Siskel and Ebert (and/at the Movies)

[Old Nehamkin]

I was going to post this in the "what are you watching in quarantine that you wouldn't normally" thread, but I figured it was worth a thread of its own so here you go.

Since lockdown started I've found myself watching a lot of old episodes of Siskel and Ebert at the Movies on youtube. It really is a delightful programme. The format - in which they review 5 movies in under 20 minutes - is ridiculously cramped and totally restrictive of any kind of meaningful analysis, and with only about 45 seconds each to talk about a given movie,  the pair's conclusions often seem to hover on the edge of the kind of banal platitudinal emptiness that Tim Heidecker and Gregg Turkington made the heart of their On Cinema series. But in Siskel and Ebert's case, the quickfire nature of the reviews turns the show into a series of frantic pitched battles in which the pair get a few volleys each to passive-agressively undermine one another. It's great fun.

A couple of my favourite reviews:

Good Burger (Siskel and Ebert tie each other in knots about the motivations of Kel Mitchell's character):

https://youtu.be/no8xNrEKJyU

Cop and a Half (Siskel reacts in dumbfoundment to Ebert's defence of this film in which Burt Reynolds is a cop who gets partnered with an 8 year-old boy. Siskel will bring up the movie several times in later episodes to make fun of Ebert for being virtually the only critic to give it a positive review):

https://youtu.be/DnNHmaIMYpg

The show has become go-to comfort food for me over the last few weeks and I've found it great to drift off to sleep to. I've reached the conclusion that Siskel was by far the better film critic of the pair and he lands the best blows against Ebert, who in comparison is a garrulous buffoon who constantly backs himself into corners and dies on ridiculous hills, but nonetheless has a certain unflappable, bullyish quality and a laser-sharp mean streak that allow him to blindside and topple Siskel on occasion.

To round off this OP here's a behind-the-scenes clip which features Siskel and Ebert absolutely tearing into each other under a debatable layer of irony/ camraderie:

https://youtu.be/rmnYCSwt2Js

[Small Man Big Horse]

Thanks for that, I found it quite nostalgic as I used to love watching film review shows, and I'm extremely fond of Siskel. On the downside I've never been a fan of Ebert's, and find myself disagreeing with him a fair amount when it came to his written reviews, and he definitely wasn't as witty or insightful as Siskel.

[Schnapple]

I really enjoyed the 2015 film about Ebert, 'Life Itself'. Would of course recommend it if you've deep in Siskelebert world. I agree, these are all very watchable.

Ebert was a bit of a twat, and stubborn as a mule, but he really did operate without much cynicism when it came to film itself. He fucking loved it.

[colacentral]

I watch alot of these too. Their 1970s show is on youtube too and there they have alot more time to have real conversations about the films, though equally they show bizarrely long clips too, entire five minute sequences of films. There's also a dog they call in to discuss the dog of the week, which changes to a skunk in their early 80s show.

I feel the opposite in regards to their respective performances - Ebert is much faster on his feet and articulate than Siskel, and Siskel has some weird bugbears, like giving Aliens a negative review because a child is shown in danger. Another habit of his in criticising a film is rewriting it, "it would have been better of this happened" or "why wasn't there a scene where they did this," etc, which drives me mad. Review the film that's there, not the one you've imagined. Ebert picks him up on that sometimes, for instance one where he says something like "it sounds like you're writing the sequel rather than a review" or whatever.

I'd have to watch them again to refresh my memory but I'm sure in general I found Ebert to have a more consistent taste, where I think you can generally predict what he'll like and dislike, and I don't think that's the case with Siskel as much, who I get the impression was guided more by what mood he was in that day. Ebert of course didn't get 80's and 90's Lynch, though I understand his reasons and he did later give positive reviews to The Straight Story and Mulholland Drive.

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

These are huge nostalgia bombs for me as well. Growing up I would always try to stay up to watch Siskel & Ebert directly after the nightly news.

