I met Joel Siegel, the perpetually chipper TV movie critic, a few years ago during New York is Book Country. We were both going through a similar fatherhood experience, being fathers of youngsters at a much later point in life than we would have expected–he with his son, Dylan, and me naturally with Caroline. He, however, had written a book about it, “Lessons for Dylan.” I bought a copy of his book from him, he signed it for me, wishing me “Mazel Tov” on the birth of Caroline, and we also chatted for a few minutes over how “Casablanca” may well be the greatest movie ever made.
What a nice guy.
I just read he passed away from colon cancer at the age of 63.
That sucks.
PAD
• 
Yes it does suck.
Personally? I miss Gene Siskel who passed away in ’99 from surgery complications of a brain tumor. He seemed to be the one who loved the intelligent films and I respected his opinion. (Ebert was the guy I checked out for the action genre films)
Despite what others may say- I for one rely on movie critics a great deal.
It’s alot like getting another opinion before you see a film. (Beyond Bill or Sally at work who will toss the whole opinion thing away by saying “Yeah, Spiderman 3? It was good. We saw it over the weekend.” And thats all!!! You don’t get into the details needed to really know if it would be worth spending 9 bucks.
It’s not so much wether they like a film or not (for me) its all the ‘little things’ they say that they did or didnt like that catch my intrest.
Like were the special effects pretty good despite some of the actors looking bored?
Was the actor working his heart out despite a bad screenplay?
Did the director do an especially good job on a certain action sequence?
Was there a specific scene that stood out that I would want to really see right away in the theater instead of waiting for the DVD?
Is the movie worth sitting there for the three hours or should you wait for DVD? (pay attention Pirates 3 writer/director)
Critics are kind of my final guide as to wether I want to see a film or not.
You see, I LOVE movies and for me its not just the wasted 9 bucks, its wasting the two or three hours as well. My time is valuable to me and I want to go in with as much pre-knowledge as possible so I don’t WASTE my time. Of course there are a zillion films I go see without reading the critics opinion at all…..but when I am undecided- I go to the critics.
The only thing that makes me really sad is that I am sure there were probably a dozen or so films they were looking forward to seeing and they knew whatever it was that was killing them would rob them of that experience.
Hopefully someday a cure will be found. Because there are a lot of really good decent people (besides just movie critics) who are not being allowed to fulfill the rest of their lives.
And a heartfelt THANK YOU to Peter and this website for allowing for a wide variety of subjects to be discussed above and beyond the
subject of comic books.
I work for a branch of Nielsen that screens films before their release for research and press purposes, and had the opportunity to watch a couple of press screenings that Siegel attended. The first was a screening at the Brill Building’s Screening Room for the first Scary Movie. It was a small screening room, no more than 60 or so seats, and Siegel was seated a row or two behind me, laughing throughout. Another time was when we screened that Jennifer Lopez suckfest, Enough, on the East Side, and I spoke to him briefly.
He came off as a nice guy during our brief exchanges.
He’ll be missed.
he will be missed
I find myself thinking a lot about roger ebert today I hope he beats his cancer real soon
Interesting that the film Ratatouille had a critic explaining himself…at least a bit…to the audience. Too often, people who claim to be “critics” are simply insult slingers.
To me, a true critic…the kind of person I try to be when I write reviews…is someone who cares a great deal about the art form. He also should sympathize with the creator of the art form, and understand what agony it is to even dare to try to create something.
Joel Siegel wasn’t one of the great intellectual critics. He couldn’t help but be “cute” with his reviews. But like the best of critics, his love of the medium came through whenever he appeared.
And the real tragedy of his passing is that if someone takes his place at ABC, it will be someone who won’t possess that love of medium and respect for the artist. I say “if” he is replaced, because increasingly, the “movie critic” is being phased out. At my TV station the critic died of AIDS three years ago, and no one else has been allowed to be an entertainment critic. We just leave that up to the paid flunkies and media whørëš of shows like Entertainment Tonight and Extra!
There are a whole generation of reviewers that I grew up watching – Gene Siskel, Jeffrey Lyons, Gene Shalit, Joel Siegel, Roger Ebert, Rex Reed.
All of them have very different styles and tastes but, Siegel always came across as a straightforward reviewer with broad tastes and understated delivery.
Even when he panned a film he was far from vitriolic. It was a quality I greatly appreciated and one that made me take his opinions far more seriously than some other reviewers. He was a man whose reviews showed his love of the medium of film and certainly his voice will be missed.
Anyone who worked well with Terry Gilliam is a good guy in my book. (Joel Siegel and Gilliam back in 1966 made a satirical cartoon book called The Cocktail People.)
I’m glad you got to meet him. And I’m impressed that he kept his life-affirming qualities throughout his illness; if I understood correctly, at one point he wasn’t sure he’d even survive to see Dylan born, 10 years ago. (He survived his cancer for 10 years and his death still feels too soon. Cancer sucks.)
Ebert writes a sweet memorial here:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070629/PEOPLE/70629001
Interesting that the film Ratatouille had a critic explaining himself…at least a bit…to the audience. Too often, people who claim to be “critics” are simply insult slingers.
LADY IN THE WATER was an egregious example of this, among its other shortcomings.
With the net and all the info to be found on it I find myself relying on critics not at all, though Ebert is a good source of analysis, particularly for older forgotten films. Joel Siegel seemed like a decent fellow and I’m sorry he wasn’t able to ultimately beat the cancer.
(I just read the link that Sasha was kind enough to provide. This stood out; Knowing what he knew about the disease, Joel was haunted with questions after his diagnosis. He wrote: “It took me eight years to get the guts to ask my oncologist if I’d had [a colonoscopy] at 50 instead of 53, what would have happened. He said there was a 75 percent to 80 percent chance they would have nipped it in the bud, and I never would have had to deal with any of them.” It was because of Joel that I got my own colonoscopy.
I was not aware of all that he had done for cancer victims and their families. I’ll amend my earlier statement. He WAS a decent guy, and more.
Ebert’s anecdote (Hëll yeah, let’s have this guy who is passionate about movies get better!) reminds me of the passing of Warren Zevon, who avoided physicians for twenty years, and also learned much too late…
My wife’s parents both died from colon cancer. Early and regular screening is critical! After 50, folks, get it done!
Yes, it does suck. Absolutely. I always felt that someone couldn’t get a positive review from Siegel, the movie was probably pretty bad. Because he seemed to have a genuine love for them and would rather find the good in it than bìŧçh about the bad.
A shame, indeed.