Tragically, Roger Ebert is no longer with us, but the world-renowned film critic and historian lives on through his reviews and his influence. The Pulitzer Prize-winning writer is one of the most instantly recognizable people in his profession, notably in a line of work where so few are well-known. He made a career out of writing about his admiration of the cinema. Many people only wish to be so lucky. Nevertheless, while Ebert didn't always love the movies he saw, he liked more than a few of them. In fact, there are times where he was alone in his appreciation of certain films, and his opinions could sometimes be jarringly different than the status quo.

Opinions are subjective, especially when it comes to movies. It can be hard to determine which ones can be deemed "terrible" within the general conscious. After all, as this article will hopefully prove, there's a movie out there for everyone, even if no one else appreciates it. Nevertheless, based on Audience Scores complied on Rotten Tomatoes that are 30% or lower, we gathered a collection of favorable Roger Ebert reviews where the film critic's effusive praise wasn't matched by the public's prickly perception. You can't always agree with the consensus, though Ebert does his best to justify his appreciation for each of these otherwise-panned movies. Let's take a look at some films that Ebert liked and/or loved that seemingly everyone else — including general audiences and fellow film critics — hated.

The Happening (2008)

Once celebrated as "the next [Steven] Spielberg," writer/director M. Night Shyamalan fell from grace with a few movies that didn't meet the promise of 1999's exceptional The Sixth Sense. With The Village, Lady in the Water, The Last Airbender, and After Earth, Shyamalan went from a young cinematic virtuoso to a less reliable director. And for some, the filmmaker's worst was 2008's bungled would-be B-movie thriller, The Happening. A wooden, clunky dud with flat performances, lifeless direction, and cringe-y, terribly awkward dialogue that became common catchphrases among bad-movie lovers, The Happening was a tremendous cinematic misfire from a once-revered director who failed to win over the public.

Nevertheless, while many were harsh on M. Night Shyamalan's eighth feature, Roger Ebert was kind to The Happening. In his 3/4 star review, he found Shyamalan's movie to be "oddly touching" and "too thoughtful for the summer action season." Ebert also noted that he appreciated "the quietly realistic way Shyamalan finds to tell a story about the possible death of man." Clearly, the critic saw, uh, something a lot of moviegoers didn't see. While Shyamalan redeemed himself with 2016's surprisingly effective Split (and, for others, with 2015's The Visit), before losing his public's regained affections with last year's Glass, Ebert evidently felt that Shyamalan hadn't lost his way, and he had many nice things to say about the otherwise-dismissed film. Here's a snippet:

Speed 2: Cruise Control (1997)

There's no denying 1994's Speed is an exhilarating thrill ride, but its needless sequel, 1997's Speed 2: Cruise Control, is on auto-pilot. In fact, one could argue it never gets going in the first place, sputtering around as this dead-in-the-water sequel fails to gain traction. Featuring only one-half of the original's leads, as Keanu Reeves was wise enough to opt out of this sequel, Sandra Bullock is left to steer the ship herself, alongside Jason Patric, in a valiant effort that proves fruitless for this water-logged failure. Nearly everyone thought Speed 2 was not only inferior to the original but simply a bad movie, one made worse when you think about how good the original was in comparison. Nevertheless, among the very select few who actually liked Speed 2 is Roger Ebert.

In his 3/4 star review, Roger Ebert acknowledged Speed 2's flaws, from its willful suspension of disbelief to its miscalculated decision to make Sandra Bullock straddled by Jason Patric, who does a generic action lead performance compared to Bullock's more endearing and appealing performance. But the critic can't help but be amused by such a ridiculous film, one that embraces the absurdities that come with the summer movie season and provides a healthy helping of silliness. While there aren't many who agree with Ebert here, it's hard not to admire him for finding something entertaining and delightful with this panned movie. Here's a snippet:

The Mummy: Tomb Of The Dragon Emperor (2008)

While 1999's The Mummy was a fun adventure blockbuster with likable leads, exciting action sequences, and a good bit of humor to boot, the series faced diminishing returns as it progressed forward. The Mummy Returns and its spin-off, The Scorpion King, saw the franchise deteriorating quicker than an actual mummy, and it was 2008's lackluster, late-in-the-game sequel, The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, which put the final nail in the tomb for many folks. But not for Roger Ebert, who found himself amused by this special effects-heavy sequel.

While many moviegoers consider The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor to be the weakest installment in this franchise, before 2017's ill-fated reboot, The Mummy, crypt to undead life, Roger Ebert noted in his 3/4 star review that viewers will get "exactly what they expect" from this Brendan Fraser sequel. While he didn't care for The Mummy Returns, Ebert found Tomb to be a return-to-form for the franchise. So much so that he considered it "the best in the series," which is a sentiment not shared by many. While Ebert acknowledged it was "preposterous" and "dumb," these are the qualities he liked in it. Here's a snippet:

Anaconda (1997)

Admittedly, 1997's Anaconda is the type of movie that fits comfortably in some definitions of "so bad it's good." The schlocky snake movie is ridiculous and not filled with awards-worthy moments (outside of the Razzies, where it secured six nominations). While there are some who don't like it and a few others who appreciate it only on ironic circumstances, Roger Ebert didn't fall into either category. Rather, in his effusive review of the not-well-received movie, Ebert thought Anaconda was a sizzling success.

In the critic's surprising 3 and a half/4 star review, Roger Ebert claimed he was chuckling with Anaconda from the very beginning. Sure enough, as the movie continued to build up its goofy moments, Ebert found himself engaged ever more with the ridiculousness displayed on the screen. Not in a bad way, either. He greatly enjoyed the film's look, courtesy of the cinematography, as well as the creature effects and the performances. While there are folks who can only enjoy Anaconda with fine hints of irony, Ebert seemed to fully embrace its foolishness. Here's a snippet:

Junior (1994)

Granted, there aren't many movies where Arnold Schwarzenegger gets pregnant. Nevertheless, Junior finds a way to take an extremely ludicrous premise and turn it into something that's... well, weirdly serious. Not in a good way, either. While I've, admittedly, got a bit of a soft spot for it, Junior didn't reach its potential. Despite Schwarzenegger's commitment, along with another fun turn from Danny DeVito as his maternal doctor, Junior is, frankly, oddly dull. You would think such a ridiculous premise would produce bountiful results, especially from director Ivan Reitman (Ghostbusters '84, Animal House). Nevertheless, Junior is a missed opportunity, and an uninspired body comedy that doesn't produce as belly laughs as it should.

In his 3-and-a-half/4 star review, Roger Ebert celebrated Arnold Schwarzenegger's performance, claiming he's "perfect," in his own weird way, and that it's "a sort of a deliverance." He also compliments Schwarzenegger's physicality and self-awareness with regards to how well he pulls off this challenging role. The critic claims that "not many [actors] can stand in front of a camera and be nine months pregnant, and actually make us care." Ultimately, Ebert was taken by Junior's warmth and humor; I can only envy him. He's more elegant in his approval of Schwarzenegger's pregnancy movie than I'll ever be. Here is a snippet:

Congo (1995)

For many, Congo represents a campy, cheesy science-fiction movie with poor characters, worse special effects, and little desire to envelope the audience into the silliness on screen. It was destroyed by critics and audiences didn't give it a warm reception. It earned seven Razzie nominations, including Worst Picture. Nevertheless, while everyone else was quick to poo-poo Congo, Roger Ebert had a grand time. In his 3/4 star review, Ebert called it a "splendid example of a genre no longer much in fashion," admitting that it didn't result in a very good movie, but "it's entertaining and funny." Sometimes, that's all you need. Here's a snippet:

Home Alone 3 (1997)

The original Home Alone has no shortage of fans, especially around the holidays. While Home Alone 2: Lost in New York is more divisive, many movie lovers have no qualms putting it on as Christmas draws near. But there are very few who have a tradition of re-watching Home Alone 3 as yuletide cheer is in season. The Macaulay Culkin-less sequel is a bland retread of the original two movies at best, and a plague on the franchise at worse. Some folks like to pretend it doesn't exist. But not Roger Ebert. Not only did the critic like it, he thought Home Alone 3 was even better than 1 and 2.

