September
5
Ebert Skips Telluride, Goes to Toronto
I'm feeling fairly wimpy knowing that Roger Ebert is going to Toronto and I'm not. (Here's Variety's tribute to the veteran critic on his 40th anniversary.) I cancelled my flight out of town a week ago Tuesday, but now that I'm limping around better with my hi-tech foam, velcro and plastic boot, I'm wondering, maybe I should go after all and park myself at the Varsity press and industry screenings. I've been booking other screenings to compensate. I'll make up my mind tomorrow.
Am I the only one not thrilled by the semi-permanent pairing of Robert Wilonsky and Richard Reoper? I know it's hard on the show's producers and Roeper to keep juggling new guests, but that's what keeps me watching--seeing how they all fare. Roeper has gotten fairly adept at doing the show, but he may not want to recognize that he needs someone who knows more than he does to keep him on his toes, the way Ebert did. There was always a bit of "how is Roger going to react to this?" in Roeper's reviews. The two men were very different, and that's part of what worked so well. (I'm missing the thumbs..Disney-ABC has been negotiating with Ebert, who owns the rights with the estate of Gene Siskel.)
Point is, Wilonsky and Roeper may get along famously, but THEY'RE THE SAME. They bring out the grinning frat boy in each other. They get a kick out of making each other laugh. But agreeing and getting along isn't good TV. You need tension, friction, drama. The other critics in the running were less comfortable on television, true, but I still would prefer the NYT's A.O. Scott or New York's David Edelstein, who is really funny. If they weren't auditioning for Roeper's approval, they could all take off the gloves and give him a really hard time. Isn't that what we all want?
Subscribe to this blog's feed
You know, if he were a little more educated in cinema studies, Kevin Smith would be the perfect foil to Roeper's nerd shtick. The director was easily the most confident, amusing and passionate co-host since Roger's departure... it was like watching Jack Black's character in School of Rock get the job.
I'd even argue that Smith's madman rave for Ryan Gosling in Half Nelson got the ball rolling to his eventual Oscar nomination.
Posted by: Crow T Robot | September 06, 2007 at 01:16 AM
Nerd shtick? Roeper a nerd? Hardly. If anything he's too macho, with the muscles and the tattoo and the sports-guy talk. But maybe that only comes through in Chicago where we know him from his radio show and other media appearances. (And his half-his-age model girflriend.)
Posted by: Cindy G | September 06, 2007 at 04:53 AM
Roeper is getting better at the job, but you're absolutely right, he desperately needs somebody else to shock him into some semblance of, I don't know, being a critic. It takes a little more than, "Yeah, I dunno Robert, I liked this movie, sure it was dumb and we've seen it all before, but I LIKED IT." Maybe they should expand the roster more, bring in some old cranks like Jonathan Rosenbaum, rotate Edelstein in more often, try some back-benchers like Dave Kehr and Andrew Sarris. But whatever they do, the producers simply MUST stop Roeper from referencing '300' every other week...
Posted by: Chris | September 06, 2007 at 05:51 AM
Kevin Smith would be awesome in the balcony, but God, if Ebert's not coming back--and obviously he's not--just put a bullet in the show all together. I gave up on the show when they started dumbing it down with shorter reviews, re-reviews, and other time-wasting segments. And Roeper is a dreadful "critic." The balcony archives on the website now are great, but just serve to remind how good that show used to be and how far it had fallen. Please--close the balcony.
Posted by: Webster | September 06, 2007 at 06:12 AM
It's awful with those two. Roeper has regressed to "Twit" status, and with Ebert probably not coming back (although it's great that he's writing again) the show's a goner if they keep Wilonsky. The two of them have no clue how lucky they are, and how close they are to throwing a fantastic gig out the window and going back to mediocrity. One final comment to Roeper, people over 40 don't use the word "dude."
Posted by: mitkid | September 06, 2007 at 08:16 AM
i'm deciding whether to attend toronto tomorrow as well. oh, who am i kidding...
Posted by: Alan | September 06, 2007 at 11:55 AM
I agree with most of the comments already. There are so many great film review/discussion podcasts/vidcasts (Girls on Film, Filmspotting, IFC News, Film Couch, etc.) that the Ebertless Ebert & Roeper show is unbearably mundane.
Posted by: Erin | September 06, 2007 at 05:21 PM
I'm with you on Roeper/Wilonsky. It's like The Lucy Show. Some things only work with the original formula, and even if it is supposed to look the same, it ain't.
Posted by: Colin Boyd | September 06, 2007 at 09:19 PM
Wilonsky adds some life to the proceedings but wears thin after, say, the first commercial break. If he's staying, sooner or later the show's coming off the TiVo at my place.
A.O. Scott would be fine. Worst case with him, the reviews are good and reliable. But Scott probably has better things to do, like being the nation's top film critic.
They could always hire Anne Thompson, in a triumphant return!
Or they could just reshuffle the deck and go with two other reviewers in a refreshed format. Say one from print and one from online.
Don't miss the thumbs at all. Thumbs down on the thumbs. Siskel & Ebert were the thumb guys.
Posted by: Glenn Abel | September 08, 2007 at 03:18 AM
agreed. wilonsky is dreadful. and, the two of them are just phoning it in. rip "at the movies", you had a great run.
Posted by: jon | September 24, 2007 at 09:14 PM