User reviews 22 Review. Top review. Great show! As an aspiring film critic myself, I've truly enjoyed Roger Ebert's reviews over the years and like his style when it comes to reviewing them.
Gene Siskel is truly missed, and the show has never forgotten him and always treats his memory with respect. Richard Roeper is also a good reviewer and I like the new balance he brings to the show and he and Roger seem to fit together very well on the show. I'm already gearing up for the Best and especially the Worst Movies of the Year episodes!
Monika-5 Oct 11, Details Edit. Release date September 13, United States. United States. And if you like it, there may not be a second date. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie.
Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it.
He also adored newspapers and books and, at an early age, was writing and publishing his own local paper, the Washington Street Times , which he named after the street he lived on.
In high school, Ebert edited the school's paper and developed his own science-fiction fanzine. To earn extra money, he also wrote for The News-Gazette in Champaign, Illinois, where his style and talent were on full display. He captured first place in the Illinois Associated Press sports writing contest his senior year, beating out a whole crop of much more seasoned reporters.
Shortly after he began attending the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, in , Ebert's father died of lung cancer. Ebert quickly rose in the ranks at the school's paper, The Daily Illini , earning the role of editor in chief by his senior year, in After receiving his bachelor's degree in journalism from the University of Illinois, Ebert pursued a Ph. Ebert's decision paid off in , when he was hired to write for the Chicago Sun-Times ' Sunday magazine.
Six months later, after the paper's society reporter died, the green reporter was tapped to become the paper's new film critic. From the get-go, Ebert demonstrated an energized gusto for writing about film that few could match.
On his very first day at his new job, he gave readers a look at the French film Galia , using the film to advance his overall opinion about the entire genre of French "New Wave" movies. Certainly his bosses didn't sense anything; his appointment was buried on page 57 of the paper's April 5, edition.
As he had in school, Ebert soon developed a reputation at the paper as a hard worker and fast writer, someone whose quick mind and quicker typing skills drew the envy of his colleagues. By the mids, Ebert was already entrenched as a highly regarded movie critic and magazine writer. In , he became the first film critic to win the Pulitzer Prize, and was approached by a local television producer about bringing his work to the world of television.
The idea seemed like a novelty at the time: bring together two highly charged film critics from competing newspapers and let them air out their opinions each week for the cameras. Ebert was an obvious choice. So was Gene Siskel, a movie critic for the Chicago Tribune , whose more reserved, less bombastic style clashed nicely with Ebert's more outgoing flair.
The show, initially titled Opening Soon at a Theater Near You , first aired in September and proved to be an immediate success. By the end of its first season, the program was showcased on more than public television stations. Three years later, PBS, which had secured the rights to the program, brought the show to markets. While the show's popularity certainly fattened the wallets of the two critics, it wasn't until the early s that the program began to make them rich.
Four years later, after Walt Disney Co. As the show's stars became household names, their influence took off. Anaconda did not disappoint me. It's a slick, scary, funny Creature Feature, beautifully photographed and splendidly acted in high adventure style.
Its snakes are thoroughly satisfying Anaconda is an example of one of the hardest kinds of films to make well: a superior mass-audience entertainment. It has the effects and the thrills, but it also has big laughs, quirky dialogue and a gruesome imagination. You've got to like a film where a lustful couple sneaks out into the dangerous jungle at night and suddenly the guy whispers, 'Wait — did you hear that?
Granted, there aren't many movies where Arnold Schwarzenegger gets pregnant. Nevertheless, Junior finds a way to take an extremely ludicrous premise and turn it into something that's Not in a good way, either. While I've, admittedly, got a bit of a soft spot for it, Junior didn't reach its potential. Despite Schwarzenegger's commitment, along with another fun turn from Danny DeVito as his maternal doctor, Junior is, frankly, oddly dull. You would think such a ridiculous premise would produce bountiful results, especially from director Ivan Reitman Ghostbusters '84 , Animal House.
Nevertheless, Junior is a missed opportunity, and an uninspired body comedy that doesn't produce as belly laughs as it should. The critic claims that "not many [actors] can stand in front of a camera and be nine months pregnant, and actually make us care. He's more elegant in his approval of Schwarzenegger's pregnancy movie than I'll ever be.
Here is a snippet:. The most unexpected thing about the movie is not that it's funny, which we expect, but that it's sweet. It's one of those films you sit through with an almost continual smile.
It's goofy and ridiculous and preposterous, and yet it makes you feel good, and there is something oddly heartwarming about the sight of this macho guy melting with feelings of protectiveness and maternal concern In an unexpected way, Junior is a good family movie, for parents and adolescents to see together, and then to discuss in terms of male and female roles and responsibilities.
For many, Congo represents a campy, cheesy science-fiction movie with poor characters, worse special effects, and little desire to envelope the audience into the silliness on screen. It was destroyed by critics and audiences didn't give it a warm reception. It earned seven Razzie nominations, including Worst Picture. Nevertheless, while everyone else was quick to poo-poo Congo , Roger Ebert had a grand time.
The movie was directed by Frank Marshall, who has worked with Steven Spielberg on his action extravaganzas, and is based on a novel by Michael Crichton, who is said to be unhappy about what they've done with his book. Since it is impossible to imagine this material being played for anything but laughs, maybe he should be grateful. The original Home Alone has no shortage of fans , especially around the holidays. While Home Alone 2: Lost in New York is more divisive, many movie lovers have no qualms putting it on as Christmas draws near.
But there are very few who have a tradition of re-watching Home Alone 3 as yuletide cheer is in season. The Macaulay Culkin-less sequel is a bland retread of the original two movies at best, and a plague on the franchise at worse.
0コメント