Roger (Bush hater) Ebert interview

The Progressive magazine ^ | August 2003 | Matthew Rothschild

[weegee]

Btw, his weekly show has been relegated to 3 AM in Phoenix. Sorry, Rog. its over.

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".

[weegee]

Don't forget that Mr. Ebert began his review of Gods & Generals by saying the Republicans/Conservatives would like it because there are no speaking roles for black actors until a couple of hours into it.

[TomHarkinIsNotFromIowa]

MAÎTRE D:
Ah, good afternoon, sir, and how are we today?
MR. CREOSOTE:
Better.
MAÎTRE D:
Better?
MR. CREOSOTE:
Better get a bucket. I'm going to throw up.

[weegee]

Rog also wrote part of Russ Meyer's UP! and the unfilmed trainwreck of a script that was the Sex Pistols' Who Killed Bambi.

[weegee]

Roger's "zero star" review for Blue Velvet (see his "hated" movie book) shows that I have disgreed with him for a long time.

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).

[GodBlessRonaldReagan]

Rog also wrote part of Russ Meyer's UP! and the unfilmed trainwreck of a script that was the Sex Pistols' Who Killed Bambi.

Ah yes, Ebert was responsible for the scene in the movie where Sid Vicious tries to have sex with his mom (played by Marianne Faithful). Class act, that Rog!

[weegee]

Here is Mr. Creosote, seen reading the latest diatribe from Mr. Roger Ebert:

[wazoo1031]

Using Ebert and Moore as a guide, apparently they are all fat ugly idiots as well.

[Helms]

Thank you for the referral site:

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!

[Helms]

If indeed they take their talking points from FR, we need, some of us, be allot more positive.

We are at war and are and with economic consequences to boot.

Stay on message,...stay positive.

[exile]

I've got to say, who would have thought that Gene Siskel would've kicked off before this tub of whipped butter.

[CaptainK]

I'm glad to see he's batting a thousand.

[Bullish]

Roger Ebert should be shipped one way to Sweden ASAP.

Come to think of it, maybe he'd be happier in Cuba.

[weegee]

Toronto's Roger's kind of a place, big on film and creeping socialism.

[x]

Thanks for the link.

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.

[beckett]

Many's the time we've seen "Two Thumbs" up from Roger and his spineless clone...

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.

[weegee]

While Gene and Rog weren't friends, they at least had some respect for each other. With Gene gone, Roger has lost his anchor.

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.

[x]

Ebert is a lot like an obnoxious video store or comic book store geek -- snobbish, condescending, always pushing his favorites and browbeating those who don't agree.

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.

[beckett]

...[choosing Roeper] indicated just how insecure Ebert really is.

Agreed.

[beckett]

...Roger seems to be more comfortable talking about politics with Gene gone.

Yep...seems that way.