# How did Roger Ebert become the premier film reviewer? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 12, 2012, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-roger-ebert-become-the-premier-film-reviewer/609312 "2012-01-12T17:40:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2012, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-roger-ebert-become-the-premier-film-reviewer/609312/41 "2012-01-16T23:00:37Z")
> [@John\_DiFool](#): > > You’ve already been pitted for the overuse of this phrase. Can I respectfully request that you put it out to pasture for good? > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > You can respectfully request whatever you want. Moderator interjecteth: this is a personal discussion that has no place in this thread. Cool it, both of ya. ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2012, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-roger-ebert-become-the-premier-film-reviewer/609312/42 "2012-01-16T23:10:49Z")
> [@Pashnish\_Ewing](#): > > While all of the above is true, I think the concept of “Thumbs up” and “Thumbs down” played a major part. And if it were Ebert who passed instead of Siskel, Siskel would be the premier film reviewer. This. And if people are anything like me; I favored one over the other. So if my NON-favorite one gave it a thumbs down but my favorite one gave it a thumbs up; that would only cement my decision to go see said movie. (Jeez, looking back, I can’t remember which one I favored now. Damn, I getting old.) ---
**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2012, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-roger-ebert-become-the-premier-film-reviewer/609312/43 "2012-01-17T00:47:40Z")
He’s a thoughtful and intelligent writer. Even when I completely disagree with him I find his reviews well worth reading. One of the things I really like about him is that he’s not a snot or a snob. He’s always come across to me as an ordinary joe with a good critical facilities. By contrast I find someone like John Simon too snot nosed to bother with. Ebert has always seem unafraid to suggest that you can find pleasure in a movie that isn’t perfect or even all that great. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2012, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-roger-ebert-become-the-premier-film-reviewer/609312/44 "2012-01-17T01:18:57Z")
Ebert’s compilation of movies he panned, “I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie” makes his writing chops very evident. There was always a good solid laugh in every bad review, often more. Sometimes I just howled all the way through the review. Guy knows how to write a review. His initial national prominence is the result of happenstance, the fact that he has maintained it is because he has the right stuff. ---
**Author:** ![installLSC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/54ee81/32.png) [@installLSC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/installLSC)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2012, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-roger-ebert-become-the-premier-film-reviewer/609312/45 "2012-01-17T07:54:34Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I’d say it was _Sneak Previews_, since it gave him national exposure at a time when it was difficult to get (mid-70s), at least for a film critic. Ddamn near every television set in the country got PBS back then That part of it cannot be overemphasized. We forget that before the 80s there was a lot less coverage of Hollywood and the movie industry. Outside of talk shows, the only consistent outlet for movie coverage and criticism was a few spots on the morning news. Then these two guys get a half hour every week through most of the country, which quickly made them the highest profile reviewers in the movie business. ---
**Author:** ![Zeldar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/b77776/32.png) [@Zeldar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeldar)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2012, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-roger-ebert-become-the-premier-film-reviewer/609312/46 "2012-01-17T09:05:07Z")
> [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](#): > > Ebert is my most-read reviewer, but I do not base my movie viewing on his opinions as we disagree too often (not so much on older films, but with many produced within the past five years). > > The reason I read him is that he is a damn fine writer. > mmm > [@Tim\_R.Mortiss](#): > > Definitely the TV show vaulted him to prominence. But also, his reviews tend to be very, very good. I sometimes agree with him, sometimes don’t, but I can almost always get a good idea from his reviews of whether I’ll enjoy the movie or not. His reviews are both biased and fair at the same time, if that makes sense. > [@Sampiro](#): > > I love his writing and his reasoning even when I strongly disagree with his reviews (_Synechdoche, NY_, for example, which