How Siskel and Ebert Got Their Thumbs

Welcome back to the Bulwark goes to Hollywood. My name is Sunny bunch culture editor at the Bulwark. And I’m very pleased to be joined today by Matt Singer. Now Matt Singer is the author of opposable thumbs, how Sysco and Ebert changed movies, forever. He is the editor and film critic of screencrush dot com, a member of the New York film critic circle, Thanks for being on the show.

My pleasure. Thanks for talking to me.

So, Matt, I I wanted to talk to you about, the ways in which Cisco and Ebert, kinda changed film criticism, how we talk about film criticism, how they became the most famous film critics, arguably of all time. And one very specific way, that all kinda came about was a structural thing that they brought to the game that nobody else could television. The introduction of film clips in a world before YouTube and a world before, you know, electronic press kits, really. They they were giving audience is something that they simply could not get anywhere else.

That’s right. That’s absolutely yeah. The the end, you did it. You summed it all up. Now, I don’t have to say anything.

You’re Excellent. Yeah. Alright. Next question. No.

I mean, they really they absolutely were innovators in in different ways, but in that sense, yes. The the the the the sea change that they brought by doing those things which seems so obvious and simple now. Clips, scenes from movies. You know, it is I think it is For a younger listener who’s listening to us talk going, yeah, I can watch I can look at a trailer on my phone right now. What’s What what’s the big deal?

You have to envision a world, you know, pre YouTube, pre Google, pre internet, pre personal computers, it was it was literally another another universe, another era. And so at that time, which when they started, we’re talking about the mid nineteen seventies. You know, there is there are film critics on TV, but it’s it’s one person, you know, sitting at the news desk got the on the nightly news or whatever saying the this week opening at the local theater is jaws, and it’s a good movie. And and thank you very much. And back to you, John, you know, that sort of thing.

What they did was they made it a conversation, a debate an argument very often, and they did add this element of clips. And again, you know, we’re we live in this era where If one of us wants to make a a a visual review of something, we’ve got to use the clips that the studio is providing for us via an electronic press kit. That’s what they’re called. They studio send it out. You gotta use these clips.

That’s barely existed at the time if at all, and so they were in a process that’s mind boggling to consider now. They were taking the physical film prints, which is another aspect that is totally different now. The the films were films. They were projected on celluloid, And they would have to take the, the reels of thirty five millimeter film. These twenty something odd pound cans of film, lug them, from a from a screening room or a movie theater and copy just the scenes that they wanted to use on the show.

But that gave the show this huge selling point and advantage and that if you tuned in, you were going to get to see clips from the the movies that you probably weren’t going to see anywhere else. And they were making the show better in the process because it wasn’t just them saying, well, this is a good movie and I love the cinematography. They were saying, this is a good movie, and I love the cinematography. Look at how they use the camera in this scene. Look at the lighting.

Look at the way that they’re using the camera tell the story here. You know what I mean? It brought that side of things that a print critic. No. The the greatest print critic in the world, and there’s many great print critics throughout history.

They can’t throw to a clip in that way. And, that really was a huge deal. And I think very influential And even if the show is no longer on the air, I’m we can all think of how that concept has filtered out into the world that we still live in today.

In the studios kind of hated this, right? They they were not necessarily, fond of the idea of these two guys just going in and, you know, getting whatever they could until they until they realized maybe they could use it to their advantage.

I would say the studios had a very complicated relationship with this show and these gentlemen. Yes. On the one hand, they loved when they liked a movie because, as the show grew, them liking a movie was an incredible selling point. Obviously, two thumbs up became the ultimate, you know, the good housekeeping seal of approval for that era. I mean, that was shown on countless movie ads for the movies they liked.

On the other hand, if they didn’t like a movie, they had a very large megaphone that they were using to say that. And there’s stories, and I get into one or two of them in the book of studios banning Cisco and Ebert because they didn’t like what they had said about this movie or that movie. But ultimately, they kind of the the potential for the good press outweighed, I suppose, the negative impact on any one film the fact that they the studios were always hoping the next one’s gonna get two thumbs up and so they would they would play ball with them. In terms of the whole aspect of, you know, clips, using clips. Yeah, over time, that went away.

