 05:36 AM

[b]PM[/b]
Scott, check your PM box ;).

(Reply to this)

frogleg writes:
on Apr 04 2007 06:06 AM

Yay!
I hope he gets back on the show soon.

(Reply to this)

Mikeal420 writes:
on Apr 04 2007 06:30 AM

[b]Welcome Return[/b]
I just can't watch that show anymore without Ebert, the critical debates have become boring with the guest hosts.

As for the Overlooked Film Festival, that sounds like a good line-up, but are there any new movies it's showing that have been overlooked? I remember when I first went to Urbana, Illinois and attended the screeing of "The Audition" at the festival. The film was a horror masterpiece that I probably never would of heard about if not for Ebert.

(Reply to this)

stevegilpin writes:
on Apr 04 2007 07:31 AM

In reply to this comment (#860159)
[b]I loved Audition![/b]
I agree; I never would have heard about that movie if it weren't for Roger Ebert. I'm glad he's back!

(Reply to this)

Xhrix writes:
on Apr 04 2007 07:43 AM

He is the master movie critic, and I've missed his analysis of my favorite medium since he's been ill. I hope he returns to his passion as fast as he desires, because I always feel connected when I share impressions and opinions with Ebert.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Kong writes:
on Apr 04 2007 08:43 AM

Finally! And just in time for Spidey and Pirates 3!

(Reply to this)

Rip Torn writes:
on Apr 04 2007 11:22 AM

[b]nice[/b]
Glad Roger is feeling better.
I didnt think he was ever coming back.

(Reply to this)

wxguy writes:
on Apr 04 2007 06:16 PM

[b]wishing my best[/b]
I hope he gets better. He is not my favorite reviewer but I still hope all is well with him.

(Reply to this)

Boss Fan writes:
on Apr 04 2007 06:51 PM

I love Ebert and have been watching the show at the same time and same chanel since I was about 10 (1990-ish). I want him back but... what exactly is the news update here?

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Apr 04 2007 07:25 PM

WHo cares about this loser? Critics are pointless fools. I remember when he reviewed Farenheit 911 he said it was a great movie because aggreed with everything that Moore said. Is that what a good critic is supposed to say? No, he is just a tool.

(Reply to this)

Thundaar writes:
on Apr 04 2007 08:38 PM

Well somebody's a tool... I disagree with his politics too, but I think he is a decent guy. I much prefer Roger to Roeper. He seems a tad too smug.

(Reply to this)

insanemansam5 writes:
on Apr 04 2007 09:32 PM

I love Ebert as much as anyone but I'm confused as to what exactly the story is here

(Reply to this)

mizzoucritic writes:
on Apr 04 2007 10:42 PM

Glad to see Ebert coming back to the fold. I don't agree with him half the time, but the man's usually got an interesting word or two to say about the movies in each review.

(Reply to this)

JudeEstlin writes:
on Apr 05 2007 05:19 AM

[b]The facts about Roger Ebert[/b]
Here are the facts about Roger Ebert's health, which The Hollywood Reporter failed to disclose, for some absurd reason; possibly sloppy reporting.

If you go to Ebert's website, rogerebert.com, you'll see a story entitled: "40 Years Is Not Enough." Click on the headline for the full column. In it, Ebert reveals that he will make an appearance at his Overlooked Film Festival, but will not speak. The reason is that he cannot speak. This is due to his surgery. He still needs further surgery to reconnect the vocal controls in his throat. That is very sad news, indeed. Ebert is currently at a special clinic in Florida still recuperating. He has a rosy outlook, but the truth is that he is still not well. To not be able to talk must be excrutiating for him.

This, of course, is a real loss to the world of movies and to the critical community.

