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

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?