|Page 1 of 3:||  |
|Index||23 reviews in total|
11 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
Gene, you will be missed, 22 February 1999
Author: Sean Gallagher (firstname.lastname@example.org) from Brooklyn, NY
I write this two days after the death of co-host Gene Siskel, and somehow,
it doesn't quite seem real yet. I've been watching the show religiously
since 1990. In addition to getting to see clips from a movie, and being
able to check my opinion next to two critics I respected, it also made good
television. Gene was well-known as a basketball fan (the Chicago Bulls in
particular), and watching the show was like watching a half-hour one-on-one
game every week, though since the movies always changed, it rarely got
boring, and while they probably agreed more than they disagreed, the
creative tension between them was healthy and made for a dynamic show,
considering it's just two guys talking about movies.
Although I probably agreed with Roger more, I identified with Gene more, because he always let you know where he stood, whereas Roger was more objective. And while some may have sniped about him and Roger making appearances on talk shows like Jay Leno and David Letterman, I always thought it was good that he understood that while movies were worth taking seriously, as well as writing about them, there was nothing wrong with having fun with yourself. I'm sure Gene would want people to still watch the show, so I will, but I will certainly miss him.
9 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Great show!, 11 October 2000
Author: Monika-5 from United States
As an aspiring film critic myself, I've truly enjoyed Roger Ebert's reviews over the years and like his style when it comes to reviewing them. Gene Siskel is truly missed, and the show has never forgotten him and always treats his memory with respect. Richard Roeper is also a good reviewer and I like the new balance he brings to the show and he and Roger seem to fit together very well on the show. I'm already gearing up for the Best (and especially) the Worst Movies of the Year episodes!
9 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
Great Show, 1 May 2003
Author: HaddonfieldJason from United States
I love reading reviews of movies.Since I`m from Chicago I`ve been reading
Ebert's reviews for quite some time now. He is great,and is always a
pleasure to read. I tuned into this show. It is great. It is always funny
when Siskel/Ebert,or Ebert/Roeper argue. Though Roeper is no where as good
as Siskel he is still pretty good critic.Ebert still has great chemistry
with either partner. They are very informative,and look at movies with an
angle,no critic other than Ebert,or who ever can do. They don't give bull
crap good reviews,which is bad for me cause I like a lot of bull crap,but
never mind. Ebert is the best!
Thumbs Up He he
7 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Ebert & Roeper review, 17 December 2002
Author: Don McCullen from Colorado Springs, Colorado
The loss of Gene Siskel put to end one of greatest TV relationships. That
being Siskel along with Roger Ebert. These two movie critics who worked for
rival newspapers in Chicago (Siskel worked at the Tribune, and Ebert work
for the Sun-Times) were put together to see if they could work together.
Indeed they worked very well. So well they had to switch
producers/distributors TWICE, and by the time they did they show for Disney
their "Two Thumbs Up" became the standard in movie industry.
Now Richard Roeper has taken on Gene Siskel role, with the power of the "Thumb" along with it. Roeper is not Siskel and nor should he be. Unlike Siskel, Roeper also works at the Sun-Times along with Ebert, and because of this someone might ask can Roeper think for himself? Indeed Roeper can and quite frequently these two critics can give a split vote on movies. Roeper also gives the audience that is someone younger to interact with an elder critic. Roeper was in his teens when Siskel and Ebert started their TV friendship
The show itself is done at a faster pace and their Thumb up/down is shown during the review as well as at recap of the show. The set is now a hybrid of an average TV Set and a Movie theater balcony. Who would put video monitors in the back of a movie theater anyway LOL.
Ebert and Roeper will never be a `Siskel & Ebert' but it does show the movie review program still has some gas in the tank left. How much? I don't know, just enjoy the ride. Even I think their are both nuts at times. Most movie critics are.
