Confessions of a blogger

Let me be just say that I'm glad you came around to blogging, and I agree with your assessment -- the conversations on this blog are some of the most intelligent and respectful I've seen on the Internet. (And as a newspaper editor getting used to the whole process of online comments by readers, I've seen some doozies!) Please, please keep it up, and we'll keep coming back and doing our best to add to the discussion. Your insights are invaluable to those of us who love movies, and who have appreciated your work over the years. (By the way, wasn't Misty May a character in Beyond the Valley of the Dolls?)

When people ask me why I keep a blog, usually the question carries a certain amount of judgement. Because, obviously, the people who are asking don't themselves have blogs and so they don't quite understand how much support you can get from people who take a minute or two out of their busy days to read about one's daily musings. They don't get how in the world you can be friends with a person that you haven't actually spent any time with but, eh, I've given up trying to explain it. It just works and I'm glad for it. I've made some terrific friends and I get to communicate with fantastic people and that alone makes blogging a worthwhile hobby.

"This entry will draw more comments about politics and volleyball than it does about the wonders of blogging"

THERE'S my internet. Thank you Mr.Ebert for all your posts/reviews

Our feelings are the same as yours however we can only hope the writers of SNL will Dive,Run,Swim,Shoot,Twist And Flip us into a replay of the Olympics as they have in their days of glory past .

This (and Jim Emerson's) are the first blogs I have ever read. I've enjoyed all of your articles and anticipate them as much as I do the latest entry into the Great Movies series. After reading your blog I decided to surf the internet and experience some other blogs. My consensus: overall they're no good. Most blogs seem to consist of the whining and ranting of various personas superficial enough to believe that their petty problems are of real interest to anyone. Not you (this is where the gratitude comes in)! Your blogs are more or less personal essays on general topics that are of interest to you. Even this Charlie Kaufmanesque blog about your blog is filled with a certain amount of incite and thought provoking ideas not found elsewhere.
You made the correct choice not to involve politics in your essays. The most wonderful aspect of your blog is the collaboritve spirit of your readers. The reader feedback actually improves your original article as multiple viewpoints are presented on any given topic; and the purely positive feedback is quite the anomoly. The Readers who disagree with you on the use of 3D are quite polite in thier differing. I believe this would be damaged if politics entered the mix.
Anyway it is a wonderful blog and I thank you for writing it.

Speaking for the rest of the world, we're also glad that you have embraced the blogosphere. I've been following your blog avidly, because I've always appreciated the elegance within your writing, whether I agreed with you or not.

I've been blogging on DVD Extras for the San Antonio Express-News web site for three years now, and I've found it to be a wonderful way to write about one of my favorite subjects. If possible, I always include a link to your review (if you posted a review) on the current disc I'm writing about, and sometimes I've even quoted you.

I've seen a few negative posters on your blog, mostly telling you that you should stick to movie reviews and stay out of politics (or whatever subject incensed them). I don't agree. I usually stick to DVDs in my blog, but I've touched on other subjects as well, or waxed politically in my DVD commentary. For the most part, that commentary has been well received; but there are always a few "trolls" that want to get nasty.

The Internet is the world's greatest printing press, because everyone can use it to publish his/her own opinion. That is both its boon and bane. The biggest lesson that I've learned while writing my own blog and reading that of others that anyone can have an opinion, but not everyone has an informed opinion. I've been guilty of that; so have you. But I've seen you admit error ("The Brown Bunny" controversy comes to immediate mind) in print; I've done the same.

I doubt that the Pulitzer committee will ever notice my blog. But that doesn't stop me from trying to contribute to the sum of human knowledge. Some might call that pretentious. But not to try makes me a lesser person than someone who doesn't try at all.

I am a big fan of your reviews back when I was living in Madison, Wisconsin. Now I�m back in Singapore, and I still check on your website every week (I can�t believe Tropic Thunder is opening in Oct here!!! Grrrr!).

I used to raid the videos at Four Star Video Heaven, but now, I barely have time to watch movies. So please continue to help me choose what's worth watching. Cheers.

Ebert: Hey, when I was at the Madison Film Festival, I visited Four Star Video Heaven. What a great store.

Thanks for the thanks sir. The quality of our comments on your blog is directly proportional to the quality of your musings.

And for all the those who criticize you for writing non-film related ideas, screw 'em. Your main domain (rogerebert.com) already has all the film content one could ask for, so write whatever you want to write about here. Personally, I find it more enriching, and definitely fascinating.

All the best!

Roger, I work with the team that makes Movable Type, the software that helps you publish your blog. To be honest, when most of us who work here at our little company started doing this kind of stuff, people thought blogging was a fad, or worse, that it would hurt the quality of discourse in the public sphere or on the web. But it's a little bit like most independent filmmaking -- you don't do it because you're hoping to get rich, you do it because you can't not do it.

All of us who were early bloggers *love* media. We love making it, we love sharing it, and yes, we even love being critics. It's no small exaggeration to say that many of us had merely hoped to be for our friends or family what you've been for millions of people -- a guide, a perspective, maybe someone who just introduces you to art or voices you wouldn't otherwise find on your own.

So, to hear you say that blogging's meant something to you, too, is incredibly gratifying. I've been blogging for nine years myself, and it's changed my life in too many ways to count. I deeply admire your work, as do many of us who make these tools that help people share their ideas on the web. And I have to say, it's extraordinarily gratifying to think we've played a small, technical role in helping you make all these new discoveries.

And if you ever find yourself in San Francisco or New York City (or hell, in Tokyo or Paris, since we have offices there, too) and would like to get a round of drinks, courtesy of some honest-to-goodness old-school bloggers, please do give us a ring at Six Apart. The Movable Type team in particular owes you one. :)

I had a similar reaction to the women's 100 meter (I think) hurdles. One American athlete fell and all of the commentary was devoted to her, the immediate interview after was with her and then after all that, it was revealed that an American athlete had won! And her interview was shorter and rushed. I thought it was just my perception about the coverage but now I'm thinking my reaction was spot-on.

While I am also a recently converted blogger, and am pleased to find a major name giving credit to the medium, my comment will be about Kerri and Misty May, simply because I am amazed by their bodies in that photo. Sometimes I forget the potential of the human body.

I love to study recent history, specifically the last century and this one. What I find in my studies is that only thing that we humans have developed that never doubles back on itself is technology. Often we human beings tend to take a step backwards in our understanding of our culture, our politics and our world. We have retro music, movies, art but our technology presses forward, it has no hind-sight. As the man once said: "You can't stop progress".

I am baffled, astonished, amazed by the landscape of the internet. Here is the most amazing and influential communication tool since the invention of the printing press. Here, you can communicate with people on the other side of the planet who share the same loves, passions, frustrations and opinions that you do. I've met cinemaphiles in China, India, Nigeria, in Australia and to my shock, one man who lived just a few blocks over from me. I can communicate the thoughts and feelings that I cannot sometimes express to those immediately around me. The internet is, to me, more that what one of Kevin Smith's characters calls "a communication tool used the world over where people can come together to b**ch about movies and share pornography with one another"

Further Roger, I am baffled, astonished, amazed that I have a means by which my words can reach you. You are the most passionate and informed film critic I've ever read. I became aware of that some years ago when I read your review of "Shoah" and you talked about a startling moment when the name of a death camp commandant named "Eberl" passed within the subtitles and for a moment you had thought it was "Ebert". Those moments are rare, the moments when a movie can really reach out and touch you in the deepest way as not other art form can. I wasn't aware, until I began reading your reviews and your essays, that a movie could to that.

I've never submitted anything to a blog before, yours is my first. Here I can convey that kind the message to you that you your input has been such a tremendous influence of my education of the
cinema. Thank you, sir.

I found blogging to be way more fun than I ever expected too. Most people really aren't snarky and rude. They are thoughtful and supportive. Mine is a sewing and craft blog and I won't bore you with a link that you won't click anyway. If you ever want to know how to crochet the Hello Kitty Granny Square, I can give lots of tips!

Cinemania was great... *sigh*

How about diving? That's a pretty boring sport.

I thought it was just me regarding the poor mute Jamaican gold medalist... I love having a blog. I wish more people would comment on mine as I know they are reading. Most say the log in/ subscribing process is too annoying. And if I knock off the option I get spammed to death! OY! Just saw "Chris & Don" tonight. What a lovely tribute to... "Love." Blog on Roger!!

I, for one, am delighted that you decided to blog. Please, blog away. I can read anything that you write for hours. I find myself getting lost in your reviews from years past. I believe today I read your Hamlet 2, Party Monster, Jumper, 3 Ninjas, The Good Son, and Heat reviews. I love seeing your insight, and now that you have this blog, it isn't limited to just movie reviews, but to whatever your hearts desire. I thank you, Mr. Ebert, for your exhilarating commentary.

I guess it's no mystery then why there aren't very many films about the wonderous sport of volleyball.

As for the Olympics Volleyball matches, I feel sorry for the commentators.

Roger: Thank you for blogging, and dismissing beach volleyball. I'm reading the 1st volume of The Great Movies. Two thoughts came to mind today, as I reached 'S'. STAR WARS was not the first movie to pan across a vast stretch of space. Recall the tour of our galaxy that opens "A Matter of Life and Death." Also, I notice there aren't any short films, live action or animated, in the collection. That's kind of a bummer, since I would place Fischinger or Freling up there with the greats. Of course, those are different rabbit holes...

Ebert: I do have three cartoons by Chuck Jones...

Mr. Ebert:

One section of your latest blog interested me the most. You say, "... I have received not one obscene message, not one illiterate message, not one hostile message." Your words stir a few feelings within me. On the one hand, I feel happy that your readers are being thoughtful and articulate, because goodness knows you've earned the right to be treated that way. And I can certainly understand how satifying that must feel for you. As a 25-year-old that regularly posts movie reviews on Amazon.com (as nothing more than a hobby, unfortunately), I often receive comments from wonderful people that appreciate what I have to say, even if they don't agree with my assessments.

On the other hand, I'm little jealous that you consistently attract thoughtful readers. I'm sometimes at a loss to explain some of the negative comments I occasionally receive on Amazon. Whenever I'm personally attacked by an angry reader, I'm tempted to write them back and ask them why they think I'm not entitled to my opinion. They don't have to agree with me, but there's really no need to call me an idiot for not seeing the "genius" in a movie I didn't enjoy. What will they say when they read my latest review, "Mirrors," which digresses to Jacques Lacan's theory of the mirror stage? Will they even know what I'm talking about? Will they think I'm being too intellectual?

This comment may well be a confession, although I'm not sure it's one anyone wants to hear. For whatever it's worth, Mr. Ebert, it's thrilling to have participated in a discussion you started. And it's good to know that you appreciate your readers. This may be the first time I've actually written you a comment, but I've been reading your reviews regularly for the past couple of years, and I find them incredibly absorbing. I deeply respect you, and I hope you continue to share your thoughts and opinions for years to come.

Beach volleyball? Really? The diving is the hardest for me. When an announcer praises a diver for everything and then refers to their pool entry as a "splash down", I can't deal with it. Beach volleyball might be repetitive, but what sport isn't, really? It takes finesse, power, athleticism, speed, and strategy to play beach volleyball well. I know that diving takes loads of skill as well, but for sheer entertainment value it's a stinker.

Anyway.

"I.O.U.S.A." is interesting. I haven't seen it yet, but isn't the basic idea of "buying what we can't pay for" something that has seeped far deeper into our society than government spending? Take college tuition, for example. Not every parent can afford to send their kids to some universities. So those kids take out loans, which they pay back for the next ten years, and maybe more. And yet, college is basically the new high school. Most high school graduates have been told that they can't afford not to go to college. We put things on layaway, we pay only the minimum credit card balance, we buy things with no money down until 2010, and we let ill equipped people get loans on mortgages that are so big they need a second mortgage to have a down payment on the first. For some reason many people in this country can't bear to live within their means. This is exactly the attitude that will allow voters to elect politicians who promise tax cuts. Why? Because with a $600 tax rebate we can get that new flat screen tv we've been wanting. A new flat screen tv that they don't NEED.

I don't consider myself strongly liberal or conservative, but this attitude needs to change. Otherwise we may be facing an even more serious wake up call than the one we'll get from the national debt.

Roger-

You are not simply a movie critic, but a real flesh and blood person whom I enjoy reading. When I was a little kid, I used to see you on PBS and you were that movie guy. Now, as an adult, after reading your website and your books, I consider you a teacher. I've learned more about film and cinema from you than I could have from any class.

The beauty of it is in that since I am also a high school teacher, I can share what I have learned about film from you and pass it on to students who are interested in film. This past year we started a filmmakers club, and my first assignment for them was to give them a list of your Great Movies and check off the ones they had seen (I was rather pleased with the results). I was excited when we returned to school this summer as one of the kids told me he spend some of his vacation time catching up on the list. You get me enthused about film, I get them enthused about it, and hopefully one of them will go on to make a film we'll all be proud of.

So go on, tell me your thoughts on film, on politics, on the Olympics, on the Cubs if you want. Because I know what you write is genuine, I definitely am interested in reading it.

Ebert: Cubbies rule!

Beach volleyball boring? The May/Walsh match last week against Brazil was the greatest sporting event in the history of the world. Yeah, baby.

Blogging. Movies. Yin. Yang.

I am excited, right now as I type. Feeling and sensing that this very comment might get read, by Roger himself! Cause you set us all up for it, with your post, you're gonna get soooo many comments.

==== ====

I remember the web coming slowly alive in 1994. Internet dailies SUCK and SALON stand out as ones that were worth tuning in to read -- because the content CHANGED. EVERY DAY. Like... a newspaper!?

I feel that I was an "early adopter" to the AICN web site, 1996 perhaps. (Now THAT is a fine movie blog!!)

Of course, even before then, we lived and breathed rec.arts.movies.reviews

(I remember Manavendra Thakur starting "rec.arts.cinema" --- haaa! The "Film Comment" of USENET?)

But long before that and long before blogs and long before the World Wide Web were the annual "Roger Ebert Movie Yearbook" books with glorious collections of your lengthy well-written reviews.

LOVED EM!!

=== ===

I remember as your stuff first went online, you gave mad props to James Berardinelli?!

Every Friday morning at around 3:30am, I was the one Shift-Refreshing the roger ebert web page, wondering when the switch would get thrown and the reviews would come online.

Instead I should have been out at the newsstands chomping at the bit to buy fresh-off-the-presses Chicago Sun-Times newspaper... ... but the web changed things. Things change.

=== ===

Here's a meta-meta-observation for ya; Rainn Wilson the Rocker called Harry Knowles "the Roger Ebert of the Internet". Correction: YOU are the Roger Ebert of the Internet.

Thank you for everything, keep up the good work!

---- ---- ----

P.S.: I have an entire shelf in my house consisting of nothing but Pauline Kael books.

How does one measure a blog? Today, blogging is about as natural as nature itself. How can one meter nature or blame it? I’m a natureaholic, perceived good or bad, I’m there. When I sit down and read a blog, I see it as wine tasting, as an art gallery exposé. A great blog can be a text blanket that wraps you up in a warm bundle, a word hammer that hits every one of your expectation nails and adds a few more just to spite the others.

I believe in the Werner Herzog "film approach" when it comes to the written word, as with a blog. If we don’t find new images, the medium will die out. The same can be said about blogging or any bird of that feather. In the case of blogging, the new images would be new faces behind the words. Those new faces bring new points of view. I will not write or interpret the same sentence or thought as John in Maryland or Mary in China.

That is the effortless glory of blogging. It is not only a bullhorn for the Whos in Whoville to shout “WE ARE HERE!!” but it is also a reservoir for "the different." Strangers, "bloggers," are choppy bodies of water often holding islands with amazing scenics, "blogs." This may seem trivial or weird, but in 2008, I need "the different." "The different," whether it is just a blog, guides your tail-holding hand to the donkey on those days of abundant familiarity when you can’t seem to find it on your own. Why did I use a “pin the tail on the donkey” analogy? What would you have used?

Lay on, bloggers, lay on!

I'm so glad that you've been enjoying blogging. I've been blogging for a few years myself, and it's been a great experience. I really enjoy having a chance to put my thoughts and feelings out into the great void. Actually, I've just started (yesterday!) a movie blog with a few fellow film grads. I intend to put a link up for your site, and hope that, in our posts, we'll live up to the standard you've set.

Now, on to the subject of Misty and Kerri. I'd have to argue that the marathon that was aired on NBC last Saturday was the most repetitive event that I've seen thus far. Misty and Kerri, although you might not enjoy watching them, have proved to be perhaps the most dominant beach volleyball team in the history of the sport. Maybe I ought to just leave you with one of the things that I really appreciate about the way that they play. As a professional TaeKwonDo instructor with some idea of the operation of the body in athletic events, one of the things that gets me is their phenomenal combination of finesse and power. When the situation calls for one or the other, they seem to know exactly which gear to go into. As for the interviews, isn't that more the fault of the interviewer? Throughout the tournament, the questions were fairly generic and repetitive from match to match. If the questions didn't really change from event to event, why should their answers? I did think it was pretty funny when they hugged Heather Cox, the interviewer, after playing an entire match on the sand in the rain. Personally, I wouldn't have minded a hug from either of them under any circumstance, but poor Heather seemed a bit uncomfortable.

. . . and I know that I said that I was going to close with that bit about Misty and Kerri, but I just had to tell you that I'm going to watch a few movies from your "Great Movies" list this week. I finally got my hands on "Dark City" and "Three Colors: Blue." I'm very excited.

What I've come to appreciate is that I haven't been reading your thoughts all these years because you're a film critic, but rather because you are Roger Ebert. The truth is it woudn't matter if you were writing about movies, music, food, computer chips in our brain or even video games because to hear your thoughts is always an enriching experience. You speak from the heart always, and one thing that differentiates you from many of the writers out there is your personal candid honesty. A friend of mine told me his contention with movie critics. He said he believes all critics have a hidden agenda. To be more precise, a selfish hidden agenda. I believe that is largely true. But I also believe you are an exception. Whenever I read anything you write, I sense you are more interested in communicating your passion (which seems like a fire that can't be put out)than any toiling to promote your own importance. In other words, while most writers seem driven by their ego (see George Orwell's Why I write)you seem to be more driven by your rose colored glasses, and that is what I find so endearing about you. If, in fact, you do write with a selfish hidden agenda and a need to gratify your ego, you are a wizard at hiding it. But I think most would agree with me that there is something special about the way you write. All writers want to sound intelligent, but not many keep it real. You keep it real, and your intelligence shines through without effort. I say these things not so much to flatter you, but to try and isolate why I and many others are so drawn to you; and to express to you my appreciation. Indeed, I appreciate not only your decades of writing, but also your own expressed appreciation for your readers. Now that you're keeping a blog it's just another benefit to visiting your website. It's a treat to read things that mean something to you and aren't part of your regular "work". I've always loved writing and have always appreciated deep thinkers who lack pretention, are logical, passionate and enjoy communicating their inner world with others. You, Mr. Ebert, have always fit that bill.

You had me at Kerri and Misty May...
Seriously, Roger: I've had it with the Olympics almost completely. beach volleyball, in; baseball, out? What will they add next? Dancing to the Macarena? And drop, I don't know... gymnastics?
I didn't even watch the opening ceremony (if you think the NBC broadcast was a joke, it's because you've never seen the real joke mexican television has become, with non stop screaming and out of place comments by soap opera actresses, comedians and models, instead of experts in sports and the Olympics -and I'm not exaggerating!). I hope I will catch it on DVD soon. But I said the same four years ago. And eight years ago... and still no DVDs on those games. Heck, I haven't even watched the 1936 ceremony -in Olympia! (At least I know I won't see any beach volleyball there.)

