MovieChat Forums > Roger Ebert Discussion > Who did you agree with more -- Siskel or...

Who did you agree with more -- Siskel or Ebert?

posted 5 years ago by Wuchak (8772)
54 replies | jump to latest

While Ebert went on to become more famous because he continued the show after Siskel's passing in 1999 and Roger was more prolific in publishing, I think both are necessary for an intelligent well-rounded perspective of whatever movie they review.

For example:

- Siskel gave "Coming to America" a thumbs-up while Ebert gave it a thumbs-down.
- Siskel gave "Apocalypse Now" a thumbs-down while Ebert gave it a thumbs-up.
- Siskel gave "Dead Poets Society" a thumbs-up while Ebert gave it a thumbs-down.
- Siskel gave "Terminator" a thumbs-down while Ebert gave it a thumbs-up.
- Siskel gave "The Howling" a thumbs-up while Ebert gave it a thumbs-down.

I note these five films because all of them rank with my favorite movies. Needless to say, sometimes Siskel got it 'right' and sometimes Ebert got it 'right'; and vice versa. Of course film appreciation is ultimately a subjective matter, but how any reviewer with a clue can give thumbs-down to any of these four flicks is beyond me (although I can see why some people might not like "The Howling). To be fair, Siskel later changed his mind on "Apocalypse Now" and openly admitted it a dozen years later.

For those who argue that Siskel was a "film snob" because he tended to give thumbs-down to more movies than Ebert, he had the audacity to give the infamous "The Island of Dr. Moreau" (1996) a thumbs-up, which you can watch here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYX3KIi6ZJ4. Siskel, who's not a fan of sci-fi or horror, also commended and recommended "Species" despite other critics' scathing reviews, including Ebert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NbAL2O4hYY.

Say what you will, but a true "film snob" wouldn't dare to give a positive review to such films. Furthermore, how exactly is a person a "film snob" simply because they confess they didn't like a film enough to recommend it? Shouldn't bold honesty be commended? Shouldn't making a call and standing by it regardless of what the masses say be respected?

[–] Moviebuff1 (2835) 5 years ago

https://moviechat.org/nm0001170/Roger-Ebert/5d72f7e865368244317f696f/Roger-Ebert-or-Gene-Siskel

[–] Wuchak (8772) 5 years ago

Thanks Moviebuff. I actually commented on that thread seven months ago, but forgot about it.

I guess I wanted to start a thread to spotlight their contrasting views of four of my favorite films. Honestly, I can't believe Ebert gave "Coming to America" a thumbs-down, claiming it wasn't funny. Seriously? The other three thumbs-down in that list -- whether by Ebert or Siskel -- are just as puzzling (to me, anyway).

[–] BillySlater (4241) 5 years ago

Ebert. Siskel felt like a film snob. He thumbs downed way too many movies for my liking.

[–] Wuchak (8772) 5 years ago

You're welcome to call it as you see it but, for me, Siskel proved not to be a film snob on several occasions. He openly confessed to not liking sci-fi, but was willing to give the genre an honest chance. For instance, he inexplicably gave a thumbs-down to "Terminator," but he couldn't help acknowledging the entertainment value of "Terminator 2: Judgment Day."

Perhaps the best evidence that he wasn't a film snob is that he surprisingly gave a thumbs-up to the infamous "The Island of Dr. Moreau" (1996), which Ebert gave a thumbs-down to and most critics tore to pieces: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYX3KIi6ZJ4 This showed that he was willing to break from the snobbish critical consensus if he honestly enjoyed a movie, even if he'd be ridiculed for his opinion.

[–] BillySlater (4241) 5 years ago

He was a film snob. He thumbs downed Aliens just because a little girl was in peril refusing to acknowledge the craftsmanship of the movie. His criticisms were really ridiculous at times.

[–] Owlwise (1535) 5 years ago

Siskel's favorite film was Saturday Night Fever, so much so that he bought John Travolta's disco suit when it was auctioned. Hardly a snob. But he did look for & hope for the best in film, which some confuse with snobbery. In some cases, it can turn into that … but not in Siskel's case, I fell.

[–] BillySlater (4241) 5 years ago

Being a film snob doesn´t mean you dislike every movie, he had some quirky favourites like most people do but his thumbs up to thumbs down ratio was much lower than Ebert´s.

[–] Owlwise (1535) 5 years ago

Ah, I take your point.

