Spanning the length of Roger Ebert’s career as the leading American movie critic, this book contains all of his four-star reviews written during that time. A great guide for movie watching.
About the Author
Roger Ebert is the Pulitzer Prize-winning film critic of the Chicago Sun-Times and cohost of the national television program Ebert and Roeper. His reviews are syndicated internationally in more than 200 newspapers and available online at www.rogerebert.com. A recipient of t…
Buy Roger Ebert’s Four-Star Reviews 1967-2007 at Amazon
3 thoughts on “Roger Ebert’s Four-Star Reviews 1967-2007”
This book is an excellent film reference guide. It contains (belive it or not) all of Roger Ebert’s four-star reviews from 1967 until 2007. I haven’t yet found a great movie that is not contained in the book.
This is a perfect before-bed read because you can look at one review at a time – and there are tons of them! It is also fun to use the index to look up all of the films by your favorite directors and actors.
The first thing that I usually do after I finish watching a movie is read Ebert’s review. I always appreciate the reviews by Ebert because he has brilliant insights and honest, un-biased, educated opinions. I find that I always learn something new about films by looking at them from his perspective.
This guide is great for people -like myself- who have see so many films, that it is hard to find good ones that you haven’t already viewed. If Ebert gives a film four stars, you should probably go see it. I’ll try to watch every film in this book; I am probably one fourth of the way there.
This, along with Ebert’s “The Great Movies” parts one and two, are must-have books for film lovers.
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 .
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.