You know, the first time I read on your website the Movie Answer Man column, I thought that would be the closest thing to meeting you in person most readers and viewers (myself included, and living in Mexico) would ever have. I wrote to you, for the first time, around ten years ago and although you didn't publish my letter, you did wrote back, in answer to my question (thanks, by the way). Since then, I have written to you from time to time and been published a couple of times in the column (thanks again), but what (almost) never fails, regardless of whether you publish it or not, is that you take the time to drop a note or a quick comment (and, thanks again!) in reply.
And now, with what you say about blogging in this post, I confirm that it only gets better. We get to read your opinions on film, the industry and related -and not so related- subjects, and we also get to share our opinions with you and the rest of the fellow readers. I too have recently started a simple blog on film and film-inspired ideas, with much fewer posts and even fewer readers than you have, but it's always fun and interesting to play this kind of intellectual ping-pong with whoever wants to play along. And especially interesting with those who don't want to play along, but still pay a visit and leave their comments (it's in Spanish, though, in case you felt like dropping by...).
Well, not a very insightful comment, and now quite a long one, but I just wanted to let you know: yes, this blog may be easily the best thing that has happened to your readers and viewers since you stopped appearing on the show (and I get the feeling it's been like that for you, too). Oh, and yes, best wishes to you.

Joel Meza
Mexicali, Mexico.

I must admit that I only checked your blog at this late hour because of the picture of Kerri and Misty May. Still, I'm glad I was fished in.

I recently started a blog on a networking site, and surprisingly found myself unable to think of things to write about, or at least interesting things to write about. They were boring blogs that got little attnetion from anyone, no comments, nothing really. I almost gave up on even keeping up with the blog, it wasn't even interesting to me anymore. Finally I decided to write about something I love, movies. I wrote my own small review of a movie I had just watched, and all of a sudden, comments, people reading, my blog was featured on the "front page" of this site's featured blogs. Now that is what I write most about, film. Reviews, small blurbs about a movie here and there, even a youtube link to a short film I liked. Blogging suddenly became interesting to me, and people commented, it was something I love and something that connects everyone. And I think that's why I love film, it connects everyone. Thank you for your blog Mr. Ebert.

Hello Mr. Ebert, four hours ago, I sent the Movie Answer Man an email with a comment about the film "I.O.U.S.A.." I hope you find time to read it because it addresses in part the troubling issues of the US National debt, which has now reached into staggering trillions and still counting!!! I am glad that this largely-unknown problem has now surfaced onto the national arena of theaters; there for everyone to see, to ponder upon, and hopefully, to bring about a reversal to the situation.

Anyway, the reason I'm writing this blog entry is to translate the Chinese sentence above. It reads as "I am a Chinese, (and) I love our country. No matter how prejudiced you people are about our country, still , I love her."

Now Sir Ebert, arise and defend yourself! Are you really prejudiced against China?

Thinking not,
Robert in Taiwan

Ebert: Prejudiced against China? Hardly. My opinion of China has only improved during the Olympics. But critical? Yes, sometimes. Critical of my own nation, too. An example: I lament the lack of true religious freedom in China. I also lament the growing encroachment of religion upon government in America, where polls show that millions of Americans have no use for the concept of separating church and state, and religious fundamentalists have a veto power over some nominations.

I'm finding the border between "blogger" and "news gatherer" or "critic" has gotten pretty muddy,when the news organizations (NYT, WSJ) have blogs, and the blogosphere can be the source of legitimate news.
The blog is just a platform that isn't restricted to the "limited resources" we associate with traditional newspaper, television and radio.
BTW, he gushed, I love your blog.

I just wanted to say how much I loved Cinemania, I still use it today. I'm from the UK and before that I only had the vaguest notion of who Roger Ebert was. I believe I saw you interviewed with Gene Siskel by Jonathan Ross on British TV and that was about it. I think BBC2 had the rights to your show for a while but I never caught it, probably 'cause they scheduled it at some bizarre hour. (This is the channel which bought Seinfeld in the 90s and regularly scheduled it after midnight). Anyway, thanks to Cinemania I was introduced to your writing (and Pauline Kael's) and have been a fan ever since.
I have zero interest in volleyball and have already wasted too much of my life arguing politics on the internet, so I think I'll leave it at that (other than to say your Death Race review was hilarious, especially the opening sentence).

Ha..the picture got me to read your blog. In an off topic note...Does anybody use non-digital matte paintings anymore? The kind from movies like Black Narcissus or Wizard of Oz. Speaking as someone born near the very tale end of their use (1984) I am intrigued/impressed by the things they used to accomplish with just paint glass and light.

Every four years, American commercial media's shortcomings become all too clear with the broadcasting of the sporting events of the olympics games.

In the games, we keep score of our success by metal count, who's ahead, who has more gold, etc. When our team succeeds, we give them their fanfare, their spotlight. When they fail, we'll question the judging, we'll question the legitimacy of their competitors, we'll analyze all the reasons for their failure, focusing on our team, win or lose, while ignoring those from other countries who succeeded in spite of overwhelming obstacles..
And overriding all this is the money... cut to commercial every 10 minutes.... win or lose.....the house always wins.....

Is it any wonder, that outside of sports, Everyday news of the world is covered in pretty much the same way. Like the olympics, we don't cover the news with a global viewpoint, but with an americentric one. Its not usually those who are most worthy of coverage who get on the news, but the most marketable, those most palatable to the american audience

I wonder how differently it would be if, say for instance, the olympics were broadcast on PBS. At least there, other cultures and peoples may be explored not for commercial purposes, but for sheer curiousity. Where the opening ceremony of a country with 5,000 years of history is shown LIVE, being viewed at the same time, by the rest of the world, and not interrupted every ten minutes by a caveman trying to sell you car insurance. Where humanity is brought together every four years without the divisiveness of tribalism.

Some things belong to commercial tv, sitcoms, reality shows, soap operas.

Other things belong to the public, the news of the day, children's television, our institutions (govermental, cultural, environmental) and the olympics... to name just a few....

p.s. ahhhh the wonders of blogging...luv it

Some of what NBC has been doing is despicable. Did you watch the women's 100-meter hurdle final. Jones was on her way to the gold (she was expected to win), hit a hurdle, lost her speed and finished seventh.

They didn't even interview the woman who won until after they threw a camera in Jones' face. She was on the brink of tears, and they just kept asking stupid questions like "what happened?" What did they think happened? She messed up and hit a hurdle.

Then, when she tried to get a moment in private to let it out, they snuck the camera in to watch her have a personal breakdown. It was revolting. Really awful stuff.

By the way: great to have you back in fighting form and reviewing movies. A fledgling film critic myself (I write for my college paper), its nice to take a look at what you've said on a film after I've written my piece. I may not always agree, but its never a dull read.

This is the first time I'm writing on this blog, and I only started reading since the start of summer; probably in June sometime, but I've been a little hesitant and intimidated to leave a comment, especially after you've made it evident in many of your entries that you do personally read the comments left here. After reading about the appreciation you have for the comments and people who make up this blog, I felt a need to express my own appreciation for your views and opinions that you feel comfortable sharing with all of us.
Now, in reference to what you say about being a liberal and sometimes having to have a political opinion when reviewing a film, I remembered your review of "Fahrenheit 911" on "At the Movies" where you mentioned that regardless of political ideology or creed being promoted by a film, be it a film from a far right conservative perspective, or a far left liberal perspective, it has the ability to receive a positive review from you. In fact, I think that's why we as a society can still so readily accept films like "Birth of a Nation" or "Triumph of the Will." The ideologies spread by these films may be in clear contrast to the values of our society, but that doesn't mean they're not well made films. This same way of thinking can be applied in a wider sense as well since every good movie poses moral questions to the viewer. Movies that come to mind include "Million Dollar Baby" or even more recently, "The Dark Knight" where we may or may not agree with the moral decisions of the characters.

P.S.
Being some one who recently graduated from high school and is planning on studying film, I was wondering if you could offer me any advice.

Ebert: Advice? See and discuss movies, of course. Read film history. Read seminal critics like Agee, Bazin, Warshow, Farber, Macdonald, Kael, Bordwell, Rosenbaum. Alone or (preferably) with others, try the stop-action analysis of films, pausing the DVD to discuss individual frames in terms of composition, lighting and anything else that occurs you. And this is equally important: Consider literature, drama, poetry and art. And most important of all: Write about what you see and what you think. The internet now gives you an outlet and the possibility of feedback beyond that of a personal journal.

Hey, Roger. Your words really hit home. Last week my newspaper kindly said they wouldn't be needing my movie reviews due to a common trend right now in the newspaper biz: smaller page counts and decreased ad revenue. Well, they only want reviews of "big movies" from now on -- they're all big in my eyes. Luckily I still have a job doing other things at the paper, unlike so many other critics across the country who have been canned outright. In any case, paid or not, I'm still writing reviews and posting them on a blog I created last year. It's been a fulfilling experience that I don't intend on giving up. My site started small and it continues to be small with only several hundred hits a week (some of those hits are my parents, my only loyal readers). I continue to write -- unpaid and on my own time -- for one reason: my deep appreciation of film. I like to think you and other critics would do the same. Hats off, though, to all the blogsters who have been posting all along without getting a paycheck. Their intelligent, witty and (often) sarcastic writing has contributed to film more than they know.

This was your first blog entry I have read, and I immediately went and read through the archives. I wish I found this earlier! I read your reviews almost religiously, not so much for the actual review, but for the snippets of wisdom and encouragement I find in them. I don't mean this in a cheesy way, but I've always found your writing calming and reaffirming somehow. You have such great insight for the real heart of the issue at hand (although sometimes it's just nice to find someone online with a functional vocabulary) and I've silently wished you the best through the struggles you've had. Thank you for helping me through many night shifts!
Jen

Volleyball boring? Amen to that! Who decided to give hours upon hours of air time to volleyball while ignoring so many other sports? I wouldn't mind watching a little fencing or shooting or taekwondo. The US did win some medals in those sports but you wouldn't know it from NBC's coverage.
I'm glad you mentioned the track and field interviewer. He's horrible. Is it too much to ask of the athlete's fellow countryman to have some sensitivity in his questions when the man (or woman) is still out of breath from running the race he just lost? Is it really necessary for the NBC reporter to humiliate the athlete further (in the way he asks his questions) at that particular moment? Shameful.

"In the first three weeks of August, readers logged on from 211 countries."

Based on the colloquial definition of a "country", I always thought that there were only ~193 countries. Not that I think your Blog incapable of getting viewers in 211 countries--hell, I wouldn't be surprised if multiple solar systems read your musings. I just am curious to know which number of countries is correct. Either way, it's a significant [ and well-deserved ] achievement. Kudos!

Ebert: Careless writing on my part. Omniture listed 217 separate places they define as points of origin. Some are not actually countries, such as the "U.S. minor islands." Those would not include islands such as the Virgin Islands and Guam, which were also listed. I didn't count, but I have the impfression most of the 193 actual countries were included as well, which says much about the reach of the internet, and the failure of various attempts to block it.

On behalf of all of us who read your blog, I'm glad that you're as happy with us as we are we you. Me personally, I would read just about anything you wrote on any subject (though we'd certainly differ over politics).

In fact, I think that's what is most overlooked about you: not only do you bring a passion for and love of movies to your readers, you're also an excellent writer. I remember reading your account of a collision you were in while en route to a movie festival in India. Obviously BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS did not exhaust your comic ability.

I speak for many, I think, who regularly visit your blog, Rog. Your politics are sometimes different than mine, and thats fine-even a good thing as occasionally you nudge me to look at things from a different perspective. While there may be visitors to your blog from 211 countries, we all click on to read about the thoughts of the lone inhabitant of the country of Ebert's opinion. This "country" does not engage in war with its neighbors, deficit spend, or erect walls to keep anyone out. All are welcome in Ebert country to read, ponder, question, and sometimes leave a thought or two. In my travelogue of countries I have visited, yours is one of my favorites.

Thanks for all your comments Roger, we all appreciate it very much.

Like you, I too found many of the Olympic sports (such as Volleyball for example) relatively boring and even unnecessarily lengthy in my opinion. Like in professional Tennis for example: I suppose it helps to be informed and actually part of the sport you are critiquing, but alas, pro tennis runs six of six sets mostly. All which are exhausting to perform and watch. Frankly, as a a more humble athletic body than most, I can only feel somewhat sorry that those people have to hit 1000 MPH balls over and over again for hours on end. There's gotta be a more accurate way to judge one's strategy and technique. Then again, I suppose that is the whole point to competition in athletics: Endurance. Personally, I've always felt skill and technique were more important. Who knows, maybe in the future much like unmanned warfare, they'll have machines rigged up to people to truly 'judge' their bodies and athletic talent, or we'll just have a bunch of androids up there hitting a ball.

All in all, I just think sometimes they hit things way too hard for fairness or comfort. Often people loose on a whim.

Personally, I've just been watching Volleyball for the eye candy (yeah, yeah I know). But honestly, think about it for a second. What average man in America or anywhere else for that matter wouldn't say the same thing? You said it Roger, Volleyball as a competition of repetition is just plain boring to watch.

The true glory, I suppose comes from seeing the underdog come through, the great one being dismantled, or the joy in finding that the collective group in one game has risen to challenge to win a given event. That's why people tune in I think.

As for all the hooplall, the advertising, the controversies and the annoying cracks about female swim suits, outfits and shower curtains. You can forget all that &*$*^%$%#@!.

(By the way, to the person who posted a negative comment regarding my Beijing post about China, I just wanted to know if you read the entire entry before posting judgement-- note to all, know where a reader is coming from before you attack all of us as misinfomred--then again, that only goes to show where there true importance lies, this is simply a blog after all, I could've made all that stuff up, but I wouldn't be doing my job as a provocatuer of sorts.)

Mr. Ebert,
I know that I just fell into your trap here but I echo your disinterest in beach volleyball as a televised Olympic event. Its soooo boring! I find it odd though that I find 'regular' volleyball to be extremely engaging. But I digress...

I am not a blogger nor do I usually partake in the forum. Your blog being the only exception I can think of. I usually evade blogs whenever possible because a blog entry in many other websites (political, sports, the arts, etc) attempt to pass of opinion as fact. Or, one bloggers viewpoint as a representation of a population. I fear that many web-"journalists" can say any vile, inaccurate or hurtful information that they wish without a chance of reprisal or rebuttal. I'm sure I sound like an old-fogey here...(I'm actually 34).

Needless to say, I read every blog you post regardless of the subject matter due to the style and energy of your writing. Please keep them coming!

Regards,
Chris

Has the Olympic coverage broadened at all to include sports that America may not be good at, or may not even be participating in, or has it been following the strategy of popular and America-favored sports, still? I didn't mind watching us win medals just after the attacks, but now I'm curious about what other people are doing again.

I remember prior debacles, when the network lost money on their coverage because they tried to include all kinds of weird sports, but I enjoyed fencing, ping pong, and other stuff people might not even know are in the Olympics.

The Olympic ideal is sort of about individual achievement, and I'd like to think it was about measurable achievement. We've moved way past that, even if you happen to be there and watching. All these strange rules for diving and gymnastics (at least they don't let the viewing audience vote. I probably shouldn't have even said that). Not all of the old Olympic ideal would fit well with modern sensibilities (I don't think biting people's ears off in boxing is acceptable anymore, like it was then. Nor is unsportman-like trampling of your opponents).

I saw the film Hidden (Caché) yesterday, and in the interest of the theme of that film, I'd like to say that the Olympics sort of reminds me of this, where all these secret sports are going on without our general knowledge. If you were watching the program as a child, you might think the Olympics were being held for America's benefit, instead of the world's (or possibly the Olympic Committee's).

I've been lucky enough to catch some of the weirder ones, but I have to say for the most part I gave up watching the Olympics a long time ago, back when this new coverage strategy began. I don't know about everyone else, but I tend to look at the Olympics as a way to view the rest of the world, if through a limited lens. And I like the old American tradition of rooting for the underdog, which doesn't get much practice if the strategy is to watch us amass a bunch of metal discs.

It's a bit strange too, considering the people that really won the medals are the athletes themselves. I hope that they get more than book deals and Wheaties box covers for their hard work.

I suspect that you don't attract the freak show types who clutter up the other blogs because of your special place in the hearts of both movie fans and computer geeks... we all got our Cinemania! CDs when we got our first PCs all those years ago and for many of us outside the US it was our first exposure to your writing. There was no looking back from there. (In deference to the late Sir Arthur, I too am waiting for the updates to come back online...)

Not to flatter you or anything, but I have enjoyed reading your reviews and commentaries over the years with the same pleasure that one greets an old friend. I can passionately disagree with you on any number of films, (but you get a pass because of your review of "Babe: Pig in the City. Bless you.) but unlike most of the critics out there, your personal perspectives and humanism shine through. You have the gift of being able to cut to the core of what makes a movie great or garbage.

We don't read Roger Ebert entirely for the movie review. We read your stuff for the pleasure of keeping company with someone we have come to enjoy being around, even when he is cranky and annoyed.

You've had a rough time lately, so best wishes for your continued recovery and an improvement in your skills at not falling over without provocation. ;)

Roger,

I think the reason that you and Jim receive such well written responses to your blogs is because your blogs are actually well written and thoughtful. A video of a guy getting hit in the groin repeatedly will probably garner responses such as "OMG!!! HE GOT HIT IN THE BALLZ!!!"

Thought provokes thought. Thank you for that.

All the best,

Matt

Well, one word on blogging before the deluge of comments on politics and volleyball. In perusing and submitting to blogs, I've noticed that comments (at least in the movie realm) are overwhelmingly polite & thoughtful which seems pretty far from the streotype of the rancorous, immature blogosphere. Interesting.

Didn't know you had a blog - I guess I'll have to add it to the ever-burgeoning favorites list. Thanks a lot.

Thanks, Roger! I'm very honored that you think so much of us, and am also glad that you haven't had any incidents with what the cyberworld terms "flamers" or from people who haven't bothered to read or think through what you've written. I've run across those kinds of people in forums and other spheres. But like you, I have never encountered any of those types from the little I've dabbled in the online film criticism world. It's humbling and refreshing to find a community like this.

Thank you.I think many of us in the Caribbean are getting the impression that this is America's Olympics. Granted Phelps is phenomenal, and then there's gymnastics,basketball and the myriad other events that the U.S. is dominating. However, I think NBC should remember that a lot of people from different countries around the world are relying on their coverage of the Olympics and when you see your athletes winning and being interviewed after the second place American,or not being given a sit down at all (have they sat down with Bolt yet?) people are bound to become incensed.

Now the word from the great Bob Costas and an IOC official is that Bolt seems to be showboating and is not exhibiting true sportsmanship.I looked at his actions and also wondered what the record would have been had he not slowed at the end. But to be able to cruise towards the finish and still take the record, this man has to be in a zone of his own and he knows it.I've seen him being interviewed by the Caribbean media since and haven't seen him carry that attitude throughout. After the 200m he spoke of being tired and needing to refocus for the 4*100m relay (no talk of smashing his competitors or kicking their butts). He therefore knows he is still a human being with limits.

