 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
98.232.224.41
Very, very disappointing. At least half of the film showed Roger with his jaw hanging off his face, a gruesome sight. From a film that should have been about the man and his career, we got a horrific depiction of a man with terminal cancer agonizingly going into the death spiral.
Uplifting? Courageous?
Possibly, but not what I'd expected at all, nor the type of film I enjoy.
More about Roger's thoughts and life would have been nice.
Both thumbs down, way down.
Follow Ups:
I enjoyed it. As to Ebert's physical appearance, that's the way he looked and he wasn't afraid to show himself. Saying that showing him was wrong misses the point. Should we hide sick or deformed people? I thought Ebert bravely faced (no pun intended) his disabilities and persevered doing what he loved and figuring out how to still be relevant.
I thought the movie was a nice balance of his early career, his talent and problems, his relationship with Siskel and then with his wife and his wife's family, and his impact as a critic.
I would definitely recommend it.
I prefer to remember the vitality of a person.
.
...including The Daily Beast disagree with you - they ranked ranked the 11th best film so far in 2014.
Gave it 2 enthusiastic thumbs up.
a depressing, semi-exploitive film about death, dying, suffering.
A far better title would have been "Death Itself."
This was a celebration of slow-mo death, not life.
Unless, of course, one thinks eating out of a tube and lying in a bed, immobilized, for seven years is "living."
In other words, it's a film that's supposed to be ennobling because it shows a human being wasting away yet soldiering on.
Nothing very unusual in that; most people wait till the bitter end, suffering just like Roger.
Watching a famous person undergo such misery TO ME isn't any more interesting than watching anyone else's death throes.
Mind, I have always been a huge fan of Ebert's reviews, his "Everyman" approach; I also thought that this film would have been better served by having it center on both Ebert and Siskel and that relationship. To me, that was the story that was unusual and needed more illumination.
...critics won't pan it because he was an important colleague.
But since I haven't seen it, I don't have an opinion about the film.
Ebert was always my favorite since his days on PBS.
the PBS days were the best
Ebert and Siskel were so new and fresh
RIP both
Although my wife and I generally had a favorable impression of the film, we did think that the director spent way too much time with the shots in the hospital, even though a lot of the other personal stuff in the film was interesting (e.g., his foibles and petty jealousies). And tin does make a good point that much more of the time could profitably have been spent discussing Roger's aesthetics and criticism overall.
.
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