In his 3/4 star review, Roger Ebert claimed he wasn't a fan of the previous Home Alone movies (he gave the first one 2.5 stars and the second one 2 stars), but he was taken by this third Home Alone movie. Ebert even noted that he'd go "so far as to recommend it," which is a statement not many can say. Nevertheless, despite his apprehensions toward this Home Alone sequel, he was won over by what he considers a "funnier and gentler" film with "a real charmer for a hero" that "provides splendid wish fulfillment and escapism for kids in, say, the lower grades." Here's a snippet:

The Honeymooners (2005)

Based on one of the most famous sitcoms ever, 2005's The Honeymooners had a lot to live up to. Unfortunately, for many, this remake wasn't a romantic return. While critics complimented the talented cast, including Cedric the Entertainer, Regina Hall, Gabrielle Union, and Mike Epps, many felt they were held back by a lame script, weak direction, and a lack of new ideas to this revitalized property. Nevertheless, Roger Ebert was over-the-moon with this re-imagining of Jackie Gleason's creation. In his 3/4 star review, he called it a "surprise" and a "delight," and "a movie that escapes the fate of weary TV retreads and creates characters that remember the originals, yes, but also stand on their own." Here's a snippet:

The Box (2009)

While it might be a point of contention, notably since it earned a cult following since its chilly initial reception, The Box is seen as an ambitious failure, and yet another disappointment from the once-promising filmmaker, Richard Kelly (Donnie Darko). Based on a short story by Richard Matheson, The Box felt overstretched and overdrawn, resulting in an underwhelming experience. Certainly, it wasn't well-received by audiences. It hosts a 24 percent Audience Score on Rotten Tomatoes. It's also one of the rare few films to earn an "F" rating from CinemaScore. Many critics were a little kinder, but not by much, with the noted exception of Roger Ebert.

In his 3/4 star review, Roger Ebert wasn't afraid to comment on the "preposterous" aspects of Richard Kelly's movie, but he noted that The Box was constantly able to hold his attention and keep him invested, particularly with its absurd qualities. The critic notes that everything found inside The Box is taken "so seriously that you get sucked in," and he compared it to Knowing, which was another film that he loved that didn't win over many others. Such is the case. Ebert knows what he likes. Here is a snippet:

These are only a few times when Roger Ebert went positive when everyone else went negative. Other noteworthy examples can be found, including Ebert's unshared appreciation for Van Helsing, Cop And 1/2, Spawn, 2012, the Garfield films, 2010's Alice in Wonderland, Knowing, and the Star Wars prequels, to name a few. While Ebert's tastes could be unpredictable, one thing is for certain: even when the critic didn't agree with the conscious, he knew how to voice his opinions well. Especially when he went against the norm, Ebert could convince you of his perspective, right or wrong though it could be. And that is how you know Roger Ebert is one of the best critics in history.

There are few film critics who have earned a legacy more revered than Roger Ebert. The Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and movie reviewer is one of the absolute best at his craft, and his knack for writing simple-yet-elegant and deeply profound works of film appreciation and criticism are some of the finest writing you'll ever find from movie reviews. Nevertheless, when it came to his opinions on a few of the most popular films of the 20th/early 21st century, Ebert didn't always agree with the general conscious. In fact, there were times when Ebert's film opinions went completely against the norm.

When Roger Ebert hated a movie, he made his voice heard loud-and-clear. Surprisingly, however, there are times when the popular film critic hated a few of the most popular movies of the past few decades. You can't love every movie, and sometimes, you disagree with the general public. Ultimately, Roger Ebert's opinions were always his own, and he expressed himself beautifully even when the world around him disagreed wholeheartedly. Having said that, let's take a look at 10 particularly noteworthy titles — from bonafide classics to fan favorites — and explore why Roger Ebert hated them so.

Tommy Boy (1995)

While 1995's Tommy Boy was never a critical darling, it does have its fair share of loyal and hearty fans. The Chris Farley/David Spade buddy road trip comedy is a heartfelt, consistently funny good time that's buoyant and charming largely thanks to the lovable screen presence and sharp physically-comedic timing of the late, great Chris Farley. Tommy Boy has played in constant rotation on Comedy Central and it has been quoted consistently since its release in comedy-loving circles, but it didn't earn the affections of Roger Ebert, to say the least. In his 1/4 star review, the discerning critic went so far as to claim that "no one is funny" in Tommy Boy, and that there are "no memorable lines." He also claimed that the majority of the characters are uninteresting, only making an exception for Rob Lowe's antagonistic character. Here are some choice excerpts from Roger Ebert's dismissive review.

Pink Flamingos (1972)

Admittedly, John Waters' 1972 cult classic Pink Flamingos isn't a movie for everyone. It's a raunchy, rigorously obscene movie that only grew to find its audience over time. Nevertheless, the Pope of Trash's filthy masterpiece is utterly divine — at least, if you're willing to appreciate its brand of low-rent crass absurdism. Evidently, that wasn't the case for Roger Ebert. In his 0/4 star review (ouch!) from 1997, Ebert wasn't afraid to criticize the underground indie hit during its 25th anniversary restoration.

In his review, Ebert claims that Pink Flamingos "appeals to that part of our psyches in which we are horny teenagers at the county fair with fresh dollar bills in our pockets," as well as armed with a strong "desire to see the geek show with a bunch of buddies, so that we can brag about it at school on Monday." He considers it a perverse, obscene work, one that Ebert doesn't even feel deserves the distinction of getting a grade because it is "not a film." There's no doubt that when Roger Ebert absolutely hated a film, he never minced his words.

The Usual Suspects (1995)

For some moviegoers, there are few movie twists more surprising than the final moments of 1995's The Usual Suspects. While the sleeper hit movie hasn't gotten as much notice these days as it did upon release, the two-time Oscar-winning movie is still revered for its bending structure and the way it plays with expectations. Nevertheless, Roger Ebert wasn't impressed by what he saw, and he admitted as much in his review, noting at one point that he would prefer to be "amazed by motivation, not manipulation." In his 1.5/4 star review, Ebert suggests that he found the hit movie to be shallow and ineffective in its approach, believing that the twisty structure does not play to the movie's benefit in the long run. Here's what he wrote.

Blue Velvet (1986)

While his movies aren't always accessible, to say the least, David Lynch has proven himself to be one of the boldest, most distinctive, striking, and unpredictable filmmakers in cinema history. And one of his finest accomplishments remains 1986's mesmerizing Blue Velvet, which is still one of the director's most haunting and memorable movies. Alas, this is not an opinion shared by Roger Ebert. The late critic famously detested Lynch's movie, believing that Blue Velvet isn't worthy of such a powerful performance from Isabella Rossellini due to its approach to the subject material at hand. In his 1/4 star review, the film critic expressed confusion and dismay with Blue Velvet, and he felt the movie wasn't worthy of being hailed a "masterpiece."

Fight Club (1999)

In the early 21st century, David Fincher solidified himself as one of the most distinctive and celebrated working directors today. Thanks to movies like Gone Girl, The Social Network, Se7en, Zodiac, and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Fincher made his rigorous talents known in both film communities and abroad. With the cult classic Fight Club, Fincher earned a reputation for making hard-edged cinematic social commentaries that certainly pack a wallop of a punch — in more ways than one, of course. But that's not how Roger Ebert saw Fincher's fourth film.

In his 2/4 star review, Ebert saw Fight Club as empty calories and macho-man postering, the type of overly macho filmmaking that takes itself too seriously and becomes "the most frankly and cheerfully fascist big-star movie" in decades. Ebert also believed audiences wouldn't take home the right message... which isn't off-base. Alas, Roger Ebert clearly didn't follow the first couple rules of Fight Club, as the film critic had a lot of bad things to talk about in his negative review.

