I'm 20, not even from the US and I've seen possibly all of the Siskel & Ebert interviews. I absolutely love the two of them- their chemistry is through the roof. They make me wish I was born at a different time.
If you're female as your name indicates, trust me you don't want to have been born during this time. The grass is always greener on the other side, but history was not good for women.
Oh wow. I grew up with Siskel and Ebert (I am 46 now). They completely shaped my taste in movies and maybe even who I am as a person. I lived in a rural part of the US and didn't have access to lots of indie or arthouse movies, but I learned about cinema through their show. Once VCRs became commonplace and video stores started popping up, Siskel and Ebert guided me to so many movies I otherwise wouldn't have watched. I definitely remember going to see Trois Couleurs - Rouge in the theater in 1994 based on Ebert's recommendation and it completely blew my mind. Their show was lightning in a bottle; they are irreplaceable.
I knew about Ebert because Wikipedia always quoted him under every movie and I almost always agreed with him. Now when I scroll down Wikipedia page of some film released in the last 10 years and don't see his name in Critical Response it makes me sad.
Get the HELL out of here! "Possibly all"? 20yo?!! I'm gobsmacked by your comment! It's amazing to contemplate but completely understandable due do the overwhelming response that the public has to viewing cinema..🤙
Siskel & Ebert were the Rotten Tomatoes of the 80's and 90's. Two thumbs up often meant box-office gold for movie studios and incorporated into advertising campaigns.
S&E were two of Dave's best guests. Ebert in particular was also a fantastic writer, and his reviews often contain really great insights into a film and why it does or does not work.
I kind of wish Marc Maron did reviews. Though I don't know if he has the personality for it. But listening to him interview actors and filmmakers, he always has some insight about the process and intent. I suppose the format he's in now is perfect for that because of the time spent and intimacy. I withdraw my wish.
Siskel and Ebert are always good when it comes to reviewing movies on TV and in the newspapers. They are great together. I'm sad that they're no longer around.
If it is legally and inexpensively permissible, somebody needs to create a Siskel & Ebert streaming channel. If they can stream Bob Barker's complete tenure on the Price is Right, then stream Siskel & Ebert.
If you have watched all the clips of Gene and Roger on Letterman they are hilarious together. Some of the best comedy between two totally opposite guys. Roger and Gene always had each others backs behind the scenes but in this setting it always appeared there was friction! Just great 180* opposite guys!
Sometimes you can tell if Dave is in to the guests or not. Here he seems like he is really interested in their points of view and if this wasn't on TV, could have lasted for hours.
I miss Gene and Roger. You always felt like you were in good hands when they brought you into their little movie world. And, let’s be honest, folks. It didn’t exactly hurt that they were a couple of gorgeous hunks too.
I loved watching Siskel and Ebert back in the day. They were smart and serious in evaluating film as an art form. Nothing wrong with expecting great quality in movies.
If you got a two thumbs up you had a great movie I actually appreciated their reviews and loved watching it and they gave you a greater appreciation and understanding of films
Gene makes the greatest argument for critics ever at 3:25. I wonder what the origin of that argument is, that's basically what I think. I'd rather see the film in the theater on it's own.
Funny that if a movie got a thumbs up we thought it was worth a look. Two thumbs up was a must see. The only critic I know today is Richard Crouse from Ontario radio and TV. I usually just look a IMDB ratings and they are usually close to my taste.
it's Too Bad about "One From The Heart" which was a collosal box office failure and is what forced Coppola to be a director for hire; Not Apocalypse Now
I miss Siskel & Ebert. If neither had anything positive to say about a film I didn't see it. I went to a couple movies they didn't like with my family and they were right they stunk.
It’s insane to me that Letterman was on the air when Raiders of the Lost Ark was a new movie. Raiders was way before my time, so it’s ancient history to me.
These two guys often got movies wrong (Usually Gene) but they did give us their honest opinions. We do not have "movie reviewers" anymore because the Big Movie Companies don;t want any negative press whatsoever. The talk show hosts tell you every new movie is "amazing" "wonderful" or "great". And they expect us to believe their lies.
