Sad News For Fans of Movie Criticism

[Obdurate]

http://www.avclub.com/content/newsw...vies_with_ebert

At The Movies With Ebert & Roeper to feature neither Ebert nor Roeper

posted by: Scott Tobias
July 21, 2008 - 8:57am


The end is apparently nigh for television film criticism, at least of the sort unsupported by morning news shows. After eight years of filling Gene Siskel's vacant chair across the aisle from Chicago Sun-Times colleague Roger Ebert on At The Movies With Ebert & Roeper, columnist Richard Roeper has opted not to renew his contract, which expires in August. And since Ebert's persistent health problems have kept him off the air for most of the last two years, it seems unlikely that the show will continue in anything like its present form.


According to this piece in the Tribune, Disney, the company that owns At The Movies, was pushing to reconceive the show as something closer to Entertainment Tonight, with more of a focus on Hollywood movies. (Shudder. -ed.) It's certainly been no secret that Disney has long been unhappy with the syndicated show. Back in August of last year, Ebert decided to withhold the "thumbs up/thumbs down" ranking system—which he and Siskel had the foresight to copyright—until the company presented the show with a new contract. Roeper's inability to come to terms with Disney seems to reflect that discord behind the scenes. Nothing official has been announced about the fate of the show, but we wish the best for our friend, esteemed Tribune critic Michael Phillips, who has ably served as Ebert's semi-permanent replacement of late.


The presumed end of At The Movies comes 33 years after Siskel and Ebert started reviewing movies on television with the PBS show Sneak Previews. Whether such an enterprise will be viable in syndication again remains to be seen.


Update: Included in Roeper's statement were these lines about his future plans: "In the meantime, it is my intention to proceed elsewhere with my ninth year as the co-host of a movie review show that honors the standards established by Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert more than 30 years ago. I will be free to share the details on that program in the near future.”

I've grown to enjoy Roeper and I really like Ebert, even though he's not even on the show anymore. Still, I really enjoyed watching two critics argue passionately about movies. And I have spent a lot of time checking out the At The Movie Archives (click here: Ebert & Roeper).

And the part about wanting to turn it into another Entertainment Tonight makes me sick.

 

[Minor Axis]

But there's always Gene Shalit's movie reviews on NBC's Today show. Talk about someone being out of touch...:yuk

 

[Zorak]

I'm not with when it comes to television across the Atlantic

But I have seen the simpsons where a fat guy argued with a bald guy, is that a parody of them?

 

[Minor Axis]

I'm not with when it comes to television across the Atlantic

But I have seen the simpsons where a fat guy argued with a bald guy, is that a parody of them?

I believe it was. It seems to me that listening to critics is not the most accurate way of evaluating a movie unless, you know the particular critic and their tastes. In most cases it seems, critics hate many of the blockbusters like the orig Star Wars.

 

[Obdurate]

Siskel and Ebert were/are great critics and Siskel dying was a big blow to criticism. Ebert is still kicking but due to his sickness he is cherry picking the movies he watches, instead of watching everything he can.

Roeper isn't even that bad. He's grown into his own.

Good critics are able to eliminate their own biases as much as possible. Yeah, obviously everyone has tastes but Ebert especially, has been really good with telling you what the movie presents along with his own opinion so even if you disagree with him, chances are you'll at the very least learn something about the movie you didn't know.

The actual show that Siskel & Ebert made is brilliant. Two guys sitting on a movie balcony arguing/discussing movies. It entertains me to no end and it's educational. Now the show is going to be changed and "upgraded" and Ebert is understandably upset about the direction it's taking, because he felt that the simplicity of it is what made it work. And I agree.

 

[Natasha]

How will I know which movies to go see w/o hearing their reviews and doing the opposite of what they say???

 

[Obdurate]

I see a lot of people saying that and I just don't get it.

No doubt peoples tastes will differ from every critic to some degree but do you honestly just do the opposite of what they say? Like, does that mean you miss out on movies like There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men, The Assassination of Jesse James, Paris Je T'aime, Superbad, Zodiac, The Lookout, Gone Baby Gone or Ratatouille (among other movies... and I picked movies from last year just to make it easier)?

No disrespect intended of course. I'm just asking Plus it makes conversation.

 

[Natasha]

I see a lot of people saying that and I just don't get it.

No doubt peoples tastes will differ from every critic to some degree but do you honestly just do the opposite of what they say? Like, does that mean you miss out on movies like There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men, The Assassination of Jesse James, Paris Je T'aime, Superbad, Zodiac, The Lookout, Gone Baby Gone or Ratatouille (among other movies... and I picked movies from last year just to make it easier)?

No disrespect intended of course. I'm just asking Plus it makes conversation.

Actually, I don't read reviews anymore...but I used to do it that way. Truman Show got rave reviews...I fucking HATED that movie. Saving Private Ryan was hailed as one of the best movies of all time...also hated it. That's just a couple of examples, though. Usually if I read a lot of really good reviews on a particular movie (Forrest Gump, for instance) I'm disappointed that they're not as good as I expected.

So to answer your question...no, I don't really do that. At least, not anymore.

 

[Obdurate]

Ah, yeah. I just find the mentality strange, is all. Especially on a show like Ebert & Roeper when you got two people arguing about movies.

Personally, as I think it's obvious to tell in this thread, I'm a huge fan of good critics. And I stress good. Like, I love Ebert, even though I don't agree with everything he says all the time. He didn't like Fight Club. Well, he liked the first Act and then hated the rest. I loved it all. But I could read his review and I would be able to tell what I was in for, regardless. That's just one example. But as I've said in this thread, he's so good at what he does. Hell, he won the Pulitzer Prize.

But there are a lot of shitty critics.

I like Saving Private Ryan and The Truman Show, but I don't love them. However, SPR did innovate quite a bit. But I can get behind this sometimes:

Usually if I read a lot of really good reviews on a particular movie (Forrest Gump, for instance) I'm disappointed that they're not as good as I expected.

That can be a problem for sure because if critics really love a movie it really does hype it up a lot for you. It takes a lot to separate yourself from the hype, as well. I can do it sometimes but not all the time. But I'll take that chance cuz I love seeing people who are passionate about art, hence why I love Ebert. And Siskel.

I check out Rotten Tomatoes every week just to see, but the only critics I pay any real attention to are Roeper and Ebert, since Siskel is dead and all I can't pay attention to him. It's just interesting to me *shrugs*

Weiner.