The Hot Blog

The thing that made Siskel & Ebert great was that they were both equals. It wasn't like one of them was more famous or respected than the other, as it became once Roeper joined. Because they were equals, they had no qualms about throwing H-bombs at each other -- at times it was like watching Pvt. Joker telling Animal Mother to eat the peanuts from his shit.

The other thing that'll be impossible to replicate is the aesthetic: A chubby guy with glasses vs. a skinny, balding Jew. Neither of them was the typical homogenized TV personality. They both fit the aesthetic of the high school geek so well that it was classic watching them go at it.

For over a quartewr of a century, Barry Norman hosted a film review show on the BBC. He hosted solo and was for practically everybody, the primary source of film review (there were greater critics in print, Philip French in The Observer for one), but then the BBC kept bouncing around his time slot (later and later on Monday or Tuesday nights) and he eventually left. The guy the BBC replaced him with was and still is, nothing more than a haircut in a fancy suit. An utter moron named Johnathan Ross who has single handedly and systematically lowered the expectations of what an viewer can hope to receive from a critic.
Athough I won't blame Ross entirely: the BBC controllers made the decision that that was the way they wanted the show to go. It is just another example of the cultural shift where now it is more about loading the show with celeb interviews, promo clips, reports from the set and previews of coming attractions.

About three weeks after Baz left the Beeb, I stopped watching the show. What really pisses me off is that the show had a wonderful signature tune called "I Wish I Knew How It Felt To Be Free" by Billy Taylor. It's a great jazz piece and the BBC insisted that they keep it for the enw show. A bit like Disney trying to keep the Two Thumbs Up.

My favorite Ben Lyons moment from this past awards season was when he referred to Atonement, the novel, as a "World War II-era classic."

I wonder if anyone working at E! that day bothered to point out to him that it was published in 2001.

It's really too bad they're doing this. At the Movies is still a better show than Reel Talk, or that thing Leonard Maltin and Joyce Kuwalik host (is that still around?) One of the beauties of the Siskel & Ebert archives is you can see how much thought and discussion actually went into their reviews. Reel Talk squeaks out three movie "reviews" in six minutes.

If Roeper & Phillips team up somewhere, I'll follow. I like Phillips, and Roeper's gotten better. Neither one is Roger, though.

mutinyco - shows you how much tracking people's religious affiliations (esp. Jewish ones) has become a non-issue in this society: I had no idea Siskel was Jewish. In fact, he always struck me as New England-esque protestant with that high forehead and composure.

Who knew? Who cared?

I think Gene and Roger has great chemistry together and they know how to tick off each other. While Roeper isn't really a critic, he really didn't stand a chance in replacing Gene, nor does anyone else for that matter.

Since the 1970s when it was on PBS, I have rarely missed an episode of SNEAK PREVIEW, AT THE MOVIES, all the incarnations of the show. I've watched it every week.

That said, it has been clear the show was on its last legs after Ebert left.

In my market it plays very late Sunday nights, after the late local news and JEOPARDY reruns. If there is a football game, it often airs at 1 am or doesn't air at all.

I'd like to try to give Disney the benefit of the doubt on this one. This show COULD work. Something had to be done to try to generate interest.

I like Richard Roeper, but let's face it, he didn't know too much about film. Just this week, they made a point that he had never seen Kurosawa's HIGH AND LOW, a film that can be found in any Blockbuster's foreign section (shouldn't any film critic try to see readily available Kurosawa films before taking the job?). He attacked FUNNY GAMES earlier in the year, and from his review, it was clear he wasn't aware of the original.

Plus, Roeper has had the tendency to say on each show in the past weeks that one of the films was "one of the best of the year". He's gotten a bit too blurb happy it seems.

I'm not that familiar with Lyons. I saw him on REEL TALK once and he seemed to know what he was saying. But some of his blurbs (did he really call I AM LEGEND one of the best films ever made?) scare me.

Mankiewicz is a safe choice. I've seen him on TCM quite a bit. He knows more about film than Roeper does.

It is either go with this new format, or watch the show disappear. I'd rather see them try something new. That Critics Round-Up could be interesting.

