|
|
Post by msdemos on Jul 31, 2018 19:38:46 GMT
Who was your 'guy' ??  SAVE FERRIS |
|
|
|
Post by jakesully on Jul 31, 2018 19:44:13 GMT
Siskel was cool but Ebert is the GOAT film critic imo (even though I definitely disagreed with him on a lot of things)
|
|
|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Jul 31, 2018 19:48:51 GMT
Definitely Roger. Loved his Great Movies series. His commentary tracks for Casablanca and Citizen Kane are also great listens.
|
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Jul 31, 2018 21:05:28 GMT
Ebert
|
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Jul 31, 2018 21:15:29 GMT
Both
|
|
|
|
Post by Spike Del Rey on Jul 31, 2018 21:15:48 GMT
Man do I miss them. Ebert was probably the more easily accessible for the average movie fan, but as a team they were just unbeatable.
|
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on Jul 31, 2018 21:17:12 GMT
I think the basic formula of the Sneak Previews format was Serious Film Critic vs. Argumentative Guy Who Baits Him. In that respect, Ebert was the better film critic; Siskel was there to goad him on by either disagreeing with him or, in the case of their both agreeing, reinforcing whatever he said. But Siskel made a very strong sidekick, to the point where he sometimes seemed on an even keel with Ebert.
That's why the other teams on the copycat shows never worked as well; they never achieved that balance. Rex Reed had a series of partners, all of whom seemed overshadowed by Reed's smarmy Paul Lynde impressions. Jeffrey Lyons was more of a movie critic than Michael Medved was (if liking just about every movie that comes out qualifies one for being a movie critic); Medved's experience in film criticism was primarily his series of smarmy books on the "worst films ever made." Regardless, Lyons seemed cowed by Medved's two-bit opinions and uninspired quips which he believed passed for serious film criticism. When Siskel became ill and left his TV gig, his replacement, Richard Roeper, just seemed too bland opposite Ebert, reluctant to pick fights.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2018 21:19:59 GMT
I've been watching a lot of their videos lately and I think Ebert was more attuned with the common viewer and Siskel would from time to time seem like the typical conceited movie critic.
Overall, I tend to agree with Roger, who liked Aliens and disliked Full Metal Jacket. Siskel gave thumbs down to Aliens and up for FMJ.
Siskel didn't like Field of Dreams. Ebert did. Again, I agree with Ebert.
Both loved Roxanne, which I still rank as one of my favorite films of the 80s.
Both hated Jaws the Revenge.
Both gave big thumbs up to little known Electric Dreams.
Anytime I watch a movie, I will go to Youtube and see what they thought of it. Even though I more often times agree with Ebert, I like to hear what Siskel thinks. I think both were highly entertaining critics.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 31, 2018 21:28:01 GMT
Ebert
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2018 22:47:35 GMT
When I disagree with Ebert, I really disagree, to the point of wondering what he's looking at. But he had some fair reviews too. I think they both missed the boat on some particular movies/misunderstanding of "what a movie is or can be" and "what is the role of the critic?"
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jul 31, 2018 22:55:18 GMT
Ebert. Siskel was a little snobbier.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jul 31, 2018 23:03:35 GMT
Ebert. From what I read about Siskel, he sounds like a pretentious snob.
|
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Jul 31, 2018 23:13:52 GMT
Roger Ebert. I do like Gene Siskel, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 1, 2018 0:37:29 GMT
Roger Ebert
What I really like about Ebert is that he wasn't afraid to tell the absolute truth and be completely honest about his opinion and stick to it. I love his unapologetic affection for "dumb fun" type movies.
Siskel was a bit more of a snob but he still enjoyed movies like Face/Off, Con Air, Batman Forever, John Carpenter's Vampires etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by wonderburstanger on Aug 1, 2018 1:00:44 GMT
Roeper motherfuckers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Aug 1, 2018 2:32:20 GMT
Neither, though that probably has a lot to do with me not being American.
|
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Aug 1, 2018 2:43:02 GMT
Wow, I'm in the minority here, but I liked Siskel better.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Aug 1, 2018 5:01:17 GMT
Ebert because he was even greater on his own - books, lists, commentaries, reviews, etc.
Siskel was fine, though he needed Ebert for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Aug 8, 2018 6:37:26 GMT
On the show, both.
I think Ebert was more interesting when he was alone-like a radio interview, but I only heard Siskel in one tv interview by himself.
I never felt that one was harsher on movies than the other. Ebert was more enthusiastic at times, Siskel would be more pretentious about certain subjects like Kubrick, on the other hand, he wouldn't gush over some films if they lacked something he cared about.
So he rightly pointed out that while Jurassic Park was compared to Jaws, the characters in Jaws were more interesting.
Sometimes I agreed with one, other times both, other times I disagreed with both of them.
|
|