What do you mean we don't have movie reviewers anymore? All major newspapers and many other publications employ movie critics. It's what Rotten Tomatoes is based on - movie critic reviews.
@@OMGWTFLOLSMH Do I Really have to say On MAJOR Talk shows/ Live Humans.. The Studios do not CARE about "Rotten Tomato" or "publication" reviews. The BIG money is in the guests on talk shows being hailed as magnificent to watch in the epic Comic Book Movie the studio just spent over 100MM making. Your comment is Unimportant to the studios. "Publications" and "online" reviews do not have the same VALUE to the studios as their puppets appearing on Colbert, Fallon, Kimmell and Corden.
@@Piggy-Oink-Oink But that's not anything new. The talk show hosts back then did the same thing - Johnny Carson, Merv Griffin, Mike Douglas -- they all helped promote the movies of their guests. Even Gene Shalit, who claimed to be a movie critic, wasn't particularly critical of the movies he talked about.
@@louisrios5546 Not exactly true. They promoted movies, Yes, but Carson had Siskel and Ebert on regularly and didnt censor them. In Fact you can find a Carson show here on YT where Chevy Chase is the guest promoting ":3 Amigos" and Siskel and Ebert here on the same show and they told Chevy "It;s NOT a good movie". There was more freedom back then to speak. You will NEVER see a 'reviewer" on any of today;s mainstream talk shows. They only promote they dont criticize. Any actor who bad mouths a big movie finds it real hard to get another job. There's just too much money at stake.
You are totally correct. One example is Leonard Maltin. He used to give honest reviews with his honest opinions of new releases on Entertainment Tonight. But then they stopped him from doing it and just had him do puff pieces on new movies.
You would never see a segment like that among the major talk shows today. 14 minutes of people talking intelligently about a topic of general interest? Forget it. Jimmy Fallon would have Siskel and Ebert playing Circle of Impressions or some idiotic game for five minutes and then cut to a comedian.
Perhaps having these guys around simultaneously with unlimited plans could potentially simply draw attention to movies even if they gave a movie a terrible review. It would I think cause membership owners of unlimited movie plans to want to challenge the judgment cast upon such movies by these two being that it would not cost anything more than the set monthly fee. I miss having them around they were great and I think nowadays maybe they would save the film industry by motivating people to get off their computers and enjoy a highly recommended movie or otherwise.
![Ice On My Teeth - ATEEZ エイティーズ 에이티즈 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 241115](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/c-n92OgbbwA/mqdefault.jpg)
I miss "At the Movies". Roger and Gene always saved a seat in the balcony for us!
I'm 20, not even from the US and I've seen possibly all of the Siskel & Ebert interviews. I absolutely love the two of them- their chemistry is through the roof. They make me wish I was born at a different time.
If you're female as your name indicates, trust me you don't want to have been born during this time. The grass is always greener on the other side, but history was not good for women.
Oh wow. I grew up with Siskel and Ebert (I am 46 now). They completely shaped my taste in movies and maybe even who I am as a person. I lived in a rural part of the US and didn't have access to lots of indie or arthouse movies, but I learned about cinema through their show. Once VCRs became commonplace and video stores started popping up, Siskel and Ebert guided me to so many movies I otherwise wouldn't have watched. I definitely remember going to see Trois Couleurs - Rouge in the theater in 1994 based on Ebert's recommendation and it completely blew my mind. Their show was lightning in a bottle; they are irreplaceable.
I knew about Ebert because Wikipedia always quoted him under every movie and I almost always agreed with him. Now when I scroll down Wikipedia page of some film released in the last 10 years and don't see his name in Critical Response it makes me sad.
Take note of what happens to film critics. That don't play ball. RIP, guys.
Get the HELL out of here! "Possibly all"? 20yo?!! I'm gobsmacked by your comment! It's amazing to contemplate but completely understandable due do the overwhelming response that the public has to viewing cinema..🤙
Just one month in, and Letterman was so comfortable here. Just an exquisite interview.