I've also been following NBC's olympic zone and was surprised to the other night, to see the anchors looking at the medal count and saying that the U.S. is still on top overall in the count with no mention that China had far surpassed the U.S. in Golds. Had America been on top in the number of Gold medals they would not let us forget it.

Therefore don't call it showboating or disrespectful when Bolt claims I am number 1.When Ali called himself the greatest it might have also seemed like showboating then but funny thing is now, decades later, most of us agree with him and love him.

Go Caribbean

Ebert,
I was one of those people you sometimes "chatted with" in the early days of Compuserve. We share a "cinematic guilty pleasure" for INFRAMAN and of course the arch-villainess Dragon Mom! If health problems ever get a bit too much and you need a release, grab a bucket of popcorn and spend the next eighty minutes with Inframan and his friends. But watch out for his Thunderfist! Should you have an Ebert group night out at the movies, with INFRAMAN as the feature du jour, I'd make the trek across country to be there. We may grow old but we don't have to wear the bottoms of our trousers rolled.

Ebert: I believe the full name of the villainess was Princess Dragon Mom. But I forget the name of the Slinky character.

Our local paper has a columnist who also has a blog wherein he writes about local politics, bloopers and anything else that strikes his fancy, but usually on Fridays he has a "Movie Quotes" quiz. He draws from all genres and across the years from Marx Brothers to current movies. There are several people who are regular readers of his blog (including myself) who are avid movie fans and could get every quote right, but we only answer two or three so that everyone gets a chance. One of my fellow movie addicts will even give a hint if one quote stumps everyone (obviously she knows the answer). I am very happy that you have a blog because we miss seeing you on television.

Whether you like it or not Roger (since we met for five minutes in Boulder once at the World Conference I can use your first name since we are such close friends or so I tell anyone who will listen and knows I'm crazy.) You were kind enough to give me some comments of the great CRUMB dvd that was about to be released with your commentary. I'm a devout Crumb fan and own a fair amount of his art but I think his crowning achievement will be his book of Genesis that he is almost if not done illustrating. There is NO artist worthy other than R. Crumb who is anchored in the past so much so I think that if it was 500 yrs. ago he would be a "MASTER" artist.
But your site as you mentioned along with your blog has a solid audience as you well know and even though Disney in it's short sightedness canceled your show you are in the new medium to continue your work without having to learn all about the vagaries of the web. Thanks for all of your great writing it's been inspiration to me.
I have a severe spinal injury and I am not allowed to work anymore nor am I even allowed to apply for job rehab if I do I LOSE ALL BENEFITS that so far have yet to appear. The State of Colorado has instructed it's dept. of employment that anyone who becomes disabled on the job may NOT collect unemployment and my SSDI may take UP TO 3 YEARS before they accept it. In the meantime they expect a man to live w/out any income at all. This of course is to force the disabled to work or become homeless. There are NO OTHER CHOICES. I mention this with hope that perhaps one day you might prints some of this of even look into the savage cruel and plain stupid "health care system" we have now. Even applying for my state benefits where I went to the office and a very nice woman saw and took pity on me to help me fill out the numerous applications. I figured this way they could not deny that I filled them out wrong but instead even though I had ALL of them delivered by their own courier they said the "lost them". This is done on purpose I found out because when I called them they claimed they were still waiting for my "termination papers". They went on to say things that they ONLY could have got from my termination papers "that never reached their office". Roger I plead to you to direct me to someone I can relate this to. Their current procedures are forcing many to become homeless that is indeed their goal for the homeless have no power. But when an man has NOTHING TO LOSE and is filled with outrage, anger,and most dangerous of all impotence, you have the formula for another tragic mass shooting. I have chosen to fight them but I'm going to do it with the mightier "pen".
I'm a recovering alcoholic sober for 11 yrs. And as far back as 1974 I became the first minor to become a paramedic both state and nationally certified and even re-wrote the national test to include "cardiac tamponade" which at the time I was chastised for it. The very next year it was required teaching for ALL EMT's. I was 17 yrs old then and was going to use my teaching to become a L.A. County Lifeguard and go to film school. I did make 2 films both were good considering I had to use 8mm and even found a way to put a sound stripe on the film so the soundtrack would match the action. But at the age of 17 I was well away from home and had an apt. by the So. Cal. Bch. and that was the year when December stayed in the 80 degree range. Liquor stores delivered so booze was easy to buy plus I had my badge. Both of my parents were alkies and I became one myself that beautiful winter. I just simply did not want the party to end.
Fast fwd to now. Imagine being disabled with crippling back pain and being forced to work a literally back breaking job because Uncle Sam said as long as I'm working I can't apply for any help even though my doctor (who is well known at SSDI as a fighter for our rights) certified me as disabled. So after an MRI showed the extensive damage I was given massive doses of the pain killers you read about. But the day came and I had a complete breakdown. So the DEA demands that I have to be removed from the narcotics (my breakdown is against the law btw). I was fine with the that I never did want the pills but it was either the PAIN or suicide. Guys like me who work hard, I'm the one who cleans the OR's, ER's , and if I'm lucky the patients rooms, AND had "good' benefits yet I was forced to start selling off my art collection to buy food. You see my $10.50/hr is simply too much earning for any one man to get financial help. I did not triple gas prices nor did I quadruple food prices and I certainly did not urge the auto insurance people to force all of us to pay some of the highest rates in the nation.
So I'm caught in the health care purgatory of waiting while they make life so difficult many have commited suicide, or died from their sickness often getting their benefits a week before they die. It makes NO sense from any point of view other than pressure exists from heavy donors who want the money that we poor have to pay. So now I'm detoxing while they increase the dosage of an anti-siezure drug whose side effect is that of a pain killer. So I'm on Lyrica now.
Here is a gem for you. Imagine if YOU had to go to our federal bldng in Ft. Collins where the SSDI office is. First for me the long ride causes damage but I have no choice. But at least I can walk thru the revolving doors which are not ADA approved. In fact the bldng is exempt from the ADA and will not provide furniture that does not cause physical damage in their office. I swear their chair for the sick and injured look like they were taken from a dumpster. So I was injured while giving the very nice lady my info for my application. They do not care. So I called my local Senators office to report this. Salazr's mantra is like big biz the new 4 letter words for them are "can't", "won't", "don't". The agency set up stricktly for the sick and injured is set up to hurt, maim, and discourage everyone from their just rights all PAID FOR BY THE %25 they steal from all of our paychecks. Roger in the USA you ARE THE ENEMY if you are in need of help. Just look at recent history and tell me they are not trying with malice of forethought to kill all of those who dare ask for aid. And punishment for applying for a job rehab program?? What sense in what party does this make? We the sick CITIZENS are being tortured by good old Uncle Sam. Btw in case you are wondering the Mexicans to my surprise are NOT getting all the benefits it's all a huge lie for the propaganda machine. I demanded to look at the demographics and less than %15 of those disabled and receiving benefits are Latino and were born here as were their parents were. And so it goes. My life is one of constant fear of suddenly losing everything I wanted to hand down to my son just so I don't become homeless. How cruel is that? And what is going to happen when all these vets who were trained to kill get the shaft and lose their family, home, sanity? I'm sorry but in this case it is NOT guns that kill it's the current system of NOT helping the sick and injured who for the most part are well armed. This is a prediction not a threat the threat is there already and didn't put it there Uncle Sam did when he wanted a new Rolex.

Ebert: An eloquent illustration of the need for national health care. Moore's "Sicko" could be followed by a doc about a suffering person trapped in our medical bureaucracy.

Roger,

Don't feel the need to post this comment. Since you mentioned you read every comment, I just want you to know that I appreciate every review you write and every blog entry you post. You're just excellent at what you do, and I'm sure you know that.

Every time I see a movie, I form my own opinion about it for an evening or a day, then I read your review. Not to brag, but we usually agree. And when we don't agree, you always have a reasonable justification for your views (or, when you don't, you at least acknowledge it). I know you've been through a rough time with your health the last few years, but I'm happy to see you still going strong reviewing movies. For people like me, there is something missing when I can't read your review of a great movie I just discovered. I don't absolutely need your reviews for me to enjoy movies, but they sure make movie-watching so much more fun. For me, you are part of the movies now.

That's all. You're great. Please keep it up.

Clay Britton
Lawrence, KS

I forgot to ask this in my earlier post:

Would you share your thoughts on the Dark City Director's Cut that was recently released on Blu-Ray? Although it is a favorite of mine, I haven't had the time or the money to pick it up yet.

Thanks,

Matt

Ebert: It is superior, I think. For starters, it removes the opening narration so we are left the pleasure of figuring out for ourselves who and what the Strangers are. I am pleased that the new DVD edition also preserves the original theatrical cut and my commentary track, since I have certainly recorded my final commentary.

After posting a comment on the blog entry regarding Zhang Yimou's epic opening ceremonies I was amazed to see that you actually responded. I wouldn't have even guessed that you read the comments let alone take the time to reply to them. I was thrilled and impressed.

This happens to be the reason your blog in particular is successful. A good blogger nurtures his entries even after the initial post. The original topic can take on a new life when it's readers weigh in. It may turn to something more worthwhile that you never intended to discuss.

As for beach volleyball I wholeheartedly agree with you 3 out of every 4 years. I'll watch any Olympic sport if the U.S. is a contender despite the tedious nature of the event.

When I was kid I loved a movie called "Side Out" from 1990 about beach volleyball staring C. Thomas Howell and Peter Horton. After searching the archives of both your site and the At The Movies website I can't see where the film was ever reviewed. Probably a good thing. It wasn't a great movie but it did make beach volleyball look exciting.

This is a special entry, Roger! I'm so sick of the Blog Snobbery -- not from the bloggers, but from people who turn their nose on blogs and bloggers and call them self-important, etc. OK, like you and everyone, I don't like reading emails constantly telling me to "read my blog" from friends of mine who spend too much time on the interwebs, but you get the idea.

I'll admit that blogging can be a bit self-important at times. But here's a taste: I wrote a blog entry on you! Though it's been sad not to see you on TV, I've actually been enjoying your writing even more. The blog pulled back another layer to your writing gifts --- you continue to connect with the readers and make complex points in clear, precise language. (Sorry, I'm brown-nosing). You mentioned CompuServe, and when I was a freshman in college 10 years ago, I somehow found your email address (the CompuServe one), contacted you and shared my thoughts. Call it web-friends? You once told me that the critic is to be an ideal member of the audience. What better way to do this than blog?

Mr. Ebert,

First off, I just want to say what a pleasure it has been to read your reviews over the years. And your books are fantastic!

My question is this: why has "The Best Years of Our Lives" been, for a lack of a better term, almost blackballed as far as exposure to the general public? I never see it on television. The DVD release was pathetic and hardly mentioned at all. In my opinion, this was one of the most important movies released in the history of American cinema.

Ebert: Agreed. It's in the Great Movies collection. Why it isn't more watched today, even among serious movie lovers, is a mystery.

1. I'm glad you've started a blog, Roger. I have been reading your reviews in the days when you were still on the Chicago Sun-Times website, so it's nice to see you continue to branch out and try new things. Writers of your caliber could just sit back and go on autopilot, but I respect a man who continues to challenge himself.

2. I wouldn't use the word "superb" when describing Jim Emerson's Scanners. I'll keep the comment to that.

3. Volleyball is, I think, one of the most exciting sports in the world to watch. Watching Misty-May and Kerri, two athletes at the very tip-top of their game, has been as inspiring and life-affirming as anything Michael Phelps or Usain Bolt have done. College Volleyball is one of my favorite sports to watch - in my four years at UT I don't think I missed more than 2 home games. Give the sport another chance, Roger. After all, not only is it a display of great athleticism and second-to-second strategy, it's beautiful women running around in bikinis. Really...I mean, how could anyone possibly not enjoy this?

P.S. Off-topic question: Are you ever going to write about "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" or "Platoon" for your Great Movies section? "Platoon" is on your 80's 10 best list and I've read your original review of "Encounters," which was very enthusiastic and praise-heavy. Just wondering, I'd love to get your thoughts on them.

Maybe it is just me but isn't watching women's beach volleyball for the strategy and gameplay pretty much the same thing as watching "Vixen" for the last ten minutes aboard the airplane?

It's a relief to read kind, fair and well-constructed comments.

I've often thought blog comments were the digital equivalent of writing on a bathroom stall. I'm reminded of a line from your review of Untraceable where you said, "How people with the mentality of the authors of such messages are intelligent enough to get online in the first place is a puzzle."

It's your words which bring solace when I see comments that appear to be authored by knuckle-draggers.

Thank you.

D'Arcy
Windsor, Canada

It deeply saddens me to know that you may never record another commentary track, Roger. Your commentaries on "Dark City", "Casablanca", "Citizen Kane" and "Floating Weeds" are among the best I've ever heard (haven't gotten to the rest yet, forgive me). There aren't many commentary tracks that I listen to more than once, but I continue to go back to yours.

Anyway, back on topic (sort of). All this discussion of China and politics reminded me of something. Have you seen a recent documentary called "Please Vote for Me"? It's one of the most fascinating films I've seen in recent years. It centers around a Chinese 3rd grade class that decides to hold a democratic election for the office of class monitor. What transpires is astonishing. In just 57 minutes, the film says a lot of valuable things about China, democracy, the one-child policy, and human nature. It's just been released on DVD.

Thanks for all of these thoughtful blog entries. I know we're all happy that you've decided the wonderful world of blogging!

I just read your review of Death Race, where you said that Hitchcock said a movie should play the audience like a piano. It got me thinking what would Hitchcock and Capra think about the way today's Hollywood films are going for all flash and no regard for story or character development?

I am also glad you've decided to blog.

Roger:

I have been reading your blog since the beginning and have never responded, mostly because I wasn't exactly sure how to appropriately add to the discussion.

Your commentary is a welcome addition to the online world, as it is always honest and poignant, which often elicits thoughtful and insightful feedback. That is a rarity in this still new and incredibly unusual electronic medium.

I am an aspiring sportswriter at Syracuse University toiling away covering the embarrassingly awful Orange footballers, but my passion for film flexes my sometimes underused artistic muscles and proves not all wannabe jocks are mindless, juiced drones.

Writing about sports has presented an interesting conundrum in my budding career I wonder if you ever faced as a young critic. The stereotype persists that sportswriters are somehow lesser journalists -- mediocre writers and reporters who should leave the "real" stuff for the big boys in the A section of the newsroom. Sports, like movies, are relegated to the sphere of entertainment. Perhaps you have a story from your early days with the Sun-Times?

Reading your work further assures me my dreams and expectations are worth pursuing. I can create true art covering sports and hopefully inspire people, as you have inspired me.

Through my work, I help maintain and contribute to a Syracuse sports blog through The Daily Orange Web site. Not surprisingly, we have received countless comments bashing both our work and person.

I promise I will help you never suffer a similar fate.

Ebert: I started as a sports writer at 15 (see my "Newspaper Days" entries) , and found it was the area of the paper that gave a reporter the most freedom in writing style. IMHO, the greatest sports writer in America is William Nack, the biographer of Secretariat. Read his book of essays 'My Turf' for the writing, even apart from his subjects.

I admit I did not start keeping up with your blog until fairly recently (although I have enjoyed your reviews and commentary for years), but now I realize that it seems like an absolutely vital communication tool. I first began reading your reviews as a middle school kid (I'm 19 now) just to get movie recommendations, but I've learned that the heart of movie criticism isn't star ratings or simple opinions. I've always wondered why there seems to be such a gaping difference between the various ways people use the word "criticism"--for example, good literary criticism is usually entirely different from the way most people think of film criticism, focusing much more on analysis and the exchange of ideas rather than the mere approval or disapproval of a work. Opinions are obviously important, but what's more important is the human personality and the ideas that the films help highlight, because that's the essence of film (or any art form) to begin with--it reveals as much on the beholder as it does about the creator. But sadly, when most people I know think of movie critics, they imagine a sort of stooped, passionless, pretentious man who finds no pleasure in anything other than tearing apart good entertainment. Your website has helped to force that image out of my mind, helping me realize that criticism is not about disliking movies but about LOVING them with every ounce of your mind. Anything that can stir up the passion and power of a great movie like "2001: A Space Odyssey" or "Raging Bull" requires commentary worthy of its subject, and you can be safe in assuming that you are creating a forum for exactly that sort of high-quality communication, where there is not just a one-way, dead-end street from critic to reader. Because, after all, what are movies themselves if not communication?

".....But in the third set of a volleyball match, can you remember specific blocks, spikes, saves or serves from the first set? "

After watching Beach volleyball for the last few days (the most important games in the Olympics according to NBC) the correct technical terms I learn are kills, blocks, aces etc.

If someone from NBC were to know that you, Mr.Ebert, somehow did not use this terminology correctly, I am afraid they will make you watch all the ten days worth of beach volleyball again. I kindly request you not to anger the NBC gods in this matter. Let us all keep this as a secret!!!!

I was almost able to decode the sign language used by Misty/Kerri and Phil/Roger behind their backs(actually a bit lower). Geez...I wonder if there is mixed doubles in beach volley !!!!

Mr. Ebert,

You've not only made movies better for me, now you're making blogging better too.

What so few who come from the world of professional journalism or criticism seem to realize right off is that blogging is as much a personality based venture as anything else. A good blogger doesn't just orate from his or her perch of vast wisdom. A good blogger is a conversationalist. Their personality comes through and they feed of the interaction with their readers.

It's a scary prospect for some, but you seem to have taken to it right away. You helped pioneer film criticism on TV and I'm happy to see you've already mastered the latest medium.

For the record, I believe beach volleyball would be 68% less interesting were it not for the bikinis. I'm not complaining, I'm just saying.

I loved your CONFESSIONS OF A BLOGGER. Even though some of your reviews have clearly shown your liberal side throughout the years, as one whose ideas are much, much more on the conservative side, I've never really had a problem with your points of view and I believe this is beceause the problem doesn't have to do what one person believes in but instead with people themselves who take sides with one party, one group, and defend them no matter what. EX. I am all for free enterprise but I have to agree Michael Moore makes plenty of good points in SICKO, specially since our hospital and insurance system in Mexico is so similar to the one in the states and I have had to go through situations similar to those that Moore shows in his film, my point: free enterprise is wonderful but when applying it to situations in where you have no choice but to procure something and the seller has every freedom to take advantage of you AND you know there are other systems in other countries that work better, well, following a more capitalistic approach here is simply stupid if not inmoral. Even if I don't agree with Mr. Moore showing us how wonderful cuban doctors would treat foreign patients on camera (like they wouldn't take advante of the opportunity !) or even cornering an unsuspecting and clearly debilitated Charlton Heston in BOWLING FOR COLOUMBINE.
On the other hand I have friends in the States who are smart, charitable and just plain wonderful people but for the life of me I can't believe their unrelenting defense of President Bush and all things Republican no matter what. Yesterday they forwarded me an e-mail that defended the invasion of Irak by comparing it to other Democrats initiating war on countries throughout the 20th. century when your country was not directly attacked and showing how little the US casualties in Iraq are in comparison. Generally speaking, their points of view over many subjects are very similar to mine but this e-mail left me simply dishearted.
I hope you get my point, sorry I needed such a long letter to make it. Best wishes.

I find the constant caterwauling about "American bias" in NBC Olympic presentation to be silly at best, disingenous and hypocritical at worst.

