"At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

In 1986 Chicago newspaper film critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert took their movie reviews show, which had been local starting in the late 1970s and syndicated in the early '80s, to a nationally syndicated weekly program which made "two thumbs up" the most-wanted seal of approval in the industry. Gene died suddenly in 1998 from a brain tumor. Ebert did the show for about a year with a circulating panel of guest critics, including a couple filmmakers for special shows, and when the dust settled the regular gig was given permanently to Richard Roeper, another reporter from Roger's Chicago paper.


A series of serious health issues took Ebert off the air in 2006, and though he still reviews movies in print and on-line he's been left unable to speak so, obviously, couldn't do the TV show anymore. But the show continued and Roeper had an ever-changing series of guest critics and filmmakers on in Roger's absence. When it became clear Roger would never return to the air, the search began in earnest for a fulltime replacement. Eventually in 2008 it went to yet another Chicago-based film reviewer (the show has always been filmed there) in Michael Phillips. The "thumbs" were subtly retired months ago, and the ratings Roper & Phillips gave became "SEE IT", "RENT IT" or "SKIP IT".

But that partnership didn't last long when a few weeks ago Disney Television, the owners of the show, announced they would not renew Roeper's contract, meaning every link to Siskel & Ebert is officially gone.


Two weeks ago the new completely retooled "At the Movies" debuted. The format is similar to the tried and true formula Roger & Gene pioneered for decades, but it's certainly different as well. The two main critics are Ben Lyons, the son of critic Jeffrey Lyons who is in his early thirties and has previously worked for Nickelodeon, MTV and E! before this job, and Ben Mankiewicz, grandnephew of Hollywood legend Joseph L. Mankiewicz who has worked for Turner Classic Movies since 2004. There's also a segment with a panel of even younger infotainment reporters and "critics" who come in and gang-bang a movie - I wouldn't call these segments "reviews" as each of the five just gives a snarky comment or two before moving on - awkward, annoying and dull, for my taste.

To be fair this new "At the Movies" has only had two episodes so far without much time between the decision not to go with Roeper, and over time they may get better, but right now I find it nearly unwatchable. Disney obviously decided to skew very young, but I can't imagine that moviegoers like me who have been watching the show since the '80s will stick around for this mess. Even with all the imitators and pretenders, the format and show that Gene and Roger started was always watchable. This new show is just another pretender that might as well be on E! or even cable access.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

For anybody who ever wondered what Gene and Roger's relationship, which was often contentious on the air, was like when they were off the air, check out THESE OUTTAKE classics on YouTube. They had some great on-the-air fights on Johnny Carson's "Tonight Show", David Letterman's shows and Howard Stern's radio shows over the years as well.

http://amysrobot.com/files/siskel_ebert.JPG http://images.zap2it.com/20070511/si...debert_240.jpg

I somehow doubt we'll be talking about either the on or off air relationship of Bens Lyons and Mankiewicz twenty years from now...or even twenty days from now.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

I often watched the show growing up as I know you did too Holds and I'm sure like me at times you probably enjoyed their banter back and forth more than their movie reviews. I mean let's face it. A lot of the time their reviews went right over my head until they hit on one of those flicks that I still enjoy to this day, you know the ones. They have all those explosions and stuff.

I was pretty bummed when Gene died. He went so fast. And I could tell it really affected Roger. I think there was a rumor floating around the campfire that he almost stopped the show didn't he?

I've never really cared for Roeper either so I'll definitely be sure to skip this newest installment. Besides, I've finally found a source that I really trust so I really don't need to be let down by some "new and improved" At the Movies.

Anyway, thanks for the heads up.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

I just remember when Gene Siskel died, someone posed the question on the Jim Rome show, "Will they bury him thumbs up or thumbs down?"

