Aug. 4, 2007, 11:39 p.m. CST
by Judge Dredds Dirty Undies
Aug. 4, 2007, 11:42 p.m. CST
by Bungion Boy
I've been looking up actors, directors, and my favorite films and watching dozens of old reviews. I've watched the show religiously since I was 4 years old so most of the ones I've watched I have seen and remembered. I'm so happy this is up. It's only the last 20 years or so for now, but I really hope more come on in the months and years to come. I know many of the old tapes are lost, but I'm sure there are more out there. I'm so happy for this site. Love it. Even have come to like Roeper quite a bit too. But nothing beats classic Siskel and Ebert arguements.
Aug. 4, 2007, 11:57 p.m. CST
I'm sure Ebert will never be able to come back, sadly. Roeper is no Siskel! The guest reviewers are almost always lame. There is a reason some people become journalists and not TV personalities!
Aug. 5, 2007, 12:05 a.m. CST
They really gave a shit about film. Their arguments proved it. I loved their annual Oscar show. I think they called it, "If We Picked the Oscars". They would have their picks and then what the "academy" would pick. They were usually right.<br><br> I'm hitting that link. Later.
Aug. 5, 2007, 12:16 a.m. CST
I still like seeing reviews every week, thumbs up/thumbs down style, regardless. I don't mind Roeper, still don't get why everybody bags on him, he does dig the odd piece of popcorn flick. The guest host is a little shaky, I don't mind that they cycle in different reviewers, but, Kevin Smith aside, every "celebrity" reviewer has crashed and burned. Aside from Smith, he's good. Still, yeah, awesome site and can't wait to see Ebert and Siskel go over "Aliens" or whathaveyou.
Aug. 5, 2007, 12:56 a.m. CST
I'd even go so far as to say Richard Roeper has been an upgrade over Gene Siskel (who once gave an big thumbs up to Halloween III: Season of the Witch).
Aug. 5, 2007, 1:02 a.m. CST
by Henry Fool
I hope someone on this site reads this and encourages Roger Ebert to do something about it. As far as I know, Gene Siskel's Chicago Sun Times Reviews from his years at the paper have never been archived for reader's to check out. Roger has a great archive at his website. Now, that Gene's gone, it'd be a shame if his work never got the same treatment. Come to think of it, I've never read any of Gene's printed reviews. Not that I give a shit that he didn't like Reservoir Dogs but I'd still like to see the review.
Aug. 5, 2007, 1:07 a.m. CST
by Alonzo Mosely
Had a couple of hours of geeky delight looking up random films and watching the reviews...
Aug. 5, 2007, 1:18 a.m. CST
too bad it doesn't go all the way back to the old 'Sneak Previews' days
Aug. 5, 2007, 1:18 a.m. CST
"video coming soon" graphic when you click on the "Harry Knowles" link?
Aug. 5, 2007, 1:30 a.m. CST
by Rocco the dog
...is dead on. I have always thought that movie was way overblown and Gene takes it to task for all the right reasons. He was more articulate than Ebert and Roeper + all the guest hosts combined.
Aug. 5, 2007, 1:35 a.m. CST
First thing I did was to go watch Siskel and Ebert review Tony Danza's comedy She's Out Of Control. It is the harshest review I think I have ever seen. As I recall Tony Danza was actually mad about it. They hated the film so much that, okay, they went to a break, came back and then Ebert says, "Okay, our next film is... man, I am so happy I got that off my chest..." and they proceeded to hate on the film for another half minute. I don't think I've ever seen another review where the hate went on into the next segment. Sadly if the bit from the next segment is not included in the online clip. Unless it's part of the next movie's review clip. If only I knew what the next reviewed movie was!
Aug. 5, 2007, 1:50 a.m. CST
I'm the biggest roger ebert fan. I of course don't always agree with him but there is no denying he is a damn good writer. I think Roeper gets a bad rap sometime. He can be a bit predictable but he does have a pretty good taste in movies. He opened up on Howard Stern interview recently. He seemed pretty cool. The guy is dating a 23 year old gal. I thought that was interesting. I do miss Siskel though. GET WELL ROGER!