A Clockwork Orange (1971)

Among cinephiles, there are few directors more revered than Stanley Kubrick. The late auteur has created some of the most indelible, impressive, and impressionable movies ever made, including, but certainly not limited to, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Full Metal Jacket, Spartacus, The Shining, Paths Of Glory, Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, Eyes Wide Shut, and several others. One such masterpiece is 1971's A Clockwork Orange, which is easily among the most famous and controversial of Kubrick's films. But despite its controversies, it is widely considered to be among the very best movies Kubrick has ever made. Alas, that wasn't an opinion shared by Roger Ebert. In his 2/4 star review from 1972, Ebert was exceptionally critical of Kubrick's sense of perspective with his main character, believing that the movie is an "ideological mess" centered around a "sadistic rapist" who "disgusts" the reviewer.

Granted, Roger Ebert was certainly not the only person to be critical of Stanley Kubrick's movies. Nevertheless, it's fascinating to read such a cutting pan of what is considered one of the finest movies from one of our finest 20th century filmmakers. In any case, Ebert's criticisms are quite valid, if not broadly shared. The review is perhaps unpopular in its opinion but still as well-written as anything penned by the acclaimed critic. Additionally, weirdly enough, A Clockwork Orange is a favorite for his widow, Chaz Ebert. Sometimes, opposite tastes attract. Here's what Roger Ebert wrote in his review.

Rope (1948)

Just like Stanley Kubrick, Alfred Hitchcock is widely regarded as one of the most distinctive and influential directors of the 20th century. Whether it's Psycho, The Birds, Rear Window, Vertigo, North by Northwest, Strangers on a Train, Notorious, Dial M for Murder, and several others, a good number of Hitchcock's films are considered masterpieces of their genres and film history, and that includes Rope. The 1948 crime thriller was noteworthy for playing out in real time and featuring the use of extended single shots to appear as though it were one long take throughout the 80 minute run time. Movies like this winter's 1917, for instance, owe a debt of gratitude to Rope. Alas, Roger Ebert was not very impressed with Alfred Hitchcock's film.

In his 2/4 star review from 1984, Roger Ebert agreed with Alfred Hitchcock's assessment that Rope was an "experiment that didn't work out," and he claimed that the movie's one-take look was "an unnecessary gimmick." Still, unlike several of the movies listed in this article, Ebert wanted people to watch this movie. He recommended that audiences check it out at a revival showing, and he considered it "one of the most interesting experiments ever attempted by a major director working with big box-office names." While Ebert gave Rope a mere two stars and didn't have too many glowing comments about the film other than this particular pull quote, he clearly respected the craftsmanship here, even if he does not think the film worked.

Brazil (1986)

On Rotten Tomatoes, Terry Gilliam's extraordinary Brazil currently sits at 98%, with an audience score of 90%. Of nearly 50 reviews catalogued on the site, in fact, there is only one negative review. Alas, that sole negative review belongs to Roger Ebert, who ultimately didn't see what everyone was raving about in the dystopian, fantastical dark comedy/drama. In his 2/4 star review, Ebert considered Gilliam's masterpiece to be unrestrained and hard to follow. As he constantly compared the film to George Orwell's novel, 1984, and its film adaptation, the film critic believes Brazil to be lesser than both and lacking compared to what made each of them so powerful. While there are no shortage of praise thrown to Terry Gilliam's movie elsewhere, no such compliments were found by Roger Ebert in his 1986 write-up contradicting the general conscious of the sci-fi classic. Here is a biting snippet from Roger Ebert's review.

Dead Poets Society (1989)

A sweet, moving and gentle-hearted movie about the power of learning and teaching, Dead Poets Society is a warm-hearted winner, as well as your English teacher's favorite movie. There is a good chance that you were shown the movie at least once in your high school English class. Nevertheless, the Oscar-winning drama wasn't warmly regarded by Roger Ebert. In his dismissive 2/4 star review, the film critic believes that Peter Weir's acclaimed movie doesn't haven't the courage of its convictions, despite a fine performance from Robin Williams in the lead role. He criticizes what he believes is a false and clunky movie, one that's unwilling and/or unable to properly honor the poets that it celebrates. Here are some quotes from Ebert's review.

The Raid: Redemption (2012)

Among action movie lovers, The Raid: Redemption was one of the most impressive and awe-inspiring martial arts movies in years. Probably decades. Maybe ever! Nevertheless, the hard ass-kicking, neck-stomping, body-twisting movie didn't win over Roger Ebert. In his 1/4 star review, the critic was quick to acknowledge the high volume of positive reviews towards the action-friendly film, but Ebert equated the experience of watching The Raid to "a visualized video game that spares the audience the inconvenience of playing it." While he notes that there is an audience for this extreme film, the movie critic believed this particular movie is one without "plot," "dialogue," or "humanity," believing it becomes an entirely cynical viewing experience.

Admittedly, these are only a handful of the times where Roger Ebert went against the consensus on a popular film. And there are plenty of examples where Ebert praised a movie that was otherwise panned. Nevertheless, what is the biggest surprise? Which popular movie can't you believe Roger Ebert didn't like? Let us know which unexpected critical thrashing from the legendary late movie critic surprises you the most down in the comments.

When Star Wars: The Force Awakens takes over cinemas on Friday, plenty of people will probably start voicing their dismay at the film just because of how popular it is. That’s nothing new though. In fact, shortly after Star Wars: Return Of The Jedi was released back in 1983, film critic John Simon was so enraged with what he saw that he went up against Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert in a debate over the quality of the trilogy. And, over thirty years after their discussion, it sill makes for riveting viewing.

I think the first thing to say hear is: poor John Simon. I mean, if he can’t find any joy in Star Wars then he probably wanders through life shouting at sunsets, too. And while John Simon is obviously in the minority in this argument, it’s still refreshing to see such a cordial debate, especially since we now live in an age where most TV discussions are reduced to loud, squawking battles between nincompoops.

That being said, John Simon is still 100% wrong in his insistence that Star Wars, and in particular Return Of The Jedi,, is anything but glorious to watch. Not only does Simon call the film "malodorous offal," but he even insists that it’s "completely dehumanizing" and says that it makes "children dumber than they need to be." That’s because they don’t teach younglings anything about reality, people, life, or growing up, and in fact they’re so damaging that they will "keep children stupid forever."

It’s quite interesting to see Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert’s rebuttals though. Because rather than instantly going for the jugular, Gene simply insists that he feels sorry for John Simon because he wasn’t able to gain enjoyment from Return Of The Jedi. Siskel then speaks about his own personal experiences watching the film, recalling how he sat in amongst the children in the theater, he could see just how ecstatic, stimulated and involved they are were with the story.

Simon wasn’t done there, though, as he complained about Jedi's over-reliance on visual effects, while also complaining about the movie's "ghastly dialogue, miserable characterization," and "terrible plotting." But Roger Ebert didn’t really focus on these supposed discrepancies, instead simply stating that it made him laugh, excited him, and thrilled him, and even though it wasn’t as deep as an Ingmar Bergman film, it wasn’t meant to be, and it should just be enjoyed on its own credentials.

The above is the perfect example of critics needlessly stretching for insults and issues with a film. And if you find anyone overly criticizing Star Wars: The Force Awakens then just send them to this video and they’ll hopefully learn the error of their ways. That’s unless it does actually suck. But it can’t be bad … can it?

One of the most heinous Oscars snubs of 2015 came in the shape of Life Itself, which failed to gain recognition in the best documentary category. Life Itself revolves around the life and death of Roger Ebert, the renowned Chicagoan film critic whose cinematic legacy was perfectly honored with Steve James’ intimate portrait.

Chaz Ebert, Roger Ebert’s widow, has now taken to her husband’s website to voice her feelings on Life Itself’s omission from the ceremony. Chaz Ebert admitted that while she was "sad and disappointed" by its lack of recognition, she still takes huge comfort from the knowledge that anyone who has had the privilege of watching Life Itself "knows what an achievement it is." And she’s right. Life Itself is truly a joyful film that doesn’t shy away from showing an ailing Roger Ebert on the brink of death, but also celebrates the passion, fervour and deep love that he had for all things cinema.

