:(

awww well he really showed he was one hell of a guy after all that horrible cancer stuff and being unable to talk

i would think roger felt, and i think he wrote about, how these last years of his life were a blessing since the odds were against his survival anyway

the only reason I came here today was so I could make an Ebert In Hell thread.

Damn it :(

http://www.salon.com/2011/09/15/roger_ebert/

I know it is coming, and I do not fear it, because I believe there is nothing on the other side of death to fear. I hope to be spared as much pain as possible on the approach path. I was perfectly content before I was born, and I think of death as the same state. I am grateful for the gifts of intelligence, love, wonder and laughter. You can’t say it wasn’t interesting. My lifetime’s memories are what I have brought home from the trip. I will require them for eternity no more than that little souvenir of the Eiffel Tower I brought home from Paris.

I always thought Gene Siskel wish douche. I always preferred Ebert.

yeah that's a beautiful column

I always thought Gene Siskel wish douche. I always preferred Ebert.

I think you are a douche.

Ah, damn it.

:(

I'm amazed at what he was able to do after losing his ability to speak. That would have ended a lot of people. But he kept creative control of his TV show, and he continued to write and offer commentary.

I didn't know his cancer had returned. i thought he had a decade or so left in him (but i didn't know he was 70 either.. thought he was a bit younger). he wasn't exactly a divining rod when it came to reviewing but his impressions always interested me. sometimes i'll spend hours on rogerebert.com

either way, i'm glad he's dead

http://www.salon.com/2011/09/15/roger_ebert/

:')

I'm slow and blind.

Two days ago he wrote this


Thank you. Forty-six years ago on April 3, 1967, I became the film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times. Some of you have read my reviews and columns and even written to me since that time. Others were introduced to my film criticism through the television show, my books, the website, the film festival, or the Ebert Club and newsletter. However you came to know me, I'm glad you did and thank you for being the best readers any film critic could ask for.
Typically, I write over 200 reviews a year for the Sun-Times that are carried by Universal Press Syndicate in some 200 newspapers. Last year, I wrote the most of my career, including 306 movie reviews, a blog post or two a week, and assorted other articles. I must slow down now, which is why I'm taking what I like to call "a leave of presence."
What in the world is a leave of presence? It means I am not going away. My intent is to continue to write selected reviews but to leave the rest to a talented team of writers handpicked and greatly admired by me. What's more, I'll be able at last to do what I've always fantasized about doing: reviewing only the movies I want to review.
At the same time, I am re-launching the new and improved Rogerebert.com and taking ownership of the site under a separate entity, Ebert Digital, run by me, my beloved wife, Chaz, and our brilliant friend, Josh Golden of Table XI. Stepping away from the day-to-day grind will enable me to continue as a film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times, and roll out other projects under the Ebert brand in the coming year. Ebertfest, my annual film festival, celebrating its 15th year, will continue at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, my alma mater and home town, April 17-21. In response to your repeated requests to bring back the TV show "At the Movies," I am launching a fundraising campaign via Kickstarter in the next couple of weeks. And gamers beware, I am even thinking about a movie version of a video game or mobile app. Once completed, you can engage me in debate on whether you think it is art.
And I continue to cooperate with the talented filmmaker Steve James on the bio-documentary he, Steve Zaillian and Martin Scorsese are making about my life. I am humbled that anyone would even think to do it, but I am also grateful.
Of course, there will be some changes. The immediate reason for my "leave of presence" is my health. The "painful fracture" that made it difficult for me to walk has recently been revealed to be a cancer. It is being treated with radiation, which has made it impossible for me to attend as many movies as I used to. I have been watching more of them on screener copies that the studios have been kind enough to send to me. My friend and colleague Richard Roeper and other critics have stepped up and kept the newspaper and website current with reviews of all the major releases. So we have and will continue to go on.
At this point in my life, in addition to writing about movies, I may write about what it's like to cope with health challenges and the limitations they can force upon you. It really stinks that the cancer has returned and that I have spent too many days in the hospital. So on bad days I may write about the vulnerability that accompanies illness. On good days, I may wax ecstatic about a movie so good it transports me beyond illness.
I'll also be able to review classics for my "Great Movies" collection, which has produced three books and could justify a fourth.
For now, I am throwing myself into Ebert Digital and the redesigned, highly interactive and searchable Rogerebert.com. You'll learn more about its exciting new features on April 9 when the site is launched. In addition to housing an archive of more than 10,000 of my reviews dating back to 1967 we will also feature reviews written by other critics. You may disagree with them like you have with me, but will nonetheless appreciate what they bring to the party. Some I recruited from the ranks of my Far Flung Correspondents, an inspiration I had four years ago when I noticed how many of the comments on my blog came from foreign lands and how knowledgeable they were about cinema.
We'll be recruiting more critics and it is my hope that some of the writers I have admired over the years will be among them. We'll offer many more reviews of Indie, foreign, documentary and restored classic revivals. As the space between broadcast television, cable and the internet morph into a hybrid of content, we will continue to spotlight the musings of Pulitzer Prize-winning TV critic Tom Shales, as well as the blog "Scanners" by Jim Emerson, who I first met at Microsoft when he edited Cinemania. The Ebert Club newsletter, under editor Marie Haws of Vancouver, will be expanded to give its thousands of subscribers even bigger and better benefits.
For years I devoutly took every one of my tear sheets, folded them and added them to a pile on my desk. The photo above shows the height of that pile in 1985 as it appeared on the cover of my first book about the movies published by my old friends John McMeel and Donna Martin of Andrews & McMeel. Today, because of technology, the opportunities to become bigger, better and reach more people are piling up too. The fact that we're re-launching the site now, in the midst of other challenges, should give you an idea how important Rogerebert.com and Ebert Digital are to Chaz and me. I hope you'll stop by, and look for me. I'll be there.
So on this day of reflection I say again, thank you for going on this journey with me. I'll see you at the movies.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/roger-ebert-hails-human-existence-as-a-triumph,31945/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=standard-post%3Aheadline%3Adefault

