Roger Ebert's Movie Yearbook 2005

by Roger Ebert

Book Overview

Presents detailed descriptions and reviews of virtually every movie that has opened nationally over the past year, reports from the major film festivals, interviews with important movie figures, and... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0740747428
• ISBN13: 9780740747427
• Release Date: October 2004
• Publisher: Andrews McMeel Publishing
• Length: 964 Pages
• Weight: 2.45 lbs.
• Dimensions: 2.0" x 6.2" x 9.0"

Customer Reviews

A Rare Dish Indeed

Being given the chance to critique Roger Ebert is a heady dish indeed. Holding the microscope to the man who has held the microscope to so many others is a little like being divine, if just for a moment. What do you say to the man who holds more sway over the movie-going public than any other critic? The easy answer is to criticize the obvious blunders he's made. How in the world could he not like Fight Club? It's the anthem for my generation, for God's sake. I'm also not sure I trust Roger's interpretation of foreign films either. He has a decidedly American view towards life and tends to look at the world through red, white and blue colored glasses. His negative review of 2046 is evidence of this. Roger Ebert is many things but a foolish man is not one of them. He knows which side his bread is buttered on. When a film like Fahrenheit 911 comes along, obviously pandering to the Hollywood liberal elite, you can trust Roger to fall in line with a good review. Despite all this, whenever I want to know how good a movie is, the first person I go to is Roger Ebert. Roger is straightforward and intelligent and he usually likes the same kind of films I do. He's the critic I trust most and unlike most of his colleagues, he's already successful enough that he doesn't need to go out on a limb just to get noticed. He gets noticed for the insightfulness and intelligence of his reviews. Sometimes he makes me angry but maybe that's the mark of a good critic. Good, bad or indifferent, I always want to know what Roger has to say.

Ebert is the best that film criticism has to offer today- maybe ever.

Roger Ebert is not only a great Film Critic, but he is also an excellent writer.Mmore than just rehashing a film, Mr. Ebert finds the humanity and subtle nuances that exist in film, and finds the greatness in those traits. There has never been a year when I have seen every movie that is included in his annual movie yearbooks, but I could still read every review in the book! It is his prose, his wit, his love for film, and his desire to see the medium move forward, while recoginizing the gennius that can be found in [some] genre films. I highly recommend his writing- There is simply no one better.

Makes me laugh

I don't always agree with Roger Ebert's assessment of movies (especially comedies), but I do appreciate his sense of humor, which frequently surprises me. He does write with wit and his prose is usually a pleasure to read. I also like his philosophy of trying to judge a film according to its purpose and how effectively it accomplishes its vision. That seems like a fair way to assess a film. Ebert's reviews sure beat the bland summaries included in other movie books!

Ebert sees all the movies he reviews

And reviews them from the point of view of someone who actually likes movies. He likes more movies than I do, but his reviews do give me enough to know if I want to see the film - and that is really what it's all about. I buy the current book every year. If you are worried about "accuracy" of his reviews - check out the big objections others have raised. Most people are aware there are more important things than obssessing over a minor detail from an F/X flick or the dialog in a 50 year old monster movie.

Very good but a little faulty

Ebert's description of the 1950's Godzilla movie that was recently rereleased is a little faulty. He says everyone calls Raymond Burr's character "Steve Martin" (in the edited American version) but actually one person calls him just "Steve" at one point.