Comments on: In Praise of Roger Ebert

By: Elaine Loring

Elaine Loring — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 07:14:01 +0000

I truly thank you, Michael for this lovely article about Roger.
When I was a TV reporter (for 18 years at Global Television in Toronto) I had the opportunity to interview Roger Ebert several times during his visits to the Toronto International Film Festival. It was always a pleasure to speak with him, hear his views and see his genuine affection for TIFF.
Most of us have not seen Roger in a long time. Having covered the lives of celebrities for many years, seen their plastic surgery and other attempts to remain perfect, I find Roger to be nothing but completely brave to allow people to see him as he is now and to understand what he has been through.
I hope his appearances and lack of vanity will inspire others not to be afraid to come forward and be seen in public.
For all the “thumbs-ups” he has given and for all those he has encouraged in the film industry, I wish Roger the best and hope we get to meet again one day in Toronto!
Elaine

By: White Agent

White Agent — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:20:28 +0000

Epilogue- For 2006, I cannot fathom how Ebert placed, “A Prairie Home Companion over Blood Diamond”.

I have listened to dozens and dozens of the real APHC radio episodes with great joy. The movie barely measured up.

On the other hand, Leonardo DiCaprio played an excellent South African. Which I’m certain is one monster job few have attempted. Djimon Hounsou’s performance was world class Oscar stuff. Stunning performance IMO.

I am hoping that someday Djimon Hounsou will play John Garang de Mabior in a film about the Sudanese Civil war in South Sudan. What a terrific story that would make!

By: White Agent

White Agent — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:19:16 +0000

Without Siskel, Ebert just ain’t the same anymore.

By: cosmoetica

cosmoetica — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:36:08 +0000

Ebert is not a good critical analyst, but he is a terrific writer- a manipulator of words, and a good teacher. He has done great comments on Kane, Floating Weeds and Dark City, among others.

However, Siskel was a far better critic. Ebert is too LCD and unable to move beyond his own biases. That he loves Steven Spielberg and Ron Howard says all one needs to know of his critical skills.

So, as a critic, he’s a wash, but as a historian he’s invaluable.

If you want real in depth crit, check out: http://www.cosmoetica.com/Cinemension.htm

By: jammer

jammer — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:24:09 +0000

All of our best wishes to Roger. Ah for the good old days of Siskel and Ebert. You could get an absolutely accurate view of a film from the two of them, and when it was 2 thumbs up you knew it was good. Roger has carried the torch since Gene’s death with class and skill.