Anyone who knew of Roger Ebert before seeing Life Itself will come out of it feeling as though they have a deeper understanding of what made the man tick. Meanwhile anyone who watches the documentary without any prior knowledge of the film critic will resonate with its raw look at a man on the brink of death, while they’ll also see how much of an impact a film critic can have when they do their job perfectly.

Chaz Ebert continued her praise of Life Itself by eulogizing director Steve James, while also stating:

You can read Chaz Ebert’s sensational diatribe regarding Life Itself by clicking over to Roger Ebert’s official website. It will truly be one of the best things that you do all weekend. Plus, you’ll find it hard not to shed a tear at her description of both her husband and the film itself.

Meanwhile, despite the omission of Life Itself, Chaz Ebert also made sure praise the documentary films that were recognized in the field. Those lucky enough to have been included were Citizenfour, Finding Vivian Maier, Last Days in Vietnam, Virunga and The Salt of the Earth. In a rather ironic turn of events, Finding Vivian Maier was actually co-directed by Charlie Siskel, who is the nephew of Gene Siskel, the film critic who appeared alongside Roger Ebert in their seminal review show, Siskel & Ebert.

Chaz Ebert did criticize the Academy’s decision to exclude Selma’s Ava DuVernay in the best directing field though. Which goes to show that even though Roger Ebert is now resting in peace, his devoted wife is doing her hardest to continue his good work here on earth.

Bill Murray has one of the most mischievous minds in Hollywood history. Normally he uses this to astound his fans by either making a surprising, impromptu speech at a bachelor party or serving drinks behind a bar. But he’s now admitted that he played a rather delightful prank on Roger Ebert to get back at the legendary critic after he’d been rather scathing early on in Murray’s career.

During his recent appearance on The Howard Stern Show Murray candidly commented on a variety of subjects, but it was his revelation that he sought revenge on Ebert that proved to be the highlight. Murray admitted that the stupendous Chicago Sun-Times movie critic, who died in April 2013, "killed him early on." The Ghostbusters actor stated, "He knew I was a Chicago guy and he cut me absolutely no slack."

However, even though it took him a few years, Murray was able to get Ebert to eventually admit that he now respected the former Saturday Night Live comedian's acting talents. And he did so in a rather devious fashion. The incident took place at the Cannes Film Festival, and it occurred during a press conference for Broken Flowers, the critically acclaimed 2005 drama that was written and directed by Jim Jarmusch, After Ebert complimented his performance in the film, Murray shot back with... well I’ll let him explain:

Silly Roger Ebert. However, when you consider how many snide, witty remarks Ebert made to actors, directors, and writers during his lifetime, it’s no surprise that he couldn’t remember the exact put-down he had for each of them.

Ebert wasn’t alone in his praise of Bill Murray’s performance in Broken Flowers. In fact, the legendary comedian told Howard Stern that he believes it is the best film that he’s ever done. If you haven’t seen it you should probably check it out, because it’s arguably his most subtle and nuanced performance on the big-screen. To whet your whistle, here’s a clip …

Murray’s treatment of Ebert is yet another storming addition to the vast cannon of amusing stories that involve the comedian. Anyone who wants to spend a good couple of hours being reminded why Murray is so adored should head over to BillMurrayStory.com, which is a website that is dedicated to celebrating and sharing the various tales that involve the Lost In Translation actor. It’s a wonderful way to spend an afternoon. Murray can next be seen opposite Melissa McCarthy and Naomi Watts in St. Vincent, which is open now and goes wider on October 24.

Steve James documentary Life Itself, dedicated to the life and work of late film critic Roger Ebert, has been generating reams of positive press as it makes its way to theaters on July 11 (it will open in limited release on July 4). But no quote attributed to Ebert’s influence struck me quite as deeply as the one that legendary filmmaker Martin Scorsese shared… even though it never made it into the finished documentary.

The Raging Bull and Goodfellas maestro spoke with Steve James about Roger Ebert’s reaction to The Departed. The anecdote is captured and shared by The New York Times, which reveals that Scorsese believed the iconic critic figured out a crucial component to the filmmaker’s psyche before it even became clear to Scorsese. Roger Ebert, as the story goes, said The Departed carried extra weight because of Scorsese’s staunch Catholic upbringing, and how some men eventually confess to their wrongdoings, but admit to the parish priest that they had no real choice.

"This movie is like an examination of conscience," Ebert wrote of the film at the time of release, "when you stay up all night trying to figure out a way to tell the priest: I know I done wrong, but, oh, Father, what else was I gonna do?"

Upon reading that, Martin Scorsese amazingly confessed to Steve James:

When it comes to compliments, I’m not sure they come much higher than that.

Martin Scorsese joins a long list of filmmakers, though, who admit to having a deep emotional connection with Roger Ebert over the course of the film critic’s staggering career. He appears alongside the likes of Werner Herzog, Errol Morris and Ramin Bahnrani in the trailer for James’ doc:

But from everything that we have been hearing about Life Itself (and as the title suggests), the movie isn’t only about film. It’s also about celebrating life, about recognizing one’s passions, and about being recognized by our peers. The film rolls out in select markets over the coming years. Celebrate the life and work of Roger Ebert alongside some of the greats: Martin Scorsese, among them.

If you had to name the most trusted critics in America, Roger Ebert would have been pretty high up on the list, if not on the top. He didn’t seem like too much of a snob, yet he wasn’t a complete studio shill, which made him seem like the people’s critic. Later in his life though, he admitted (while his reputation was still very much intact) that he might have been a little less discerning than everyone made him out to be. As it turns out, Voactiv did some number crunching with his reviews, and found that he was 18% more approving of films than any other critic. Which begs us to ask the question, who can we trust when it comes to telling us what movies are good and which are crap?

Above you’ll see Voactiv's handy infographic (which can be seen in higher resolution at the source link included) ranking a sampling of 50 critics that have reviewed at least 40 of the 200 highest grossing movies in the last decade. The factors that the site took into account included among them the sphere of influence each critic had, their reputation, the frequency of their reviews, and their their average Metacritic scores compared to the overall score of said films. Keep in mind that while this experiment is a fun exercise in analytics, it's obviously not the real way to determine the "best critic" for everyone.

The first thing you can clearly see in the data is there are more critics that are in the overzealously positive "Less Discerning" camp than on the more destructively negative "Haters" side. The positive side of the scale also enjoys some more diversity in its numerical values. It's believable that these numbers are also influenced by critics that really like to see their names on pull quotes. The critic with the most positive reviews under their belt was Steve Persall of The Tampa Bay Times, who was described by Voactiv as possessing:

On the other side of the spectrum, there seems to be a more incremental rise in the percentage of negative reviews, except for the last three critics listed - who each enjoy a spike in the neighborhood of two percentage points each. Going by this infographic, the most discerning reviewer in the group is none other than Joe Morgenstern, a film critic over at The Wall Street Journal. A particularly damning statement that Morgenstern made to put himself on this list was his from his evaluation of Kill Bill, as he believed that Quentin Tarantino's movie inflicted:

Smack dab in the middle of the chart are the most reliable critics, or as they like to call them "The Safe Bets." Out of 50 critics, only four could be considered safely in the center between loving and hating everything they happen to watch. The most trustworthy in their ranks was none other than J.R. Jones of The Chicago Reader. His numbers matched closely to that of MetaCritic's ratings for most of the films sampled, and:

So why is Roger Ebert, the fourth ranked critic on the Less Discerning list, still considered a top critic even after his death? His appreciation for film, as well as his knowledge of its history made him a well respected critic that the movie-going public, by and large, felt was the most trustworthy. He might not have been the most discerning in a cold, numerical fashion, but if you read his reviews you’d see that he could at least back his opinions with solid thinking.