Aug. 5, 2007, 1:51 a.m. CST
That's why Mori probably doesn't like him. The guy hsa bad taste and he just generally grates me. I so miss Gene Siskel.
Aug. 5, 2007, 1:51 a.m. CST
Mulan is a crazy review segment. The only thing that makes it less fun is it is after Siskel's brain surgery. I started watching it amused and by the end was worried for Siskel.
Aug. 5, 2007, 1:52 a.m. CST
by Bungion Boy
I got that 2 or 3 times while I was watching videos. I think that not every single video is up and running yet and it will be updated over the weeks to come.
Aug. 5, 2007, 1:57 a.m. CST
hhhhgkh hjkghhhhh aaaaaaaaahhhkj nnnnnnnnhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Aug. 5, 2007, 1:58 a.m. CST
But the thing is... I'm getting that same graphic for clips other people have commented on. Is there something I need to download. Is this thing Real Play or Flash...? It doesn't say what you need. Ehhh... maybe the site is just backed up. Thanks again, pal!
Aug. 5, 2007, 2:09 a.m. CST
Of course he's no Ebert, who is one of the greatest film essayists of all time, but he brings more of an 'everyman' dynamic, in that he can enjoy cerebral fare while still appreciating wacky stuff like Reno 911. RIP Gene; get well Roger.
Aug. 5, 2007, 2:18 a.m. CST
by Henry Fool
...is fine in print. But his tele-presences doesn't translate to charisma. There's something kind of uptight and wimpy about him. A guy's guy wouldn't trust his reviews even though he may have given raves to 300. I don't have a problem with him but there were a lot of interesting guest critics on during the days of Siskel's illness and the vacancy period that followed his death. In retrospect, they really should have gone with a female critic. It would have added a lot of spice to the show. The hot chick who raved over Grindhouse would be cool...
Aug. 5, 2007, 2:28 a.m. CST
He actually wrote a screen[play for a Russ Meyer film. After I heard about that, his credibility was shot down big time. Bra of God. What an original title for a film.
Aug. 5, 2007, 2:38 a.m. CST
Talk about a major disagreement....and funny too.
Aug. 5, 2007, 2:43 a.m. CST
I haven't visited the archive yet, but that's STILL one of the reviews that I still talk about with people. It's the first review I ever heard/watched that argued that a movie was actually, actively *life-draining.* Beautiful. Having those reviews archived is a public service.
Aug. 5, 2007, 3:03 a.m. CST
I'm sure Roeper is really losing sleep over that one.
Aug. 5, 2007, 3:11 a.m. CST
Plus Roger Ebert criticises DIE HARD. Fascinating stuff. Cool ROCKETEER review too.
Aug. 5, 2007, 3:14 a.m. CST
Ebert: "You gotta admit action-wise Lethal Weapon 4 is better than Armageddon." Siskel: "Boy that's some endorsement. I'd love to see that on the movie poster."
Aug. 5, 2007, 3:22 a.m. CST
That's why Mori hates him. One doesn't need to look any further than Roeper's review of The Fountain as evidence. He even admits that he had no idea what was going on in the film. Ebert, on the other hand, I frequently disagree with, but I still have a lot of respect for the man (and the same can be said for Siskel too.) I'd love to see Ebert's review of The Fountain.
Aug. 5, 2007, 3:57 a.m. CST
I lost all respect for him when he said video games couldn't be viewed as art.
Aug. 5, 2007, 5:30 a.m. CST
by Flim Springfield
Aug. 5, 2007, 5:41 a.m. CST
and he is syndicated columnist. But his background is in broadcast news. I dont much about him but I read somewhere that he did stories with a very witty edge and brought that edge to his movie reviews and so that is why they hired him.
Aug. 5, 2007, 5:50 a.m. CST
Newspaper guys. Roeper is too but his background is in broadcast news. I think there is a little bit of snobbery on Eberts part towards roeper. Ebert is an intellectual and has admitted so on his show, that he didnt read comic books in college. He once told roeper on tv where he could stick a review and what part of roepers anatomy he could stick it up.