Huh? CP, that comment is dumber than a bag of toe nail clippings. A New England Wasp?

I wasn't pointing out he was Jewish as an observation on his religion. Being Jewish is as much about genes (no pun intended) as being Asian or Arabic or what-have-you. There are plenty of non-religious Jews.

And if the culture at large can no longer tell or comprehend that various cultures actually exist, then the homogenization of society is complete. The '90s were about celebrating multi-culturalism. Now, everybody is exactly the same.

Let's all eat a bowl of stupidity for breakfast...

I would watch a show featuring Michael Phillips and AO Scott, but I am probably the only one. They both are smart, film-literate but not condescending snobs. (Though it must've been hard for both not to be sitting across from Roeper.) Plus, Phillips completely won me over after Roeper called U2 the best band of the last 30 years by replying, "Um I think that was The Replacements."

"An utter moron named Johnathan Ross"

A bit harsh, Pope. Ross has more to his repertoire than just replacing Barry, though I grant his lisp makes him SOUND like a moron.

Barry was damn good, though.

LYT,
Yes, maybe I was a tad harsh on "Wossy." (Does he have a lisp as well? I just thought that he rolled his "r".) I guess I was just venting my years of frustration... still, Jonathan is better than his brother, Paul... but then who isn't?

My problem with these guys is that you never get the feeling that they have a film SENSE. They don't necessarily know why something works; they just know the terms and references... but ask them why the cinematography was good (as opposed to being pretty) or why the editing was tight (as opposed to quick), they won't have a bull's notion.

Thing is, I think that a show with AO and Michael would have a chance to become something. Even more, a show with AO and Manohla (which she would never do)... or a show with AO and someone like Stu Van Arsdale, who would snipe and be interesting... or a show with AO, Armond, Jim Hoberman, and Karina Longworth...

People have forever spoken about how Siskel & Ebert made no sense on TV. But if you built IT, they will come. If you pander, they won't care.

Years ago, I happened to be seated with Gene Siskel at an awards ceremony in L.A. Believe it or not, while addressing this audience comprised primarily of industry folks, the producer of an Oscar-winning film made a rather insensitive, borderline anti-Semitic remark about having to "change my name to Goldstein" (or something like that) while seeking financing from bankers. Siskel and I weren't bowling buddies or anything like that, but we were professional acquaintances, and had chatted on several previous occasions. As soon as the producer made his remark, Siskel turned to me and asked, in a quietly angry voice: "Did you hear that?" I was so shocked -- not so much by the remark, I admit, as by the producer's stupidity and by the expression on Siskel's face -- than I could only nod. And I swear to God, for about five seconds, I thought Siskel was going to get up and tear the SOB's throat out. He didn't, of course, but I have no doubt, no doubt whatsoever, that he could have.

So, yeah, CP, the guy was Jewish.

There aren't any established critics out there who can replace S&E as a duo. None of them are entertaining enough.

People forget, but S&E weren't watched so much for academic-level film critiques as for the show's entertainment value. It was two nerds arguing with each other. Even when they agreed, it would turn into a pissing match over who liked the movie more or who could be more insightful.

The only way you could conjure that kind of entertainment today would be to hire two fanboy geeks and have them do battle. Seriously, like Tarantino vs. Knowles -- but not actually them. You know?

I never thought Siskel was 'Jewish' the way Woody Allen or Jerry Seinfeld were clearly outwardly Jewish. I never thought either he or Ebert were anything but American - multiculturalism wins.

But I thought yesterday they were cancelling this show, and now they're turning it into Jim Henson's Film Critic Babies?

This sounds typical of Disney. They've treated the legacy of Siskel & Ebert terribly. That archive site is a real mess. I can only assume that they stopped updating themed-episodes as some kind of petty jab at Ebert. You can't even find the few special eps (S&E in B&W, Ebert with SWcorsese), on the site anymore.

The seach engine is awful. Foreign films or movies that had different titles while in production are near-impossible to find. (Try finding the review of Like Water for Choclate or Back to the Beach.) If the boys re-reviewed a movie (like, say, Like Water for Chocolate or "Crocodike" Dundee) you'll only get the re-review, not the original review. Reviews for certain movies like Born on the 4th of July, Bright Lights, Big City, Husbands and Wives, This Boy's Life, and the Waters Hairspray are not available. Cronenberg's Crash is not available. (Some jackass uploaded Haggis' Crash twice.)

