Roger Ebert’s Cinematic Universe: Insights on “Here” and His Legacy as a Critic

Roger Ebert: The Populist Critic and His Cinematic Universe

Roger Ebert defined film criticism. He didn’t just review films; he engaged with audiences. For over forty years, from 1967 to 2013, he wrote with a relatable voice. Ebert watched and reviewed over 10,000 films. That meant a lot of movies and thought.

Ebert rated films using his four-star system. It became familiar to those who read newspapers or watched his shows with Gene Siskel. For truly dreadful films, he had a special rating: zero stars. Yes, zero. Some films were so bad they entered a different realm. Dive into Ebert’s lowest-rated films if you dare.

His writing was not pretentious. He had a Midwestern charm. His style resonated with the average moviegoer. Ebert believed films were for everyone. He made complex theories easy to understand. He explained cinematography like a witty friend would. You always felt informed.

Ebert's Pantheon: Favorite Films

What films did Ebert love? Martin Scorsese's Raging Bull (1980) was one of his favorites. You can rent it on Amazon Prime Video. Yasujirô Ozu's Tokyo Story (1953) moved him deeply. This film is available on HBO Max. Then there’s The Tree of Life (2010), directed by Terrence Malick, streaming on Hulu. This film explores themes of life and death. Vertigo (1958) by Alfred Hitchcock is another gem on Amazon Prime Video. These films were experiences, not just movies. Uncover more of Ebert's overlooked treasures.

The Hall of Shame: Ebert's Most Hated

Every critic has movies they loathe. Ebert had his share. He loved cinema but had a low tolerance for garbage. His "most hated" list includes laughable films. Movies like 10 to Midnight (1983) and The A-Team (2010) are on it. There’s also Africa: Blood and Guts (1966). It is a graphic title warning. Not even romantic comedies were spared; Alex & Emma (2003) made the list. Films like Alligator (1980) and Anatomy of Hell (2004) struggled too. Annapolis (2006) also earned his disdain. This list shows his discerning taste.

Walk-Out Wonders: Films Ebert Couldn't Finish

Walking out of a movie is bold for any critic. Ebert wasn’t afraid to leave. One film was The Statue (1971). It lacked joy and pleasure for him. He found it steeped in despair. Then came Jonathan Livingston Seagull (1973). This adaptation failed to capture the book’s spirit. Vincent Gallo’s The Brown Bunny (2003) made him exit too, likely due to graphic content. Even well-intentioned films like Tru Loved (2008) lost his interest. Walking out signified that life is too short for unwatchable cinema.

The Star System: Ebert's Rating Rubric

Ebert's star rating system was iconic. It ranged from half a star to four stars. This simple rubric effectively conveyed his views. Four stars meant must-see cinema. Three stars indicated it was good or better. Two stars suggested mediocrity, while one star indicated serious flaws. Then there was the notorious half-star, for truly awful films. Zero stars were the ultimate condemnation for some movies. I Spit On Your Grave (1978) earned this dubious honor.

The Final Curtain: Ebert's Last Review

Ebert's final review was poignant. It was for Terrence Malick’s To the Wonder (2012). This bittersweet farewell came posthumously. It allowed him to sign off with a review of someone he admired greatly. To the Wonder became Ebert's cinematic swan song. It reflected on film and his life, a fitting end to a profound career.

Pulitzer Prize Laureate: A Critic's Accolade

Film criticism rarely wins prestigious awards, yet Ebert changed that. In 1975, he won a Pulitzer Prize for his work in 1974. This achievement validated film criticism as serious journalism. The Pulitzer elevated Ebert’s status and gave weight to his profession. It was a landmark moment, proving movie writing could be culturally significant.

Siskel & Ebert: A Love-Hate Story

The dynamic between Ebert and Gene Siskel is legendary. Their chemistry combined intellectual sparring with genuine camaraderie. They argued about films, but also shared respect and understanding. Ebert described their relationship as "love/hate." After Siskel's passing, Ebert fondly remembered their partnership. Their "thumbs up, thumbs down" became cultural shorthand for recommendations.

Behind the Critic: Ebert's Personal Life

Roger Joseph Ebert was born on June 18, 1942, in Urbana, Illinois. He was an only child of Annabel and Walter Ebert, who had working-class roots. Raised Catholic, he attended St. Mary's and served as an altar boy in Urbana. In 1992, Ebert married Chaz Ebert, a businesswoman and partner until his death in 2013. Despite his fame, he kept personal matters private.

details,Wikipedia provides a detailed overview of Roger Ebert's life.

