Home
search
more | tips
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 19 comments in total 

7 out of 8 people found the following comment 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

Was the above comment useful to you?

5 out of 5 people found the following comment 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.

Was the above comment useful to you?

5 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Gene, you will be missed, 22 February 1999
Author: Sean Gallagher (naes@cgocable.net) from Oakville, Ont. Canada

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.

Was the above comment useful to you?

6 out of 7 people found the following comment 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!

Was the above comment useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following comment 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.

Was the above comment useful to you?

5 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
HYSTERICAL!, 20 September 2001
Author: jmcool5164

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.

Was the above comment useful to you?

6 out of 8 people found the following comment 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."

Was the above comment useful to you?

6 out of 8 people found the following comment 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!

Was the above comment useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Roger Ebert is Film Criticism's National Treasure, 18 January 2003
Author: jberlin11797

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.

Was the above comment useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
The best that can be said is that it is the only show in town!, 9 February 2008
8/10
Author: nuttyme00_ from United States

Since Siskel's death and Ebert's absence the show has been left in the incapable hands of Richard Roeper. Roeper is not a film critic he just criticizes anything he doesn't like personally i.e. films with country music get panned because "I don't like country music!" and children's movies get a standard "Don't see it now, wait until it comes out on DVD and rent it for your kids!" Roeper may well be an idiot savant, but in some other field. The weekly guests 'sitting-in' for Ebert fare better, but who wants to pick a daisy in the midst of a cow pat? All that said, it IS the only show in town and that alone makes it worth watching. As for Roger Ebert, if Stephen Hawking can talk, so can you! It's your mind and thoughts we long for. Do whatever is necessary to get that usurper off his self-declared throne.

Was the above comment useful to you?
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another comment

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user comments Your vote history