This video is billed as “the darker side of Siskel & Ebert”, and purports to show their secret, contentious relationship — as you’d expect from any short fat guy/tall skinny guy relationship. But the majority of it is Ebert making catty comments when Siskel (who died in ’99) flubs a line, followed by Siskel trying to slur out a fat joke in response.  Siskel actually seems drunk during a lot of these.  Between that and him giving Ebert crap for giving Full Metal Jacket a thumbs down (!!!), I think me and him could’ve hung out.

Anyway, they may bust each other’s balls, but that’s to be expected. And in almost every clip they’re wearing matching, v-neck sweaters, which, if I’ve learned anything from videos on the internet, means they totally started Frenching as soon as the cameras were off.

[video via Urlesque]

This time of year there are way too many awards and top 10 lists for me to cover all of them.  But I’ll cover Roger Ebert’s, because he’s the opposite of Pete Hammond.  I.e., intelligent, credible.  Ebert splits his list into two parts, mainstream movies and indies.  Here are his mainstream 10 (from his Sun-Times blog):

(ordered alphabetically)

1. Bad Lieutenant (See? I told you.)
2. Crazy Heart
3. An Education
4. The Hurt Locker (Recommending The Hurt Locker is the easiest decision a film critic will make)
5. Inglourious Basterds
6. Knowing (Really?  Does this mean I have to see this movie now?  I can’t imagine it not sucking.)
7. Precious (Sad fatty)
8. A Serious Man (Why is this not getting a wide release again?  It’s the f-cking Coen Brothers.  If ever there was a way to bring good films into the mainstream it’s through the Coen Brothers.  God, I hate people sometimes.  A lot.  Usually.)
   
9. Up in the Air
10. The White Ribbon

Jury Prize: Avatar (I agree.  Just because the story kinda sucked doesn’t mean it wasn’t an enjoyable, memorable experience.)

That’s right, Nic Cage stars in two of the top 10 movies according to America’s top film critic.  In related news, my cat just downed a highball of whiskey, smoked a cigarette, and had sex with my dog while it rained lizards.  Singing iguanas, to be precise.

(Biff’s buddy can’t catch a break)

If you’ve been paying any attention to the film industry for the past year, you know 3D is the next big thing.  Avatar is supposed to be a “game changer“, Jeffrey Katzenberg says Dreamsworks will be all 3D from now on, and even Iron Man 2 was toying with the idea of 3D.  I’ve bitched about 3D being an annoying gimmick a few times, and my opinion is usually enough for me. But it’s nice to see a world-famous film critic agree with me, and now, Roger Ebert has weighed in.  (Actually it was two weeks ago, but who’s counting.):

Simply put, has anyone ever attended a 2-D movie and thought, ‘If only it were in 3-D’? I doubt it, because 2-D creates a perfectly effective illusion of depth and dimension. When I see Lawrence growing from a dot far across the desert sands, it never occurs to me that I’m watching a 2-D image. When I watch 3-D, however, I’m constantly reminded that it’s in 3-D. Objects approach and recede alarmingly, drawing you out of the actual film.

Characters seem more concerned to demonstrate their dimensions than their personalities. And, by its nature, the entire 3-D image must be in focus at all times, depriving cinematographers of the use of focal planes. The process is an annoyance and a distraction. [via Spectator UK]

Yeah!  What he said!  Though, in the interests of being fair and balanced, I should point out that critic Pete Hammond calls 3-D “the funniest innovation of the year!”, while Ben Lyons says it’s “the wave of the future, homey.”

(picture source)

(Pictured: Turtle, Johnny Drama)

Well, folks, our long national nightmare is over.  A year after ABC replaced Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper as hosts of At the Movies with TCM’s Ben Mankiewicz and MC Private School Ben Lyons, they’ve announced that Ben & Ben are out, in favor of A.O. Scott of the New York Times and Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune.

Mankiewicz would escape much of the criticism directed at the revamped “At the Movies,” [just as he will in this post - sorry, Mank -Ed.] most of which targeted Lyons, whose inability to articulate his opinions undercut his cinematic knowledge and critical skills.  Too often Lyons sounded as though he were dictating a blurb for an ad, rather than giving serious counsel as to whether a consumer should buy a ticket, rent a DVD or skip a film altogether. [ChicagoTribune]

This is a great decision by ABC, not that I ever watched the show.  And not because I think the only worthy film criticism comes from guys who work at The New York Times and use initials for a first name (pretentious much?). Otherwise I wouldn’t subject you to my own, professional dick-joke-maker such as I am. It’s just that if I am in the mood to hear intelligent film analysis, it’s not going to be from the spiritual cousin of Brett Ratner who likes club DJs and uses phrases like “homey” and “what’s good!!!” every third sentence.  eFilmCritic has a more detailed account of why Ben Lyons was a bad critic (raving about You Don’t Mess with the Zohan, for instance), but for me, him seeming like a tooly douche (or is he a douchey tool? discuss) was enough.  But don’t feel bad, you’ll still be able to see him on Good Morning America and E! News and Nickelodeon, doing whatever it is he does for many years to come, I’m sure.

Am I mean for picking on him?  Probably.  H8r numb3r 1, out.

Look, let’s get one thing straight: no one expects Transformers 2 to be classic cinema. Michael Bay’s best movie was The Rock, which is only good in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way, and this one’s a sequel of a film based on toy cars.  But having realistic expectations doesn’t mean I can’t still love the awful reviews as I would my own son.  Here’s what Ebert had to say:

“Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” is a horrible experience of unbearable length, briefly punctuated by three or four amusing moments. One of these involves a dog-like robot humping the leg of the heroine. Such are the meager joys. If you want to save yourself the ticket price, go into the kitchen, cue up a male choir singing the music of hell, and get a kid to start banging pots and pans together. Then close your eyes and use your imagination. [...]
I find it amusing that creatures that can unfold out of a Camaro and stand four stories high do most of their fighting with…fists. Like I say, dumber than a box of staples. They have tiny little heads, except for Starscream®, who is so ancient he has an aluminum beard. [Sun-Times]

I love when Ebert trashes something.  But I might argue that a “horrible experience of unbearable length, briefly punctuated by three or four amusing moments,” is actually a metaphor for the human experience.  (*takes drag off clove cigarette*)