I laughed. Hard.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

You have to remember that Gene came back to the show after his brain tumor surgery, but then he took another leave of absence and died before he could do anymore. He really seemed heroically brave to me at the time. I also remember that I started watching "Sneak Previews" on PBS in the mid-1970s. :cool:

I hope Holds likes this one. (See, those guys always talked with their hands. Plus they used to spend a lot more time on each movie. :cool: ) By the way, I give Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid (that's a :up: ).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBSswtkD-kA

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=17127

I've seen both episodes so far and I think Ben & Ben are doing a fine job.

I liked the new "critics round-up" that was featured in the last show.

I'm a little bummed about Roeper, as he was finally starting to grow on me. Took me a while to recover from his Thumbs Down of LOTR: FOTR. But I could not stand his co-host (Phillips).

So far both of these new guys seem to be pretty down to earth, and come across, to me, as more just fans of movie, rather than entitled film critics.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

Yeah, I'm so sick of snotty professional critics who have actually seen multiple thousands of movies and are good writers instead of just some dude telling you if he thought it rocked or sucked.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

Yeah well, I actually am Holden, so why don't you can the self-important attitude you lame forum arsonist.

It is possible to have your own opinion with out belittling another person's whose is different.

For God sakes you don't have to agree, but disagree respectfully.

You are always on here attacking people's comments and it really shows your true douche-baggery.

When you stick to just sharing your own opinion your posts are highly informative and well-written. Stick to movie critiquing over people critiquing.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

You trot out your douchebag and I'm the one attacking. 'Kay. Thanks for the example of respectful disagreement. Duly noted.

And there's no extra charge for that "people critiquing"! I'm happy to do it.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

I watched one episode, Tory Shulman from Reelzchannel's "Movie Up" (which is also bad) was in the round. It's lost all my respect...

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

Holds you may have to change your slogan from One Ornery Sumbitch to Lame Forum Arsonist, that's pretty good stuff. If you don't mind I may steal that one myself. That's classic.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

Best Holden nickname ever has to go to Thespian, calling Holden "Jollypants"

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

Well, this won't be a popular opinion, but . . .

Checking out what critics think about anything in life, is a waste of my time. It won't change anything. It's about me, my tastes, my enjoyment . . . and since their reviews aren't going to encourage, or discourage me any, there's no reason for me to see what any of them think. If I have any doubts, I'll ask a friend, and be done with it.


I'm so conceited!

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

I agree with you somewhat. I never read reviews about movies (or anything else) before I see them, but often I will read reviews after I see a movie to see what critics had to say about it. I usually check in with Ebert to see what he had to say, because really I just enjoy him more than most. It does not change how I feel about the movie, but it's interesting to me to see how their opinion compared with mine.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

God that was pretty damn funny, I'm just bummed Holds didn't give me some rep for tracking down Bill Murray singing about Star Wars and The Spacebar. I like to think inside my weird little head that I was the only one that caught the Bill Murray SNL picture and acted accordingly.

I'm pretty sure that the sun will rise tomorrow though so its all good.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

Rogert Ebert may not be able to speak anymore, but he can still write. Check out this cheeky response to an illiterate kid of the download age via the Answer Man section of his website...

Of course when I do it I'm just a prick. But then I don't have a Pulitzer.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

Yes, and you didn't write any Russ Meyer movies either. (At least, I don't think so.) :cool:

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

Yeah you gotta love Ebert. However over the past few years I really feel like he has lost a bit of his cynical edge. Just looking over his movie ratings there were way too many four star reviews. Also a lot of his three to four star reviews were rightfully rated lower by his site's users, where I think the majority of the time it should be the opposite. In a way I think it is a bit of a cop-out for him to only take stands against the obvious crap in the case of Disaster Movie, or seemingly obvious crap in the case of Death Race (seemingly obvious because it was mostly what he said it was, except that it was entertaining, all be it, entertaining crap).

What I'm saying is that I don't want to see a real treasure of film be subject to the influences and whims of Hollywood. If it sucks just say so, please don't make excuses for failures, and please don't except mediocrity even when it becomes the norm. The last major blockbuster I can remember him giving a fair denouncement was War of the Worlds, and Ebert, I think, is a pretty big Spielberg fan.

