So back in 2008 or 2009, I was a dirt poor, recently-graduated college student who had moved to Austin to pursue my career. As such, the only theatre trips I could afford was the (at the time) free midnight screenings at the Alamo Drafthouse called "Weird Wednesday", which would program an eclectic collection of obscure and/or underloved films, all in 35mm. One of the films the host programmed was labelled as a blaxploitation flick called EMMA MAE (also called BLACK SISTER'S REVENGE), but was more of a searing drama about urban crime and unrest than it resembled stuff like COFFY or FOXY BROWN. Since my mind was prepped for what I expected out of a 70s blaxploitation flick, I wasn't really into the film, and was ready to shrug it off.

At the time, also as a way to pass the time as cheaply as possible in between shifts at a menial job I had, I would go to the old school version of RogerEbert.com and check if the obscure curio I had just watched at the Drafthouse had made it across Roger's eyes during his long career. And sure enough, he had an entry on his website for EMMA MAE, where he gave it either three and a half or four stars and lauded it as an incredible drama whose classification as "blaxploitation" did it a grave disservice. It took me by surprise, but it also spurred me to seek it out at the local video shop and watch it again in a different frame of mind (and also not starting it at midnight on a weekday). And my opinion did change! I didn't love it as much as Roger did, but I could see the value in it and definitely thought it was a good film.

Flash forward a big chunk of time and last night, my wife was talking about making a watchlist for Black History Month of films centered around people of color that weren't in the "civil rights" or "slavery" categories that populate so many of those kinds of lists. Remembering EMMA MAE, I referred it to her, thinking it to be a deep cut of a film, and told her how Ebert's review had changed my perspective of the film. And I went to the modern Ebert website (nigh unrecognizable) to let her read it and the review wasn't there. So I used the Wayback Machine to time travel back to the pre-2013 version of the site, and given how it archives websites, the internal search bar was non-functional. Google search was no help, and I even asked (ugh) ChatGPT to scour any archives of the site or the Chicago Sun-Times for evidence that this essay (that I know I read!) exists. Nada.

So this is literally the last place I can think to try. Does anyone know of this film/review, or has an idea on how to find it? It makes me sad to think something Roger wrote about a film that definitely needed every bit of oxygen afforded it might be lost to time forever!

Hi everyone,

This website is littered with adverts, and I had quite a poor experience once when browsing with my phone. In short, is this website and its adverts totally safe? Has anyone ever had any issues?

Thanks

Obviously, you could never be certain about it, but what's a movie you are like 95% confident would have made it to the Great Movies eventually?

Me, I think an almost definite one would be Hannah and Her Sisters

The video of them reviewing the sequel is on YouTube. I'm sure they reviewed it on television....right?

I noticed there are 4 star reviews without the "great movie" accolade. Is this on purpose?

Used to have it saved on my iPad. It had something to do with mortality and movies. Said something like only in movies can we explore the dreams beyond our mortal coil

It was such a good qoute

Ebert wrote that "I could see that the film was meant as an allegory, not a documentary. But on its own terms, this movie is diseased and corrupt. I would have admired it more if it had found the courage to acknowledge the real relationship it was portraying between Howell and Rutger, but no: It prefers to disguise itself as a violent thriller, and on that level it is reprehensible." https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-hitcher-1986

What did he mean by acknowledging the real relationship it was portraying between Howell and Rutger? What was this "real relationship" that the movie doesn't acknowledge?

I watched this movie recently and found it very entertaining. It seems like nowadays nobody remembers it. I'm glad Roger Ebert liked it enough to rate it 3 stars.

​

Roger Ebert reevaluated many movies over the course of his career, most of which eventually became archived in his Great Movies collection (The Godfather Part II, A.I. Artificial Intelligence). However, did he reevaluate a film more negatively? I noticed that he gave four-star reviews to 2004's Spartan and 2009's Watchmen, but they weren't featured on his respective end-of-the-year lists for 2004 and 2009.

I know it's already been so long since Ebert passed away... I discovered his review fairly late but have come to love his style. He was my go to critic after seeing a movie.

My question: who's the critic that comes closest to Ebert's style? Who's your go to critic these days?

I remember reading one of Roger Ebert's wonderful reviews, and apparently the film he had watched was so powerful that he couldn't watch anymore movie that day. He said something to the effect that it wouldn't have been fair to review the other movies because of how the first movie affected him. What was the name of that movie?! Anyone familiar with that story? Thanks!

He didn't come off as a critic. He didn't have an ego. Just someone who loved watching movies and talking about them.

Am I right in thinking Roger Ebert has a cameo in Notting Hill? The scene where Hugh Grant interviews Julia Roberts I think he walks through the door but is on camera for less than a second. I can't find any reference to it on imdb or the internet. Am I crazy?