Wow, over in 2.

My jaw just dropped (off).

Thumbs down.

Welp, it's all done now....last one out turn off the lights.

The hosts just weren't very likable and didn't have any chemistry. I'd rather read Eberts own reviews.

In the age of texting, twitter, and facebook, movie critics are an anachronism. It used to be expensive to get the info out that a movie was good or bad, so it had to be done through critics. Now anyone can do it for virtually nothing. People are much more inclined to see a film based on what their friend said than a film major.

I feel sorry for Ebert, but for me, it ended when Gene died. Roeper was okay, but it wasn't the same. The two people they have now just don't do it for me.

Is "On hiatus" the new cancelled?

Ebert needs to team up with Stephen Hawking for a new radio show.

LarryDan43: The hosts just weren't very likable and didn't have any chemistry. I'd rather read Eberts own reviews.

Second.

Who cares what this obese f*cking piece of sh*t cares?

/not me

People still give a shiat about what Eberts' opinions?

Awww don't worry Roger!! Keep your chin up, you'll be fine.


/window seat please

I was wondering about the guy when I read his senile review of Immortals.... "a lot of the time I had no idea what was going on."

but then again "At the movies" has other people doing the reviews

This is jaw-dropping news.

MBooda: Ebert needs to team up with Stephen Hawking for a new radio show.

I think the Emergency Broadcast System is going to pick them up.

urban.derelict: Who cares what this obese f*cking piece of sh*t cares?

/not me


LOL! I think you mean Harry Knowles, who really is an obese tub of lard and does crappy REVIEWS in idiotic fonts.

wolfzr2: Wow, over in 2.

THIS
wow like a double barrel shotgun... bang...bang..... over!

GungFu: urban.derelict: Who cares what this obese f*cking piece of sh*t cares?

/not me


LOL! I think you mean Harry Knowles, who really is an obese tub of lard and does crappy REVIEWS in idiotic fonts.

"giggle"

Now we only need to find another fat, aging windbag who talks about nothing during movies acting like he knows what he's saying...

Hey, I wonder what Michael Moore is up to these days

That show is still on the air?

Add some video clips of the movies to Ebert's reviews on his website.

That's really all it needs.

/and the revamped "At the Movies" sucked anyway.

vegasj: Hey, I wonder what Michael Moore is up to these days

Got tired of Swedish Smörgåsbord, forgot about Julian Assange, recently seen hanging over all-you-can-eat buffets in New York and Oakland "in active support of OWS".

Rude Turnip: My jaw just dropped (off).

I hope you have some horse jokes for the next Sarah Jessica Parker thread.

beta_plus: In the age of texting, twitter, and facebook, movie critics are an anachronism. It used to be expensive to get the info out that a movie was good or bad, so it had to be done through critics. Now anyone can do it for virtually nothing. People are much more inclined to see a film based on what their friend said than a film major.

Lol. That sort of thinking gets you stoked to see Snakes on a Plane.

You would think the studios would throw the show a bone or two. The show is really nothing but a 30 minute informercial for the movies. I can say with certainty that I've seen or purchased movies based solely on the information provided by this show (and its predecessors).

Hell, the price of a single Michael Bay explosion could probably fund the show for eternity.

vegasj: Hey, I wonder what Michael Moore is up to these days

310

rdyb: I was wondering about the guy when I read his senile review of Immortals.... "a lot of the time I had no idea what was going on."

but then again "At the movies" has other people doing the reviews

Reading some of his reviews of films I've seen, it's clear that he's nodding off for most of the films he sees, and reviews what he imagined he saw.

SH: vegasj: Hey, I wonder what Michael Moore is up to these days

310

Man, he passed 310 kg long ago.

S+E was a good show. And we do need critics because your friends typically don't know diddly about movies, witness the popularity of Twilight and That blue abomination a couple of years ago.

Critics tell you things like "If you like lots of explosions and non stop action without a lot of tiresome dialogue and plot to occupy your mind, you will LOVE this move!"

Or: "This movie is a slow paced, period piece in which a man struggles with a speech impediment against a backdrop of both family and world turmoil, and in overcoming them goes to greatness. If you need action and things blowing up, this movie will put you in a coma."

Contrast with your friends review: "Dude, you have to see this awsome movie!"

Hm, whose statements are more informative?

flaminio: You would think the studios would throw the show a bone or two. The show is really nothing but a 30 minute informercial for the movies. I can say with certainty that I've seen or purchased movies based solely on the information provided by this show (and its predecessors).

Hell, the price of a single Michael Bay explosion could probably fund the show for eternity.

Oh good God, NO.

gunga galunga: I feel sorry for Ebert, but for me, it ended when Gene died. Roeper was okay, but it wasn't the same. The two people they have now just don't do it for me.

This. I was always a Gene Siskel man.