And even Sysco and Ebert started using the clips that they were shown or given by the studios in electronic press kits. But what they would sometimes do is if the studios didn’t give them clips they wanted, wouldn’t let them show anything beyond one or two things. They would say we wanted to show you a scene from this movie. That did this or that. They wouldn’t let us.

You think what it means that the studio refuses to let us show a scene from this movie. You know what I mean? Like, they would they could flip that to their advantage as well. So, you know, yes. Did the studio sometimes were they sometimes driven crazy by these guys?

Yes. Did they use the show to their own advantage other times? Absolutely.

Speaking of complicated relation ships. We should talk about, Sysco and Ebert’s actual relationship with each other. And I, you know, look, I learned a lot in this book about the two of them certainly before they they became writers and TV stars, but also about their relationship with each other, which, you know, was always like, it was always a thing that people would say, well, do you guys really hate each other? And the answer to that is kind of complicated, at least at first.

Maybe it’s not so complicated at first. Maybe they just actually hated each other at first. I think later it did get complicated. I do think in the beginning, it was not a it was not a positive, relationship. You know, it wasn’t like they, you know, it’s the the show that I grew up watching and that we mostly just call it now as Sysco and Ebert, you know, as if as if, these were the guys and they took it upon themselves to create the show celebrating them, but that was not the case.

They were partnered together by the Chicago, public television station, w t t w. The the people there wanted to put them together. They did not especially like that arrangement, especially in the beginning. They didn’t like each other. They, they, frankly, they couldn’t stand each other in the beginning.

You know, they, Roger, Ebert would write about how you know, he started a couple of years before Jean in the late sixties as a as the film critic for the Sun Times. And he would say that from you know, like sixty nine when Sysco got the job to nineteen seventy five when they started the show, they didn’t talk to each other. They like never exchanged a word even though they were going to the same press screenings and covering all the same press events for movies in Chicago, and it was just because they had this intense sort of that’s the guy who was trying to scoop me. He was trying to get my interview. He was trying you know, they they just had this innate competition with one another.

And so they just did not get along at first. And then over time, as the show got better and became more popular, and they they got better at doing the show, and they started to make some money doing the show and become famous doing the show. I think they, you know, gradually did, come to respect one another, to like each other, to really even kind of love one another in on some level. But that also didn’t mean that they still couldn’t piss each other off, which they continued to do. Like, the the the stories of them angering each other, pranking one another, you know, driving each other crazy, those would would continue.

You know, they always called themselves, you know, like, or compared themselves to a sibling rivalry. And I honestly don’t know at this point if I ever wrote that in the book because they they did it so much. I I kind of was resistant to talking about it. Like, I didn’t wanna just describe it that way, but I have two kids of my own. And, when I see the way they relate to one each to each other, it reminds me of the Sysco and Ebert so much in the way that they can work together so well.

They do love each other. And they can be very close and they are the most competitive people on the face of the earth. If one perceives that the other is getting some sort of perk You got one more chocolate chip in your cookie than I did. That becomes the most the the biggest fight of their lives. And it’s exactly how when you talk to people who worked with Jean and Roger, that’s exactly how they were about going on talk shows.

And, you know, all of the sort of tit for tat that went with doing their show. Everything had be equal. Everything had to be fair. They would fight over couch cushions. They would fight over the, you know, like, oh, because you know, on television, everyone has to look basically the same height and Roger was shorter than Jean.

So they gave Roger a like a cushion to sit on. But that’s not fair. Why does Roger get a cushion and Jean does not get a cushion? So they had to give Jean a cushion too. But then they they wouldn’t be the same size.

So Roger got a bigger cushion and Jean got a smaller cushion. And that way, they could be equal. And I mean, that is something my kids would absolutely do. They would completely do something like that.

