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?

[–] seanwhelan2310 (575) 4 years ago

Sikel didn't like any of the Bond's after the Connery era

[–] Wuchak (8772) 4 years ago

It's probably hard to adapt if you've only seen the Connery ones. But the Moore run is my favorite era of the Bond films; they're just the most all-around entertaining to me.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9227) 4 years ago

Roger Ebert went on to become a total panderer to Hollywood. Ebert gave the most atrocious films a thumbs-up if they had money behind them, or certain stars. I grew to really dislike his reviews and opinions.

At first, in the original Sneak Previews I would often agree with Roger Ebert more often, but on important calls and in general sensibilities I liked Siskel better. After the original show I stopped watching or following regularly because they basically went commercial.

I always like that first PBS version of the show because they introduced me to foreign and "Indie" movies ( not callee Indie movies at the time ). So they did that and served their purpose, and then they become celebrities on the Johnny Carson show and others. But I also used to see a lot more movies back in the day. I probably saw at least a movie a week, sometimes going on weekends to the multi-screens and seeing several movies together.

The horror show that Roger Ebert became pretty much grossed me out. I do miss Gene Siskel though, he was a good guy.

[–] snepts (11123) 4 years ago

I liked Ebert because at the time he seemed to champion weirdness more than Gene.
Gene seemed like he was supporting the Status Quo while Roger was more of a Wild Card.
But this was a long time ago, so I have no idea how I might view them today.
But for a couple of Average White Guys, somehow they were pretty entertaining.

[–] Wuchak (8772) 4 years ago

For years I didn't view "Species" because of Ebert's scathing print review. When I finally gave it a chance in 2015 I was surprised to discover a top-of-the-line sci-fi/adventure/horror flick. Snobby critics look down on it because of the nudity and mild sex scenes, which prompts them to disdain it as exploitive and trashy. While Natasha Henstridge is a good-lookin' woman, she doesn't do anything for me (she's not my type) so I was able to totally overlook this element and focus on the film's other positives.

For one, the score by Christopher Young is excellent. Secondly, the A-list cast is a highlight and their characters are increasingly fleshed-out in the story. Lastly, while people understandably write-off the movie as a Grade B plot with Grade A production, there's more here than meets the eye. For instance, Sil is the innocent pawn of the extraterrestrials who sent the DNA. Another example is the excellent character of Dan (Whitaker) whom whiners complain about as "always pointing out the obvious" when the movie shows over and over that he DOES know things the others don't and they ignore him to their own peril. Dan is necessary so that the team knows what direction the creature takes on repeated occasions; without Dan we'd see them pursue one boring dead-end after another.

Why I bring up "Species" is because I was surprised to discover on the Siskel & Ebert show (on Youtube) that Gene gave "Species" a hearty Thumbs Up even though he's not a fan of the sci-fi/horror genre; he zeroed-in on the obvious attributes of the film and praised it accordingly while Roger completely dissed it as "a very bad movie." You can see the review here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NbAL2O4hYY. This is further proof that Gene wasn't the "film snob" that his critics claim.

Want more evidence?

- Siskel gave "Scanners" a thumbs-up while Ebert gave it a thumbs-down.
- Siskel gave "The Thing" a thumbs-down while Ebert gave it a thumbs-up.
- Siskel gave "Escape from New York" a thumbs-up while Ebert gave it a thumbs-down.
- Siskel gave "Venom" a thumbs-up while Ebert gave it a thumbs-down.
- Siskel gave "Octopussy" a thumbs-up while Ebert gave it a thumbs-down.

[–] BillySlater (4241) 3 years ago

Each of them had their own personal quirky favourites but I am willing to make a friendly wager that Siskel´s thumbs up to thumbs down ratio was far lower than Ebert´s and that´s what made him a snob imo. Moreover, Siskel´s nitpicks just seemed absurd at times, although both of them did that, Ebert seemed to be a bit more willing to give a film the benefit of the doubt.

Siskel is the reason Aliens doesn´t have 100% on RT. I will never forgive him for that. haha.

[–] Wuchak (8772) 3 years ago

I appreciate your input. It is true that Ebert gave thumbs-up more often than Siskel, but I can't characterize Gene as a film snob because he had the gonads to give the infamous "The Island of Dr. Moreau" (1996) a thumbs-up. A true film snob would never do that. Furthermore, Gene felt that was a flaw in Roger's reviews -- he wasn't critical enough and was too nice.