Tyrone Slothrop: Reading some of his reviews of films I've seen, it's clear that he's nodding off for most of the films he sees, and reviews what he imagined he saw.

a nodding off Ebert is better than 1000s of the Brian Orndorf types on rotten tomatoes

Financial woes? Do movie tickets cost that much?

While I do not agree with Ebert about some movies, I do enjoy the writing...

Besides, I find funny how a crowd so eager to denounce the decay of US Cinema is so willing to bash a CRITIC...

One television show about movie reviews can no longer compete with the likes of IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, and Metacritic.

/ We, are smarter than me.

Occam's Taser: gunga galunga: I feel sorry for Ebert, but for me, it ended when Gene died. Roeper was okay, but it wasn't the same. The two people they have now just don't do it for me.

This. I was always a Gene Siskel man.

They both got things right and they both got things wrong. Sometimes hearing why they didn't like the movie is what made me want to see it and sometimes the reason why they liked a movie is what made me stay away. Good critics are valuable for more than just their final verdict. Unless you though twilight was just the best written drama ever and Avatar was worth going to see just for the visuals, in which case there's no hope for you.

I give this two smelly toes down

/too obscure?

Occam's Taser: gunga galunga: I feel sorry for Ebert, but for me, it ended when Gene died. Roeper was okay, but it wasn't the same. The two people they have now just don't do it for me.

This. I was always a Gene Siskel man.

I agree - it wasn't the same without Gene Siskel.

However, I do now thoroughly enjoy getting my movie reviews and commentary from Half in the Bag (by the same guys who did the Star Wars prequel reviews). Their discussion on how the entire production of Jack and Jill was a scam was pretty good.

It was still going on?

buck1138: Occam's Taser: gunga galunga: I feel sorry for Ebert, but for me, it ended when Gene died. Roeper was okay, but it wasn't the same. The two people they have now just don't do it for me.

This. I was always a Gene Siskel man.

They both got things right and they both got things wrong. Sometimes hearing why they didn't like the movie is what made me want to see it and sometimes the reason why they liked a movie is what made me stay away. Good critics are valuable for more than just their final verdict. Unless you though twilight was just the best written drama ever and Avatar was worth going to see just for the visuals, in which case there's no hope for you.

This.

One of the valuable contributions of a good, well-informed film reviewer is not to just critique the films, but to impart their own passion about the works, whether that passion lies in liking or disliking or being undecided about the film. There have been times that Ebert and others have convinced me to go back and reconsider movies I had originally dismissed, as they also have turned me onto films I may never have known about or been interested in otherwise.

I didn't always agree with the guy, but I tip my hat to him for his work and for trying to keep making a go of his landmark show.

beta_plus: In the age of texting, twitter, and facebook, movie critics are an anachronism. It used to be expensive to get the info out that a movie was good or bad, so it had to be done through critics. Now anyone can do it for virtually nothing. People are much more inclined to see a film based on what their friend said than a film major.

Yes, because 20 years ago, people didn't have friends.

Fano: beta_plus: In the age of texting, twitter, and facebook, movie critics are an anachronism. It used to be expensive to get the info out that a movie was good or bad, so it had to be done through critics. Now anyone can do it for virtually nothing. People are much more inclined to see a film based on what their friend said than a film major.

Lol. That sort of thinking gets you stoked to see Snakes on a Plane.

THIS

Plus, it's nice to have someone who can offer advice on how to navigate the hundreds of movies that come out every year. The average moviegoer who doesn't like critics, or Ebert in particular, probably sees a movie every now and then at the theaters and sometimes at home. I write, and as part of my process watch a movie every other night, because I'm hungry for the various kinds of storytelling out there. Plus if you got someone like him or Scorsese, who are knowledgable about the field itself, the theory and the history, then YES I will absolutely read what he has to say and take that in account when I'm selecting 1 movie from 25.

tldr: Knowledgable critics enhance the movie watching experience. People who trash critics tend not to watch a lot of movies.

Evil-Imposter: buck1138: Occam's Taser: gunga galunga: I feel sorry for Ebert, but for me, it ended when Gene died. Roeper was okay, but it wasn't the same. The two people they have now just don't do it for me.

This. I was always a Gene Siskel man.

They both got things right and they both got things wrong. Sometimes hearing why they didn't like the movie is what made me want to see it and sometimes the reason why they liked a movie is what made me stay away. Good critics are valuable for more than just their final verdict. Unless you though twilight was just the best written drama ever and Avatar was worth going to see just for the visuals, in which case there's no hope for you.

This.

One of the valuable contributions of a good, well-informed film reviewer is not to just critique the films, but to impart their own passion about the works, whether that passion lies in liking or disliking or being undecided about the film. There have been times that Ebert and others have convinced me to go back and reconsider movies I had originally dismissed, as they also have turned me onto films I may never have known about or been interested in otherwise.

I didn't always agree with the guy, but I tip my hat to him for his work and for trying to keep making a go of his landmark show.

Saying essentially the same thing, beat me by a few minutes, man. Bro-Fives!