This month marks 50 years since critics and A-list Chicago celebrities Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert debuted their movie review show.

The pair moved names and shows a few times in the over two decades they worked together on television, but to this day, the late critics define their very craft for all who have come since.

Siskel, then 29, was a Chicago native. He attended DeWitt Clinton Elementary School, at 6110 N. Fairfield Ave. in Chicago’s West Rogers Park neighborhood, and developed his passion for the movies as a youngster as he would walk up to the Nortown Theatre, an old-school movie palace at 6320 N. Western Ave.

Siskel attended Culver Military Academy in Indiana for high school and graduated from Yale University in 1967 with a bachelor’s degree in philosophy. After working on a California political campaign and a stint in the Army Reserves, he joined the Chicago Tribune on Jan. 20, 1969.

While Siskel started out as a neighborhood news reporter and a staff writer in the Sunday department, he saw an opportunity when film critic Cliff Terry took a sabbatical for a Neiman Fellowship at Harvard University. Siskel wrote a memo to the Sunday editor promoting himself as a single voice to review movies, and quickly became the Tribune’s film critic.

In 1974, Siskel expanded to television, joining CBS Chicago as the movie critic for Channel 2 News. Appearing regularly on the 5 p.m. and 10 p.m. newscasts, Siskel reviewed films, reported features, and conducted celebrity interviews live in the sprawling newsroom that doubled as Channel 2’s on-air set. He had a unique chemistry with the close-knit evening team that also included anchors Bill Kurtis and Walter Jacobson, weathermen John Coughlin and Harry Volkman, and sports director Johnny Morris.

Siskel also met his wife, newscast producer Marlene Iglitzen, at Channel 2.

Ebert, 33 when he was paired with Siskel, was a native of downstate Urbana, Illinois. He attended St. Mary’s Catholic School in Champaign for elementary school, and spent Sunday afternoons at kids’ matinees at the Princess Theater. As a high school student, he was moved by “Citizen Kane.”

Ebert attended the University of Illinois in his hometown, where he earned a bachelor of journalism and worked on the Daily Illini newspaper. He came to Chicago to become a features writer for the Chicago Sun-Times in 1966, and took over as film critic when reviewer Eleanor Keane departed in April 1967.

Ebert did not have a separate regular television gig like Siskel when their show started, but the New Yorker noted that he had hosted a series of Ingmar Bergman films on television in 1973. Ebert also went on to serve as movie critic for Chicago’s NBC 5 and later ABC 7.

He married Chaz Ebert in 1992.

At public television station WTTW-Channel 11, producer Thea Flaum paired Siskel and Ebert together for what started out as a monthly special called “Opening Soon at a Theatre Near You.” The inaugural episode aired on Nov. 23, 1975 — with Siskel sporting a large mustache and Ebert a moptop.

As quoted by Matt Fagerholm of RogerEbert.com, Siskel said on the first show: “The point of our show is to sort of be a news magazine about movies. We want to show you what’s playing in town, what’s coming to town, and also maybe take you behind the scenes and show you a little bit about the movie business.”

Fagerholm noted that the pair looked not like stereotypically polished TV hosts, but like the pair of journalists from the Midwest that they were. Their personalities were what stood out.

“As Siskel and Ebert discussed — and more often than not, argued over — the week’s new theatrical releases, they could be funny, temperamental, impassioned, and never less than achingly human,” Fagerholm wrote.

The WTTW show was renamed “Sneak Previews” in 1977 and went into national syndication.

In 1982, Siskel and Ebert left public broadcasting. “Sneak Previews” went on without them — with movie critics Jeffrey Lyons and Neal Gabler taking their place, and Michael Medved replacing Gabler soon afterward. Meanwhile, Siskel and Ebert moved to Tribune Entertainment and a new show, “At the Movies,” which aired locally on WGN.

In 1986, the critics made their final move, switching to Buena Vista Television for a new show, “Siskel & Ebert & the Movies” — later shortened to “Siskel & Ebert.” This final and most famous show was taped from the old CBS Chicago headquarters at 630 N. McClurg Ct., in the historic Studio 1, where the Nixon-Kennedy presidential debate had been held in 1960.

