And what a strong, brave man!
Y’all know he wears a silicone prosthesis over the lower part of his face, because he had the cancer there, right?
Well, from what I read, he’s coming back to tv, and I think that’s just great!
I used to love him and Gene (Siskel) sitting across from each other and discuss movies, and damn if they weren’t spot on much of the time and I based much of my movie attendance on their opinions.
Rock on, Roger!
Q
This exchange between Ebert and Rob Schneider led me to buy a copy of Ebert’s book Your Movie Sucks, which is a geat bathroom reader.
From the Amazon product description:
From Roger’s review of Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo (0 stars): "The movie created a spot of controversy in February 2005. According to a story by Larry Carroll of MTV News, Rob Schneider took offense when Patrick Goldstein of the* Los Angeles Times listed this year’s Best Picture nominees and wrote that they were 'ignored, unloved, and turned down flat by most of the same studios that . . . bankroll hundreds of sequels, including a follow-up to Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo*, a film that was sadly overlooked at Oscar time because apparently nobody had the foresight to invent a category for Best Running Penis Joke Delivered by a Third-Rate Comic.’
Schneider retaliated by attacking Goldstein in full-page ads in *Daily Variety *and the Hollywood Reporter. In an open letter to Goldstein, Schneider wrote: ‘Well, Mr. Goldstein, I decided to do some research to find out what awards you have won. I went online and found that you have won nothing. Absolutely nothing. No journalistic awards of any kind. . . . Maybe you didn’t win a Pulitzer Prize because they haven’t invented a category for Best Third-Rate, Unfunny Pompous Reporter Who’s Never Been Acknowledged by His Peers. . . .’
Schneider was nominated for a 2000 Razzie Award for Worst Supporting Actor, but lost to Jar-Jar Binks. But Schneider is correct, and Patrick Goldstein has not yet won a Pulitzer Prize. Therefore, Goldstein is not qualified to complain that Columbia financed *Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo *while passing on the opportunity to participate in Million Dollar Baby, Ray, The Aviator, Sideways, and Finding Neverland. As chance would have it, I have won the Pulitzer Prize, and so I am qualified. Speaking in my official capacity as a Pulitzer Prize winner, Mr. Schneider, your movie sucks."
I don’t agree with every review of his, but they sure are fun to read. I’m glad he’s still going strong. Will he have a partner on his new show?
No disrespect intended, but… wouldn’t he have to also be a sandwich, to be a hero in every sense of the word?
Thudlow Boink, you are my new hero for that post.
As well as providing some evidence that one of his parents was a god?
He’d also have to be an ancient Greek mathematician from Alexandria.
Why yes. Yes he would. Thanks for the clarification.
Q
I’m a little confused over this. I thought that he had lost the ability to speak as a result of surgery.
He’s got a voice synthesizer, similar to Stephen Hawking’s. Programmed to approximate his own pre-surgery voice (using sound samples of him). It’s fairly impressive, actually - not particularly natural sounding, but not ‘synthesized’ sounding, either.
Per Quasi’s link, the new show is Ebert Presents At the Movies, with two new co-hosts (Christy Lemire of AP and Ignatiy Vishnevetsky of Mubi.com). It’s a half-hour show being carried on PBS stations; Roger is scheduled to make appearances in a segment called “Roger’s Office” where his computer-generated voice will be used (and actually, the debut episode had Werner Herzog reading Ebert’s piece for him). There will also be recurring segments with a few correspondents: Kim Morgan on classic movies (she had a piece on The Third Man in the debut), Omar Moore on “social issues and technology”, and Kartina Richardson, a “filmmaker and blogger out of Boston.” Ebert is credited as Managing Editor of the show, with his wife Chaz as Executive Producer.
They appear to have gone out of their way to include youth and the blogoverse; it’ll be interesting to see how it plays out. I thought the first episode was a bit uneven; although Lemire and Vishnevetsky did appear to have fun, it was odd that Vishnevetsky gave all the movies “thumbs up” while Lemire gave them all “thumbs down” (reviewed: No Strings Attached, The Company Men, The Way Back, The Green Hornet, The Dilemma). I like Lemire; she seems professional and comfortable in front of the camera (she appears to be leading the discussion), and I like that she voiced my own concern when they recapped at the end of the show, asking Vishnevetsky, “What is your deal? Do you like everything?” To his credit, he responded with a good-natured “I think the problem is you just hate cinema, Christy.” For his part, Vishnevetsky struck me as, I dunno, a bit eager, maybe - entirely too willing to forgive faults; he didn’t disagree with Lemire when she cited things she didn’t like, just disagreed that those things were enough to merit the dreaded “thumbs down”. They both had a couple of good “I don’t agree at all” moments in the reviews that were reminiscent of Roger and Gene.
Overall, it’s got a lot of potential. I want to see Lemire review something she liked, and I want to see Vishnevetsky review something he didn’t, but it was just one show. I’m sure they’re not as one-dimensional as they may have seemed.
I confess that I had thought to add a sense or two of the word - then I thought maybe I wouldn’t. Now the joke’s been made and I can just add a smile.
Poor Roger will never EAT another hero, or any other kind of sandwich, ever again. He has a feeding tube. 
But he is one of my heroes. I think his wife has had a lot to do with keeping him going, or maybe he’s just the type who doesn’t let bad stuff get him down. He beat alcoholism, and he’s not letting his physical state sideline him… I spend a good chunk of time on Sunday mornings reading his blog, very interesting stuff in addition to his priceless movie reviews.
Talk about hogging your position, he’s worse than the Pope.
Agree completely with thread title. A great man, IMO.
Saw the debut show last night, hope it does well. I enjoyed it.
This tells you all you need to know about Roger Ebert. 
I love Roger Ebert, and even though I didn’t/don’t always agree with his reviews, when I read one of his reviews, I knew where he was coming from and that helped me decide what movies to see or rent.
I adored Siskel and Ebert- their interplay, their rivalry, their mixture of disdain and respect for each other.
I remember one Saturday morning in 1982 when I was watching their show. I used to avoid (and still do) mainstream popular movies. I just don’t like them… don’t like animation, kid movies, animal movies, Disney movies. I like… well, my favorite genre is what would probably be called “erotic thrillers.” What can I say? But on this morning they reviewed E.T., which I had not been planning to see because it fell into just about all of my unfavorite categories. But they raved about it, said it was the new Wizard of Oz in terms of fairy-tale drama excitement yaddayaddayadda. I immediately got dressed and flew out the door on my way to the theater, probably before their show was even over. If they both liked it, that was good enough for me!
I imagine you wouldnt if it had been for an “erotic thriller”?
BTW, that animated man and his dog movie that they previewed last night looked pretty good.
Watched the debut. Also saw a profile on him a few months ago. ( PrimeTime Live? Somesuch magazine. ). His writing is more barbed and prolific than ever, seems to me.
The show was uneven- and what debut/ pilot show is not? I grew up watching those two go at it. Always with respect and intensity. As long as these two don’t devolve into smarmy-assed smug jerks, the show might have legs.
Some inside info. The show is produced in a very old, very very tiny studio at PBS Chicago. The backgrounds are all DuroTrans images. Those are not real walls.
Cartooniverse