Siskel & Ebert

It wasn't the same with Richard Roeper

I was always an Ebert guy. In my teen opinion, Siskel cared more about the beautiful women in a movie more than the quality of the film itself. Maybe I was wrong, but that was my interpretation.

Siskel and Ebert review Titanic and Good Will Hunting in 1997

It was syndicated so it aired on different days and at different times throughout the country. It was on Saturdays in the late morning where I lived.

I still remember wondering what the hell was going on when Gene would literally phone in his appearance. Then suddenly, he was dead.

i thought they were very odd and not a touch on out gorgeous Barry Norman

sorry "our" not "out" - he wasn't gay.

Sunday early evenings I’d watch them spar. Ebert seemed to have the upper hand.

Over Superbowl weekend, I was watching a whole bunch of Siskel and Ebert shows. As a lot of S&E shows are on YouTube. I especially enjoy those S&E shows from my teenage years (late 70s/early80s).

Among my favorites:

Best Movies of the Year Worst Movies of the Year A Montage of Yes/No Reviews (before the thumbs) A Montage of Dogs of the Week (with a Wonder Dog) If S&E Picked the Oscars

I liked their Guilty Pleasure episodes where they would admit to liking a film that was generally considered to be "bad".

They also exposed me to films I might not have heard about on my own.

In my neck of the woods, it aired Thursday nights opposite Cheers.

So I’ve seen probably 10 episodes of Cheers in my life.

I started out more pro-Siskel and ended more pro-Ebert. Roger was softer on sentiment in the beginning. Gene got softer after having children. The Siskel replacements failed to capture the tension and the value of their agreements and disagreements. They were the best mainstream critics of their time. I can't say who would have that mantle now.

Never missed it since the PBS days. I remember noticing something wrong with Siskel in the way he spoke and look toward the end. Here is his final episode. It looked like he had fake hair glued to the sides of his head

I miss them both. I heard Ebert was an asshole (a friend worked at a film festival where he threw a tantrum because he was denied entrance to Far From Heaven), but I respected that he went out of his way to support a film. I remember how much he loved Hoop Dreams and I saw that film because he loved it so much (as well as Siskel).

I love reading Ebert's reviews (which are still on his site). Last night I watched Witness from 1985, and Ebert's four-star review emphasized everything I love about that film.

Both Siskel and Ebert were very supportive of black filmmakers on their show.

They loved film and you could tell how passionate they were in their discussions. Today it would be two ripped Instahos trying to find the next catchphrase; it would be nothing about the films.

Woody Allen used to call them "the Chicago idiots", according to Mia.

I loved them and their show but I did get tired of their righteous indignation about slasher movies in the 80s.

Roger really suffered. His wife said he wrote before he died that this is all a hoax. I'd like to know what he meant.

They started out as newspaper movie critics (at competing Chicago newspapers) and the rivalry was real. Both of them died of cancer way too young.

I remember Siskel bought John Travolta's white disco suit from Saturday Night Fever.

I believe that was one of his favourite films or even his favourite film of all time.

When Siskel got sick, he promised to return as soon as he could because he didn't want Roger to get too much screen time. :)

I valued Siskel's opinion more than Ebert's. Ebert seemed to give everything a thumbs up.

I used to work as a cocktail server and served drinks to Ebert & his girlfriend or wife (younger than him, black or African American). Ebert wasn't rude, but not friendly, either. Kind of sour in demeanor. Disappointing for me because I was happy to approach his table. (Nothing crazy, I didn't say "I'm a fan" and didn't ask for an autograph.)

Drink order: two gin and tonics. IIRC, gin not specified, so a "well" drink.

Legends, but the intro-sequence to their show makes it look like a sitcom.

I always found them to be mostly sour when it came to horror films and it was a cunt move to give out Betsy Palmer's home address because they didn't like Friday the 13th. So, you don't like a movie? Great. That doesn't mean you need to punish the actors. She even said she only did it to buy a new car.

The documentary on Ebert was so fucking tiresome. It made it appear he was a legendary GOD.

When she reported that he said this is all a hoax I took it to mean that he meant life. I thought it took him this long to notice?

I loved this show growing up during the 80's. The level of cuntery was legendary and I loved every minute of it.

Considering that they had no discernable talent couldn't they at least have been good looking? But movie nerds that obsessive are never good looking.

I remember watching them review "Some Kind of Wonderful" the night it aired and they played this kissing scene in the garage with Eric Stoltz and Mary Stuart Masterson, which Ebert liked.

Ebert had the staying power because he was a great writer (no matter what people may think of his film criticism). I tended to agree more with Ebert, although Siskel tended to like the comedies of that time that I liked more. But he would sweat certain implausibilities to an extent where Ebert (and us ) would shrug : relax it’s just a fucking movie.

They weren’t Andrew Sardis or David Denny but they brought solidly good film criticism to the mainstream which is something. I rented My Dinner with Andre because of them (and I see many on here have similar stories). And I loved their talk show appearances (especially Letterman).

I love reading Roger Ebert's essays.

I agree with Woody Allen.

*andrew Sarris and David Denby geez autocorrect

I so miss this kind of erudite film discussion. Not to mention missing the more interesting films of the day (so tired of superhero and comic crap).