One hundred percent. As as the father of two children myself, I can say with certainty, The the one the weirdest way this shows up is when one gets punished, because one will be punished, and then the other will immediately start taunting the first about being punished, and then they will be punished and then they are equal again, but in a in a much worse, much more negative sort of way. So the the the relationship they with each other is obviously incredibly important, but also the relationship they have with the audience. And and there are two I I mean, that in two distinct sort of ways here. Not only, the facts and this was fascinating.

I I hadn’t realized, I guess I kind of knew this at the time, but I hadn’t really thought about it. Both the ways in which, when they would leave, one of their shows, the the people who own the show would try to keep it running, to, you know, mix success. We could talk about that. But also the relationship they had to their audience and, what they owed the audience versus what they owed studios and filmmakers, which is roughly nothing. Like, they they did not feel in hoc to the studios.

And the audiences. Let’s talk first about let’s talk first about how the shows, came to be built in each of their in each of the three distinct iterations and what happened to the first two after they left. And then, and then a little bit more about the relationship with the audience.

Sure. So, yeah. I mean, these days, I think when you say Sysco and Ebert, it’s sort of you just envision this kind of, like, you know, this one show. But, actually, it was three different shows with multiple titles. And they basically, they remain the same and they would move from show to show each time.

So, you know, they were brought in to start this show, which originally aired in the very beginning as opening soon at a theater near you. Just rolls right off the tongue. That was the original incarnation of the show at at PBS in Chicago. And then within a year or two, they changed the name to sneak previews mostly because it was snappier, quicker. It was easy to remember.

It fit in the TV guide section of the local newspaper, which was hugely important at the time. Otherwise, it would say like opening soon dot dot dot And, like, what does that even mean? Nobody really would would know. So then it became sneak previews. And then after a few more years in the early eighties, was when they jumped to syndication.

And the first show that they had in syndication was called at the movies with Jean Sysco and Roger Eber. Never the other order. It was always Jean Sysco and Roger Ebert, and that was a bone of contention, of course. But, yes, sneak previews continued on. The show didn’t end.

They left the show. And then they jumped ship. Again, a few years later after their contract with Tribune expired to Buena Vista, which was the syndication arm of Disney. And that was where first it was Sysco and Ebert and the movies. When they first started for, I believe, just one year.

And then by that point, I think everyone realized we’re watching the show as much for the guys as for the movies. And so they just dropped the movies and it became Sysco and Ebert until the end of the show, which was in the very late nineties. But yeah, every time the show every time they left, the show would the theoretically, the show would continue. You know, they would bring in new hosts. And, you know, sneak previews continued for a long time.

I believe it was on the air longer without Jean and Roger than it was them because it continued until, like, I believe the early nineties. With Jeffrey Lions and, Neil Gaebeler, And, and then I think Michael Medved, or maybe I’m getting the order of who replaced who they’re mistaken. But, yeah, it was on for quite a while. Never had sort of the same impact, but it remained. And and when they left at the movies, they were replaced at that show as well.

Tribune continued that show, not for very long. I think for, just a handful of years. And, yeah, it was it it it’s it’s hard to believe that at one point, people, film talking on television, there were enough shows like that on TV that it was like a subgenre. Yep. And all of these shows were being made in Chicago, not in New York and LA.

It’s a very bizarre and fascinating time.

It is it’s kind of wild to think about now. And and you do see I look, I I’m skipping ahead a little bit here. I I am wondering if I wonder if, what do you make of the explosion of YouTube critics and, you know, the the, no none of them are as individually as popular as a and Ebert, I think it’s fair to say. But, you know, a number of them have fairly sizable audiences, you know, red letter media, or I don’t know the critical drinker. I, like, I, I don’t watch any of these really, so I don’t I it’s kind of an entirely foreign world to me, but I do get the sense that lots of people do, and they are successful, but they are all successful for the same reason Cisco and Ebert were successful, which was that people like to hear them specifically talk.

