Things I Learned From Binging Siskel And Ebert

Siskel And Ebert

In 1998, when I was around nine years old I came upon the discovery of a weekly television show in which two film critics reviewed (and at times debated) the latest movie releases. I quickly came to learn these two were Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, the two very men whose names kept showing up in those movie posters my brother and I used to read over whenever we were looking up the latest showtime listings on the newspaper (Yes kids, you used to really have to put the work in to learn when and where movies were playing). They were also responsible for all those “two thumbs way up!” quotes attached to some movie ads. I can’t pretend I watched them for too long as eventually my attention went elsewhere, but for the small time that I did follow the show I found the concept of two guys talking about that week’s latest slate of releases intriguing content. Obviously Siskel And Ebert was nothing groundbreaking, but for a kid who was limited in what movies he could watch and when, it was great to get the scoop from these guys.

Well, here we are in 2021 and at thirty-two years old I’m attempting to do the very same thing with my brother on my own podcast. We have it a little harder than them, my brother and I pay with our own hard earn dollars to see the latest movies and we’re not paid for our reviews. But regardless given their idolized stature among modern movie critics and with both men unfortunately no longer with us, I thought I’d binge a bunch of their shows to see if I could learn a thing or two from them. What I came away with was three key lessons, and frankly all of them were ones I already knew but certain big name movie critics seem to have forgotten or re-written the history of these two titans to ignore.

When I first discovered the two, I had no idea I had caught them at the tail-end of their over two decades run together. A few years later when I noticed the show had become hosted by Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper now in the place of Gene Siskel, I had assumed that Siskel guy had retired. It wasn’t until years after that when Ebert passed away that I actually looked into what had happened.

Ebert joined the Chicago Sun Times back in 1966 and quickly settled in as their film critic a year after. Siskel joined the Chicago Tribune in 1969 and also settled in quickly soon after as their film critic. By 1975, Ebert had become a Pulitzer Prize winner and Siskel had stints doing segments for CBS. With both of them rising in the media world and both from opposing Chicago papers, the local PBS station for the windy city had both come on to do a monthly show on the movies. That show was Opening Soon At A Theatre Near You, not the catchiest title but it became an ever-popular program as the two bickered over the latest film releases.

Per both of their admissions and the show’s producers’ interviews we know they began their careers absolutely despising one another. Reportedly coin flips decided who would do the main reviews for what movie and it supposedly would also come to decide why Siskel’s name came first even though Ebert’s was first in the alphabet, and he had seniority over him. If you go back and watch their 1976 “Best of the Year” episode you can sense little respect among each other with both poking at the other when they disagreed on a film making their rival’s list. That’s in stark contrast to their final such show together for 1998 when Siskel said he’d revisit Ebert’s top pick for the year out of respect for him given that film didn’t place on his own list.

Their show expanded into syndication in 1977 when it became Sneak Previews. This allowed the two personalities to get an audience past the local networks and with time they would turn that into a full blown weekly national show come 1982 called At The Movies, which would then be bought by Disney themselves in 1986 where the simple Siskel & Ebert At The Movies title would carry on until their time ended together in 1999. Not only did their audience grow from that time on to the point they would become pseudo celebrities themselves, but their respect for one another improved and their friendship bloomed. If you catch their major disagreements from the mid-eighties to their final shows together, you can sense a bit of fun playfulness among them when poking the other rather than the more serious and rigid meanness they exhibited towards one another in the early years. By 1998 they were arguably the top two most influential movie critics in the country if not the world and had become an inspiration for many of today’s critics and probably some future ones as well.

Sadly, Gene Siskel was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer in the late nineties and while he attempted to hide it from colleagues, Roger Ebert said in an interview with Charlie Rose a few years later that they could tell he wasn’t doing too well. Siskel passed away in 1999 and Ebert eventually found a new sparring partner in Richard Roeper before Ebert himself retired in 2006. In 2013 after a very public battle with cancer, Ebert passed away. Roper still writes about the movies to this day and releases his own Best of the Year lists.

