Posted on 03/25/2010 6:48:06 AM PDT by Borges
The balcony is closed.
This is the last season of "At the Movies," the long-running syndicated review show made into a hit in the 1980s by dueling Chicago critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert.
The show's roots go back to 1975's "Sneak Previews."
Here's a statement from distributor Disney-ABC Domestic TV:
After 24 seasons with us in national syndication, the highly regarded movie review show "At the Movies" (formerly known as "Siskel & Ebert" and "Ebert & Roeper") will air its last original broadcast the weekend of August 14, 2010. This was a very difficult decision, especially considering the program's rich history and iconic status within the entertainment industry, but from a business perspective it became clear this weekly, half-hour, broadcast syndication series was no longer sustainable. We gratefully acknowledge the outstanding work of the program's current co-hosts A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips and top-notch production staff, and it is with heartfelt appreciation that we extend very special thanks to the two brilliant, visionary and incomparable critics that started it all, Roger Ebert and the late Gene Siskel.
Online reviews and aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic have made finding knowledgeable opinions movies easier than ever for fans, yet have also evolved the consumption of criticism in such a way that made the half-hour review show seem dated. "At the Movies" also never again found a critic pairing with the chemistry that matched the breakout pairing of Siskel and Ebert.
Tweeted Ebert: "RIP At the Movies."
Exactly. I only considered movies that they *didn’t* like.
How about Dinner and a Movie, is that still on?
The irony of movie criticism is that the most capable critics, who have seen thousands of movies, and know vast amounts of trivia about them, rarely agree with most of the public.
However, some teenager who knows very little about the movies, but knows what he likes, and what his peers like, will be a lot more popular.
As far as Ebert goes, the great big glob of tar that stuck to him was that he wrote the screenplay of the awful, dreck movie, called “Beyond the Valley of the Dolls” (1970). It guaranteed that if he truly panned a movie, those involved could point to Ebert’s failure as proof that anything they did couldn’t have been that bad.
They were too arty for ya?
You disliked the most acclaimed films of the last 30 years or so then?
Would you make the same argument with what medicine to take? Why ask a specialist...ask someone who knows what medicine their peers will like...
This is true. However, there are times when I go see a movie which the critics think unfavorably of and thoroughly enjoy it! It is all a matter of perspective. At any rate, will miss this show.
There is no monolithic opinion issued by ‘the critics’. You can always find someone who liked something. Most of the time.
Well Ebert just loooooved the motorcycle diaries which was a fond reminisce about the youthful experiences of that murderous bastard Che’ Guevera.
So did Michael Medved. You have to put beliefs not relevant to the film aside.
It was an interesting show when I first started watching it. The problem was I would go see the movies Siskel and Ebert were touting and found myself not liking a lot of them. Any European artsy-type flick would draw reams of praise from them. I remember them being enthusiastic about some dull French flick called “Diva” that almost had me comatose by the time it ended. But movies have always been mostly crap. Now the ratio of good to bad is worse than ever.
My experience too.
Name some of the "acclaimed" films please.
Id’ hardly call Diva the summitt of High Art. It’s shallow fun. Acclaimed films? There’s no shortage of them especially back in the 1980s and early 1990s when there was a more stable culture. Raging Bull, Once upon a Time in America, Schindler’s List...
Very true. From that man I learned to spot liberal bias, which is something I did not see before.
In films or in their reviews?
There has been obvious political bias in his reviews, but also in off the cuff comments made in informal settings. He is an extreme leftist who can’t just do his job without adding his own bias. That would explain maybe why foreign and other sucky films got thumbs ups when the viewing public disagreed vehemently.
And Foreign language films have never done well in the U.S. unless it's some schmaltzy piece of fluff like ‘Life is Beautiful’ or ‘The Postman’.
Not bad films. However I didn’t call “Diva” high art or even a good film, they did. There were worse films than “Diva”, but that’s the sleep-inducer I remember from the time.
I wasn’t crazy about it either. But in 1981 it was tre-chic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.