If you're going to evaluate a critic, it's advised that you read a healthy sampling of their reviews, and don't judge a review by its rating. Again, there is no clear critic who is the best at what they do, because the wide reaching tastes of the movie going public cannot be boiled down to one definitive personality. A critic's skill should be measured like the movies they critique: on a case by case basis, and in tune with the personal tastes of the audience member in question. Which brings it all back around to the question we set forth to answer in the beginning: can we trust movie critics to be the sentinels of taste, or are they either less discerning shills or hateful hacks? Answer: it depends on who you ask, and whether they own a copy of Gigli or not. Depending on your reaction to the answer, you’ll know which direction to head off in.

Roger Ebert was the reason many of us write about film. The patron saint of the everyman critic nonetheless always provided trenchant insight whenever he discussed a film, finding the words his more erudite colleagues couldn’t begin to summon. And when he loved a film, it was as if he loved it with all his spirit. You rushed to read an Ebert review because you knew he would give you a new reason to be enthusiastic about going to the movies, letting the lights dim, and just giving yourself to whatever you’re about to watch, highbrow or low.

It’s that sort of enthusiasm that filters through Life Itself, Steve James’ new documentary about the career of the world’s pre-eminent film critic and the story of his final days. The film is unsurprisingly powerful, given that James has been one of the leading voices in documentary filmmaking for a couple of decades now, with films like Hoop Dreams and The Interrupters pushing the boundaries of the genre. Life Itself made its debut at this year’s Sundance Film Festival, and now Magnolia (via Coming Soon) has picked up the picture’s distribution rights, and are planning a theatrical and VOD rollout.

Magnolia usually doesn’t go nationwide with its releases, so you’ll probably only get a chance to see the film on a big screen if you live in a major city this summer. But you will be able to order it OnDemand and see it in the comfort of your own home. Life Itself is also a CNN Films production, so by year’s end, the network will be the exclusive home to a television airing of the film. And if you don’t get a chance to see the film through those methods, you can always head to a local library and read Ebert’s memoir by the same name, which the film uses as a jumping-off point.

James' film expands on Ebert’s insight from that lovely tome, while adding deeply moving footage of Ebert’s final days in medical care. James had hoped to complete the film while Ebert was still alive, though his passing (only a day after his posting about beginning to take it easy professionally) adds a melancholy postscript that allows the film to be the lasting memory of one of cinema’s loudest and most incisive voices.

Ebert’s wife Chaz helped present the film at a screening in New York City on Monday, and while she felt once again overwhelmed by the film, she did share one bittersweet memory. Speaking a day after the passing of Philip Seymour Hoffman, she revealed that he was always Ebert’s choice to play him in a movie. Via THR:

Was Hoffman the ideal choice? Sound off below.

The cinephile community suffered a terrible loss in the spring of this year when famed critic Roger Ebert passed away. But a movie theater near his hometown in Illinois is looking to pay tribute to this giant in film criticism by creating a permanent memorial in his honor. The News Gazette (via THR) reports the town of Champaign--which is a stone's throw from his hometown of Urbana--is commissioning a life-sized bronze statue of Ebert that shows him with his trademark thumbs up. Better still, there will be an empty seat on either side of him, presumably so admirers can cozy up and get a snapshot next to this long-loved critic and TV personality.

The Champaign-Urbana community is currently raising funds for the statue's construction, an effort headed by husband and wife team Scott and Donna Anderson, the latter of whom used to work as a travel agent for Ebertfest. The sculpture is to be built by Bloomington-Normal artist Rick Harney, and is projected to cost $122,500. (This price encompasses not only materials and construction, but also the cost of fundraising itself, donor plaques, installation, lighting, maintenance, insurance and other contingencies.) If fundraising goes well, the statue could be put in place outside the Virginia Theatre in Champaign in time for Ebertfest 2014, which would be next April. It would be a fitting tribute to the man who taught so many to love movies. And if you're debating about chipping in, now's the time.

The Ebert Foundation--headed by the Pulitzer Prize winner's wife of more than 20 years--is pledging to match donations up to $25,000 made this month. At this point, the fundraising team estimates about 20% of the total has been collected. If the statue fundraisers get the $25k needed to collect the Ebert Foundation pledge, they'll bump that up to 60% of their goal by the end of this year. To help incentivize big donations, donors are eligible for showy perks, like a mention at the ceremony, a small bronze maquette of the sculpture, or their own name engraved on the actual statue. These perks cost between $5,000-$25,000 dollars. But donations as low as $1 are gladly being accepted as well.

You can learn more about this project and donate here. Or if you prefer the snail mail route, you can send tax-deductible donations directly to the Community Foundation of East Central Illinois, 307 W. University Ave., Champaign, IL 61820. Jus put "Ebert Sculpture" on the memo line. Any money earned beyond the fundraising goal will be awarded to the Roger Ebert Film Center at the UI, Ebertfest and the Virginia Theatre, as deteremined by Chaz Ebert.

You remember Roger Ebert as the glasses-wearing, incredibly familiar round-face from At The Movies, the guy whose thumb could tell you whether or not to see a movie, the name basically synonymous with "film critic." But Ebert, as was a frequently discussed when he passed away earlier this year, had a long and fascinating career beyond the pages of the Chicago Sun-Times, from writing the screenplay for the classic cult film Beyond the Valley of the Dolls to dating Oprah Winfrey. And while he might have had an Oprah tell-all to share before he died, it's the former that's going to be at the center of the closest thing we may get to a Roger Ebert biopic.

Christopher Cluess, an Emmy-winning writer for Saturday Night Live and The Simpsons, has sold the screenplay Russ & Roger Go Beyond, which chronicles the friendship between Ebert and famous pulp director Russ Meyer as they worked together on Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, the 1970 follow-up to Valley of the Dolls that wound up being more like a parody of the original. When Meyer was given the chance to direct Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, his first studio feature, he recruited Ebert to write the screenplay; at the time Ebert was the third-string critic for the Sun-Times and had given Meyer some of his only good reviews. The two became friends and worked together on several films after Beyond became a hit, all of them with similarly ridiculous titles-- Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens being easily the best.

Russ and Roger Go Beyond sounds like a David & Goliath story, with Ebert and Meyer fighting to make the pulpy movie they wanted and going up against the studio and the ratings board; think Argo, but all about a soapy melodrama instead of a film intended to rescue Americans from Iran. Even if you know nothing about the actual movie, that's got to be a story you want to see. The script is being produced by Sobini Films, Permut Presentations and Chautaqua Entertainment, and there's no director yet attached, which means we have no idea when we might see the film. But for the millions of people who grew up watching Ebert on television and trusting his opinion, a look into his more scandalous past ought to be an easy sell.

Ebertfest 2013 Dance Along from Ebertfest on Vimeo.

People claim they want their funerals to be celebrations of their lives, but it's a hard thing for a lot of us to pull off. Roger Ebert wasn't like a lot of us, though, either in life or in death. Just a few weeks after his death from cancer, the 15th annual Ebertfest kicked off in Champaign, Illinois. While it wasn't an official memorial event for the critic, it inevitably turned into that anyway-- and according to all in attendance, the emotional highlight was this jubilant, energetic dance party led by none other than Tilda Swinton.

With Barry White's "You're The First, My Last, My Everything" blasting into the theater, Swinton leapt down the aisles, led the audience in a conga line and cajoled the entire crowd to get on their feet-- even the people too old or stodgy to dance at least shook their hips a bit. Though the event wasn't technically a tribute to Ebert himself, Swinton did call it a "spiritual service," and those who attended said repeatedly that the entire event felt like a memorial for Ebert, even if nobody had actually planned it that way.

For more on Ebertfest you can read Matt Singer's excellent write-ups at Criticwire, one of which opens up with "Roger Ebert its talking to us. This is not a film festival. It's a film seance." If that sentence is a little too unnerving for you, watch the video again. The sight of Chaz Ebert, Roger's wife, dancing onstage while Swinton leaps into the audience ought to cheer anyone up. You can also do worse than to look over the brief collection of Ebert's work that we put together after Ebert's death.

