I know a couple of dedicated moviegoers who are working their way through Roger Ebert’s first two volumes of The Great Movies one film at a time. They watch the movie and then read Ebert’s essay about it. Each volume of The Great Movies contains 100 short essays on films Ebert deems “great.” This third volume is especially poignant because it was written after Ebert’s horrific medical problems. Most people might have given up at that point–unable to speak, unable to swallow, unable to eat. But not Roger Ebert. Nothing was wrong with his mind. He went back to work and, if anything, his reviews and commentary were even better. Ebert, like all great writers, can move you to action. After reading Ebert’s essay on My Fair Lady, I wanted to run out and see the film again. The same with his essay on Dark City. And Robert Altman’s A Prairie Home Companion, his last film. We live in a time when most, if not all, of these movies are available through NetFlix or your local Public Library. If you love movies, you need to own Ebert’s The Great Movies series. GRADE: A+.
I don’t always agree with Ebert on movies but I always enjoy reading what he has to say, good or bad. I suppose I need to check these out.
*sigh*
I’m tempted to follow my friends’ example and work my way throught all three of Ebert’s THE GREAT MOVIES, Jeff. I can’t imagine a better movie education.
I doubt I’d want to watch a film just because it is on a list, but I understand the idea here.
I agree with Roger Ebert about 90% of the time, Rick. That means I would probably like 270 of the 300 movies he reviews in these three volumes.
Over time I have come to appreciate him even more. He may not have the brilliant and original mind of a Pauline Kael, but he I agree with him more often than most reviewers. He is not quirky, which I appreciate a lot. And I so admire the struggle he has gone through so valiantly. Some bad air in that screening room in Chicago.
I appreciate Roger Ebert more now, too, Patti. Ebert writes in clear prose. It’s obvious he loves movies. And he has plenty of insights to share. Pauline Kael was much deeper, but somehow less accessible.
You know, I’ve never found either Ebert nor Kael reliably insightful…just not in the same league as such diverse (and certainly not crotchet-free) folk as John Simon, Cindy/Cynthia Fuchs, Patricia Aufderheide, Harlan Ellison, bell hooks, James Agee, Dwight Macdonald, Michael Marano and Lucius Shepard, or Elvis Mitchell or Kathi Maio or Joe Lansdale when they’re “on” …Kael and Ebert and Siskel and Maltin and Stanley Kauffman and Baird Searles and a number of others fall into the middle for me, not idiots in the class of Rex Reed and Gene Shalit, but just not reliably impressive. In part, I think, it is because both Kael and Ebert respond too instinctively too often, don’t sufficiently analyze their own reaction, and thus, again, just don’t seem to me to be engaging with the work so much as being paid fans. I can do that at least as well as they, without reading them doing so.
The grind of weekly movie reviews affects how you respond in print, Todd. I found Ebert’s essays in his THE GREAT MOVIES set to be more reflective and sensitive than his collections of movie reviews.
And, gosh, Kim Newman.
I’ll take that under advisement…even the previous non-weekly items from those two didn’t really send me, for the most part (while some of their best writing was for the SUN-TIMES and THE NEW YORKER, respectively, while on their beats).
I do point out how Ebert is one of the apparent few who understands what the improvisational film HOTEL is getting at.
I use Roger Ebert as a filter to decide what I should watch, Todd. Too many movies (and TV shows and DVDs) clamor for my time. If Ebert gives a film 3 or 4 stars, I’m interested.
Though he doesn’t get every fact right, much less every larger detail…
I’m more interested in a critical sensibility, Todd. Facts, I can get elsewhere. Ebert loves movies (where some film critics don’t seem to) and that’s an essential element for me.
Even when I disagree with Roger Ebert on a film, which is about one chance in a hundred, I always find that he’s seen something in the movie that I didn’t see, and even the rest of the time, when we do agree.
Personally, I think he’s a national treasure, unless you think I’m gushing too much.
My regard for Roger Ebert parallels yours, Steve. And, I’m glad you comments are appearing again. Apparently, I fixed the problem. Let’s hope it stays fixed.