What's new

Siskel and Ebert (1 Viewer)

Vickie_M

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2001
Messages
3,208
Man I loved those two! I just have to say that. I know that much can be said about Siskel the man; the family man, the Tribune reviewer, the film lover, the Saturday Night Fever fanatic, the Bulls fan, but I mainly knew him as a partner of Ebert, and I miss him.
I had (sometimes still have) a REALLY BAD HABIT of popping tapes in the VCR and recording things, but not marking what was on the tapes. This is terrible to admit, but I have *hundreds* of these things, dating back to the mid-80s. I have hundreds more that *are* marked, which doesn't help me a bit with the unmarked ones.
Every now and then I'll need new tapes to tape something so I'll grab some unmarked tapes and fast forward through them to make sure there's nothing important on them before I dub over them. I've done this several times over the last few months and have come across some wonderful, surprising things. I'm watching a tape now that sees Siskel and Ebert arguing over Selena (Ebert loved it, Siskel didn't care for it, though they both agreed that Jennifer Lopez was magnificent), and Crash (Ebert liked it for its daring, Siskel didn't, it left him cold).
I could cry, because a show, probably from the week before, didn't tape right and I only know what all they reviewed from the ending section where they say "thumbs up, thumbs down" to the films. Based on that, here's what I missed: Private Parts (thumbs up from both), Hard Eight (:frowning: !!) (thumbs up from both), Donnie Brasco (thumbs up from both), Smilla's Sense of Snow (thumbs up from both), Booty Call (thumbs up from both!! though they both seemed a tad embarrassed), and their Video Pick of the week was Bound, which they both loved and thought that Howard Stern should go rent posthaste. That was a rare week when they both liked all of the films!
Siskel & Ebert got me into so many great films, ranging from Say Amen, Somebody to Louie Bluie to Sling Blade. I disagreed with them (one or the other or both) about movies they didn't like, several times, sometimes violently (I never forgave them for trashing the exquisite Return To Oz), but I always trusted them when they liked something.
What a great team they were. May they never be forgotten.
 

Lew Crippen

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 19, 2002
Messages
12,060
I think that the pair did a first-rate job in bringing film criticism to a wide audience. Slick, well-thought out format, and one that allowed for considerable discussion about films, both when the agreed and disagreed.

And as you observe, they brought some films to my attention, that I might otherwise have missed or dismissed.

For me, I thought that Ebert was by far the stronger critic. In contrast to you, I never felt that Siskel really loved movies, whereas Ebert appeared to me to be a real buff (in fact my one problem with Roger is that he likes films so much that I sometimes think he raves about non-deserving ones). Not being from Chicago, my knowledge was limited to their on-the-air persona (except that I have read some of Ebert’s books), so my perspective is limited.
What a great team they were. May they never be forgotten.
 

Ian Garton

Grip
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
19
The interaction between Siskel and Ebert was excellent and I felt that they both kept each other on their toes. Their discussions were quick, witty, and intelligent. There could be some pretty funny moments on the show too. :)
Seeing them together again on the new Pulp Fiction CE and Jackie Brown CE was a real pleasure and brought back a lot of memories.
 

Vickie_M

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2001
Messages
3,208
Dark City said:
Could be, could be, but I like how he judges each movie in context of the situation. It's a B-movie summer popcorn flick, but is it a *good* B-movie summer popcorn flick? If he thinks so, he'll say so, and probably give it 3 stars.
I said I trusted them when they like something, but I have to admit I have still not seen Speed II: Cruise Control just because he likes it. It's always been on my "one of these decades, maybe" list. I'll watch anything he gives 3 1/2 and 4 stars to, but otherwise, I check other sources. (this IS the man who gave Raising Arizona, one of my favorite comedies, 1 1/2 stars!!!)
 

Vickie_M

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2001
Messages
3,208
Seeing them together again on the new Pulp Fiction CE and Jackie Brown CE was a real pleasure and brought back a lot of memories.
Oh yes! They really did a lot to promote Tarantino (Billy Bob Thornton also owes allegiance to them). Seeing a bit of the S&E clip when Ebert and his new partner whashisname reviewed the DVDs made me ache for what used to be.
 

Jack Briggs

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 3, 1999
Messages
16,805
There truly was something about the chemistry between those two. But I must say I never thought of Siskel as anything less than an all-out lover and student of film. His presence helped rein in Ebert's earlier tendencies to over-praise undeserving films. Those two were good for each other professionally in much the same way Lennon and McCarntey benefited from each other's presence.

I sorely miss Gene Siskel. Great guy.
 

