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
|Bette Davis||12||17 minutes ago|
|Movie Game! Ten Movies Where . . . (June 2016)||2096||1 hour ago|
|One Degree of Separation - Season Five||4806||3 hours ago|
|Movie Locations||10||3 hours ago|
|Bernard Herrmann Movies Poll & Discussion||94||6 hours ago|
|Alibi Lounge II: Cast Iron||3220||8 hours ago|
|TV Talk||4498||8 hours ago|
|★ Return of the World's Worst Discussion Thread...Ever! ★||1176||8 hours ago|
|Even More Reviews on the Last Movie You Watched||5100||8 hours ago|
|"The Big Short": Quite an eye opener||2||10 hours ago|
|"Star Trek: Beyond"||241||12 hours ago|
|Westerns||508||12 hours ago|