First of all, which nation's media DOESN'T focus primarily on that nation's athletic endeavors? If a Taiwanese athlete wins a gold medal, or one from Burkina Faso, will they not be feted at an extraordinarily high level in that nation's media? Did the BBC not focus endlessly on Paula Radcliffe a few Olympics back? When Japanese media make a phenomenal superstar out of Japanese baseball players, so much so that they follow their every at-bat through Japanese media stationed in America, does anyone complain then about the "nationalistic fervor" at play? Not to mention the World Cup!

It's all nonsense. I can think of no other country that does not do this, yet no other country is criticized for it. This leads one to believe that it's not genuine, intelligent criticism, but simply sour grapes.

Mr. Ebert made it a point to note in his blog that he found the Chinese national, communal spirit at the Opening Ceremonies to be awe-inspiring. And then he has a problem with Bob Costas or an event announcer focusing on American athletes because U.S. viewers are proud of their boy or girl from Indiana or Texas, Michigan or Maryland?

And one more thing; NBC primarily focuses on Americans because I'd wager an enormous percentage of their viewership is indeed within the U.S. It is primarily an American network. One must remember that not all American citizens are "citizens of the world" like Roger Ebert; they don't have decades of international travel and connections, nor the vast financial resources to do so. Millions of American viewers root for the American in an event, a) because they actually KNOW these athletes, or a friend of a friend of the athlete's, or they simply went to the same university where the athlete trained; b) because it's simply an easy rooting point - competitions are generally more interesting when you have someone to cheer on, and when you're watching something like diving, where only an infintessimal percentage of the viewership actually knows the background of any of it, it's simply easier to root for your countryman. Do the citizens of any other nation do anything different? Do Jamaicans generally tend to cheer for Swedes over their own athletes out of a sense of international communalism?

Of course not. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with such a goal, and I tend to be a supra-nationalist on most issues. I just don't like the rank hypocrisy and childish resentment on display.

I hardly comment on your blog. I've always felt the vastly superior knowledgeable readers who actually do comment on a regular basis here and on Mr. Emerson's "scanners" are highly intelligent, quick-witted, and graceful writers. I like to think highly of myself, but I am consistently shoe-horned into modesty and humility when reading your readers' thoughts.

But this post was radically moving to me. And I felt the urge to just write a quick, "thank you."

I would be encouraged to comment more, but I hate looking ignorant in front of others. That's why I have my own blog that allows me to be ignorant and offensive all on my own without blame.

Blogs are definitely rad. Thanks Mr. Ebert. For everything.

uber fan

Dear Mr Ebert,

I am deeply ambivalent about blogs. In my experience the "daily musings" of most people--sometimes not even op/ed pieces but merely a rehearsal of one's lunch menu--simply are not worth the electrons expended to post them. I include myself among this group, which is why I do not write a blog, although I read a precious few and respond to even fewer. (Lucky you to be in this rarefied group!) The fact that everyone has an opinion has mesmerized many into believing that all opinions are of equal merit, to be shared no matter how ignorant, poorly reasoned, or abysmally written they are. Self-censorship is becoming a lost art (that some may say I should have exercised here). Becoming addicted to the ease of posting and the rush of immediate supportive noises made by one's online "friends" can also cause one to spend so much time blogging that one's responsibilities as a writer (and sometimes other responsibilities as well) are neglected.

It is probably also true that your unambiguously positive experience of blogging is extremely rare. Most bloggers are subjected to vituperation at one time or another, much of it no better than ad hominem attacks. Again, the ease of posting and the relative anonymity of the internet often lead people to post things they would never communicate more personally. Nevertheless, your fame and liberal politics should have made you a target before now, and it is no doubt both to your credit as an interlocutor and to the quality of your self-selected readership that you have not been subjected to the bile the internet often spews. May it continue to be so.

But then there are undeniably those--nameless here forevermore--whose opinions are of such manifestly high quality that we are truly grateful for them to have a venue to express more of them than they could otherwise. Prior to the advent of the internet, if one did not live in Chicago one could experience your work only through "Siskel & Ebert At the Movies," appearances on "The Tonight Show," and the occasional book. Now we are delighted and edified on virtually a daily basis. So the blogosphere may be very low grade ore, but then again although diamonds are quite rare we do still mine for them.

Best regards, and thank you.

P.S. No need to print this bit (or any of it, for that matter), but I wanted to share one of my favorite moments between you and the sadly departed Gene Siskel. You were both on David Letterman's show (in the 1980s, I believe), and were engaged in some badinage about who was the better critic. There followed something like the following exchange (the exact wording has escaped me, and some details have no doubt gone hazy with time):

G.S.: Who says you are the better critic?
R.E.: Well, the Pulitzer Prize jury, for one.

Mr Siskel grew suddenly serious and paid you a great and evidently sincerely felt compliment: "That's true," he said, "I would love to have one of those." Immediately your faux braggadocio disappeared, and you looked at him in somewhat abashed humility. For Mr Siskel's part there was no jealously or bitterness, merely respect, and in that moment the profound esteem and affection in which you held each other became apparent to all of us.

Hello, Roger!

I too have been consistently impressed by the quality of comments you (and Jim Emerson) keep getting on these blogs. Which is why I recently started adding my own, in a desperate hope that I may occasionally have something worthwhile to say. +) Blogging puzzled me for a long time and I had little interest in it, until this last year or two when I realized there were a few very good ones out there. Yours and Jim's are the only ones I visit regularly, apart from a few friends'. While there are many issues on which we disagree, the sense of general respect for other opinions and the apparently real desire to hear them and give the benefit of the doubt are what keeps my respect and admiration for you. Your concise, casual humor help keep me coming back. +)

I generally agree with you about volleyball, though just last night I got rather into the gold medal match between the USA and Brazil. What a close match that was! Wins are not as dramatic as in, say, swimming, or gymnastics, but there's always something happening that could be significant, and that kept me watching. Diving is the other one that I seem to watch in spite of it being somewhat boring -- I simply don't have the expertise to tell how one "good" dive is so much worse than a "great" one!

Lastly, I don't mind political points coming in every so often, when they're called for, but I'm glad you've generally kept to the point of this movie site. Politics tend to be divisive, it seems, but movies can bring us together. (...okay, I suppose that's a loose "can," as films are often divisive too, but you get my drift.)

Bleh. Sorry for my wordiness. Thanks for intelligent blogging, and for reviews that have certainly opened my mind to wonderful new movies and ways of looking at them.

God bless,
David Michael

P.S. I particularly want to thank you for your review of "The Secret of Roan Inish." I read it many months ago after hearing a very little about it, and after seeing it it quickly became one of my all-time favorites. It is a movie that healed me. Just last week I spread its dreamlike joy to some of my friends, and shortly after it appeared as your "Overlooked DVD of the Week." A fun coincidence that made me smile. But I may not have discovered it had you not been so taken with it. Mainly, I noticed the mature, sensitive (and dare I say "realistic"?) writing of the central child character. Perhaps you could do a blog entry/article on the portrayal of children in movies? Not often are they seen as more than gimmicks, sadly.

I just wanted to say that I like watching beach volleyball, diving, and tennis. I think that makes me a minority here, but hey, different strokes, etc. It all just comes down to what you appreciate, and I believe we all appreciate different things.

However, I do continue to be baffled by the weird selective focus NBC gives certain American athletes over others, especially in track. It's about as illogical as can be. They're all Americans, shouldn't they all get fairly equal coverage?

I'm happy to see that you're enjoying and reaping the benefits of your blog, Roger. Were I to have a blog of equal caliber, I do not think I'd be able to keep up. I wonder how you do it, and admire it quite a bit.

You are a treasure. I lined up my dvd rental queue to match up with your "great movies" list and the experience thus far has been phenomeonal. Thanks for all that you do.

I cannot tell you how glad I am that you have returned to writing about movies once again. Your silence was deafening. Now that you are blogging, I can experience you both as a blogger and a critic.

I read 'Negative Space' years ago and hope to re-read it when time prevails. I think the greatest film critic I ever encountered was Pauline Kael. But I also believe Robert Warshow could hit the mark as well. Needless-to-say, when I read your reviews after they were anthologized, I would always stop and say to myself, 'yeah, right, got to rent that one'.

Anyway, like I'm sure thousands of others have already said, I am very happy that you are writing again.

I think often the quality and types of comments that come with blogs, come from the tone of the blog. As a huge sports fan, I visit Deadspin.com daily. Their comments can be vulgar and disrespectful, but also very funny. That goes along with the tone of Deadspin who's rule is, first and foremost, to BE FUNNY. With your blog, you discuss movies in a serious manner. As such, you're bound to get insightful and respectful posts.

This is doubly true, since you avoid politics in your blog. I hope you don't mind me saying this, but politics makes everyone a little bit stupid. We get caught up in our beliefs, and, at times, view someone who disagrees with us politically as a bad person. By not discussing politics, you avoid the silly sniping that goes along with it.

Roger, I'm another one from the CompuServe days -- heck, I got started with you when you were on TV, and it hasn't stopped since. I can honestly say that your writing in every format has been the single biggest influence on me as a writer, a critic, and probably a person.

I started doing movie reviews on my blog almost ten years ago. I still do reviews, although not at the pace I'd like to, no thanks to other duties. But in every case, I always try to ask myself whether or not what I'm writing could be held to the same standards. When people asked me what would be a good way to look at something, I passed around your writing as a model. Not in the sense that someone had to agree with what you said word for word, but that you had a way of explaining and defending yourself that was exemplary.

I can also honestly say that through you, I came to understand what it means to be a critic in a creative sense. Criticism is deeply misunderstood; the word is usually synonymous with something negative. It's not about tearing something apart, but explaining it to others in its totality. To that end, I tend to look for things that people don't normally come across in their moviegoing, and then say, hey, here's something you might have missed; here's what's special about it. To me, that's the real job at hand -- not just to look clever (although it's fun to do that in moderation, especially when you're faced with something that's just so dismal there's no other way to talk about it).

The way you look at the movies is not as a simple vocation, but as a doorway through which you can go to all of life. That seems to be the best way to approach anything, really.

As an aside, I saw in the above comments that Anil Dash of SixApart / Movable Type gave you a shout-out. I interviewed him for my day job, where I look at software (also in a critical context), and I use Movable Type for my own website as well. I'm with him on how blogging has become a mode of communication and discourse all its own, and a positive one.

Roger:

Let me also join the chorus of people who are both glad to see you blogging and even more pleased to hear that you get so much out of it. I blog myself mainly to keep up some sort of daily writing regimen (if it can honestly be called that). However, I often bemoan the fact that my blog writing is so sloppy and unconsidered. In order to lower the hurdle for myself and provide incentive to post daily, I decided against forcing myself to write "well" per se - though obviously I never intentionally try to write poorly written posts. I've heard some traditional media types rail against the "first draft culture" that blogging perpetuates - but I have to say your blog, along with Jim Emerson's blog, and the folks at the House Next Door have some of the most carefully considered blogs about film and culture around. I do think you are somewhat privileged to have a higher class of people commenting. While I've never received any obscene or insulting comments either - that's mainly bc only a few friends will stop by and make some kind of casual comment. By and large, blog comments tend to degenerate into inane banalities or petty name calling. Yet, I've enjoyed the comments both here and the House Next Door. Sorry for blathering on, I just meant to say - keep up the great work & thrilled that you're enjoying the blogging and comments received.

Best,

Chris Koh

Mr. Ebert. Thank-you for the kind words for your blog participants. But really sir, I think you get as good as you give. And what you give is extraordinary writing, accessible, entertaining, thoughtful, and filled with a deep and abiding humanism.

Roger, what is it with you these days? You prose simply glows with love, wisdom, youth, soul, humor - ten thousand voices like yours, and this culture would be back on track! (Hell, even just one of you makes me feel less alone in this world.) I want to say that, with the experiences of your recent life, you've gone into burning like a supernova, zapping the culture with truth rays. (Hyperbole? Not so! Plus, I'm gonna be a little critical in a sec...)

Since the blog entry above is slightly generalized, and perhaps an invitation to a pot luck, i thought I might take the opportunity to run a question past you that I've wondered about, especially as the possibility of getting a direct answer from you has kinda dawned, what with this booming blog.

What is the thought behind your policy of never revising old reviews of movies you may have been "wrong" about? When the Rogerebert.com site debuted, I was thrilled to be able to read some of your older reviews that had not been in any of your recent anthologies (and I wonder, were they not in there because you doubted their worth?). The one that sticks in my head is DELIVERANCE, which you give 2-and-a-half-stars to. There are dozens more that stick out as anachronistic when your general taste is considered (at least at this distance)... For instance, it makes no sense to me that you dislike the 5th STAR WARS movie but love the rest of 'em. Might not that have been a day you woke up on the wrong side of the bed? Or worse, on the couch? (I only theorize, you understand)... And yet I don't really argue with your BLADE RUNNER or BLUE VELVET reviews, because I at least understand how you feel, whether I agree or not.

But the DELIVERANCE review seems (please pardon me) to be the smarty-pants work of a young turk. (Perhaps that is the element you wish to keep untouched? What Roger Ebert in '72 thought of DELIVERANCE?)

Now, I've read enough of your early stuff to know that you were much more conservative with your star ratings than you've since become. I like that about you. But why not revise? Is there, do you believe, something sacred about initial impression? (I recognize the GREAT MOVIES column does address this, but you have to admit that your audience has learned to subsist on those tasty star ratings, and the GREAT MOVIES columns can sometimes be a little... sneaky?)

But anyway, what about the possibility that maybe you saw DELIVERANCE on a bad day? Maybe you stubbed your toe or broke up with someone or maybe your dollop of ice cream fell to the ground right before the screening... as the most human of critics, how can you not factor in your own unavoidably subjective mind-set on the day of the screening, when you look back?

And why is this important? Why would I care about how many stars, etc, etc? I don't know - because I love movies, and you gotta know that for a lot of us you're St. Peter at the gate of cinema.

I am reminded of that great line in Woody Allen' CELEBRITY (which you also underrated, I think). Joe Mantegna and Judy Davis are at an industry party, and a average-looking guy walks in with a thunderous blonde. Mantegna points them out and says, "Look, there's the famous movie critic. He used to hate every movie. Then he married a six-foot blonde, and now he loves every movie".

Ebert: Robert Warshow once wrote: "A man goes to the movies, and the critic must be honest enough to admit he is that man." I have made lots of mistakes, usually sincere ones, sometimes perhaps influences by circumstances. There are more than 8,000 reviews on this site, and it would be an endless task to go back and revise. Besides, what I wrote is what I wrote, for better or worse. I do try to correct factual errors.

Roger,
As one of the many volunteers who helps put together the Conference on World Affairs, and has been privileged to hear you speak on many a topic over the years, I greatly appreciate you sharing your thoughts with a much wider audience via this blog. I have been known to quote your comments at CWA on subjects ranging from pornography to evolution, and your blog (and Jim's as well) has given me many more great ideas to share with people. Please keep it up, and I hope to see you again at CWA some time soon.

Thanks,
Tim

Ebert: The CWA is a free, open to the public, week-long series of panel discussions, debates, jazz and free speech, held in Boulder usually in early April. For some 30 years, I did a shot-by-shot analysis of a film there, and now Jim Emerson has taken on the job. It's worth a trip to Boulder. Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conference_on_World_Affairs

I have found myself unexpectedly drawn in to the Olympics this year, but agree that, while exciting in the final set, beach volleyball is a chore to get through. I'm also puzzled that, arguably, the two most engaging events (swimming and gymnastics) took place simultaneously in the first week. I'm sure track and field has its fans, but those two sports are what I love about the summer Olympics.

I am a longtime fan of yours. I always knew that every Christmas, one large present under the tree held the latest version of your Movie Companion. One of the great things about the internet is that these forums exist for us to interact with people we respect and admire.

Mr. Hall has a sad tale to tell. That much is certain, and I wish him the best.

I would like to make some observations. He refers to “the State of Colorado,” “the dept. of employment,” “state benefits,” “SSDI,” “Uncle Sam,” the “agency,” and simply “they.” Mr. Ebert laments our “medical bureaucracy.”

In my mind you can replace all of these terms with “government.”

And so I ask: if we bemoan the byzantine bureaucracy, if we cry out in anger at our current over-regulated system, then why kneel at the steps of Congress and plead for more of the same? This year our Cost of Government Day was July 16. We now labor over half of the year for our government. Given the federal atrocities mentioned I.O.U.S.A., why should we have any confidence that a national health care system would be better? I humbly submit it would be worse. Much worse.

You mention Ron Paul twice in your review of I.O.U.S.A. and so I will hazard a quote concerning health care from his book “The Revolution:”

“And speaking of poor treatment, those who favor national health care schemes should take a good, hard look at our veterans’ hospitals. There is your national health care. These institutions are a national disgrace. If this is the care the government dispenses to those it honors as its most heroic and admirable citizens, why should anyone else expect to be treated any better?”
(page 90)

I think, sometimes, less is more.

Respectfully,

Brian

p.s. Sorry if I took this down the rabbit hole.

Dear Mr. Ebert,

2 things:

1) Would you find it improper or uncalled for to ask a question not directly related to the blog? This would not be in an effort to "derail" the blog or in any way ruin or sully the intent, rather I feel that this is a rare opportunity to glean some knowledge from your own unique perspective and occasionally the subject of the blog does not match with the question in mind.

2) If you approve of #1, here is my question. If you don't find this appropriate, you don't have to answer, but I'm posting this within the same message to save space on the blog.

The question: Do you think it is in any way wrong to find inspiration for one's own film in the imitation of another film by another filmmaker? My brother and I recently created a short film that was inspired by the mood of PT Anderson's Punch-Drunk Love. Of course, the final product was nothing like PDL, which was the point. We don't want to make a lesser or greater version of another movie, but the feeling inspired by that original movie was so unique that we wanted to attempt to capture it again in our own work. There's a saying that is something along the lines of, "The immature imitate, the mature steal." We are well aware that even if we wish to imitate, we could never replicate and even still, that is not our intent. But is it wrong or inappropriate to try to look at one film, become inspired by it, and then try to create something with the same power, tone, and intensity?

Ebert: Somebody once said, "In literature, it's plagiarism. In the cinema, it's homage,"

I hope you haven't recorded your final commentary! Even if you never fully recover your voice (and I do hope that your voice returns in full form), I hope that studios and directors continue to ask you to provide commentaries. Perhaps somebody else will have to read it, or we'll have to read it in subtitles. But it does add something to the films to have that level of love for film show through. So few can do it properly.

Paul Schrader made the statement in his Canon Fodder article that essentially there will be no new movies released that achieve the level of greatness of the past. I think you show, in your love and wide review of film, that there is greatness still occuring and yet to be had in film. That not all that is put up on the screen is 'trash,' and even that in what Schrader might label as 'trash' there can be a love for its achievement of its goal (such as Indiana Jones).

Oddly, I agree with his criteria for critical review of film, but not some of his end conclusions. However, I have to thank him for causing me to watch films such as Rules of the Game, and The Conformist.

Thanks for blogging.

Yancy again, sorry for the deluge of blather, but I found it quite a pleasant surprise to discover you there are TWO commentary tracks by you on the DARK CITY DVD (or the Blu-ray, really, which allows for the inky blacks and greys of that movie to flourish in a way no home video format could ever dream of before if, that is, home video formats dream at all)... The second track seems to be about 40% old stuff, but the rest seems new. When the heck did you record that?