Right. Yeah. I do yes. I mean, I I I look at YouTube and know, I’ve seen the ones you’ve mentioned I’ve watched. I can’t say that I am a, like, a dedicated obsessive viewer of any particular YouTube channel, the way I was up Sysco and Ebert as a kid.

But I think you you can’t help but see their influence in in, in YouTube and in podcasts too. I think the main difference that I see, well, there’s a there’s a few main I mean, one difference is and I I think the most important from a, let’s say, tonal standpoint is that for the most part, YouTube and podcasts, and I listen to a Secret Podcast and have for a very long time. Like, the people on those shows gener generally, and you can correct me if you could think of a a different example. These people like each other. They want to be there talking about movies.

They would probably be talking about movies if there were no microphones and no podcasts, a no YouTube. You know what I mean? They may not be Secret Podcast or the the cameras, that’s a that’s kind of a means to an end in a sense. Like, the they would they love movies and they love talking about movies with each other. It’s my best friend.

I’ve been doing this with for we’ve been going to the movies since we were kids or you know, this is my colleague who I love going to the movies with, and now we talk about it, on our podcast or our YouTube channel. There isn’t really a that I know of a podcast where it’s like, these two guys hate each other and every week, we’re gonna make them sit in a room and argue about these movies. You know what I mean? That I don’t know of. That’s a that’s a sort of a huge difference.

You know, by the end of the show, Cisco and Ebert, you know, they got along better. They did like each other to an extent. They had this relationship, but they could still tick each other off, and they could legitimately get hot about anything, but movies, especially, and that was kind of part of the appeal was to see what would happen this week. And while I love, a lot of podcasts. I I rarely have that sense of, like, danger or drama to it.

It’s about learning about movies, it’s hearing their insights. It’s It’s almost like being a fly on the wall of a fun enjoyable conversation. It’s not that sort of spectator sport aspect for better or worse. It’s different. And then the other big difference that immediately jumps to mind is that these YouTube shows and podcasts can talk about anything they want for as long as they want.

You know, there’s podcasts I get weekly and I go, This is a three hour podcast about a ninety minute movie. Okay. Let’s see let’s see how this goes. Like, you know, at their longest, the Sysco and Ebert review was maybe ten minutes. You know, and usually it was more like three or four minutes.

So, you know, that that that, you know, there’s there’s some advantages to that and there’s obvious disadvantage to it. You know, they never got to go that in-depth about anything. But on the other hand, there is kind of an art has anyone who’s ever had to write a capsule review of anything or, you know, will tell you. There is an art to summing up an argument in x amount of words to boiling down what you have to the most distilled, you know, almost like espresso, like pure concentrated argument or opinion, and trying to express something in that amount of time and doing it intelligently and and and getting your point of view across. That is very difficult to do.

Maybe not harder, but certainly a very different kind of hard. And so that is another difference about these, you know, kind of spiritual successors is that they have as much canvas as they want to paint with. And that’s great. But it, it is it is a different thing than Sysco and Ebert.

I am with you on podcast Blow there. I can’t tell you the number of times. I have clicked on a thing and been like, I’m sorry. You wanna you were taught I my commute is not this long for the whole week. What are you what are you people doing?

The other the other thing that jumps out at me right now is it it feels like we have a gap in the market place. We need a, we need a, you know, movie battle, people who hate each other watching Secret Podcast or or YouTube show out there. So I got a lot of people who hate me if you want, drop me a lot. I, the the so the, I guess, I guess, you know, another thing, to look at with Sysco and Ebert, of course, are the the thumbs. And this is a thing I learned from from your book.

I had no idea. I did not realize this, that they were not always the thumbs up and thumbs down guys. That was a innovation at the midpoint of their career, Morla. They’re not quite the midpoint, but, you know.

The first after the first third, essentially. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. They were when they were at the PBS show, sneak previews or opening sooner to theater near you, the the they they felt they needed a rating system.