[–] Ace_Spade (9574) 2 years ago

I think Siskel was a "good snob" where he basically just had high standards for movies. He took child-like glee in children's films. His admiration for a lot of the high-quality Disney output (Pinocchio was one of his favourites) or his giddy love of Star Wars (okay, not "children's films," but aimed at audiences who like youthful joy) prove this. He loved the comic book fun of Batman. He was just a fan of movies, and slipshod films or cheap knockoffs or films that were cranked with a cynical lack of effort bugged him.

Nobody will agree with any critic 100% of the time because, at the end of the day, these are just people who sling opinions around. But Siskel was smart, cultured, and knew great movies in all genres and types. Popcorn flicks or arthouse masterpieces, he'd like anything that was done well and gave him as an audience member a good time.

There's one big thing that I think Siskel had that others don't: he changed his mind. I don't remember the film, but Ebert got Siskel, during the show, to switch his thumb's direction (I don't remember up-down or down-up). To me, being willing to be persuaded - especially when as intelligent and strong-willed as Gene Siskel - speaks volumes about a person's character and wisdom.

[–] Wuchak (8772) 2 years ago

It was "Broken Arrow": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pumI6S3vPII

[–] Ace_Spade (9574) 2 years ago

Awesome! Thanks!

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Sometimes I find myself siding with one or the other but a lot of the time I disagreed with them both. What can I say, I like movies that are considered "bad." Even though I wasn't really a "fan" of either one, I have to admit that I miss them both and it was always nice to see them on TV when they had that show. They were both better than Leonard Maltin.

[–] Wuchak (8772) 5 years ago

I know what you mean, they both gave "Ace Ventura: Pet Detective" a thumbs-down while I thought it was hilarious. And isn't that the purpose of a comedy -- to make you laugh?

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

There are many videos of theirs on YouTube. If you get the chance and haven't already seen it, look up their review of 1994's "North." I never saw this movie but I kind of want to after that review.

[–] Wuchak (8772) 5 years ago

I'll check it out tonight. I haven't seen it, but I own one of Roger's books that was named after a statement in his review of that particular film: I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie.

[–] Jones70 (6584) 5 years ago

probably Ebert, not quite as nit picky as Siskel imo.

[–] whynotwriteme (7725) 5 years ago

I was an Ebert man all the way. His tastes were far more 'fun'. I found Siskel kind of snobby.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Roger Ebert.

Gene Siskel could be a snowflake at times.

[–] christomacin (4660) 4 years ago

They both gave the Chuck Norris film "Code of Silence" a thumbs up and compared Norris to Steve McQueen. So they could sometimes both get it wrong.

[–] Wuchak (8772) 4 years ago

They also surprisingly gave "Eraser" (1996) a thumbs up. I thought it was thoroughly run-of-the-mill.

Another example is "Swamp Thing" (1982), which they gave a hearty thumbs-up. I found it way too comic booky, and not in a good way.

[–] WuchakTheBitch (100) 4 years ago

A lot of the time their “thumbs” were relative. For example, both of them gave Sudden Death a thumbs up — a pretty mediocre movie — yet Ebert himself rated it 2 1/2 stars, which is a pretty fair assessment. As Ebert himself said, there was more to reviewing movies than just “the dumb thumbs and stars,” and there were “gradations and context.”

[–] Wuchak (8772) 4 years ago

Yeah, Roger said somewhere that he wasn't really keen on the Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down thang. Recommending a movie depends on a lot of things. For instance, I wouldn't recommend "Apocalypse Now" to my mother because I know she wouldn't like it.

Speaking of heavy war movies, I just saw the Hungarian WW2 flick "Dear Elza!" (2014) and gave it a solid 7/10. But I wouldn't recommend it to everyone since it's so relentlessly downbeat and brutal, not to mention it has a paranormal angle that some people wouldn't like. Let's just say, if you like My Dying Bride you'll probably relish it.

[–] blue1981 (7826) 4 years ago

Ebert wasn't as uptight as Siskel in his reviews.

[–] Wuchak (8772) 4 years ago

I've been rewatching them on Youtube lately; they balance each other out well.

[–] blue1981 (7826) 4 years ago

I think movies would be much better today if they were both still around.

[–] Jones70 (6584) 2 years ago

Have you seen The Batman and The Northman? Those are both amazing imo, and how would movies be better if they were still around?

[–] blue1981 (7826) a year ago

The people making movies only seem to care about "the message" and indoctrination over actually creating entertainment. The Last Jedi is one of the worst movies ever made but Hollywood creamed their pants because of their diversity obsession and girl boss nonsense. Siskel and Ebert would see right through it and trash the movie on their show if they were still alive today.