The Return of Roger Ebert

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

Comments

Scroozle

Zackary Downey

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

Apr 4 - 05:36 AM

frogleg

Josh Quarles

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

Apr 4 - 06:06 AM

Mikeal420

David Goldman

[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.

Apr 4 - 06:30 AM

stevegilpin

Steven Gilpin

[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!

Apr 4 - 07:31 AM

stevegilpin

Steven Gilpin

[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!

Apr 4 - 07:31 AM

Xhrix

David Smith

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.

Apr 4 - 07:43 AM

Mr. Kong

Sam jacobs

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

Apr 4 - 08:43 AM

Rip Torn

scott muratori

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

Apr 4 - 11:22 AM

wxguy

Marcus Ray

[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.

Apr 4 - 06:16 PM

Boss Fan

Ron Schuckert

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?

Apr 4 - 06:51 PM

aknddon3

andrew kruzel

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.

Apr 4 - 07:25 PM

Thundaar

Paul Fairbrother

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.

Apr 4 - 08:38 PM

insanemansam5

Samuel Ewing

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

Apr 4 - 09:32 PM

mizzoucritic

Sean Ludwig

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.

Apr 4 - 10:42 PM

JudeEstlin

Jude Corsair

[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.

Apr 5 - 05:19 AM

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

AgentSmith

Gabriel Barboza

[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.

Apr 5 - 10:23 AM

OscarsAreLess

Vangelis Millardistrosa

[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.

Apr 5 - 12:22 PM

Boss Fan

Ron Schuckert

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?

Apr 5 - 04:19 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

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

barryzuckercorn

Barry Zuckercorn

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.

Apr 5 - 03:10 PM

Boss Fan

Ron Schuckert

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?

Apr 5 - 04:19 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

aknddon3

andrew kruzel

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."

Apr 5 - 06:20 PM

Boss Fan

Ron Schuckert

There's always one...

Apr 5 - 06:47 PM

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

Boss Fan

Ron Schuckert

There's always one...

Apr 5 - 06:47 PM

What's Hot On RT

Cosplay Gallery
Cosplay Gallery

See over 250 Comic-Con Costumes!

<em>Let's Be Cops</em>
Let's Be Cops

Video: Riggle, Key, and Wayans Jr.

Box Office
Box Office

Lucy's brains beat...

Weekly Ketchup
Weekly Ketchup

Idris Elba joins King Arthur

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