RogerEbert
Latest
Roger Ebert's Great Movies app hits iOS devices, pulls you from your Netflix-recommended slump
Struggling to decide on a few movies to watch this weekend? Then you can always peruse the solid suggestions offered by Roger Ebert's ongoing Great Movies series, which is now available in convenient app form for the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch (though not optimized for iPad, unfortunately). In addition to over 300 reviews from Ace in the Hole to Yojimbo, the app offers stills and fully searchable details for each film in the series, plus links to add a movie to your Netflix queue or buy it from Amazon, and the ability to make your own lists of what you've seen and what you want to see. There's still no indication of a release for Android or other platforms just yet, but iOS users can grab the app right now for $0.99 via the iTunes link below.
Macs help Roger Ebert to speak again
Film Critic Roger Ebert has been a long time Mac fan, and now he is depending on his Mac laptop to speak for him. Ebert was diagnosed with thyroid cancer in 2002, and it was later discovered there was additional cancerous material in his jaw. His lower jaw was removed, and Ebert lost his ability to eat and speak. Now, Ebert uses the Alex voice, which is built into Mac OS X. Last month, with the help of his wife and some friends, Ebert talked about using the Mac to get his voice back in a TED talk. Note: the video uses Flash and is embedded on the next page. It's an inspiring session. Ebert has refused all further treatment for his cancer, and is willing to face whatever comes.
Roger Ebert gives 3D thumbs down, shocking headlines two thumbs up
Apparently in need of something to take his mind off of the "are games art?" debate, film critic Roger Ebert has published "Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too)" in Newsweek. While standing up to "the biz side of show business," that only wants to see 3D succeed in order to sell new projectors and increase ticket surcharges, he instead suggests moviemakers focus on higher framerate solutions that would... require new technology and increase ticket surcharges. His often-contradictory nine points aside, the key to the success or failure of 3D will obviously be whether or not audiences think the difference is consistently worth the money, no matter what anyone says about it -- or how awesome it makes sports look. Until then, the choice of formats and how to make use of them is a decision best left to directors, like the 3D projects he mentions are currently under way from Martin Scorsese and Werner Herzog. Besides, the creative future of Hollywood is in great hands, just check out the trailer for Piranha 3D (embedded after the break.)
Roger Ebert's latest column posits 'games can never be art'
In the "Games as art" debate that seems to never end, the number one opponent of our industry's medium of choice being considered art (at least "high art") has been renowned film critic Roger Ebert. Since he made his initial declaratory statements about video games many years ago, folks have piped up on both sides of the argument. Ebert's latest volley in the long-running discussion is a piece published on the Chicago Sun-Times website in response to thatgamecompany prez Kellee Santiago's TED talk at USC last summer. While he allows Santiago many pleasantries and compliments throughout the piece, he argues that, regardless of her various points, games "can never be art." At the very least, he says, "No video gamer now living will survive long enough to experience the medium as an art form." He contests that games consist of "rules, points, objectives, and an outcome," which stands in contrast to his somewhat ambiguous definition of what, exactly, art is. In a moment of seeming clarity at the end of his piece, he asks: "Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art? Bobby Fischer, Michael Jordan and Dick Butkus never said they thought their games were an art form." And while we might not agree with all of Mr. Ebert's points, we can certainly find common ground with his wondering why the debate over games as art is still such a topic of concern among gamers (ourselves included). [Thanks, Salvatore]
Roger Ebert dramatically regains his voice with help from CereProc (video)
Roger Ebert, perhaps best known as the Hardy to Siskel's Laurel during his days spent thumbing up and down criticisms at films, has achieved a technological miracle of sorts. After a series of cancer treatments and operations left the man mute and without a lower jaw, Ebert regained his voice in dramatic fashion on Oprah, of all places. A company called CereProc has recreated his voice through its text-to-speech technologies assisted by decades of recordings captured from his television appearances and DVD movie commentary tracks -- not exactly applicable to everyone with speaking disorders. Nevertheless, check the clip after the break to witness the impact his semi-recovered voice has on his wife, Chaz. While it definitely needs tweaking, the results are pretty remarkable.
