NEW LIST: Roger Ebert's Great Movies

[Yoda]

As a small tribute to the late Roger Ebert, I've added his Great Movies list--366 entries in all, though some encompass more than one film--to the Lists area:

Roger Ebert's Great Movies (http://www.movieforums.com/lists/roger-eberts-great-movies.html)

[Skepsis93]

Awesome. Nice to have a new list and a fantastic tribute.

:up:

[Skepsis93]

The Red Shoes is on there twice, by the way.

[Yoda]

Thanks; I've already had to merge a bunch of entries based on slight differences in the titles, and I'm sure there are a couple of others on there, too. He wrote about some a second time, and I guess I didn't catch all of the duplicates.

You might have to resubmit if you checked off The Red Shoes and it ends up being the entry I remove in a moment.

[donniedarko]

Definently a really cool addition, I'll have to check back to make sure I got everything, but this a great addition to the lists. Makes me miss Roger even more.

[honeykid]

If you're looking to tick a few films off this list and you don't know it, take a look at Victim.

[Guaporense]

That's currently the best list on this forum.

[Harry Lime]

Funny. I was actually going to recommend this. Good call, Yoda.

[mastermetal777]

I'm surprised at how much of Roger's great movies list I've seen so far. Granted, I'm still missing a butt load of films, but it's nice to know that I've liked most of what he's enjoyed.

[Harry Lime]

Wrong Diva.

Should be: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082269/

Also, "The Films of Buster Keaton" is kind of a cheat, no? Do you need the list? It's not all of his films that were featured.

Edit: Vengeance is Mine should be: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079182/

[Cobpyth]

Awesome! I used this list already in a word document, but now I can use it on here with the checking system.

Thanks!

[rauldc14]

Interesting list to say the least. Unfortunately I've only seen 18%, most were mark-offs from other lists as well. And when can one honestly check off "All of Buster Keaton's films". Has anybody really seen all of them?

[The Gunslinger45]

Interesting list to say the least. Unfortunately I've only seen 18%, most were mark-offs from other lists as well. And when can one honestly check off "All of Buster Keaton's films". Has anybody really seen all of them?

I have only seen The General myself.

[The Gunslinger45]

Either way I like the new list addition. Adds a lot of new movies for me to pick from.

[jiraffejustin]

I've seen most of the Keaton features and shorts that Ebert had listed for his entry, so I'll go ahead and add a check for myself there.

[honeykid]

Wrong Diva.

Should be: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082269/

Ah. That makes more sense.

[Yoda]

Wrong Diva.

Should be: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082269/

Also, "The Films of Buster Keaton" is kind of a cheat, no? Do you need the list? It's not all of his films that were featured.

Edit: Vengeance is Mine should be: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079182/
Thanks. I'll remove the Keaton one and check the others. A good part of the process is automated, so it sometimes matches existing films in the database. More often it creates new ones based on minute title differences, though.

[wintertriangles]

Wrong Diva.

Should be: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082269/Hehe just watched this for my film course, check.

[TheUsualSuspect]

A list like this just proves to me that I need to see more movies.

[teeter_g]

I saw this list yesterday and thus added many more movies to my watch list. :) Makes me happy to have more movies.

[Yoda]

Okay, all done.

FYI, both those are listed on his official site as 2008, weirdly enough. Probably because he wrote them then, as confusing as that is.

[Brodinski]

366 entries in all

Damn... I need to get cracking.

[rauldc14]

I've only seen 66. 300 left to go. Yowzers

[rauldc14]

Hopefully the lists can keep coming. I enjoy watching what others like and comparing my film tastes to theirs.

[Powdered Water]

Awesome list, thanks!

[Sexy Celebrity]

You know, I loved Roger Ebert, but I find all this memorializing for him totally annoying for some reason. He was a great writer and a great man, but I don't think he was the answer man when it came to movies.

[mark f]

You "think" too much, but you say you have no choice, so...

[CelluloidChild]

You know, I loved Roger Ebert, but I find all this memorializing for him totally annoying for some reason. He was a great writer and a great man, but I don't think he was the answer man when it came to movies.

Thankfully, there is no 'answer man' when it comes to movies or anything else. If that's what you're looking for, you'll be perpetually frustrated and annoyed.

Roger Ebert saw and critiqued a very large number of films, including a huge span in terms of date and country of production. As others have stated, I don't always agree with his criticism, but he - with his reviews and lists like this - do provide as good a guide to film as any other contemporary film critic I have read.

[Sexy Celebrity]

You "think" too much, but you say you have no choice, so...

It's not like that. We have no choice in what we come up with, but what we come up with is based on whatever's in our system (brain), like a robot that can only do or say what it's programmed to say.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Thankfully, there is no 'answer man' when it comes to movies or anything else. If that's what you're looking for, you'll be perpetually frustrated and annoyed.

