Siskel & Ebert & the Movies

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!

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.

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.

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.

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."