I thought they balanced each other out well. By listening to both of them you were able to ascertain if you would like the picture or not.

As far as "Aliens" goes, it's one of my favorites. As you know, Siskel mostly objected to it on moral grounds due to the little girl being put in mortal danger for too long, which made it an unpleasant experience for him, but they BOTH plainly argued that the movie was overkill even though Roger technically gave it a thumbs up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1y6QhZaUG4

[–] BillySlater (4241) 3 years ago

I have yet to see The Island of Dr Moreau. Any good?

[–] Hans-Wilhelm (1359) 3 years ago

I agreed with Ebert more.

Of course, there were times I disagreed with each of them but, overall, I found Siskel to be more of a movie "snob" then I found Ebert to be. Siskel's criticisms seemed more elitist and pretentious more often than Ebert.

I can't remember many of the examples but I remember Siskel didn't like Aliens and went on about how the film used peril of a child for cheap drama (referring to Newt being captured by the Xenomorphs).

[–] MRix85 (1) 3 years ago

I agreed with Ebert more, I found him to be fairer.

Siskel felt the whole movie had to work and be good to recommend it but I understood where he was coming from, whereas Ebert would give it a thumbs up for mostly working.

[–] Hans-Wilhelm (1359) 2 years ago

More often with Robert Ebert.
Gene just seemed to be an elitist, film snob a lot more often than Roger did. that is how it came off to me.

[–] Wuchak (8772) 2 years ago

Others have said that on this thread so I think it's generally true. And, yet, Gene will surprise you if you watch the old episodes on Youtube. As pointed out in my opening post, he had the audacity to give the infamous "The Island of Dr. Moreau" (1996) a thumbs-up and stick to his decision -- gotta respect that. He'd also change his mind on a movie upon further reflection and had no qualms about publicly admitting it. For instance, he stupefyingly gave "Apocalypse Now" a thumbs-down in 1979 due to what he felt was a disappointing last act, but later changed his mind on the film.

[–] letess (1564) 2 years ago

I’m seeing Ebert giving 4 stars to Apocalypse Now in June 1 1979. I misread. Siskel gave it a thumbs down.

[–] Wuchak (8772) 2 years ago

Yes, we're talking about Siskel here (although this is Ebert's page). Gene originally gave "Apocalypse Now" a thumbs-down because he didn't like the last act, but he later changed his mind and gave the film a thumbs up, which of course doesn't change his original 1979 review (which is basically a snapshot in time -- how he felt at that moment in 1979).

One thing I can respect about Gene is that he was harder on films than Roger. Ebert had a softer heart while Siskel had no qualms denouncing a movie regardless of who made it or who starred in it. I can't help respect someone who boldly speaks the awful truth as he sees it (at the time), even when it goes against popular opinion.

[–] letess (1564) 2 years ago

It’s hard to believe that Siskel did that. How did he want the last act to go? Apocalypse Now is one of the best movies ever. And Redux even more do. I don’t think he was around for that one. Terminator is excellent. Dead Poet’s Society less so. There are a couple of movies I disagree with Ebert on. Original Thomas Crown Affair. These two guys were the best. I love them both. And both together.

Your OP is three yrs old. Just realized.

[–] sut6432 (2908) 2 years ago

Back in the dial up internet days when I was a teenager, I would go to their website each week just to see if the thumbs icon for each of them was up or down for all the new releases, and if I was really excited for a movie I would sit through the constant buffering to watch the video clip of them discussing the film.

Seems like an eternity ago. I can’t really pick between them, but I think I did side with Siskel a little more often. It sucks they’re both gone now. They had some fiery debates over the years. It was fun to watch. You knew they both loved movies.

[–] TandyMan (11120) 2 years ago

I always trusted the fat one best. I understood him and I understood what he appreciated in movies and what he didn't. So whether he liked or hated a movie, after listening to his reasons, I always knew if I was gonna love or hate it. Whether or not I agreed with him. The bald guy was all over the place, there never seemed to be a rhyme or reason to whether or not he liked a movie. Sometimes I think he gave a thumbs up to a movie just to piss off his buddy. It was great listening to them bicker lol. Miss those guys.