Every Siskel and Ebert Video Review Archived Online!

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 8/2/07 at 11:09pm

http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/ebertandroeper/#

ERGH! FINALLY!

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 8/2/07 at 11:20pm

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Ebert's review of South Park is hilarious! "IT'S SO MEAN!"

[StageManager2]

Posted: 8/2/07 at 11:52pm

Thanks, Cruel. Will check it out. I lived for SISKEL & EBERT every Saturday morning when I was younger.

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 8/2/07 at 11:58pm

Check out his review of PARENTS too. "Ugh! So dark and depressing!"

[StageManager2]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 2:11am

You know, Ebert's first assignment on the job was to review BONNIE AND CLYDE, one of my fave films. Pretty good job for a first-timer -- and I don't say that often. :)

[tazber]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 2:16am

I like Ebert a lot. I always found his reviews very populist.
I also tend to agree with Owen Glieberman and Lisa Shwartzman in Entertainment Weekly.

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 2:21am

I love Ebert and think he's a fantastic writer, but I rarely, if ever, agree with him. He takes things a bit too seriously and is too easily repulsed by violent and gory images. He's also unbelievably hung up on race, which really shows through in his DON'T BE A MENACE TO SOUTH CENTRAL WHILE DRINKING YOUR JUICE IN THE HOOD review.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 2:30am

I enjoyed his THE GREAT MOVIES PARTS I & II. I agree, Cruel, he does tend to take himself seriously, and he seems not to have an open mind about films.

[tazber]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 2:35am

What do y'all think about Pauline Kael? I know she is regarded as one of, if not the greatest film crtic ever. I always found a little too unforgiving.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 2:39am

Yeah, I don't really like her. She seemed to be the rebel critic, always slamming popular or praised movies. At least she raved BONNIE AND CLYDE, but the cynic in me thinks that may have been because critics maligned the film upon its initial release.

[tazber]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 2:47am

Whenever I watch an older film on dvd, I always check out some of her archived reviews just for curiosity's sake. She makes good points, but rarely agree with them.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 2:56am

Where may I find these archived reviews? I'm curious, too.

[tazber]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 2:58am

http://www.geocities.com/paulinekaelreviews/

[StageManager2]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 3:07am

Thanks!

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 8:42am

I rarely agreed with Pauline Kael, but I appreciated how she approached her critiques. She always gave you reasons why she didn't like something, and as Taz said, she made some really great points. I just didn't agree with them, usually.

I personally share Ebert's distaste for over-the-top violence on film, so I have no problem with relating to him on that. And his sensitivity toward race and racial issues might easily be due to the fact that his wife is black. I think Ebert is one of the best critics out there, because of his sincere passion and appreciation for movies as an art form. He has a genuine love of film and a huge amount of knowledge... whereas other critics come off as egotists that don't even know or care about the medium. As if they just started to watch flicks when they got their first paying assignment, and they've never heard of "those old movies" before 1972. I'd like to punch them right in their latte-sipping, trendy-glasses-wearing mugs.

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 8/3/07 at 9:44pm

Pauline Kael, if I remember correctly, first boosted NASHVILLE. Therefore, she is in my cool book.

I dunno. I just agreed with Siskel a lot more. He even liked the super-obscure cult film PARENTS, directed by Bob Balaban, which Ebert called extremely depressing.

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 8/7/07 at 4:04pm

Siskel ruled!

[Raviolisun]

Posted: 8/7/07 at 5:17pm

I tend to like Ebert. Roeper, on the other hand, is pretty much the spawn of Satan.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/7/07 at 5:51pm

Roeper is an idiot.

So are most of the guest critics they've had.

A different breed of latte-sipping, laptop-toting, pseudo-intellectual smarm. They think everyone has lived life exactly the way they have. Not one clue about human nature, film history or the elements of the craft their critiquing.

It ain't the same no mo'.

I didn't realize how good Siskel & Ebert were until I compared them to these other bozos.

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 8/7/07 at 5:53pm

Roeper is fine, he can just be a pretentious ass sometimes.