Scan barcode
brdgtc's review
4.0
Rereading Ebert's reviews in this format (back to back, chronologically) really reminds you of how informed, passionate, and articulate he was. One forgets how succinct he had to be, while also conveying why you should see a movie without giving away any spoilers. I especially enjoyed the film criticism essays regarding the ratings system, colorization, and Oscar politics.
timhoiland's review against another edition
4.0
Love him or hate him, Roger Ebert changed film criticism forever. This collection, which spans the length of his career from the 1960s until his death in 2013, chronicles not just half a century of movies but also our changing world. I especially appreciate Ebert’s commitment to engage films on their own merits, judging them on the basis of what (as he understood it) the filmmakers intended to accomplish. He could be blunt and opinionated, like any good critic, but time and again I was struck most of all by his generous spirit. Sure, this is a “greatest hits” collection, but I’m gobsmacked to think he wrote most of these on daily deadlines.
jornfrostad's review against another edition
5.0
My film interest really sparked when I was about age 20. I never really watched a lot of movies as a kid, although of course I had a handful of favourites that I viewed time and time again. In 2008, I bought an edition of the film magazine Empire which included a list of the 500 greatest movies, as voted by a slew of directors and critics worldwide. I can clearly remember not having seen more than 10 or 20 of the included movies at that time. As I write this, I have watched 230 of the 500, and probably 200 more apart from that particular list. I've always had a fondness for lists (I would probably make for a great supporting character in «High Fidelity»), and the Empire 500 was the one that really made me vow to educate myself on the subject. Since then, websites like iCheckMovies and Letterboxd have, predictably, further enslaved me.
During the period, however, when I started watching more movies, I also made a point about reading about the movies I watched -- at least about those that I found to be good. Naturally, I used IMDb a lot, gradually discovering connections between different actors and directors, as well as between the movies and the real world. Usually, I would also browse reviews, mostly chosen at random. Using the IMDb app, however, I discovered that one name was always placed on the top of the list of professional reviewers: one Roger Ebert, of the Chicago Sun-Times.
Today, of course, I recognise that Ebert is perhaps the most famous film critic of them all, and that he was placed on the top of that list for a reason, namely to be instantly accessible to all of the aspiring movie buffs that were in the same boat as myself, as well as to any other person wanting to know if those 100 or so minutes you spend on any movie will be worth the time. In the US, Ebert had been an institution for decades -- a movie critic syndicated since he started writing for the Sun-Times in the late 60s, and a TV star gently quarreling with fellow critics Gene Siskel and (later on) Richard Roeper since the mid-1970s. Interestingly enough, I think I realised why he was such a force long before I realised that he was one. His prose was plain and neat without being boring, and his opinions were lucid and articulate without ever being snobbish or condescending. To Ebert, a Kevin Smith movie was essentially no different from a Fellini movie; a movie like «Jaws» was just as worthwhile as one like «The Seventh Seal». It was Ebert's belief that any movie should be rated on its own terms, or at the very least in relation to other movies that shared a resemblance with itself.
Downloading Ebert's «Great Movies» app, I could start out watching the movies that I knew of and felt I could instantly relate to, and then gradually move towards the ones I had never even heard about before buying that Empire issue. Ebert's style, accessibility, curiosity and friendliness made me trust in him.
When Ebert died in 2013, I had already been following him for a couple of years, reading new reviews and catching up on older ones as I discovered movies that looked interesting. «Awake in the Dark», published in 2005, collects interviews, reviews and essays from the late 60's up until the book's release, and reading it confirmed once again what I already knew, namely that an Ebert text, whether you have any affinity for the movie in question or not, almost always makes for interesting reading, and almost always makes you want to watch the movie before you're done reading.
I'm rambling, but I guess this sort of became my little tribute to Roger Ebert. It's sad that he's not around anymore to enlighten the curious minds of amateur filmspotters like me, but I guess it softens the blow that he left behind at least one piece on every thinkable major movie released in the 46 years up until his passing. These days I'm mostly using FilmStruck to get my movie fix, and for every treasure I uncover, be it «Les Parapluies de Cherbourg», «Platoon» or «Stalker», Ebert is still there to shed some extra light on whatever it was I just watched, and to help me understand just a little bit better where that strange, fuzzy magic you get from a great movie comes from.
During the period, however, when I started watching more movies, I also made a point about reading about the movies I watched -- at least about those that I found to be good. Naturally, I used IMDb a lot, gradually discovering connections between different actors and directors, as well as between the movies and the real world. Usually, I would also browse reviews, mostly chosen at random. Using the IMDb app, however, I discovered that one name was always placed on the top of the list of professional reviewers: one Roger Ebert, of the Chicago Sun-Times.
Today, of course, I recognise that Ebert is perhaps the most famous film critic of them all, and that he was placed on the top of that list for a reason, namely to be instantly accessible to all of the aspiring movie buffs that were in the same boat as myself, as well as to any other person wanting to know if those 100 or so minutes you spend on any movie will be worth the time. In the US, Ebert had been an institution for decades -- a movie critic syndicated since he started writing for the Sun-Times in the late 60s, and a TV star gently quarreling with fellow critics Gene Siskel and (later on) Richard Roeper since the mid-1970s. Interestingly enough, I think I realised why he was such a force long before I realised that he was one. His prose was plain and neat without being boring, and his opinions were lucid and articulate without ever being snobbish or condescending. To Ebert, a Kevin Smith movie was essentially no different from a Fellini movie; a movie like «Jaws» was just as worthwhile as one like «The Seventh Seal». It was Ebert's belief that any movie should be rated on its own terms, or at the very least in relation to other movies that shared a resemblance with itself.
Downloading Ebert's «Great Movies» app, I could start out watching the movies that I knew of and felt I could instantly relate to, and then gradually move towards the ones I had never even heard about before buying that Empire issue. Ebert's style, accessibility, curiosity and friendliness made me trust in him.
When Ebert died in 2013, I had already been following him for a couple of years, reading new reviews and catching up on older ones as I discovered movies that looked interesting. «Awake in the Dark», published in 2005, collects interviews, reviews and essays from the late 60's up until the book's release, and reading it confirmed once again what I already knew, namely that an Ebert text, whether you have any affinity for the movie in question or not, almost always makes for interesting reading, and almost always makes you want to watch the movie before you're done reading.
I'm rambling, but I guess this sort of became my little tribute to Roger Ebert. It's sad that he's not around anymore to enlighten the curious minds of amateur filmspotters like me, but I guess it softens the blow that he left behind at least one piece on every thinkable major movie released in the 46 years up until his passing. These days I'm mostly using FilmStruck to get my movie fix, and for every treasure I uncover, be it «Les Parapluies de Cherbourg», «Platoon» or «Stalker», Ebert is still there to shed some extra light on whatever it was I just watched, and to help me understand just a little bit better where that strange, fuzzy magic you get from a great movie comes from.
bachtalking's review
4.0
A generous compilation of Ebert's reviews and essays over 25 years. A good book for picking up and reading on occasion for fun, and some rather compelling essays about cinema throughout Ebert's career.
skolastic's review
4.0
Very enjoyable - avoids the trap of a lot of nonfiction/essay collections I've read recently where you get 3 samey variations on the same theme (probably because Ebert was writing for so long). The section on film criticism at the end feels very off and inside-baseball compared to the rest of the collection, but doesn't sour the experience totally.
More...