Ebert: Same time. We recorded lots and lots of stuff, and the new 60% must be out-takes, or comments that didn't make the first version. Sometimes I would freeze a frame and babble on for a minute or two.

Mr. Ebert:
Your comments about your blogging experience are spectacularly enlightening.
I came around fairly late to blogging, and various other forms of editor-free amateur postings -- most of which was, and remains, amateurish. Certainly valuable in its own way, I came to realize, but amateurish nonetheless.
This blog is now among the leaders in the next wave, that of seasoned professionals finally enjoying the broad reach and editorial freedom pioneered by the all-volunteer army of thoughtful (though sometimes tasteless) writers tapping away at every wired keyboard in the world.
Of course your film commentary has always been, and will always be, an international treasure of cinema considerations and thoughtful criticism. It is my hope that the successes and pleasures you've revealed with this post will encourage other professional writers and artists of your stature to consider similar outlets for further branches in their careers.
Chris Lazzarino, Lawrence, Kan.

The feelings are mutual about your blog-- it has been clear that you have been putting a lot into it, and this is much appreciated. I was astonished when I first realized that you were indeed reading each and every response to your posts. People take much more time and care with what they write when they know their intended reader will in fact receive their words. In turn, what you have discovered is the well-sized, well-informed group of cinephiles who have been reading your internet reviews for the last ten years or so.

One consistency I've noticed in the comments you have generally received is a desire to provide lists of favorite films. This has usually been combined with confessional writing-- the films are shown not in service of a critical argument but as proof of -who- this reader is. Films are woven into a kind of clothing that speaks to the inner self. Confirming one's favorites with a great critic is a mode of intimacy.

For me, it is great to see so many people excited about, for example, the latest Herzog offering. Your blog can do a lot of enhance the life of art films like these, not just by providing a forum for debate over meaning or structure, but also by inspiring readers to go and see the films at hand, which as we all know is the perennial problem "smaller" films face.

As for avoiding or not avoiding politics, I think it is very complicated. Films frequently engage political situations as subject-matter, and as was clear in the discussion of the opening ceremonies, there are high political stakes for the use of images in contemporary global culture. Most of all, however, I think it is important to recognize that debate over the quality of films, debates over aesthetics, are themselves inherently political. All dissent, all position-taking, bears a political character. Art merely provides the opportunity to hash such dissent out in a kind of safe space of conversation. Thanks again to you for providing such a space.

Yet another comment fron the "I Love Cinemania" crowd!

Yes, I love it. I "sort" of miss it, since "missing" would imply I don't use it anymore, when in fact I own and often consult the '96 and '97 versions with all the downloadable updates that were created. The fact that they both still run under Windows XP is a credit to their programming teams.

Which brings me to the point of this comment. I write to give credit where credit is due: kudos to Jim Emerson!

Until today I thought of him as a thoughtful movie buff, a decent webmaster and not much else. I never bothered to READ HIS NAME in the introductory screen on either of my discs and thus never realized he's responsible for my favorite reference CD of all time!

A very ignorant slip-up on my part, for which I humbly apologize to Mr. Emerson. Although I met you on T.V., Mr. Ebert, the work that Jim and his team did at Microsoft formally introduced me and many others to you, Pauline Kael, Leonard Maltin and movie appreciation in general.

Most of what I know about film I learned on my own. My training consisted of making a list of Movies-To-See, which I still update, and following it as best I could. Most of the list's content comes from your insight, true, but were Cinemania not such an efficient and fun tool I may never have known the work of Jules Dassin, Lindsay Anderson, David Lynch, Ernst Lubitsch, R. W. Fassbinder and many others. Both Emerson and you are, in a way, my most influential teachers.

I'm struggling to become a filmmaker myself, so if I ever make it I have someone else to thank. I realize as I mature that I owe much of who I am to so many directors, actors, writers, producers, critics, friends, family members, role models and so on. I'll just acknowledge one now, lest I forget in the future.

So give my regards to Jim Emerson, Mr. Ebert. Tell him he has earned a place in my heart next to you. And please excuse the tight space in there. Too many people!

Glad to see you're discovering joys in the blogging world. I've had a few blogs over the years from personal, to professional, to just plain weird. While I've been creating various blogs over the years (my most recent being an Oscar blog) I still find I love my personal websites. Those take more time, more commitment, and more effort to work on. Therefore they are more personal to me then blogs. I do love the comments and traffic counters for blogs though. Maybe one of these days I'll figure out how to mix the two together so I can be in a state of bliss. Right now I'm learning some basic CSS so I can make my blogs look more fashionable. Here's hoping it works.

Wow. How did I not notice you had a blog? And it's cool that you're running on real blogging software with comments turned on. I've seen a lot of traditional media that try to just use their production content management system for a blog, and it often works out poorly.

And Cinemania? Man, that takes me back. The web has picked up the slack and then some, but I sure missed it when it went away.

As for the Olympics, I don't mind the odd sports much, but I could sure do without the mind-reading color commentary: "After that last set, Blonski's worried that Kinsu will keep blocking his serves. He's thinking that if Kinsu keeps that up, he'll lose his shot at The Gold." All this without, you know, actually interviewing the guy.

By the way (and I'll tie this in in a moment) I never saw the movie Jack Frost, but your review of it forever changed the way I watch movies and television. You wrote, "It is a reflection of the lame-brained screenplay that despite having a sentient snowman, the movie casts about for plot fillers, including a school bully, a chase scene, snowball fights, a hockey team, an old family friend to talk to Mom--you know, stuff to keep up the interest between those boring scenes when the snowman is TALKING."

Once you pointed out this sort of bad writing, I've been seeing it everywhere. For example, here we are watching an Olympic competition between the best players of on the planet, and the commentator wants to spice things up a bit by guessing what the athletes are thinking.

Anyway, I'm glad to discover one more place to read your writing.

Now if I can just convince you that video games are an artform...

You are learning the ways of the mysterious net, Mr. E. I began my own pop culture blog - popgeezer.com - some months ago, convinced I was just talking/typing to myself.

When the NY Times Magazine ran a profile of Dara Torres, with a shockingly muscled photo, I posted the picture under the heading "I'm not sure how I'm supposed to feel about this". The picture spiked traffic, to my total surprise.

A few weeks ago, following my first trip to the San Diego Comic-Con, I posted a silly picture I'd happened to snap of two "hunky" sci-fi TV stars wearing "Tinkerbell" wings from the Disney booth. It sat on the site for weeks, to no big deal. Then, last weekend (8/15-18), thanks to some link on another fansite, we got over 18,000 hits.

And on the ancient internet, via Prodigy, I developed a digital pen-pal realtionship with writer Bill Prady, now co-creator of "The Big Bang Theory" on CBS. "Small world, but I wouldn't want to paint it", says Steven Wright...

Roger, I've admired your film criticism and, in this, am part of a large community.

However, your blog has revealed a level of humanity in your writing that has, I think, crossed over into your always-excellent film reviews and enriched them.

Your work is better than ever and the internet makes it accessible to more people than ever.

When you review movies, we're right there with you. When you suffer the indignities of your illness, we're right there with you.

Because of this blog, the world is right there--with you.

Mr. Ebert wrote, "Prejudiced against China? Hardly. My opinion of China has only improved during the Olympics. But critical? Yes, sometimes. Critical of my own nation, too. An example: I lament the lack of true religious freedom in China. I also lament the growing encroachment of religion upon government in America, where polls show that millions of Americans have no use for the concept of separating church and state, and religious fundamentalists have a veto power over some nominations."

Yes, Mr. Ebert, you have set the distinction between prejudice and criticism. I have read your film reviews for many years now, and have yet to come across criticism that is mean-spirited, denigrating and biased where ethnicity is involved. And for the record, neither have you lacked in lavishing deserving praise on behalf of ethnicity. In fact, your previous blog about Zhang Yi Mou's Olympics underscores this point.

Btw, that Chinese remark was actually targeted at those blog entries which were critical of China, but since the comment seemed to bundle the whole thing up into one string, the critical and the uncritical, I thought that perhaps you could do with an explanation of what a true and impartial movie critic is all about. Apologies if I have mislead you to think that the comment was directed at you. I think what people need to understand is that, for the most part, film criticism already existed even before a critic's pen touched his/her notebook. In the case of certain radical Chinese films such as "Farewell My Concubine" and "The Blue Kite," the criticism was already there right before the eyes, only to be expounded upon by the critic later on. So if it is a crime to critique a film, then they should hang the director first.

______________________________________________________________

Nathan @ August 22, 2008 12:52 AM makes a strong point against having an inflated hedonistic attitude which causes people to live outside their means. This is highly debatable due to the subjective nature of the matter. I'm not here to debate this, but only to say that the problem of the US National debt goes deeper than that. I have not yet seen "I.O.U.S.A.," nor am I likely to see it here in Taiwan. But there are a lot of materials in the internet pertaining to this grave issue. In my email to The Movie Answer Man, I forgot to provide the link to James Fallows' article "The 1.4 Trillion Question." Here it is:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200801/fallows-chinese-dollars

As I have said, the debt issue goes way further than public over-spending. What makes it more daunting and almost unscalable is the fact that it touches on several very sensitive issues: issues like the ongoing war, immigration, the outsourcing of American jobs to other countries, plutocracy/oligarchy, etc., and etc.. The person whose works started to enlighten me on these issues is Mr. Paul Craig Roberts. Here's a sample article of his that deals with the outsourcing of American jobs and its drastic effects:

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02152005.html

As you will notice, there is a strong political taint to the article. Mr. Ebert, I hope you don't brand me as a neocon-basher , for I am not. I really have no business to bash anyone about, liberal or conservative, for my own country's politics is currently in a mess. Still, despite the political inclinations, Dr. Roberts' true message should stand out from his political sentiments.

_________________________________________

Btw, your review of "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" really made me laugh so hard, that my sides nearly split with spasms. The ludicrousness of Jabba the Hutt's gelatic sex life!! It was on a day when I was mostly on edge about whether or not Michael Phelps made it with another gold medal. So thank you.

Best regards,
Robert in Taiwan

Glad you are still around to blog, frankly, if that's not too blunt.

I well remember the CompuServe days and started reading the ShowBiz Forum because of Joe Bob Briggs' presence there, never thinking you'd respond to anything that I posted in your part of the forum. But you did and I always enjoyed your responses.

Best regards,

cmv

Gosh, I hope I my comments make it to the blog talkbacks today. Guess I didn't really stick with the program (Olympics and blogging in general)... Ah, well, perhaps next time my screeds will be up to snuff.

You may be creating a monster here in showing how much you appreciate reading these comments.

I was very happy when you first started this blog. I always admired you for being so thoughful and eloquent, but somehow I wanted to know more of your thoughts beyond what I discovered in the movie reviews. Now each of your blog entries is, to me, a wonderful gift... another window to look into your mind.

And if, in the SiteMeter, you see a single red dot in Portugal... that's me. Dropping by approximately twice a day.

Ebert: So that's who you are! And down below you on the map, a visitor from the Canary Islands.

I understand absolutely the joy of blogging. I began doing it myself back in February and took great pride the other week when I broke 10,000 hits. I also have a mapping program on the site that shows where people log in from and it's really fascinating to me to see how many people from different places in the world have logged in to read what I say. Ego boost? You bet! :)

You say that your blog draws passionate and intelligent recations from readers the world over. I have read several 'blogs in my day, from well-thought-out essays on politics and culture and philosophy, right down to the unintelligible half-grunts of comicbook-obsessed recluses. In addition, I have read the replies and comments to said 'blogs.

The intelligence of the comments is a direct reflection of the intelligence of the 'blog itself. You, Mr. Ebert, in providing your readers with such astute, smart, and humorous observations, draw the smart commentators out of the vast mire of the Internet. It's been said you get the audience you deserve. If you admire the cogency and passion of your readers, you are the one to blame.

I myself have a 'blog, one that elicits maybe 30 hits a day (and most of those are just to see the sexy Tin Man picture I jokingly put at the top of my essay on "The Wizard of Oz"), but it always gives me a good feeling when someone bothers to comment. It goes beyond a mere stoking of the ego, and makes you feel, in a very visceral way, the connection you have made with a reader. I think I understand what you mean, albeit on a smaller scale.

Keep up the good work. I will continue to read.

Please forgive me for begging to differ with your comment: "...I have certainly recorded my final commentary." Though the ability to speak your commentary may be unavailable, you certainly have the ability to type (thank god) and if foreign language films can be subtitled, why can't English language films be subtitled with your commentary as well. I would happily watch your commentary track for Dark Knight, take that back, I look forward to it already.

Nice closing paragraph. You caught me. There's a good chance I would have read this entry anyway, but the picture heading it definitely grabbed my attention.

Dear Mr Ebert,

Part of reason for an absence of illiterate messages - or ones only able to be deciphered if versed in the language of "lol" - is that most people writing on here are so in awe of the blog's author that of course they've got their spell-check turned on. There are few writers I enjoy more - and so it is that on Fridays I sit in front of my computer in rural Australia and read rogerebert.suntimes.com ... like other regulars, I could mention countless reviews that I treasure. So, thank you. And hence the likelihood of well-constructed comments on this blog, not to mention the correct use of commas and the like.

A note on Olympians: Australia won a silver medal in the 100m hurdles, thanks to the delightfully un-processed Sally McLellan. Her post-race celebrations have Australians reminiscing about a time before media grooming. Maybe it's self-involved or over-the-top or many other things you're not meant to be (unless you're Usain Bolt) but it's real. And that's a jolt of joy: http://www.theage.com.au/news/athletics/super-sallys-silver/2008/08/20/1218911731900.html

I hope your health is good and thanks again for your beautiful, funny and insightful writing - when I was in Chicago for a day earlier this year all I could think about was you, Barack Obama, and the fact that the city dyes its river green on St Patrick's Day (!).

Cheers,
Jess

PS: Why isn't there a spelling-and-grammar-check option on this blog? I'm nervous.

As of this moment, I appear to be number 89 in the list of people thanking you for extending your reach a bit further than your religiously-read reviews. While I haven't been as faithful reading your blog, I have always been enlightened, amused... well, pretty much everything you have been. For instance, you have inspired me to start reading Jane Austen, whose "Mansfield Park" I'm currently enjoying.

As for Olympic coverage, I can definitely relate to the inanity of the over-coverage of certain events, to the detriment of the American public. As I see it, we're being cheated of so many amazing stories because of the selective coverage of NBC, and missed moments, as well. They put commercials in soccer games, for crying out loud! I would, however, be interested in seeing color commentary for this event:
http://www.nbc.com/The_Office/video/clips/dwights-olympics/519762/

I agree with Roger's intentions to keep political matters mostly out of his blog, while keeping them in his reviews. The best critics bring their personal experiences into their reviews, and politics are an unavoidable part of this, although just a small part. I don't chose my friends or my favorite movies on the basis of their politics (I'm a free-market conservative, yet my two favorite movies, The Bicycle Thief and Treasure of Sierra Madre, were written by a Communist and Socialist, respectively) and I don't chose my critics on that basis either, or for that matter, on whether or not I agree with that critic's opinions on movies. What matters to me is 1)What sort of reasons does the critic give for liking or disliking a particular movie 2) How well and how convincingly do they present the evidence for their reasons and 3) How well do they write? It's for these reasons I keep going back to David Thomson's Biographical Dictionary of Film. I only agree without about half his opinions, yet I am always awed by Thomson's brilliant writing and the eloquence of his explanations. Additionally, politics will only remain one component of a review or an opinion, and should be subservient to formalism in formulating either one. To illustrate this point further: the liberal Mr. Ebert praised The Passion of the Christ as a sincere expression of personal faith, while the conservative critic James Bowman panned it for what he viewed as self-indulgence and being confused about what it was trying to say about the nature of martyrdom and altruistic self-sacrifice. Two excellent critics, two equally valid opinions, both well-argued.

As for blogging: my other obsession, besides movies, is science and educating the public about it, and I absolutely can not recommend most science blogs, because the political ravings of most of them would turn off those who are in the most dire need of being educated and would only confirm their prejudices. As a result, myself and several others had to get together and create our own blog and forum as a safe haven for scientists and pro-science individuals of a certain political perspective. Roger is being wise in trying to make his postings as accessible to as many people as possible, and trying to encourage dialog between differing perspectives on film and its aesthetics. While specialized blogs and forums are needed (I frequently post on classic horror/sci-fi boards), we also need more multiplexes in the film blogosphere, where as many different people with varying tastes and critical perspectives can get together and discuss their differences in a civil manner.

Roger,

You have been apart of my life since the late 70's on television and in print. It's only natural that a blog is your latest outlet. How many movies in my life would I haven't even given a chance without you? You may be gone from television, but your words live on in a way that was never thought possible when each of us was born. It's easy to get drawn into politics and the like so I'm glad you have stuck to movies and other subjects of interest. I am sorry I never got to eat at Steak&Shake with you after one of your festivals. Take care.

Scott :)

Roger, I have to take issue with your saying your opinion of China has 'only improved' during the Olympics. One of the issues with China going in was that they had a totalitarian, or authoritarian, government. The Olympics come around, and, lo and behold, the Chinese government falsifies documents to hide the actual age of a gymnast, all in order to win- an athletic competition. And then they go to great lengths (are still going to great lengths) to cover up their having done it.

All things considered, this is about the worst thing the Chinese government could have done in this circumstance, confirming as it does many Westerners' notions of just what sort of government they've got over there.

Your opinion of the nation may have improved, mine has not. And I'm tired of Americans following their criticisms of China with criticisms of the United States, almost invariably in the sense that 'But really the US is bad too, in this-and-that way, so we ought to temper our criticism of China'. They're separate issues, and a whole room of people being wrong does not make any person in the room less wrong. The Chinese and American governments are both broken, in different ways and in different degrees. To indict them is not to indict the people or even the nations- although the people of a nation are not absolved, the people are always to some degree, perhaps to a large degree, responsible for the sort of government their nation has.

I was thinking about an imaginary screenplay related to the Olympic gold medalists. Here are some of the most talented and strong men and women on earth, and they are as close as we can ever get to having a team of superheros. Being the sci-fi geek I am, I thought maybe secret experiments can turn these Olympians into real superheros: Phelps as Aquaman, Nastia Luikin as the elasti-girl and Bolt as -well Bolt is a great superhero name. But what about beach volleyball, diving and shooting? How to genetically alter those athletes and what to gain from it? Just a rambling thought of mine.

P.S. Thank you for the Dark City.

I didn't read the whole of the hundred or so comments preceding mine, so apologies if my opinion is redundant.

I visited the site after seeing a film just now to read your take on it, which is my regular post-cinematic routine (a habit not too unlike a post-coital cigarette in my world, though at times your review is more like the climax and the film more like a carcinogen). This is, however, the first time I noticed you had a blog, and I had to retain a shriek of joy so as not to wake the neighbors. I hope that's a solid enough testimony for your continued blogging. And I love that the blog appears to have drawn a readership that includes fellow pedants (Sean Hogan, cough cough). At the risk of not getting my comment posted, I wanted to add that I was terribly saddened when you got sick, which is why I'm overjoyed you're not only getting well and back reviewing movies, but now blogging, too; there can never be too much Ebert in the world. More NBC Olympic coverage criticism[1] and bleeding-heart liberal opining, please!

____________________________________________________________________

1 As per your expectations, I am compelled to note that I, too, was unsatisfied with NBC's coverage, but not for its nationalism, but for its overt sexism.

