Rating: 
Summary: Insightful though limited reviews
Review: "'You think people deceive, and do things for the satisfaction of their vanity, and only talk about what high standards they have?' 'Yes, yes I do actually.'" This is part of my favorite Roger Ebert review, of the film Valmont, which includes an insightful interview with the director, Milos Forman. Unfortunately, the interview can be found in the Ebert website archive, but not in the Movie Yearbook (at least not in the 1998 version which I have been consulting recently.) Roger Ebert is such a prolific film critic that his reviews would spill over into several volumes. Thus, his annual yearbook contains only a selection, and in the case of Valmont, a more compact though less interesting version than is elsewhere available. It is understandable, of course, that, as Ebert states in his introduction, his volume only provides a complete set of reviews for the films he has written about in the past two years or so, whereas the selection of previous films is changed yearly, particularly eliminating films in which interest has waned. It is a fair compromise considering the limited space available even in a bulky volume, but at the same time it produces a book which on the one hand is incomplete -- the introduction refers the reader to the website and to other authors' more exhaustive companions containing less substantial blurbs -- but on the other, there is considerable overlap from one year's edition to the next. It makes me wonder if perhaps it would be a better idea to publish an exhaustive multi-volume set of the old reviews, and then make each yearbook an annual supplement. This might satisfy die-hard Ebert fans who would be interested in the complete reviews, without needlessly filling their shelf space with the duplication in each new year's volume. Still, it is very difficult for me to give Mr. Ebert a negative review, since, through his "Sneak Previews" program he has been my virtual companion to the movies since I was a kid, and, for a film buff who has none of the past Ebert yearbooks, there is no more insightful collection of film criticism in a single volume than the 1999 yearbook. Marginal thumbs up.
Rating: 
Summary: Yet another video guide book
Review: Compared to Videohound this book by world famous (and judging by other comments loved as well) critic Roger Ebert. What surprises me is that some people seem to love critics. I don't, they're all too critical, they criticise everything and use large words, intellect, and wit to convience everyone they're right. Roger Ebert is exactly like that. Except he just does it better than anyone else and got a television show, the epitome of intelligence (sarcasm). I don't read video guides and I don't have any of Ebert's books. I prefer the Internet, especially the Internet Movie Database. Call me a computer hack, but I prefer Internet movie guides to book guides. And for three good reasons: The IMDB has over 80,000 movies to look up. Far more than any Mick Maltin, Halliwell, Videohound, Roger Ebert, or Leonard Martin could review (that's right all you cult fans of critics, they haven't seen every movie under the sun, it'd be impossible). The other two reasons why te IMDB is better is because they're reviews aren't from just one source. In order toget different opinions from book guides you'd have to buy several of these books (it'd cost me alot because I don't shop online). The last reason is this: the IMDB has more effort put into it, is more fun, is up to date (which means you won't have to buy Ebert's books every two years), and it's just a lot more fun.
Rating: 
Summary: America's best movie critic
Review: Even though I live in Ohio, I read all of Roger Ebert's reviews and columns weekly on the Chicago Sun-Times website. He is such a great critic because he's not afraid to disagree with everyone else, and he's not afraid to bring his personal preferences and feelings into each review. A critic's purpose is not to tell you what to see; it's to help you make a more informed decision. Ebert's reviews help me do that more than any other critics.I have been getting this book from the library each January since 1998 and reading it cover to cover. Not only does it contain hundreds of reviews, it also has the excellent Movie Answer Man column (which I eagerly anticipate in the Sun-Times every other week), and the hilarious Little Movie Glossary (which, in this edition, I am proud to say, features a submission from yours truly). I agree with Ebert's conclusions on movies something like 60% of the time. That that's the case, and I still read him weekly, proves the merit of his writing.
Rating:
Summary: America's best movie critic
Review: Even though I live in Ohio, I read all of Roger Ebert's reviews and columns weekly on the Chicago Sun-Times website. He is such a great critic because he's not afraid to disagree with everyone else, and he's not afraid to bring his personal preferences and feelings into each review. A critic's purpose is not to tell you what to see; it's to help you make a more informed decision. Ebert's reviews help me do that more than any other critics. I have been getting this book from the library each January since 1998 and reading it cover to cover. Not only does it contain hundreds of reviews, it also has the excellent Movie Answer Man column (which I eagerly anticipate in the Sun-Times every other week), and the hilarious Little Movie Glossary (which, in this edition, I am proud to say, features a submission from yours truly). I agree with Ebert's conclusions on movies something like 60% of the time. That that's the case, and I still read him weekly, proves the merit of his writing.
