And this one which is a lot less good-natured and pretty contentious actually.
I tend to use him as a reverse indicator as well. He inexplicably panned films like The Usual Suspects, A Clockwork Orange, and Raising Arizona, while (even worse) giving good reviews to a lot of movies that were absolute, 24 carat shit. He awarded three stars to The Happening, for chrissake— one of the worst movies I’ve ever (partially) seen.
I agree. Ebert has become the elder statesman of film critics.
He’s credited the TV show to this. He said that if either he or Siskel started getting pretentious, the other one was there to immediately call them on it.
I see it as a Lennon and McCartney thing. You had two major talents both working together and competing. This forced them both to eliminate any self-indulgence in their work.
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.
Oddly, Ebert’s review, in part, prompted me to see this film, and man, did I ever hate it.
mmm
He also was willing to give good reviews to popcorn movies - not just act like an art asshole.
Ebert got his start writing for Russ Meyer. Russ liked to claim he paid Ebert with the affections of one of his big titted starlets. 
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.
Ditto to all of the above.
I think a problem Ebert and other professional critics have is that unlike for “the 99%” going to movies is something they do several times a week, sometimes more than once a day, and so many movies are formulaic, that anything different stands out as good. To me it’s very possible to be really different and still suck. (I wonder if he’s seen The Human Centipede; I haven’t, refuse to, but would be curious if his curiosity got the better of him.)
ETA: Apparently so. And it was a different film he hated so much he gave it no stars.
There are better writers about film–Ebert is a “reviewer,” not a “critic” like John Simon–but they lack his ease with being in front of a TV camera.
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.
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.
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.
You’ve already been pitted for the overuse of this phrase. Can I respectfully request that you put it out to pasture for good?
I think another aspect is that Roger has brought together a community of film lovers and film makers over the years and he’s like a patron saint of sorts. His Ebertfest has been going strong for awhile and it has ongoing enthusiastic support from a lot of people from both sides of the screen.
You can respectfully request whatever you want.
I agree with this.
I might not agree with all of his reviews but he is usually a compelling read and will often point me to a film I might otherwise have not known about or bothered seeing.
It is true that he will rag on a film I liked, but more often than not, I seem to agree with most of his praise/criticisms of films.
My wife and I have used Ebert this way since the old days with Siskel, and have never understood why he is so revered.
.
Read it again - he didn’t give it zero stars, but rather refused to give it any star grade at all. He claims that the movie is essentially ungradable.
Well, there’s nothing inexplicable about that … he just didn’t like those films. A critic is paid to give his own opinion, not to agree with that of everyone else. I would ad that if his opinion was reliably opposite your own, he was just as successful a critic for you as one you agreed with. Either way, he told you SOMETHING.
Ebert is the reason I originally went into journalism. I wanted to watch movies and write stuff that was as witty and insightful about them as he did. sigh Boy, that brings me back.
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.
That’s what I always worried about when thinking of becoming a film reviewer/critic: would they make me write a positive review of something I disliked, or vice versa? Excellent point, by the way!