Four star reviews should be few and far between, especially from a man who should demand nothing but the best.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

Holy ****! How did the other MoFo's not get this memo!?! :eek: :eek: How on earth did you ever conjure up this FINE example of sarcastic humour?! :eek: The wit and intelligence you displayed in that post was just...wow. This is most unorthodox!!

Just so you know vondump, this is Pikey boy's attempt at an argument. :yup:

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

I too, used to enjoy the show. From it I could figure out if I would enjoy the movie even if they didn't.

Any other shows without Ebert haven't worked for me. I've found them quite irritating. I miss the old show.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

Holden, why are you spamming me with negative feedback?

If I am unwelcome on these forums just say so directly.

[EDIT] - Thank you for ceasing the negative feedback macro. You issued me so many bad reps per minute I could not even stay logged in. How you issued me reps for threads in which I never posted I don't know, all I do know is, that is called spamming, and I appreciate that you stopped.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

I can't believe this. I don't know what his problem is with you either, but you are most certainly welcome here, mate. Don't let people like Pikey boy get you down.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

No worries. He's actually doing it again right now. Whatever floats his boat. But honestly he wonders why I said he was acting like a douche. I don't know why he harasses people.

For some reason I got the impression this forum existed to discuss movies and share a common enthusiasm, not to badger and belittle people.

Why Holden feels justified in dishing out criticism, but unwilling to receive any, I do not know. Whatever though, I've other things to worry about. If it means that much to you Holden, you can have movieforums all to yourself.

Take care.;)

[EDIT] Ok , I guess the spam macro triggers every time I receive a positive rep, maybe, maybe not though. Just a heads up for anyone else targeted. Guy even spammed my blog as well. Sad and pathetic. Too bad; I always enjoyed reading his harvested posts. Enjoy yourself Holden.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

What the hell is spam macro? And what are you on about?

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

Hmm that's weird I check the post ratings damn near every day I haven't seen any negative rep for you....

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

If you are referring to negative rep, you said what you said at a little after 8 pm last night. The only negative rep handed out yesterday, was sweeney. I got home after 11 pm last night, and he was the only one on the list. I know for sure, because I looked to see how sweeney's rep spree went. He had himself a moment!

You can not be repped in threads that you were never in. You have to post in them first.

After reading this, I have to assume that the "macro" you are talking about, is the notification at the top of the board that says you have rep. If so, that is for all rep, plus and minus, from all members. Just click on it, and you will see who gave it to you, and whether or not it is plus or minus.

p.s. I always considered SPAM to be when someone was advertising their own things. Be it sites, boards, downloads, etc . . . Not simple messages sent. However, from the way you have worded this, I am assuming you mean comments, and/or PMs.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

It is strange indeed. I have at all times -229 reps all issued from Holden Pike and all the ones I can see were issued from threads where I never posted. I do not think he ever meant for me to see them because whatever the heck is going on it keeps me from logging in at the main page. Once the macro, or whatever it is, stops continually issuing me negative rep, my rep reverts to normal. Someone in the 24 hours gave me a positive rep, but if I click on my profile to see who awarded me and for what, all I see is endless negative rep from Holden, but my overall rep tracker remains unchanged.

Listen, this is going to be my last post on these forums. I made this matter public as a fair warning to everyone. It is very clear to me the poor chap has issues and I would just rather stay the hell away from him, especially since he lives in my hometown. Take your pills Holden, and stay away.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

Sounds like some kind of glitch. You only have 116 posts, Holden can only rep each post once. You should take this up with Yoda. Or don't, its up to you. Somehow though I seriously doubt he went out of his way to neg rep each and every one of your posts.

EDIT: OK, I just looked at the post rating glossary and you're not even on the list so either its some kind of system glitch or you're making this up.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

Yep cause we all know Holden has nothing better to do then give you negative rep.....

