Vote for why you think it jumped
Death (Gene Siskel)
Never Jumped
Ebert and Roeper?
Roger loves everything
Sneak Previews became The Thumbs Up Show
Shark Bytes
This post concerns the "new" "At The Movies", which used to be hosted by Ebert and Roeper. Unfortunately, JTS does not have "At The Movies" as a title to click on.
As of the week of 9/1/08 - 9/7/08, the show has new hosts, Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz. Therefore this JTS falls under the classification of "New kid(s) in town."
While Lyons looks like a deer caught in headlights, Mankiewicz comes across as one of the smarmiest self-absorbed jackasses ever to feature on a TV screen. He needs to "calm down" those arching eye-brows and shave the fuzzy bits from around his perpetually sneering mouth.
They decided to advise viewers whether to "see it", "rent it" or "skip it". Frankly, I couldn't possibly care any less than what I do about these idiots' opinions. Even worse, the show now features an additional 3 movie reviewers, one based in New York, another in Boston and the third in Hollywood. These three represent the "Geek opinion", the "minority opinion" and the "ditzy chick" opinion. The addition of these three did nothing but prolong already unnecessarily long reviews.
Most hysterically awful was the addition of a counter. While Lyons stood in front of the counter, Mankiewicz stood behind it. Why? To throw in a bit of variety in the makeup of the set? I don't know. It was an odd setup and distracting.
Also distracting - the letter-box trailers are presented with orange striping above and below the box. Within the orange areas are "flying white streams" which take the viewers eyes off what they're supposed to be looking at.
Over the past couple of years, Richard Roeper suffered through many different co-hosts due to Roger Eberts health problems. As bad as some of those co-hosts were, none were anywhere near the share awfulness that the five new hosts offered up.
Absolutely terrible.
As of the week of 9/1/08 - 9/7/08, the show has new hosts, Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz. Therefore this JTS falls under the classification of "New kid(s) in town."
While Lyons looks like a deer caught in headlights, Mankiewicz comes across as one of the smarmiest self-absorbed jackasses ever to feature on a TV screen. He needs to "calm down" those arching eye-brows and shave the fuzzy bits from around his perpetually sneering mouth.
They decided to advise viewers whether to "see it", "rent it" or "skip it". Frankly, I couldn't possibly care any less than what I do about these idiots' opinions. Even worse, the show now features an additional 3 movie reviewers, one based in New York, another in Boston and the third in Hollywood. These three represent the "Geek opinion", the "minority opinion" and the "ditzy chick" opinion. The addition of these three did nothing but prolong already unnecessarily long reviews.
Most hysterically awful was the addition of a counter. While Lyons stood in front of the counter, Mankiewicz stood behind it. Why? To throw in a bit of variety in the makeup of the set? I don't know. It was an odd setup and distracting.
Also distracting - the letter-box trailers are presented with orange striping above and below the box. Within the orange areas are "flying white streams" which take the viewers eyes off what they're supposed to be looking at.
Over the past couple of years, Richard Roeper suffered through many different co-hosts due to Roger Eberts health problems. As bad as some of those co-hosts were, none were anywhere near the share awfulness that the five new hosts offered up.
Absolutely terrible.
I was also reading on the Internet only today that "Siskel & Ebert" will be going away. 
somehow that doesn't surprise me. I always enjoyed watching this show before Siskel died; and then Roger Ebert left too. I never watched it when Roeper was on it. oh well.
somehow that doesn't surprise me. I always enjoyed watching this show before Siskel died; and then Roger Ebert left too. I never watched it when Roeper was on it. oh well.
Well, as of today, Monday, July 21, 2008, both Ebert and Roeper are officially leaving "Ebert and Roeper." So I think even the folks who thought it was still a hunky-dory show after the death of Gene Siskel, after the rotating guest host parade, after Richard Roeper officially took over as co-critic, and after Roger Ebert's health problems kept him from being in front of the cameras for TWO YEARS (while the show continued to feature his name in the title), must surely admit that the shark has been well and thoroughly jumped.
Now they have canned the thumbs up/thumbs down for "See It/Skip It". As the song goes,
"Another one bites the dust"
"Another one bites the dust"
I'm sorry, Gene Siskel has been dead for 10 years and an unwell Roger Ebert hasn't been on the show in months and it doesn't look like he'll ever come back...so what the sam scratch is this show doing still on the air? Enough, already.
