Profile on Roger Ebert
Long profile on Roger Ebert. Didn't know he struggled with alcoholism throughout the 70's. (via rw)
Another quote: "Laura Emerick, Ebert’s editor at the Sun-Times, thinks that since his bouts with cancer, “he’s more positive in terms of giving films a break.” My brother always pushed this theory -- now he's getting some validation.
<<< Interview with Shigeru Miyamoto NYT: Top 10 Books of 2005 >>>
yes, leave it to your brother to push the controversial theory that people are happier when they have survived cancer.
Other famous theories of Marco's brother:
Other famous theories of Marco’s brother:
1. People are sadder when they think of dead puppies.
2. Hitler wasn't the best guy.
3. Ebert was the fat one.
4. People are happier when they eat ice cream.
5. I like puppies.
Now now. My theory has nothing to do with surviving cancer. When Siskel had cancer he started giving some of the worst movies great reviews. For example, he picked Simon Birch SIMON BIRCH as the best movie of the year. That film was terrible.
Now, once Ebert got cancer he started giving everything three or four stars. Check out his archive in the last few years. It's out of control.
What I am saying is, it has to do with the dying part of cancer, not the surviving part.
I like puppies.
my criticism was more of marco than of you. i heard him mention that you thought this way about ebert -- i don't know if it's true or not (i still think he gives plenty of scathing reviews to movies that deserve them) but i just felt like making fun of marco about it.
"is the puppy mechanical in any way?"
"no, it's the bad kind of puppy."
look who's outing people today, "doorframe". or was that not a secret....
(not the real jon may)
oh my god, anthony is GAY?
i'm not making that mistake again.
BUT I AM!!!
[...] Incidentally, La Dolce Vita was the subject of one of Roger Ebert’s first movie reviews, published in The Daily Illini when he was a sophomore at UIUC. While it’s a positive review, he clearly isn’t under the impression that it’s a “great” movie. Almost forty years later, and after many viewings including a frame-by-frame analysis, Ebert reviewed it again as part of his Great Movies series. In this second review it’s clear that he believes it to be one of the greatest movies of all time, especially after his own disillusionment with “the sweet life” of Chicago in the 1970’s. (A profile I linked to last year touches on this phase of his life.) Also worth a read is this analysis from the blog of the Brattle Theater in Cambridge, MA (my former place of residence) by someone who believes it to be the greatest film of all time. [...]
Post new comment