Cartoon via The Chicago Tribune When you're remembering one of the most prolific, thoughtful, funny and inimitable writers who's even worked, you realize very quickly that your own words aren't going to do it justice. Everyone who has jobs like ours at Cinema Blend has grown up in Roger Ebert's shadow, either reading his columns for the Chicago Sun-Times, watching his weekly episodes of At the Movies, or later following his Twitter feed or blog posts. When Ebert died yesterday at the age of 70, after a recurrence of cancer, it felt like a sudden end to what had been a decades-long conversation. Roger Ebert was writing and talking about movies even after he had lost the physical ability to speak, and he did so until hours before his death.

With a loss as big as this one, everyone takes a step back and remembers in their own way. And, for most of us, that involved looking at Ebert's work. It's incredible how much of the man's career is available online, from the extensive archives at RogerEbert.com to endless YouTube clips from At The Movies. Below you can find the favorite links and videos that we've dug up-- much of it Ebert's writing, but some other people are included too. But first, a personal remembrance from Nick Venable, who says what a lot of us have been feeling today:

Why not start with Siskel & Ebert's review of one of our all-time favorite movies, The Shawshank Redemption? It's good to see that they knew a classic when they saw it.

Review of Rob Reiner's North. A classic for fans of his hilarious pans. "I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it."

Review of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Another amazing negative review. " If you want to save yourself the ticket price, go into the kitchen, cue up a male choir singing the music of hell, and get a kid to start banging pots and pans together. Then close your eyes and use your imagination."

Review of Hoop Dreams. Of course his raves could be just as powerful. Ebert was a major champion of the Chicago-set documentary Hoop Dreams, one of the many tiny films that got attention largely because he spoke up for it.

An incredible moment captured on the DVD for Better Luck Tomorrow, the 2002 teenage crime adventure that was the big breakout for future Fast Five director Justin Lin. That setting, at Park City's Library screening room, is a familiar one for Sundance attendees, and contentious post-screening Q&As have been known to happen. But it's incredible to watch someone as smart as Ebert lash out with such vigor-- and obvious how much the filmmakers appreciated it.

Ebert gets Siskel to change his mind. An unembeddable video clip, but worth the click-- while reviewing 1996's Broken Arrow, Siskel starts off positive and then reverses course when Ebert convinces him to give a thumbs down.

Siskel and Ebert explain what it's like to go to the movies as a critic. As Eric wrote when we first posted this, this is an incredible time capsule and yet another example of how these two different personalities contributed to the alchemy of At the Movies.

An oral history of Siskel & Ebert. Not in the man's own words, but a great breakdown of how the show came together, with excellent personal stories-- the anecdote at the very beginning about Ebert attempting to visit the cockpit on the plane is fantastic.

If your favorite moments of the show were when Siskel and Ebert got genuinely testy with each other-- another key element in what it made such a hit-- this is the video for you.

A personal remembrance of At the Movies. Written when the show went off the air, years after Ebert had ceased appearing onscreen, this piece by Tim Gomez is beautifully written and really captures the way Siskel and Ebert were crucial for so many budding cinephiles.

Ebert's Top 10 films of the last decade. After cancer had taken away his jaw and the ability to speak, Ebert turned to the Internet and flourished, churning out reviews at an astonishing rate and continuing to seek out under seen films and championing them. This top 10 is a great example of his idiosyncratic tastes-- Synecdoche, New York was his favorite movie of the decade, on a list that also included Juno and Ramin Bahrani's tiny Chop Shop.

Roger Ebert saw the future. Of course, it was no surprise that Ebert took to the Internet so well. Check out how he predicted VOD with scary accuracy all the way back in 1987.

2010 Esquire profile. As he braved his way through cancer, Ebert was remarkably open about the experience, and this profile by Chris Jones is an incredible, up-close portrait of the man and how he was changed by his illness.

"I do not fear death." This piece has been passed around a lot since yesterday, and with good reason-- Ebert's thoughtful musings on a death he realized could be imminent are powerful and comforting.

"A leave of presence." His final blog post, and one that contains a remarkable amount of hope. It's heartbreaking to realize that he never got to accomplish "what I've always fantasized about doing: reviewing only the movies I want to review."

Why not end with yet another example of Ebert's incredible cultural ubiquity: the entire episode of The Critic about Siskel & Ebert.

"On this day of reflection I say again, thank you for going on this journey with me. I'll see you at the movies.

Those were the final words Roger Ebert wrote in what became his final post at his indispensable blog for the Chicago Sun-Times, the paper where he worked as a critic for more than 45 years. Today the Sun-Times announced that he passed away at the age of 70, just two day after publicly revealing that cancer had returned to his body, and announcing what he called a "leave of presence" from full-time reviewing.

Ebert was one of the country's most famous film critics, if not the most famous, thanks to the long-running At the Movies, where he and Gene Siskel would banter and fight over the week's releases for decades. The show continued on even after Siskel's death, and even after Ebert's first battle with cancer, which led to the removal of his jaw and rendered him unable to speak. But even when he was no longer a weekly presence on millions of TV sets, Ebert remained vital and perhaps smarter than ever online, maintaining an active Twitter feed and the aforementioned blog, where he wrote weekly reviews and engaged in all kinds of topics that wouldn't cross the minds of many traditional critics. He enraged the Internet when he dared to argue that video games weren't art… but he also kept the conversation going. In his final post, he even dropped this hint: "Gamers beware, I am even thinking about a movie version of a video game or mobile app. Once completed, you can engage me in debate on whether you think it is art."

He remained one of the most important living critics until his final day. He did more than anyone to popularize the art of film criticism, as argued perfectly in this wonderful piece. He is gone far too soon. He will be missed in a way we probably don't even yet understand.

For another excellent piece on Ebert and his incredible flourish on the Internet, read Esquire's profile from 2010.

Roger Ebert is not retiring. He’s not giving up, and he’s not complaining. He’s just going to take a few steps back and review less movies in order to devote more attention to his health. The beloved critic announced earlier this week in a lengthy and touching blog post that his doctors have discovered more cancer and are aggressively fighting it with radiation. He’s hopeful, but given his first-hand knowledge, he knows writing between two hundred and three hundred reviews a year simply isn’t possible, especially given all the other plans he has.

As much as Ebert’s message was one of sadness, it was also one of hope. He’s planning to embark on a Kickstarter campaign to relaunch At The Movies, and he’s redoing his official website to bring aboard more writers. Add that to the documentary about his life several high profile filmmakers are currently working on and the bigger release movies he’s still planning to write and we should continue seeing plenty of the famous journalist, which is the way it should be.

Ebert might not be the most physically imposing man in the world, but he’s been a fighter, both with his opinions and his immune system, for the entirety of his life. No doubt he will scrap and claw with a vengeance during his struggle. Selfishly, I hope he pauses as much as he can from that battle to give us some more great insights on movies.

Get well soon, Roger.

We’re going to cover two distinctly different stories here, about two film critics headed in opposite directions. On the one hand you have Roger Ebert, the most well known and perhaps most beloved film critic of all time. On the other hand you have Armond White, film criticism’s equivalent of an internet troll.

We’ve done our best to ignore Armond over the past few months, since the attention he craves (and which we foolishly gave him at one point) only seems to fuel more bad behavior, but in this instance we just can’t overlook his latest round of trollish behavior so, I’ll attempt to balance it out with a more positive film critic example in Ebert with the promise that you won’t see any further free publicity for White any time soon.

Roger Ebert’s New Television Chin

Let’s start with Roger Ebert, who in just about any scenario deserves to go first. Ebert went through a battle with cancer several years ago, and while he survived, it cost him not only the power of speech, but left him disfigured when doctors were forced to remove his lower jaw. Though he could no longer appear on television Ebert found a way to stay vibrant and relevant, becoming deeply involved in the online world through his blogs and through regular updates on twitter.

As a fan of his work on the outside looking in, it seemed to me as though there was little hope that his situation would improve, and that he’d be permanently confined to twitter. But that all changed today. Though Ebert will probably never regain the full power of speech he has now been given back his rakish good looks. He has a new chin.

