I was reading about his criticism of the Brown Bunny, the director's putting a curse on Ebert's colon and Ebert's uncharacteristically nasty response that he'd watched a videotape of his own colonoscopy and it was more entertaining than the Brown Bunny. Funny thing, the director then took criticism to heart, reedited the film and got 3 stars from Ebert on the shortened version.
You know, Crockett, I think "Brown Bunny" is the one flick that I disagreed with Ebert about. Normally I thought his reviews were spot on. Though I did not see the original version of BB, I did see the re-edit, and it was the most boring film of all time. How Roger saw fit to give it 3 stars is beyond me.
I checked Ebert's reviews before seeing most films. We agreed most of the time.
I read that his one foray into films was writing the screenplay for "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls". What a POS that was. I think that he made the right decision remaining a film critic.
I enjoyed the shows with Siskel very much. Together they gave a well thought out review with any disagreements discussed. I missed that show a lot when it ended.
Ebert was a film reviewer and a good one; he was not a critic. He was a fan of entertaining movies but when he ran into one that had some substance besides being fun to eat popcorn while watching, he was back of the bus in film criticism.
Which made him perfect for a mass tv audience. I never went to a film after watching or reading his review where I saw something I was not expecting. He liked a lot of junk but his reviews let you know why he liked it and so you were forewarned. He did go out of his way to mention small quality films so they would get an audience. Unlike Rex Reed and a lot of the other mass audience reviewers.