From the beginning, Siskel and Ebert offered movies a thumbs-up or thumbs-down (or, earlier in their run, a simple “yes” or “no” recommendation).

Not everyone was a fan of the pair’s combative approach. In the March-April 1990 issue of Film Comment magazine, as recounted in the New Yorker, writer Richard Corliss wrote of “Siskel & Ebert: “This is, shall we say, no film university of the air. The program does not dwell on shot analysis, or any other kind of analysis. It is a sitcom (with its own noodling, toodling theme song) starring two guys who live in a movie theater and argue all the time. Oscar Ebert and Felix Siskel.”

But as Richard Brody wrote for the New Yorker in 2023, the combative and competitive nature of the men’s on-air chemistry was the very appeal. He quoted Ebert in the critic’s own memoir: “Not a thought was given to our chemistry. We just had it, because from the day the Chicago Tribune made Gene its film critic, we were professional enemies. We never had a single meaningful conversation before we started to work on our TV program.”

This week, Screen Crush posted a list what it deemed the 50 best Siskel and Ebert movie reviews for the 50th anniversary of Siskel and Ebert’s pairing. Writer Matt Singer brought to life just how blunt and scathing the men could be, even when they agreed.

Reviewing the 1980 movie “Why Would I Lie?” Ebert said, “This movie is not simply a bad movie. This movie is an insult to the intelligence of everyone in the audience. I hated it.”

Siskel said, “Someone ought to punch him out. That’s the kind of reaction — I mean we’re both kind of violent right now — that’s the kind of reaction that this picture generates.”

Siskel died at the age of 53 on Feb. 20, 1999, after battling a brain tumor. He remained in his seat next to Ebert, and on the set at CBS Chicago, until the end.

After Siskel died, Ebert continued the show with a rotation of guest critics until Chicago Sun-Times columnist Richard Roeper took over alongside him in 2000. Roeper also succeeded Siskel as CBS Chicago’s movie critic for a while. Ebert and Roeper stepped back from the show in 2008.

Meanwhile, Ebert was diagnosed with thyroid cancer in 2002, and oral cancer in 2006. Surgeons cut out part of his lower jaw during surgery, and complications left him unable to speak, eat, or drink.

In 2012, back at WTTW-Channel 11 again, Ebert’s name appeared on a new show, “Ebert Presents At the Movies.” Critics Christy Lemire of The Associated Press and Ignatiy Vishnevetsky of Mubi.com took over as hosts, while Ebert served as co-producer and wrote a weekly segment that was read by former CBS Chicago anchorman Bill Kurtis.

Ebert died April 4, 2013, at the age of 70.

The City of Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs and Special Events is honoring the anniversary of Siskel and Ebert’s historic television pairing with a series of screenings every Wednesday this month. Screenings began Nov. 5 with “Eve’s Bayou,” followed by “Breaking Away,” on Nov. 12. A screening of the 1989 Gus Van Sant film “Drugstore Cowboy” is coming up Wednesday, Nov. 19.

On Saturday, Nov. 22, Zack Mast and Stephen Winchell will portray Ebert and Siskel, respectively, for a live performance with movie scenes, quarrels, and a live band. Channel 11’s Geoffrey Baer will introduce the event and the Tribune’s Rick Kogan will host a conversation between WTTW “Sneak Previews” producers Thea Flaum and Michelle McKenzie-Voigt.

On Tuesday, Nov. 25, the series concludes with a screening of “Lone Star” (1996).

All events take place in the Claudia Cassidy Theater at the Chicago Cultural Center, 78 E. Washington St.

Rental Family, 2025. 

Written and Directed by Hikari.
Starring Brendan Fraser, Takehiro Hira, Mari Yamamoto, Shannon Mahina Gorman, Akira Emoto, Paolo Andrea Di Pietro, Shinji Ozeki, Yuji Komatsu, Ryoko Osada, Gan Furukawa, Risa Kameda, Kana Kitty, Yuma Sonan, Nihi, and Shino Shinozaki.