It’s strange how both men have come to be remembered. Ebert was constantly marketed as the one who gave the thumbs down in the shows’ ads, and he was infamous for his bombastic quotes on how badly he hated a movie – he even wrote a whole book on his bad movie reviews. He was portrayed as the serious film critic with high standards, and yet he gave much more favorable reviews than Siskel did including championing certain would-be classics his partner gave thumbs down to. Siskel in turn was marketed as an everyday man with posters always featuring him as the thumbs up guy, and yet he was always the harshest on movies and was usually the one to complain the most about his feelings on the overall year in film.

Watching their decades spanning content it struck me how much change each had seen for the movie industry. They saw the rise of summer blockbusters and the eventual obsession with sequels. They watched the industry grow from small serious films in the seventies to major money churners in the eighties and nineties. They followed the Disney renaissance era of the nineties that reinvigorated the animation field, and Ebert got to see the first years of the MCU that would come to dominate the box office in his twilight years. It’s strange to watch them review certain films you know will become touchstones in many of our lives, but to them it was just another new movie that week which makes me wonder how many future classics I’ve treated that way. So, as I binged show after show of theirs, these were the lessons that I got out of watching these two icons talk about movies that have since aged decades and become classics.

Lesson 1: Not All Of The Films Critically Acclaimed Today Will Pass The Test Of Time
My favorite show from Ebert and Siskel were always the Best of the Year shows. Every single critic, whether they be a professional paid for their reviews or a cinephile with a blog or podcast, loves to finish a year or kick-off a year with their picks for the best films of the past trip around the sun – typically a top 10 list, but I’ve seen some even go as high as 50. Watching those shows it struck me that there were several times that films showed up that either I had never heard of, weren’t even nominated much less even been in the conversation for Best Picture that year, or became forgotten niche classics only the most hardcore cinephile knew existed.

For instance, in 1978, the year of The Deer Hunter, Grease, Animal House, Halloween, etc. the two men chose Straight Time and An Unmarried Woman among their top film of the year. With all due respect to those two movies, and I have not seen either for myself, those are not anywhere near in status as classics from that year as the former have become. Another good example is in their 1975 lists. While a few now fondly remembered films made each of their picks, they forego having Jaws in either of them in favor of such films like the documentary Antonia: A Portrait Of The Woman or the Italian movie A Brief Vacation. Now forgive me, but I think it’s safe to say the film about the man eating shark has become much more of a classic than either of those two movies ever became.

Obviously movies are subjective, and no great crime was made by either man for picking films they legitimately believed were among the best of the year, only to become pretty much forgotten decades later. But that’s the dirty little secret about film critique, you can champion and give much acclaim to a new release, but you won’t really know how much that film makes an impression until decades down the line if we’re being honest. This year alone much praise has been heaped on serious heavy “high art” movies like The Power Of The Dog or The Green Knight or Spencer and there’s a real shot that all three of those films may get a response of “What is that?!” from a movie-goer in ten years much less today’s popcorn flick loving median audience member. But you can’t know such hindsight in the moment, and as I watched these two icons place movies that many have forgotten existed among their best of the year list it hit me that there’s no shame in championing whatever movie you thought worthy as a best of the year qualifier; even if it’s a small film that likely doesn’t grow an audience down the line. No sense in trying to predict how well your list will age, just let out your true opinions on what movies you truly thought were outstanding.

Lesson 2: Not All Of The Films Critically Panned Will Go On To Not Become Classics
Modern movie critics that have praised or taken great inspiration from Siskel and Ebert grew up with plenty films that they reviewed badly that went on to become classics. I remember my jaw dropping when Ebert mentioned the horror classic The Omen among his worst films of 1976. I also couldn’t help but shake my head in frustration watching the two men pan 1985’s cult comedy classic Clue, a movie that averages a 3.8/5 on the heavily cinephile represented Letterboxd site. Both men completely trashed on Hocus Pocus as unfunny, and now that same movie is a beloved Halloween must watch comedy that garners mostly positive reviews from nostalgia minded modern critics and cinephiles. As idolized as these two are, I could cut clip after clip of them giving thumbs down to movies that many today would call thumbs up films – a bevy of hot takes gone cold.