But at that time, the rating system they settled on was yes or no. It was either two yes’s or two no’s. And that was how they did it for the entire duration of of that show. And when they left, again, they didn’t take the show and go to syndication. They left the show and started a new show in syndication.

And so it was determined by lawyers, I suppose, that it was not copyrightable to take the idea of two guys talking about movies. Like that, you couldn’t copyright that. You couldn’t control that. But it was felt that perhaps certain segments of the show may be, intellectual property of PBS of WTTW. And one of the things that was determined to be potentially in that area was the yes and no.

And so they needed to come up with a new system and According to what I was told by the producer who said she was in the room at the time was they came up with thumbs up and thumbs down and that it was She remembered it being Roger who suggested it. And, yeah, that was the idea at, that second iteration of the show at Tribune, and then it carried over to Disney, and they kept doing it. And it yeah. That it became the trademark, but it definitely it was not yeah. It was not the original version.

If you look on YouTube, you watch the PBS show. It is kinda weird at the end when they’re like, yeah, Halloween. Two yeses or we both say yes. It it doesn’t have quite the same ring, you know. The two thumbs up really, it became such a a phrase that I think people still say it today, people probably who’d have no I even don’t even know what Syscal and Ebert is.

Everyone says two thumbs up.

Yeah. And they did actually literally copyright your trademark that. Right? You you could not use that as a, Yes.

I didn’t say it. I did. Did I did I say two thumbs up? I didn’t say No. I didn’t we didn’t say that.

Yeah. You yeah. Not you can say thumbs up. You cannot say two thumbs up. That was what they, what what the the Ebert and Sysco, I guess, now they’re estates.

I believe they still have, you know, the last I looked at, like, the trademark, US trademark office or whatever it is. It’s still filed there. At least the last time I looked. So, yes, they they held the rights to two thumbs up. You you in the in the movie world, they they they owned that.

You could, I guess, say thumb thumb up or thumb down, but two of them, that was where you got into trouble.

Yeah. That’s how we get around it on across the movie, I’ll do. Another podcast that I do is that we each we each just give one thumbs up or one thumbs down. Okay. That’s we we know there’s never all of them.

Walking that walking a line there, but just It’s

very close.

Very close. But, okay.

Very tight. But this I mean, look, this gets to the broader debate about Syscal and Ebert and their place in the critical firmament, which is, you know, are are a worse siskel and Ebert good for the movies or bad for the movies. And I, you know, look, I I think it’s an interesting, I think it’s an interesting argument, but, there were folks who really, really thought that they were, like, the downfall of not just not just criticism, but, like, really the state of movie going and talking about movies in general.

Oh, yeah. Absolutely. And it is there’s a there’s a chapter in the book that’s about that and some of the more notable times where they they found themselves attacked for, yes, the dumbing down of of film criticism. And I feel like history has sort of, you know, borne out that that just wasn’t the case. You know what I mean?

Like, the amount of people who were inspired by the show who went into film criticism, who went into film making, who whose careers were made by the show, there’s a lot of them out there. And, you know, the the two thumbs up thing, while it certainly became a marketing tool, you know, the show itself was more than than thumbs. You know, the thumbs were the last minute of the show. The rest of the show was talking about the movies. And, you know, I interviewed a o Scott for the book who worked on one of the later versions of at the movies after Gene had passed away and Roger could no longer speak.

And he wrote on he’s written a whole book about criticism, not just film criticism, but like the, you know, art criticism in general. And he what he said was you look at any period in the history of art, and there are critics who are like, what is happening to the state of criticism? This is the the death of criticism. This isn’t real criticism. You know, he’s you know, like, at the time of Colridge, these things were being said, about the art criticism of that time before even movies were invented.

And so he sort of sees those arguments as just yet another variation of that. These things as all things do. They evolve. They change. And, you know, he’s like, you know, to what he would say was He really thinks that kind of the root of all film criticism is, you know, when you go see a movie, what’s the first thing you do when you walk out of the movie?

Whoever you went with, you stand out in the lobby, and you just talk about what you saw. And oh, I like this. You like that. That was terrible. Why would you like that?