As for Richard Roeper, well, he is a terrible writer (try to read his boring columns on the Sun-Times website), and he is a worse movie critic. He brings nothing to the show. Ebert may not be speaking for months, if at all. I think they may have to cancel the show because without him, it is not worth watching. You'll notice that the women critics on the show are getting prettier and dumber. You can watch Roeper drolling over them. He is not married. As for some of the substitutes, the best have been A.O. Scott of The New York Times and Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune. Both are exceptional critics and look good on television. Both write and speak circles around the insipid Roeper.

The creepiest thing about all of this is that Ebert's health was fine until he switched to Siskel's old seat. Siskel died of a brain tumor. Now Roger is also very ill. What is with that seat? Is it cursed?

Anyway, without Ebert, the show is an empty shell. Roeper knows little about classic movies. He has no genuine cinematic insights. He is a millstone.

I am sad about Roger. I love his books and columns. Roeper was a bad choice, and if Ebert can never return, then the show needs to go, or Roeper should be fired and then the producers can start fresh.

(Reply to this)

AgentSmith writes:
on Apr 05 2007 10:23 AM

[b]Get better, master![/b]
From Venezuela, I send my greetings to Master Ebert. It is sad that he is not better at all, and we hope he gets better so we can enjoy his movie reviews. He is a man with a superb knowledge about movies and the one I consider the father of the movie critics along with Gene Siskel. It's a pity that he's still sick and we can't enjoy what he says about movies. The only thing I can say now is: get better, master, we need you in this movie world.

(Reply to this)

OscarsAreLess writes:
on Apr 05 2007 12:22 PM

[b]Roger and Roeper[/b]
I read a couple of other articles about Roger Ebert in addition to the one referenced above by JudeEstlin. Everything I read tells me this is a very, very, very serious medical situation. Although it's good to think positively, nothing about this situation bodes well for Ebert or his return to speaking. He certainly can write about movies. But I don't think he will ever be able to talk about them the way he once did. Additionally, I think the cancer spread a little further than they would like it it to have, and my sister, an R.N., says it seems likely they removed part of his jaw line - maybe not a lot, but certainly there were most likely structural alterations to his face.

That Roger is making an appearance is good. He should not feel like The Elephant Man. But except to perk up his spirits, I don't think it will add anything except to show people how ill he is. He even wrote that what people at his Ebertfest will see is a sick man, getting better, who cannot talk and must sit quietly. I see the faded great one rising, waving a hand, taking a slight bow, with some doctors and nurses nearby for support. His wife will most assuredly be there, as well. A sad image indeed. Melancholy. I miss you Roger. I grieve for you.

This leaves us with Richard Roeper, an egregiously untalented man of no particular strengths in film criticism, public speaking, personality, or writing. It is a sad day for good movie chatter when we see Roeper discussing films with the medicore Kevin Smith, director of two good movies (Clerks and Chasing Amy), and we hear the dull and drony and dimwitted Smith actually having the audacity to criticize Woody Allen. I guess ideas, class, and breeding are two things Smith knows nothing about. Smith believes movies are an extension of comic books. Woody Allen believes films are an extension of an art form going back to Griffith, Lubitsch, Porter, Vidor, Gance, Melies, Eisenstein Dreyer, and other masters.

The show is NOT coming back. It cannot come back without Ebert, and I fear he will not be able to come back for 6 to 9 months, if that.

It is time to call it quits for the show. Roeper lucked out in that he made some extra cash and got a little bit famous and got to ogle hot blonde chicks. But he also destroyed what movies mean to people and destroyed a good show. It was a mistake to choose him at first.

Now, irony of ironies, he's all we have left. That is sad, sad, very sad indeed.

(Reply to this)

brownitus writes:
on Apr 05 2007 03:10 PM

All the best to Ebert, always well-written reviews. I agree and disagree all the time with him but it's not whether you agree/disagree, it's the why, and Ebert always expresses his reasons for liking/disliking nicely, be it thumbs up for a Garfield flick or whatever (hehe). He brings a sensitivity to his analysis that is left out from the minions of pseudo-intellectual douchebag "critics" all over the net that would never be writing their "reviews" without IMDB and Google searches for their "look I'm referring to this film as if I have ever seen it" references-- Ebert KNOWS his shit cuz he's been doing it and he understands film.