Aug. 5, 2007, 9:06 a.m. CST
But this is good too. I like the "Fat/Thin" Ebert on the site. Too bad they couldn't work in the "Live/Undead" Siskel..
Aug. 5, 2007, 9:09 a.m. CST
If you look up the word suck in the dictionary you will see a picture of Siskel and Ebert next to it. I really don´t understand why people take those 2 seriously.
Aug. 5, 2007, 10:04 a.m. CST
I can understand if people don't like a certain film critic. But PLEASE explain. Saying he's a douche and leaving it at that doesn't explain anything and is just name calling. Henry Fool at least gave reasoning behind why he felt Roeper was "wimpy". And I guess in some way I can understand that, as Roeper does kind of give off a Clinton Kelly from What Not to Wear vibe. But that's exactly why I like Roeper. If he doesn't like something, he doesn't just leave it at that. He just goes off on it with a lot of funny adjectives. And if Roeper is "wimpy", what is Rex Reed? What I also like about Roeper is he admits that he's made mistakes before. He's admitted to liking a film, giving it a good review and hating it later when he rewatched it. Lastly, I find that I've disagreed with Roeper only about 10 times at most. The biggest disagreement being Bad Boys 2. He lists it as 1 of the 10 worst movies ever. I felt he missed the point.
Aug. 5, 2007, 10:23 a.m. CST
on this site...
Aug. 5, 2007, 10:30 a.m. CST
That is all. Good day.
Aug. 5, 2007, 10:54 a.m. CST
...because he's a total f'ing douche! No, seriously, he just doesn't have, for me, any sort of scholarly or authoritative tone or presence, and thus usually ends up pissing me off with his lack of knowledge and overabundance of "man-on-the-street"-vibe. I get that it's nice to have someone to agree with, but watch some of the David Edelstein ep's, and you'll see what I mean. If you don't really know what you're talking about, you can't thoroughly eviscerate something when it truly deserves it. All you can do is say it sucks, and various forms of said phrase.
Aug. 5, 2007, 11:07 a.m. CST
by Calico Pete
These shows have never been about the thumbs up/down. It isn't the verdict. It's the "why" behind it. Even if you disagree with a critic's taste in movies, if they're able to express the "why" behind their opinion then you've got something you can use and learn from. Roeper's "why"s have always been shallow, lightweight, very subjective. He does not analyze films and pick out weaknesses or strengths. He's the critic equivalent of "that was cool, that sucked". His knowledge of film is abysmal... he's like the everyman. If want to hear Joe Blow's opinion of movies like LFODH and FFROTS and ABCDEFG, then I'll go to the local bar, hang around the water cooler, or maybe even read one of Harry's reviews. If I want to hear what's actually good or bad, I'll watch Siskel (that is, were he to find a psychic he could trust to convey his opinions; now wouldn't that be funny? some geek going to a seance only to ask Siskel what he thought of Revenge of the Sith?)
Aug. 5, 2007, 11:17 a.m. CST
really going after the Ridley Scot's Alien movie, haven't checked the site for it yet. I remember Siskel and Ebert really going at it in some of those early reviews. I can't remember the movie, but once Siskel had basically said "only an idiot would like this movie, to which Ebert started going off because he'd liked the movie. What I always liked about those two was at least in the beginning, they talked and argued about movies the way my friends and I talked/argued about them. Later on, and now with Roeper especially, they try to come off too much as "intelectuals" rather than movie lovers.
Aug. 5, 2007, 12:09 p.m. CST
Especially, if, out of nowhere, he suddenly rose up from behind Roeper and just started chomping... not that I have anything against Roeper... But this is the next best thing. Really awesome -- I loved their show as a kid. Can't believe Siskel's been gone for 8 years.
Aug. 5, 2007, 12:10 p.m. CST
by Little Beavis
What was his last review?
Aug. 5, 2007, 12:11 p.m. CST
used in the same sentence until today.