In a blog post from Ebert today he discusses the two-year process he went through to find the right prosthesis. The device fits over his lower face, neck, and from a distance passes muster. It will enable Roger to appear on his new television show, a series which most had assumed he’d only work on in the background. But you can’t keep a good film critic down. He explains, “It will be used in a medium shot of me working in my office, and will be a pleasant reminder of the person I was for 64 years. Symbolically, it's as if my illness never happened and, hey, here I still am, on the show with these new kids. When people see the "Roger's Office" segment, they'll notice my voice more than my appearance.”

During the two years it took to make the prosthesis, Roger says he’s accepted his appearance as it really is, without the prosthetic. Because of that, he doesn’t plan to wear it anywhere except on the show. That’s alright, as long as it gets him back on television. We’re rooting for you Roger!

Armond’s Excuse: People Who Hate Him Are Racists

On the other hand there’s Armond White, who almost certainly will never be on television, and at this rate it’s kind of amazing that he’s employed at all. Of White, Ebert once said, “I am forced to conclude that White is, as charged, a troll.” He says that because of Armond’s long and well documented history of publishing suspiciously disingenuous opinions as a way to garner attention for himself. It seems certain that almost none of what Armond has to say about the films he reviews in any way reflects his real opinions, they’re crafted simply to gain attention, and perhaps nearly as bad most of the time what he says doesn’t make any sense.

Now in what is almost without question his most desperate and pathetic grab for attention yet, White has launched a defense of himself by playing the race card. He claims he’s disliked, by fellow New York Film Critic’s Circle members at least, because he’s black. Slashfilm uncovered the following video in which, during an interview with Sirius XM’s Ron Bennington. Armond says of film critics and fellow New York Film Critics Circle members J. Hoberman and Lisa Schwartzbuam: “I do think that part of that not liking me is that I’m the only black man in the room.”

I’d never recommend anyone read anything Armond White writes, much less watch him speak, but here’s the video just in case you don’t want to take my word for it:

He goes further and seems to be attempting to accuse the entire New York Film Critics Circle (of which our own Katey Rich is a member) of racism. In the next video he says, “You’ve got to consider, The New York Film Critics Circle has been around for 76 years and in its entire history there have only been two black people in it? And I’m one of them? And I’ve got enemies, not because of anything I’ve done to someone, but simply because I’m there.”

It’s worth noting that when I called out White for his questionable reviewing earlier this year, the New York Film Critics Circle seemed to be one of the few groups willing to defend him. Amid calls for the critics’ organization to remove him, they’ve somewhat inexplicably stuck by him. His decision to attack them now would seem to be, at best, unwise. Like everything he does, it seems crafted simply to get him more attention, with no thought to the consequences of doing so.

This set is iconic. The seats are a dark color, and there are rows and rows of them, and the walls behind them are a mix of blue and purple. A balcony hangs over the men's heads, and against the walls are various plants, likely fake. When you see the two from behind, one pudgy and the other bald and skinny with a long face, the screen is framed by gorgeous woodwork lined with tiny yellow lights. The lights are dimmed and we see the men watching fragmented clips, pre-approved for television, to give context to what they’re about to say.

I watch this with my step-dad. His name is Bob, and I’m nine years old. My mom is in the kitchen, cooking a meal that I’ve expressed my distaste for a thousand times: corned beef and potatoes; she never listens. Bob watches intently, and because he does, I do too. The men, one named Gene Siskel, the other Roger Ebert, are Chicago film critics, but right now, I only know them as the two guys on the TV who talk about movies. I’m especially interested today because they’re talking about D2: The Mighty Ducks, a sequel to a movie that I watch at least seven times a week on videocassette.

Two thumbs down.

Ebert is wearing a light blue vest with a white dress shirt under it and a grey blazer. Siskel is wearing a black turtleneck with a brown blazer. “The entire film is shot like a commercial,” Ebert tells the camera. He goes on to talk about the contradiction that the movie presents; it displays anti-corporate themes but is essentially a commercial for the actual Mighty Ducks hockey team. Siskel agrees but gives the movie moderate praise. “It’s the best film on today’s show, but that isn’t saying much.”

They rarely like the movies that I like, but that isn’t the point. And to be completely honest, I’m unsure of the point at this age. Bob never goes to see these movies; my mom isn’t a fan of leaving the house, and even if he did, the ones that these men approve of are rarely the ones he catches on videocassette. In theory, I’m sure he’d like to, but my mom’s more a fan of romantic comedies than she is of Bridges of Madison County. So watching the show seems pointless, but we do it anyway.

I cringe as I fork a potato covered in corned beef and place the soggy thing into my mouth. Bob is quiet, as he always is. His dark black hair is peppered with strands of grey, and his moustache is the same. He’s much lighter than I am, and my family tends to give him a hard time for it. He’s a white man in a family of loud and sometimes troubled Mexicans. He met my mom at work, an engineering company where he was a project manager and she worked in document control. When my parents’ marriage was close to its sour end, they began dating; my dad had checked out long before, choosing pills and booze over his wife and three kids.

It was an awkward transition, though. Bob never became a father to anyone. My sister and brother, fifteen and thirteen years my elder, were far too old to take on a new dad. My mom, hell bent on raising me independently, distanced herself from Bob during the first few years of the divorce, only allowing him to sleep over on weekends. So our relationship, when we formed one after he married my mom, became a passive one; he would express his troubles with my behavior to my mom, and she would filter them through her own parenting system, handing down critiques to me as she saw fit.

And so we’re here, watching two middle-aged white men review mostly movies I’m uninterested in. They review Pulp Fiction, and I couldn’t care less. They review Major League 2, and although it looks funny, I pay more attention to my juice box. Even so, I watch the show until the very end, until Ebert closes out with the line he uses each episode: “Until next time, the balcony is closed.” The credits roll, and I finally stand up out of my seat and dump the extra food on my plate into the trashcan, doing my best to hide the scraps from my mother. The news comes on next, and I migrate back to my bedroom.

The version of the show that Bob and I watch is just one year younger than I am. It was born in 1986 and then, was titled Siskel & Ebert at the Movies, simple but noticeably lengthy. Now-defunct production company Buena Vista picked it up after an earlier version of the show aired on PBS for eleven years. A couple of years after being picked up, the show’s name would get changed to the much more minimalistic Siskel & Ebert. This is the show that we watch on Sunday afternoons during dinner. It comes on at 6:00pm and lasts for thirty minutes.

The set-up stayed relatively the same throughout the years. The men introduce themselves and the movies they’ll be reviewing. A review consists of a brief synopsis followed by the opinion of the critic who gives the summary and then some debate (or not, depending on the two opinions). Other segments included a section where the two recommended videos that were being released that week and the “Wagging Finger of Shame” segment, which criticized films that were not pre-screened for critics, a trend that began in the 90s when studios had a movie on their hands that they knew was subpar.

The show hit a tragic roadblock in early 1999 when Gene Siskel died after complications from a surgery to remove a brain tumor. It went off the air for several weeks, and the sudden death seemed almost fake to me. There was that man on that screen, the one I had been watching with Bob for five years, and now he was gone. It didn’t make any sense until Ebert returned to the show alongside different guests each week.

It felt like that too. None of the critics, including the one who would eventually replace Siskel, shared the same dynamic with Ebert. The two men adored each other, so much so that they felt absolutely no reservations when it came to telling the other that he was a doofus for having the opinion he had. They bickered constantly, on the show and off, and there were rumors that their on-screen relationship mimicked their off-screen relationship. Ebert would later say that he loved Siskel, and that was the only way they were able to communicate with one another.

The man who would replace Siskel was Richard Roeper, a colleague of Ebert’s and a frequent guest on the new At the Movies. Much younger than Ebert and Siskel, he brought the same combative personality that Siskel brought to the table but without any of the underlying compassion. With Siskel and Ebert, you could tell that the two would shut off the cameras and continue talking about the flicks. With Roeper on-board, it became apparent that the show was just that: a television show. In 2000, it was rebranded Ebert and Roeper at the Movies and later Ebert and Roeper.

