Siskel & Ebert (1986–2010)
"Siskel & Ebert & the Movies" (original title)

Chicago critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert rate new movies with a thumbs up, or a thumbs down.

Stars:

Roger Ebert, Gene Siskel, Richard Roeper

Nominated for 5 Primetime Emmys. Another 3 nominations.

Cast

Complete series cast summary:
Roger Ebert	...	Himself - Host (257 episodes, 1986-2006)
Gene Siskel	...	Himself - Host (187 episodes, 1986-1999)

Storyline

Film critics Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune and A.O. Scott of the New York Times give their opinions on the latest new releases. The films are reviewed with the classifications 'See It', 'Skip It', or 'Rent It'. They also make suggestions as to excellent films they recommend for renting on video.

---

Plot Keywords:

critic | video | film critic | discussion | name in title | 

---

Genres:

Talk-Show

---

Details

Country:

USA

Language:

English

Release Date:

13 September 1986 (USA)

Also Known As:

At the Movies

Filming Locations:

WBBM-TV - 630 N. McClurg Court, Near North Side, Chicago, Illinois, USA

Company Credits

Production Co:

Buena Vista Television, Disney-ABC Domestic Television

Technical Specs

Runtime:

30 min

Sound Mix:

Mono

Color:

Color

Aspect Ratio:

1.33 : 1

Did You Know?

Trivia

Ebert hired Roeper as a guest critic based on his wife, Chaz Ebert's recommendation. According to Ebert, after Roeper's appearance, every member of the crew told Ebert to hire him. Ebert also considered two other guest critics but neither of them wanted to move to Chicago.

---

Quotes

Gene Siskel: [reviewing "Stargate"] Do you know that the budget, supposedly, of this picture was fifty-five million dollars?
Roger Ebert: Boy, they must've had some great lunches.

---

Connections

Featured in Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 (2000)

User Reviews

Siskel still better than Roeper

The best thing about Siskel and Ebert was that I knew both of them so well that it didn't even matter if they liked the movie or not, I could tell that I still should see it based on why they liked or disliked it. Likewise, Gene was always more discriminating than Roger, so if they both liked it, then the movie probably was very good.

Now with Roeper, we've lost that. He's still a good movie reviewer, but the system of checks and balanced that worked with Siskel and Ebert don't work with Ebert and Roeper. I can no longer tell how good a movie really is since Roeper's taste in movies can be erratic some times. He's liked some really weird movies and hated some that I thought were OK. For a young guy, he's really more jaded than he should be. Likewise, he has a bad tendency to expect too much from certain types of movies, but at the same time, be too forgiving of some real flaws. Everyone does that to a point, but he's very unpredictable and inconsistent.

That's not to say that Ebert is perfect. I think he lets his mood color his opinion too often. Some weeks he'll hate everything and others he'll just love even the worst movie. I'll be watching and be like "He gave thumbs down to the Godfather! He must have slept badly last night."