Aug. 5, 2007, 12:13 p.m. CST
by Little Beavis
She's All That
Aug. 5, 2007, 12:21 p.m. CST
by Little Beavis
I like Amanda Congdon's boobs
Aug. 5, 2007, 12:35 p.m. CST
Aug. 5, 2007, 12:54 p.m. CST
I can rewatch Ebert's dead-on review of Dark City and his terrible review of Josie and the Pussycats, where he fails understand the satire of the film.
Aug. 5, 2007, 1:39 p.m. CST
I still think they should advertise that on DVD as "the movie that killed Gene Siskel!"
Aug. 5, 2007, 2:13 p.m. CST
Animatronic Siskel mde to repartner for the tv audience. <p> I always thought the Grateful Dead should do that with Garcia.
Aug. 5, 2007, 2:22 p.m. CST
I looked up that review on the archives, and while it said Ebert gave Simply Irresistible thumbs up and Siskel gave it thumbs down, they only showed Ebert's portion of the review. Peculiar.
Aug. 5, 2007, 2:22 p.m. CST
It's funny, after they bailed "Sneak Previews" to do "At the Movies" they were replaced. Then when they split that show to do "Siskel & Ebert" they were replaced again. So, for awhile there were three shows going at once. And now of course, there's "Ebert & Roeper" ...wonder what's next? Anyway, I loved the original SP-theme song. Check this out http://tinyurl.com/37m8zc and, http://tinyurl.com/2r2l99
Aug. 5, 2007, 3:14 p.m. CST
by PROF IKAMONO
...against film. In 1980 I remeber becoming so enraged by the "Women in Danger" episode of "Sneak Previews" that I almost threw something at the television. <p> On that notorious episode they postulated a "new genre" of horror films in which the audience was encouraged to "identify" with the male protagonist as he sequentially tortured and murdered a series of women victims. <p> They claimed these films had come about because of the huge box office success of John Carpenter's Halloween (1978). <p> The stated tht these films all followed the following formula: <p> 1. Shots from the killer's POV to cause audience identification with the male killer rather than the female victims. <p> 2. A male killer who is angry with women because of some sexual inadequacy/humiliation at the hands of women. <p> 3. Female victims who are tortured and killed for acting in an empowered manner. <p> 4. A female character who survives BECUASE she does NOT act in an empowered way, but conforms to male dominated social roles. <p> Halloween, a film both Siskel and Ebert had given good reviews, was presented as an "exception" i.e. it was NOT one of these bad "women in danger" films, even though it was THE ONLY FILM THEY MENTIONED ON THAT EPISODE THAT CAME CLOSE TO MATCHING THE CRITERIA THEY LISTED!!! <p> The other films they mentioned as being example of this bad, wrong, disturbing "new trend" in horror films were: <p> A. Friday the 13th (1980) - they showed more clips, and mentioned this film the most as the key example of what they were complaining about - they encouraged viewers to write to Paramount, to the Producer, Director, even to Betsy Palmer, to shame them for ever having made the film. They called for boycotts of the film, or any sequels. <p> They never once mentioned that: <p> 1. The killer in the film IS a woman. <p> 2. She is killing both male and female camp counselors, in revenge for her son's accidental death. <p> 3. A body count shows that MOST of her victims are in fact MALE. <p> In short they completely misrepresented this film. THEY LIED ABOUT IT! <p> B. I Spit on Your Grave (1978) - This film they represented as showing a woman being repeatedly raped and tortured for behaving like a liberated feminist with the audience cheering on the rapists. <p> Again these liars posing as film critics left out that this film also known as - The Day of the Woman - shows the rapists as disgusting, vile, barely human reprobates - The exclusively male Grindhouse audience I saw this with booed and jeered the rapists! <p> They also failed to mention that the whole point of the film was the female protagonist's horrible and bloody revenge upon her attackers! Men were the ones being sequencially tortured and killed in creative ways here... NOT WOMEN! And the male audience cheered HER on! Even in the castration scene (ouch!) <p> C. The Hills Have Eyes (1977) - a film made BEFORE Halloween! <p> This is about a family of male and female mutant