Sitemeter says I had three visitors to my blog today. That's down from my usual six. What's depressing is that I know exactly where those other three people are and why they are not looking at my website: my best friend is at the beach; my girlfriend, an attorney, is busy doing attorney things and hasn't realized I'm actually posting again; and the third is in the hospital. Sitemeter is a blessing and a curse, and these days I'm not too keen on knowing just how anonymous I am.

For me, the big story in track and field is the domination in the short running events by a country with less than 1% of the population of the United States. Much more interesting than an American stepping out of his lane and losing a bronze, which we saw again and again and again.

If I was Roger Ebert, I always imagine that the most marvelous aspect of my work would be its reach. Are you still able to marvel at how your efforts end up in the hands of far flung strangers around the world, and, as evidenced by this blog, it moves them? It reminds me of the line from Broadcast News, from an astonished Albert Brooks: "I say it here, it comes out there".

As someone who began as a published writer in sports, at a small ethnic newspaper, I do have a lot of enthusiasm for sports and being active. However, I do not always like sports writers.

It's tiresome to hear that the balance beam is four-inches wide. These are tough girls and women but sometimes they are trivialized as cute while the men in men's gymnastics are not.

It's amazing to see how differently sports are portrayed in different countries. One thing I thought was unforgiveable when I was writing about sports was how so many sports writers, mostly men, denigrate sports like synchronized swimming without having really tried it. Because women can do it and look pretty, it must not be a sport. That's an American attitude and not one shared by Japan. I'm sure somewhere there are sports writers talking about how certain events can't really be sports because the athletes are too short, only women or look too pretty.

When I wrote about sports, there was a lot of sexism--including disparaging remarks about the sexual preference of athletes participating in certain sports. That hasn't gone away yet.

The Olympics should be about celebrating a sport, sportsmanship and the dedication of human beings. I would love to hear what it means for the first athlete to win a gold for Bahrain to his teammates and to his nation. I would love to hear about the Jamaican teams...how it feels for a small team to beat the bigger and better sponsored teams. I would love to hear from the athletes in their own languages with subtitles because at least they can freely express themselves.

I would rather see and hear that than go shopping with some athlete or their mom or sister or brother or father. And I think any president should be barred from taking away the attention of the athletes by attending the Olympics.

In a way, the coverage of sports exposes not only nationalism, something that has already been pointed out, but how America and each nation assigns gender roles even decades after women have been granted the vote.

Women have come a long way and so has sports coverage, but we have a long, long way to go still.

As for beach volleyball, I wondered if the women used anything to keep those bikinis on and why the men wore more, instead of less clothes than the women. (And if beach volleyball players of both sexes have their dermatologists at the respective national skin cancer clinics on speed dial).

Mr. Ebert, you're awesome. I've been reading your reviews off and on for the better part of 10 years now and you're still the first critic I check when I'm thinking of catching a flick. I occasionally come to check your reviews just to find films that you *didn't* like -- your zero star reviews are far better entertainment than the actual movies.

I'm amused by the spot detection program. But if you noticed only one lonely dot over in Saudi Arabia during the last year, and thought the dot lost interest in you, well that dot has merely moved back to the USA. And if there are any other dots remaining in Saudi Arabia, please share my email with those dots, as it would be an honor to meet other Ebert lovers over there, should I return.

Ebert: I would be happy to share it, but the dots don't come connected with e-mail addresses.

I'm afraid the cynical and rude comments will arrive eventually. Due to your acclaimed reputation, your weblog may be an island of civility in a sea of angry shouting matches. As soon as one snarky website reports that you haven't received any rude comments, dozens of kids who haven't yet learned to respect other human beings will try to get their fifteen seconds of fame in your comment section. Comment moderation, the necessary evil of the internet, will soon follow.

That said, I'd love to know your secret. How do you read every comment submitted to the site and still have time to sleep, never mind get anything done?

Thanks for being so open to your online readership. I'm thankful that your excitement for movies and writing hasn't been diminished by your bad luck in the health department. Best of luck with everything from one of your biggest fans.

Roger, I would happily read your weekly grocery list. So if you really don't want to write about politics or other subjects here, that's fine. Just know that if you wanted to start another non-movie related blog, even under a pseudonym, you would have plenty of devoted readers.

I remember one essay you posted a few years ago on Ebert.com that was entirely political. I wish I could remember now - I think it was about the Iraq War. I do remember that it was passionate and outraged and it brought me to tears.

More please!

Roger,
I have grown up with your reviews - and now I grow wiser with your blog entries. If anyone has earned the right to add personal perspectives to your commentary, it is someone who has lived a full life. The upcoming election brings politics to the front - hopefully spurring a generation to vote - as did 1968. I admit I was not born in 1968, but have the the honor of being a great friend of John Froines, one of the Chicago 7. They changed the way a generation viewed the intersection of politics, media, and entertainment.

Never let the naysayers dissuade you from filtering perceptions of popular entertainment - because without context, the world we live in exists in a vaccuum.

Dear Mr. Ebert-

I have been reading this blog since the day you started it, but I have never commented because frankly it makes me a bit nervous. I was never the best writer in the world, so naturally, knowing you'd maybe read this, I was always hesitant to post. But your enthusiasm for this forum has given me the courage.

Both your television show and your writing have been apart of my movie watching experience from as far back as I can remember. Whenever my buddies and I see a film, the first thing we ask is, what did Ebert give it in the Times?

Then, a few years back, I had the privilege of being an intern at your show. All I can say about the experience is that you were one of the most thoughtful, down to earth people I've ever met. It was one of the greatest experiences of my life and I think of it often. Especially when watching movies you recommended to me. THE THIRD MAN, OUT OF THE PAST etc...

I guess what I'm saying here is pretty much popular opinion on this blog and around the world. You're a great writer, a wonderful lover of film and an all around nice guy from the midwest.

Glad to see you writing as much as you are Mr. Ebert and I wish you nothing but continued improvement with your health.

PS. I hope to make it down to Ebertfest one of these days. I'd just love to see a film in 70mm. I seem to miss them whenever they show at the Music Box.

Also, just found this article on MSNBC.com, about Chinese villages suffering so the games can go on. All in all it's not a good situation.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26357038/

Hi Roger,

I love this blog, and I'm happy to hear about the fact that you haven't faced any obscene or illiterate postings. That's surprising, since honest writers and independent thinkers usually have to deal with that. Maybe you could invent a little neo-con sidekick to act as a thorn in your side? "You're either with the Thumb or AGAINST it!".

I'm from Toronto and I attend Ebertfest every year, and it's interesting to note how much liberals in America are meant to apologize for themselves over nonsense. There isn't anything liberal about wanting one's government to live within it's means; it's common sense.

I'm going to blog all the movies I see this year in Toronto, and I hope you make it up this year, because your blog would be an invaluable tool for the Toronto Film Festival. They just announced the complete lineup of movies, some 250 features and 60 shorts. The early buzz is that the Discovery section this year is as strong as ever, featuring titles by first-time directors, not least of which is a movie called "Lymelife", directed by Dereck Martini, who along with his brother wrote the overlooked "Goat on Fire and Smiling Fish".

Every year I look at the list of directors and am constantly amazed by how many I discovered through yourself and Gene Siskel, and this year is no different, with movies from Mike Leigh, Agnes Varda, the Dardenne brothers, Jan Troell, Hirokazu Kore-eda, Takeshi Kitano, Ramin Bahrani.....and I could go on and on and on.

Maybe it's because I'm from the great north or something, but I find the summer Olympics to be, well, boring. Give me the bobsled and figure skating; they never fail to leave me wide-eyed and mouth agape.

I've been your fan, both the critic and the person (didn't want to put "man" and turn this into a poem) for many years. I was saddened to hear of your recurring health problems and your exit from television. I had no idea you were writing a blog! I will follow it as of today. Now I'm off to find your review of "Clone Wars". I'm sure I'll have the same reaction as Robert in Taiwan.

Doug Magee
Ottawa, Canada

Walking, Roger. Walking is the most boring Olympic sport. Walking is an Olympic sport? Yes, walking is an Olympic sport! Walking!!!

But anyway, I'm not here to talk about the Olympics, I'm here to talk about politics (hell, you brought it up)... or rather, point the readers in the direction of your interview with Progressive Magazine.

http://www.progressive.org/mag_intvebert

I just re-read it and remembered it's where I heard this quote:

"Of all the arts, movies are the most powerful aid to empathy, and good ones make us into better people."

Honestly Roger, thanks for helping to make us into better people.

AAAAHHHHH the Olympics, the most complex of sporting events. Sometimes I find myself looking back with nostalgia at the games from the 1970s and the great heroes from those years, Mark Spitz, Frank Shorter, Sugar Ray Leonard, Nadia Comăneci, Bruce Jenner, only to uncomfortably realize that it was 1972 when 11 athletes were killed by political terrorists. I suppose the Olympics we have today, minus boycotts and terrorism, are a welcome relief. I find myself overwhelmed by the proliferation of "sexy" sports, including beach volleyball, mountain bike racing, baseball, pro basketball, soccer, canoeing, and so on. I am disturbed by the constant accusations of doping every time a runner breaks a world record. I am troubled by the sadness on the faces of athletes after winning a silver or bronze medal, as if they failed. I am disgusted by the reporting of American journalists, perpetuating this aura of failure. And of course, the ever-present Bob Costas, an acquired taste, saying to Michael Phelps "Cal Ripken would like your autograph," yuck, yuck. As the days grind on, I find myself awaiting the marathon. I get choked up every time I see a runner enter the stadium and slowly circle the track. None of these men will achieve wealth and fame, and "Welcome to the Jungle" is not blaring from the speakers during a terrifying pause in the action. A distant applause echoes through the stadium and for a haunting moment, I am watching the Olympics.

Sir, you are a true gentleman and you have been a crucial element in my discovery of great films.

BTW- I finally found a copy of " The Best Years Of Our Lives" and was moved by it. It's criminally forgotten today, in my opinion.( I also went and tracked down a copy of MacKinlay Cantor's book, and am awaiting it's arrival). Still will not replace " The Umbrellas Of Cherbourg" as my all time favorite film, but I have a thing for opening shot taken from above, rain, pretty French songs, cotton candy colors, and Catherine Deneuve. It might make my top fifty, I'd have to check... so many great films, so few spots to put them on those eighty million lists film fans seem to create for themselves. I might need eight million and one- " Best Films To Show How Difficult it is to Readjust after Coming Back From War".

I am astonished that you can find the time to read every comment posted on your blog. I believe it, however, as I have received a few personal emails from you regarding Answer Man queries I've submitted (each with a different pseudonym as I feared ridicule, which one of your comments bordered on).

I know that I will continue to enjoy your reviews, blogs, tributes, and features (I hope for many years to come).

And now to address the most disturbing aspect of the beach volleyball saga: I caught the gold medal match late at night, while I lay in a semi-coherent stupor of vegetation. I did find the match to be exciting and impressive, though you are correct--I cannot recall a single point. What I do remember, in vivid detail, undermined the entire event. It was Kerri Walsh's comment to an NBC reporter shortly after her victory: "I'd just like to say 'thank you, Mr. President. You are such an inspiration.'"

If that's what it takes to be an Olympic gold medalist, I'll settle for bronze.

Mr. Ebert, I have watched you since the old PBS days, and I remember you reviewing John Carpenter's Halloween. After watching the short clip, I had nightmares for weeks! I was seven. It was then I realized the power of film, although in a rudimentary way. One night in the mid-nineteen-eighties, you pulled up to a gas station in Gardner, Il. I pumped your gas. I knew who you were, and I confess to being a bit star struck. Idle chit chat was bandied about, I grew a little more brave, and asked you what your license plate meant. I was fifteen, I didn't know anything. When you told me of its origins, my main priority was to seek out the film. Video stores in that area were few and far between, and classics were even harder to come by. It took me over a week, and I had to be driven 35 miles to the nearest video store which carried the movie.

I just now realized that for thirty years now, I have watched, listened to and read your reviews. I don't ALWAYS agree with you, but its never personal. Except that once. Your candid recommendation of a film to me--a lowly high school shlub, more concerned with trying not to repulse the opposite sex--changed my life--again.

That movie was 'Citizen Kane.' I never looked at movies the same way again, and it was all because you needed fuel.

I just wanted to say 'Thanks' I guess.

Ebert: I kinda remember that moment. I was on the interstate between Chicago and Urbana. My license plate was, and is, ROZEBUD. The "s" was taken.

JJM, great comment. You're right -- the U.S.-centrism is not only tacky, but a questionable ratings tactic, since the alternatives you mentioned would be more interesting to many viewers. And you know I'm with you on the sexism. It was the uniform disparity, the servile gender roles, sometimes the camera work, and the commentary totally blew my mind a little too often, thus canceling out whatever lifted spirits I had derived from the entertainment. When Misty May-Treanor and Kerri Walsh played China recently, one of the opponents looked relieved after making a tough shot and engaged in a run-of-the-mill fist pump. The commentator's response? "She's dramatic! She's emotional!" AH! Totally neutral words, I'm sure. Stuff like that ruins it for me. Though beach volleyball is relatively uninteresting, as Ebert noted, I believe NBC devoted generous airtime to it because the Americans are doing well. Yay patriotism?

The reason I suppose I gave the nationalism a pass before is that it seems NBC's strategy going into this was to create storylines as ratings hooks. They sought out athletes with the most compelling backstories, some of whom actually were from abroad, e.g. the swimmer from Zimbabwe whose name escapes me at the moment. They profiled in advance only those U.S. competitors who were favored to win, which is why they probably stuck with interviewing them after a loss to follow through with the human interest pieces they'd cultivated. Developing hype around a favored athlete sometimes did cross borders though, like the Phelpsian attention paid to runner Usain Bolt. Comparing the Jamaican Bolt with the Jamaican woman to whom Ebert alluded, well, perhaps that was sexism at work too, but I'm inclined to believe the "poetically named" Bolt was a focal interest because he was the overwhelming favorite to win.

Just this past week, a friend poked fun at another friend's blog which had given a play-by-play account of her daughter's first day of school. With disdain he wondered aloud "Why would ANYONE be interested in that?!" I was a little saddened by his comment: was he never a child himself? Childless, he tragically couldn't see that for the little girl and her family, that day could have filled an entire universe with joy, fear, delight, and uncertainty. And now there's a snapshot of it to which she'll perhaps return in twenty years, with her own daughter. Isn't a record of our mundane lives one of the vital things that keeps us connected to the world? Blogs have simply made that connection easier. True, many blogs, or perhaps most, are mundane diary entries at best, but that's what living is all about: making our existance something worth acknowledging. Likewise, many blogs are not mundane, like this one (thank the stars above)! Mr. Ebert, I'm sure that even if you filled your blog with routine descriptions of trips to the doctor, how much asparagus you ate for dinner, or your little-known talent of burping your dog's name backward, it would be something worth saving. Your blog rocks!

Ebert: Reminder to self: Name next dog with a palindrome.

Its odd you mention Arthur Clarke because every time i see your picture to the top right of the blog im reminded of the great fella himself.

I realize this has nothing to do with your current blog entry, but how in the heck does a stellar actress like Joan Allen end up in a stinker like "Death Race"? You wrote in your review that "she plays her scenes with an icy venom, which I imagine she is rehearsing to use in a chat with her agent." HA! Good one. What a miscarriage of talent! Are actors really at the mercy of their agents? Or do they reach the point of no return in the making of such a film and think, "Oh, well, my only solace it that I'm getting paid." From "The Contender" and "The Upside of Anger" to "Death Race"?! Pity.

What? The legendary Pulitzer-winning Roger Ebert started blogging? And nobody told me? I mean, I'd read your post about your sensitivity to Wit but failed to notice that it was in a blog. I've just added the RSS feed to my reader so I can mainline my bloggerly Ebert fixes from here on out.

I've been reading your reviews and books since I was a kid, and I'm 42 now. Thanks for your entire thoughtful career, Roger.

I caught a couple minutes of a shooting event in the...what is it, the women's modern pentathlon? Something that includes fencing. Anyway: We were watching the competitors aim their guns at the targets, all with plastic shields covering the eye that wasn't using the sight. We waited for something to happen. When will they shoot? Do they take turns? Do they all go at the same time? And then the scores were posted. If the viewer can't even tell the sport's happening, that's a dull sport. At least you can tell when the volleyball's in play or when the walkers are moving!

Chalk me up as one of many dots clustered in Chicago, and a fellow blogger and occasional SiteMeter data junkie.

I have to admit, I've been surprised at the literacy of the comments on your blog, Roger. Not to sound like a snob but, frankly, a lot of comments on other sites make me question...humanity. I'm sure the behind-the-scenes care for quality dialogue and general tone of your posts has a lot to do with the reception they receive. I'm still on the fence of the overall quality of "blogging" versus traditional commentary (if there even is such a distinction) but I've very much enjoyed reading your entries.

An off-topic question, but a question nonetheless:

Why is it that your 1986 review of "Hannah and Her Sisters" praises the film as Woody Allen's best, and yet it's the only one of your five Woody favorites (Match Point aside) that isn't included on your list of Great Movies?

Ebert: It's circling to land. You can now say, in the words of Michael Caine, "I've got my answer!"

It's funny, I seem to be the only 20 year-old who hates to blog. Even though all my journalism professors and friends say that I need to blog since it is the "wave of the future", it just doesn't seem right. I'm glad you've embraced it Mr. Ebert, but for me, seeing my article as a physical copy brings me the greatest thrill. I hope I can still have that in a few years before I turn myself back to computers...

I do admit though that reading your blog is a little secret I have to keep to myself, as it's extremely valuable to read your work generally, and your blog always adds more insight than your articles do. I find it a little odd though, when I read your blogs, that I imagine your voice in my head while I read it. I guess I have that comfort until you get your voice back...

I am happy to hear that your readership is as aware and informed as one would hope. I can only wish that NBC would presume the same of its multi-million person viewership. I cannot stand the NBC coverage, with its tape-delays and its obscenely patriotic skew and its imbalanced recognition of "true" Olympic sports. They would rather feature three Americans finishing 7th, 19th and 45th than the gold-medal-winning Kenyan who battled malaria and trained by racing cheetahs to the local watering hole. They cover beach volleyball and softball and BMX racing live, while shoving the pinnacle of all Olympic sports, the 100m dash, to late night on a 14 hour delay -- long after any real fans have stumbled across the result on the internet or ESPN. NBC should have some the same respect for its viewers as you do for your readers. Actually NBC should allow a real network to carry the games in the future. Best Wishes.

Aw, shucks, Roger--you know we love you! It was nice to read nice things about those here who contribute. I saw "The Best Years of Our Lives" on WGN, channel 9, way back in the late 1970s, when I would turn on the 10:30pm movie. I was in my teens and that movie blew me away. I found out later (much later) that the actor who played the vet w/o hands was the real vet. That movie deserved its Oscar. I also wonder why it doesn't get the discussion or play that other famous war movies do.

Since we're chatting here, i have two things to mention. One is that I stopped watching the Olympics after too many days of Misty May et al. We swept the field in sabre fencing and those women got 3 minutes of Bob Costas' time and attention? We were never told a thing about the sport and how it's played etc. I was so disgusted, I didn't even watch Phelps do his magic.

