Roger Ebert's 2006 List

[Akash]

I think Richard Roeper thinks he's black. I mean thinks of himself as black. I mean thinks of himself as cool. And he's not, I mean.

[Steph2]

He's not black. I think his wife is though.

I know. It was a joke.

[Penelope]

He's not black. I think his wife is though.

You're correct; the Mr. and Mrs. Ebert were recently on the local news doing an interview; he's currently communicating with the aid of a computer and is practically unrecognizable, due to the surgery and treatment.

I can appreciate Siskel at least for the Gene Siskel Film Center, where I saw Fanny and Alexander (for the first time) a few weeks ago.

[Akash]

Siskel was lousy but no one - NO ONE - is as bad as Richard Roeper. He has George Bush's level of intelligence...and Criddic's taste in films.



Edited By Akash on 1196062351

[anonymous1980]

It's like, we get it Ebert. You're black.

He's not black. I think his wife is though.

Yes, I do prefer Siskel to Roeper.

[cam]

I would prefer Siskel to ROEPER!

[Steph2]

It's like, we get it Ebert. You're black.

[flipp525]

Or any film that had anything to do with race relations, even if the film was completely wretched.

A perfect description of Crash.

[Steph2]

What annoyed me most about Siskel and Ebert was that any film with a Chicago connection, be it a film made in or around the city or featuring a performer who had worked in the city, the film always got a free pass.

Or any film that had anything to do with race relations, even if the film was completely wretched.

[Big Magilla]

One can get "Dogville" and still loathe that contemptable pieces of shit.

What annoyed me most about Siskel and Ebert was that any film with a Chicago connection, be it a film made in or around the city or featuring a performer who had worked in the city, the film always got a free pass. I pretty much stopped paying attention to them after they made Ferris Bueller's Day Off sound like the second coming.

My favorite show was the one where Siskel drove Ebert nuts by proclaiming Hair to be a better film than Apocalypse Now. I agreed with Siskel on that one.

[Steph2]

His writing is boring and completely devoid of insight. I have no idea how he won a Pulitzer. I knew it was time to stop paying him any attention when he clearly didn't get "Dogville."

[rain Bard]

Ebert's readable, if not often very thought-provoking. He can be witty without edging over into "look ma, I'm Anthony Lane" territory. The insight he brings to my understanding of film is minimal these days but I do enjoy peeking at his "Answer Man" columns on occasion.

His comments on Mexican cinema are no more ill-informed than practically anyone else's over the past year or so. He was just repeating a meme that's been aggravating me for a while and I decided to take this opportunity to comment on it..



Edited By rain Bard on 1195953801

[Eric]

Objectively speaking, Siskel was not a film fan (as J-Ro pointed out, he lucked into a surprisingly profitable newsroom beat and rode it to infamy). Ebert is. Personally, I don't think Ebert has written too many pieces that have altered what I thought about certain films, but I'll certainly give him the edge over Siskel.



Edited By Eric on 1195927108

[OscarGuy]

I loved Siskel. His choices were at least more interesting and less mainstream than Ebert's.

[Steph2]

Siskel was even worse. He made Ebert seem intelligent.