Would it have killed Disney to have presented the shows in their entirety? Or, how about by year? There are a number of things they could've done to preserve the chronology and history of the show. They blew it.

The reason why the show worked is because noth men were enemies when they were originally temeed together. That was the mistake Ebert made when he accepted Roeper. Roeper is a colleague and would always be under Ebert. They needed someone who already had an identity as a critic, maybe someone from another paper. A woman would've been great. I remember vividly Lisa Schwarzbaum holding her own against Ebert, and Ebert getting energized by someone who wasn't affraid of him.

A.O. wouldn't work because he's too willing to accept someone's contrary opinion. You need people who have different "worldviews," like Glenn Kenny and David Edelstein. Or, Edelstein with anyone.

P.S. I would suggest people look at S&E's review of Schindler's List if they weren't aware that Siskel was Jewish.

P.P.S. If you're interested in pre-Disney S&E, I highly reccomend checking out this channel on YouTube. This guy knows how to present S&E episodes.

http://youtube.com/user/firstmagnitude

I've caught Reel Talk many times on a Sunday morning and it never seems to amaze me how blatant Lyons now is, I can guarantee on more than 3 occasions Ive seen him argue with the cute British chick about a bad movie and when they go to a commercial break he announces an interview with a star from said movieto immediately follow, he doesn't even hide the interview on another show.

Ben Lyons' contribution to the world of criticism this year:

Cloverfield - This is what going to the movies is all about.
Be Kind Rewind - An instant classic! Jack Black is hilarious.
Horton Hears a Who - Horton is hilarious! Brilliant from top to bottom. Finally, Dr. Seuss as it was meant to be seen. The first movie to truly capture the magic of ‘The Seuss Imagination.’
Stop-Loss - Stop-Loss has the next generation of great actors. Intense and inspirational.
Bra Boys - One of the best documentaries of the year…An eye-opening experience.
Kung Fu Panda - The coolest kids comedy of the year.
You Don’t Mess with the Zohan - Completely original, this is Adam Sandler doing what he does best. Zohan is a classic comedy character that audiences will love for years to come.
American Teen - A modern day Breakfast Club that will make you stand up and cheer.

And in 2007:
300 - Awesome! 300 is the most unique movie-going experience of a generation. One of the best films of 2007, and of the last 25 years.
TMNT - Fun for turtle fans of all ages!
Year of the Dog - Heartwarming, intelligent, and hilarious. One of the best movies of the year!
Knocked Up - It’s hilarious. A great time at the movies.
Mr. Brooks - In a summer of sequels, Mr. Brooks stands out!
A Mighty Heart - The early favorite for best picture at this year’s Oscars. Angelina Jolie is this year’s front runner for an Academy Award.
Arctic Tale - A perfect family film.
Resurrecting the Champ - A special summer surprise. Heart warming and inspiring.
King of California - King of California is the surprise of the fall season!
Into the Wild - The first must-see of the Oscar season. An instant classic.
The Kingdom - Powerful and intense, The Kingdom grabs hold of you and never lets go. Four tremendous performances from Cooper, Foxx, Bateman and Garner. Truly outstanding.
Gone Baby Gone - Suspenseful and masterfully executed. A powerful and intense thriller. A true testament to the power of filmmaking, Casey Affleck delivers the best performance of his career.
Mr. Untouchable - It makes American Gangster look like a fairy tale. It’s the real deal, nothing Hollywood about it.
American Gangster - A new American classic. Washington and Crowe both deliver outstanding performances. Goodfellas for the next generation.
Bee Movie - The must-see kids flick of the season!
Beowulf - The future of filmmaking is now. Beowulf in 3D is a night at the movies you will never forget!
The Golden Compass - The Golden Compass takes its place amongst the great fantasy films of all time. In the tradition of The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and The Chronicles of Narnia
I Am Legend - (1) Unbelievable. Remarkable. (2) One of the greatest movies ever made.

