Great interview. I love that LONE STAR was one of the films Siskel & Ebert pointed Matt in the direction of. A formative one for me was LIVING IN OBLIVION, which they talked up more than once. That’s one thing I liked about watching the show. If they really liked a movie, they would bring it back up when it came out on video or when the director’s next film came out. They were terrific advocates.
Very much so. I got them early just because there was a show about movies. But they kept bringing up MY DINNER WITH ANDRE to the point you couldn't ignore it. And at that age it was formative even without seeing the movie because it was "so that can be a movie too?" moment. And I knew Louis Malle's name because of their reviews of ATLANTIC CITY so not only was it a movie, it was made by someone who made "real" movies. They expanded the idea of a movie for me at that age.
People debate who was the better critic and it worked differently for me. If they both loved or hated a movie, chances are it lived up to that judgement. But if they disagreed in a certain way that I can't fully explain and Siskel was pro, then I found I usually agreed with that assessment. On the whole, Ebert was probably the better critic but that's how it usually shook out for me.
I love Matt's comments about how the most important thing these guys did was just get people talking about movies. There was an episode from 1990 that I still remember because
1) They reviewed TREMORS, which got a split decision but which made my dad laugh hard enough that we went to see it that very afternoon.
2) The did an extended piece on aspect ratios that blew my mind. For the first time I learned that what we were seeing on VHS was not the whole picture. They clearly and articulately explained the issue of cropping and pan & scan and why directors choose to compose certain shots certain ways with clips from then-current LAST CRUSADE and my 14-year old brain just ate it up. Changed the way I looked at movies.
That's a shame that some critics level the reductive claim on Siskel and Ebert. They were the gateway drugs to films and film criticism; I can't even imagine a world that didn't have these two guys talking about movies.
I can still remember watching Siskel's final full year on the job, choosing Babe 2 as his best movie of the year. ❤️
What a great interview, and what a great book. I see Matt read the audiobook himself, perfect! That'll be my copy.
Yeah, I think in hindsight, complaints about the substance of the show are seeming awfully quaint. It's hard to argue that their passion for movies and film discussion hasn't been a net positive influence, despite the thumbs-up/thumbs-down binary later feeding parasitic enterprises like Rotten Tomatoes. I'm glad Matt did the audiobook, too. He really likes being on camera and on mic, and I wish we'd had opportunities for him to do more of that at The Dissolve.
I can't help but think that much of that criticism of their methods and their show was gatekeeping. They gave short, direct, critical reviews of new movies, championed underdogs, and educated people about the core tenets of filmmaking, all for free on TV. They were a lot of people;s first steps into the world of film criticism, and this may be a bold claim, but it's possible that the modern reassessment of genre film,for example, could be linked to their viewers and the idea that it's okay to like stuff. Ebert frequently said that he liked things that do something he'd never seen before, and that idea resonates with me. Show me something new and it's going to take more for you to lose me.
Like Matt, I don't remember the first time I saw their show, but I do remember their show being the first time that I realized that a movie could be good or bad and that, more importantly, not everyone agreed on that. So when I was excited to go to school to talk with my friend about Spaced Invaders, he was embarrassed to admit in public that we had gone to Spaced Invaders.
For most of my childhood, movies were just movies. You went to them, you talked about the things that happened in them, and they were movies. I had no concept of what made a movie good or bad, but their heated arguments about that very thing taught me that.
There weren't many shows like it, but I do remember one that ran late at night on Comedy Central, that did garbage movies. This was maybe in '95 or '96, but like Matt's example of how Siskel and Ebert pointed him in the direction of Trainspotting and Lone Star, this show pointed me in the direction of Street Trash, and their clip was the entire keep away game with the man's torn off wiener.
I'd like to take a stand for Men Don’t Leave, which is my pick for 1990's best movie (yeah, I ranked it ahead of GoodFellas, sue me).
It's a very funny, heart-rending (sometimes at the same time) movie that doesn’t shy away from the messiness of life. Very well acted by all concerned, especially Charlie Korsmo, who’s a natural, and Joan Cusack, who’s a hilarious oddball. Jessica Lange is no slouch either.
Loved this, can't wait for the book. Ebert was for sure my gateway into criticism and still to this day I try to go back and look for his review of an older movie. And as much fun as it could be watching them spar, there's something even better when they're both fully in love with a movie ie. FARGO, or GOODFELLAS, or even NAKED.