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

PW's right: you only get one rep per post, no matter what, so it's technically impossible for Holden to have given you -229 rep. He's given you exactly ONE negative rep. You only have TWO negative reps all told, leaving you at +42.

Sounds like you're simply confused about something, particularly in regards to your comments about not being able to log in -- the rep system does not effect basic forum abilities in any way, shape, or form. I suppose you may be trying to access the Reputation Tracker without logging in, which obviously would not display your rep, so I'm not sure what you're trying to do, exactly.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

After all the bellyaching I bothered to look it up and as far as I can remember I have negative repped him exactly twice: once in this thread and once in the New York City thread (and I used restraint and waited until the second unprovoked "douchebag" before I even reacted at all). But if he wants to imagine 227 more, that's up to him. You go, girl.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

It can only show you the last ten reps, and who gave them to you. I have signed in to over ten reps, before, and there was no way for me to know who gave me the extra reps, or to what posts they went to. We can only see the most recent ten.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

It's clear you are a tight knit group here, and there is little I can do to convince you my problem is real. I even have negative reps from 2006 and 2007 before I even became a member. Sorry Yoda, it's real and I am not the slightest bit confused about the reps or the log-in problems. Maybe it's a glitch, but I find that a bit too coincidental.

No matter, take care, goodbye and thanks for all the fish.:)

Nice site by the way, certainly one of the better movie forums on the net.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

The fact that we're "tight knit" doesn't have anything to do with anything. Please listen to what I'm saying to you: I logged directly into the database backend, searched on your userid, and you have only two negative rep points. Whatever other bug or glitch there might be, this is a fact.

As for whether or not you're confused: I'm not trying to put you down, but you must be, if you're insinuating that the rep issue has anything to do with your ability to log in. It doesn't. Believe me, I wrote the system myself, which is why I'd like to know if something's wrong with it.

I also didn't say you didn't have a problem, or that it wasn't "real." I'm simply telling you what HASN'T happened. I can't tell what has unless you explain it a bit better, at which point I'll be glad to investigate. As far as I can tell, you haven't really reported this to anyone or even asked about it: you just started hurling accusations around.

I don't know where the word "coincidental" springs from, either. Notice that you have a green dot under your username. This doesn't appear unless you have neutral or positive rep, and is the only way other members can see your rep. What's supposed to be coincidental about a glitch that only you can see, exactly?

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

If you would load the page that you see all of this on, and then take a screen-shot of it, that would help. You could simply PM it to Yoda. It's just a thought.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

After misusing the word SPAM mayhaps you should look up the word troll? Oh, and have a mirror handy, too.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

I had only watched their show occasionally, but I love Ebert's reviews and agree with most of them. Has he gotten less cynical? Well, I think I might be more warm and fuzzy after battling illnesses so long, feeling lucky to still be alive and able to work. It's cool with me. I still love what he does.

I haven't seen the new boys, but Ben M, from TCM, seems a little milquetoast to me.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

Never worry about what's popular--just be true to yourself. Me, I love reading reviews of movies, theater, books, what have you because you can learn a lot from experts in those fields--facts I didn't know about that production, items I might otherwise have overlooked. Plus I just enjoy a well-written news report of any kind.

And I have to admit, too, that I just love it when a critic really slams a film because they always put more imagination and emotion into a bad review than into a good one. Such reviews usually are both witty and funny!

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

Critic Ben Lyons gets many thumbs down

Here is the L.A.Times article.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...,3485043.story

Now can we bring Richard Roeper and Michael Phillips back.


In case this comes up with another poster Holden Pike is not giving -229 rep.

If you don't have your browser set up correctly while checking Reputation Tracker, you will get this display http://www.movieforums.com/community/rep.php.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

Yeah, I figured it was something like that. I'll see about fiddling with it to stop this from happening again.