Lew Crippen

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 19, 2002
Messages
12,060
Thanks for the link, Vickie. Lots of interesting choices, for example I was surprised that Siskel picked Babe at four in 1995, while elevating the not-quite-as-good (IMO, of course), sequel. Of course one could make the case that 1995 was a banner year, compared to 1998.

And I loved the fact that Siskel placed The Last Temptation of Christ first in 1988, in the midst of the controversy surrounding the picture (and Ebert gave his number one spot to Mississippi Burning, another very fine choice.

I could go on, but there are too many picks about which to comment.
 

Jon_Are

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2001
Messages
2,036
I had been watching - and enjoying - S&E since the early days of "At the Movies" on public television. I recall with fondness their shared enthusiasm over Criterion LDs, widescreen presentation, and various documentaries. Some of my favorite movies I would have not seen had I not been steered toward them by Gene and Rog: Say Amen, Somebody, Jean de Florette / Manon of the Spring, Cinema Paradiso, Hoop Dreams, My Dinner with Andre.
Funny you should mention the videotapes, Vickie. I used to tape their show every week. I must have had 25 tapes at one time, labeled and sorted. I think I've taped over most of them. :frowning:
Those were the days.
Jon
 

Rob Tomlin

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2000
Messages
4,506
Those two were good for each other professionally in much the same way Lennon and McCarntey benefited from each other's presence.
Wow! Comparing Siskel & Ebert to Lennon and McCartney has to be the ultimate compliment! :)
I miss Siskel as well. I usually found that when the two disagreed, I would tend to agree with Ebert a little more often. I still follow Ebert's online reviews, but very rarely catch his tv show with Roeper anymore.
I strongly agree with prior statements regarding Siskel and Ebert raising awareness of movies I otherwise would have never seen. Case in point: Santa Sangre! Wow, what a movie!
 

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
More than their opinions on particular films, it was simply their rapport with one another that made them so wonderful to watch. I really loved that show.
Vickie, I've had similar things happen with videotapes. I once found a Seinfeld episode that we didn't have taped from early on (like first 10 shows or so). It was just on at the end of something else.
My two favorite extras on DVDs so far are excerpts from Siskel/Ebert and episodes of Charlie Rose shows (my favorite interview show by far). Pulp and Jackie are great sets to me obviously. :)
 

Stephen_L

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 1, 2001
Messages
534
I watched Siskel and Ebert from their earliest days on Public Television and followed all their reincarnations over the years. Both were fine reviewers and introduced me to dozens of films I might never have seen or sought out. I even loved some of their guilty pleasures (Ebert loves cheesy Japanese monster movies, Siskel Saturday Night Fever)The key was that they respected each other even in disagreement. Maybe I'm just nostalgic but I don't see Roeper's opinions matching Ebert's in authority.

I often did not agree with their choices, but if they both liked a film, it was usually a solid winner.
 

Mike Broadman

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2001
Messages
4,950
Anyone see Amazon Women On the Moon? There's a scene where a guy is watching two critics on TV review his own life. At the end, they complain about his boring death which takes place as he actually dies. It was hilarious!

I haven't seen it in a while, but I'm pretty sure the critics were actually Siskel & Ebert.
 

Dick

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 22, 1999
Messages
9,913
Real Name
Rick
I, too, caught Siskel and Ebert when they were on PBS. The show then, of course, had no commercials so the sound-bitish reviews were at least a little more in-depth. When they went to syndication, their number of reviews each week stayed at the 3-5 level, but commercials were added in, removing almost a full third of the show's actual time, and reducing the reviews to ridiculous tidbits that made both reviewers seem shallow - and still do (Ebert's web site tells a different story as it offers full-length reviews. He's still no Pauline Kael, but he'd be the first to admit that). I had always wished they'd get a 60-minute time slot, or else only review two films a week, so that they could truly educate the public about more esoteric fare. As far as Siskel was concerned, I found him annoying (not least because of the way he shuffled and repositioned himself at the end of his every review - just my silly reaction to a physical habit) and did not consider his reviews very legitimate. Then I saw him in an episode of LARRY SANDERS and saw a more human side to the man (even if fictitious) and began to warm up to him on the review shows. Then again, I found Ebert quite arrogant, and only my reading of his more in-depth reviews and seeing him on talk shows has led me to believe that, no matter how egotistical the man is, he does love movies and is an effective champion of lesser-known titles. I now go to Ebert's web site often - but avoid the Ebert-Roeper site and t.v. show like the plague. Roeper who?
 

