Customer Reviews

Roger Ebert's Four-Star Reviews 1967-2007

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

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.")

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.

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 .

if you want to watch movies and don't want to waste your time on bad ones, use this book as a reference guide.. Roger ebert is is bang on 99% of the time.. excellent book.. recommend this book highly..

the book came quickly and in perfect condition. I would order from this business again. Thanks for the great service.

I purchased this as one of my Christmas gifts for my wife. My wife is very pleased that I got her what she wanted. So I am very happy that I bought this book!

Roger Ebert is the champion of the underdog-ie. films no one sees or would want to see except for him and since at least 70% of the movies reviewed in this book falls into this category it would take six reviews by me to list them but how about "Gates of Heaven" a documentary about a pet cemetary which Mr Ebert feels is about the dogged elusiveness of the American Dream-this would bring pause to someone who goes to a pet cemetary to bury Fido and stop to ponder the elusiveness of the American dream. Could this be the movie review that won Mr Ebert the pulitzer prize? Maybe.

Sometimes a four star review can be a head-scratcher. "Funny Girl" is a great example. He hated the story-hated the scenery-hated the photography-hated the direction-hated the length-hated the co-stars but he loved Barbra Streisand. This must have been the reason for the 4-stars-but I must take issue with you for that Mr Ebert-Barbra Streisand deserves a lot more than just four stars.

Another howler is his review of the movie version of "Godspell" This was based on the off-broadway show which portrayed the last 7 days in the life of Christ with all the actors dressed clown-like. Jesus had baggy pants and a superman t-shirt. The show was a hit because it didnt pretend it was anything but entertainment and nothing profound. The movie was so bad it was pulled out of theatres as soon as it was delivered. The jokey dialogue and luke-warm songs which were a hit on stage were now performed by the singing, dancing clowns against every well-known landmark in NYC.
The actors portraying Jesus and Judas were called that, and since it didn't matter the rest of the actors playing the disciples used their own names as their character names. This was the main impetus for Mr Eberts 4 star review of the film. he thought it was profound. And Mr Ebert finding that profound-now that's what i call profound!

But i have to admit these last two reviews were early on in Mr Eberts career and he has become a fair-minded and well-respected critic--but he still LOVES those movies where the elusive American Dream is still not to be found in a pet cemetary.