Paul Heinz

Original Fiction, Music and Essays

Filtering by Tag: Accidental Tourist

Remembering Siskel and Ebert

The film reviews that Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert aired on various television channels, formats and names from the mid-70s through the end of the 90s are indelibly stamped in my memory. These guys had a weekly presence in my household, as my mother and I watched them religiously when I was a teenager, and I continued to watch religiously into early adulthood. I can actually recall certain lines verbatim: Roger, when addressing the criticism by those who felt that the 1988 film The Accidental Tourist was kind of slow, “You know what my answer to them is? ‘You’re kind of slow!’” When both Gene and Roger gave an enthusiastic thumbs up on a film, it got my attention, and more often than not I’d seek out the film. I didn’t always agree with them, but I respected them enough to give them the benefit of the doubt.

There was a brief moment when Siskel & Ebert episodes were available at the online archive atthemoviestv.com, with over 5000 searchable reviews. Sadly, Buena Vista/Disney-ABC dropped the site when they discontinued At the Movies in 2010. Years later, an unofficial fan-initiated site, SisketEbert.org, also went down. Today, it seems that the best way to view old episodes is on YouTube. Though not ideal, it’s terrific that people have gone through the trouble to upload so many of these episodes, and I’ve spent countless hours rewatching the show.

It’s mind-boggling to me that two intelligent people (though that might be the first problem) offering short reviews of new movies can’t generate a consistent following. There are a few podcasts I’ve listened to, but none are as appealing to me as the old format of Siskel & Ebert, who typically reviewed five new movies an episode, sharing clips before offering their opinions and giving their trademarked “thumbs up” or “thumbs down.” Yes, the film clips and the reviews got shorter and shorter as the pair transitioned from PBS to network TV, honoring new time constraints, but they were so articulate, fun and knowledgeable that they could communicate a lot in a short period of time. Today, I find so many film discussion to be too short or too long, too immature or too unrelatable, and often lacking succinct, intelligent observations.

It’s such a shame that Gene died in 1999 and that Roger’s health was so significantly compromised prior to his passing in 2013. An additional decade or two of Siskel and Ebert episodes would be such a gift. What would Gene have thought of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind? What would Roger have thought of The Big Short? What I’d give to hear them spar over Tropic Thunder or Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, or First Reformed or Spotlight. But we’re fortunate that these two offered their insights for a quarter century of movies.

The film industry could use another pair of film advocates with as much gravatas as Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert. If they’re out there, I’d love to hear about it in the comments section below.

(note: as if I needed reminded, I appear to be repeating myself, as I wrote a very similar blog entry back in 2013 after Roger Ebert dies. Eerily, I’d just watched a Siskel and Ebert episode two nights prior to learning about Roger’s death. This is especially eery given that last year I watched The Natural the night that Robert Redford died, and Spinal Tap II basically at the same time as Rob Reiner’s murder. I’d forgotten about the Ebert coincidence, but it does make me wonder whether I’ve got to stop watching videos of the living!)

Copyright, 2026, Paul Heinz, All Right Reserved