Roger Ebert saw and critiqued a very large number of films, including a huge span in terms of date and country of production. As others have stated, I don't always agree with his criticism, but he - with his reviews and lists like this - do provide as good a guide to film as any other contemporary film critic I have read.

You're right. There is no answer man. And Roger was just very prolific and had a vast knowledge of cinema.

I'm not sure what bothers me. Perhaps I'm a bit shocked by the reaction he's received. Maybe I feel sorry for Gene Siskel. Did Gene get this much attention - I can't remember? Of course, Roger was luckier than him for living longer and seeing more stuff....

[CelluloidChild]

I'm not sure what bothers me. Perhaps I'm a bit shocked by the reaction he's received. Maybe I feel sorry for Gene Siskel. Did Gene get this much attention - I can't remember? Of course, Roger was luckier than him for living longer and seeing more stuff....

My cinematic knowledge and tastes were admittedly much less developed (I still have a long way to go!) when I used to watch Siskel and Ebert on their weekly show.

But I do recall having a greater affinity to Siskel's tastes than Ebert's. They were a hugely entertaining pair, though.

Over the years, probably due to my tastes becoming more discerning, I grew to have a lot more respect for Ebert. Who's to say how I or anyone else would have regarded Siskel's reviews that never happened due to his earlier demise?

[linespalsy]

I don't think I ever watched Siskel & Ebert nor did I pay Ebert much attention after that. That's a pretty good list though.

[Sexy Celebrity]

What annoyed me about Roger Ebert was he was so moralistic. Like with horror movies -- "It's just a bunch of teenagers getting killed. So dark! So depressing! Young people are coming to these movies and learning that life is full of horrors and monsters are out to get you and you shouldn't plan for the future because YOU WILL BE KILLED." He couldn't just critique the plot or how the movie plays out or something -- he had to place his personal feelings on it. And that's OKAY, but sometimes, I think, he went overboard with his personal feelings. I don't blame him for it, but sometimes, when he reviews movies he finds bad, he'll say something like, "Why would anyone come to see this movie? Did they not see that there were other FOUR STAR movies (which he rated) playing this week at the theater? Why didn't they see them?"

And it's like... bitch... people have their reasons for not seeing certain four star movies. Maybe they don't want to be put to sleep by them.

This stuff about Roger Ebert bothers me. He liked to basically call people stupid if they didn't see the movies he gave four stars to. He liked to always attach his biased opinion on a lot of things and make it sound like he truly knew what he was talking about - as if it was the truth.

And certainly sometimes a horror film can be truly awful and dark -- like the last Saw movie I watched and reviewed. I felt like Roger Ebert trashing that film. But that movie... I can understand why people would want to watch it, and I found it entertaining, but the deaths were depressing and it ultimately did dissatisfy me, especially since it was the last Saw. I expected a better story.

[CelluloidChild]

What annoyed me about Roger Ebert was he was so moralistic. Like with horror movies -- [I]

He liked to always attach his biased opinion on a lot of things and make it sound like he truly knew what he was talking about - as if it was the truth.



I don't watch many horror movies (not because I think they're inferior or not worthwhile or something like that, but for other reasons) so I also tend to ignore reviews of horror movies - therefore I can't comment on that.

In terms of having a highly opinionated style, I think you'll find that's true of most professional critics.

[honeykid]

Thankfully, there is no 'answer man' when it comes to movies or anything else.
There speaks a person who's never spent time in my company. :D

[CelluloidChild]

There speaks a person who's never spent time in my company. :D

On this forum alone I've spent enough time with you ;)

And with 52 negative reps so have some others.....

All in good humor (I would hope that would go without saying, but just to be sure, I said it anyway)

[honeykid]

Of course. :)

[Sexy Celebrity]

Of course. :)

You know, Honeykid, Roger Ebert was a big supporter of Whoopi Goldberg. I have read Roger Ebert reviews of Whoopi Goldberg movies and he was always upset at her being in films like Jumpin' Jack Flash, Fatal Beauty, and Burglar because he thought she was so much more deserving of being in better films.

Just so you know that Roger didn't think Whoopi was Satan at all.

Roger liked the black women a lot. That's why he married one.

[honeykid]

Who cares. She's Satan. It has nothing to do with her being an actress, it's to do with her being Satan. :D

[CelluloidChild]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/93/The_Terrorist.jpg

I just watched one of the film's on this list of Ebert's greats, The Terrorist (2000), but wish I hadn't.

It's a pretty lame directorial effort from seasoned Indian cinematographer Santosh Sivan about a 19-year old girl, Malli, on a suicide mission somewhere in Tamil-speaking South Asia. It could be South India; it could be Sri Lanka.

