I Really Miss Roger Ebert

Note: I originally wrote this article in 2011, and in July 2015 accidentally deleted it. When I reinstated it I decided to revise a lot of it. I find that I miss Roger Ebert whenever a great film is released, as I would love to be able to read his thoughts on films like Birdman or Boyhood. I highly recommend the documentary about his life, titled Life Itself.
 

The film critic – perhaps, in many ways, the most useless job on the planet. Nobody lives or dies, goes hungry or starves, or makes any important life change whatsoever based on the opinion of a film critic. I decided not to go to film school because I could not see myself doing anything important with a film degree. Most audiences pay no attention to these journalists, and often critics are the butt of a joke for poorly rated popular filmmakers. Still I am very grateful for those who have taken up the occupation – I personally read film criticism and, obviously, write it for my own enjoyment. I am a fan of AO Scott, Peter Travers, Anthony Lane, Pauline Kael, and, of course, Roger Ebert. He’s the critic I really want to write about today.
      Ebert is the most alarmingly prolific film critic in the industry. Since the late sixties, Ebert has critiqued almost every film that hits theatres, and boasts an alarming viewing of over five hundred films per year. His Pulitzer Prize winning reviews are featured in over two hundred magazines and newspapers, he’s the author of more than a dozen books, and he was the cohost of the TV show At The Movies, first with Gene Siskel, then later with Richard Roeper. Ebert has since been a survivor of throat cancer, a disease that took his voice, so he no longer is able to host a TV show. Nevertheless, he continues to review just as diligently, showing deeper emotional and contextual insight than most. A recovering alcoholic since 1979, his review of Withnail and I is a point of empathy with the story, rather than simply analysing its merits.

Siskel and Ebert

            I have great admiration and respect for the man, being an amateur film critic myself and him really being the leader of the field. However, that does not mean I always agree with him. Terry Gilliam’s 1985 masterpiece Brazil has a 98% on Rotten Tomatoes, with Roger Ebert accounting for the two percent in dissent. David Lynch’s Blue Velvet is a similar situation, where Ebert dissented against universal acclaim. He gave The Godfather II only three stars. Although a fan of Kubrick’s earlier work, he wrote negative reviews to both A Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket, while later giving the only positive review to Speed 2. Basically, despite the fact that I do admire him, even his most ardent supporters have to admit that we occasionally question his judgment – and that is okay with me. If I found a critic I agreed with all the time I would have no reason to write my own film blog!

            If you look through my articles you will see some critic that either quotes or is influenced by Ebert’s film criticism. When I see a movie I particularly like, I will usually look up what he has to say – since he has reviewed virtually every movie, this is not a hard thing to do. Everything he has done is chronicled on his website – www.rogerebert.com . For certain movies, especially the classics, he will write two reviews, with twenty years of opinion change in between.

            It is just really nice to be able to read well written film literature. With so many bad critics out there, it is great to have such a reliably good film critic in Ebert. I realise he is an old man, and will not be around forever, but as long as he is around you can be sure he will be reviewing.