We were all aware that Roger Ebert was a prominent figure in the world of film criticism, but who knew he would become such a hot topic here at Civilian Voices? Our weekend edition begins with Scott's opinion of the man with the world's most powerful thumb… "I think the answer to the vexing question of Ebert's sanity lies in a film's visual eye-candy. If the film has seemingly new and vivid optical shots, Ebert will grace it with four stars, regardless of how bad a movie it is overall. (See reviews of The Cell and Star Wars: Episode I) —scott Reader Troylene is less offended by Ebert's recent reviews than by his choice for a new television co-host…

"Roger Ebert fell off his rocker when Gene died. Although I disagree with him often, I enjoy his writing and respect his opinions. In his Tarzan review last year, he stated that it was okay that there weren't any Africans in the animated film. But he complained that there were no Chinese people in Coyote Ugly. "He lost me (actually his review show lost me) when he selected Richard Roeper as his co-host. The selection came down to the prettiest people (Kulhawik, Peirera, Roeper). Chicago critics did not go head-to-head with Roger. They were all on one show (Eyes Wide Shut roundtable). He claims that he picked Richard because he was the best of all the potentials. He also said that he is old fashioned and can't let it loose to argue with a woman. Yet two women were finalists. I wonder why he wasted their time by inviting them at all. None of them are professional (print) film critics. All three look good on television. I think it is an abomination to the Siskel & Ebert legacy to have two people from the same newspaper on the show. Especially when one isn't a film critic. In fact, Roeper isn't even a book critic. It makes no sense at all." —Troylene

Joe from Chicago has also found himself shaking his head at Ebert's reviews. But, like Troylene, he is more concerned with the decision to hire Richard Roeper for his television show…

"I don't think it's the least bit odd for someone to rate Gladiator with "only" two stars. I sat through it and that was pretty much my take. It's irksome when someone we respect doesn't share an aesthetic appreciation. God knows Roger Ebert has irked me plenty (how does Rushmore get stiffed with a measly 2 1/2 stars?!), but I've always valued him as a passionate and very well-informed critical voice. "Lately though, it seems I'm questioning a lot of Ebert's choices with increasing frequency and even some concern. I began watching 'Siskel and Ebert' in childhood and it had a huge impact on me. I remember a period when 'Enough effects! A film needs real characters and a decent story!' was a ten year mantra on that show. And yet recently we've seen Ebert shrug his shoulders and raise his thumb for worthless pretty pictures like The Haunting. (I don't know if The Cell falls into that category as I haven't seen it. I've had my fill of the achingly tiresome and played-out serial-killer genre, but I digress.) "By far the most disturbing of Ebert's recent choices is that of his new permanent co-host, Richard Roeper. As a Chicago resident, I've long endured exposure to Roeper's puff-piece column in the Sun-Times (think parody song lyrics, lots of Survivor pieces, etc.). News that he had somehow ascended to the coveted aisle seat was a genuine disappointment and a bit of a shock. "After Gene Siskel died, Ebert said that producing a weekly television show devoted to intelligent, thoughtful discussion of movies was a worthy mission, and I cheered him on. So how did he wind up with a vapid frat boy like Roeper? This is the guy whose favorite film of all time is Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Wow. I mean, I liked it myself but that's a statement that can only be properly replied to with expletives. Who wants to bet that if you asked this guy who directed Casablanca his response would be that that question is irrelevant? He's just painfully unqualified. "The justification Ebert gave for his hiring was that he was comfortable with Roeper. Forgive me, but Ebert's comfort is not the point of the exercise. My twenty-plus years as Ebert's loyal viewer ended about two weeks into Roeper's run. I miss the show, I feel like it's not there anymore. I still value Ebert's opinions and I still read his column every week, but yeah, it seems the Don is slippin'." - Joe Greenia from Chicago

Coming to Mr. Ebert's defense is reader John Noll…

"I don't want to go on about this, but I have to take issue with some things that were said on this page. Gladiator is not a great film, it is not even a good film. It is boring, drab, ugly and downright poorly edited. It is everything that an epic should not be. Rome looked completely fake and the story was absurd and made it impossible to get behind the characters. The Cell, on the other hand, is a visionary, breathtaking film experience. With all the crap that is in the theatres this year, The Cell is a breath of fresh air. Just like Roger and Gene were accosted when they gave Babe: Pig in the City its due, Roger is being put down for recognizing a film that is attempting to advance the medium of film. "Roger Ebert doesn't want to reward the same old types of films just for being competent. Roger wants to recognize films that present ideas and stories in a new way. Films like Dark City, Songs from the Second Floor, Snow Falling on Cedars, Babe: Pig in the City, and The Cell. Film is a visual medium and all the films I just mentioned use visuals to tell their story in a new and refreshing way. Gladiator, if anything, takes a step back visually. Excuse my language, but the movie looks like sh--." - John Noll

Mostafa Hefny has a few criticisms of Roger Ebert, but would like to defend the critic for not jumping on the Gladiator and Erin Brockovich bandwagons…

"The contention that Ebert often reviews the issues a film raises rather then the film itself is valid. You may have noticed that earlier this year he gave the unwatchable so-called comedy But I'm a Cheerleader a positive review because of its liberal message. Another feature that often helps a film on the Ebert-o-meter is the presence of a minority in front of and/or behind the camera. Remember his extremely positive review of the John Singleton melodrama Rosewood, or even that director's earlier and sillier Higher Learning. Yet with Ebert's highly personal reviews, I never once doubted his sincerity. Case in point: The Contender, a grandstanding film that does NOT, in my opinion and in most people's opinions, deserve the four-star rating. And yet another example of reviewing the issues rather then the film. "But your readers have brought up the Gladiator and Erin Brockovich reviews, and I would like to defend Ebert's veiwpoint here. Gladiator is, with every bone in its body, a simplistic revenge fantasy. But so, would you counter, was the Oscar-winning Braveheart. While I would have granted Gladiator three stars (Ebert's minimum for a recommendation) because the film is a satisfying visceral and visual experience, I can certainly understand a veteran film critic taking the high road. "As for Erin Brockovich, a simplistic and empty film, I felt Ebert was too kind. He went after the cleavage, when the film's lack of ambiguity, its rah rah cheerleading good vs. evil rubbish lost me long before any cleavage challenged my suspension of disbelief. I think that most critics who liked that film couldn't tell the difference between a well-made film and a good one. Here was a film that actually pretended to be about something, but was no more than an extravagant showcase for snappy one-liners. My guess is that most people who love the film probably could stand the more ambitious likes of Prince of the City, A Civil Action and The Verdict. Unlike Erin Brockovich, these films were brave enough to be unsatisfying and, of course, the BO receipts for all three are less than half of Brockovich . The fact that Erin Brockovich was well made, the fact that in this terrible year of movies it could actually get nominated makes me resent it." - Mostafa Hefny

Continue Reading Civilian Voices >>>

 

Send your submissions to civilianvoices@roughcut.com

No purchase necessary. Void where prohibited. Must be age 16 or older to submit a story. Stories will be edited for length and content by representatives of Roughcut. Not all stories will appear online. By submitting this story you agree that Roughcut has the perpetual right to use the submitted story, in any and all media, without limitation, as Roughcut may determine in its sole discretion. You also acknowledge that you will not receive any monetary compensation for the use, if any, of your story.