Siskel & Ebert's Most Heated Movie Reviews | Matt Singer, author of OPPOSABLE THUMBS
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ต.ค. 2024
- Author Matt Singer looks at the contrasting styles of film critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, and the movies where they notably disagreed. Get his book OPPOSABLE THUMBS: bit.ly/46LBM2w
About OPPOSABLE THUMBS
Once upon a time, if you wanted to know if a movie was worth seeing, you didn’t check out Rotten Tomatoes or IMDB.
You asked whether Siskel & Ebert had given it “two thumbs up.”
On a cold Saturday afternoon in 1975, two men (who had known each other for eight years before they’d ever exchanged a word) met for lunch in a Chicago pub. Gene Siskel was the film critic for the Chicago Tribune. Roger Ebert had recently won the Pulitzer Prize-the first ever awarded to a film critic-for his work at the Chicago Sun-Times. To say they despised each other was an understatement.
When they reluctantly agreed to collaborate on a new movie review show with PBS, there was at least as much sparring off-camera as on. No decision-from which films to cover to who would read the lead review to how to pronounce foreign titles-was made without conflict, but their often-antagonistic partnership (which later transformed into genuine friendship) made for great television. In the years that followed, their signature “Two thumbs up!” would become the most trusted critical brand in Hollywood.
In Opposable Thumbs, award-winning editor and film critic Matt Singer eavesdrops on their iconic balcony set, detailing their rise from making a few hundred dollars a week on local Chicago PBS to securing multimillion-dollar contracts for a syndicated series (a move that convinced a young local host named Oprah Winfrey to do the same). Their partnership was cut short when Gene Siskel passed away in February of 1999 after a battle with brain cancer that he’d kept secret from everyone outside his immediate family-including Roger Ebert, who never got to say goodbye to his longtime partner. But their influence on in the way we talk about (and think about) movies continues to this day.
_______________________________________
Sign up for the Penguin Random House newsletter to get more videos like this and tailored book recommendations: bit.ly/2k9u67A
Subscribe to PRH: / @penguinrandomhouse
PRH on Facebook: / penguinrandomhouse
PRH on Twitter: / penguinrandom
PRH on Tumblr: / penguinrandomhouse
PRH on Instagram: / penguinrandomhouse
PRH on Pinterest: / penguinrandom
TAGS
#SiskelAndEbert #moviereviews
My favourite disagreement of theirs was when Ebert gave Casino a big thumbs up and Siskel gave it a thumbs down. Ebert couldn't believe it. He was like "Thumbs down?? Thumbs down??"
Siskel said Scorsese did it better in Goodfellas and Ebert agreed, but still felt it was a great film! But like you said, Siskel wanted every movie to be the best of its kind.
My theory on S&E is this: not always but generally when they got a movie wrong Gene disliked good movies and Roger liked bad ones.
The human equivalent of quantum entanglement. Two great, down-to-earth critics. Nice essay. Thanks for the memories.
Kudos to Mr. Singer and Penguin Random House for putting out this interesting, warm-hearted book. I enjoyed it very much.
"It took them a long time to warm up to Tom Hanks." It took a long time for Tom Hanks to warm up. Hanks was not publicly considered a great actor (a fun actor, yes, not a great actor) until well into the 1990s. Not that he did not have great roles, but for every good script he picked in the 1980s - he'd pick two bad ones. He got much better at picking scripts that suit him best after Philadelphia.
Roger was so dead wrong about FMJ. And wth remembers “Benji The Hunted”?
Siskel actually called Tom Hanks a "second-rate Bill Murray"
To be fair, Bosom Buddies was a stupid fucking TV show
Hanks was once viewed as a light weight comedic actor.
At the time, he was referring to Bachelor Party primarily, where he played the standard Bill Murray wisecracking ne'er do-well. He was actually really good at it, did it again in Volunteers, Nothing in Common and Dragnet.
The book could've gone without all the little woke knocks that pepper the book. "White men" ,"two white men" , "two heterosexual white men" (a ridiculous statement in and of itself, as if Pauline Kael, Judith Crist, Dorothy Parker, Rex Reed, Alexander Woolcott, Janet Maslin, Molly Haskell, Pia Lindstrom, Armond White, or Elvis Mitchell didn't exist or hadn't existed, and criticism was segregated by race, sexual orientation and gender), "transgender woman", capitalizing black over white....it took me out of the book and put me into the wrongheaded over-corrections of 2024.