You know, and he felt like All film criticism originates from that moment and that impulse. And what Sysco and Ebert did was they brought that impulse into the actual art and work of criticism and they made that part of it. They turned it from a monologue to a dialogue. They encouraged people to have differing opinions. I suppose if you listening to that thing, that’s a bad thing.

I I So be it, but, I I don’t I really don’t see it that way. Personally.

Yeah. Well, I mean, this this gets into, you know, we we could we could tie this into the debate over rotten tomatoes. Right? People say, oh, rotten tomatoes is a disaster. You know, this one score that is, you know, it’s not even representative of a ninety nine percent fresh movie could just be, you know, ninety nine percent people giving it two and a half out of four stars.

Who can say? And I I totally agree and sympathize with that, but the real you know, value added of rotten tomatoes, if you care if you actually care about criticism, is that it is a very nice place to have all of the reviews collected in one source. You can click on them. You could read them. You don’t have to, but you can.

They’re there if you’re actually interested in that sort of thing. And that’s That’s the that’s the great thing about the old, Cisco and Ebert episodes is that you go back and you listen to them talk. And that is, there’s, you know, say what you will about thumbs up and thumbs down. The the actual documents of them speaking to each other are, I think of great use.

Oh, oh, and still are. Like, it’s an it’s a It’s a fun show to watch now. It’s an insightful show to watch now. It’s an educational show to watch now. You know, like doing the research for this book part of it was watching hundreds of these episodes.

And, I mean, maybe this doesn’t speak highly of me as a person and now I choose to spend my time, but I had I loved that part of it. I loved rewatching and watching all of these episodes. And part of it was, yeah, every every episode, it’s like, well, they gonna talk about this week? What random movie have I never heard of? That I’ve never seen even in some cases Are they gonna say is fabulous?

And then I can track it down and watch it. And that’s how in the book in my book, there’s an appendix of buried treasures. And that literally is how that came about in the book. As I’m watching these episodes and going, I’ve never heard of this movie. Much less seen it.

And then I would go seek it out and go, this is a great movie. And, you know, they certainly did have the power to elevate a lot of movies at that time, but then there were things that they that just for whatever reason fell through the cracks. And so yeah, revisiting the show. You can discover those things, or you can learn about, you know, what it’s a great sort of time capsule of of seventy five to ninety nine of what was going on in the movie world and the pop culture world to some extent during that period. And if you watch a lot of episodes, you can really watch these things evolve.

You get to watch how their relate like the introduction of VHS and how they relate to that. And at first, they’re very wary. A familiar argument to people who live in this world and people, you know, having debates about streaming versus theaters. And then they ultimately came around to think that, VHS was an incredible boon to the the world of movies, and they loved it. And then they then laser did.

And later DVD. And you get to watch these these sort of things evolve week by week month by month year by year. You know, I think I write this in the book that, you know, people say journalism is the first draft of history. Sysco and Ebert is like the first draft of film history. For this time period.

And you can get a great education on what was going on in the movie world during this time period. By watching a lot of these episodes. And, like I said, I I would if you’re at all interested, it’s a it’s a It’s the it’s the ultimate YouTube rabbit hole to go down just watching episodes, you know, to see what they were talking about And one will just lead to another. It’s like it’s very easy to fall. It really is a rabbit hole.

You watch one, and then that right rail has five other episodes. And you’re like, well, let me just one more. Oh, they reviewed, you know? Yeah. Godzilla.

Let me see what they had to say about that because there were characters named after Jean and Roger in that movie. What do they have to say about that And boom, boom, boom, suddenly you’ve spent three hours watching YouTube clips of Sysco and Ebert.

Oh, the YouTube algorithm will get you every time. The, the, you mentioned, you mentioned, VHS, and I I’m curious. I I can’t remember if you mentioned this in the book. I don’t think you did, but did they review any of these straight to VHS stuff? Or was it or or are we just talking about their their discussion of classics coming back to VHS?

