Oh, wow...looks like Roger Ebert has an awesome official website now! (1 Viewer)

[David Galindo]

This is great news for all Ebert fans-

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage

It has reviews all the way back to 67', answer man queries, and all sorts of Ebert goodness. Too awesome.

 

[ZacharyTait]

Awesome, indeed. I already signed up for the newsletter. I can't till I get off work tonight to peruse this to full detail.

 

[Mike Graham]

Sweet, I've always wondered what he thought of some of my favorite movies from the early 70s and 80s. Glad to see he liked Cronenberg's The Dead Zone just as much as I did.

 

[Larry Vance]

I don't care too much for his reviews, but that's a very nice look.

 

[Michael Harris]

When Ebert mentioned this site in this week's "Answer Man" I was very pleased. I look forward to reading some of his older reviews. I would love to have all his reviews on a CD ROM. Does anyone remember a wonderful CD ROM that Microsoft issued in the early 90s called "Cinemania"? It had most of Ebert's reviews as well as reviews by Maltin and others as well as clips from great movies. I was saddened when MS ceased updating it.

 

[Doug R]

Wow, that picture of himself in the left corner is horrific though.

 

[teapot2001]

Ebert knows kung-fu!

It'll be great to read reviews before 1985.

~T

 

[Ike]

Yep, I loved Cinemania. It had Maltin, Ebert, Kael, and the Cinemania reviewers, along with the occasional pictures, movies, and audio. I guess it was killed by IMDB, but I would buy it if it was still being produced.

I like Ebert. He gets a lot of stuff "wrong," and if you read him long enough you notice biases (i.e. he doesn't like films that have violence that is not strongly condemned) but he seems to genuinely like films. Maltin and Kael I never really cared for.

Cool site. In the Movie Answer Man column, he said they hoped to have it up by mid-September. Nice that it's already up and going.

 

[Steve Felix]

This is great -- 1985 just seemed so arbitrary!

I loved Cinemania, too. I spent an enormous amount of time with that program. It was more fun than the IMDb, although not as useful.

 

[Haggai]

Uh, what? I don't agree with all of his reviews, of course, and sometimes I strenuously disagree with him, but I never noticed that particular bias in his reviews. He gave 4 stars to both volumes of Kill Bill, and I sure don't think there's anything resembling a condemnation of violence (much less a strong condemnation of it) in either of those movies.

 

[Ike]

I was specifically thinking of reviews like A Clockwork Orange, Fight Club, Straw Dogs, and almost all of David Lynch's films, which he all felt promoted violence instead of condemned it, and gave them all negative reviews, despite many of them being considered classics.

It's not a hard and fast rule, but one that is occasionally annoying. Kill Bill is seemingly given a pass because its violence is ironic, if not humourous.

 

[ZacharyTait]

I like Kael a lot. I've been trying to read all of her books and after reading her reviews, it's obvious that no one else writes like her.

On the other hand, I don't like Maltin that much. I respect his knowledge of animation, but overall, I don't really care for him that much. It doesn't help with that lame-ass TV show of his, Hot Ticktet.

 

[Michael Harris]

What I've always liked about Ebert is that he is very clear about is political bias (which I personally agree with) and is not afraid to show it in his reviews and articles. I also liked how he critisized Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" for manipulating facts even though he agrees with Moore's point of view. He got a lot of flak for that. His writtings on the evolution of "Brown Bunny" from worse movie at Cannes to a current three star release are excellent. Guess that's why he has a Pulitzer.

Reading him over the last year I've felt that he has gone a little soft and has been suprisingly generous to some movies. But his reviews of bad movies are a guilty pleasure to read.

Last night I watched "Ebert and Roeper" for the first time in years. I was shocked by how Ebert looked. I know that he lost weight and has had a battle with cancer but I hope he gets better. During the show they showed clips from old episodes and it really contrasted with how he looks now. There was one clip where Ebert had what looked like a real bad afro!

 

[Joseph Bolus]

I actually still own the Cinemania 96 disc!

I *loved* that thing. It included Ebert's and Maltin's reviews as well as a wealth of media clips (some audio, some video) from popular movies such as "Wizard of Oz", "Star Wars", "Butch Cassidy", and so on. The cross-reference section to actors and awards was great as well!

One can only wonder what Microsoft could do with that format as a DVD-ROM, with 4.6gb of data space! Yeah ... IMDB.com and the internet may have "killed" it, but I still find it useful and fun to peruse on occasion.

BTW, Maltin started publishing in 2003 "something similar" to Cinemania for Palm OS and Pocket PC users: "The Leonard Maltin Movie and Video Guide". (Available at www.landware.com). It offers all his reviews through the Summer of the year indicated on the edition, and is updated throughout the year whenever your Palm and/or Pocket PC "syncs" with your desktop. It also allows you to catalog your DVD's. Since I always have my Sony Clie' with me, I've found it to be an invaluable aid when perusing Wal-Mart's $5.50 bin and/or the "used DVD" stores in the area.

 

[David Galindo]

I strongly disagree with Eberts political stance, but thankfully it doesnt intrude into reviews that dont warrent it.

I am thankful, however, that Ebert made his political opinion public. At first, I thought that critics should leave their bias at the door before reviewing a movie...Ebert was the first to prove me wrong.

 

[Jon_Are]

Yep, same here. I remember going on line each month to download the updates to keep it current. What killed Cinemania - besides imdb - was the high cost of including the audio and video clips. Cinemania quickly became non-cost-effective to produce.

I started reading Pauline Kael when I bought my first issue of the New Yorker in 1982 (still have that, too ). I've always considered her to be the most thoughtful reviewer out there, but one of her successors, Anthony Lane, has become another favorite.

I've always liked Ebert the best, though; his 'soft' reviews on recent questionable films aside, he is a deceptively skilled and insightful writer.

Anyone read Ebert's "I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie"? Lots of fun.

Jon

 

[Michael Harris]

Great book. I always look forward to his 1/2 or 1 star reviews. I am always disappointed when he doesn't review genuine turkeys because they were not made available for critics in advance of their openings.

 

[Ted Lee]

i thought that too. then i figured since his hands are in a 4:3 aspect ratio, that must be why he has that hostile look on his face.

love the glossary section too - those are always funny.

 

[John C. Wilson]

I own Cinemania 97, which is, unfortunately, the last they made. :frowning:

 

[Chris Lockwood]

I give that site two thumbs up.

Somebody had to say it.