As an adult I don't really agree with either of them in terms of taste (Ebert is probably better overall), but the best part of the show is not really their takes on the movies as much as it is their snark and the relationship between the two of them. The best moments are when they are insulting each other, or teaming up to take down a bad movie. The annual worst-of-the-year videos are great content.

[Keebleman]

The latest edition of Gilbert Gottfried's Amazing Colossal Podcast has a writer called Alan Zweibel as its guest.  Zweibel wrote Rob Reiner's film North which Ebert absolutely lacerated in print. "I hated this movie," it read. "Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it."

Zweibel's confidence was really rocked by the movie's reception, and by Ebert's review in particular.  He tells on the podcast how years later he was in a Chicago restaurant when his attention was caught by a fellow diner, a chubby fellow in a garish multi-coloured sweater: Ebert. When Ebert got up to use the toilet, Zweibel followed.  As they were washing their hands, Zweibel said, "Hey, Roger, I'm Alan Zweibel, I wrote North." He said the colour drained from Ebert's face. "And Roger, I have to say I hate, hate, hate, HATE that sweater you're wearing."

[mjwilson]

I watch alot of these too. Their 1970s show is on youtube too and there they have alot more time to have real conversations about the films, though equally they show bizarrely long clips too, entire five minute sequences of films. There's also a dog they call in to discuss the dog of the week

Why are we not talking about this dog business though?

[SavageHedgehog]

Back when the show was still on the air ABC hosted a site which had videos of every review they had ever run from around mid-1986 onwards. Unfortunately and inevitably this was taken down when the show was cancelled in 2010.

After Ebert got too sick to keep doing shows it was Roeper (Siskel's replacement) and a revolving panel of critics for a couple of years. In 2008 they tried to sex it up by getting rid of Roeper and his reliably middle-aged buddies, and brought in the slightly younger Tom Mankiewicz, who was sort of OK, and the much younger Ben Lyons, who was not. Lyons had already gained some negative attention for poster-ready "reviews", e.g. calling I Am Legend "one of the greatest movies ever made" and 300 "the defining cinematic experience of a generation" . The show worked its way down to the appropriate level. This only lasted a year and they tried to revive it with the more suitable A. O. Scott and Michael Phillips with an on-the-nose advert promising "serious reviews with serious critics!", but it only lasted another year.

[popcorn]

Another habit of his in criticising a film is rewriting it, "it would have been better of this happened" or "why wasn't there a scene where they did this," etc, which drives me mad. Review the film that's there, not the one you've imagined.

This is something that comes up a lot in pop criticism circles and to be honest I've never understood it. If you're going to criticise something - in the sense of arguing that it has flaws - doesn't it logically follow that you think it should have done something else instead? Isn't it also constructive and interesting to argue specifically for what it could have done differently to be better?

[Mister Six]

Ooh lovely thread! I've never seen any of the Siskel and Ebert shows - my relationship to them was restricted to the copy of Microsoft Cinemania '95 that came with my first-ever PC. One of those Age of Interactive Multimedia Edutainment things, the backbone of the thing was hundreds of Siskel's reviews - I assume all taken from one of those massive books you used to get in the 80s and 90s - with many also featuring reviews by Ebert and Pauline Kael.[nb]Weirdly, there was no review for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs - don't know if that was an omission by the Cinemania devs or whoever put together the Siskel book it was based on.[/nb] Siskel's reviews, most of which were just a paragraph long, I didn't really get on with for the most part. But I really chimed with Ebert, and loved the way he reviewed films on their merits. Don't complain that Die Hard isn't The Seventh Seal - is it a good action movie, first and foremost?

Didn't get into Kael's writing much - but I was a daft teen, so probably not the best audience.

This is something that comes up a lot in pop criticism circles and to be honest I've never understood it. If you're going to criticise something - in the sense of arguing that it has flaws - doesn't it logically follow that you think it should have done something else instead? Isn't it also constructive and interesting to argue specifically for what it could have done differently to be better?