Ebert's Beliefs: Faith and Cosmic Mystery

Ebert had a complex belief system. In “How I Believe in God,” he examined cosmic mysteries, mathematics, and art. He posed deep questions but did not assert a belief in God. In “How I Am a Roman Catholic,” he expressed disbelief, stating, “I consider myself...”. His spiritual journey involved questioning and appreciating the universe's wonders. He dealt with faith and skepticism with honesty and eloquence.

Education and Early Career: From Academia to Journalism

Ebert’s path to film criticism was not direct. He earned his journalism degree from the University of Illinois. He attempted a Ph.D. in English at the University of Chicago. However, writing full-time called to him. He left academia for a career in journalism. This led to the Chicago Sun-Times and his start as a film critic. His academic background enhanced his film analysis. He moved from academia to cinema, enriching the art form.

Health Battles and Legacy: Facing Adversity with Openness

Roger Ebert faced cancer in his later years. He was diagnosed with thyroid cancer in 2002, followed by salivary gland growths. Complications from mouth surgery affected his speech. Despite this, Ebert remained open with readers about his health. He continued to write and review films. His commitment to his craft remained strong. He showed grace in adversity, inspiring many. Ebert died at 70, leaving a significant legacy as a beloved film critic.

Final Words: A Shakespearean Echo

Roger Ebert's last words were shared by his wife, Chaz. They were from Shakespeare's Macbeth: “Life is but a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” They convey an existential view of life’s fleeting nature. Whether they reflect his final thoughts or not, they add depth to his passing. Mortality intersects with literature and art. They help us understand our place in existence.

"Here" (2024): A Generational Story in a Single Room

Now, let’s discuss Robert Zemeckis’ 2024 film, Here. This film has garnered attention for its unique concept. It is set entirely in one room, spanning decades and generations. Here portrays family dynamics while exploring love, loss, and daily life. It serves as a cinematic time capsule within four walls.

A Non-Linear Narrative of Quiet Moments

Here stands apart from typical action films. Its storytelling is quiet and introspective. The narrative jumps across different time periods and families in one house. Rather than dramatic events, it focuses on "small, quiet moments." The film highlights subtle changes in a space and the lives within it. It encourages viewers to observe the beauty of ordinary life.

Technical Innovation: AI De-Aging and Stationary Camera

Technically, Here is innovative. It resembles a stage play due to its single setting. The film uses one camera angle with a stationary perspective. This creates a unique viewing experience. Additionally, real-time generative AI de-ages actors Tom Hanks and Robin Wright. This enables seamless transitions across ages within the fixed setting. The film blends theatrical elements with modern visual effects.

Filming Locations: London and Pinewood Studios

Despite being set in one house, Here filmed in London, England. Studio work happened at Pinewood Studios in Buckinghamshire. Pinewood Studios is renowned for iconic films, including James Bond. Although the setting feels intimate, the production harnessed major studio resources.

Reception: Mixed Reviews and Disappointment

Early reviews of Here have been mixed. Critics find the idea intriguing but question its execution. They criticize "heavy-handed dialogue" and "ham-fisted directing." Some believe the story "tries too hard." The film has a "rotten" rating of 37% on Rotten Tomatoes and 2.9 stars on average. However, some appreciate its slow pacing as "deliberate." It appears Here has a brilliant concept that struggles to translate into an engaging experience.

"Here" and "Forrest Gump": Creative Kinship, Not Sequel

Although Here shares stars Tom Hanks and Robin Wright and director Robert Zemeckis, it is not a sequel to Forrest Gump. Hanks prefers leaving Forrest Gump untouched. Still, connections exist in creative DNA. Both films explore social and cultural shifts with shared talents. Think of Here as akin to Forrest Gump, yet it takes new thematic paths.

Tom Hanks' Role: A Generational Son

Tom Hanks describes his role in Here plainly: “Um he plays my son. It's a movie in one house across generations." His participation adds star power to the project. Hanks embraces challenging roles beyond mainstream cinema. His description showcases the film's essence: one house, many generations, all in "one frame." This underscores its ambition and innovation.

Worth a Watch? Premise vs. Execution

So, is Here worth watching? The answer leans toward "maybe." The film has a compelling premise but not strong execution. Critics cite flaws such as "ham-fisted directing" and "heavy-handed dialogue." It faces disappointment from audiences. If you appreciate innovative filmmaking and can overlook issues, Here may appeal to you due to its ambitious concept. Approach it with moderated expectations and curiosity about experimental storytelling.