Then again, if something like this is going to set someone off, and they refuse to explain anything about it or listen to reason, and instead assume that everyone is engaged in a completely pointless, convoluted conspiracy against them, then they're not likely to be the kind of person we'll necessarily miss. But still. :)

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

I still don't see where the guy came up with the -229 reps by Holden. There's always the chance that he noticed his mistake early on, but didn't want to own up to it. Who knows!?! I had actually forgotten all about this.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

I miss Ebert, he has pointed me in the right direction towards movies and directors I'd appreciate more times than not. I remember him placing City of God number 1 on his top ten in 2002, before it was released in 2003, and Dark City number 1 in 1998.

The producers of "At the Movies" have finally come to their senses: the Ben Lyons era has already come to an abrupt end. Bens Lyons and Mankiewicz are being replaced by established print film critics A.O. (Tony) Scott of The New York Times and Michael Phillips of The Chicago Tribune.

http://www.mcnblogs.com/mcindie/arch...ages/scott.jpg http://www.ebertfest.com/eleven/gues...illips_bio.jpg http://images.publicradio.org/conten...theater_18.jpg


From The Chicago Tribune...
------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Tribune's Michael Phillips, N.Y. Times' A.O. Scott take over 'At the Movies'; Ben Lyons, Ben Mankiewicz out
August 05, 2009

A year after its extreme makeover of "At the Movies" went over like Heaven's Gate, Disney's ABC Media Productions said Wednesday it is overhauling the Chicago-based syndicated TV program yet again in hopes of reconnecting with its respected past.

Gone are Ben Lyons of E! Entertainment Television and Ben Mankiewicz of Turner Classic Movies, the cable hosts Disney chose last summer to front what it called "the next generation of the series," in favor of a return to dueling newspaper film critics, Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune and A.O. Scott of the New York Times.

Both Phillips and Scott filled in for Pulitzer Prize winner Roger Ebert opposite fellow Chicago Sun-Times columnist Richard Roeper in the earlier incarnation of the program, which traces its roots to Chicago public broadcaster WTTW-Channel 11 in 1975, when Ebert was first paired on-air with Gene Siskel, the late Chicago Tribune reviewer.

The new pair will make its debut when the series begins its new season September 5 on ABC-owned WLS-Ch. 7, where the show is produced for syndication by Disney-ABC Domestic Televison.

"We are thrilled that A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips will be lending their well-respected and influential voices to "At the Movies"," Brian Frons, who oversees ABC Media Productions as president of daytime for the Disney-ABC Television Group, said in a statement. "They are regarded by millions of people as authorities in film criticism and will take the series back to its roots of one-on-one film debate that was established when the show first began with Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel."

Ebert and Roeper split with Disney last summer as their old show underwent several changes. Some such as a new theme song and set were minor. Others, such as the hiring of Lyons and Mankiewicz and including the input of other critics, were major. Very little of it seemed to gain a foothold, particularly with those who had been drawn to the original show.

Siskel and Ebert and later Roeper and his counterparts engaged viewers by talking about films -- both big and small, domestic and international -- in a sophisticated way that allowed them to share both their obvious love of movies as well as for spirited, well-considered debate.

Mankiewicz would escape much of the criticism directed at the revamped "At the Movies", most of which targeted Lyons, whose inability to articulate his opinions undercut his cinematic knowledge and critical skills. Too often Lyons sounded as though he were dictating a blurb for an ad, rather than giving serious counsel as to whether a consumer should buy a ticket, rent a DVD or skip a film altogether.

"We tried something new last season and we think the world of Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz," Frons said. "They did everything we asked of them and they have been complete professionals. However, we've decided to return the show to its original essence – two traditional film critics discussing current motion picture and DVD releases. We thank them for their hard work and dedication this past year and wish them nothing but the best on all of their future endeavors."

Phillips has been the Chicago Tribune's film critic since 2006. He has written about entertainment and the arts for the Los Angeles Times, San Diego Union-Tribune, St. Paul Pioneer Press, Dallas Times-Herald and the Twin Cities weekly City Pages, and also covered movies for Minnesota Public Radio, WGN-AM and MSNBC.

