film reviews by roger ebert
Roger Ebert's SHOCKING Movie Reviews You NEED to Read!
film reviews by roger ebert, what was the last film roger ebert reviews, conclave film reviews roger ebert, f1 film reviews roger ebert, heretic film reviews roger ebert, queer film reviews roger ebert, warfare film reviews roger ebert, the village 2004 film review by roger ebert, companion (film) reviews roger ebert, wicked film review roger ebertSpiderMan Roger Ebert Reviews by The Official Roger Ebert
Title: SpiderMan Roger Ebert Reviews
Channel: The Official Roger Ebert
Roger Ebert's SHOCKING Movie Reviews You NEED to Read! (And Why You SHOULDN'T Always Listen)
Okay, so let's be real. We all love a good movie review, right? And when it comes to film criticism, one name reigns supreme: Roger Ebert. But not all of his reviews were sunshine and rainbows. In fact, some of his most memorable takes were downright shocking. That's what we're diving into today – those reviews that made us gasp, made us think, and sometimes, made us question everything we thought we knew about cinema. We’re talking about Roger Ebert's SHOCKING Movie Reviews You NEED to Read! – the ones that weren't afraid to go against the grain.
But before you start furiously clicking, let’s be clear: Ebert, bless his heart, wasn’t infallible. He had his blind spots, just like the rest of us. So, while these shocking reviews are essential reading, we also need to approach them with a critical eye (pun intended, I couldn't help myself).
The Genius of the "Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down" Guru: Why Ebert Still Matters
First off, let's acknowledge the brilliance of the man. Ebert, for decades, was the voice of film. He had a way with words that was both eloquent and accessible. He could dissect a film with the precision of a surgeon, yet still manage to make you laugh. He loved movies. You could practically taste the popcorn through his prose.
- Accessibility is King: He made film criticism approachable. Unlike some highbrow critics, Ebert didn't jargon you to death. He wrote for the average moviegoer, explaining complex concepts in a way everyone could understand. This democratized film criticism, opening the door for a wider audience to engage with the art form.
- The Power of Perspective: He didn't just tell you what he thought, he told you why. He'd lay out the film’s strengths and weaknesses, its thematic underpinnings, and its impact on the viewer. You weren't just getting a rating; you were getting a full-blown experience of his perspective.
- The Thumbs System: His partnership with Siskel, and their now-iconic "thumbs up/thumbs down" system, was sheer genius. It was instantly recognizable, easy to understand, and created a genuine sense of anticipation and engagement. And let's be honest, we all rushed to the TV to see those thumbs! (And how it translated to movies, the impact…)
But, here’s the thing, knowing his impact is one thing, but experiencing it is another. And to that, we have to look at what made his reviews shocking…
The Shocking Truth: When Ebert Didn't Pull Any Punches
Now, this is where it gets interesting. Ebert wasn’t afraid to ruffle some feathers. He had his favorites, and he had his… least favorites. And man, did he let you know it. That’s probably a main reason why you’re reading this article: You want to know which films he obliterated. I'll start you off on the trail (and you guys, feel free to bring your own list to the comments!):
The Case of North (1994): Oh boy. This one's legendary. Ebert called it a "disaster," a film "so bad it defies description." He went on to say it was "a wretched, witless, often mean-spirited movie," and he wasn't even close to done. He eventually gave the film the rare zero-star rating and went on to write a full paragraph filled with nothing but the word “North” repeated, and then the word "Why?" I mean, ouch.
The Battlefield Earth (2000) Debacle: This is another one that practically defines "shocking." Ebert wasn't just critical of Battlefield Earth; he tore it to shreds. He famously called it a "film so bad it is a must-see." His review was a masterpiece of savage wit, mocking the film's terrible acting, nonsensical plot, and general ineptitude. It's a review you read and think, "Wow, how did this even get made?"
A Certain… Ishtar (1987): While not as viscerally scathing as his takes on "North" and "Battlefield Earth", Ebert was not a fan of this notorious flop. Sure, he applauded some of the acting and thought it held some of its own, but ultimately, he gave it two stars, and expressed some of his distaste and some of his disbelief.
But why were these reviews shocking? Because they went beyond simple criticism. They were personal. They felt like he was genuinely offended by the films. He wasn’t just pointing out flaws; he was eviscerating them. And sometimes, that’s exactly what a film deserves.
The Flip Side: Ebert's Blind Spots and the Dangers of Dogma
Okay, now for the slightly messy part. While Ebert was a titan, he wasn't perfect.
- Genre Bias: He sometimes struggled with genres like horror and sci-fi. He occasionally seemed to dismiss films purely because they weren't "serious" cinema. His distaste for certain genre conventions (jump scares, over-the-top special effects) filtered into his reviews, sometimes leading him to miss the point or undervalue a film's artistic merit.
- Changing Tastes: The landscape of film criticism has evolved significantly since Ebert's heyday. What was considered "shocking" then might not be now. Some of his reviews, while brilliant in their time, might seem a little…dated in their opinions. Film criticism, like everything, changes.
- The Cult of Personality: The sheer force of Ebert’s personality sometimes overshadowed the film itself. Remember, his reviews are opinions. They're not gospel. It’s easy to get caught up in his writing, to feel as if you must agree, but don't fall into that trap.
Frankly, while I often agreed with him (and miss him dearly!), I didn't always. Sometimes I was left wondering if he was having a bad day (or just wasn't in the right mood). And that's okay! The value of his reviews isn’t in blind agreement; it’s in the conversation they sparked.
I remember one time, I saw a film he loved – can't even remember the name now, it was a while ago – and I hated it. I mean, truly couldn't stand it. At first, I felt guilty! I thought, “Am I missing something?” But then I thought, “No! I’m a person with my own taste!” I read his review again, and then I thought, “Hey, I get why he liked it, but I still don't!” That was the moment I truly understood the power of Ebert's writing: He nudged me toward deeper thoughts and ultimately allowed me to form my own opinions.
Beyond the Reviews: How to Make Ebert's Legacy Your Own
So, how do we navigate the complex legacy of Roger Ebert's SHOCKING Movie Reviews You NEED to Read!?
- Read Widely: Dive into his reviews. Explore his film archive. But don't stop there. Read other critics, too. Get a broad perspective on cinema.
- Develop Your Own Taste: Watch a lot of movies. Pay attention to what you like and dislike. Figure out why. Don't just accept someone else's opinion – form your own.
- Embrace the Conversation: Talk about movies with friends, family, and (yes!) other critics. Debate, argue, and discover.
- Remember the Human: Ebert was a human, a brilliant one, but still human. His reviews are a starting point, not a destination.
The Final Cut: Ebert's Enduring Impact and What Remains
Roger Ebert's SHOCKING Movie Reviews You NEED to Read! stand as a testament to his passion, wit, and sharp eye. They offer invaluable insights into the art of film. They challenged the status quo, and they’ve left us with a treasure trove of great writing. But remember, they're not the final word. They're a starting point for your journey through the wonderful (and often messy) world of cinema.
The next time you’re looking for a movie to watch, I urge you: Seek out some of those shocking reviews. See what got Ebert’s goat, or what made him ecstatic. But then, find the movie. Watch it. And decide for yourself. Because that’s what Ebert always wanted.
So, go forth, watch some movies, and give them the thumbs up, the thumbs down, or whatever feeling bubbles up inside you. Ebert would love it. And so, do I.
Celebrity Secrets: The Shocking Truth They Don't Want You to KnowSt. Elmo's Fire 1985 Roger Ebert's Review of the Brat Pack Classic by The Official Roger Ebert
Title: St. Elmo's Fire 1985 Roger Ebert's Review of the Brat Pack Classic
Channel: The Official Roger Ebert
Alright, grab a comfy chair, maybe a cup of tea (or something stronger, no judgment here!). We're gonna dive deep into the world of film reviews by Roger Ebert. And trust me, it's not just about reading words on a screen. It's about experiencing movies, understanding storytelling, and maybe, just maybe, developing your own cinematic compass.
Roger Ebert: More Than Just a Critic, a Poet of the Screen
Seriously, when you think "movie critic," who pops into your head? For many, it's gotta be Ebert. And for good reason. He wasn't just writing about movies; he was living them. He could dissect a film's flaws with surgical precision and, at the same time, celebrate its brilliance with genuine, unadulterated joy. He had this uncanny ability to get to the heart of a film, and then, somehow, explain it in a way that felt… well, easy. Accessible. Like he was just chatting with you about the best movie you'd ever seen.
The Power of Perspective: Seeing Beyond the Obvious (& Why You Should Too)
Ebert understood something critical: a film is a conversation between the filmmaker and the audience. He didn’t just tell you what happened; he told you why it mattered. His film reviews by Roger Ebert weren't just recaps; they were explorations. He was amazing at contextualizing a movie – its themes, its director's intentions, the cultural landscape it was born into.
For example, remember seeing a movie you thought you hated, only to discover that Ebert gave it a glowing review? That happened to me with, ugh, I can't remember the title right now, but I think it was The Tree of Life. I walked out feeling completely lost, bored, and kinda grumpy. Ebert? He saw it differently, he saw something profound. I reread his review, and BAM! Suddenly, the pieces clicked. He'd unlocked a level I just didn't have access to without his insights. It's a lesson for all of us: don't dismiss a movie (or a review!) just because your initial reaction is negative.
Decoding the Ebert System: A Guide for Aspiring Cinephiles (and Everyone Else)
So, how did Ebert do it? His style, his method, it wasn't some secret club. It was about a few key things, and you can absolutely adopt them:
- Empathy: He’d put himself in the filmmaker's shoes. Why did they make this choice? What were they trying to say? This is huge. Try to understand the filmmaker’s intentions (even if they fail, knowing the why is key).
- Focus on the Emotional Impact: Did the film move him? Did it make him laugh? Cry? Think? He let his feelings guide his analysis. He understood that movies are, at their best, emotional experiences. Let your own emotions in when reading.
- Clarity and Conciseness: He was never vague or wordy. He got to the point. You were reading a review, not a dissertation. Learn to distill your thoughts.
- The "Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down" Simplicity (and Beyond): The iconic system was his, basically, but it was never the whole story. He would explain the reasoning of his score. Learn to give your own opinion, or a simple score, and why.
- Respect for the Craft: Ebert understood the technical aspects of filmmaking. He knew how lighting, editing, sound, and acting worked together. This doesn't mean you need to be a tech expert, but it shows you to appreciate the effort behind the scene.
The Long Tail Wins: Finding Hidden Gems Through Roger Ebert Film Reviews
Going beyond the established classics, Ebert was fantastic at discovering that a movie, though obscure, had some charm. One of the most valuable parts of his legacy is the sheer volume of reviews that highlighted a wide range of films. Think about it: independent movies, foreign films, documentaries… he championed them all.
To find these gems:
- Use Ebert’s Archives: The RogerEbert.com website is a treasure trove. It's searchable, organized, and filled with his perspectives on everything from blockbusters to oddball indie flicks.
- Explore by Director and Genre: This is an excellent way to discover new movies. Curious about a specific director? Search his name, and bam, all the details, all the comments.
- Read Reviews You Don't Agree With: This is crucial! It expands your own cinematic perspectives and helps you understand why you disagree. It forces you to confront your own biases!
- Embrace the Unexpected: Don’t be afraid to venture outside your comfort zone. Ebert regularly reviewed films that he knew were not "his style," and this is part of the journey.
Ebert's Legacy: The Gift of Cinematic Literacy
Honestly, the impact of film reviews by Roger Ebert goes far beyond just helping us pick a movie for Friday night. He taught us to think about movies. To be more critical consumers, more appreciative audiences. He taught us to see the art of storytelling, the power of visual language, and the incredible way films can reflect and shape our world.
It’s like this: I was once talking to a friend about Citizen Kane, and they totally dismissed it. "Too old," they said. "Too boring." But then, I gently (okay, maybe not so gently) reminded them about Ebert’s take on it. I started with the impact of Rosebud, the use of flashbacks and the narrative depth. And suddenly, they were seeing it in a whole new light. That's the power of Ebert. He empowers you with the tools and insights to appreciate the art form on your own.
Conclusion: Your Turn – Keeping the Conversation Alive
So, what about you? Have you had any “Ebert moments”? A time when his perspective changed how you viewed a film? What are some of your favorite film reviews by Roger Ebert, and what do you think makes them so special? Don't just nod your head and say, "Yeah, he was good." Dig a little deeper. What did you learn? What movies were you introduced to through Ebert's lens?
The best way to honor Ebert's legacy is to keep the conversation going. Talk about movies, share your opinions, and, most importantly, keep watching. Keep seeing. Keep feeling. Be open. Be curious. And remember that every movie, like every review, has something to offer.
Now, go forth and watch something! I'm off to find an Ebert review to inspire me. Movie time!
Unleash Your Inner Fandom Chef: The Ultimate Pop Culture Cookbook!Siskel & Ebert review Pulp Fiction by Late Night Picture Show
Title: Siskel & Ebert review Pulp Fiction
Channel: Late Night Picture Show
Roger Ebert's SHOCKING Movie Reviews You NEED to Read! (Because Seriously, You REALLY Should)
Okay, I'm intrigued. What's the big deal about Ebert's "shocking" reviews? Did he actually *try* to be shocking?
Look, the "shocking" part isn't necessarily that he was *trying* to be a provocateur. He wasn't aiming for clickbait. But man, did he *deliver*! What made Ebert's reviews so good, and sometimes so... well, "shocking," was his brutal honesty. He wasn’t afraid to call out a film on its BS. Remember that time he ripped apart *Ishtar*? Pure poetry in destruction. He wasn't just reviewing movies; he was *experiencing* them, and his reactions felt genuine. He was brave. I think it's more that his unvarnished takes, his refusal to play nice, often *felt* shocking because we're so accustomed to bland, committee-approved takes on everything.
So, what kind of movies did he actually *slam*? Were we talking just B-movie trash?
Oh, honey, it wasn't *just* the B-movies. Sure, he tore into absolute dreck with glee. I remember reading his take on *Battlefield Earth*... it was like reading a car crash in slow motion, and I *loved* every agonizing word. But he also took aim at big-budget disappointments, pretentiousness, and just plain, *boring* films, regardless of their budget or prestige. He saw through the hype, the marketing, the sheer audacity of some filmmakers. He took a look at *Showgirls* and well... I think everyone got their money's worth on that review. I mean, it’s the reason why everyone reads Ebert, right? Sometimes the most "shocking" thing he did was simply pointing out the emperor had no clothes.
Give me an example already! Who was really roasted?
Okay, buckle up. Let's talk *North*. This movie... *shudders*. Okay, so the premise is this: a rich kid, North, is getting divorced, because of some weird child-based loophole. Anyway, he needs a new family, right? And he hops around the entire freaking country searching for one. Now, Roger's review. He literally wrote, "I hated this movie. Hated, hated, hated, hated, hated this movie. Hated it." He then went on to compare it to a "death march" and a "torture session." He wasn't even being clever, he was just... angry. I mean, I laughed so hard I nearly choked on my coffee. The man was a master of the vitriol. I swear, reading that review actually made me *want* to see the movie... just to understand the level of pure, unadulterated awfulness he was describing. And the best part? He got *letters*! People AGREED with him! That's the power of a well-placed "HATED." I watched it once, and... Well, I think Ebert was being quite *generous* with his description. It's a masterclass in horrible filmmaking.
Did he *ever* give a movie a good review? And more importantly: Can you find those?
Yes, of course! He wasn't just a curmudgeon, although he did have a healthy dose of it. He LOVED movies, and he could wax lyrical about films he adored. Think about *Citizen Kane* or *The Godfather*. He saw the good and the bad, but when a movie truly touched him, boy, did he pour on the praise. Those were the movies where his writing took flight, and you could feel the pure joy radiating off the page. But you know what? If you just want the "shocking" ones, try looking up his reviews of *Caligula*, *Freddy Got Fingered*, *Plan 9 from Outer Space*... the list goes on. Find that little button, and press "Roger's Pick" for his best... and prepare to have your mind blown.
Okay, I see the honesty, but how did he actually... *write*? What made his style so distinct?
Alright, brace yourself, because this is gonna be a bit of a ramble. Ebert wasn't just a critic; he was a *writer*. He used language with such precision, such... flair! He knew how to paint a scene, to evoke a feeling, to use a single, well-placed word to demolish an entire movie. There’s this review... hang on, let me find it... *Ishtar* again, I think. Yeah, here it is. He called it... hang on... "... a movie that is not only not funny, but is actively, aggressively, and perversely unfunny." And that’s just one line! The man used irony to magnificent effect. Oh, and let's not forget the structure. He wasn't afraid to go off on tangents, to share personal anecdotes, to let his emotions drive the narrative. He could be sarcastic, he could be genuinely moved... he was *human*. He wrote like he was chatting with you over coffee, except the coffee was laced with a shot of pure, unadulterated truth. You could almost *hear* his wry chuckle as he eviscerated a film. I remember reading a review of, I think it was *Wild at Heart*, and he described the visuals as "a visual orgy." I nearly fell out of my chair! It's that *passion* – the love for film, the seething hatred for the bad ones – that made his writing so unforgettable.
So, like, if I *had* to pick one review to start with, what would it be?
Okay...this is tough. It's like asking me which child I love more. But if I *had* to pick, purely for maximum shock value and entertainment, I'd say... *Showgirls*. It's like a train wreck you can't look away from. Or maybe ...*Battlefield Earth*. Because, again, that review is legendary. Seriously, go read those. Prepare yourself. And then, dive in. Let yourself be shocked, amused, and maybe, just maybe, a little bit enlightened. And then start reading everything else. Trust me, you won't regret it. He’s a master. And he's gone, sadly, but his words live on, and continue to entertain, shock, and make us really think about the films we watch.
Is there a formula? Is there something to watch for in his reviews?
No, absolutely not. That's the beauty of it! Yes, there are some common factors that go into making his reviews the best, but it's absolutely not a recipe of just "look for a bad movie and rip it to shreds." He was a careful watcher and a devoted lover of film, always. One thing to watch for is *tone*. He may be a sarcastic jerk, but the tone is always relevant to the film. It's like he's performing the movie via language. It makes sense. He's a writer and knows very, very much how to use words to communicate the
Roger Ebert What A Movie Review Should Do by Interview Archives Learning Objects
Title: Roger Ebert What A Movie Review Should Do
Channel: Interview Archives Learning Objects
EECS 2025: The Future of Tech is HERE (These Rising Stars Prove It!)
Siskel & Ebert - Heat 1995 by Noah Stewart
Title: Siskel & Ebert - Heat 1995
Channel: Noah Stewart
Roger Ebert & Gene Siskel reviewing The Shawshank Redemption by JC Waterhouse
Title: Roger Ebert & Gene Siskel reviewing The Shawshank Redemption
Channel: JC Waterhouse