It was a different era when those two had their heyday; today, thanks to social media, anyone can be -- and is -- a critic.

R20 Both Roger and Chaz were recovering alcoholics, so if your story is true they might have been "sour" because they were very self-conscious about being in a bar, drinking.

It stinks!

This show would never happen today. They would be two vapid queens with vocal fry talking over each other, multiplying the vocal fry effect.

And it would be arguments like "Who is hotter? Chris Evans or Chris Pine?"

They were part of my growing up. I used to watch their PBS show Sneak Previews, then the syndicated Siskel & Ebert At the Movies. I usually agreed with their reviews but after both gave Speed II a thumbs up I realized they were getting paid for that review.

Hideous creatures. Turned the art of film criticism into nothing more than thumps up or down.

Yeah, well R38, they weren’t hack plagiarists like Kael, lol.

I loved these guys. Still do. Didn’t always agree with their takes, but they were a useful vehicle for the transmission of sometimes surprisingly sophisticated discussions of an art form to the masses. They were both smart, and unapologetically so. I miss them.

^ Yes, they were so much brighter and wittier than Pauline Kael. Seeing Gene drool over hot pussy actresses was so sophisticated.

[quote]Ebert had the staying power because he was a great writer (no matter what people may think of his film criticism).

Yes, his autobiography, "Life Itself," is a good read.

I liked Richard Roeper. He always sat with his legs apart and it was nice view!

Roeper had a limited film criticism vocabulary. The best he could do to describe a terrific performance was "Oscar-worthy"

I always loved Siskel, was so sad when he died.

Ebert, in particular, admired Kael but by the time of Siskel & Ebert's heyday, her writing was rambling and incoherent. She made it ok to hate foreign films that sucked and to appreciate genre films that weren't trying to be serious, but she stayed at the party way too long and I never found her to be a useful critic in her later days (which is when I started reading the NYer).

Siskel and Ebert's appreciation for moviews spanned the shamelessly popular to the art house, without insulting the films or their viewers. They were very much unlike Dave Kehr, who succeeded Siskel at the Tribune who went from hating everything at The Reader with heavy lit/crit-type writing to pandering to popular taste at the Trib. They were part of a generation that had access to old films and all kinds of new ones and made the most of it. The later years of them as a duo weren't so great (they clearly did it for the money) and they usually had very marginal time slots because they no longer had such a large audience.

When I lived in Chicago, I was buyin the Sunday paper in the local drug store and someone who seemed to be trying to cover his face came in. Took me a minute, but I realized it was Siskel. I'd forgotten that he lived in the more upscale part of the area facing the lake.

I remember the “Dog of the Week” segment at the end of each show, introduced by a small dog jumping up onto the seat and barking. They’d then jokingly eviscerating some bad b-movie or Italian horror film that was currently in release.

They aired on PBS in NY I believe early on and I remember the first episode I saw They reviewed "The Wiz".

Sorry, this is the actual review...

I always liked to imagine them sitting on opposite sides of an empty theater watching movies at the same time like the opening sequence suggests.

[quote] [R20] Both Roger and Chaz were recovering alcoholics, so if your story is true they might have been "sour" because they were very self-conscious about being in a bar, drinking.

Wow, R34, I found this article, written by Ebert, published in 2009. He says he took his last drink (scotch & soda) in 1979.

I definitely served him a drink *after* 1979 and, like I said, it was a gin and tonic. It was a restaurant that had a bar downstairs. He was sitting upstairs in the restaurant. The gin and tonics were before-dinner drinks. I Googled photos of young Chaz Ebert and she is heavy-set in all photos. The woman I remember was not heavy-set, IIRC.

Yes, my story is true (just noticed that you said "if your story is true").

I served him a drink after 1979 but before 2009, well after 1979 and well before 2009. (2009 is when his article about being clean and sober was published.) 1979 is when he said he had his last drink.

Thanks for following up, R50/51. Part of me preferred to believe you were mistaken or making it up because I find it disappointing that Ebert lied about his sobriety date in that article. I remember reading it soon after he published it and thinking he was brave to be so forthcoming, so it also makes me feel gullible. Hopefully he at least stopped drinking sometime after you served him.

R52, I think it's common to fudge on your sobriety date, especially if you had a short-lived relapse. Disappointing, though.

I "quit" smoking cigarettes (tobacco) decades ago (pack-a-day habit). However, a few years ago, at a party, out of nowhere, I took a drag / puff from someone else's cigarette but never smoked again. I always wonder if I should change my "sobriety" date. Prior to "quitting," I had had a year-long relapse where I smoked with a vengeance. I don't discount that year.

STOP THE PRESSES....Drunks lie!

R40 Pauline Kael was an insult artist posing as a film critic. She was a mean, vindictive person, more interested in posing as an intellectual than in being one. Totally intellectually bankrupt, a thief of others’ research...and what else...oh yes, she revealed time and again that she was generally ignorant and uninformed as to most aspects of the filmmaking process. She was Armond White before Armond White. Renata Adler’s total evisceration of Kael was possibly the most deserved public takedown ever published.

Spend 10 minutes reading any of the collections of Ebert’s essays and the total superiority of his erudition and insight on the medium, relative to Kael’s, becomes obvious.