Rating: 
Summary: Better than on TV
Review: Every time I see Roger Ebert on the red carpet at the Academy Awards, sticking a microphone in people's faces and sometimes asking questions or making observations that are either gushing or rude, I have a hard time taking him seriously as a critic. Like Rex Reed, he's becoming too much of a showbiz figure himself. But when I read his reviews, my respect for him is restored. He gives equal time to both big-budget box-office hits and tiny independant films, and never comes across as a snob. Reading the reviews of some critics makes me suspect there's a hidden network through which they make secret contact and agree that film A should be praised and film B should be panned. How else to explain the resoundingly hateful and negative reviews for "15 Minutes," an okay movie with Robert DeNiro and Ed Burns that everyone but Ebert carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey? Ebert did not fall in line, and saw the merits of that film. But Roger, be a little more civil on the red carpet at the Oscars. I remember in 1994 when you told Holly Hunter that you thought her nomination as best supporting actress for "The Firm" was the worst nomination that year. It's okay to say that in print or on TV, but to say it to her face as she's entering the ceremony was distasteful. It's not her fault she was nominated. Her peers nominated her. Tell THEM, not her, and don't spoil her night with such a negative statement, even if you're just being honest.
Rating:
Summary: Funny, wise, and thorough
Review: Film critics generate hostility among some filmmakers who apparently consider the expression of an honest opinion the ultimate act of arrogance. "How dare they tell people they have no right to like (insert a title here)," Burt Reynolds once said on Entertainment Tonight. Of course, everyone who states an opinion ("I like it," "I don't like it") is playing the role of critic, including Reynolds, and the best critics do not tell people what they have a right to like. They tell you what THEY like and why. The professional film critic who does his job right is simply a more thoughtful member of the audience who takes the time and possesses the wisdom to explain why a film hits the target or fails to do so. Roger Ebert takes the time and has wisdom to spare. The fact that the Pulitzer Prize winning Chicagoan is America's most popular critic is probably a happy accident owing less to his skill than to TV exposure (there was a time when Gene Shalit and gossip-monger Rona Barrett were probably the two most popular "critics" thanks to their gigs on morning television), but Ebert's status is richly deserved. He genuinely loves movies, and that love is evident throughout his various collections of film reviews, including the excellent Movie Yearbook. He is smart without being pompous, funny without being cruel, and wise without being pedantic. He is also thorough, seeing and writing reviews of even the most obscure movies, including those that may be deemed unworthy of attention by other critics at big city newspapers. You may not always agree with him, but it's doubtful you'll ever read one of his reviews without being enlightened, amused, or, best of all, encouraged to see something you may have otherwise missed. Anyone for whom movies are more than mere entertainment but an art form with the potential to change the way the audience looks at life, should find a place on their bookshelves for Roger Ebert's Movie Yearbook.
Rating:
Summary: THE man who knew too much.
Review: For better or for worse, film critic Roger Ebert will be best remembered as the...er... "larger one" of the legendary (and sorely missed) Siskel and Ebert duo. But Ebert has boasted a Pulitzer Prize and for good reason- he's a superlative writer. Unlike others who have cloned Pauline Kael's visceral gymnastics and wisecraking sneer, Ebert's tone is refreshingly populist and conversational. He clearly loves movies and with each review he strives to find the why the images on screen are worth our attention while retaining a highly personal vantage point. The man's only drawback is a tendency to fall all over escapist fare like THE KARATE KID as if they were classic moments in world cinema; 3 1/2 - 4 star reviews seem to abound more in his books than,say, Leonard Maltin's TV MOVIES. But when Ebert smells a stinker he's as good at firing bullets as anyone else in the critical game. Thus, with Ebert's MOVIE YEARBOOK 2000, along with his previous massive review books, you'll actually feel like the late Gene Siskel as you are arguing, agreeing, and laughing with a good friend.
Rating:
Summary: A good critic stands by his reviews--Ebert just changes his!
Review: I am frustrated to find out that Ebert has changed his reviews based on public opinion or because a movie won an Oscar (see previous reviews). What respectable critic won't even stand by his own "expert" opinion? I will continue to consult Halliwell's version. Although he is often rather harsh, Halliwell nonetheless saves the stars for the rare, good movies--and he apparently will stand by his reviews.
Rating:
Summary: In depth and very comprehensive.
Review: I felt the book had a lot of good points to it. I was amazed at how in depth it was!
Rating:
Summary: Best critic around.
Review: I have read many reviews of Roger ebert and kmust say he is good. When he loves a movie he makes it sound like a gem like Casno, Babe, Leaving Las vegas, and whedn he hates a film he makes it sounbd so made that you even laugh at his words- like Patch adams. he always sharees his opinions and he is actually more of a positive reviewer than Siskel and other critics. Maltin doesn't write his reviews as well nor as quickly.
|
