Does anyone know? The wife and I read all about his medical emergency last year and that he’s recovering now, but apart from the occasional review – maybe only two or three in the last few months – not much information. My wife and I both loved his writings. His taste in film closely parallels our own. Even when we disgree with him, he can make us understand WHY he liked or did not like a certain film. We miss his reviews. Does anyone know how he is progressing? We had hoped he’d be back on the job by now.
There’s some information about his battle with cancer and his recovery in this wikipedia article: Roger Ebert Scroll down to the “Battle With Cancer” chapter.
He seems to be recovering slowly, though as of this month, there’s no telling if and when he’ll be returning to Ebert & Roeper.
The wife and I will consider it a loss for the film world if he does not return. The editor of his website, Jim Emersom, is incredibly boring to read. Just not the same.
I hate Jim Emerson with a burning passion. He is such a pretentious and sad wannabe intellectual that I’ve stopped going to Ebert’s website altogether. Oh and you can only write two reviews a week, you delicate daisy? Funny, Ebert used to do seven or eight or so. Bitch.
Not to say that I ever agreed much with Ebert. A lot of his Thumbs Up reviews truly boggled the mind. I agree much more with Roeper, who has definitely grown on me over the years.
I miss him a lot too. Ever since I got on the internet, it’s been a weekly habit to check his website every Friday for new reviews, and every Sunday for Answer Man columns (and later Great Movies columns). Not to mention all the other times I’d see an old movie and want to find out what Rog thought about it. I don’t agree with his opinions as much as I used to (I think he lets his social conscience cloud his judgment too much – Crash best picture of the year? Hoop Dreams the best movie of the decade??), but he’s still a good writer and has good things to say.
Is it normal that his recovery is taking this long? I’m beginning to be pessimistic that he’ll ever return to his former work schedule. He was supposed to be blog about the Oscars, but he wrote maybe two or three depressed-sounding posts at the beginning of the show, and not a word after that.
And yeah, I agree with Johnny Hildo about Jim Emerson. Two reviews a week? Pathetic.
It just doesn’t seem good. Basically, for several months now – maybe even a year – since his surgery, only a few reviews of excellent films were released, suggesting to me that they were either on the spike already from pre-screenings, or that he was only sparing the time for a few great movies. Since even these seem to have ended entirely in favor of Emerson’s much more adolescent offerings, I think it’s likely that Roger Ebert is not doing well at all. He did not attend the Oscars this year for the first time in a very long time.
If you are only familiar with him from his show, or have only a vague impression of him based on his thumbs, I highly recommend going to the site and reading his reviews, starting with the zero to one star ones. It should let you sort by stars. He is funny, sharp, down-to-earth, sincere, warm and entirely, utterly in love with the cinema in a way that anyone else with the same affliction can’t help but find charming. I disagree with him often, but I agree with him more, and his intelligent devotion to the screen is pretty amazing. I’ve been bummed about his condition and hoping it’s better than it seems for a while now. Whenever he goes, I’m gonna miss him a lot.
From Roger’s web site,, regarding his annual “Overlooked Film Festival:”
“Roger Ebert will be there, introducing the festival and watching the films with the audience, but because he’s still recuperating from surgery, will rely on an “expert group of colleagues” to conduct the on-stage interviews this year.”
Doesn’t it creep anyone else out that both Siskel and Ebert were hit with cancer?
I’m happy you brought him up, Siam. Roger Ebert has been my favorite film critic since I was a kid. I own a lot of his books. Whether you agree or disagree with him, the man has always been entertaining to watch or read.
I’ll remain the optomist and await his return.
Sadly, I haven’t been visiting his site much lately. Because yeah, that Emerson reviewer is boring. I really miss his “ask the movie man” column, where people would ask him questions.
I remain convinced he’ll be back soon, though, because we all like happy endings!
And am I the only person who will admit to having him in the Death Pool?
I also like Roger’s reviews. I think he does a good job of rating a movie on how it compairs to other movies of the same genre. Roper is ok, but without Ebert there to balance him out, his recent reviews haven’t been as on the ball as they were before. I sincerly hope that he returns, or at the very least I wish he’d pick a good successor to his position.
Shame on you!
damn how could I have missed that one?
I actually preferred Gene’s reviews oddly enough. Seems he was more honest and self-
consistent. Ebert often lets himself get beguiled by certain rather shallow things.
A hijack, but did anybody know that Roger Ebert used to date, of all people, Oprah Winfrey? That is a couple I just cannot see. It has nothing to do with the biracial aspect but everything to do with the fact I just can’t see Oprah and Roger Ebert together. (I know that Ebert’s current wife is black and plus-size, but I picture him married to someone more like the dour German Edith lookalike Jean Stapleton played on an episode of All in the Family type, plus while I love him as a critic [even when I disagree with him], “I’ll take Self Enjoyment for two-hundred Alex” all day long before… anyway,
Not only did they date, but they’re still friends and she credits him with her fortune. From his and Siskel’s experiences with PBS v. their syndicated show he had a lot of practical advice to offer about the business side of starting her syndicated show. He & Siskel together convinced her of the financial and business wisdom of keeping ownership of her show even if it meant turning down seriously lucrative short term offers (which it did- she was offered millions in straight salary and profit sharing but held out for a much smaller check plus ownership). Consequently she’s the first female self-made billionaire and it’s in part due to a low budget PBS movie review program.
Just an odd bit of trivia.
Even the few times that the wife and I disagreed with Eebrt, he was always able to make us understand why he liked or didn’t like the movie. He almost never steered us wrong. We want him back.
I used to listen to the free podcast of their show, and they would update on his status every once and awhile. But then they stopped offering new audio shows, and itunes reviewers claim it was because they are now selling a videocast of it (which sucks: I liked listening to it).
It would creep me out if Ebert had brain cancer the same as Siskel.
I just added him to my 2008 wish list after reading this thread.
I miss him too. His is the only book(s) of reviews that I can read for pleasure. As has been stated, even when I disagree with him, he explains how he came to the conclusions that he did–that is not to be taken for granted. I also love his snarky reviews of extremely bad films–he can skewer with the best of them.
I hope he recovers soon.
Rigby claim to fame: I once got an email reply from him! My comment wasn’t published, but it tied in with the subject matter discussed that week, and he wrote me back! I was very excited.
I liked Gene Siskel more, too, but Ebert grew on me over time.
Another claim to fame (I swear these are my only two): I once talked to Siskel on the phone. A friend was in argument with her mother about who starred in some film. They called the library (this was years before the internet), but I called information, got the number for the Trib, got transferred to Siskel’s desk and asked him. He answered me (correctly).
Hey, it’s not much, but I have no life… 
Why should it? Cancer is a common malady of people who reach a certain age.