And yeah, Roeper is waaaay too cynical and throws "cliche" around every sentence he speaks. That dude needs to hold a baby and get a hug.

(Reply to this)

Boss Fan writes:
on Apr 05 2007 04:19 PM

In reply to this comment (#860173)
Alright people, let's calm down a bit. I love Roger and, as I already posted here, I have been watching his show for nearly 20 years (since I was about 8 or 9, I think) and credit it as one of my earliest influences in terms of my obsessive interest in movies. Roger is also an inspiration to me as a writer, as he was one of a select few authors I read routinely. So, I have nothing but respect and love for the man. But what's with all the Roeper bashing? He may be no Roger Ebert and I understand there are many who feel his opinion should be dismissed because he was not a full-fledged film critic like Ebert when he got the job. That's all well and good. But statements like Roeper "destroyed what movies mean to people," are laughably ridiculous and also a pretty serious charge. I doubt anyone views Richard Roeper as some evil film critic Nazi. I get you don't like the guys style or whatever, but sheesh, relax. On the show, Richard fills a niche, I feel, as the more everyman foil to Roger's Pulitzer Prize winning critic-amongst-critics persona. Yes, Roger is a fairly liberal reviewer (and I use that word with its intended meaning, not as a political description) for a major critic, but Roeper is the guy who will give a thumbs up to the remake of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" while Ebert names it the worst film of the year. Of course, I often side with Ebert in these instances, but it makes for a more interesting show when there is someone isn't always viewing everything from the cliched-critic point of view. And no, that TCM example is not proof of Richard's worthlessness as a critic. He pans plenty of dreck right along with the rest of his colleagues, for the same reasons. When Siskel was around, I remember Ebert gave thumbs up to a lot of dumbed-down action flicks just because they were good for what they were, while Siskel almost always turned thumbs down on routine genre pics.

I think Roeper is a smart guy who is critic-minded enough to do the job he does, but is also enough of a basic movie-goer to speak to the average audience of a film. No, I don't always agree with him, but I don't always agree with Ebert either. That's not the point. Do they make their case effectively, do they know what they are talking about, are they obviously passionate about what they are arguing, are they in touch with their viewers, and mainly, are they entertaining me and giving me the appropriate information that warrants me watching every week instead of just logging on to rottentomatoes.com instead? The answer to all these questions, I feel, is still 'yes'. I look forward to "Ebert and Roeper" every week. It is the only show left like it and it is still refreshingly streamlined and has not turned into the "Extra" of movie critic shows with all kinds of gossip and graphics and young, hot "faces" reviewing the movies. If this show goes, if anything replaces it, it will most surely be that. So count your blessings. That prospect alone is a vote for a thousand Roepers, no matter what you think of him.

Of course "Ebert and Roeper" is better with Ebert and yes, I agree, the guest hosts are getting lamer (they should just rotate the best 3 or 4 - and none of the women please; also Kevin Smith is plenty insightful and entertaining: again, he is someone in-the-know who you really feel, if nothing else, loves movies and has a vast knowledge of them - at the very least you will learn something and/or have a laugh every time he is on, regardless of if you find yourself agreeing with his critiques), but Richard is a well-spoken, confident presence to hold the show down. He has a smart-assness about him (but he is also often corny and tries too hard), but he is far from stupid. He is fine at what he does and the show still informs and entertains (that is why you still watch). He has hardly ruined it.

I understand the frustration. I want Ebert back too. But come on�

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Apr 05 2007 06:20 PM

Screw Ebert and screw Roeper, they both suck, hell all critics suck they are the most pointless people ever. Remember the old saying, "THose that cannot do, critique."

(Reply to this)

Boss Fan writes:
on Apr 05 2007 06:47 PM

In reply to this comment (#860176)
There's always one...

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Beyond the Valley of the Dolls

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links