They predominantly reviewed theatrical releases. That was their bread and butter, but they would occasionally, you know, go outside of that if there was something felt was notable. They often reviewed, you know, the big at the time, it was like HBO movies, you know. When they would have a huge movie that the barbarians at the gate or the late shifts of the world, they would review those. They also did these episodes in the mid eighties, which are very interesting called like at the video store.

Would they would talk about whatever the top ten rentals were on, like, I don’t know if it was entertainment weekly or whoever’s publishing, whatever publication is listing, the bet the biggest VHS tapes, and they would just talk about whatever they were, if they were movies. They talked about, like, the Jane Fonda workout video that way. They talked about music video compilations. They gave two thumbs down to Michael Jackson’s thriller as a result of doing this sort of thing. So, yes, while they did mostly review the big theatrical releases or even the Art House and indie and important what they felt were artistically important releases.

Yeah. They would go they would go outside of those sorts of things to talk about if they were on, yeah, notable on VHS or then later laserdisc. It just depended on what they thought was worth talking about. Every week, they would look at what’s going on, and they would have, you know, pre production meetings where they would toss around. Here’s the four movies that are most important this week.

Well, What about this? This just came out on a criterion laserdisc. This seems important. Alright. Well, let’s take off the movie that doesn’t seem all that interesting, and we don’t have anything to say about it.

Let’s instead drum up some business hopefully for citizen Cain being put on laserdisc for the first time or whatever it was.

Yeah. You mentioned the archives watching the archives, and there are episodes that are available on YouTube, there are clips that are available on YouTube. Is there is there a place where all of the episodes have been collected? Are you is there a, you know, is there a library or some somewhere that you would go to and watch watch the the old archives are, or have some of these been lost? I feel like, you know, TV is by its nature, ephemeral.

I would not be shocked if there are just episodes of Sysco and Ebert that are gone forever, particularly from those early PBS years.

Yeah. There’s definitely a few that are are lost. I mean, maybe somebody out there in some basement somewhere has a dusty tape of some of these early episodes. But there there are some very dedicated fans who have and I my hat is off to them to all of those wonderful people. Who would obsessively tape the show and then, yeah, have uploaded these, these archives.

There’s also a very thorough fan website Ciscoebert dot org where you can watch a lot of episodes of the show, some of which At least at the time I was doing this, we’re not on YouTube. Maybe some of them are now. I I don’t know. But, there isn’t to your question. There is not one central official, place.

I wish there was. I know Chaz Ebert, Roger’s widow has said has talked about doing that, and I I hope she does. I would be the number one user of such a site if it did exist. But at this point, there isn’t like a a official home for the show in that sense. No.

Yeah. Alright. So you you went back, you watched a ton of episodes, and I’m gonna put you on the spot here slightly. There’s the appendix at the end of the book that has it has a lot of, you know, two thumbs up hidden gems. Like you said, you discussed.

And again, the book is really if you are interested in Sysco and Ebert, you’ve gotta read this. There’s you have a ton of interviews with folks who worked with them over the years, and, you know, folks who worked with them toward the end when they were, trying to keep the show going. And it’s really it’s really interesting. But I am gonna I’m gonna put you on the spot here. Are are there any two thumbs up or two thumbs down reviews from Sysco and Ebert that you strongly disagree with where you you were watching it and you’re like, I cannot believe they gave I don’t know.

Whatever. Two thumbs up or, oh, but this is so good. How could they both hate it? Or give it two thumbs down?

Yes. Oh, for sure. It happens. Nobody’s Right? And yes, while I was watching the show, that was another super enjoyable part of it is, yes, there were discoveries, and then there were also times where you’re, like, coming to a movie that everyone today, the consensus is this is a great film of this period and they would give it a two thumbs down.

So I and I would keep tallies of these sorts of things in my, obsessive deranged notes that I was taking. So, yeah, I have a whole list of movies they got they got wrong. So to speak, quote unquote, I’m not, you know, attacking them. I’m just that’s how I would term I would I would term it in my notes, but, like, Beetle juice is a movie that I really like. They gave two thumbs down to beetlejuice.

