Shark Bytes

I agree that Siskel and Ebert was the best combination. However, a shark jump was when Siskel told the surprise ending of The Crying Game and Ebert flipped out, when all you had to do was see that Jaye Davidson was nominated for best male actor not best female actor.

The show definitely jumped when Siskel died. I like Ebert just a bit but enjoyed him on the show with Siskel. Without his partner in crime, Ebert had nobody to keep him reigned in. Roeper is much worse than Ebert, so it really got out of hand between the two of them.

While I don't typically listen too much to critics when I'm deciding on a movie to watch, I always enjoyed Siskel and Ebert's back-and-forth. It was an interesting conversation more than a movie critique, in my mind. They enjoyed their work and made that clear in their weekly dialogue. I never got the same feeling between Ebert and Roeper.

First, it was Siskel and Ebert. When Siskel died, it became Ebert and Roeper. Now, Ebert's not even in the name anymore! I don't know what this show is now, it's merely a scavenger feeding on the remains of the Siskel and Ebert show. When Siskel died, it was all downhill from there.

So...Siskel and Ebert now has neither Siskel...nor Ebert?

Time to lay this thing to rest. Let's throw some dirt over it and get on with our lives!

Siskel's death hurt the show bad. I can see why people would criticize the entire idea of a film review show, but I always just found watching the two guys entertaining, even if I would really disagree with them on a film. And when they disagreed some of their little squabbles would be hilarious. Blue Velvet was great for instance, the argument on Isabelle Rosellini's (sic?) nudity in the film. The best, though, was when they would smugly dis bombs like Jaw the Revenge or North. I could see why this would bother people, but it entertained me. The show lost the element of competition, but based off of a deep underlying friendship when Siskel died. I barely ever see the show, even when Gene was around, but it is different, and Roeper is kind of a douche, but not in the funny way that Ebert or Siskel was.

Yes, I prefered Siskel to Roeper but I do still enjoy the show. Hopefully, Ebert comes back soon.

richard roeper is ubearably arrogant

It jumped when I heard Siskel died and then discovered he wasn't the fat one.

While I do miss Gene Siskel, I have to say that I have enjoyed Richard Roeper as his replacement. Roeper seems to have more of a B.S. detector than Roger Ebert, who automatically seems to flip his wig for anything experimental, foreign, or artsy-fartsy, no matter how good or bad.

Definitely when Gene Siskel died. I can even remember Ebert being interviewed about that and he was basically like, he's dead, so what do you want me to do about it? attitude (What jerk. A real horn dog, too...though there's not anything necessarily wrong with that).)

It had already jumped when the show left PBS. It seemed to lack something after that...a certain honesty or credibility.

I remember a friend of mine debating whether or not to see a particular movie and he said, "Siskel and Ebert didn't like it, but I don't know if I trust those guys." Pretty much whatever they hated I liked and vice versa.

The show ended for all intents and purposes when Siskel died. For me, though, I had pretty much abandoned it long before. Once in a while, while channel surfing, I might watch some or all of an episode occasionally. When I did, I remembered why I gave up on it. It was mostly because of Ebert. He would always try to make some dumb ass esoteric comment about the movie or some minor aspect that he considered a flaw. I got the impression it was to impress us with his superior intellectual understanding of what we were seeing (or not seeing) in a specific scene. Funny, as another recent poster pointed out, he was always quick to pile the superlatives on films created by minorities. They could do no wrong. Otherwise, Ebert always seemed to be on the look out for ridiculously minute, esoteric flaws. Siskel was more willing to accept the fact that it was a movie. . .dammit, a move!!
While I wish Ebert no ill will and hope for his recovery, I am glad that I no longer have to listen to his pseudo-intellectual B.S>

I always liked Gene Siskel.I never liked Roger Ebert. I couldnt understand why every single movie which had a black cast seemed to be an automatic shoe in for a great review from Ebert, including the ludicrously overrated Spike Lee, whom Joel Seigel once called the "Most overrated directer in the world." I agree with that, and Tarrentino is a close second. But no matter what the film, if it was a black cast, it automatically got great reviews from him. They I found out he was and is married to a black woman. Good thing he isnt gay, or every gay film would get raving reviews. Lets face it, after seeing Ebert recently on tv, he looks God awful. He is never coming back, half his chin is gone thru surgery. He looks hideous. Its finally time to put this baby to rest. Roeper and whatever guest reviewer joins him cant carry this thing anymore. Let it go guys.

I think the show jumped the shark with the addition of Roeper. I can think of no television personality who is more arrogant and condescending; Richard (and Roger, too)needs to deflate his ego. He is reviewing movies, not performing brain surgery

Whenever Ebert and Roeper. but particularly Ebert, let their political beliefs bleed into the show, it stinks. I think the whole notion of films critics is dubious anyway. They seem to always make obscure references and review ridiculously esoteric crap in order to show the average person how great they are in order to justify the fact they are making millions watching movies.

In movie reviews all what I need to know is where the movie falls in the categories of fun, facts, truth, entertainment, information, and redemption. This show never did that.