Roger Ebert Quotes

My feeling about the movies is that most of them are terrible. If you don't have a decent script and a decent director, forget it.

Unlike the stage, I never found it helpful to be good in a bad movie.

Generally, the bigger the budget, the less interesting the characters become.

Sometimes not honoring your character makes for really good television, but that also can really upset fans. You have to turn things upside sometimes. As a storyteller, you have to know that sometimes you're going to let your fans and the audience down because you have to do your part in servicing the story.

I've done a number of films. I've been around this. I think the biggest challenge is just getting the script right, the way that you want the script to be. It's really about capturing the complexity of emotions and creating the kind of characters that people will want to watch every week.

The Prodigal Son story is, I think, the greatest short-story ever written. It has such drama in it, such great characters, it's so clear and concise, and it's entertaining in the sense that everyone can relate to it. But you have no doubt what our Lord was trying to communicate in the heart of that story. So the truth was not sacrificed on the altar of entertainment in that case. And it can be.

In one way they make the movie something you can handle because it's character driven and it's slightly off center. That's what's attractive, but it also has the potential of being cutesy and sappy. I am so uninterested in that.

Fiction that intends to be something other than entertainment has a certain obligation, I think, to convince the reader, every time, that what is to be evoked - character, experience, idea - is worthy of his or her consideration, intellectual energy, close attention.

I thought about ["Summer Sisters" ] so often as I was writing about these female characters who love each other and hated each other and were sort of in love with each other.

The horse-laugh indicates brutality of character.

Most movies are not very good. Most people know it and like to see them anyway.

Brad Pitt seems to have no problem getting parts that he wants, nor does Angelina Jolie. Not that I'm saying I look like either of them, but I just don't think that it has anything to do with that. It's the emotions or characters you are able to take on that will get you work, not necessarily the way you look. Obviously, beauty can open doors - it is Hollywood, after all - but that's not enough.

Consider: for all the gobbledegook [film studio] executives spout about backstory, all that we, the audience, want to know is what happens next. That's the only thing that's going on. . . . Character is nothing other than action, and character-driven means The plot stinks, and you'd better hope the star is popular enough to open the movie in spite of it.

We have audiences that seem to be embracing whether they've heard of the characters or not.

When guys see a movie starring women, they go, "That must be filled with these characters I see in these movies who are such a drag." And that's just bad for everybody.

I think narcissists are endlessly watchable. The way they view the world and the way they interact within the world. They have no concept of their behavior or how it might be affecting other people. So comedically, it's a very fun type of character to play. They are bulls in a china shop, twenty-four seven.

The movie itself was very interesting, but I didn't think it was very good because I didn't really feel different when it was over.

After "Jack Reacher" the parts I didn't like, most of it was silly.

I don't want to be pretentious about, "yes, I need to move in to the more dramatic roles and express myself and prove to everyone that I'm capable of doing it," it really isn't that, I think that's a bad reason to choose roles. It's more like, who would I be working with and would they be fun to do and entertaining to watch, is it an interesting story or character.

I like really good movies, but I can enjoy a really bad movie, too.

In the past that you should choose a list of female action superhero movies that haven't worked. I don't believe they haven't worked because they had a female in the lead, I believe they didn't work because they weren't good. They weren't technically well done movies.

I guess a great movie would be one that has the most great moments in it.

A good movie is a movie that you could see over and over again, not a movie that wins a Oscar, or a movie that makes a lot of money. It's a movie that you personally can watch over and over again. That, to me, is a measure of a good movie.

I think there's a lack of really, really good funny scripts out there that work on all the levels that they're supposed to - which is to say that they're not just funny but they have interesting characters that people are going to like and be invested in. I've done a bunch of movies that haven't worked but I like to think I've done some that have worked and that's because not only is the comedy there but the characters and storylines are interesting. The characters are real and relateable and people were invested in them.

Though no participator in the joy of more vehement sport, I have a pleasure that I cannot reconcile to my abstract notions of the tenderness due to dumb creatures in the tranquil cruelty of angling. I can only palliate the wanton destructiveness of my amusement by trying to assure myself that my pleasure does not spring from the success of the treachery I practise toward a poor little fish, but rather from that innocent revelry in the luxuriance of summer life which only anglers enjoy to the utmost.