Very early it's clear that the only thing that will maintain the dramatic tension for the running time of 95 minutes is some twist that will make this highly trained and committed girl question her mission. To achieve this, Sivan, who also wrote the script, turns the plot in a ridiculous direction that ruined the film for me.

When Malli arrives from the jungle in the town/city where she is to carry out the suicide bombing, her comrades take her to stay in the home of Vasu, a verbose, inquisitive yet poetic man. Staying with Vasu and his tiny family stirs up in Malli an interest in the wonders and possibilities of life that her militant existence has hitherto denied her. Eventually, Vasu informs Malli that she is pregnant, a fact that had escaped her. So here we have:

Ridiculous point 1: Through flashbacks we realize that the father of Malli's unborn child is a wounded comrade she met lying on the field of battle. She comforted him and, instead of trying to get him to safety, apparently had sex with him. He was promptly discovered by government troops, beaten, and bit into his cyanide capsule to dispose of himself.

Ridiculous point 2: In any realistic scenario, Malli's comrades - who clearly have a sophisticated network - would take her to a safe house for the few days until her mission. This is a girl who has been indoctrinated all her life in the importance of the cause. It is nonsense to believe that, in the run-up to perhaps the movement's most important mission ever, they would take her to a stranger's house. In addition to the nosy Vasu, two dodgy men visiting Malli every day to iron out the details of the suicide bombing runs a much greater risk of being exposed than holing her up in one of their own houses.

This nonsense blows a far bigger hole through Sivan's movie than any bomb could.

The movie's strong points are its often aesthetically pleasing cinematography, all filmed in natural light. Ayesha Dharker is well-cast as Malli, but Sivan overdoes the long, searching close-ups of her beautiful face and haunted eyes.

There are poignant reminders in several scenes that, although these girls and boys are well-versed in death and killing, they are hopelessly naive about many other aspects of life.

These points, however, are far outweighed by the film's many irredeemable weaknesses: ridiculous plot points; the unnecessary use of slow-motion sequences and an oppressively heavy-handed soundtrack that set a nauseatingly melodramatic tone; and highly amateurish overdubbing.

Sivan should stick to cinematography. Maybe he'd be ok as a director with someone else's script, but clearly not his own.

Although the film is obviously geared towards having Malli choose life over death, I have to admit that half-way through I was wishing that she'd just get the horrific deed over with to spare everyone concerned - namely myself - further agony.

After finishing the movie I read Roger Ebert's review and can't disagree with him more. He seems to have misread some plot points and either overlooked, forgiven or succumbed to all sorts of mediocre, or simply poor, film-making (except for much of the cinematography).

I'd be interested in what other MoFo members think of the movie, but I can't recommend that anyone else watch it.

4.5/10

[Tyler1]

Correction to The Butcher/Le Boucher: the year of release was 1970, not 2003.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064106/?ref_=sr_1

[Yoda]

Thanks. All the years were taken directly from Ebert's site automatically, but it appears their site sometimes lists the year of the review rather than the film. No idea why.

[The Gunslinger45]

What annoyed me about Roger Ebert was he was so moralistic. Like with horror movies -- "It's just a bunch of teenagers getting killed. So dark! So depressing! Young people are coming to these movies and learning that life is full of horrors and monsters are out to get you and you shouldn't plan for the future because YOU WILL BE KILLED." He couldn't just critique the plot or how the movie plays out or something -- he had to place his personal feelings on it. And that's OKAY, but sometimes, I think, he went overboard with his personal feelings. I don't blame him for it, but sometimes, when he reviews movies he finds bad, he'll say something like, "Why would anyone come to see this movie? Did they not see that there were other FOUR STAR movies (which he rated) playing this week at the theater? Why didn't they see them?"

And it's like... bitch... people have their reasons for not seeing certain four star movies. Maybe they don't want to be put to sleep by them.

This stuff about Roger Ebert bothers me. He liked to basically call people stupid if they didn't see the movies he gave four stars to. He liked to always attach his biased opinion on a lot of things and make it sound like he truly knew what he was talking about - as if it was the truth.

And certainly sometimes a horror film can be truly awful and dark -- like the last Saw movie I watched and reviewed. I felt like Roger Ebert trashing that film. But that movie... I can understand why people would want to watch it, and I found it entertaining, but the deaths were depressing and it ultimately did dissatisfy me, especially since it was the last Saw. I expected a better story.

Yeah Ebert and horror movies did not go well together. He and Siskel even did a Women in Danger episode of their TV show in which they tried to say slasher films were a sexist response to the women's movement. Which is odd since in the same episode they talk about why they like Halloween.