I've noticed that for some reason, either Richard Roeper is an annoying racist prick or not a fan of British humor in movies.
Has anybody noticed that he gave negative reviews to British comedies (with the exception of "Run, Fatboy, Run" and "Hot Fuzz") to "Death at a Funeral", "Son of Rambow", "Wallace & Gromit", "Chicken Run" and more surprisenly, "Shaun of The Dead". So is okay to love Judd Apatow-type American comedies theses days but not the Monty Python-type films.
I hate him, throw him in the water, he's Shark bait!
Has anybody noticed that he gave negative reviews to British comedies (with the exception of "Run, Fatboy, Run" and "Hot Fuzz") to "Death at a Funeral", "Son of Rambow", "Wallace & Gromit", "Chicken Run" and more surprisenly, "Shaun of The Dead". So is okay to love Judd Apatow-type American comedies theses days but not the Monty Python-type films.
I hate him, throw him in the water, he's Shark bait!
They truly jumped once again with a new segment called "Three Movies to See", instead of the usual recap of their reactions on those films,where the thumbs used to be.
Here they let choose whatever movie is recommending to see in theatres, my biggest gripe is how did Richard Roeper manage to recommend a bad movie called "21"? Is he an idiot? I rather watch a bad high school drama than have to sit through this so-called true Story. Since it stars Jim Stugess, Roeper actually like this and "Across The Universe", a butchered Beatles Song Musical that made me feel nauseous. I know he enjoys these movies but I'm sick of him, and he's truly annoying and how many times did he had to say "good performance" in any film, A thousand times? Give me more details in these movies!
Here they let choose whatever movie is recommending to see in theatres, my biggest gripe is how did Richard Roeper manage to recommend a bad movie called "21"? Is he an idiot? I rather watch a bad high school drama than have to sit through this so-called true Story. Since it stars Jim Stugess, Roeper actually like this and "Across The Universe", a butchered Beatles Song Musical that made me feel nauseous. I know he enjoys these movies but I'm sick of him, and he's truly annoying and how many times did he had to say "good performance" in any film, A thousand times? Give me more details in these movies!
Jumped when Richard "Idiot" Roeper hated "The Spiderwick Chronicles" this year but like "The Number 23" from last year. He's a moron!
Roeper is a hack columnist at the Sun-Times, where Ebert also works. He got the television show because Ebert decided that he did not want to do the thing with a film critic any more.
Remember the 1996 film "Primal Fear"? Roeper ripped it to shreads in an April 8, 1996 column because he thinks that it is anti-Catholic. He was also offended that it was released close to Easter. He wrote in the column, "If you're even a casual Catholic, you'll find "Primal Fear" to be one of the most offensive movies ever released."
In order to support his ranting, Roeper even quotes that noted film critic, the U.S. Catholic Conference, which gave the film an "O" for "morally offensive".
Enough said!
Remember the 1996 film "Primal Fear"? Roeper ripped it to shreads in an April 8, 1996 column because he thinks that it is anti-Catholic. He was also offended that it was released close to Easter. He wrote in the column, "If you're even a casual Catholic, you'll find "Primal Fear" to be one of the most offensive movies ever released."
In order to support his ranting, Roeper even quotes that noted film critic, the U.S. Catholic Conference, which gave the film an "O" for "morally offensive".
Enough said!
Jumped when Roeper was hired to take over after the death of the late, great Gene Siskel. He's rude, arrogant, refused to let Roger Ebert even finish a sentence (I'm surprised Ebert didn't deck him for his constant interruptions) and has the personality of a turnip. It's even worse now, with no Ebert. I understand that he is no longer able to speak, but the man is a brilliant writer. Roeper should be forced to read Ebert's reviews on each show, instead of giving his own, and keep up with the guest hosts (I agree - Wilonsky is great! but I also enjoyed hearing from movie directors, actors and other professionals).
Richard Roeper is good (although I don't always agree with him or Roger).
And I like both them and Siskel(who I 'also' don't always agree with).
And I like both them and Siskel(who I 'also' don't always agree with).
I NEVER send emails about shows but I tuned in this week and they announced that Rober Wilonsky would again be the guest host and I said outloud "great!!!" i like his severe stringency against Roeper's apparent glassy-eyed acceptance of many movies. it is simply refreshing to hear Wilonsky challenge and berate the movies for their bland nothingness. lets continue with them both as hosts, love it!!!!
Leave a Comment
