Roger Ebert's Four-Star Reviews 1967-2007 [Bargain Price] [Paperback]

Roger Ebert (Author)

Product Details

• Paperback: 944 pages
• Publisher: Andrews McMeel Publishing (February 1, 2008)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0740771795
• ASIN: B002PJ4JQ0
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6.1 x 2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 2.8 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 4.7 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (7 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,388,000 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Roger Ebert is the Pulitzer Prize-winning film critic from the Chicago Sun-Times. His reviews are syndicated to more than 200 newspapers in the United States and Canada. The American Film Institute and the School of the Art Institute of Chicago have awarded him honorary degrees and the Online Film Critics Society named his Web site (rogerebert.com) the best online movie review site

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Showcase for Ebert's Genius, August 26, 2010

By 

R. Sprich (Boston, MA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Roger Ebert's Four-Star Reviews 1967-2007 (Paperback)

Roger Ebert is clearly the dean of U.S. film critics (Pulitzer Prize, Star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.) He brings an amazing base of knowledge to his reviews as well as a child-like sense of wonder when he experiences cinematic innovations. The book of his Four Star Reviews brings together his discerning comments on the best-of-the-best movies over a 40-year period. This is a must-read for any serious student of film.
It was my good fortune to study with Roger Ebert at the U. Va. Film Festival.
He's a passionate film lover and a great teacher. (Check out his full-length commentary on "Casablanca.")

15 of 19 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars One of the few popular critics who goes beyond the mere script., July 1, 2010

By 

Samuel Chell (Kenosha,, WI United States) - See all my reviews
(TOP 100 REVIEWER)    (HALL OF FAME REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Roger Ebert's Four-Star Reviews 1967-2007 (Paperback)

Look at any number of journalistic movie reviews, and more often than not the reviewer's discussion concerns the script, or "story," rather than the movie experience, or "discourse." If you as the reader have the feeling that the reviewer could just as well be describing a novel or play, more than likely he's not equipped to do the admittedly challenging job of evaluating cinema, perhaps the most complex, most realistic, and potentially the most powerful medium for "representing" reality, or a complex "living" world.

The majority of movies are "dumbed down" to reach the widest possible audience, thus guaranteeing its sponsors a profitable return on what is usually an investment running into many millions of dollars (even as far back as 1960, a film like "Cleopatra" cost its makers over 40 million). Each picture is a "formulaic" commodity produced by a mini-corporation (as we've become acutely conscious ever since the interminable lists of credits following movies lke "Star Wars")--an expensive operation, or company, that is compelled to follow predictable, codified patterns if only to satisfy shareholders' expectations (and insistence on a profit). First, there was Syd Field's ubiquitous manual with its gospel-like litany of rules governing any screen-play, from the number of climaxes to their precise positioning; next came the computer programs for writing screenplays, most using a "fill-in-the-blank approach following the same reductive pattern of the "hero's journey," as extrapolated from Joseph Campbell's "Man of a Thousand Faces." Thousands of screenplay hopefuls have been taught the same way--the scenes to begin with, the importance and placement of the indispensable 'plot points," the kind of closure guaranteed to send the audience out into of the theater more blinded by reality than ever but no less desirous of seeking another temporary escape. That's the business of the dream factory, and it would appear the reviewer's role has been reduced to little more than helping the reader decide if two dreams--the one that's been fabricated and the one that's awaiting illustration in the consumer's psyche--match up.

Ebert knows the tradition and forms of cinema, and he's fully aware of its great potential. He also appreciates the challenge, within such huge commercial enterprises, of ever achieving a result resembling genuine spontaneity, serendipity, life. Not that movies should be servile "imitations of life" (aka "reality TV"), but at their best they can be informed, insightful, life-affirming. Optimally, film is both "truth 24 frames per second" (Godard) and "a ribbon of dreams" (Orson Welles)--Hemingway's "lie that tells the truth," albeit on a grand, public scale. Ebert is able to show how films like "Citizen Kane" combine sophisticated technique and technology with individual imagination and creativity to produce images filling a space that is best seen as a "screen-mirror." It tantalizes with images offing vicarious experiences; it provokes with images of startling self-recognition. It is at once the most individualized and the most archetypal of expressions, and we are served best by those rare films that affect us equally and simultaneously on both levels.

What impresses me about Ebert is his ability to fully "get" the unique importance of "mavericks" like Robert Altman, and the sheer joy that any serious student of the cinema (and of life) must derive from viewing films as spontaneous and even extemporaneous yet imaginative and inspired as "Nashville" and "Prairie Home Companion." The images of these films remain indelibly imprinted on the viewer's "mindscreen" for many years, even decades, after they've left the celluloid screen. And therein lies the true brilliance and importance of film--not in cookie-cutter scripts, more formulas calculated to extract dollars from the masses, more and more special effects--but in playful and resourceful, informed and imaginative representations that simply refuse to be corrupted by the technology and business behind their making.

Ebert at heart is a maverick and a teacher. Don't let that thumbs up / thumbs down business fool you. He's capable of sniffing out virtually every phony frame in a film and directing your attention to what is most illuminating, most human, most worth your precious time.

22 of 35 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars it's not about agreeing with ROGER, August 29, 2008

By 

B. Lafave "parisconcert" (lakeland , fl) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Roger Ebert's Four-Star Reviews 1967-2007 (Paperback)

as it says on the jacket to one of ROGER's annual film reference guides , it's like having a conversation with a good friend . when i was younger , i saw eye to eye with MR. EBERT the lion's share of the time . as i grew older , a greater dispairity of opinion between myself and ROG began to occur . i noticed he had a strong disposition in favor of film with a very liberal agenda . that's hardly the point though . not only would it be profoundly boring if we always agreed , i'd lose . i'd lose one of the very best sources of film appreciation to which i could avail myself . oh , many is the time i wondered who slipped him an envelope to grant a good review to a film i though haughty or pretentious or heavy handed or crumby or stupid . but at the end of the week or month or however long i would go without reading ROGER , i knew i was not utilizing my favorite film critic . hell , we seldom agree on horror or comedy movies . who cares . he's still the man . he's put himself out there for public consumption for 40 years now . when he's on (and it's often) he's simply a great author . and he writes to meet deadlines . amazing body of work really . enthralling as a matter of fact . ***** . oh , and he's not watchin' the DVD like we are .