The other thing has bugged me for some time. It's your take on the movie, "A Walk on the Moon" from a few years ago. Diane Lane and Viggo Mortensen. You claim that the movie should have been about the 13 year old daughter(Alison)--who is (I'll freely admit) going to be an interesting person-but that is just one bittersweet undernote; Alison will have more choices and more freedoms than her mother. That movie is about Pearl, the mom, and for me, it is long awaited tribute to the unsung hero of the American family. I'm not about to get into who is more important, dad or mom, I just want to make the point that this film is about the person who in the films and fairy tales and books is off stage (for the most part) or caricature of good or evil.
Pearl is tired and neglects herself. She is diffident and unsure and bored with her roles in life. She carries a heavy load and a full plate of others' needs. One small example: packing and unpacking for that family "vacation" is no picnic for her.
But in this film, Pearl finds herself again and she fulfills those needs--she gets back to Pearl-the girl who took chances, who dared to dream; not Mrs. Kantrowitz, not "mom", not daughter-in-law, not good neighbor etc. Just Pearl. The blouse man is her way back to herself.
You are not and never can be a suburban soccer mom, but I am (or was) and that film is a paean to all those who gave up dreams because life got in the way. It's not about the al fresco sex or the drugs. It's about being seen as a whole person. That is one of my favorite movies of all time, and I cry every time I see it.
Yes, Alison, the daughter, is strong and has her life before her, but Tony Goldwyn dared to make a film about Alison as she would be (that is, what she would turn into. Pearl is both a role model and a warning to her daughter), without the sacrifices that her mother makes for her and a film about Pearl as she could be if she would step out of her box. Housewives and mothers are often overlooked or boxed in by their role. This film dared to show them as people. It's a great film.

Ebert: You make an eloquent case. I just saw Viggo Mortensen in Ed Harris's "Appaloosa." A wonderful performance, but let's just say, nothing like the blouse man.

There is a generation of people in this still blossoming century that have formed, more or less, a symbiotic relationship with the Internet through mediums of vast and convenient communication such as blogging. I myself spent many of my pre-High School years possessing and being possessed by the thrill of keeping something so private on a domain so public.
I tried them all, Xanga, Myspace, well, not all such as the new ones like Friendsters, and other new arisings of blog diversification - but enough, to get the idea... That there can be an effective form of communication if only through the medium of words. I've always said that it's easier to speak one's mind through writing on a computer because one's thoughts appear instantly before them - as opposed to a live conversation where people scarcely have time to think it through with all the environmental factors distracting our brains. But sitting comfortably before a digital screen, one can easily lose themselves to the infinite codes of transcription of the human spirit, the best part - anyone's human spirit. Something that isn't easily tapped into when you're talking in person.
But there was also a reason why I quit blogging. As you say, Roger, it is too time-consuming, at least for a student growing up with increasing new multitudes of responsibilities to juggle. Also, it lacks a personal touch of actually speaking to a person face to face. Though this prejudice of mine - or rather, criticism of internet communication as a whole - is more concentrated in particular on the medium known as "Instant Messaging" where hundreds of people can talk to hundreds of other people simultaneously. This method of communication, while can be elevated to a personal connection, is highly vulnerable to reducing friends and other human beings across the tube to disposable products. It's the revolution in multitasking that ultimately de-evolves the human ability to communicate personally and compassionately... Anyone would know what I'm talking about when they've experienced that sense of robotic detachment whenever you feel that the time between the next message you receive is indicative that the other person is engaged to talking to more than one person aside from yourself.
And then there's the chatroom method - which like, any human conversation, juggles the attention span of its members about - all of them gravitating to the ever shifting pole of charismatic wit. It's just so... impersonal... I much prefer speaking to people in person face to face, taking all the distractions that the physical environment has to offer, because at least then you'll also have a face and body language to work with.
Now I do spare that blogging is quite a different front. It's more like a fountain of decor for our thoughts and feelings to gusher out in some beautiful ornate display, something to craft out for ourselves to view and admire and reflect. It can be for others too, but most of the time, it is merely for ourselves to exercise our expression and be the one to receive it. Comments evolve a whole new frontier because it is transmitted more as a response to the original statement. There in lies the beauty of blogs which separate them from Instant Messaging which I despise so much: The messages, aren't instant - therefore people usually give a lot more thought into writing them. There's a temporal chronological distance between the writer and the receiver - much like the movie in production versus the audience in production (that is, as the marketers try to produce an audience that will respond to their product) or audience in anticipation.
I am attracted to this new age of blogging but despite the convenience of seeing my words appear at a faster rate before me than when I do writing by hand, I feel it lacks the personal touch of truly writing out to oneself... I just need something physical, like a paper, I suppose, but that's just my writer side speaking. I put up with the hard way to do things if it's something I enjoy doing.
Personally, my only worry is whether I've got enough time in my life to actually create all my masterpieces down on paper and then translate them over on the computer. Most great authors do that, James Ellroy, Hunter S. Thompson, J.K Rowling... But with the ever increasing devices of convenience for the sport of writing, I feel antique when compared to the coffee shop writers who bring their laptops in and their fancy Word Perfect programs. Communicating the sound of their labor through the clicking and tapping cacophony of their typing. Though I wouldn't really know or care much about this breed as I don't drink coffee nor go to coffee shops.

Hi Roger,

I've been suprised and kind of astonished at how involved I have been getting with your blog and Mr. Emerson's. I am also a regular reader of James Berardinelli's "ReelThoughts" and I am always enriched, encouraged and enlightened when I read blog material by the 3 of you. I have impressed on my family and friends in the past how those who are captivated by the power of film are the most capable of both holding my interest and stirring my emotions in conversation and commentary, to limited success. There are just too many people out there who are unfortunate not to have discovered the beauty and power of film.

I have posted comments on prior occasions, but in reply to this blog I wanted to provide you with a little bit of background on my blogging history. I am an unsigned singer/songwriter. I have been pursuing a career in the music industry for some time despite the fact that my passion is for film. It's a strange tug-of-war for me. I enjoy WORKING in music and WATCHING films. I have friends in both industries and others who keep me balanced with less demanding lifestyles.

Earlier this year I was encouraged by a friend of my brother's to create a blog and see if I could rope some fellow snger/songwriters in to contribute to it. I was excited about the idea, but the execution proved to be somewhat disheartening. I was at a loss for topics to write about and it mostly came out as the angry ramblings of an unsigned musician who was not yet at peace with his place in life. The only comment I ever got was to a post that wasn't my own, but one of my brother's, bemoaning the lack of quality music in a culture dominated by reality televsion. The comment was not in agreement with my brother's (and my) point of view and inspired more confusion as to what the blog is about.

I decided to abandon the idea as I felt it was one of many hindrances in pursuing my career in music. I have since recorded and finished my first short-play album release and I have just returned from a short trip to Queensland (in Australia - I live in Victoria) to film a music video and catch up with friends. I will have the music video finished soon and ready to post on YouTube and other media outlets and have my EP ready for release.

The reason I am including these details is that I wanted to thank you for this blog in particular. I know now that it is a better idea to start something like this when I am more settled in my chosen field and I can talk about topics I WANT to talk about without necessarily having to take the point of view of the wronged artist. I have had the idea of starting a little music and film commentary with a filmmaker friend of mine. I think the social relevance of both to my generation is something that can be combined. I also bemoan the fact that I have yet to find a music critic as generous and talented as you are a film critic. I can only hope my fanbase will reply with comments as thoughtful and heartfelt as yours. May you, your reviews and your blog live on for many, many years to come!

As a novice to the web, I am amused as well as impressed with the diversity of information and the ability to engage in dialogue with those who I would never in my life encounter except for the pages of a book, which is never interactive, but has only the quiet contemplative journey with one's own mind.
I am a faithful reader of your blog and enjoy the exploration with you of many different subjects, especially the craft of film making and the whimsy of life which takes on many colors and forms as time goes by.

It is a great pleasure and joy to witness the splendid, intricate and amusing aspects of your mind. I am so impressed with your ability to have a true voice in our culture! Your words, thoughts and musings touch and give me great happiness as a member of your world wide fan base.

Keep on writing. Your books sit on my desk and I reach for your site each day. Loved the snippets with you and Gene. Very funny and candid.

All the best, Judy Shuster

Roger, I subscribed to Compuserve just so I could participate in the Ebert Showbiz Forum. I've been lurking here for months. I didn't comment earlier because I didn't want the public to know what I was writing to you (unless you decided it was worthy of the Answer Man column.) I always preferred direct email.

What I've learned over the years of reading your reviews, opinion columns, and email correspondence is that you are a teacher. I appreciate your energy to enlighten us about film. I have left a number of inexpensive dvd's on the shelf because they were not in widescreen format. Why do the studios sell full screen movies for ten bucks or less months before the widescreen is available?

Concerning the Olympics. I only like races. Everything else is boring. Races are absolute. The first one to the end wins. They run or swim to the finish line, pee in a cup or give a drop of blood to prove they aren't on drugs, get a medal and a bouquet, and maybe an interview. That's it. Tonight I flipped back and forth from running in the streets (men's marathon) and diving to Everybody Hates Chris, Madagasgar, and now Eli Stone. I just want to see the 4x400 relays.

Until the next time,
TL

As an avid (obsessive?) reader of your reviews and blog for the past few years I've found you to be the best resource for discovering movies that were worth watching that I hadn't previously heard of. But I must admit, I eagerly clicked on this current blog entry due to its picture of the icons of my favorite sport (and another obsession); I've played volleyball for over ten years and cannot think of a more enjoyable sport to be a part of. This is why it pains me to admit that, for the average spectator, volleyball must be a very repetitive and boring sport to watch. As much as I enjoy watching volleyball (both beach and the far less aired indoor competitions), it irritates me that NBC insists upon airing a few sports repeatedly and ignoring many competitions altogether. Didn't think I'd ever agree with a negative assessment of volleyball, but darn it if you didn't find a way... feel free to post other, non-movie related comments in the future, I'd certainly be interested in seeing what you have to say.

I was really happy to know you enjoy your blog... It was nice to know you read all comments... I sure enjoy reading the blog, and your website and books! OK,I confess... I'm your fan... I like the way you feel a movie besides watching it...

This is a tremendous blog and I've been so pleased with the content that is of similar breadth, thought, and vision as your printed work which seems so meticulously thought out. I'm not sure of your editing process when it comes to the blog (or whether you have one at all), but your output in every avenue is genuinely rich.

A few of the above commenters have remarked on your Great Films article for "The Best Years of Our Lives," and I, too, feel a great connection to that film and your article. When I was first getting deep into film-watching (ever since viewing Hitchcock's "Notorious" on a whim at 15), my dad took me to the video store and handed me copies of "How Green Was My Valley" and "Best Years of Our Lives" and told me these are two of the greatest I'd ever see. He was right, and while I was watching "Best Years" with him, he kept commenting over and over on Gregg Tolland's deep focus lense, constantly amazed with how it looked (he also revealed an old story of having William Wyler butt into a debate he and his friend were having over a certain aspect of the film back at a screening in the early 70s; the man actually was sitting in the back of the theater, watching the watchers as if it were a test screening).

When I was 17, he passed away from cancer and a few years later, checking the updates on your website, I was astonished to see "Best Years" as the new addition to your Great Movies series. It really moved me. While I was reading it, I was transported back to when my dad took it upon himself to give me a schooling in cinema. It took me back to his excitement at how Fredic March's homecoming plays out, and when I was amazed by the extent of deep focus (in a long shot where Dana Andrews and Teresa Wright flirt in the store while the supervisor sits in his second-floor office -- I was so focused on him for some reason I kept thinking he'd get up and catch Andrews "slacking off"). Not only did the article allow me to appreciate the film more, it returned me to the small details of the event, and they've stuck with me since.

Almost as an aside, I've always been curious as to your views as to the nature of the film critic and the filmmaker. To be specific, what would be the things that make a good filmmaker (since you've been the sphere of so many), and what makes a good critic (since it's your profession)? Of course, you may have answered these in the past and I've missed it, or it's an area you prefer to avoid. Nonetheless, it's a subject that fascinates me in my own neuroses, and reading what the seasoned pro's say certainly satisifies my own psyche. Perhaps it's a good dialogue to take place on a blog.

Here's to many more year's of writing and criticism, and to await your words on the masterpieces of yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Funny you write about volleyball because every time I turned to the NBC or CNBC it was Men's/Women's beach volleyball or indoor volleyball. Volleyball is BORING!!

I think I read that ESPN will be bidding for future Olympics! ESPN did a pretty good job with the World Cup a couple of years ago so there may be hope for future Olympics.

Let us now pause to salute the most courageous people at the Olympics. Not the gymnasts coming back from an injury. Not the marathoners risking heat stroke. Not the mountain bikers going vertical down a horizontal trail.

I refer to those people you see out there on the grass waiting for the discus, javelin, shotputs or hammer to arrive so they can measure the distances those potentially lethal objects traveled. They must be very, very alert.

You misunderstand apathy and disinterest for passionate politeness.

You are simply no longer a reliable honest reviewer worth considering as a reputable source of information. Since your main source of public interest revolves around your entertainment reviews and since you are no longer considered a worthwhile honest reviewer, the result is that people simple have no interest in your dishonest attention-getting. As for this review of yourself by myself, well I am only here because I linked from a much more interesting website and otherwise have no longer any care for you at all as a reviewer. I find the "Screen It" website many times more honest and less of a paid dishonesty tool of the movie studios.

Dear Mr. Ebert,

Thank you for your kind words. Your readers, we, are a well-behaved group but writing allows editing so that makes it easier to behave. That and our respect for you as 'Jazzmania' already mentioned. In person we are sure to be a motley crew. All the better.

Those who don't behave on blogs must set out with that purpose or be in extremity. Either way, a problem but what in life is without problems? I am waiting for the day when blogging is rechristened with a name it deserves. How about comtool, penrealm, interverse or reparpen? No? These things take time and trying.

A renaissance venetian monk wrote, "I never lie but I only tell the truth to a few people." Now we can add, 'and when I'm blogging' ('interversing').

In response to Brian on Aug. 22 at 1:59 PM regarding universal health care, somethings are just the right thing to do. There is another possible projection of the fate of health care that is more sanguine than yours. That is that since universal health care would serve all the voters, the pressure on all the elected officials to organize and deliver it would be close to complete and therefore act as some guarantee. For best guesses at a possible future I would look at the Canadian System. At the very least it was headed in the right direction and stands ready to be improved.

I started blogging film noir movie reviews a few years ago. I'm not a professional writer or a film maker. I just love noir and wanted to share my passion with the world. After about a year into it I quit the blog because I was convinced I was the only one reading it. To my surprise I got a number of emails asking "When are you planning on updating Noir of the Week?"

I don't write all of the reviews but ask people to help contribute each week and I lay it out as best I can. The satisfaction I get from writing, laying out and editing the page has been a wonderful experience. I have 400 readers a day stop by and get some wonderful comments.

I love your blog, Mr. Ebert, and I'm glad to see you're getting some nice responses to it.

Hi Roger,

Though I don't send many messages, I enjoy reading your blog. Having been a long time admirer of your movie criticism and mostly, if not completely, in agreement with your occasional political commentary, I very much enjoy your blog updates (and my 5 yrs of coming to Ebertfest). You have been sometimes, IMHO, overly generous in your reviews of movies of late. I miss the combative reviews! OTOH, you introduced me to movies that have stayed with me for years - Man Push Cart and Yesterday being recent examples. I can't believe there are people who can't seek out and enjoy such movies. Thanks for your efforts on our collective behalves. Looking forward to future blog updates...

Don

Oh, Roger... There's nothing like the blouse man. ;)

To reply to George Johnson's strangely negative entry, how can someone who gives "Death Race" a 1/2-star review be labeled, as he put it, "a paid dishonesty tool of the movie studios"? Roger Ebert never claimed he wasn't trying to entertain us. He's been in the entertainment business since Day One. Roger, George claims you "are no longer considered a worthwhile honest reviewer." Exactly when did you suddenly become dishonest? You must have been caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

Hmm. Note to self: Stop taking the bait.

Ebert: Among other reasons, I would never sign up to become a "paid dishonesty tool" because I would not work for people who wrote like that.

I enjoy reading your blogs. While others think it's cool to dislike an Indiana Jones movie because it doesn't compare to the original, you see it for the ride that it is. I don't read a lot of blogs but I enjoy yours.
I had never liked the idea of keeping a blog myself but finally have a reason to keep one. I will be making a pretty big move to Europe, choosing love over a safe job in Los Angeles, and will document my travels with photos and videos.
I don't have any idea on where to start on making a blog but I suppose I'm not the first to make a move like this and I can post on their site.
Any advice to starting your own blog?
Thanks,
Paul

Aw, George Johnson ruined the streak, didn't he? Does that count as a hostile comment?

Ebert: Well, he said he'd never be back. And he does have good taste in recommending "Screen it!," the most useful web sitefor parents.

"I lament the lack of true religious freedom in China." I'm glad that you said that. A liberal who is not anti-religion. Yay.

"I also lament the growing encroachment of religion upon government in America, where polls show that millions of Americans have no use for the concept of separating church and state, and religious fundamentalists have a veto power over some nominations." But wait. How is religion encroaching upon government in this country? By religious people who vote? Isn't that one of the ways we exercise our religious freedom? Surely you're not suggesting that it would be better if religious people didn't vote.

hello mr ebert

as a man with cerebral palsy; i know what its like to have difficulty speaking. ive been on the internet for 10 yrs. only on the internet do people get the REAL SETH. off the internet, theres always the filter of my garbled voice and spastic limbs;

i attempted to have a blog twice, unfortunately it was too much work typing with my feet; (this post will take me an hour to type)

so roger, welcome to the blogosphere.

PS thanks for introducing me to rory o'shea

Ebert: I think I have problems! I'm blessed. But as a person who was always verbal ("Talks too much," Sister Marie Donald wrote on my second grade report card) I have found it very frustrating to be unable to speak. The internet has kept me sane and reasonably happy. I thank you for taking the hour to share your voice with us. I feel honored.

Hi Roger,

I just wanted a chance to say thank you to both you and Jim. I got the Cinemania 96 CD with a new computer back when I was 15, and while I was already a frequent viewer of your show, I spent hours and hours and HOURS on that CD going down rabbit holes, listening to movie scores, and delighting every time I hit upon a movie you had a review for. (That CD also indicated to me, at that young age, that while I admired Pauline Kael's fire, wit, and importance to the field, she just wasn't for me.)

You have both directly impacted my life, and there's no doubt in my mind I'm a better person for it. Seeing you both online, active, and still discussing ideas that recast the entire experience of going to the movies... it feels like a major part of my life has come full circle.

Thank you again. I'm glad you decided to dive in.

I wanted to give you a heads up for a couple of things.
Surprisingly, the wikipedia article about you is already updated concerning this blog post. It says "In a response to a comment on his blog in August, 2008, he all but conceded that he would never regain his speaking voice."

And lastly, but less interestingly, the movie "The Girl who leapt through time" is showing in a few theatres in the US. Since you seem to be open-minded enough to watch and review japanese animation movies, I thought you might also check this one out.

That's an amazing result, never to have gotten a single trashy comment in three months! I guess you have a way of being engaging to the right people, while exceeding the attention spans of the wrong people.

The tone here is fairly reminiscent of those glory days in your Compuserve forum. I find the Web format encourages me less to read all the replies, than my old TapCIS interface did. However, your praise of their quality makes me resolve to knuckle down and read them. I do notice that you are slowly getting sucked in to replying to more comments, which nudges things still closer to what the Compuserve forum was. Hooray!