cannibals who prey on a "normal" family who stray into their desert domain - it has absolutely nothing to do with what Siskel and Ebert were talking about in this episode! <p> They only brought it up because they didn't like the film and they needed to have several titles to throw at the audience to make their "theory" look valid! <p> D. Last House on the Left (1972) - again released YEARS before Halloween! <p> This film has another group of killers, sadists both male AND female... who rape and kill two girls. <p> The main point of the film is the terrible revenge enacted on the killers by the girls' parents. <p> E. When a Stranger Calls (1979) - a film in which NO WOMAN IS ACTUALLY KILLED! Other than the two children who die off-screen, the only death in the film - and the only ON SCREEN death is that of the killer hinself! <p> SIskel and Ebert LIED about every one of these films! <p> Then they had the audacity to review films that had not yet been released and they had never seen! <p> They mentioned new films being shot of this same "women in danger genre" which to be avoided at all costs by decent people. The films they mentioned: Night School (1981) and The Howling (1981). <p> Night School was another film like Friday the 13th where the killer was a female! <p> And Siskel and Ebert described The Howling as a film about "a group of hillbillies raping and torturing women" <p> At the time (the summer of 1980) I was a teenager living in Hawaii - thousands of miles away from anybody in the Film Industry. And yet I knew that The Howling was going to be a werewolf movie! How the fuck could I know this when two big-time film critics with all of their inside information did not? What the Hell was WRONG with them? <p> They had an agenda, that's what. They were out to agrandize themselves by becoming "crusading journalists" to fight against social evils - to make themselves rich and successful by spearheading a cause... <p> and in so doing they lied about every film they mentioned on that episode! <p> As a result of their crusading the MPAA began to rate low budget horror films with a double standard... gory violence would get an "R" or even a "PG" in a big budget "mainstream film"... but an "X" would be slapped on horror films even with minimal violence... <p> This resulted inmany horror films released in the early eighties being so heavily edited that they lacked any cohesion whatsoever... Friday the 13th Part 2 and My Bloody Valentine being good examples... <p> Another very ironic result is that some filmmakers took Siskels and Eberts "formula" of the "woman in danger" which did not apply to ANY film they mentioned on that episode of Sneak Previews (except for Halloween itself!) and began to make actual "woman in danger" slasher movies! <p> Films like He knows You're Alone (1980) and Maniac (1980) were quickly shot and released in the fall/winter of 1980/1981... that fit every one of Siskel and Eberts criteria... and did not exist until after they had broadcast that episode! <p> The filmmakers envolved will most likely deny having been motivated by Sneak Previews... but there WERE NO ACTUAL MOVIES TO FIT SISKEL AND EBERT'S CLAIMS AVAILABLE FOR THEM TO USE IN THAT EPISODE... and THERE WERE DOZENS THAT FIT THEIR CRITERIA MADE IN THE FEW WEEKS AFTER THE EPISODE AIRED! <p> The "women in danger" genre was in effect CREATED by Siskel and Ebert... they are through their own hypocrisy the true Fathers of "Torture Porn"
Aug. 5, 2007, 3:23 p.m. CST
by PROF IKAMONO
...in my above rant. It was typed quickly, and with passion.
Aug. 5, 2007, 3:48 p.m. CST
The year where Roger was trying our new co-hosts was weird because he'd get good co-hosts and weak ones. As I recall there was one crazy lady who would wear hats who was hilariously bad and out of place. I have to find those reviews. Ebert tries to be respectful but you could see he was really often baffled by this woman. She was so bad that it was interesting.
Aug. 5, 2007, 3:56 p.m. CST
Damn this site!
Aug. 5, 2007, 3:58 p.m. CST
Why the hell aren't the movies listed from a to z man that's annoying
Aug. 5, 2007, 4:37 p.m. CST
The answer is, "gay". <br>...However, if you'd asked the difference between Rex Reed and Richard Roeper, the answer would be "earned respect".