Great interview. I love that LONE STAR was one of the films Siskel & Ebert pointed Matt in the direction of. A formative one for me was LIVING IN OBLIVION, which they talked up more than once. That’s one thing I liked about watching the show. If they really liked a movie, they would bring it back up when it came out on video or when the director’s next film came out. They were terrific advocates.
Very much so. I got them early just because there was a show about movies. But they kept bringing up MY DINNER WITH ANDRE to the point you couldn't ignore it. And at that age it was formative even without seeing the movie because it was "so that can be a movie too?" moment. And I knew Louis Malle's name because of their reviews of ATLANTIC CITY so not only was it a movie, it was made by someone who made "real" movies. They expanded the idea of a movie for me at that age.
People debate who was the better critic and it worked differently for me. If they both loved or hated a movie, chances are it lived up to that judgement. But if they disagreed in a certain way that I can't fully explain and Siskel was pro, then I found I usually agreed with that assessment. On the whole, Ebert was probably the better critic but that's how it usually shook out for me.
I love Matt's comments about how the most important thing these guys did was just get people talking about movies. There was an episode from 1990 that I still remember because
1) They reviewed TREMORS, which got a split decision but which made my dad laugh hard enough that we went to see it that very afternoon.
2) The did an extended piece on aspect ratios that blew my mind. For the first time I learned that what we were seeing on VHS was not the whole picture. They clearly and articulately explained the issue of cropping and pan & scan and why directors choose to compose certain shots certain ways with clips from then-current LAST CRUSADE and my 14-year old brain just ate it up. Changed the way I looked at movies.
That's a shame that some critics level the reductive claim on Siskel and Ebert. They were the gateway drugs to films and film criticism; I can't even imagine a world that didn't have these two guys talking about movies.
I can still remember watching Siskel's final full year on the job, choosing Babe 2 as his best movie of the year. ❤️
What a great interview, and what a great book. I see Matt read the audiobook himself, perfect! That'll be my copy.
Yeah, I think in hindsight, complaints about the substance of the show are seeming awfully quaint. It's hard to argue that their passion for movies and film discussion hasn't been a net positive influence, despite the thumbs-up/thumbs-down binary later feeding parasitic enterprises like Rotten Tomatoes. I'm glad Matt did the audiobook, too. He really likes being on camera and on mic, and I wish we'd had opportunities for him to do more of that at The Dissolve.
Can’t wait for this book.
Speaking of LONE STAR and TRAINSPOTTING, did I see correctly they’re both coming to Criterion soon?
Indeed. 4K TRAINSPOTTING and new LONE STAR both announced for January.
I can't help but think that much of that criticism of their methods and their show was gatekeeping. They gave short, direct, critical reviews of new movies, championed underdogs, and educated people about the core tenets of filmmaking, all for free on TV. They were a lot of people;s first steps into the world of film criticism, and this may be a bold claim, but it's possible that the modern reassessment of genre film,for example, could be linked to their viewers and the idea that it's okay to like stuff. Ebert frequently said that he liked things that do something he'd never seen before, and that idea resonates with me. Show me something new and it's going to take more for you to lose me.
Like Matt, I don't remember the first time I saw their show, but I do remember their show being the first time that I realized that a movie could be good or bad and that, more importantly, not everyone agreed on that. So when I was excited to go to school to talk with my friend about Spaced Invaders, he was embarrassed to admit in public that we had gone to Spaced Invaders.
For most of my childhood, movies were just movies. You went to them, you talked about the things that happened in them, and they were movies. I had no concept of what made a movie good or bad, but their heated arguments about that very thing taught me that.
There weren't many shows like it, but I do remember one that ran late at night on Comedy Central, that did garbage movies. This was maybe in '95 or '96, but like Matt's example of how Siskel and Ebert pointed him in the direction of Trainspotting and Lone Star, this show pointed me in the direction of Street Trash, and their clip was the entire keep away game with the man's torn off wiener.
Sounds like a fun book.
I'd like to take a stand for Men Don’t Leave, which is my pick for 1990's best movie (yeah, I ranked it ahead of GoodFellas, sue me).
It's a very funny, heart-rending (sometimes at the same time) movie that doesn’t shy away from the messiness of life. Very well acted by all concerned, especially Charlie Korsmo, who’s a natural, and Joan Cusack, who’s a hilarious oddball. Jessica Lange is no slouch either.
Loved this, can't wait for the book. Ebert was for sure my gateway into criticism and still to this day I try to go back and look for his review of an older movie. And as much fun as it could be watching them spar, there's something even better when they're both fully in love with a movie ie. FARGO, or GOODFELLAS, or even NAKED.