When Ebert gave a thumbs up to COP AND A HALF, Siskel basically gave up trying to argue... he was gobsmacked x 1000
Loved your book, but not your mispronunciation of "often," which has a silent T, like "soften." You don't say "fabric soff-ten-er," do you?
Also, how on earth did you leave out their biggest, most famous disagreement, on "Blue Velvet"? They even rehashed it on a follow-up special episode in which each tried to convince the other to give three movies a second viewing and a second chance. "Blue Velvet" was the first movie that was brought up, and Roger still didn't want anything to do with it.
loved those guys. look forward to reading the book. is giving thumbs down to Sleepless in Seattle really that bad a thing? me thinks not.
Matt Singer is as entertaining as the dynamic duo. I loved Siskel and Ebert, (Ebert more than Siskel), and never missed a show.
You don't have Ebert (the one we loved) without Siskel, imho
the book infuriated me in spots because of his editorializing.
AS entertaining? Who are you 🤣
Look thru the collection of reviews from all critics and you'll find that, in fact, they're all full of shit some of the time and other times they're absolutely right. The real strength of a so-called great critic, if there IS such a thing, lies in their prose. Roger was a genuine essayist. A 1st rate writer. So that even when you disagree with him, his observations are often intriguing and beautiful. Not in his oral presentations on the show, mind you; but in the written reviews like those posted on his website. You don't find that with many film critics - from any era.
Brain Candy was genius.
No, it was a lukewarm Monty Python rip-off.
Did you talk to Richard Roeper for the book?
Gene Siskel is like the Simon Cowell of film critics (or Howie Mandel depending on who you think is more harsh)
Ebert didn't like GOOD BOY! (2003). He gave it one star.
Great book I give it 2 thumbs up 😊😊😊
Maybe Tom Hanks took the criticism to heart and improved along the way?
Just listened to the flop house mini. Lovely takes.
I just finished reading the new book tonight; I really enjoyed it. When it comes to Gene and Roger's reviews, I always felt like Siskel missed the mark way more often. Unforgiven, The Silence of the Lambs, Taxi Driver, Goldeneye, Casino, Field of Dreams-- all classics that Siskel didn't like. Ebert had some weird takes too, but I felt like they were aberrations rather than a habit.
I think their more absurd conclusions were often just a case of brinkmanship - they tried to one-up each other with a shock verdict at least every other episode.
Other Amazingly bad takes:
Siskel gave a pretty strong thumbs down to Silence of the Lambs, called it a freak show.
Ebert hated Raising Arizona and Blue Velvet.
They both hated The Thing, which isn't unusual as far as critics were concerned upon release but that still is pretty narrow minded.
Siskel gave Taxi Driver a bad review upon release, but like within 6 years acknowledged it was one of the best movies of the 70s.
Most head scratching for me is when Babe Pig in the City ranked #1 on Siskels year end list.
What early movie did they think Michael Keaton would be better then Tom Hanks? Guessing Splashv
I saw Die Hard in the days it came out and liked it. But renting it a couple of times since then made me do a total 180. Every single scene is SO damn stupid! I can't believe how I fell for it the 1st time. So, if Roger gave it thumbs down, he was right abt that one.
And they wrote for the two most prominent newspapers in town, a definite rivalry
Interesting. I will certainly look out for the book
I’m half way through the book and really enjoying it. Is there a legal way to access all their old shows? I’d love to watch all their old reviews of movies I would have missed because I was too young.
Look around right here. There are dozens of their old shows including the original Opinion Soon on TH-cam.
I dont know if its my computer or what but the volume seems very very low on this video?
more Singer's parts. I've got it at max volume and its hard to hear him. (and yes i have normal hearing levels)
I always paid more attention to Ebert. Siskel was too much of an ivory tower stick in the mud and not willing to lose himself in a delightful bad movie full of splosions, nonsense, and gore.
Bro I lose so much brain cells listening to you,
Ebert has some terrible tastes in movies.
Perfect examples of age limits, lol. Don't let the older generation influence your lives, and find someone more your age to suggest movies. They were at least older than my parents when I was a kid.