i liked him purely as an opinionated writer and thats about it. i thought he was way off base on a lot of things, eapecially his hatred of video games. dude could write well. cancer is the worst.

I thought he'd changed his view on video games in recent years?

what else aside from video games? and i think he was willing to be persuaded on that front, at the very least.

well he gave Blue Velvet and The Usual Suspects one star

and the Cell was some amazing piece of art to him

i mean one of the problems with Roger's criticism was that he was a big sucker for awesome art design and then would bag on a movie like BV or TUS because he obvs didn't get it. Being hostile to video games is just because he's old and also doesn't get it and probably saw really horrible games-to-movies because they're all horrible and they always will be because games are interactive and you're moving backwards if you make a movie based on one.

what else didnt i agree with? the man had a very long career based on his opinions. i dont think i have the patience or will to list out the hundreds and maybe thousands of things i would differ on. art critic is art critic. i dont recall him having any other talent than writing that i could possibly criticize him for. i didnt know the guy. now hes dead. im not gonna have a long drawn out piss on eberts missive comments thread. defenders, calm down.

and even still i respect one star reviews for stuff like Blue Velvet and The Usual Suspects because it's like a minority opinion that needs to be made, and i do that all the time hence my ZERO FUCKIN STARS for Inglorious Basterds

oh i thought you meant off base on a lot of things as in like... fundamental views of the world. i disagreed with his evaluation of a lot of movies, but what was great about him was that i could almost always tell whether or not I personally would enjoy the movie he reviewed, regardless of his opinion of it.

his non-movie review writings are all just top notch

This question might seem snarky or insensitive but i am asking out of genuine curiosity: as an Australian, can you guys explain to me why he was so well-loved? I mean from what I can gather having never watched anything he did I get the impression he was a passionate guy and everything, but I just went on Twitter and people are going berserk honoring him in a manner beyond which I have seen you guys mourn musicians, actors or politicians.

yeah the biggest disagrement i can think of his dismissive 'video games are not art' thing. which i totally disagree with but i can respect his opinion as someone older than my own parents and his views on the downfall of society/crotchety old man thing going on. it made his opinions interesting. he was very well spoken and took time to back up or atleast try to back up his claims. i dont see anyone as perfect other than robert smith, david bowie and johnny depp.

This question might seem snarky or insensitive but i am asking out of genuine curiosity: as an Australian, can you guys explain to me why he was so well-loved? I mean from what I can gather having never watched anything he did I get the impression he was a passionate guy and everything, but I just went on Twitter and people are going berserk honoring him in a manner beyond which I have seen you guys mourn musicians, actors or politicians.

maybe some nostalgia. a lot of us grew up with him and at the movies being like talk soup type of thing... the face of the movie critic industry as a whole. i dont know who to compare him to from an outside of america context..