They gave two thumbs down to Gremlins two. The new batch, one of my favorite comedies of that period. They gave two thumbs down to reservoir dogs. That’s a surprising one. That’s an unexpected one.

But you know, and then there there’s there’s examples of them certainly giving thumbs up. I mean, the one that I remember from being a child and watching the show was they gave two thumbs up to speed two cruise control. Sure. Where I and I remember going, you know, having seen speed and loving the original speed, and then they give it two thumbs up, you’re like, oh, man. They pulled it off.

Great. And then you I went to see it, and I was like, what? What? They two two thumbs up. Two they this is the movie they liked, and, I’ve never understood, that one.

But yeah, that’s that’s one. And then there’s examples of, you know, where one or the other, you know, might like a movie and the other, a classic, you know, like, Ebert gave thumbs down to die hard. You know? Ebert gave thumbs down to Blue velvet. He he didn’t he he was never a huge David Lynch fan.

He gave a thumbs down to a lot of of his movies. Cisco gave thumbs down to predator, you know, or a slacker or, you know, Sleepless in Seattle, all these different movies. You know, they they had their own personal taste as all film critics do. And they they certainly when you watched or when I watched, I should say hundreds of these in context together, You would you would discover things. You would see, oh, the gene doesn’t really like science fiction movies, especially dark science fiction movies.

He’s always giving thumbs down to dystopian sci fi, and Ebert loves those movies. That sort of thing. That would that would absolutely come up. A lot.

Yeah. Alright. I always like to close these interviews by asking if there’s anything I should have asked. If you think there’s anything folks should know about Sysco and Ebert about the shows about the men, about their legacy, about your book. What what what should what should people know?

I don’t know. We I mean, we we we’ve we’ve kinda covered it. Yeah. I’m looking I’m looking now because you had me I had my I opened my notes here. To, one of these ridiculous documents.

This one is a hundred and forty four thousand words of notes about Cisco and Eber and we talked about the ones that got wrong. Maybe how about I just list some of the ones that got right that they Yes. That became classics? Because I don’t want people to think that I you know, that they they they didn’t they had suspect taste. So here’s just a few of the ones that got two thumbs up that they did love.

Robocop. Wall Street. Who frame Roger Rabbit, the naked gun, one of my favorites. The little mermaid. Terminator two, judgment day.

The grifters, goodfellas, Rudy, menace to society, Groundhog Day. Pulp fiction, Edward, the Shawshank redemption, train spotting. That was a big one that I remember seeing specifically because they covered it on the show. LA confidential, Titanic. Titanic.

There’s something about Mary. So, you know, like, they they were they were they were pretty good at their jobs, I would say. I think they did a pretty good job. And, it was also fun, like, watching the show and seeing how sometimes you know, they would recognize filmmakers or actors, like very, very early Ron DeSantis person is going to be a huge star or this person is is going to be a a major director. And how often they were right about that sort of thing.

That’s another kind of fun thing to do as you’re watching these episodes. See how often they were right. It’s not just about how could how could they give beetlejuice two thumbs down? Like a lot of times, they were out there, saying clueless is two thumbs up. You know, when that movie first comes out or clerks or, you know, hoop dreams or whatever it might be.

They they they were pretty good at at their jobs, I would say.

Yeah. Alright, Matt. Thank you very much, for being on the show. So, again, the name of the book is Opposable Thums, How Sysco and Ebert, changed movies forever. My my guess today is Matt Singer.

You can preorder the book now. Pick it up. It’ll be in your mailbox. You know, when it comes out on Tuesday. That’ll be great.

Matt, thanks for being on the show.

My pleasure. It was a lot of fun.

Again, my name is Sunny Bunch. I’m Culture Editor at the Bulwark, and I will be back next week with another episode of The Bulwark host of Hollywood. We’ll see you guys then.