Jim Preston: games as art debate is meaningless
Are games art? It's a question that comes up more and more, as the medium slowly grows out of its awkward, teenage years. EA producer Jim Preston thinks the debate is a meaningless one, as he explains in an incredibly well-thought-out feature on Gamasutra.Preston takes his time to remind of us the state of art in general, and how art is continuously judged by its relative place in culture: a urinal can be art if Marcel Duchamp says so, and places it in an art gallery. Since it's all a matter of perspective, Preston argues that we shouldn't be bickering with Roger Ebert over whether games can be art, but instead spending our time improving the medium, and awaiting further artistic recognition from the community at large.Makes sense to us. We'll stop waiting by the mailbox for our invite to the arty party, then.[Image via this post]
Ebert actually kind of likes Hitman (the movie)
We all know that Roger Ebert, despite his five-digit gamerscore and level 70 night elf rogue, doesn't think video games have, as of yet, risen to the level of "art." But that doesn't mean that he doesn't give a fair shake to video-game based movies. In fact, you could say he almost sort of liked Hitman, saying "Agent 47 has great success with this disguise in Hitman, which is a better movie than I thought it might be."Ebert even goes so far as to give the movie, which earned $21 million in its first five days, 3 out of 4 stars, which is, admittedly, the same score he gave to Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties. (In other news: Why do we still pay attention to a man who gave three stars to Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties?)
But what does Ebert think about video game movies?
Has anyone ever stopped to think that maybe film critic Roger Ebert's dislike of video games is because he's had to sit through just about every film based on a video game, ever? We can sit around and do our best Tom Servo impressions to Super Mario Bros all we want, but what if your career path was about to be flooded with these monstrosities?You too can feel Ebert's pain as the grand opening of the Balcony Archive contains a wealth of classic reviews from his syndicated TV show. Sure, they may never be able to convince us that The Wizard was a terrible film (Jenny Lewis deserved an Oscar!), but it's nice to know that even back in 1989, Gene Siskel understood why these movies never turn out well: the folks behind them simply don't love the games. He always was a smart one, that man. To the balcony! The Wizard (1989) Mortal Kombat (1995) Super Mario Bros (1993) Wing Commander (1999) Double Dragon (1994) Doom (2005) Resident Evil (2002, 2004) Tomb Raider (2001, 2003) Dungeons & Dragons (2000) Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001)
Newsweek's Croal chimes in on 'video games as art' debate
Film critic Roger Ebert, who originally sparked a blaze of discussion in late 2005 by labeling video games inferior to art like film and theater, reignited talks last week when he "clarified," so to speak, that games could be art but not "high art." Our own Ludwig Kietzmann chimed in on the debate, but the ferocity of his diction is marginal compared to the exhaustive rebuttal laid out by Newsweek's N'Gai Croal.Taking Ebert to task paragraph by paragraph, Croal criticizes and calls the film critic out on his apparent ignorance to the subject that he is chastising, much in the way Ebert did himself when he pulled quotes from a Hollywood & Games panel with Clive Barker. Croal's vitriolic and eloquent response warrants notice and discussion, if only for the sheer detail of his counterargument. If we are going to debate whether one medium has the potential to achieve an artistic maturity now in comparison to one more than three times its senior, this is how we should do it.Here's a scenario regarding Ebert's opinion giving players a "smorgasbord of choices" proves detrimental to its emotional impact: imagine a situation where a player's task is to save someone he loves, yet no matter what action he or she takes, that person cannot be saved. In that situation, wouldn't giving an audience multiple choices actually be more emotional as it emphasizes the hopelessness of the situation?
Ebert admits games can be art, but not 'high art'
In an editorial published last weekend, film critic Roger Ebert seems to renege somewhat on his previous insistence that video games, a medium he finds to be "inherently inferior to film and literature," cannot be considered a form of art. "Anything can be art," admits Ebert. "Even a can of Campbell's soup. What I should have said is that games could not be high art, as I understand it." The "high art" label is almost as old and heavy as most of the works one would apply it to, and expecting a medium as young as video games (never mind the superior class of film) to hold it up would surely be met with crushing disappointment. While it's not impossible for video games to eventually reach such a lofty status in our culture, Ebert's clarification is far more agreeable than his previous statements. Of course, since we can beat down the status of art with a can of soup before allowing video games (and seemingly any old thing) entry, it's not much of a change. The same problems Ebert has always had with the medium are reflected in the rest of his response to Clive Barker's recent comments on the subject.