Depends on the nature of the criticism. If a film ends on a damp squib and you suggest a way it could be pepped up, that's fine. What people are complaining about here is when (to make up an absurd example) someone says the baddies in The Evil Dead should have been humans, because it would allow the film to make a hefty social point about something - ie. suggesting a change that fundamentally misses the point/changes the nature of the film, rather than amends a flaw in it. "48hrs should have been about two black cops, because I don't like Nick Nolte's racism!" "Iron Man should have been about a woman who builds a friendly robot!" etc etc etc.

[checkoutgirl]

Usually agree with Siskel more, he seemed to have a keener eye for the camp and ridiculous film that can still be fun. Also there are dozens of classics that Ebert trashed that I find staggering.

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

Usually agree with Siskel more, he seemed to have a keener eye for the camp and ridiculous film that can still be fun. Also there are dozens of classics that Ebert trashed that I find staggering.

Ebert wrote camp and ridiculous films with Russ Meyer, he was entirely in tune with that sort of thing.

He never struck me as a pompous man. On the contrary, I always admired his willingness to judge films on their own terms. He had blind spots, we all do, but he was more often than not a very acute and interesting critic.

[SavageHedgehog]

Ooh lovely thread! I've never seen any of the Siskel and Ebert shows - my relationship to them was restricted to the copy of Microsoft Cinemania '95 that came with my first-ever PC. One of those Age of Interactive Multimedia Edutainment things, the backbone of the thing was hundreds of Siskel's reviews - I assume all taken from one of those massive books you used to get in the 80s and 90s - with many also featuring reviews by Ebert and Pauline Kael. Siskel's reviews, most of which were just a paragraph long, I didn't really get on with for the most part. But I really chimed with Ebert, and loved the way he reviewed films on their merits. Don't complain that Die Hard isn't The Seventh Seal - is it a good action movie, first and foremost?

Didn't get into Kael's writing much - but I was a daft teen, so probably not the best audience.

That's how I got introduced to Ebert too, but the reviews that form the bulk of it weren't by Siskel, they were by Leonard Maltin. I only knew of Siskel and At the Movies through cultural osmosis and later second hand Yank internet jibber-jaba until YouTube and the ABC site.

I wouldn't say I agree with him more, but do think Siskel is more engaging to watch, but the relatively few written Siskel reviews I've read (there aren't anywhere near as many out there as there are for Ebert) aren't particularly strong, they're kind of short and go on lots of weird tangents.

And Ebert didn't like Die Hard!

[Old Nehamkin]

I watch alot of these too. Their 1970s show is on youtube too and there they have alot more time to have real conversations about the films, though equally they show bizarrely long clips too, entire five minute sequences of films. There's also a dog they call in to discuss the dog of the week, which changes to a skunk in their early 80s show.

I came across their original review of Taxi Driver the other day, which took me by surprise as I somehow hadn't realised that their show went back that long. Very funny to see Siskel dutifully sporting a big droopy moustache like when a sitcom does a joke 70s flashback. That review in particular really doesn't show Siskel at his best though - he's weirdly hung up on the violence at the end of the film which he views as a random, gratuitous curveball, and he seems to have wanted the movie to just be a quirky love story between Bickle and Cybill Shepherd's character. He doesn't mention Jodie Foster at all, which seems bizarre. Certainly a case of failing to engage with a movie on its own terms, I reckon.

Depends on the nature of the criticism. If a film ends on a damp squib and you suggest a way it could be pepped up, that's fine. What people are complaining about here is when (to make up an absurd example) someone says the baddies in The Evil Dead should have been humans, because it would allow the film to make a hefty social point about something - ie. suggesting a change that fundamentally misses the point/changes the nature of the film, rather than amends a flaw in it. "48hrs should have been about two black cops, because I don't like Nick Nolte's racism!" "Iron Man should have been about a woman who builds a friendly robot!" etc etc etc.