Aug. 5, 2007, 4:44 p.m. CST
Dull, he somehow confuses pretension as intellect. His opinions are nothing less than insignificant (whenever a cohost counters his review, Roeper reacts like a cheated housewife. Asshole). I agree with Prof. Ikamono's abridged chronicle of Siskel and Ebert's politicized chastisement of horror movies (though a genre film, initially branded with a thumbs-down, sometimes evolved into a "guilty pleasure"). But S&E were entertainment. I remember their guest stint on the TONIGHT show (Siskel insisted that Ebert enjoyed FREE WILLY because he could identify with the title character. Ebert cracked wise about Siskel's forfeiture of hair). The rivalry was real, the fuming wasn't faked. Their union kindled serious hostility. About HALLOWEEN 3--if could have been superior to all of the HALLOWEEN sequels if the producer/director had adhered to Nigel Kneale's original script (Kneale's credits include THE QUATERMASS EXPERIMENT).
Aug. 5, 2007, 5:19 p.m. CST
by The Central Scrutinizer
... In my opinion Gene Siskle was always the brains of the operation.
Aug. 5, 2007, 5:33 p.m. CST
Harry, you thumbed down "SLC Punk!" And you like FF2: Silver Surfer Bugaloo? Man, I'm glad you've been doing less reviews...
Aug. 5, 2007, 5:36 p.m. CST
by Bouncy X
thats why the show was siskel & ebert and not ebert & siskel :P
Aug. 5, 2007, 5:49 p.m. CST
One of the few times that S&E circumvented their feuding was when they beefed about Kenner's ALIEN toy; both critics described the toy as "offensive" (!) and petitioned to have it removed from toy shelves. After the commercial break, they resumed the hatred... Siskel's most embarrassing moment was pandering to Bill Clinton. He behaved like a schoolgirl on a prom night. If Clinton admitted an admiration for BRIDE OF THE MONSTER, Siskel would have elevated it to classic status. This site's biggest embarrassment: ass-kissing fratboy/asshole Eli Roth.
Aug. 5, 2007, 6:44 p.m. CST
by Red Dawn Don
FTARH = "Fast Times At Ridgemont High". Yes Ebert hated FTARH when it came out. However, he intentionally left it out of his Book "I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie". He lost much of my respect for not liking FTARH. He lost the rest of my respect when he chickened-out.
Aug. 5, 2007, 9:35 p.m. CST
by Red Dawn Don
Jeffery Lyons and Neal Gabler were hired to replace them. Anyone remember when JL and NG decided to review only video releases instead of new theatre releases? That goes back many, many years ago. Man VHS videos were all the rage at the time. It all sounds oddly funny today.
Aug. 5, 2007, 10:49 p.m. CST
by Cotton McKnight
Thank goodness this link is up. You know what though? People dog Richard Roeper but I actually have come to respect his reviews- the problem, of course, is that they work for the SAME NEWSPAPER! They aren't competitors at all, so there is no "edge". This is never more evident than when the guest host opposite Roeper is that guy from the Tribune... that is the closest I have come to seeing the old Siskel/Ebert rivalry. Its actually quite fun to watch and I wish they would make that guy the permanent guest.
Aug. 5, 2007, 11:41 p.m. CST
by Sir Loin
I remember reading about it in Fangoria, they just absolutely hated the horror films of the late 70's/early 80's. Hopefully some of those reviews are on the site, talk about a flashback.
Aug. 6, 2007, 12:13 a.m. CST
I like Roeper because I can relate to him more, he enjoys a good film while he can still appreciate a popcorn flick, a lot of my film tastes jive with his which is why I like him. Ebert seems to me a smart guy, but sometimes contradicts himself. One movie he'll complain about how every movie these days is all about car chases and how boring they are, then the next movie he'll rave about how good the car chase was. What the fuck Roger?!
Aug. 6, 2007, 12:49 a.m. CST
Aug. 6, 2007, 2:11 a.m. CST
by Bungion Boy
search by guest host? I'm trying to find a few but can't find all the films they reviewed. Can you find them other than by searching for the films they reviewed? Just curious.
Aug. 6, 2007, 9:01 a.m. CST
If their review of E.T. is up there, you should check it out. I've heard they HATED it.
Aug. 6, 2007, 9:23 a.m. CST
Infact he's also one of the guy's whose opinion really matters to me. However, sometimes I find him giving too much credit to some movies.