Quickly, the show regained its notoriety, and with a permanent co-host, Ebert’s trademark (really, trademarked) Two Thumbs Up system once again became highly sought after. In the years of Siskel, “Two Thumbs Up” meant an extra few thousand butts in seats on opening week, and studios would print the phrase on their movie posters the instant they found out. It was on video boxes and later, DVD boxes. Even if only one critic offered approval of the film, studios would take what they could get and print the phrase “Thumbs Up” on their boxes and posters and attribute it, in small print, to the critic who gave it. People began caring about the thumbs again when Roeper signed on, but those glory days were short-lived.

In 2002, Roger Ebert was diagnosed with thyroid cancer. After a short absence and some radiation treatment, he was able to return to the show, but in 2006, the cancer resurfaced in his jaw and forced an emergency surgery that would cause permanent damage to Ebert’s voice. There was hope that he would return, though, as he quickly resumed his weekly review schedule writing for the Chicago Sun-Times. In late 2006, while packing up to leave the hospital after another surgery, his carotid artery burst, and he nearly bled to death. Part of his jaw was removed and a hole was left in his throat. He has not been able to talk since, or for that matter drink and eat normal food.

Although Ebert would eventually return to his job at the Chicago Sun-Times, he would never return to the television show he started with his best friend so many years before. Instead, Roeper would be forced to do what Ebert did just years before he replaced Siskel: sit beside guest after guest each week, attempting to recreate a feeling that had been lost on the show since before he signed on.

Bob and I watched most of this unfold from the bar room that lines the kitchen in my mother’s house. I was nine years old, then thirteen, then twenty. I was learning multiplication tables then the wonders of girls then the reality of adulthood. We never talked about the tragedy of it all; we just continued to watch the show. Dinner was sometimes better than other days, and my own taste in movies was changing with the times. I liked the better ones now, and I was finding myself agreeing more and more with the critics. But by the time Ebert was gone, I had moved out of the house, and Bob and I no longer watched the show together.

There are things I wish I knew about Bob. I wish I knew how many girlfriends he had before he met my mom. I wish I knew if he smoked weed when he was at Purdue sleeping in a bunk bed in a shitty dorm. I wish I knew how he became a Republican and whether or not he believes in God, and if he does, if it’s in the same way that my mother does, blindly and wholly; I’ve never seen him pray, and I’ve only him cry once, when his dad died of massive heart attack. We all saw it coming; it was just that time, and I went upstairs while he was packing his suitcase to head back to Indiana, and I hugged him from behind and told him I was sorry. He didn’t say a word, but I could hear sobbing. I wish I knew how he fell in love with my mom, such an unlikely pair, him with his college education, quiet personality and shelves and shelves of books, her with her bad grammar, three kids, and black and white Lucille Ball pictures.

But these are things I never thought to ask him, and instead, I was in Ithaca, NY, living with my girlfriend Jackie, trying to decide between a transition to grad school or a trip back to California and a job that I hate. It had been fifteen years since I started watching Siskel & Ebert with Bob. In April 2008, Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune took over Ebert’s spot permanently.

When Roeper was unable to come to an agreement with Disney regarding his contract, he quit, and Disney took over, giving the show a complete makeover. It was re-titled, simply, At the Movies, and its new hosts were meant to represent and play to a younger generation, kids who had no idea and who didn’t care about Gene Siskel or Roger Ebert. There was Ben Lyons, a TV personality who worked for the E! Network. He had little to no experience with film and film theory. In fact, he had never even published a single film review. There was also Ben Mankiewicz, a man whose experience presenting movies on Turner Classic Movies could in no way out-shadow Lyons’ incompetence.

I watched the show once and couldn’t get through it. It hurt me to see a company drag something that meant so much to me through the mud.

Around that time, I began frequenting movie blogs and news websites in an attempt to find voices similar to that of Roger Ebert, always intelligent but never one to be a show-off about it. These sites included big names like Collider, Coming Soon, SlashFilm, and most of all Cinema Blend.

It had been a long time since Bob and I watched the show together. By then, he had lost his job, attempted to start his own internet business, failed at the internet business and returned to managing for an engineering company. His mother was frail and constantly sick, and he smoked more than he used to. On weekends, he would help my mom maintain their house in Monrovia, CA, and when they weren’t doing that, they were sitting in their garage watching TV on an old television set that he mounted to the wall above his worktable. By then, I had quit college and gone back, moved out of the house to an apartment in Fullerton to be closer to school, graduated college, moved into an apartment with Jackie and moved across the country to get away from everything.

During my stay in Ithaca, on a whim, I applied for a job writing for an online movie news blog. It wasn’t much, a few news postings a week, perhaps a few invites to screenings and junkets, a review here and a review there. It was a news writer position at Cinema Blend. The editor of the site, Josh Tyler, read my writing sample and emailed me back almost immediately. I did a few test news postings, and I was hired.

The first movie I reviewed was called Moon, a small indie sci-fi film by new director Duncan Jones, and it starred Sam Rockwell. When writing the review, I did my best to find my inner-Ebert. The man did so well at sounding conversational while also displaying a deep understanding of the film he just watched. The review was published, and the first thing I did was email it to Bob.

Late last year, Disney attempted to once again revive At The Movies by taking it back to its more credible roots. They hired A.O. Scott of the NY Times and guest-critic veteran Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune. The Bens were fired. The show felt whole again. The two men not only brought back the literate side of the show but were also able to discuss less-than-quality flicks in an entertaining manner. It seemed as though the show was back for good. That’s not how the world works, though, as Disney announced the shows cancellation yesterday. It will go off air forever in August.

When Bob read my first review, he didn’t say much. His response was a calm “cool.” Not much else. And I don’t expect much else. Our relationship has never transcended this simple nature. There was always a basic understanding between us: he would support me as a father would, financially and morally, but he would never tread on the foundation that my mother created or attempt to replace the hole my father had left. We rarely played catch when I was little. He never gave me “the talk.” He wasn’t the type to instill any sort of alpha male tendencies in me, never moaned or groaned when I decided to play tennis instead of football or when I decided to study English instead of Business.

What we did, every Sunday, was watch Siskel & Ebert. I’m still not entirely sure why. Despite that, each week, I send him every bit of news I’ve posted on Cinema Blend, and whenever there’s time for a movie review, I send him that too. It’s not much, and I almost never get a response from him, but my mom tells me that every time he reads something that I write, she watches him sit at his computer. He smiles lightly when he doesn’t know she’s watching.

Precious may not be considered a front runner at the Academy Awards, but it proved to be a strong contender at the 25th Film Independent Spirit Awards. As reported by THR, not only did it win Best Feature, but Best Director (Lee Daniels), Best First Screenplay (Geoffrey Fletcher), Best Female Lead (Gabourey Sidibe) and Best Supporting Female (Mo’Nique). Daniels joked when he accepted his award, “Kathryn Bigelow's not here tonight, I am.”

Crazy Heart’s Jeff Bridges, on the other hand, nabbed the award for Best Actor, which is likely to be the last stepping stone to an Oscar win. Then there’s Woody Harrelson who stepped up to the podium for the first time this awards season. “I don't know how you distinguish one performance from another -- it's never felt right to me to declare a winner." He added, "Of course now, it feels a little more right."

(500) Days of Summer fans will be pleased to know the film earned Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber the Best Screenplay award. An Education turned its sole nomination into a win in the Best Foreign Film category and so did Humpday earning Lynn Shelton the John Cassavetes Award.

Other than statue presentations, the ceremony also included something the Oscars will not, live musical performances. If you’re dying to see Bridges perform “Falling and Flying” from Crazy Heart, keep your fingers crossed his act at the Spirit Awards will pop up on YouTube sometime soon. Roger Ebert also received a standing ovation when the annual award presented to an emerging documentary filmmaker was renamed the Chaz & Roger Ebert Truer Than Fiction Award. The $25,000 grant went to Bill Ross and Turner Ross for 45365.