7 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
An excellent and memorable thing on TV!, 26 July 2004
Author: SonicStuart from Kansas City, MO
This show has great information on every movie we go and see each year
and day! The original movie critic team was Gene Siskel & Roger Ebert
who were both really good friends as well as partners and they both
grew up in Chicago! So Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert would review every
movie that comes up and rates them either thumbs up or thumbs down. The
new team now is Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper. Richard Roeper became
Roger Ebert's new partner in 2000 after Gene Siskel died in 1999
because of complication from brain surgery. These two film critics also
make suggestions as to excellent films they recommend for renting on
VHS or DVD! Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert also made an unforgettable
guest appearance on ABC/FOX's The Critic which was one of my favorite
episodes of The Critic where Jay Sherman hears about the Siskel and
Ebert break up and then tries to be one of their new partners and then
decides to reunite them!
User Rating: 10/10
BOTTOM LINE: THUMBS UP!
7 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
What's not to like?, 1 July 2003
Author: Ericho from Florida of course
What can I say? I've known this show all my life. First, it was Ebert and
Siskel. I'll also remember how it was when Siskel was in the hosptial and he
talked, like, over the phone I think, and tell his reviews of movies like
"Godzilla". It seemed to have such an empty hole in the show when it was
just Ebert, with his thumbs up or down. I mean, one person's opinion? What
fun is that? Then, they had a different guest star every week. Finally, it
was all down to just one critic on the show with Ebert: Roeper. Basically, I
have no problem with him. Just the simple concept of two critics having
reviews of movies is entertaining. The same formula has not worked for shows
like "Hot Ticket". I've read Leonard Maltin's reviews and there are a lot of
times when I have to disagree with him. He's definitley not my favorite
critic. I should start getting some of Ebert review books, but they don't
explore as many movies as the Leonard Maltin books.
The one episode where Ebert was reflecting on his reviews with Siskel was probably the most memorable. Sure, I disagree with them, sometimes, but it's cool to know critics that agree with most of what you think. I liked to give a tribute to Gene Siskel for rating "Babe: Pig In The City" as the #1 movie of 1998! I totally agree with him! Anyway, I'll be sure to watch this whenever I can! A 9/10.
7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Siskel still better than Roeper, 2 August 2004
Author: klchu from California
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."
3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
The world has lost a great critic!, 21 February 1999
Author: Andrew Chan from Atlanta, GA
Gene Siskel's death is the death of a major movie advertising tradition. What will happen to the thumbs? I love the show and think the two guys are so intelligent and I hear another guy will take Siskel's place. It won't be the same.
4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Roger Ebert is Film Criticism's National Treasure, 18 January 2003
Ever since I was 13 years old, and I tuned into "Sneak Previews" with Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert back in 1982, I fell in love with these two guys overnight. Besides being the kings of film critics, they also had the makings of a comedy team in the Abbott and Costello vein (well, you figure out who was Abbott and who was Costello, and the answer is painfully obvious). They were so highly successful they were asked to go onto syndicated TV and do "At the Movies", which did wonders for their forever-famous thumbs and their careers, then another TV show bearing their name, which kept fans rolling in the aisles until Siskel's tragic death in 1999. By the way, replacements for "Sneak Previews" and "At the Movies" were copycats who shouldn't have been there because Siskel and Ebert were always number one. Those annoying copycats included New York's squeaky-voiced, touchy-feely Jeffrey Lyons, the nerdy Michael Medved, the mean-streaked Rex, Reed, and the bimbette Dixie Whatley who didn't really review movies, but her glamourous presence was only to lure unsuspecting viewers. Anyway, we all miss Siskel and no other critic in his chair, not even the new guy, Richard Roeper, could ever review movies the way Siskel did. Ebert does his best with Roeper, and it seems that the corpulent Ebert is now the straight man, which he always needed because he was a better spark plug with Siskel. Still, Roeper is nowhere near as bad as the four copycats in the above paragraph, and the show is still going on, as long as there is Ebert.
6 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
HYSTERICAL!, 20 September 2001
Why, Gene, why?!? You were the only critic with taste! You gotta love a guy who puts Kingpin on his top 10 list. Now, we have Roeper who makes this show funny because he hates just about everything. Then there's a hilariously funny argument between the two whenever there's a split decision. I make sure to tape it every week. Funny stuff.
|Page 1 of 3:||  |
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|