Bob Costas asked IOC President Jacques Rogge relatively tough questions about China's human rights record, and broadcast the interview to a rapt American audience. This morning. At 3:30am. Personally, that has disabused me of any thoughts I might have had that NBC was ignoring China's environmental and human rights problems.

As for people who post to your blog, how many entries do you reject that consist solely of the word "First!"?

Ebert: None. What am I missing?

"Paid dishonesty tool" - a phrase so clunky it's almost pretty. One of my objectives for tomorrow will be to use it at work with a straight face.

Hi Roger,

I'm glad that you've been having a good experience with the reader participation that your blog generates. I read your website every day, and enjoy particularly enjoy browsing the archives. The great thing about your writing is that many of your reviews work as essays that bear insights into multiple aspects of our world. I enjoy reading them in the same way that I enjoy reading Walter Benjamin's essays on topics such as photography, children's literature, or Charlie Chaplin.

In other words, amidst all the fun at the heart of the movies, I think it could be said that your writing expresses a care for culture. This is not so in the sense that you affirm one culture over another, but in the sense that through your writing about film, you draw our attention to many of the themes and problems of desires, relationships, fears, our past(s) and future(s), the unconscious, and so on. Even at the level of cinematic visuals, your essays lead the reader to ponder the world with a heightened aesthetic sensibility. And all of this is accomplished in an accessible style, making subtle ideas communicable to all readers.

Of course, this is not to say that all movies have to give rise to complex examinations; much less that very rich, nuanced movies can't be understood and enjoyed for the "bare story." There is no principle determining what movies have to be, and evaluating "dumb fun" against the criteria of "highbrow" film is entirely beside the point. A lot of art is escapist, and that's perfectly fine; in fact, we should all be thankful for that. But at the same time, all art contains within itself the power to bring us back to the world and to reflect on our lives, our actions, our flaws, and our hopes. Your writing about film is frequently an instructive reminder of that power. Additionally, your essays often contain references to other art forms (writing, visual art, etc.) that introduce readers to new experiences - for instance, I would have been much longer discovering Cormac McCarthy's stunning novels if I hadn't read your review of The Proposition after seeing the trailer for it! For that alone, you have my gratitude.

Thanks for all the great, thought-provoking, humourous reading, and keep up the good work!

Mr. Ebert,

I'd just like to let you know how much your work has enriched my life. I have been reading your reviews since I developed an interest in movies around the age of 12 (I'm now 26). You have taught me so much about the appreciation of art. No doubt, your criticisms are meaningful works of art themselves. The kindness and generosity that are evident in your writing inspires me to be a better person.

This has probably been off-topic, but I know you read these comments... and I wanted to send a quick note to show my sincere gratitude for being one of the coolest guys ever!

Thanks.

A line from the novel I may yet never complete: - "Shh, can you hear it? All of China is dreaming."

Many fetes,
Solomon

I'm surprised by the vitriol directed at beach volleyball.

I thought May/Walsh were brilliant to watch in Athens and again this year. I'm mixed on the idea of team sports in the Olympics in general, and I'll readily concede that watching averagely-great players is probably boring.

But I think May/Walsh (and the Chinese team in the finals) elevated the spectator experience immensely. I'm not a big sports fan (at all), but watching them work together reminded me of the Boston Celtics at their best in the mid-1980s...independently contributory, but with frequent bursts of total cohesion. Really impressive.

I didn't hear the GWB comment. That might have spoiled it for me. :)

ObOnTopic: prior to this blog, I knew Roger only as a movie reviewer in bite-sized commentary. You speak of the richness of your audience, but I thank you also for sharing the richness of your self with us.

I'm so glad that you're enjoying blogging, because that means that we get to enjoy your thoughts and views of the world. As a blogger myself (and I hate to admit this), there are very few blogs that I read. I mostly visit blogs filled with images like my own, because so many of the more verbose ones bore the hell out of me. I'm glad that I have an exception to that rule with yours.

On a lark a few years ago, I started a blog in order to show my little kooky, narrative images. Now two years later, thanks to people discovering me on the web, I'm finishing my first book which which will come out next year. It mainly of a collection of my images. No way a guy in a small town in Indiana has that happen without the internet. It's a wonderful, wonderful thing.

I always enjoy hearing or reading your reviews, but learned early on that just because you like a movie doesn't mean I will, unfortunately. (The same applies to beach volleyball - but not to the almost exclusive focus of NBC on U.S. athletes even when there are better stories elsewhere, which I have complained about for years.)

My biggest turn-off is when a movie forgets to be consistent with its own premises. Take The Usual Suspects, in which a criminal genius conceives and implements a complicated master plan to preserve his anonymity. Leaving aside the impracticalities of the plan, at the end the police have his photograph, height, weight, finger prints, voice recording, and saliva (in a coffee cup) for a DNA analysis. Some fiendish master plan.

I don't recall what your verdict was on that particular movie, but it appears to me this is far from your own greatest concern when evaluating movies, which puts us on opposite sides sometimes.

The time I was most on your side was in your review of Silence of the Lambs. Like you, I was flabbergasted when Gene Siskel went thumbs down, saying that the movie glamorized serial killers. Part of the reason I loved the movie, besides the performances, was that everything made sense down to a deep level, including the fact that Dr. Lector knew all along who "Buffalo Bill" was, and used that knowledge to pretend he could solve a case which had the FBI baffled simply by reading their case file.

I must admit, though, that GS was prophetic as to the trend the movie established. In Thomas Harris's sequel Hannibal Dr. Lector becomes a (dark) hero, rather than the monster he was in the novels Red Dragon and SOTL, presumably because this is what Hollywood thought would sell.

Ebert: I didn't approve of "The Usual Suspects" either, and have been admonished ever since. But from your comments I think we read the movie quite differently. I'll say no more.

I am impressed that you've stayed (mostly) on topic with this blog. A lot of the active "celebrity blogs" just become (often political) rants, and while I suppose the whole point is that you can ruminate about whatever you want, reading what you have to say about movies beyond the review format is a pleasure (especially after your absence).

One note on the Olympics -- I've found none of the interviews with the athletes to be the least bit interesting, probably because all of them seem so obviously eager for the interview to end.

Ebert: ...I also lament the growing encroachment of religion upon government in America...

The encroachment of religion upon government in America is understandable in the sense that many Christians believe in cultivating a society that falls in line with the moral tenets of their faith. Even a casual look at the U.S. constitution shows this goes against the intentions of our founding fathers. I believe Jesus is the savior of mankind, but I also believe no one has ever been led to faith in Him because of a government policy or the fact that more conservative than liberal judges sit on the Supreme Court.

Christianity actually thrives in cultures that are hostile to the faith. China, for instance. I recently heard that enough people are being saved in that country on a daily basis to fill a football stadium, all without the benefit of government policies enforcing a Christian morality.

For the Christians reading this: we cannot legislate faith or morality, so let's take the battle to where it can be fought: the interpersonal level. I believe our constitution wholly supports our right to share our faith in that way.

Roger,

Here is why you don't get obscene, hostile or illiterate comments. You aren't that way yourself--you don't write nonsense like that. You won't remember it, but not terribly long after George W. Bush was elected the first time, there were a few unsubstantiated articles about the Bush daughters wearing jeans to formal events. You commented on that, espressing--albeit mildly--your disdain for all things Bush, in something on your page. Then you found out that the stories were incorrect and that neither of the Bush daughters had worn jeans to anything that was formal. So you wrote a very nice comment saying so and that you had been wrong and hadn't gotten the right information. I wrote you and told you that I thought you were a mensch for writing that second column (and you wrote back--doggone, I DO wish I had saved that email), saying, "I'm not the only mensch in this conversation." And I thought, "What a great guy." And I smiled all day at being called a mensch myself.

You treat your answerman questioners with dignity; you treat film and the producers, directors, actors, technicians and other critics with courtesy (and I'm thinking of Vincent Gallo and Rob Schneider, too. You may have written to or about people strongly but never in any way less than civil and humane. American politics and many of my fellow Christian believers could take a page from your book. Or 10 pages...)and you yourself are never hysterical or strident--even when you are dealing with those zero-star movies. I like your tone of intelligent moral outrage. Because of that, you're a man who gets intelligent comments on the blog about faith, such as the one above by David Laprad, and not the ones about all of _________ (fill in the blank with demonized group of choice) going to burn in hell or be the downfall of America or lead to tooth decay.

I've learned a great deal on how to deal with the merely silly and the obviously immoral over the years from you. Thanks for blogging and thanks for being honest with film. You are one of the reasons that this college English professor is taking film classes--so I can incorporate the beauty and wonder of great film into classes that treat narrative. Thanks for being a kind and rational voice--and for the moments when you zing because the subject deserves--no, begs--for it.

Keep blogging, because your fans (oops, I mean your faithful readers...) love hearing from you. You might be amazed how many of our ideas you validate in a public forum--and how much we appreciate that. You let us know that the voice of charity, decency and reason is not only not silenced, but it still speaks strongly.

Your open letter to Jay Mariotti argues that while times are hard, newspapers are not dead. I suspect you are more hopeful than certain. Newspapers, as we have known them, are at least moribund and your web contribution illustrates part of the reason. Blogs provide direct connections between opinion makers and their loyal audience.

I was an avid newspaper reader from about the time I was 12, fifty years ago. No longer. The old papers offered hard news, commentary, features and a clear and continuing connection to my community. Modern corporate chains operate with little heart or soul. Corporate chains under financial pressure operate with none. So insuperable barriers between advertising and editorial sides disappear. Owners and their flunkies dictate points of view and partisanship replaces neutrality.

In most cities, today's information paradigm does not rely upon newspapers. I design my own information system with my wireless connection to the Internet. Every day, I am greeted with news stories from around the world, opinions from the very minds, entertainment features, science updates, travel info, hobby tips, local blogs, etc., etc. I even found my favorite film writer now keeps a blog.

By golly, I've created my own electronic newspaper and it's one with no recycling effort required.

I have seen and read many of your reviews over the years. I enjoy all kinds of movies, but the science fiction ones...and in particular, Star Trek films...are my favorites. I was recently rereading your reviews of the Star Trek sequels over the years. I shared in your enjoyment of some of the earlier films like #2 and #4, and especially read your big dismay over the last one #10. Disappointing to see that it's wearing on you, but I had to agree.

You may well be aware that JJ Abrams is coming out with a new one next year, and I have high hopes it will be an improvement. As you have said many times, the most entertaining films are the character- and story-driven ones...the script and the writing. I honestly have only seen very little tidbits, but am crossing my fingers.

I also read your reviews on all the Batman films. Bravo! The last two beat the first four 'hands down'!

You are in our prayers for continued improvement in your health and well-being. I know you are agnostic and so am I, but a prayer never hurts anyone. Take care!

As I was reading through this week’s reviews, I was moved beyond my capacity to resist to finally send you a note and tell you how much I enjoy them. I apologize for wasting your time.

I live in rural New Brunswick, Canada. There’s a theatre in Fredericton that has 10 screens, which are presently showing:

The House Bunny

Babylon AD (oh, almost good, then they ran out of money or the writer died, I’m not sure which)

Death Race

Disaster Movie

College

------------------- I place a break here because I feel I need to separate them in some way

Tropic Thunder

Bangkok Dangerous

Pineapple Express

Star Wars: the Clone Wars

Mamma Mia

“XXY” will never come here. Nor will “I Served the King of England”, nor most of the other films you review.

I read your reviews weekly, and I file away the titles in my memory, in the hopes that someday I’ll be traveling in a big city and it’ll be showing in an art theatre, or I’ll remember it will come out on DVD, or a friend will happen to have a copy I’ll be able to borrow. I got to see “In Bruges” this way, and “The Band’s Visit”, and so on.

I understand and expect that most films will prove Sturgeon’s Law, I’m Ok with that. I see a lot of films, and as a result, I see a lot of bad films. I’m Ok with that, too. You help me find the odd good film as well, and thank you for that. I also want to say:

Even if I never get to see them, it is nice to read about them and know such things exist. It reinforces a comforting thought that there are some people out there who don’t just want to make money, they also want to entertain, to challenge, to make something interesting and maybe even beautiful, but not just pure product.

A description of something beautiful can fire images in the brain, and so can be a beautiful thing in itself. Your columns often do that. I’m not sure at what point one could say your columns are art, so I don’t say that, but I do say they are entertaining, uplifting, thought-provoking – in short they do a lot of things that art does (or should do), so if they aren’t art, well I don’t know art, but I know what I like.

I think it easy for everyone in general and artists in particular to get so tied up in themselves that the thing becomes a thing in itself. But I also feel good art should relate to something bigger. Your columns do that. Yes, they are about films. But they are also about life, about what our society is and should be, about what modern love is and should be, and a hundred other things. In your writing, the humanity shines through. I don’t know if you could or even should write a novel, I just looked you up and found out your wrote Behind the Phantom’s Mask, so I’ll look for that. I do know I’ve read a few novels which accomplish the goals of a novel far less well than your columns do.

This is probably a corollary to number 3, I am a simple person and I know the world is complicated, but I don’t think everything is relative. I know films don’t have to be simple morality plays, but I do think that in the midst of making certain films, people should be asking themselves some questions they either don’t, or which they are able to answer far differently than I. I am not a prude, but I do not mistake exploitive lewdness for free-thinking, or vulgarity for art. I’m not a fan of horror movies, but I do think that even in this genre there should be some lines uncrossed. I’m not saying those films should be censored in any way, but they should be censured in the court of public opinion. Critics should write columns which say e.g. this film should not have been made, has few or no redeeming qualities, and/or exploits its subject matter under the guise of exploring it. That takes a film critic with some nuance, some brains, but also with a moral centre which they don’t turn off just because they are doing their job, but which they engage in their job. Your columns do this.

Finally, most critics seem to be highly focused on telling me their opinion about whether they like the film. So the columns are primarily about them proving they have better knowledge or taste than I. Which is fair enough, but not exactly fun to read over and over. You, on the other hand, are prepared to talk about the film, and to ask the key question “will people are prepared to buy a ticket to a kung-fu ping-pong movie like this kung-fu ping-pong movie?”. Ok, ok, I know that’s not exactly a “meaning of life” key question, but for those of us who have occasion to want that kind of information, there’s not exactly a lot of places we can get it. Your columns are such places. Which in my view says something complimentary about how you see your job and your place in the world.

Anyway, I don’t know you, but I do feel like parts of who you are as a person do show on how you do your job, so in that way, like many consumers of media, a virtual relationship is created, and it’s of course one-way. One of us will eventually pass, I’ll have the advantage because if you go first, I will get to read about it, whereas if I go first, you won’t. And I got thinking about that today as I was reading your review, really enjoying your work again and I thought to myself, I think I’ll presume to make the flows go the other way just this once. I know you’re a very busy person, but I listed 6 things about your columns and the way you do them that really adds some enjoyment to my life. So I wanted to take a moment and say thanks.

So, you know, thanks. And all the best to you with your health, your faith, your personal life, and continued professional success.

Sincerely,

Charles Murray

Ebert: "Beyond the Phantom's Mask" was a 52-part weekly newspaper serial. I don't recall it left anyone clamoring for more fiction from me.

As a filmmaker, I find many reviewer's treatment of films disheartening. So often they speak with such disgust toward films, with what seems like very little understanding of the human effort that actually goes into making a movie. To this day there are only two reviewers I fully trust and admire, you, and David Edelstein. I find it thrilling that you have a blog and I have really enjoyed hearing from you on this more personal level. Thank you for continuing to educate us. You are a very wise man.

I love the blog because it has some of the elements of conversation. I feel that my reading of it and your review of the comments starts a dialogue we both enjoy. Finding a subsequent comment from a blogger responding to a readers comment is often an extra special treat. I reinforces the idea that the comments do not go into some black hole never to be seen again.

I've written here before about how much I enjoy your DVD commentaries, and just this week you talked me through Dark City, which I enjoyed thoroughly. In a different post I had hoped to encourage you to do more and more of them, but your response to Matt's comment above reminds me that this may no longer be possible. I'm afraid I must selfishly demand that you make a full recovery! I find many things about the movies don't become glaringly obvious until after you've explained them, scene by scene.

Seriously though,
I wish you health,
Regards,
Karl

You are using an outaged redirection service. There are a lot of them appeared last time.
I have chosen [url=http://fff.to/]http://fff.to[/url] - especially because of nice redirection statistics,
traffic distribution and no limitation.

It seems you use url shortinizing services.
I use them quite often and decided to stay with [url=http://fff.to/]http://fff.to[/url] after evaluating
a number of them. It is quite fast and provides full statistics.
And there is a traffic distribtuion system, very webmaster-friendly feature.
It helps to detect better conversions for my traffic

Roger, I just discovered this blog today, and it made me smile. For years, I enjoyed reading your thoughts on more subjects than just movies, back in those text-based Compuserve forum days (from a 2400 baud modem). I'll certainly bookmark this site.

Firstly, A snapshot of this SiteMeter world map would be interesting. I'm sure many of us would pour over it. I'd be curious to know how many people from my area visit you. It's also strangely satisfying when you see someone from the other side of the world is appreciating the same things as you. It's sort of a shared experience. Like a movie. Individuals each, but collectively focused.

It does surprise me that you don't get a lot of nasty comments. I assumed that was par for the course with every anonymous forum. Perhaps one of the reasons it's so civil is that it's not so anonymous as far as you're concerned. Everyone knows who you are, we've all watched you for years and read your books. Many (most) other blogs are by anonymous people giving very strong opinions on everything. With a little research I'm sure I would find most of these oh so well informed authors are between the ages of 18 and 23. I'm sure the strength of their convictions doesn't match the breadth of their knowledge. You however, seem to pick your topics carefully. After all, you are going to invite your readers to spend some time on you. You take this seriously and it shows, so perhaps we automatically reciprocate. For example, one of the things I like is the absence of handles, most everyone uses a real name. It's not 'SizzleA$$ and RataTooNie', it's Joe, Samantha and Karl.

我是一个加拿大。我喜欢这个网站，因为它具有很好的写作。

I also tend to believe, perhaps snobbishly, that movie fans are a rare breed. So it's refreshing to be around other fans, even if it's in this anonymous forum. Most of my friends are not fans, they are just consumers of movies. What they feel about most movies is what the marketing has told them to feel. It takes a miracle for them to watch foreign films (thank you Crouching Slumdog, Hidden Roberto Benigni), but they won't even watch a Québec film here in English Canada. Even when I was taking a night course on movie making most of the class didn't have anything to say. The teacher for Lighting design was comparing the compositions in Barry Lyndon with a painting by Rembrandt and they couldn't be more distracted. Yet here you talk about watching a movie frame by frame and analysing, discussing and dissecting every nuance. I think I read you with a feeling of relief as much as insight.

Ebert: I'm listing my top 20 nations for February 2009. The lowest had 10,000 visits. What disappoints me is that I don't hear from a lot of those countries, although I do have regular correspondents from Canada, Mexico, India, the UK, Australia and Taiwan.

1. United States
2. Canada
3. United Kingdom
4. Australia å
5. Germany
6. India
7. Ireland
8. Netherlands
9. Philippines
10. Sweden
11. Mexico
12. Japan
13. France
14. Singapore
15. New Zealand
16. Denmark
17. Brazil
18. Spain
19. Norway
20. Korea - South