Aug. 6, 2007, 9:35 a.m. CST
Michael Medved...ugh what a POS that guy is
Aug. 6, 2007, 10:58 a.m. CST
so when this was announced a few weeks ago I was very excited. Can't wait to delve into the archives to relive childhood memories. Great stuff indeed.
Aug. 6, 2007, 11:03 a.m. CST
mentally-deranged Zionist race warrior. Someone should write a script on that guy's decent into madness.
Aug. 6, 2007, 11:50 a.m. CST
by The Central Scrutinizer
...Has definitely lost his mind. I kept hearing his name mentioned as a right-wing pundit, and I kept wondering "is that the guy that used to be on Sneak Previews"?
Aug. 6, 2007, 11:53 a.m. CST
and was his #4 movie of the 1990s. Good thing he's not a reviewer.
Aug. 6, 2007, 12:03 p.m. CST
by The Central Scrutinizer
...is an awful piece of shit. I'm a Kubrick fan and I wanted to like it, but the film just collapses under its own weight. Cruise & Kidman had NO chemistry and the theme of sexual and emotional fidelity didn't work as a result. Also, Tom Cruise couldn't act hurt if you hit him in the head with a hammer!
Aug. 6, 2007, 12:55 p.m. CST
Jurassic Park. Funny stuff.
Aug. 6, 2007, 1:40 p.m. CST
That is all. Good to see all these reviews, except none was available for E.T. Strange..
Aug. 6, 2007, 2:06 p.m. CST
Aug. 6, 2007, 3:31 p.m. CST
I've read the review. He became so enthralled by Jennifer Jason Leigh during the course of the film that when she has sex with Damone it really wigged him out. He railed about how she was being used. But that was the whole point of the scene, she was being used; and later she gets the abortion. In the end she hooks up with the geeky kid, but Ebert could never forgive the film for making him feel uncomfortable during that scene. Me, I think "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" the best pre-AIDS teen film of all time. It truly shows what things were like as the last of the Baby Boomers left adolecence.-----later----m
Aug. 6, 2007, 3:39 p.m. CST
by Neo Zeed
Watching these reviews made me realize that these guys were random as fuck. Siskel gave thumbs down on Total Recall, but thumbs up on Mortal Kombat? These guys were entertaining, but strange as hell.
Aug. 6, 2007, 5:22 p.m. CST
His thumbs down on LOTR is a good example. Fine, you don't like LOTR. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But it was WHY that pissed me off. It was not the acting. It was not the cinematography. It was not the directing. It was the idea of a magic ring. He just thought that was silly so he just dismissed the movie. What a dick. That is like saying "I am claustrophobic, so Das Boot sucks." I mean, review the movie, don't trash it because you are not a big fan of the genre.
Aug. 6, 2007, 5:43 p.m. CST
by Arch Nemesis
Thanks for the link, Mori. It's nice to put a voice etc. to someone I've been enjoying reading for all these years. :)
Aug. 6, 2007, 7:43 p.m. CST
There was no sexuality chemistry between Cruise and Kidman in EYES WIDE SHUT because their personal lives were bereft of chemistry. The marriage was a compromise (much like Rod Taylor and Barbara Stanwyck). Like it or not, Cruise hooked-up with a hotty everytime a tabloid challenged his hetersexuality (the "Oprah" routine was a chronic case of overacting: a total denial of his lifestyle). Kidman provoked buzz when she hung-out at strip joints (female strippers) with Naomi Watts. Unlike Cruise, she flaunted a panache for an unbridled lifestyle. She's cool. Anyway, I always thought Kubrick was an extremely indulgent filmmaker. Ever sit through BARRE LYNDON? It's a cure for insomnia and comparatively makes the disheveled EYES WIDE SHUT look like a Stuart Gordon masterpiece.
