Posted on 07/27/2003 2:36:08 PM PDT by Roscoe Karns
His cliche style of reviewing (thumb up or down, like a Roman emperor) has made him a footnote. Just something to put on the movie poster or tv ad ("Thumbs up!!! - Roger Ebert").
Unfortunately his hit/miss ratio has been terrible and without Gene Siskel to make Rog feel guilty, Mr. Ebert willingly gives a Thumbs Up!!! to trash like "2 Fast 2 Furious".
Steve Roper is even worse and has said that he doesn't like the Little Rascals short films and wouldn't mind seeing them tossed on the scrapheap of history (they're racist, don't you know).
I guess the extent to which the Don's of Hollywood have bought out this meathead is proportional to his weight gain over the years.
Postmodernism sucks, does'nt it!
We are at war and are and with economic consequences to boot.
Stay on message,...stay positive.
Come to think of it, maybe he'd be happier in Cuba.
Some critics get enthusiastic over big Hollywood blockbusters. Others go for artsy, independent features. Readers can take the prejudices of each type into account. Ebert doesn't fit into either category. He might say that he can appreciate both sorts of film. It looks to me more like he's scared of looking bad to both groups, afraid of alienating the aesthetes and of losing his access with the big Hollywood crowd. Many's the time we've seen "Two Thumbs" up from Roger and his spineless clone on a video and rented some worthless, big box office trash. Ebert's too afraid to go out on a limb and call garbage garbage, so long as it's popular garbage.
Speaking of his spineless clone, Richard Roeper, who has the personality of a butt-plug, IMHO, it just occurred to me that Siskel's demise may have something to do with Ebert's noticeably higher profile in the political arena. Siskel, a real mensch, was the senior partner in that relationship. Maybe he specifically forbade Ebert from opening his pie-hole about politics, and now that he's gone Ebert is free to spew his nonsense to his heart's content.
Chalk that up as one more reason I wish Siskel was still with us.
Gene could shame him for embracing crap (Summer Lovers was on Roger's 10 guilty pleasures list, I think at the top). Mr. Siskel may not have persuaded Mr. Ebert to change his position but at least to choose his words wisely and be ready to go to bat for a film.
I agree that Roger seems to be more comfortable talking about politics with Gene gone. They probably had some kind of agreement to keep the focus on movies and not a social agenda.
Ebert gets very sarcastic with people who disagree with him. Siskel took it all in stride. He could stand up to Ebert. And could throw a few zingers at Ebert when the fat guy made a terrible pick of his own.
Siskel was older, had gone to a more prestigious college (Gov. George Pataki was a pal), and worked for Chicago's biggest paper. His self-image didn't depend on what Ebert or other film geeks thought of him. He made some bad calls, but his and Ebert's balanced out.
The old show worked because Ebert spoke up for his avant-garde favorites and Siskel represented more middle of the road tastes. Today, Ebert tries to occupy both seats, and it doesn't work.
Ebert's choosing a junior writer at his own paper as Siskel's replacement was a major mistake. He doesn't have anyone to play off him or to stand up to him any more. It weakened the show, and indicated just how insecure Ebert really is.
Agreed.
Yep...seems that way.
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.