SYNOPSIS:

An American actor in Tokyo struggles to find purpose until he lands an unusual gig: working for a Japanese “rental family” agency, playing stand-in roles for strangers. As he immerses himself in his clients’ worlds, he begins to form genuine bonds that blur the lines between performance and reality.

In Japan, there are oddball services that allow one to employ someone to play a role in their life or family. That’s the relatively cinematically unexplored concept of writer/director Hikari’s sophomore narrative feature Rental Family (the name of the service in the film), which, unsurprisingly, offers several ideas for further exploration. Some restraint and focus likely would have helped, considering that by the end, except for Brendan Fraser’s struggling actor who has made Japan his home, none of these characters are explored in any depth, and they merely serve as tools to manipulate the audience into crying emotionally.

It is somewhat maddening how often the film tries to raise the stakes from an emotional standpoint in the second half, as the whole narrative started to have the opposite effect on this critic and collapsed. The only element holding it together is the admittedly outstanding ensemble, led by a terrifically sincere Brendan Fraser, who is almost enough to overcome the structural and supporting character failings around him.

His Philip (who adopts a new identity with each client and scenario) is understandably apprehensive before joining the service, despite desperately needing work. This is a service that, on its face, sounds like it could be used for much more harm than good. However, his opinion is gradually swayed by the outcome of a façade marriage he takes part in, which allows the fake bride to run off to Canada with her girlfriend and live a life together, with her homophobic family under the impression that she is living in the heteronormative traditional housewife role that is expected of her. Yes, there is deception, but everyone is happy, and an oppressed person gets to live the life they want.

Philip’s next role is much more ethically questionable: a mother (Shino Shinozaki) with a rebellious daughter (Shannon Mahina Gorman, also fluent in English) believes that if she can reconnect Mia with her father, perhaps it will straighten her behavior out enough to pass an exam and be enrolled in a prestigious school that comes with several beneficial future opportunities. For Philip, the job is to be Kevin, Mia’s estranged father, who has a change of heart and returns to her life. Naturally, Mia is guarded, and Philip considers drawing the line before even taking on the job. Regarding the latter, that’s because the role involves the actor to make a promise that he will never leave Mia again, even though after three weeks and the exam is taken, the job will be fulfilled, and he will be inventing a story forcing him to return to America, essentially leaving the girl abandoned once more.

For as sweet as it is watching Philip/Kevin earn Mia’s trust, become involved in her schooling, and take her to places such as something called a Monster Cat Festival (a visually resplendent and colorful ceremonial parade, adding to the already existing beauty of Japanese sights and sounds on display) where the two of them wear themed-costumes for the occasion and paint their faces one can’t help but wonder why on earth the mother believes that this is a sound idea that might not potentially break their trust completely and leave her scarred down the road. Even if Mia does improve in school, what guarantee is there that it will stay once this false father leaves again, or, worse, she finds out the truth and doubles down on tensions between her and her mother? It is a baffling plan that never leaves room to get the mother’s perspective (her character doesn’t even get a name) since the narrative is centered on Philip.

That entails other roles Philip is fulfilling, such as providing company for a lonely, elderly actor (Akira Emoto), or becoming increasingly worried about the “apology” roles women find themselves tasked with. There are also scenes involving the various service employees and the ups and downs of their lives, as well as another subplot where Philip regularly sees and pays a woman to nurse his loneliness. And even though the film is critical of this service for some of the humiliating things women find themselves doing, the situation between Philip, Mia, and her mom is wrapped up too neatly, with the mother seemingly learning nothing and facing no fallout. This film needed to choose one job within the rental service and focus on that as the crux of the narrative. It’s also not that there is so much happening here, but that even with other supporting characters, the film feels the need to either raise the stakes or provide twisty reveals, forcing a response out of contrivance rather than organic storytelling.

The beats that Rental Family hits are wholly predictable; one can’t help but roll their eyes. There is a message regarding found family and the power of human connection that is admirable, and there is no denying the power of Brendan Fraser in this role (and the moving chemistry he develops with Shannon Mahina Gorman), but this is a story that is renting emotions rather than earning them.