he gave 4 stars and I give 1). I also like that when Ebert sees a low budget farce he understands that the directors/actors/writers aren’t _trying_ to win an Oscar and he reviews it on how well it succeeds as a farce. > [@Algher](#): > > He also was willing to give good reviews to popcorn movies - not just act like an art asshole. > [@Shawn1767](#): > > Whether I agree with his assessment or not, he comes across as sincere and someone who is a lover of film. Much like a foodie who enjoys fine food, but will also eat at a satisfying greasy-spoon diner once in a while because, heck, they’re enjoyable. > [@typoink](#): > > I love Ebert’s reviews because he’s funny, concise, and extremely good at explaining the criteria against which he’s judging a film. He’s good at evaluating the “audience-appropriateness” of a film better than many reviewers: he knows that not every movie is for every moviegoer, and is good at communicating who (if anybody) is going to want to watch something. He’s good at this across a very wide range, which is impressive to me. > > He’s not “dead on” 100%, but no reviewer is. Based on his reviews, I think I can usually tell whether I’ll agree. There’s movies Ebert disliked that I love, but, reading his reviews, I can _tell_ that. > [@LavenderBlue](#): > > He’s a thoughtful and intelligent writer. Even when I completely disagree with him I find his reviews well worth reading. One of the things I really like about him is that he’s not a snot or a snob. He’s always come across to me as an ordinary joe with a good critical facilities. By contrast I find someone like John Simon too snot nosed to bother with. Ebert has always seem unafraid to suggest that you can find pleasure in a movie that isn’t perfect or even all that great. These comments express my view on Ebert as well as or better than I would do starting from scratch. I make it a point not to read reviews or critiques of movies before I see them. Then I enjoy comparing reviewers’ views with my own to see what I may have missed or misunderstood or not appreciated. Ebert’s version of what I saw is usually within the 70-80% range of agreeing with how I felt about most movies. He has missed 100% on only a few, and even then his reasons for disagreeing are well presented and solid. Except for Ebert’s own reviews, I usually rely on Rotten Tomatoes for validation of my own opinions. Even they are often too far away from my impressions to be worth reading beforehand. To summarize, Ebert seems to know about every aspect of movies and film-making, with a strong sense of history and a down-to-earth love of the medium. That matters a lot to me. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2012, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-roger-ebert-become-the-premier-film-reviewer/609312/47 "2012-01-17T15:52:04Z")
I disagree with the notion that Ebert was the most influential film critic during his early years of writing reviews. Even he and Siskel together weren’t the most important. Pauline Kael was clearly the most influential flm critic: > **[Pauline Kael](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Kael)** > > Pauline Kael (/keɪl/; June 19, 1919 – September 3, 2001) was an American film critic who wrote for The New Yorker from 1968 to 1991. Known for her "witty, biting, highly opinionated and sharply focused" reviews, Kael's opinions often ran contrary to those of her contemporaries. > One of the most influential American film critics of her era, she left a lasting impression on the art form. Roger Ebert argued in an obituary that Kael "had a more positive influence on the climate for film in America ... It’s only because she quit writing over twenty years ago and has been dead for over ten years that Ebert is now the most influential film critic. Please note that I’m not taking any position of how good either Kael or Ebert are as film critics. I’m just talking about what the general consensus was about the most imfluential film critic during the 1970’s and the 1980’s. ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2012, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-roger-ebert-become-the-premier-film-reviewer/609312/48 "2012-01-17T18:24:19Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > Ebert is both. As is John Simon. > > A reviewer writes for an audience of who haven’t seen the movie. His job is to give an opinion as to what’s good and bad about the film so people can decided to see it. > > A critic is someone who assumes his audience has already seen the movie. He discusses details without caring about spoiling anything. > > Ebert’s “Great Movies” is the work of a critic. His reviews of new movies are the work of a reviewer. There is a third category - the “cinéaste”, like the utterly useless Jonathan Rosenbaum who lives to dump on Hollywood, and whose every review is packed with extraneous bullshit. He lectures more than an Any Rand character. _The Reader_ needs a movie reviewer, they could get by with