Posted on 04/04/2013 12:45:37 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Roger Ebert, the longtime film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times, passed away Thursday, the newspaper reported. His passing comes just one day after publishing a note on his website that he would be scaling back work as he continued his battle with cancer. He was 70 years old.
Ebert was hospitalized last fall with a broken hip, of which his wife tweeted was caused by "tricky disco dance moves." Last May he unveiled plans to reinvent "Roger Ebert Presents at The Movies" on PBS, and Tuesday he said he will launch a fundraising campaign via Kickstarter in the next couple weeks.
Ebert left the show in 2006 when he was diagnosed with throat cancer, which cost him the use of his voice.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcchicago.com ...
No Comment!
Meh ... he liked all kinds of Hollywood trash, shilled for Disney, and tried to make up for it by praising an obscure foreign film or really slamming a particularly bad domestic film.
He wanted to have it both ways, playing the populist and the elitist, and the act got annoying (at least for me) after a while. If he picked one side -- snob or slob -- I'd have felt better about him.
But I'm going to try to be nice today. I am a little worried about the whole "leave of presence" thing, though. Does that mean he's going to be haunting us?
He was more a slob than a snob. He got criticized for liking too many films and being too easy on pop entertainment.
I can count on one hand the number of movies I have attended in the past 5 years. I enjoyed reading his reviews in lieu of actually wasting time in the theater. RIP.
He was a shill. Hardly a critic.
Roger Ebert: (Fahrenheit) ‘9/11’: Just the facts? (in defense of Michael Moore documentaries)
Chicago Sun Times ^ | June 18, 2004 | Roger Ebert
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1157177/posts
A reader writes:
“In your articles discussing Michael Moore’s film ‘Fahrenheit 9/11,’ you call it a documentary. I always thought of documentaries as presenting facts objectively without editorializing. While I have enjoyed many of Mr. Moore’s films, I don’t think they fit the definition of a documentary.”
That’s where you’re wrong. Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker’s point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not.
Michael Moore is a liberal activist. He is the first to say so. He is alarmed by the prospect of a second term for George W. Bush, and made “Fahrenheit 9/11” for the purpose of persuading people to vote against him.
That is all perfectly clear, and yet in the days before the film opens June 25, there’ll be bountiful reports by commentators who are shocked! shocked! that Moore’s film is partisan. “He doesn’t tell both sides,” we’ll hear, especially on Fox News, which is so famous for telling both sides.
The wise French director Godard once said, “The way to criticize a film is to make another film.” That there is not a pro-Bush documentary available right now I am powerless to explain...
He ducked out on reviewing The 2016 Obama film and others that played theaters in his town. Wrong timing. Overloaded. Excuses excuses. At least some libs are up front and say “NO, it offends me!”
Rog did get busted late in life for reviewing a movie that he watched for less than 15 minutes. May have been an isolated case. Or maybe just the only time he got caught.
In the 1970s and up until the mid 1990s or so he was a terrific critic. He introduced a lot of people to great films they never would have heard of.
"Good work if you can get it!" < /clinton>
Yeah. Actually he was pretty great until the cancer, or at least until the mid 2000’s. Then he got very loud and leftist. But I’ll miss his reviews anyway, even though his politics were insane. RIP.
RIP
america’s real bert and ernie.
No comment
Obviously, he was no Leonard Maltin....
I don’t want to be a hypocrite so I’ll just send my sympathies to his wife.
I’d go with Michael Medved myself!
Watching these two fawn over what was, at its base, hideous propaganda was a major part of the cognitive dissonance I experienced between street-level New York reality and mass media treatment of same. I’m not sure why his death is being reported here on Free Republic. But rain falls equally on both the just and unjust, and I hope his soul finds peace now.
What film are you talking about?
Your soul has to find peace on Earth.
After you’re dead, it is waaay too late.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.