As a huge film fanatic, it was only a matter of time before I started doing movie reviews. Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune and Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun Times were two newspaper journalists who had vast knowledge of movies and teamed up to create a mighty fine show discussing the latest movies. I draw most of my inspiration when doing my movie reviews to these two men.
I was too young to have an appreciation for movies when Gene Siskel was with Roger Ebert, so I watch their collaborations on Youtube and on their website. These guys do know their stuff, so if they say a movie is bad, 95% of the time it will suck. If they say a movie is good, 95% of the time, it will be rock. Whenever there is a review that draws disagreement to you, they provide concrete evidence to backup their feelings. So if you don't agree, you will respect their decision s saying why.
Gene Siskel was the younger, thinner, balding one who had a charm and always seemed very enthused and enthralled when reviewing. He died in 1999 due to cancer. Roger Ebert is the fatter, older one who seems to have more experience with movies and is wonderful. He died in 2013 due to health reasons.
Following Gene's death in 1999, multi-award winning Chicago Tribune journalist, Richard Roeper replaced him. Roeper did not know nearly as much about movies as Gene did. Why not get Gene Shallit or Peter Travers to replace Siskel? Roeper knw what he liked, but did not know what made a good or bad flick. After learning from Roger and watching hundreds of movies over the years, his knowledge has grown and he now knows his stuff. Roeper still reviews movies, but there's nothing better than Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert having fun discussing the latest flick.
I was too young to have an appreciation for movies when Gene Siskel was with Roger Ebert, so I watch their collaborations on Youtube and on their website. These guys do know their stuff, so if they say a movie is bad, 95% of the time it will suck. If they say a movie is good, 95% of the time, it will be rock. Whenever there is a review that draws disagreement to you, they provide concrete evidence to backup their feelings. So if you don't agree, you will respect their decision s saying why.
Gene Siskel was the younger, thinner, balding one who had a charm and always seemed very enthused and enthralled when reviewing. He died in 1999 due to cancer. Roger Ebert is the fatter, older one who seems to have more experience with movies and is wonderful. He died in 2013 due to health reasons.
Following Gene's death in 1999, multi-award winning Chicago Tribune journalist, Richard Roeper replaced him. Roeper did not know nearly as much about movies as Gene did. Why not get Gene Shallit or Peter Travers to replace Siskel? Roeper knw what he liked, but did not know what made a good or bad flick. After learning from Roger and watching hundreds of movies over the years, his knowledge has grown and he now knows his stuff. Roeper still reviews movies, but there's nothing better than Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert having fun discussing the latest flick.