I've been reading Ebert's movie reviews since the early 80s, buying every one his yearly review compilations. I just visited his website for the first time in a bit and noticed something different about his reviews there. They are shorter than they gave been historically.
I doubt Ebert has less to say about contemporary films than he has those of even the recent past, so I wonder what's going on here? Are the reviews posted on the website edited for length from their original size, which, presumably we will get to read when they are published in next year's compilation?
If, on the other hand, these are the original reviews and Roger has decided to cut his word count, I am a bit disappointed. Moreover, I noticed that I didn't get as much sense from the reviews I read of what
Ebert really thinks about the movies. There were no discussions of directors, or photography, just an idea of what the film was about and some mention of the actors.
Curious. I hope it's not because of health issues. Ebert is a national treasure for film fans and it's way too soon for him to lay down his pen.
Recent discussions in the Movie forum
|Movie Game! Ten Movies Where . . . (June 2016)||249||38 seconds ago|
|Pick One of Two Then Pose Another Pairing....||214||2 hours ago|
|TV Talk||4255||2 hours ago|
|Who Shouldve Won The Oscar-1990s||2||2 hours ago|
|"Star Trek: Beyond"||106||3 hours ago|
|Happy Birthday, Olivia de Havilland!||4||4 hours ago|
|One Degree of Separation - Season Five||3300||7 hours ago|
|Who Shouldve Won The Oscar-1940s||20||7 hours ago|
|★ Return of the World's Worst Discussion Thread...Ever! ★||129||12 hours ago|
|Who Shouldve Won The Oscar-1960s||55||12 hours ago|
|Even More Reviews on the Last Movie You Watched||4513||13 hours ago|
|Harvard tests show that homosexuality is from parental neglect--remeber that when you watch a film about gays or Harvard||123||14 hours ago|