Bit of a tangent, but I remember years ago I read a Twitter thread by erstwhile comedy writer and current-day bigot Graham Linehan, in which he was talking about how much he disliked The Big Lebowski. The crux of his argument, which he repeated a few times and which was meant to demonstrate the weakness of the film's screenplay, was the fact that "you don't get to see the final of the bowling tournament at the end." That's stuck in my head ever since as one of the most baffingly point-missing movie takes I've ever come across. I mean, I honestly don't think I've ever watched that film and felt any curiosity about the outcome of the bowling tournament. The plot isn't structured around the bowling tournament in any way whatsoever - it's not like the Coens set up the movie as an underdog sports comedy and then pull the rug from under your feet. From start to finish it's very clearly a rambling, Chandleresque mystery in which bowling provides a bit of scene-setting and acts as a kind of motif. But there's Linehan, sitting in the cinema getting angry that he isn't watching The Mighty Ducks, checking his watch during the ransom scene and still holding out hope for a climax in which the Dude, Walter and Donnie all get to prove their bowling prowess once and for all.

Getting back to Siskel and Ebert, here's a nice clip where they team up on a local news programme to defend the original Star Wars movies against a very sniffy, humourless critic who comes across like the villain in a kids' film who wants to close down a candy floss factory:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky9-eIlHzAE

[colacentral]

This is something that comes up a lot in pop criticism circles and to be honest I've never understood it. If you're going to criticise something - in the sense of arguing that it has flaws - doesn't it logically follow that you think it should have done something else instead? Isn't it also constructive and interesting to argue specifically for what it could have done differently to be better?

It's difficult to explain specifically what I mean, but basically, what Mister Six said. Another real example would be when that cretin Harry Knowles spent his whole review of Toy Story 3 complaining that Andy should keep his toys at the end, completely missing the point of the film.

You'll see it used alot by podcast / youtube type reviewers, where they fall back on fanfic rather than articulating the technical or artistic reason why something fails. As Mister Six says, it's fine in certain circumstances, for example saying "we don't understand why this character suddenly does X, so shouldn't there have been a scene flashing them out more?", but it's when entire sequences are imagined that the person has strayed outside of the role of critic and into armchair screenwriter.

I remember with Siskel that he would particularly do this with comedies, "wouldn't it have been funnier if they'd gone to the beach? Lots of funny stuff could happen at the beach."

I think that temptation to want the film to conform to your particular idea of what should have happened can close you off to trying to understand what is actually there.

I want to stress though that I'm not saying it's not fine to talk about films that way in normal conversation or on a forum like this one, just that professional film criticism should stay within the boundaries of what is actually in the film. I expect there are a ton of examples on here of me imagining alternate reality films and TV.

[colacentral]

I came across their original review of Taxi Driver the other day, which took me by surprise as I somehow hadn't realised that their show went back that long. Very funny to see Siskel dutifully sporting a big droopy moustache like when a sitcom does a joke 70s flashback. That review in particular really doesn't show Siskel at his best though - he's weirdly hung up on the violence at the end of the film which he views as a random, gratuitous curveball, and he seems to have wanted the movie to just be a quirky love story between Bickle and Cybill Shepherd's character. He doesn't mention Jodie Foster at all, which seems bizarre. Certainly a case of failing to engage with a movie on its own terms, I reckon.

Bit of a tangent, but I remember years ago I read a Twitter thread by erstwhile comedy writer and current-day bigot Graham Linehan, in which he was talking about how much he disliked The Big Lebowski. The crux of his argument, which he repeated a few times and which was meant to demonstrate the weakness of the film's screenplay, was the fact that "you don't get to see the final of the bowling tournament at the end." That's stuck in my head ever since as one of the most baffingly point-missing movie takes I've ever come across. I mean, I honestly don't think I've ever watched that film and felt any curiosity about the outcome of the bowling tournament. The plot isn't structured around the bowling tournament in any way whatsoever - it's not like the Coens set up the movie as an underdog sports comedy and then pull the rug from under your feet. From start to finish it's very clearly a rambling, Chandleresque mystery in which bowling provides a bit of scene-setting and acts as a kind of motif. But there's Linehan, sitting in the cinema getting angry that he isn't watching The Mighty Ducks, checking his watch during the ransom scene and still holding out hope for a climax in which the Dude, Walter and Donnie all get to prove their bowling prowess once and for all.