This question might seem snarky or insensitive but i am asking out of genuine curiosity: as an Australian, can you guys explain to me why he was so well-loved? I mean from what I can gather having never watched anything he did I get the impression he was a passionate guy and everything, but I just went on Twitter and people are going berserk honoring him in a manner beyond which I have seen you guys mourn musicians, actors or politicians.

mostly because he had his fucking jaw removed and was a goddamn stand up guy the whole fucking time

he also wrote extemely relevant commentary on social and cultural issues and is just a better writer than most people in the field of journalism right now. maybe its false integrity but alot of people could pick a side with him. americans are all pretty stupid and we needed someone like him to help polarize things into right or wrong. we need to be told what to like and if art is valid or not. he represents that.

i think he was popular before because he was a gifted movie critic/writer but it went into beloved territory when he had his jaw removed, was bound to a wheel chair and still was basically completely grateful and thankful for his life

i've also read that he was always incredibly responsive to people pursuing film criticism and stuff, like he would answer people's mail and give them advice. he just had one of those kind of personalities.

i remember reading nathan rabin writing about that and also that he was in chicago doing a screening for BRATZ: THE MOVIE and roger was still recovering from his surgery and terrible bout of cancer and there he was, doing his job like normal. at the screening of BRATZ: THE MOVIE.

that bratz review is also pretty great btw

This question might seem snarky or insensitive but i am asking out of genuine curiosity: as an Australian, can you guys explain to me why he was so well-loved? I mean from what I can gather having never watched anything he did I get the impression he was a passionate guy and everything, but I just went on Twitter and people are going berserk honoring him in a manner beyond which I have seen you guys mourn musicians, actors or politicians.

I would compare him to Chris Hitchens, but without the late in life and misguided support of the Iraq war. He was a cultural commentator in addition to a movie reviewer. I don't know that I should be comparing the two, because there are obvious differences. But as a man who can comment on the world around him, he was unmatched.

I was sad when Hitchens died. Sadder when Ebert died. Those are the two saddest celebrity deaths I've experienced.

you've been through so much eulogy... we are here for you in your time of need.

you've been through so much eulogy... we are here for you in your time of need.

yes because that was my implication.

don't be a dick. try real hard.

yes because that was my implication.

don't be a dick. try real hard.

aww

He was a tremendous writer. His writing after losing his voice became even more clear, almost edgy. We lost a great one today. His memoir has one if the best passages I've ever read.

Kindness’ covers all of my political beliefs. No need to spell them out. I believe that if, at the end, according to our abilities, we have done something to make others a little happier, and something to make ourselves a little happier, that is about the best we can do. To make others less happy is a crime. To make ourselves unhappy is where all crime starts. We must try to contribute joy to the world. That is true no matter what our problems, our health, our circumstances. We must try. I didn’t always know this and am happy I lived long enough to find it out.

Everyone should read Esquire's Chris Jones' fantastic profile of Ebert (http://www.esquire.com/features/roger-ebert-0310).

http://nwrann.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/nosferatu.jpg?w=450

At least we still have Armand White

But seriously Eebs always gave a fair shake to horror and sic fi films, genre films in general, which was cool

a great professional. he will be missed

not in hell

As a kid, I liked watching Siskel and Ebert, and loved it when they got into their little arguments.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fgX0hASKpBU?list=PL1F79B1B454B20600" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

He was a tremendous writer. His writing after losing his voice became even more clear, almost edgy. We lost a great one today. His memoir has one if the best passages I've ever read.


thing is you basically don't believe in anything he ever wrote, i mean are you some kind of douchebag objectivist trust fund wank or are you a leftist who realizes that fortune is practically inherited based on race, gender, and class?

http://media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ebert.jpg

thing is you basically don't believe in anything he ever wrote, i mean are you some kind of douchebag objectivist trust fund wank or are you a leftist who realizes that fortune is practically inherited based on race, gender, and class?

You have significant issues.

It would utterly suck to believe (like you) one cannot enjoy great writing regardless if it fits personal beliefs (which you know incredibly little about mine, yet shoot your mouth from an imaginary throne).

don't take the bait

he said hypocritically

TrotscOmegaConcernalicious