Ebert: Surgery did not restore speech

[JoDog]

Roger Ebert's most recent surgery on his cancerous throat ended in complications and did not restore his ability to speak.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-080401-roger-ebert,0,5476437.story

CHICAGO - Movie critic Roger Ebert will resume writing reviews later this month, but will not rejoin his syndicated television show because he is still unable to speak.

In a letter published in Tuesday's Chicago Sun-Times, the Pulitzer Prize winning writer and co-host of the "Ebert & Roeper" television show said a January surgery in Houston ended in complications, and his ability to speak was not restored. He said the return of speech would require another surgery.

"But I still have all my other abilities, including the love of viewing movies and writing about them," Ebert said.

Ebert said he is looking forward to his annual film festival at the University of Illinois on April 23.


At least he'll be back in the screening room. Get well soon Mr. Ebert!

[Richardo]

1. I hope he recovers soon and completely

He's one of the best writers out there.

[mucifer]

2. his 0 star reviews are hilarious

[Richardo]

3. Have you read his compilations of bad reviews?

Fantastically funny stuff.

"I Hated Hated Hated This Movie" and "Your Movie Sucks" Highly recommended.

[JoDog]

4. Haven't read those

Most critics are at their best when they are reviewing something that was horrible. Those "that is 2 hours of my life I'll never get back" pieces.

[Richardo]

7. The title of the first one comes from his review of 'Deuce Bigelow, Male Gigolo'

The second, I think, is from his review of 'The Brown Bunny'.

[Tesha]

15. From Amazon's "Book description" of "Your movie sucks"...

From Roger's review of Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo (0 stars): "The movie created a spot
of controversy in February 2005. According to a story by Larry Carroll of MTV News, Rob
Schneider took offense when Patrick Goldstein of the Los Angeles Times listed this year's
Best Picture nominees and wrote that they were 'ignored, unloved, and turned down flat by
most of the same studios that . . . bankroll hundreds of sequels, including a follow-up to
Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo, a film that was sadly overlooked at Oscar time because apparently
nobody had the foresight to invent a category for Best Running Penis Joke Delivered by a
Third-Rate Comic.'

"Schneider retaliated by attacking Goldstein in full-page ads in Daily Variety and the
Hollywood Reporter. In an open letter to Goldstein, Schneider wrote: 'Well, Mr. Goldstein,
I decided to do some research to find out what awards you have won. I went online and found
that you have won nothing. Absolutely nothing. No journalistic awards of any kind. . . .
Maybe you didn't win a Pulitzer Prize because they haven't invented a category for Best
Third-Rate, Unfunny Pompous Reporter Who's Never Been Acknowledged by His Peers. . . .'

"Schneider was nominated for a 2000 Razzie Award for Worst Supporting Actor, but lost
to Jar-Jar Binks. But Schneider is correct, and Patrick Goldstein has not yet won a
Pulitzer Prize. Therefore, Goldstein is not qualified to complain that Columbia financed
Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo while passing on the opportunity to participate in Million
Dollar Baby, Ray, The Aviator, Sideways, and Finding Neverland. As chance would have it,
I have won the Pulitzer Prize, and so I am qualified. Speaking in my official capacity
as a Pulitzer Prize winner, Mr. Schneider, your movie sucks."

[Richardo]

16. Thanks, Tesha

I knew 'Gigolo' was involved somehow. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Wabbajack_]

5. Too bad, Roeper is a tool

[Iggo]

12. Yeah, he's a tool...

...but has anyone else noticed he's channeling Gene Siskel lately?

(Or maybe he's been doing it all along and I'm the one who just noticed...lol.)

[susankh4]

6. Sad that I won't get to hear him anymore...

Get well soon, and keep writing, Mr. Ebert!

[flygal]

8. Aww - I wish him the best - loved his show!

I'm a bit of a movie buff myself and consider him the end all of film critics. I used to watch him and Siskel all the time. Of course, haven't taken the latest films seriously in a few years. I can tell you the best picture oscars for the 60's through the mid nineties. After that I lost interest - around the time Shakespeare in Love won.

[OmahaBlueDog]

9. He's the only reliable source for telling me where to spend $8 per ticket

Ebert & I agree about 90% of the time.

Get well soon, sir.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

10. My very favorite Siskel & Ebert epsiode...

was when they were still on PBS and were reviewing "Date With An Angel". Gene (of course and rightfully so) hated it, while Roger liked it much more than he should have because of the very hot French actress who was starring in it. It was hilarious watching Roger try to justify giving the film a thumbs up, while Gene was doing everything to keep from launching himself across the aisle to strangle him. :D

Ah, good times....

[EOTE]

13. He must have scrubbed his original review.

Now his site lists the review as 1 star. It's not the first time he's flipped on a review like that, usually he'll make an announcement about the switch. For instance, when the South Park movie came out, I remember Siskel saying he really enjoyed it and Ebert talking about how juvenile he thought it was. Ebert gave the film a thumbs down, but the next week he talked about retracting his previous review and now called South Park "Truly brilliant satire" and changed his review to thumbs up. If you check the site now, he gives South Park 2.5 stars, which seems to be on the edge of thumbs up/thumbs down. It would seem more fitting of "brilliant satire" to receive 3.5 or 4 stars, but I guess he wanted to average out his two separate reviews.



http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19871120/REVIEWS/711200303/1023

[Hell Hath No Fury]

14. That little shit!

Thankfully, there are those of us with very l-o-n-g memories. :D

[LeftinOH]

11. ..but Michael Medved keeps on running his mouth -too bad...n/t