actually, if you watch this video, just Siskel hated it, and the way he "dissects" clips he shows is icing on the cake as to why I hated the man:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LecopamWKnU&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LecopamWKnU&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Ebert liked it:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...807220301/1023

though that's "Big Top," he references "Big Adventure" as "magical."

Thanks for the new Ebert part 2 thread (with a much better title).
Hopefully that old thread has been locked from any new comments so that it can't make an inevitable re-appearance.

So sad he won't be returning to his TV show anytime soon.

(And I miss the thumbs! BRING BACK THE THUMBS!)

Whether you agree or disagree with his opinion, his reviews are always a great read. He obviously puts thought and style into writing them, and I appreciate that.

My only gripe is that he puts too many spoilers into the reviews, especially if he doesn't like the movie. I tend to enjoy his reviews a lot more when I read them after the fact. The grace and humbleness that he has displayed during his illness is nothing short of heroic, and I miss looking forward to his regular reviews.

I never noticed him spoiling a movie any more than the trailers already have.

Ebert cemented his hero status for me when he publicly eviscerated Rob Schneider and Tyler Perry (admittedly two easy targets). Oh, and his review of Bonnie and Clyde is legendary.

Yeah, I have always liked that about Ebert.

It's the way that he throws out who dies or the order they die in, things like that. I can't remember off the top of my head, but there are a couple of reviews where he flat tells you the ending, in the guise that "well, it's a bad movie anyway."

I just use his star ratings as a guide and read the review either after I finish the movie, or if I don't want to see it anyway.

agreed. he does that a bit more than I'd like in his reviews, usually plot details all the way up until half the movie. I still like to know how he feels about the movie if it was a movie I had interest in seeing, so I tend to read the first couple of paragraphs and the last couple if I really don't want to be spoiled, and that seems to work.

I just ordered this from Amazon:
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0740771795/ref=cm_rdp_product">Roger Ebert's Four Star Reviews 1967-2007</a>
What a fine idea, putting all his "top" movie reviews together in one spot. I was getting the annual yearbooks for a while but they really start to eat up space. Even on movies I don't agree with him on, I almost always find his reviews make for great reading. This tome ought to be fantastic.

...but by calling it a cult classic, aren't you basically admitting he is right about the film? It may be a "cult classic" but I have to side with Ebert, it's really not that good of a film.

Sure there are different levels of classic status, and even different definitions on "cult" status but I believe Pee Wee adhere's to this definition of cult classic (via wiki): Many cult movies have gone on to transcend their original cult status and have become recognized as classics; others are of the "so bad it's good" variety,

BTW, this thread is the first I've heard of Pee Wee being referred to as a cult classic.

Yes, I agree...but the point here is that COP AND 1/2 is a bad movie no matter what genre you assign to it. Even if you're limiting the genre to "Movies starring Burt Reynolds as a cop with a kid partner". :)

I stumbled across this A.O. Scott appreciation article on Ebert's work in film criticism.

that's clearly your opinion, like everyone else has. just reading that review for shits and giggles, he starts off the review by stating that it's a formulaic movie, but that the little kid won him over. regardless if you agree with his reasons for liking or disliking a movie, he always makes clear why he does or doesn't as simply as he can, and seems genuine. I can't stand critics who feel the need to be better than all the movies that they see by tearing them down completely. I never get that from Roger.

Really? It's definitely a cult classic, IMO.

First I heard of this:

http://www.suntimes.com/business/fed...eder18.article

Last item in the article:

Man, talk about a tough time...

One of my favorite essays that he's written isn't even about a movie, it's about John Lennon. He wrote it 2 days after John's death in 1980.

Roger's essay on John Lennon

Talk about a rough time indeed. I hope he's ok.

PRESS RELEASE -- Roger Ebert is recovering at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago after surgery to repair a hip fracture. He tripped and fell at the Pritikin Center in Florida, where he had gone to continue physical therapy in preparation for his film festival. The staff at Pritikin was very helpful in their quick response to the incident.

"The show must go on!" Ebert says. "I am doing fine and if the doctors clear me, I will be there to welcome our guests, including Ang Lee, Paul Schrader, Richard Roeper, Richard Corliss, Sally Potter, Christine Lahti, Rufus Sewell, Timothy Spall, Michael Barker and many others. But whether or not I am there, the audience will see some amazing films."

The Roger Ebert Film Festival (Ebertfest) is sponsored by the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign April 23-27. Roger's wife Chaz says, "Please keep those thumbs up in the hopes that Roger will be there to celebrate the tenth year of his film festival. He has an indomitable spirit."

This man is never going to be on his show again. How long will it be Ebert and Roper before they give up?

Isn't Ebert's contract up soon? I know that had something to do with the lack of "thumbs" on the show.

I figure as soon as Ebert's contract expires, they will have to change the name.

You can tell that they are not expecting Roger back by the way they are starting to jigger with the show ("Three to see," etc). Frankly, I wish they would completely revamp the show. The current format is very much "Gene and Roger's show" and now that neither of them are part of it, Roeper should do his own show, he way or just go back to print journalism.

^I hope they don't mess with the format. I have always liked the simplicity of the show: a half hour of just movie reviews; no bullshit interviews with stars, about whom I couldn't care less.

Now, if only they found a couple of good critics with some presence and personality to replace Siskel and Ebert.

Remember the tandems that they found to replace Gene and Roger at their other shows, "Sneak Previews" and "At the Movies," years ago. Neither do I. Carrying the show forward without both Ebert and Siskel will be a tall order.

You know what, I like Ebert. I never go by movie reviews to see something I want to see, but the man is a damn fine writer and speaks the truth 90% of the time.

I loved his sparring with Vincent Gallo over The Brown Bunny. That was classic.

I agree. What about a "dinner for 5" type setup and looser atmosphere? Go with two regulars (Roeper & ?) and have a guest reviewer each week. Make it more informal. I think that would spark much more debate and make it more interesting.

Wonderful essay. Hard to believe over 27 years have passed since then...