Getting back to Siskel and Ebert, here's a nice clip where they team up on a local news programme to defend the original Star Wars movies against a very sniffy, humourless critic who comes across like the villain in a kids' film who wants to close down a candy floss factory:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky9-eIlHzAE

Good example with Siskel and Taxi Driver there, that is one that I'd forgotten about; but that Linehan one is even better. In both examples they're almost wanting the film to change genre.

[The Culture Bunker]

Hearing people mention that Cinemania '95 CD ROM takes me back to my first PC too. Think mine also came with some kind of encyclopedia thing and Microsoft Golf, which was a pretty good game.

I did spend a lot of time reading the reviews on Cinemania - was impressed at all the video and sound clips it had on it (the encyclopedia one had a clip of Elvis Costello's "Pump It Up" as an example of punk rock). From what I vaguely remember, of the three reviewers, Ebert's tastes sort of ran closest to my own, at least when I was 14/15.

[Jim Bob]

The plot isn't structured around the bowling tournament in any way whatsoever - it's not like the Coens set up the movie as an underdog sports comedy and then pull the rug from under your feet.

Pun intended?

[Jim Bob]

Hearing people mention that Cinemania '95 CD ROM takes me back to my first PC too. Think mine also came with some kind of encyclopedia thing...

...the encyclopedia one had a clip of Elvis Costello's "Pump It Up" as an example of punk rock...

That would be Encarta '95.  A childhood favourite of mine too.

[Dex Sawash]

We regularly watched Sneak Previews the S&E PBS show of the 70s despite never going to any films.

Can't hear the theme in my head to At The Movies but still have most of the lyrics up there
At the movies with the bald guy and the fat one, etc

[popcorn]

Depends on the nature of the criticism. If a film ends on a damp squib and you suggest a way it could be pepped up, that's fine. What people are complaining about here is when (to make up an absurd example) someone says the baddies in The Evil Dead should have been humans, because it would allow the film to make a hefty social point about something - ie. suggesting a change that fundamentally misses the point/changes the nature of the film, rather than amends a flaw in it. "48hrs should have been about two black cops, because I don't like Nick Nolte's racism!" "Iron Man should have been about a woman who builds a friendly robot!" etc etc etc.

The thing is, I don't think that sort of thing is insane either. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to say "The Evil Dead doesn't work in its current form, but it could have been a brilliant <other thing>". Sometimes people make the wrong thing.

[The Culture Bunker]

That would be Encarta '95.  A childhood favourite of mine too.

That's the one. Cuh, 25 years ago! I once got a decent grade in Geography by basically just cutting and pasting an article from it. Happy days.

I remember only knowing who Roger Ebert was when he was namechecked in the Simpsons ("I'm sweating like...") because of that Cinemania 95.

[Mister Six]

That's how I got introduced to Ebert too, but the reviews that form the bulk of it weren't by Siskel, they were by Leonard Maltin. I only knew of Siskel and At the Movies through cultural osmosis and later second hand Yank internet jibber-jaba until YouTube and the ABC site.

I wouldn't say I agree with him more, but do think Siskel is more engaging to watch, but the relatively few written Siskel reviews I've read (there aren't anywhere near as many out there as there are for Ebert) aren't particularly strong, they're kind of short and go on lots of weird tangents.

And Ebert didn't like Die Hard!

Ah, right! Well it was 25 years ago...

(EDIT: Wrote that before seeing Culture Bunker's reply)

Surprised he didn't like Die Hard. I recall him liking Die Hard 2. Or at least the bit where McClaine launches himself in an ejector seat to escape an explosion...