a critic, but they have a cinéaste. I’ve been catching up with the “great movies” as I can in the theater. Last night I saw Truffaut’s _[The Bride Wore Black](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061955/)_ and tonight I’ll be seeing Eisenstein’s _[Battleship Potemkin](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0015648/)_. But I’m watching them to see if the films are enjoyable, not for their place in art history. _The Bride Wore Black_ was enjoyable, but honestly, the screenwriting and even some aspects of the directing were uneven at times. > [@](#): > > I don’t always agree with Ebert, but he is extremely articulate about what he likes and dislike about a work. You may disagree with his likes and dislikes, but no reviewer or critic is going to agree with you 100%, and every person who goes to a movie has different standards of quality. Doubly so with comedy. My main peeve with Ebert is every single written review has at least one factual mistake. He is so consistent that I think it _must_ be deliberate. > [@](#): > > One of Ebert’s great strengths, though, is that he reviews the film with an eye to what it is trying to accomplish. If it’s a popcorn movie, he’ll see if it succeeds on those terms. If it’s a serious drama, he’ll judge it on those terms. Agreed. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2012, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-roger-ebert-become-the-premier-film-reviewer/609312/49 "2012-01-17T19:33:21Z")
The OP could be summed up “Who died and made him king of reviewers?” 😉 ---
**Author:** ![IntelliQ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e99b99/32.png) [@IntelliQ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IntelliQ)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2012, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-roger-ebert-become-the-premier-film-reviewer/609312/50 "2012-01-18T04:07:46Z")
Ebert mellowed quite a bit, he hands out good reviews like candy these days. I never like him much because I get too much of a sense about who _he_ is rather than the merits of the movies. A truly talented movie reviewer doesnt swamp you in their political and social beliefs, like he so often does. Like a few others I can use him as a reverse benchmark a lot of times. (These days, I prefer Screenrant for reviews, the cheif editor Kofi is a genius with mixing even the most technical aspects of movie making into his reviews without boring the layman.) ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2012, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-roger-ebert-become-the-premier-film-reviewer/609312/51 "2012-01-18T05:10:40Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > Who died and made him king of reviewers? Siskel. ---
**Author:** ![don\_t\_ask](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@don\_t\_ask](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/don_t_ask)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2012, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-roger-ebert-become-the-premier-film-reviewer/609312/52 "2012-01-18T11:43:20Z")
I haven’t read many of his reviews but years ago starting [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=499750) showed me that he has many fervent fans who will brook no criticism. And while posting to that thread I discovered that he pretty much likes every movie ever made, so he likes what you like, whatever it is. Look at [his site](http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111220/REVIEWS/111229999/1023) now and would appear that this is the Golden Age of cinema, it’s a galaxy of stars. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2012, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-roger-ebert-become-the-premier-film-reviewer/609312/53 "2012-01-18T20:46:00Z")
> [@Wendell\_Wagner](#): > > I disagree with the notion that Ebert was the most influential film critic during his early years of writing reviews. Even he and Siskel together weren’t the most important. Pauline Kael was clearly the most influential flm critic: > > [Pauline Kael - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Kael) > > It’s only because she quit writing over twenty years ago and has been dead for over ten years that Ebert is now the most influential film critic. Please note that I’m not taking any position of how good either Kael or Ebert are as film critics. I’m just talking about what the general consensus was about the most imfluential film critic during the 1970’s and the 1980’s. Depends on what you mean by influential. Among intellectuals, definitely Kael. Among the masses, definitely not. ---
