The trials of Roger Ebert

by Will on February 16, 2010

Great Esquire profile on the League’s favorite film critic.

Tagged as: Film, Roger Ebert is baller status

Will writes from Washington, D.C. (well, Arlington, Virginia). You can reach him at willblogcorrespondence at gmail dot com.

{ 5 comments }

1 William Brafford February 16, 2010 at 1:24 pm

I feel obliged to point out that, although I definitely like Ebert, I trust A.O. Scott more.

2 BCChase February 16, 2010 at 5:15 pm

As the article says, his criticism has seemed to be a little less harsh and on point the last few years. I read him for observations more than overall reviews at this point. But if that’s the tradeoff for his online journal being what it is, I think it is a good one.

3 William Brafford February 17, 2010 at 2:49 pm

I find Ebert’s mode of living admirable. The great thing about his writing is that his way of dealing with the world comes through in his prose. I don’t think I could say that about any other critic, even though there are several whose reviews I find more useful in figuring out whether or not I’ll like a movie.

4 trumwill February 16, 2010 at 7:49 pm

I hadn’t seen a picture of him since the surgery. For some reason, I figured that they put some sort of prosthetic jaw in or something. Nothing he could use, but for aesthetic reasons.

5 Rufus February 17, 2010 at 6:06 am

I’ve come to like his reviews quite a bit, but I had to get used to the way he writes them with the audience in mind. For instance, if he reviews a horror movie, Ebert will try to figure out if the horror audience will like it or not. It’s a different approach than someone like Pauline Kael took, but I’ve come to read him as well for the observations instead of the overall review. He’s actually a fantastic writer, which is always a treat to discover.

Comments on this entry are closed.