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)||2047||7 minutes ago|
|Does anyone know why Daniel Day-Lewis doesn't act in more films ?||2||20 minutes ago|
|★ Return of the World's Worst Discussion Thread...Ever! ★||1152||23 minutes ago|
|British Detective Series II: International Mystery & Mayhem||672||4 hours ago|
|One Degree of Separation - Season Five||4747||5 hours ago|
|The top ten anything thread||7087||12 hours ago|
|Ben-Hur is a big, expensive flop||13||12 hours ago|
|The movie review thread for people who don't write movie reviews so well||473||12 hours ago|
|Bernard Herrmann Movies Poll & Discussion||85||13 hours ago|
|Alibi Lounge II: Cast Iron||3199||15 hours ago|
|Celebrities that look alike||553||15 hours ago|
|Bette Davis||8||17 hours ago|