**Author:** ![VJReeJr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d2c977/32.png) [@VJReeJr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VJReeJr)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2012, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-roger-ebert-become-the-premier-film-reviewer/609312/54 "2012-03-04T04:35:44Z")
The reason Roger became, more or less, the #1 movie reviewer has to do with history… Years ago, there were plenty of movie reviewers in print who were respected such as The New York Times Pauline Kael and Vincent Canby. At the same time, there was Rex Reed who was on TV quite a bit simply because he was so effeminate that watching him was like watching a car wreck. (See the movie Myra Breckenridge in which actually acts in it.) Of course, there were other critics - Leonard Maltin, for one, and Gene Shalit who also were on TV - usually the morning talk shows. For instance, Gene Shalit on “Today”. However, those TV movie critics had, maybe a 3-minute review segment and it was just them. In the mid-1970s, though, Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, both newspaper movie critics of Chicago (so they did some have weight…), created “Sneak Previews”. Originally, this was a local show on, I believe, WTTW, Chicago’s PBS station. Before the end of the 1970s, this show went national on PBS. Now, Sneak Previews was a really special show for a variety of reasons… First, it was 30 minutes long and, for each review, an extended clip of the movie was shown along with some set-up comentary. In essence, it was almost like the home viewer got to see movie trailers, but more than that because these were real scenes from the movie along with a bit of the story. Second, we had two movie reviewers who actively engaged each other in real time in reviewing the movie. Sometimes their disagreements made for excellent TV. Their agreements weren’t bad neither. Along with that, you the viewer, learned something. Realize it or not, you went to film school when you watched their show. Third, continuing with that theme, they did special episodes. For instance, they once did an episode discussing film format and pan-and-scan. Most people who went to movies and then saw them on TV never really thought that much that the TV had a different aspect ratio than movies. But, because of the advent of VHS and Betamax, people started buying movies and realized the importance of the movie going experience. It was Siskel and Ebert who began to make people realize that widescreen was important. I’ll never forget how they showed a scene in The Graduate - first in the original widescreen and then in pan-and-scan for fitting a TV screen. It totally changed the movie… I can’t say definitively that Siskel and Ebert were the primary reason that we have widescreen TV now and that widescreen DVDs are preferred over “standard format”, but they definitely had an impact. As you watched their show, though, you learned quite a bit. It was good reality TV before “reality TV” was a buzzword… Eventually, Sneak Previews went into synducation on regular commercial TV and received an even wider audience. Siskel and Ebert, being such a lively pair and obviously both _loving_ the movies, became talk show guests and were so popular that jokes were made of them as well as parodies (See Godzilla released in 1998.). Roger, the tech-savvy of the two, went on two write several books on movies and each was rather popular. Again, his reviews educated you and so you, too, began to become a movie critic. They changed the movie-viewing experience for me forever and they are like my cinematic fathers. Sadly, Gene died of cancer and Roger lost his voice due to throat cancer, but both of them had become the premiere movie critics in the US long before Gene first got sick. I want to summarize though: 1. Sneak Preview was good TV - both educational and entertaining so the viewer at home began to become a better movie critic and could enjoy moives more. 2. The advent of home videotapes of movies made people “go to the movies” more. In a sense, the movie-viewing hobby increased. 3. I didn’t mention this earlier, but movies changed as well. In the 1970s, movies were very interesting but this was also the birth of the blockbuster era, beginning with Jaws soon to be followed by Star Wars. So, movie reviews became that much more important to movie-goers and Sneak Previews was the primary way people decided to give a mental thumbs-up or thumbs-down before seeing a movie. 4. Siskel and Ebert, through their show and their personalities, became the most famous and prominent movie critics. With Gene’s death, Roger took that role alone. … and that, in a nutshell, is why Roger Ebert is the most prominent movie reviewer in the US. ---
**Author:** ![Maserschmidt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/maserschmidt/32/18829_2.png) [@Maserschmidt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maserschmidt)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2012, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-roger-ebert-become-the-premier-film-reviewer/609312/55 "2012-03-04T04:46:11Z")
The preceding would be a great story if Ebert hadn’t won a Pulitzer in 1975. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-roger-ebert-become-the-premier-film-reviewer/609312.md?page=2)