Dan Lindley

Second Unit
Joined
Sep 19, 2000
Messages
396
I don't mean to critique the critique of 'Roeper who?', but it is interesting to think how critics get their start...

What was Ebert's trajectory? How did the 'authorities' become the authorities? How has the web changed this? How have some of our favorite web sites (HTF, Bits, etc), changed or added to this dynamic?

What makes a great critic? That is open ended, but I have often looked at Ebert's site for buys, and various lists for more buys, so what makes an authority from whom to trust a recommendation?

Dan
 

Brian W.

Screenwriter
Joined
Jul 29, 1999
Messages
1,972
Real Name
Brian
Thanks for the link to their 10 best lists, Vickie. It's interesting to see that they actually agreed on their top pick of the year nine times out of 30 years:

Z, The Godfather, Nashville, The Right Stuff, Do the Right Thing, Goodfellas, Schindler's List, Hoop Dreams, Fargo.

Also interesting that Godfather Part II didn't make either of their lists at all, since many critics consider it to be even better than the first film.
 

Guy Martin

Second Unit
Joined
Nov 29, 1998
Messages
347
Interestingly enough, Chicago Reader critic and Ebert friend Jonathan Rosenbaum also felt that Siskel's interest in film was purely professional. In his recent book Movie Wars Rosenbaum writes:
Also invisible are their qualifications. The whole notion of expertise in film criticism is tautological. According to current practice in the United States, a "film expert" is someone who writes or broadcasts about film. Yet most film experts are hired not on the basis of their knowledge about film but on the basis of their capacity to reflect the presumed existing tastes of the public. The late Serge Daney understood this phenomenon perfectly -- and implied that it wasn't an exclusively American one -- when he remarked that the media "ask those who know nothing to represent the ignorance of the public and, in so doing, to legitimize it." Case in point: Chicago film critics who often attended the same screenings as Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel were aware that Ebert was a hard-core film buff and Siskel, who died in early 1999, was someone whose interest in film, at least to all appearances, was almost exclusively professional (when he first started writing for the Chicago Tribune, his main beat was real estate). Ebert attends several film festivals every year. Siskel generally made it to few or none; he attended Cannes only once, as a TV reviewer in 1990, and showed no interest in returning, and one could surmise that his relatively low recognition factor abroad might have been partly to blame. Ebert reviews a good many film books, and to my knowledge Siskel never did; if he ever read any books about film on his own it would surprise me. Inside the profession, Siskel was famous for making so many gaffes about movies in his weekly print reviews that in the Reader Neil Tesser used to inventory them in an occasional Hot Type item called "Siskel Watch"; Siskel's mistakes apparently became fewer after his copy began to be checked by others.
I didn't always wind up agreeing with Ebert's judgments more than Siskel's. Siskel had a commonsensical approach based on his own extensive experience as a reviewer, and it often served him well. But if I mentioned to someone who watched their show but wasn't a critic that one of them was clearly an enthusiastic film buff while the other just as clearly wasn't, most people asked which one was the enthusiastic film buff. In other words, though Siskel and Ebert were the best by far of the TV reviewers, the show's format made it virtually impossible to recognize informed opinion or expertise, and matters of film history and aesthetics were virtually beside the point.
So I wasn't surprised to hear it said of Siskel shortly after he died that he "loved movies" -- an assertion made repeatedly, including on the cover of TV Guide, by Whoopi Goldberg on the 1999 Academy Awards telecast, and by Janet Maslin (whose own lack of interest in movies, apart from the movie business, may even surpass Siskel's) in the New York Times. If he did love movies independently of his professional duties, he did a superb job of hiding this from his colleagues. The only extended conversations I ever had with him were on the subjects of Anita Hill (at the time of the Clarence Thomas hearings) and his show, and I never heard about him casually discussing any movie, new or old, with any other colleague.
You can find the full text of this particular chapter of Movie Wars at the Reader's website:
http://www.chireader.com/movies/arch...00/001117.html
While I can agree with Rosenbaum that Siskel was probably more of a casual film fan to Ebert's movie junkie, I actually thought it worked to the show's advantage (and like some others here I could discern this from watching the show, in contrast to Rosenbaum's point that the show's format made it difficult to distinguish them). The show was most interesting when the two disagreed, showing in some ways the divide between the average filmgoer (as represented by Siskel) and the cineaste (Ebert). This tradition seems to continue with Roeper (who I actually don't mind that much) who is much more obviously a casual viewer than Siskel was.
- Guy
 

Kevin M

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2000
Messages
5,172
Real Name
Kevin Ray
I remember seeing the episode where they both voted The Right Stuff as the best film of 1983....god bless em.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,647
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top