Rating: 
Summary: thanks roger
Review: i have to recommend this book very highly.
back in college i used mr. ebert's one paragraph film description of badlands as the basis of a paper for my existentionalism in film class. without seeing the movie i received a high grade with a note from the professor saying that he was very impressed with my work and wished that he could give a higher grade than an A.thanks a lot roger
Rating:
Summary: Comprehensive, Common Sense Reviews
Review: I picked this up not necessarily expecting much out of it, but it turns out to be a great read. This book is good just for general reading, or for getting a review of a movie you might want to see. Ebert's a critic with his own opinions and so obviously you might not agree with everything he has to say, nor should you. But whether his comments are positive ("Traffic" [4 Stars]: "powerful precisely because it doesn't preach.") or negative ('Inspector Gadget' [1 and 1/2 stars]: "would it have killed them to add a real 'Inspector Gadget' cartoon as a warm-up and scene-setter'), Ebert often seems to be right on the money. As if all of this weren't enough, the book is elevated with two interesting sections in the back: "Film Festivals," a review of Film Festivals that Ebert has attended and "Questions for the Movie Man," a collection of Ebert's question and answer columns. Finally, at the end, there's a list of the star ratings Ebert has given for every review that's appeared in any of his books.
Rating: 
Summary: Not too bright, to my surprise
Review: I usually enjoy Roger Ebert's movie reviews, but quite a few reviews in this book evidenced what can only be called stupidity. Although he understands the basic necessities of movie entertainment (dramatic tension, forward movement, character development etc.), so does every college drama graduate. The problem is that Ebert enjoys an amazing blindness to complex emotions and irony, and his sense of humor is decidedly slapstick. Basically, he reviews movies on the mid-level-college-freshman-with-a-110-IQ level. If you share these characteristics and preferences, his opinions may appeal to you. If not, the book is just another proof that "there's no accounting for taste."
Rating: 
Summary: The best, the worst, and everything else.
Review: I was a little surprised to find Ebert's writing slightly rough and disorganized. Bits of plot, comments on whether or not the actors fit the parts, and moments of amazing lucidity occur in the reviews in no specific order. Nevertheless, the conversational tone works and the reviews flow well. This guide to recent movies is as good as any, and probably better, since it includes reviews for movie festival entries, foreign films, and more. The guide also includes several indexes of movies and actors, and most (if not all) Answerman entries. It isn't true that Roger Ebert is completely unbiased, and most of the entertainment (if any) derived from reading this installation in the yearly series will come from looking for his unique, personal stance on the art of moviemaking. Most action flicks, sordid teen dramas, dead-end forbidden romances, and a great many others are viciously shot down and trampled upon. On the other hand, fairly innocuous and endearing movies, especially if they are foreign-made, are gently supported like top-heavy saplings. Oh, and do watch out for Ebert's take on "Pokemon: the Movie". It's absolutely hilarious.
Rating:
Summary: Very insightfull.
Review: I've heard he changes his reviews but I was not aware of this. From what I read he is much more deep into his reviews then Maltin. While Maltin's guide gives 1 liners on why the movie is good or bad (which is nessesary because he reviews more films) Ebert's guide has paragraphs of detail on his reviews. I found Ebert to be more right on then Maltin too. Maltin grossely underrates many great films. I'm not saying Ebert is perfect either.
Rating:
Summary: Roger Ebert is back!
Review: If you might not have gotten your hands on Roger Ebert's Movie Yearbook 2001, or an earlier Roger Bbert's books in which the reviews from The Chicago Suntimes, get this book. Now you can read reviews that Roger Ebert has written from January 1, 1999 to June 30, 2001. You might have missed reading the reviews in the paper, but you can go back and read them on-line if you want a movie from after 1984. And Ebert's review of 3,000 Miles To Graceland is in here. Alone with the Grinch, Shrek, Stuart Little, Pearl Harbor and any other movies tht are not from before 1999. If you don't get the Chicago Suntimes, but have the net, you can read Ebert's reviews on-line. If you have kids, the book has Ebert's reviews of How The Grinch Stole Christmas, The Trumpet of the Swan, Shrek, Atlantis: The Lost Empire, The Little Vampire, Doug's First Movie. Just to name a few, or if you like to watch kid's movies. But please don't let them watch Pg-13 movies, until they are 13, and R rated movies until they are 17. Keep up the good job Mr. Ebert.
Rating:
Summary: That Can Give Everybody a Good Feeling
Review: It's such a good feeling, to know you're alive. It's such a happyfeeling you're growing inside. And when I wake up ready to say, I thinkI'll make a snappy new day. [SNAP, SNAP] It's such a good feeling, a very good feeling. The feeling you know that I'll be back when the day is new. And I'll have more ideas for you. And you'll have things you'll want to talk about. I will too.
Rating:
Summary: Like to trash movies? Roger does. And, oh, boy, is he good
Review: Movie reviews aren't always going to agree with your personal opinion. Sometimes you will like a movie and somebody like Mr. Ebert may think it isn't worth the celluloid it's printed on. But, when Ebert hates a film, he LOATHES it. The fun of this book is in seeing how he manages to tear down a film completely and so thoroughly in a single line. Who wants to read a glowing review of a film (especially if you thought it was dreck anyway?) But reading Ebert trash "The Jackal" as being the tale of "an over achiever" who would import bugspray from Iran if he were hired to kill a mosquito, is pure literary gold. In a time where most people are content to say a movie was either good or bad, depending on the mood they were in when they saw it, Ebert blows a great breath of fresh air into critical savagery. And if that's not worth the cover price, why do you want a movie review compendium in the first place?
Rating:
Summary: The Biggest and the Best
Review: Mr. Ebert is clearly the best working film critic today, and his beautifully written reviews prove it. His depth and genuine love for movies shines in every one of his reviews, even the bad ones. He is my favorite critic--we almost always agree on movies--and his writing is down-to-earth, yet also wonderfully put. Among my favorite of his reviews is that of "Cries and Whispers"--so poignant and beautiful. I buy his book every year and relish everything he writes because you can tell he loves it so much.
Rating: 
Summary: Roger Ebert is the most stupid critic of all time.
Review: Please do not write things you don't know about. This guy knows very little about movies and pretend to be an expert. Too much nonsense in the book! The way he see movies is just like the way a child see. Don't waste your money on this crap!
|