But it’s not just films both men panned, Gene Siskel specifically had some real doozy of bad reviews that didn’t age well for many people. Ebert called out Siskel for not liking Apocalypse Now, a movie Ebert considered the best of 1979 and one many have told me is in their personal top 5 of all-time if not even their favorite film ever. He also called him out for his bad review of Aliens, which has gone on to become the popular pick for the best in the sci-fi franchise and holds a coveted 4+ average rating on Letterboxd. Oh, and it doesn’t end there, Siskel also gave marks against Rocky and mocked Ebert for putting it in his best of the year list for 1976 – a movie that has become a major classic sports film and won Best Picture that year! That’s not to say Ebert didn’t have his own bad takes. In 1996 he placed Happy Gilmore and The Cable Guy in his worst of the year list, two movies that have become cult comedy classics and enjoy decent enough Letterboxd scores today – by the way, that same year Siskel called Jingle All The Way the worst film of that year and that movie has become a bit of an ironic Christmas classic with younger generations.

Now again, movies are subjective. There’s no great sin in giving a bad review and that movie still has a long shelf life and gets handed down through generations. They truly did think those movies were bad, but movie-goers disagreed as will happen from time to time if the Rotten Tomatoes’ score gaps between critics and audiences is any indication. I can blast a film to kingdom come as a bad movie, but I have no control if it gains a following and becomes a favorite (even a guilty pleasure) for many as the years pass by. You can’t get caught up in whether a movie you didn’t like could still appeal to others, you have to give a straight up a review and that includes saying you truly believed a movie was bad regardless of what audience it may or may not find.

Lesson 3: We All Will Have Different “Best Of” Lists
This shouldn’t strike you as anything amazing but neither man had the same best of the year lists. In fact, only ten times, from 1969 when both were actively writing reviews for their perspective newspapers and to 1998 right before Siskel passed, did both men agree on the best movie of the year. In 1969 they both had the same number one, in 1998 both of their number ones didn’t even appear on the other’s list. In this day and age, it feels like too many critics are trying to formulate a Best Of list that includes would be Best Picture nominees rather than their legitimate favorites of the year. I could tell as I watched every “Best of” show from Siskel and Ebert that neither man was trying to do anything of the sort as plenty would be Best Picture winners much less nominees didn’t make either’s list on any given year.

We all have different tastes in films because it’s a subjective artform. So, it stands to reason we’ll all have different favorites from each year. I personally find the time between late November to mid-January as these lists come out the most exciting time of the year for me as reader of film journalism. You can tell a lot about someone from what movies they gravitate to, and the various different lists that we get each year can also tell us about a film or two that seem to resonate enough that it shows up on almost everyone’s list. Or maybe one list hits us with a curveball because one particular movie hit home with that critic really hard versus everyone else. Such as a blockbuster popcorn flick that randomly shows up or an animated kids movie that no one else listed.

I’m reminded of the fact that in his final year of watching movies Gene Siskel placed Babe: Pig In The City as his favorite film of 1998. If you go back and watch that show, the man is clearly ill and experiencing what would in hindsight be known as his twilight in life. Each film hits us a different way than it might others, regardless of what critical reviews there are for one film we all eventually have to sit down and watch it for ourselves to give our informed opinion. This year alone I personally disagreed with critics on several films. So the thought that a man who likely knew he was dying said that a kids movie about a talking pig and his animal friends, which got decent contemporary reviews but nothing spectacular, was his favorite film of his last year in life tells me that if a talking pig can touch a dying man that way then who’s to say falling in love with the latest MCU movie is somehow lesser than because it’s not high art or that loving an arthouse film none of your friends saw makes it any less of a fun discovery.

At the end of the day Siskel and Ebert taught me what makes talking about movies so fun, is the fact we all had a different experience with each film and only we can provide that analysis of what that experience did for us.