Who do you agree with?

Siskel and Ebert, definitely.  I found Simon to come off as a complete, pompous ass.  I think Ebert did as well, hence the mentioning of his enjoyment of Bergman films.

There are films and there are movies, and I think Simon has a hard time distinguishing the two.

Well that was a weird piece of video to post.  

But since you asked...

While I think the Empire Strikes Back is perhaps the worst of the Star Wars films, it is good entertainment.  So I guess I agree with Siskel and Ebert.

Quoted from Shelton There are films and there are movies

Really good point.

Andrew

Quoted from Shelton There are films and there are movies, and I think Simon has a hard time distinguishing the two.

To an extent I agree with this statement (and completely understand what you mean by it), but I think once you get in the business of distinguishing between the two, it can become kind of pretentious and condescending to those who consider certain movies to be films.

And my head just exploded.

Quoted from Shelton There are films and there are movies, and I think Simon has a hard time distinguishing the two.

I have heard that a film is a film until folks are paying to sit and watch in in a theater, and THEN it can be called a movie.  I'm not sure of the distinction here.  

Quoted from Shelton There are films and there are movies, and I think Simon has a hard time distinguishing the two.

Tarantino once claimed that he made movies not films and I've heard some other director, whose name escapes me, say the opposite.

OK, I think I have this noodled out.  Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.  Perhaps, in this context, a 'movie' is just a money making vehicle, while a 'film' is a piece of work which aspires to a higher artistic purpose?

Quoted from steven8 OK, I think I have this noodled out.  Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.  Perhaps, in this context, a 'movie' is just a money making vehicle, while a 'film' is a piece of work which aspires to a higher artistic purpose?

That's my understanding of it.

I think Simon is only interested in films and probably thinks that movies have nothing to tell him. I was reading a book about pop culture the other day and the author echoed similar sentiments by criticising people for reducing art to entertainment.
And when I went to Robert McKee's seminar he was bagging Steven Spielberg and said "all that talent and he's got nothing to say."

On the other hand I was reading an interview with  Stephen King once and he said that some guy told him that he didn't like his books because they didn’t teach him anything and King said "if you want learn something go to school."

Clearly this John Simon has some kind of retardation. Tired of Yoda? I think that's an actual medical problem, isn't it?

I think the Simon guy's problem is his Freudian accent!

It's good to see that Siskel and Ebert could band together so strongly against a common enemy!

Having this guy Simon talk about a Star Wars movie (film), reminds me of back in the 80's when the Beacon Journal newspaper here in Akron sent their symphony reviewer out to cover a concert by Poison!  You can guess how that review read.  Something like, long hair, make-up and acoustic guitar intros can not disguise the total lack of talent.  That's a paraphrase, but pretty dang close.