Badmovies.org Forum

 :bluesad:

I know he was sick, but yikes, poor guy.
In the UK he isnt that big here, but I always seemed to like his reviews even if I dont agree with them.

I heard on the radio, a few years ago, he was having trouble talking, but from the pic on the link, his whole face has changed. Perhaps thats old age, but I dont think so.

http://www.filmjunk.com/2011/12/19/roger-eberts-top-20-films-of-2011/?utm_source=scribol&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=scribol (http://www.filmjunk.com/2011/12/19/roger-eberts-top-20-films-of-2011/?utm_source=scribol&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=scribol)

Doggett, he had thyroid cancer and had to have his lower jaw removed, I believe.

I just found out that I have something in common with a movie critic: his two favourite films are Citizen Kane and The Third Man!  :buggedout: :teddyr:

Saw him and literally jumped sorry to say.  Its really too bad.

He gave a good review to Return of Swamp Thing.

I respect him for that.  :smile:


It shocked me too. Thats why I thought it wasnt just a voice problem.

Was it thyroid cancer?  I thought it was cancer of the salivary glands.  Either way, I feel bad for the guy.  I loved watching him on "Sneak Previews" with Gene Siskel many years ago.

Yep. Always fun watching those two argrue.

That's really too bad. I didn't always agree with his opinions, and I still think he should have stayed away from the topic of video games entirely, but he seems to be one of the few writers who understands the difference between a reviewer and a critic.

The Siskel and Ebert show was iconic. I always tended to agree with Ebert's reviews more than Siskel's. I think I read somewhere that they had a bit of a love/hate relationship, but I don't remember where.

It was indeed iconic...and I also tended to side with Mr.Ebert more often.

My favorite part of the old "Sneak Previews" show was when Siskel and Ebert each selected their "Dog of the Week" (the week's worst movie).  "Spot the Wonder Dog" would leap into the balcony for this segment.  Just about every time they showed clips from these bad movies, I would think to myself, "Damn . . . I need to see that movie!"

I never really appreciated Roger Ebert until later on. Didn't think there were any film critics who looked at movies the way I did. When I actually started reading Ebert's reviews, I could tell that he is someone who genuinely likes movies. He tends to see movies for what they are, and doesn't measure everything against his own ideal, as some critics do. If the movie is entertaining, and accomplishes what it sets out to do, that's what matters. And if it doesn't, Ebert is usually spot-on about where things went wrong. And if it flat-out sucks, he can be very funny.

Roger Ebert is a critic I trust.

I've admired Roger Ebert's work for ages. Used to love seeing him argue with Gene Siskel (and later with Richard Roeper) on TV, and I looked forward to reading his reviews of new films in the newspaper every Friday. I rarely agreed with Roger's opinions on films, as his tastes tended to be more "highbrow" than mine, but I have always loved the way he writes.

Over the past year or so, the newspaper I work for has switched from using Ebert's reviews to those of other syndicated critics (Stephen Whitty of the Newark Star Ledger being the main one), though I don't know whether that was due to Roger possibly reducing his workload in light of his illness, or simply that the other guys' columns are cheaper...either way it's not the same.

I've read three of Ebert's books recently - his memoir "Life Itself" and two collections of his most brutal reviews ("Your Movie Sucks" and "I Hated, Hated, HATED This Movie") ...in "Life Itself" he went into great detail about his battle with cancer (and yes, it was first detected in one of his salivary glands)... apparently he went through a first round of cancer treatments, the doctors thought they'd gotten it all, and then a couple of years later it came back with a vengeance. He's now had his entire lower jaw removed, so he can't speak, eat, or drink. However, he still maintains a very positive outlook and he's simply glad to be alive. He takes solace in the fact that he can still communicate his love of films via the written word.

...I was very humbled when I read that. You gotta admire the hell out of anyone who can eat a sh*t sandwich like that and still keep smiling. I know for sure that I could never be that positive if I were in his situation.

Ebert recently got a facial prosthesis. He says he originally planned to wear it whenever he left the house but now feels comfortable enough with his appearance ("I've earned it!" he remarked) that he'll mainly use the prosthesis for public appearances.

(http://bossip.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/roger-ebert-e1295706618498.jpg?w=450&h=337)

The removal of a jaw will pretty much ruin your appearance. Ebert had a pretty distinctive jaw-line before he had to remove it. I think it is fantastic that he has no trepidation about his new appearance. Good for him.

Ebert is somebody who's opinion I've always enjoyed reading. I don't always agree with him, and there are times when he is just straight-up wrong. His arguments against video games were asinine, but he's taken enough of a kicking for those posts.

I get the sense from Ebert that's he is just a guy who loves movies. Loves the form in any form they take. That goes a long way in my book. Here is a man who has written incredibly insightful commentaries on some of the most hoity-toity "art" films, but can still manage to find the good in movies such as Air-Bud and The Devil's Rejects.

I, too, love movies, and it doesn't much matter to me what form they take. As long as they're good, I will champion them. In that sense, Ebert is a kindred spirit.

He wrote 3 Russ Meyer films! For that alone I respect the man.  :cheers:

Oh boy did they ever, and here's the proof.
(NSFW)

rmnYCSwt2Js

I too always enjoying hearing or reading his viewpoints on films. I often didn't agree with him but I found I agreed with him more than I did Siskel, yet Siskel himself also had a likable charm about him, and I never ever liked Roeper much at all. You could sense Ebert and Siskel both loved movies, I think that's why they seemed so good in the eyes of movie fans over the years I suspect. Recall Ebert giving more praise to genre (horror, sci-fi and fantasy) films than a lot of critics.

Holy crap - that was fantastic!  Gotta love the turn it took in the last couple of minutes...

I agree. Ebert is less likely than many to dismiss a movie as mere fluff. He'll always ask himself if it's good fluff.

In his "Life Itself" memoir he does say that he and Gene Siskel initially didn't like each other very much (they had been critics at rival Chicago newspapers before going into TV) but over the years of doing the TV show they developed first a mutual respect for each other and eventually a friendship.