"I can't wait to mix it up with Tony, who's one of the sharpest critical voices in the nation," Phillips said. "To co-host a show with such an extraordinary legacy is a privilege and an opportunity. I know we're both humbled by that legacy, and we're eager to get people thinking--really thinking--about movies and to guide cinema lovers in the right direction. And perhaps some unexpected directions."

Scott has been a film critic at the New York Times for nearly ten years and been a frequent guest on PBS' "Charlie Rose", NPR’s "Talk of the Nation" and other radio and television programs. Before joining the Times, Scott was the Sunday book critic at Newsday and a freelance contributor to dozens of publications, including the New Yorker, Wall Street Journal, The New York Review of Books and Slate.

"I'm overjoyed and honored to be joining "At the Movies", and especially excited to be working with my colleague Michael Phillips, one of the most intelligent and wittiest critics around," Scott said in the announcement. "This show, with its long history and rich tradition, stands for the idea that there is a place on television for vigorous argument and independent thinking about movies."

Phillips, 48, and Scott, 43, have the respect of readers and their peers, but whether the new team enjoys the same kind of chemistry that Ebert shared with Siskel and Roeper and can engage in the show's old brand of lively give-and-take will be among the challenges in regaining the show's standing.

"I have the highest regard for both Michael Phillips and Tony Scott," Ebert said by e-mail.

Siskel and Ebert were anything but polished themselves when they made their WTTW debut, but that may have been part of their charm. The pair went national on public TV in 1978, moved to commercial syndication with Chicago Tribune parent Tribune Co. in 1982 and then to Disney in 1986. Siskel died in 1999 and Roeper was named his successor the following year.

Ebert had to leave the program in 2006 because of health issues that have robbed him of his voice, but his name and imprimatur remained with the program until the split with Disney last summer. A sign of trouble had surfaced a few months earlier as the show dropped its use of "thumbs up" and "thumbs down" as shorthand for a recommendation or rejection of a film. Ebert and Siskel's estate owned the trademark on the thumbs.

"At the Movies" will continue to employ the "see it", "skip it" or "rent it" ratings system it adopted at that time.

"I loved working on this show, every moment of it," Mankiewicz said through Disney. "It was an honor to continue a broadcast legacy not merely started by Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel, but created by them. No doubt the show is in good hands."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Are they going to rename it "At the Movies Classic"?

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

Good, I loved Michael Phillips, and wanted to see him with Roeper last year.

-sigh- So people around here still don't like Holden? why don't you guys deliver a real retort instead of this most banal form of sarcasm? An individual can disagree with you in any way he chooses, and until you get yourself ready to fire back or let it bounce off, you're setting yourself up for a rough go-around. I was once like you...offended by Holden Pike, but now I'm older. Those days are behind me, because I have no interest in proving myself just for the sake of doing so. Holden can mount a fine argument, he just doesn't use the SMG when a cap gun will do. In other words, if you're writing something on this forum, be prepared to defend it. That's the way we operate. You won't be flamed, but you will be called upon to account for your statements, sometimes. Think of it this way...you come here to discuss movies. If no one disagreed with you in a direct and engaging way, you'd have no impetus for real discussion. It would just be a bunch of people saying "I think this," "I agree," "I disagree," "Live and let live." There's nothing worse than a forum full of one-sentence posts.

By the way, Holden, I finally saw The Wild Bunch...holy s**t!

'At the Movies' conversations silenced

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/...8/55477806.jpg

This sucks. I really liked A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips.

Re: "At the Movies" without Siskel, Ebert & thumbs
 

Who cares who the put in that slot? I quit watching it a long time ago and the show is doomed. I never watched Siskel and Ebert because they were great critics. Neither one was a particularly good writer. But they had great chemistry together (actually anti-chemistry because their dislike for each other was always apparent) and their exchanges could get quite heated. They both had prickly personalities and the show was always about them and not the movies they reviewed.