Flickering Myth Rating – Film: ★ ★ / Movie: ★ ★

Robert Kojder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=embed/playlist

Goldbeak (trailer) is a 90-minute 3D animated kids film. Although it came out in China in 2021 (original title: 老鹰抓小鸡), it’s taken an unusually long time to get distributed, sometimes pretending that its year of release is more recent. It was produced by Liang Zi Film and Nigel W. Tierney, directed by Tierney and Dong Long, and written by Robert N. Skir, Jeff Sloniker, and Vivian Yoon.

In a world of mildly anthropomorphized birds, Goldbeak is an orphaned eagle who’s raised by chickens in a rural village. He wants to fly, but most of the villagers don’t help. They treat him as an outsider and eventually kick him out. Accompanied by his adoptive sister Ratchet (a gadgeteer genius), he makes the journey to the capital, the creatively-named Avian City.

Along the way he finds a mentor hermit who teaches him to fly. It turns out that Goldbeak is the long-lost nephew of the city’s mayor. Then he wants to join the Eagle Scouts, an elite flying squad, but their leading member hates his guts. The mayor turns out to have sinister plans…

Uughhh. This film has set a new low for me. It’s not boring, it’s not bad, it’s just so… horribly average. Nothing’s unpredictable. You can see most of the plot points coming from miles away. Even if you’re a fan of birds of prey, the story simply isn’t rewarding. It’s like it was designed by committee.

Still, the animation is fine, as are the many bird designs. There’s a weird irony that birds are operating large, technologically advanced aircraft. And I couldn’t help but notice that they built their capital city in a location devoid of convenient natural resources.

The reason behind the final conflict has all the subtlety of a Captain Planet episode. The ending battle takes place at night, so it’s hard to tell what’s going on. The antagonist gets two solid minutes to blubber about how he didn’t have a choice. (Screw you, you were willfully evil!) Don’t bother with this film. I have no idea what the quality of the English dub is; the copy I watched was in Turkish with English subtitles.

So on to our next feature!

Dalia and the Red Book (trailer) is a 3D animated kids film that came out in Argentina in 2024 (Dalia y el libro rojo). It was written and directed by David Bisbano, and produced by Vista Sur Films and Mi Perro Producciones. It’s done in a combination of animation styles, the most obvious ones being computer animation and stop-motion.

Dalia is a girl who wants to become a popular author like her father, who passed away some time ago. Unfortunately she suffers from writer’s block. On her 12th birthday, she finds her father’s last unfinished novel, a manuscript written in a red book. Cloaked supernatural creatures also want it, and Dalia finds herself captured and taken into the world of the book, while carrying the actual book with her.

Inside, the world is a sparsely populated, multi-tiered city. There’s some kind of time limit before things cease to exist. The characters either want to escape the book, or want Dalia to finish it so that the story won’t be stuck anymore. Most of the few characters we meet have their own agendas. Dalia has a guardian there, a cloaked, goggled anthropomorphic goat. Her father had written him into the book as a gift on Dalia’s 5th birthday. It was this character who first caught my attention, and was why I tracked down this film. Alas, he’s one-dimensional, if very cool-looking!

Other anthro characters include a portly owl, several harpies, and a daring she-wolf antagonist with two swords. Her design is extremely tall and thin – I wasn’t sure what species of canine she was, until the subtitles mentioned it. (Apparently she was based on Dalia’s mother, so maybe Dalia’s father was a closet furry?)

The film is a little over 90 minutes long, and like the she-wolf, it feels thin and stretched. There’s not enough story to fill it, so the pace is slow, and many things are left unexplained. Like… the rules of the universe, the she-wolf’s motivations, things like that. It’s too bad, because unlike Goldbeak, this really feels like the creators put their artistic hearts into it. But it needed more.

Ultimately, it’s a story about Dalia finding her self-confidence to write, overcoming her creative block. My favorite scene was a short one about an hour into it. Dalia and the goat briefly meet a creature whose author never fully developed it, so it keeps changing forms. Artistically it was neat to watch, if fleeting. The best part of this film to me was its atmosphere. The city really feels other-worldly, they nailed that! Otherwise I’m not sure I can recommend it, except to the curious. The copy I watched was in Spanish with English subtitles, but there may be an English dub? In the U.S. it may be available through Amazon or Apple TV.