[El Unicornio, mang]

I liked that Ebert reviewed a lot of stuff that was relatively obscure to American audiences and probably helped expose them to a (slightly) wider audience just on his recommendation alone. He gave glowing reviews to the films of Eric Rohmer, and British fare like Withnail & I, Nil by Mouth and Kes, the former ending up on his "greatest films" list.

[Mister Six]

The thing is, I don't think that sort of thing is insane either. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to say "The Evil Dead doesn't work in its current form, but it could have been a brilliant <other thing>". Sometimes people make the wrong thing.

It depends on the example, but the Taxi Driver one above is maybe a bit better - somehow regarding the violent conclusion as a weird digression from a quirky love story about a reclusive goof and a stylish political aide, and criticising the film for it.

As someone else said, making these sort of comments in the pub over beer is one thing. Maybe even as an aside while criticising the film in other ways. But when it forms the backbone of a professional review, there's a problem...

[SavageHedgehog]

Surprised he didn't like Die Hard. I recall him liking Die Hard 2. Or at least the bit where McClaine launches himself in an ejector seat to escape an explosion...

He did like Die Hard 2, as did Siskel who I think out it on his Top 10 list that year. He also put Under Siege on his Top 10 for 1992!

I wonder what they would think of films today, and the current reviewer climate? Whatever their faults I can't imagine either of them regurgitating suggested review quotes like "Ant-Man and the Wasp is the perfect MCU palate clenser!"

[dissolute ocelot]

It depends on the example, but the Taxi Driver one above is maybe a bit better - somehow regarding the violent conclusion as a weird digression from a quirky love story about a reclusive goof and a stylish political aide, and criticising the film for it.

As someone else said, making these sort of comments in the pub over beer is one thing. Maybe even as an aside while criticising the film in other ways. But when it forms the backbone of a professional review, there's a problem...

Films are often the way they are for non-artistic reasons and a film critic should know this. The Evil Dead isn't a romantic comedy or talky satire because it's a lot easier to make and release a low-budget horror film than a 3-hour musical set in Nepal. If you're a critic you should understand how a filmmaker has to work within limitations. It's like if a film stars Eric Roberts rather than Anthony Hopkins, don't go on about how Hopkins would have been better, because the filmmaker would probably have loved to get him; talk about Roberts' performance. Shooting on a beach is expensive, the sand gets everywhere and what happens if it rains? Analyse the decisions a filmmaker made, not those they couldn't make.

Having said that, it's reasonable to say "it would have been better if..." as long as you have some kind of point to make, and I think sometimes people are just annoyed when critics do this because they liked the film as it was and don't want it changed.

[dissolute ocelot]

(Hit wrong button)

[Jim Bob]

Shooting on a beach is expensive, the sand gets everywhere...

Alright, Anakin Hitchcock, calm down.

[Old Nehamkin]

The latest Siskel and Ebert vids I've been enjoying are their numerous interviews on David Letterman's show, which someone has very lovingly curated into a 6-part compilation on youtube, including various extra cameo appearances that the boys made on the show over the years. I'm linking to the second part here as by this point the two of them have really learned to play to the audience and have developed a beautfiul chemistry with Letterman, who seems incredibly fond of the pair of them as he plays their quasi-straight man:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS6O1AoGtAI


Part of what I love about these interviews is how they expose and toy with the nebulous line between the serious journalistic aspirations of the two men and the somewhat knowing showbiz contrivance of their vaudevillian odd couple schtick. There's something uniquely fluid about the way Siskel will deliver a very earnest, writerly defense of some drab, forgotten early 90s drama and then gleefully hit Ebert with a carefully crafted fat joke that he's clearly been sitting on for the whole interview.

Incidentally, I'd heartily recommend the latest episode of Michael and Us (a sort of lefty media analysis/comedy podcast that was originally a retrospective of Michael Moore's films). It's a very good and affectionate analysis of the whole Siskel and Ebert franchise that puts them in the context of the history of film criticism and the ascendency of the "consumer advice" approach which they typified. They also pick apart the ethereal, futile inadequacy of the show's review format and the thumbs up/thumbs down system. Well worth a listen I'd say.