When I lived in Chicago, I quickly learned that there are essentially two Eberts: "television Ebert" (who really dumbs it down" and "print Ebert" (in the Chicago Tribune and elsewhere) who is far more erudite but reaches similar conclusions. I didn't start liking Ebert until I started reading him.
IMDB's "external reviews" links nearly always provide an Ebert link; his entire catalog of reviews is online, going back to the 'sixties. Whenever I see an old movie for the first time, I generally take a look at Ebert's review.
A. O. Scott (in the New York Times is a total moron. Good riddance.
March 25, 2010 9:53 AM
From ew, The news that At The Movies has been cancelled — a show that began its life under the title Sneak Previews on PBS in 1978 — is certainly the end of an era in the TV presentation of reviewing and criticism. And it’s sadly ironic that the show should be snuffed just as it attained two hosts, A. O. Scott and Michael Phillips, who are probably the most rigorous film critics the franchise ever had. (It bears noting that on his Chicago Sun-Times blog, Ebert has already announced he’ll proceed with plans for “a new movie review program on television.)
Two things, quickly. First: There will be a lot of wailing about At The Movies disappearing, but such protestations are like the ones that abounded when Conan O’Brien was ousted from The Tonight Show — i.e., it’s likely that few of the people who now regret the passing of At The Movies are actually watching it every week these days. Second: We shouldn’t forget that the show’s original hosts, Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel, were not always the lionized figures they are today.
"'At The Movies' is cancelled: A bad thing for criticism on TV?"
3 Comments -
As far as I'm concerned they should've cancelled it after Gene Siskel died.
I really like Roger Ebert these days, but back when we watched their show I always disagreed with him.
March 25, 2010 9:25 AM
Me too! I always agreed with Siskel. I never bothered with Ebert and Reoper.
March 25, 2010 9:33 AM
When I lived in Chicago, I quickly learned that there are essentially two Eberts: "television Ebert" (who really dumbs it down" and "print Ebert" (in the Chicago Tribune and elsewhere) who is far more erudite but reaches similar conclusions. I didn't start liking Ebert until I started reading him.
IMDB's "external reviews" links nearly always provide an Ebert link; his entire catalog of reviews is online, going back to the 'sixties. Whenever I see an old movie for the first time, I generally take a look at Ebert's review.
A. O. Scott (in the New York Times is a total moron. Good riddance.
March 25, 2010 9:53 AM