Siskel & Ebert were the Rotten Tomatoes of the 80's and 90's. Two thumbs up often meant box-office gold for movie studios and incorporated into advertising campaigns.
But they were much better than just some aggregate rating. Plus most critics these days seem bought and paid for.
I used to love watching these 2.
These guys didn’t pull any punches, when it came to the movies or each other. They made a great team. RIP Gene and Roger.
The best!
Um…
Dave was obviously very happy to meet Gene and Roger, and they became great favorites of his.
Thanks for the memories
S&E were two of Dave's best guests. Ebert in particular was also a fantastic writer, and his reviews often contain really great insights into a film and why it does or does not work.
I kind of wish Marc Maron did reviews. Though I don't know if he has the personality for it. But listening to him interview actors and filmmakers, he always has some insight about the process and intent. I suppose the format he's in now is perfect for that because of the time spent and intimacy. I withdraw my wish.
Listen to how quiet the crowd is... there's a ton of respect in that room right there.
Siskel and Ebert are always good when it comes to reviewing movies on TV and in the newspapers. They are great together. I'm sad that they're no longer around.
Awesomeness !! RIP Gene and Roger 😔
If it is legally and inexpensively permissible, somebody needs to create a Siskel & Ebert streaming channel. If they can stream Bob Barker's complete tenure on the Price is Right, then stream Siskel & Ebert.
There is a web site already that collects a large portion of their episodes as videos.
@@jedijones what is it?
@@jedijones Wel... We're waiting!
Dave connected well with both of them- all three flowed intellectually (smart guys).
Love and miss these guys so much
If you have watched all the clips of Gene and Roger on Letterman they are hilarious together.
Some of the best comedy between two totally opposite guys.
Roger and Gene always had each others backs behind the scenes but in this setting it always appeared there was friction!
Just great 180* opposite guys!
They're both just as quick as Letterman with a quip too!
Sometimes you can tell if Dave is in to the guests or not. Here he seems like he is really interested in their points of view and if this wasn't on TV, could have lasted for hours.
I miss Gene and Roger. You always felt like you were in good hands when they brought you into their little movie world. And, let’s be honest, folks. It didn’t exactly hurt that they were a couple of gorgeous hunks too.
I loved watching Siskel and Ebert back in the day. They were smart and serious in evaluating film as an art form. Nothing wrong with expecting great quality in movies.
If you got a two thumbs up you had a great movie I actually appreciated their reviews and loved watching it and they gave you a greater appreciation and understanding of films
$5 in 1982 is like $15.50 in 2023 dollars, according to the cost-inflation calculator
A box of Peek Freens is $7 here
You do understand that the economy wont grow if there is less money in the system.
Gene makes the greatest argument for critics ever at 3:25. I wonder what the origin of that argument is, that's basically what I think. I'd rather see the film in the theater on it's own.
Funny that if a movie got a thumbs up we thought it was worth a look. Two thumbs up was a must see. The only critic I know today is Richard Crouse from Ontario radio and TV. I usually just look a IMDB ratings and they are usually close to my taste.
it's Too Bad about "One From The Heart" which was a collosal box office failure and is what forced Coppola to be a director for hire; Not Apocalypse Now
Oh Time Bandits... Sean Connery Plays 3 separate characters.
I miss Siskel & Ebert. If neither had anything positive to say about a film I didn't see it. I went to a couple movies they didn't like with my family and they were right they stunk.
I think one they blew it on was Short Circuit. I liked it and the public seemed to like it too, but they gave it two thumbs down.
It’s insane to me that Letterman was on the air when Raiders of the Lost Ark was a new movie. Raiders was way before my time, so it’s ancient history to me.
How good Dave's show was during any given year was directly proportional to how bad his haircut was.
These two guys often got movies wrong (Usually Gene) but they did give us their honest opinions. We do not have "movie reviewers" anymore because the Big Movie Companies don;t want
any negative press whatsoever. The talk show hosts tell you every new movie is "amazing" "wonderful" or "great". And they expect us to believe their lies.
What do you mean we don't have movie reviewers anymore? All major newspapers and many other publications employ movie critics. It's what Rotten Tomatoes is based on - movie critic reviews.
@@OMGWTFLOLSMH Do I Really have to say On MAJOR Talk shows/ Live Humans.. The Studios do not CARE about "Rotten Tomato" or "publication" reviews. The BIG money is in the guests on talk shows being hailed as magnificent to watch in the epic Comic Book Movie the studio just spent over 100MM making. Your comment is Unimportant to the studios. "Publications" and "online" reviews do not have the same VALUE to the studios as their puppets appearing on Colbert, Fallon, Kimmell and Corden.
@@Piggy-Oink-Oink But that's not anything new. The talk show hosts back then did the same thing - Johnny Carson, Merv Griffin, Mike Douglas -- they all helped promote the movies of their guests. Even Gene Shalit, who claimed to be a movie critic, wasn't particularly critical of the movies he talked about.
@@louisrios5546 Not exactly true. They promoted movies, Yes, but Carson had Siskel and Ebert on regularly and didnt censor them. In Fact you can find a Carson show here on YT where Chevy Chase is the guest promoting ":3 Amigos" and Siskel and Ebert here on the same show and they told Chevy "It;s NOT a good movie". There was more freedom back then to speak. You will NEVER see a 'reviewer" on any of today;s mainstream talk shows. They only promote they dont criticize. Any actor who bad mouths a big movie finds it real hard to get another job. There's just too much money at stake.
You are totally correct. One example is Leonard Maltin. He used to give honest reviews with his honest opinions of new releases on Entertainment Tonight. But then they stopped him from doing it and just had him do puff pieces on new movies.
so sad what happened to Roger Ebert
What happened?
@@LagerLad1 he died from a horrible disfiguring oral/facial cancer, a few years ago
@@LagerLad1cancer.
I saw a vid where they showed them playing patty cake to warm up prior to their show.
Back when critics were liked
I wonder if anyone ever asked if they can watch a film without their critic hat on?
My wife does all the time, like a zombie, she stares at the screen, then gets up and goes to bed when it's over, offering no opinion.
The Steely Dan of film critics.
If a Disney live-action movie is good it's almost always by accident.
You would never see a segment like that among the major talk shows today. 14 minutes of people talking intelligently about a topic of general interest? Forget it. Jimmy Fallon would have Siskel and Ebert playing Circle of Impressions or some idiotic game for five minutes and then cut to a comedian.
I was just thinking this. This is engaging. People were just different 40 years ago. I prefer it.
$5 for a movie ticket in NYC 1992, it's $16.65 in 2023.
Both SorelyMissed
Perhaps having these guys around simultaneously with unlimited plans could potentially simply draw attention to movies even if they gave a movie a terrible review. It would I think cause membership owners of unlimited movie plans to want to challenge the judgment cast upon such movies by these two being that it would not cost anything more than the set monthly fee. I miss having them around they were great and I think nowadays maybe they would save the film industry by motivating people to get off their computers and enjoy a highly recommended movie or otherwise.
Was this their first appearance?
I believe it was … as far as on Letterman
PBS was the first to air them nationwide.
A whole $5 for a movie ticket. What's the world coming to.
I guess you've never heard of inflation. $5 in 1982 is the equivalent of $15.50 today. For a family of 4, that's $62. Not cheap then or now.
@@OMGWTFLOLSMH yeah him saying 5 dollars is cheap was a bit out of touch with the common person or lower income families
Minimum wage back then was $3.35 an hour, so $5 for a movie ticket then wasn't much different than what people pay now.
Wow, Gene was complaining about "Neil Simon and Disney live-action" which seems an awful lot like crummy rom-coms and Marvel trash today!
$5 admission!!!
11:35
i swear david is regularly bored to death with his job
five bucks
Yes, they were terrific.