Aug. 6, 2007, 8:40 p.m. CST
souless, heartless, unfeeling asshole.<P> I could go on and on and on. <P> I spent the last two days viewing random reviews of films I enjoy and some that I adore. While Ebert pisses me off at times, at least he can back it up his critique. I mean to say, if you are going to review a film then phrases such as "I just didn't get it" or "I just didn't like it" should not be uttered from your lips. That's weak sauce. If Roeper represents the so-called common man, then I submit that the common man is emotionally inept. <P> Roeper uses those two phrases an inordinate amount of time throughout the myriad of reveiws he gives. <P> I just fucking had enough with his opinion concerning IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE. Fuck you Roeper. I can't fathom anyone enjoying his reviews or respecting his opinion. Fine, don't like a film, just don't blatantly advertise that you lack the ability to feel or see or understand. Idiot. How about some insight? Of the fifty or sixty reviews I have watched, this fool has yet to enlighten me. <P> Ebert and Siskel on the other hand, while some of their opinions frustrate me, I can at least respect or understand said opinions. <P> Roeper doesn't deserve the title film critic/columnist or whatever the fuck he calls himself. <P> Now that I got that pointless diatribe out of the way I shall read what I missed over the last day or so in this TB. <P> Oh did I mention that Roeper can go fuck himself? Moron.
Aug. 6, 2007, 8:44 p.m. CST
Good thing I didn't watch those reviews. Fuck Roeper.
Aug. 6, 2007, 10:43 p.m. CST
This is the best thing ever, but is there no way to browse all reviews?<br><br>It could take me years to 'guess' which 5,000 reviews are available.
Aug. 7, 2007, 8:25 a.m. CST
by Bubba Gillman
Was one of my favorite Siskel & Ebert arguments. Ebert gave it a big thumb way, way down but wouldn't talk about it, saying it was so bad there was nothing to talk about. Siskel then said "But Roger, we get paid to talk about it." Ebert said "OK..." and went on a two minute rant about why he hated it, ending with "...it's not funny." Good stuff (and Ebert was right, by the way).
Aug. 7, 2007, 8:31 a.m. CST
by Bubba Gillman
20/20 doing a segment on Siskel & Ebert. They were to do a sit down interview, but Ebert was late. When he showed up, he saw Siskel and said "Look, the world's baldest film critic." To which Siskel replied "You're late. I guess the lines were long at McDonald's." I think that's what's missing from the new version of the show. I don't mind Roeper that much, but it seems like these guys are too timid to go at it sometimes.
Aug. 7, 2007, 10:26 a.m. CST
There is the SLC Punk review with Harry but does anyone know the others?
Aug. 8, 2007, 9:27 a.m. CST
...whenever Siskel, Ebert, Roper etc want to exercise their territorial pissing ground rights they lamb-baste horror films; even ones it is clear to the genre fan that they had never actually seen. The only time it was acceptable for Ebert to like a horror film is when it was hip to do so. <br> <br> The old saying used to be; "Those who cannot do...teach." Well those who have no apparent talent at all, become critics.
Aug. 8, 2007, 10:31 a.m. CST
I might not agree with alot of the reviews, but its pretty cool that they are there for anyone who wants to access them. I just wish the site was easier to navigate with some way to browse instead of using their stupid search tool.
Aug. 9, 2007, 10:10 a.m. CST
Attack of the Clones. He went on and on about how bad the dialogue was in the Lord of the Rings movies and later talks about how great Attack of the Clones was an how great Hayden Christensen and Natale Portman were in it. Okay, so the prose and poetry based on J.R.R. Tolkien's work pissed you off. But "you're softer than sand" did it for you. I think he even said how much he liked the dialogue in Attak of the Clones. To this day my jaw hurts from how hard it floor when I heard that. Okay, Roeper seriously, either see both movies clean or see both movies equally high. And is it even humanly possible to be high enough to think Anikin Padme scenes actually worked on any level. I mean, is there any movie in cinematic history that worse lines than Attack of the Clones? And he thought those lines were better than what was in either of the Lord of the Rings movies out at the time. Sorry, but that officially lost all credibility with me with his realtive reviews of those movies. To say that Attack of the Clones is better than Lord of the Rings and it's the dialogue that makes it so...I mean what can you even say to that? Does he believe the Catwoman script was better than Shakespear's Hamlet?