It's a TV show, for crissake. Times change. Deal with it, old men.

hey Wreck,

what's with the 'tude? I'm 29, hardly an "old man."

Nobody's really in mourning, but we are disappointed by the way, once again, there doesn't seem to be any consideration for loyalty in corporate America.

I actually think the shutting down of the show is part of this changing of the guard that's going in the movie critic industry. I'm actually hopeful to see Ebert return to straight print reviewing. He was always a newpaper man before he became a TV personality.

Been watching this show since it was on PBS too. And yeah time's change. But these guys were forced out. There's a difference. It wasn't a natural progression.

And whoever these 2 losers are, it ain't gonna last.

Hey Disney brass -- fuck you.

Sincerely,

Aris

"I actually think the shutting down of the show is part of this changing of the guard that's going in the movie critic industry. I'm actually hopeful to see Ebert return to straight print reviewing. He was always a newpaper man before he became a TV personality."

Bingo.

BTW, Poland and others here have fallen into the same trap as the typical Disneyphobe, whether it be the Southern Baptist Convention or The Catholic League. "Disney" is a huge corporation. This old show is distributed by a division of ABC. It's a tiny part of a small part of a bigger part of a massive company. "Disney" couldn't give a rat's ass about a low rated weekly syndicated TV program.

I think it would be better to end the show.

Siskel and ebert would just talk, and by doing so, entertain since they were both intelligent. No fancy camera angles, sound bytes, cgi, and they genuinely liked film. No stupid one-liners. It was like professors teaching a class to be honest since many of the films they reviewed you would never hear of otherwise, pre-internet. They reviewed a number of controversial films.

Siskel always seemed more blue collar, Ebert the more arty appreciating but then that was my perception as a kid.

We have too many fanboy geeks commenting on all manner of things, we don't need to bring that to PBS or any other channel.

end the show until it can be done in a classy way. it should have ended a long time ago.

What? Disney wouldn't mistreat its celebrities just because their star isn't shining quite so bright anymore--look at how well they've taken care of Drew Carey, and Bill Nye, and....

Jonathan Ross does come across as a Yank style TV host nitwit, but the guy has good taste in film. I still have my old vhs copies of THE INCREDIBLY STRANGE FILM SHOW series he hosted in the late 80's which featured Jackie Chan and Sam Raimi and John Waters and Russ Myers...all great behind the scenes footage and interviews. Probably Raimi's best interview in fact. The Chan piece was a godsend to me since I'd just discovered his Hong Kong films. And Ross explains in detail what's special about these people. He clearly gets it.

"Been watching this show since it was on PBS too. And yeah time's change. But these guys were forced out. There's a difference. It wasn't a natural progression."

I don't know about forcing them out. Disney has most likely been waiting to see if Ebert was going to be back. When it got to the point that they realize he probably won't be, and Roeper has yet to really prove himself of being of the stature of Ebert, with the profile of the show continually falling, Disney felt it was time to try to do something new to save it.

Whatever tactics Disney used 4-5 months ago when suddenly Roeper and Guest couldn't use the Thumbs Up logo, essentially equalled hardball tactics. That was the beginning of the end, and in my mind, can only be interpreted as starting the forcing out.

"Saving" the show by hiring these 2 new "critics" is a slap in the face of one of the longest running shows in tv history. Save what? How many viewers did Roeper and Guest have anyway?

I'd lighten up and give Mankiewicz a chance. He's quite a bright guy (unsurprising, given his heritage) and does a good job in the off-hours on TCM. Lyons, however, does seem beyond hope. I wonder if he felt MEET DAVE was "Eddie At His Best!"

I like Mankiewicz on TCM, though I don't get a sense that he's doing anything there that any decent talking head couldn't do. Does he even write his own copy? And I've never seen him review a film, in print or on camera. So from that standpoint, maybe he's an odd choice.

As for Lyons, seems like he should be reviewing for some fraternity newsletter.

For a long time, Mankiewicz was one of the hosts of "The Young Turks," a liberal talk show on Air America, Sirius and the web. So, yeah, he can write as well as talk.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: