Los 50 mejores siskel & Reseñas de Ebert por su 50 aniversario

by

Esta semana hace 50 años, dos críticos de cine de Chicago cambiaron la historia de la televisión.

El espectáculo que se haría famoso por las críticas cinematográficas comenzó el 20 de noviembre de 1975 y se tituló originalmente Inauguración próxima… en un teatro cercano. El nombre se cambió rápidamente a Vistas previas. Después de unos años, los presentadores pasaron de su estación local de PBS a la televisión nacional y lanzaron At the Movies With Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert. Cuatro años después, el programa cambió de compañía distribuidora, pasando de Tribune Entertainment a Buena Vista Television de Disney y convirtiéndose en Siskel & Ebert & las películas. Finalmente, se simplificó a Siskel & Ebert. Para entonces, Siskel y Ebert se habían convertido en sinónimos del espectáculo en sí: eran el espectáculo.

Escribí un libro sobre Gene Siskel y Roger Ebert, así que este tema significa mucho para mí. (Y sí, ¡me alegra mencionarlo!) Mi libro cubre sus vidas, carreras y cómo cambiaron la forma en que pensamos sobre las películas, la crítica cinematográfica y la cultura popular.

Este libro se centra en Siskel & Ebert, pero no intenté elegir sus “mejores” críticas. Una lista como esa simplemente no funciona bien en un libro; realmente necesitas ver las reseñas por ti mismo. Afortunadamente, Internet nos permite incluir videos, así que en lugar de simplemente contarte cómo Gene y Roger discutieron sobre Cop and a Half, ¡puedo mostrártelo! Y ahora que se acerca el 50 aniversario de Siskel y Ebert, eso es precisamente lo que he hecho.

A continuación encontrará 50 reseñas que cubren los 25 años de duración del programa. He incluido una variedad, mostrando tanto sus famosos desacuerdos como importantes opiniones compartidas. Si bien tenían fama de pelear constantemente, no siempre era así: ¡simplemente discutían con bastante frecuencia! Decidí que clasificarlos no era útil, así que los presenté en orden alfabético.

Ágata (1979)

Es irónico que los mejores momentos en pantalla de Roger Ebert y Gene Siskel se produjeran cuando no se llevaban bien personalmente. De hecho, no se agradaban bastante cuando comenzó su programa, pero aún no habían aprendido cómo dejar que sus verdaderas personalidades se mostraran ante la cámara. Un desacuerdo sobre la película de 1979 Agatha, una película poco conocida basada en la desaparición de Agatha Christie, muestra que están empezando a encontrar su ritmo. Discutieron sobre la velocidad de la película y luego entablaron un debate sobre desacuerdos pasados. En Siskel & Ebert, las discusiones nunca se resolvían realmente y los viejos conflictos podían volver a estallar en cualquier momento.

Alaska (1996)

El arte tiene que ver con la opinión personal, y también lo es juzgarla. Lo que hizo que Siskel & Ebert fuera tan grandioso fue que el programa adoptó esta idea. Con dos anfitriones, podían discrepar libremente, y a menudo lo hacían, como cuando reseñaron Alaska, una sencilla película infantil sobre la búsqueda de un padre desaparecido. Ebert le dio una recomendación, pero Siskel no, y después de que Siskel explicó su punto de vista, Ebert dijo que sus críticas no le importarían a nadie que viera la película. ¡Siskel replicó que a él sí le importaba! Esto llevó a una discusión sobre si las películas infantiles deberían juzgarse con estándares diferentes. Repasaron este tema muchas veces. Como sucedía a menudo en el programa, una película aparentemente sin importancia provocó una conversación sorprendentemente reveladora sobre las películas y cómo las criticamos.

Apocalipsis ahora (1979)

Más adelante en su carrera, cuando se le preguntó sobre películas que podría haber juzgado mal, Gene Siskel mencionó con frecuencia la comedia de Paul Newman Slap Shot o Apocalypse Now de Francis Ford Coppola. Originalmente le dio a Apocalypse Now una crítica negativa en Sneak Previews en 1979, antes de que usaran el sistema de pulgar hacia arriba/pulgar hacia abajo, afirmando que no había dado en el blanco al explorar las causas de la guerra. Roger Ebert no estuvo de acuerdo, calificándolo como uno de sus mayores desacuerdos en el programa, y ​​predijo que el final de Apocalypse Now sería debatido durante el próximo medio siglo. Mirando hacia atrás, esa predicción parece notablemente precisa.

El caldero negro (1985)

A menudo, la verdadera diversión de ver Siskel & Ebert (o En el cine) no eran las críticas de las películas en sí, sino ver a Gene Siskel y Roger Ebert discutir en broma. Su reseña de The Black Cauldron de Disney es un ejemplo perfecto. Ebert comenzó explicando que cuando era niño, las películas animadas le parecían más creíbles que las de acción real debido a sus colores vivos y líneas claras. Luego añadió en broma que eso fue antes de darse cuenta de que la mayoría de las personas no se parecían a Pinocho. Siskel respondió rápidamente con un golpe propio, preguntando si Ebert alguna vez se había identificado con Dumbo. Cuando Ebert dijo que no, Siskel continuó burlándose de él, incluso preguntando por la señora Jumbo. ¡Ambos se estaban riendo incluso antes de comenzar a hablar de la película!

Una línea de coro (1985)

Roger Ebert y Gene Siskel no estaban de acuerdo en casi todo, incluso en las películas que a ambos les gustaban en general. Un ejemplo perfecto es su reseña de la película A Chorus Line. A pesar de que ambos le dieron una crítica positiva, las cosas se pusieron tensas cuando Siskel criticó la actuación de Michael Douglas por sobreactuar y Ebert saltó en defensa de la película. Luego, su discusión se convirtió en un debate sobre si la película debería compararse con el espectáculo original de Broadway: Gene pensó que era una comparación válida, mientras que Roger no. Al final, no llegaron a un consenso, Ebert se rió de Siskel y Siskel murmuró que estaba frustrado.

Suspenso (1993)

La reseña de Cliffhanger de Sylvester Stallone entre Roger Ebert y Gene Siskel se volvió sorprendentemente acalorada, ¡incluso más que algunas de las peleas en las películas de Rocky! A Ebert le gustó la película por sus emocionantes acrobacias, pero Siskel pensó que no se podía ignorar la trama débil, incluso con algunas buenas escenas de escalada en roca. Ebert señaló que Siskel había disfrutado recientemente de Die Hard 2, que también dependía en gran medida de acrobacias, pero Siskel respondió que Die Hard 2 al menos tenía una historia. La discusión continuó con Ebert insistiendo en que no le importaba la trama, centrándose en cambio en la acción emocionante y el peligro del entorno montañoso. La situación se intensificó hasta el punto en que Ebert gritaba y gesticulaba enfáticamente. Fue un desacuerdo notablemente apasionado: ¡tal vez más entusiasmo del que Cliffhanger merecía! El director, Renny Harlin, probablemente les habría dicho que se relajaran, era sólo una película.

Policía y medio (1993)

Un momento famoso en la historia del programa Siskel & Ebert gira en torno a la comedia infantil Cop and a Half, una película que desagrada a casi todo el mundo, excepto a Roger Ebert. Después de que Ebert le diera a la película una crítica algo positiva, Gene Siskel lo acusó en broma de ser demasiado generoso, comparándolo con Santa dando un regalo. Esto provocó una breve discusión, que desembocó en una broma legendaria. Siskel obtuvo una fotografía publicitaria de la joven estrella de la película, Norman D. Golden, la hizo firmar, escribió una nota de agradecimiento fingiendo ser del niño actor y la envió al programa. Ebert se emocionó cuando lo recibió y lo mostró con orgullo por la oficina, hasta que Siskel reveló la verdad: ¡él era quien había firmado el cuadro!

Miga (1994)

A pesar de sus desacuerdos, a menudo públicos, Siskel y Ebert coincidieron en muchas películas, y fueron más influyentes cuando promocionaron con entusiasmo películas independientes más pequeñas. Sus firmes recomendaciones realmente podrían impulsar la carrera de un director, especialmente para películas independientes, extranjeras y documentales. Destacaban repetidamente en su programa las películas que les encantaban, a veces meses antes de su estreno, con la esperanza de generar expectación e impulsar la venta de entradas. Un gran ejemplo es el documental Crumb, que revisaron en febrero de 1995: Gene Siskel predijo que sería la mejor película del año y Roger Ebert lo llamó uno de los documentales más memorables de todos los tiempos. La película no llegó a los cines hasta abril, por lo que Ebert instó a los espectadores a recordar la fecha. Este tipo de apoyo fue increíblemente valioso para una película como Crumb y su director, Terry Zwigoff. (Y resultó que Siskel nombró a Crumb como su película número uno de 1995, mientras que Ebert la clasificó en segundo lugar, justo detrás de Leaving Las Vegas.)

Cita con un ángel (1987)

Una de las cosas que siempre me gustó de Siskel y Ebert fue su honestidad. No dejaban de admitir cuando una película les atraía a un nivel puramente visual. Recuerdo vívidamente su reseña de Cita con un ángel allá por el 87. Ebert estaba completamente enamorado de Emmanuelle Béart y la calificó de actriz deslumbrante y estrella en ascenso. Siskel, sin embargo, no se lo creyó: pensó que la película era terrible y tampoco parecía particularmente impresionado con ella. Ebert lo desafió, preguntándole si se podía apreciar la belleza por sí misma, incluso si la película en sí tenía fallas. La respuesta de Siskel fue clásica: dijo que se podía admirar una fotografía de ella, pero que la película en sí no merecía una segunda mirada. Fue un momento divertido y capturó perfectamente su dinámica: Ebert buscaba lo bueno, Siskel estaba decidido a dejar atrás la tontería.

El amanecer de los muertos (1978)

A pesar de ser conocidos como críticos a quienes a menudo no les gustaban las películas de terror y, en ocasiones, eran vistos como demasiado sensibles, Siskel y Ebert en realidad defendieron muchas películas de terror ahora clásicas. Si bien dieron críticas negativas a numerosas películas de slasher e incluso dedicaron un episodio a criticar la violencia contra las mujeres en el género, también elogiaron obras influyentes como El amanecer de los muertos de George Romero. Ebert la llamó “una de las mejores y más originales películas de terror” y “una especie de obra maestra del terror”, y Siskel apreció su inteligente comentario sobre el vacío de los centros comerciales modernos.

Haz lo correcto (1989)

Casi todas las películas reseñadas en Siskel & Ebert siguieron el mismo patrón: una breve introducción, fragmentos de la película, reflexiones finales y debates de ida y vuelta. Las revisiones solían durar entre tres y cinco minutos. Sólo ampliaron el formato con una segunda ronda de clips y debates sobre películas verdaderamente excepcionales o importantes. Muy raramente –sólo un puñado de veces en 25 años– dedicaron un episodio completo a una película o director que consideraban particularmente significativo. Su revisión en profundidad de Haz lo correcto y la discusión sobre Spike Lee, a quien Gene Siskel llamó un “cineasta serio en tiempos frívolos”, fue uno de esos raros casos.

Emanuel (1974)

El crítico de cine Gene Siskel causó revuelo cuando admitió haber sido excitado sexualmente por la película softcore Emmanuelle durante un episodio de la década de 1980 de su programa Sneak Previews. El episodio se centró en “Placeres culpables” y Siskel defendió en broma su recomendación afirmando que a menudo se espera que los críticos permanezcan indiferentes, pero él simplemente estaba siendo honesto acerca de su reacción. Dijo que Emmanuelle “me excitaba”, una admisión sorprendentemente sincera para la época. Los espectadores que sintonizaron PBS un sábado por la noche probablemente se sorprendieron al ver fragmentos de la película acompañados de los entusiastas elogios de Siskel por sus escenas íntimas.

Frozen Assets (1992)

Here’s a particularly harsh review: film critic Gene Siskel described the sperm bank comedy Frozen Assets as a deeply unpleasant and depressing experience, stating it was the worst he’d had in 23 years of professional moviegoing – roughly 6,000 to 7,000 films. Roger Ebert immediately countered, saying that even in his earlier years as a critic, he hadn’t seen anything remotely as terrible, and called it potentially the worst comedy ever made.

Full Metal Jacket (and Benji the Hunted) (1987)

If you had to save just one episode of Siskel & Ebert, this would be it. It starts with a heated disagreement over Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket – Siskel loved it, but Ebert disliked it – and the tension carries throughout the entire show. Even their review of the children’s movie Benji the Hunted turns into a fight. Ebert suggested it was good, family-friendly fun, which set Siskel off. He passionately argued that The Black Stallion was a far superior film, claiming Ebert was using children’s entertainment as a shield. Ebert retorted that Siskel was simply acting like a pretentious critic. Siskel fired back, complaining about the monotony of Benji. They continued to bicker all the way through the end credits – it’s truly something to watch!

Hangar 18 (1980)

Many modern critics seem afraid to offer harsh criticism, worried they’ll lose access to stars, press events, and the income those connections provide. Compared to today’s landscape, the old Siskel & Ebert duo were a breath of fresh air because they always spoke their minds. Whether you agreed with them or not, you always knew where they stood on a film, regardless of who directed it. They often clashed with a studio called Sunn Classics Pictures back in the late 70s and early 80s, which consistently released low-quality, sensational movies that played on popular conspiracy theories. (Thankfully, those days are mostly gone!) For example, in their review of Hangar 18 – a film based on rumors of a secret government UFO facility – they didn’t just criticize the movie itself. They also called out the studio for repeatedly making these exploitative films and even played the misleading trailer, openly mocking its attempt to present fiction as real evidence of a cover-up.

Hoosiers (1986)

Watching Siskel & Ebert reveals that movie criticism is often deeply personal – critics interpret films based on their own lives and backgrounds. For example, Gene Siskel, a huge basketball fan, surprisingly disliked the popular movie Hoosiers because he found it unrealistic and the basketball scenes overly dramatic. Roger Ebert disagreed, drawing on his experience as a local reporter who covered high school basketball to defend the film. This difference of opinion sparked a major debate about music and realism in sports movies.

Invasion U.S.A. (1985)

I always found this review of the Chuck Norris film Invasion U.S.A. hilarious. Roger Ebert really disliked the movie’s music and playfully imitated it while discussing the film – he even made sounds like “Uh-uh uh-uh, boom boom boom boom boom!” (You can hear Gene Siskel laughing in the background). What I enjoy about this review is how it captures the kind of funny conversations we all have after watching a bad movie. That’s really what Siskel & Ebert was all about: recording those great post-movie chats for everyone to see.

Lambada (1990)

This review of the 1990 dance movie Lambada is marked by a delightfully honest disagreement between Siskel and Ebert. Siskel surprisingly admits to enjoying the film, calling it a “guilty pleasure” he’s willing to defend, while Ebert strongly disagrees, telling him he should be embarrassed. The tension is palpable—don’t miss Ebert’s pointed glare at the 19:56 mark as he passionately argues against Siskel’s surprisingly positive view of Lambada.

Last Embrace (1979)

Roger Ebert recalled a conversation with Gene Siskel where Siskel argued that a film eliciting strong opposing reactions from critics must possess some merit. Ebert shared this as a response to a largely forgotten 1979 thriller, with Siskel defending the acting. This exchange suggests that Siskel and Ebert weren’t simply focused on quick ‘thumbs up’ or ‘thumbs down’ opinions, but were capable of more nuanced consideration.

Lookin’ to Get Out (1982)

This special episode of At the Movies, titled “Dueling Critics,” revisited some of the biggest disagreements between Siskel and Ebert. Instead of turning into a shouting match, the episode became a chance for them to explore why they sometimes had such different reactions to films. During a discussion of the Jon Voight movie Lookin’ to Get Out, Ebert questioned why anyone would care about events in a film where anything is possible. Siskel responded with a clever point: we demand realism in movies we dislike, but are more forgiving when we enjoy them. Both critics agreed that their personal experience while watching a film was the most honest measure of its success. Siskel said he aimed to be “true to the experience I had in the theater,” and Ebert added that “maybe that’s the only thing you can be true to – what you felt while you were watching it.”

Love Affair (1994)

I’ll admit, one of my biggest challenges as a critic is putting into words what actors do on screen. I can easily say how a performance made me feel, but it’s harder to explain why an actor resonated with me, or to pinpoint exactly what made their performance special. Watching old episodes of Siskel & Ebert, especially their review of the Love Affair remake, and hearing them describe Annette Bening’s captivating qualities – her alertness, awareness, and overall presence – reminds me that I need to keep improving my ability to articulate these things.

Made in Heaven (1987)

Many of my favorite reviews from Siskel & Ebert focused on films exploring spiritual ideas. These movies often moved beyond simple questions of quality and sparked deeper philosophical discussions. For example, Roger Ebert wasn’t a fan of the 1987 film Made in Heaven, which tells the story of two souls who fall in love in the afterlife and then try to find each other again on Earth, despite having no memories of their previous life. Ebert found the Earth-based story weak, but Siskel loved it, largely because the film’s depiction of heaven resonated with his own beliefs about the afterlife. Ebert argued that personal belief shouldn’t affect a movie’s quality, but Siskel countered that it did for him. Ebert playfully accused Siskel of thinking any movie he agreed with was good, to which Siskel readily admitted he had always felt that way. This amusing exchange highlights how differently people – including both critics – approach and evaluate art.

Masterminds (1997)

As a huge fan of Siskel & Ebert, I always loved getting a peek behind the scenes of their reviews. It’s funny, but when they reviewed the Patrick Stewart movie Masterminds, they completely forgot about it! They were planning an episode just days after seeing it, and neither of them could recall a single thing about the film. Ebert was particularly brutal, saying it was like something passing right through his mind without making an impression. Siskel agreed, lamenting that having to watch so many movies – they watched five a week for almost the entire year! – meant losing precious time. He dramatically exclaimed that those two hours were just…gone forever! It really highlighted how much work went into those reviews, and how some movies just didn’t stick with them.

Meet Joe Black (1998)

Film critic Gene Siskel passed away in early 1999, only months after being diagnosed with a brain tumor. He briefly returned to work after his initial hospitalization in May 1998 and continued reviewing movies until about a month before his death on February 20th. Watching his final episodes can be difficult, as his declining health is noticeable. However, revisiting his 1998 reviews is particularly poignant knowing how ill he was at the time. For example, Siskel passionately praised the film Meet Joe Black, a story about a man facing death, and admired its message to live and love fully.

Men Don’t Leave (And Stella) (1990)

This episode is a personal favorite because it really highlights how different Siskel and Ebert were in their opinions. They start by reviewing the melodramatic film Stella, and two movies later, they discuss the similarly themed Men Don’t Leave. Interestingly, they completely disagreed on both films, taking opposite sides each time. During a lively debate, Siskel pointed out that their dynamic was a key part of the show’s appeal, saying people were always curious about their relationship and encouraging viewers to draw their own conclusions from their differing opinions. As far as I know, this is the only time Siskel ever directly acknowledged their contrasting viewpoints on air. It perfectly captures 25 years of their film discussions in just 22 minutes.

My Dinner With Andre (1981)

Throughout their careers, film critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert boosted many smaller films, but My Dinner With Andre likely became the most well-known thanks to their support. The story of how they transformed the movie from a potential failure into a lasting art-house success is quite detailed, but Wallace Shawn, one of the film’s stars, told me while I was writing my book that their review was crucial. It makes sense, really – two guys whose job was talking were naturally drawn to a film featuring two friends simply having a long conversation over dinner.

Outland (1981)

Throughout Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel’s years of reviewing movies together, a recurring theme was Ebert’s enthusiasm for science fiction and Siskel’s tendency to be doubtful of it. Ebert had been a sci-fi fan since childhood—he even published his own fan magazine—while Siskel wasn’t. This difference is clear in their review of the space thriller Outland, where their discussion quickly turns into an argument about how believable the film is—and whether believability even matters in the first place, considering the story follows a marshal investigating strange deaths at a mining colony.

Patch Adams (1998)

Many critics disliked the movie Patch Adams, but Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel’s negative reviews stood out. Siskel’s comments felt particularly impactful because he was battling illness at the time, spending a lot of time in healthcare settings. This personal experience likely made him skeptical of a film promoting laughter as a cure-all. Plus, his line – “I’d rather turn my head and cough than see any part of Patch Adams again” – was incredibly memorable.

The Pebble and the Penguin (1995)

Back in the 1980s, many established film critics disliked the show Siskel & Ebert, arguing that it oversimplified discussions about movies and didn’t offer the same depth as long-form written reviews. It’s true the show’s reviews were often brief and sometimes included silly jokes. However, as we’ve seen with the rise of online criticism, television reviews have unique strengths. While a print critic has to describe a scene, a video critic can show it, using clips to support their points. A great example is Roger Ebert’s review of The Pebble and the Penguin, where he brilliantly uses footage to illustrate his argument about common cartoon character designs – it’s a truly definitive moment.

Police Academy 2: Their First Assignment (1985)

A great Siskel & Ebert review felt deeply personal because both critics were so committed to honest opinions. You can hear this in their discussion of Police Academy 2, where Siskel dramatically laments his life choices, saying, “I went to a good school! Why am I doing this? This is humiliating. Friends of mine who sell insurance have more honorable jobs.” Ebert playfully responds, “Okay now, Mr. Yale philosophy major, let’s hear your actual review of Police Academy 2.”

Poltergeist III (1988)

Carol Anne! Carol Anne!

Racing With the Moon (1984)

A disagreement over the film Racing With the Moon perfectly illustrates how Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel differed in their approaches to movie criticism. Siskel strongly disliked the film and drew comparisons to The Last Picture Show, a similar movie. Ebert felt this comparison was unfair, arguing that Siskel routinely measured every film against the very best ever made. Siskel readily admitted that was his method, defending it as a valid way to evaluate a movie by seeing how it measured up to the best examples of its kind. He believed it wasn’t a flaw to compare films and determine whether they reached the same level of quality.

Rocky IV (1985)

It’s amusing to see Gene and Roger get so passionate about unimportant movies. In this clip, they debate Rocky IV, with Ebert calling it predictable and Siskel surprisingly defending it, largely because he enjoyed the character of Ivan Drago. It’s fun to watch Siskel desperately try to get Ebert to acknowledge Drago’s strengths, and how pleased he is with even the smallest concession from Ebert.

Rumble Fish (1983)

Sometimes a movie can be visually and audibly impressive, but still have a weak plot and uninteresting characters. This is the central question raised in a review of Francis Ford Coppola’s Rumble Fish on At the Movies. Film critics Siskel and Ebert found themselves agreeing on the film’s strengths, but sharply disagreeing on whether those strengths ultimately made it a good movie. Despite seeing the same film, this disagreement led to one of their most heated debates. Ebert began to ask if Siskel was moved by the film, but Siskel immediately and emphatically responded, “No!”

The Running Man (1987)

On their show, Gene and Roger usually wore blazers, v-neck sweaters, and dress shirts, and that look became instantly recognizable as the standard outfit for a film critic. Because of the 25 years I watched Siskel & Ebert, I’ve tried to dress that way whenever I’m on TV – it feels like a uniform for the job. This particular review of The Running Man isn’t remarkable on its own, but Gene Siskel’s sweater in it is. It’s honestly one of the most hideous sweaters ever seen on television.

Scarface (1983)

The debate between Siskel and Ebert over Brian De Palma’s Scarface was as over-the-top as the movie’s explosive ending. Siskel thought the film was hollow, but Ebert strongly disagreed, and he didn’t hesitate to make his feelings known to Gene. While it wasn’t their most thoughtful discussion, it was definitely one of their most intense. You can almost feel the tension building between them as they argued.

She’s Out of Control (1989)

Over the 25 years Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert reviewed movies together, a few films really stood out as ones they both despised. One of the worst was the 1989 movie She’s Out of Control, a so-called comedy about a father who becomes overly concerned with his teenage daughter’s romantic life. Siskel disliked it so much he almost quit his job after watching it, only changing his mind after seeing Say Anything later that day. Ebert was equally harsh, calling the film “a crime.” I came across this review while researching another movie and became so curious that I had to find She’s Out of Control and watch it myself. And honestly, it’s not good!

Silent Tongue (1994)

Growing up, watching Siskel & Ebert inspired me to become a film critic. Now that their reviews are widely available online, I often revisit old episodes, both for enjoyment and to recapture the feelings I had watching them as a child. I’m always impressed by Roger Ebert’s skill with language. He could express his thoughts about a film so clearly and concisely, and perfectly capture those feelings we’ve all had about terrible movies, but never been able to put into words. For example, he once wrote about a particularly bad film: “I have seen whole movies that seemed shorter than the last half hour of this one. The story seems pointless on the surface and severely muddled underneath, and I swear you could look in the actors’ eyes and see they don’t have a clue as to who their characters are supposed to be or why they act the way they do. This is a study in acting survival. These are good actors and they are going to float not sink and nobody is giving them any water wings.”

Simon Birch (1998)

Here’s a fascinating review from Gene Siskel, recorded near the end of his time on Siskel & Ebert. While Simon Birch received a lot of different opinions from critics, Siskel particularly enjoyed it, and it’s easy to understand why when you consider what he was going through personally. He was drawn to the film’s spiritual themes, focusing on a young boy who believes God has given him a special task – a concept Siskel felt encouraged viewers to think about their own lives and what gives them meaning. He then asked Roger Ebert what his purpose was, and Roger playfully responded that it was “to write good reviews for movies like Simon Birch – that’s what I’m on Earth for.”

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)

When Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel moved from Tribune Entertainment to Disney to start a new movie review show, many wondered if they’d still be able to give honest opinions. Would Disney try to control their reviews, especially of their own films? A few months into their contract, the answer became clear. The show reviewed a re-release of Disney’s classic Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, and both reviewers loved the film itself. However, they strongly criticized how Disney had presented it – the company had cropped the top and bottom of the original image to fit modern widescreen televisions. Ebert famously demonstrated the problem by adding black bars to the screen during the review and scolding both movie theaters and Disney for altering the film’s original appearance. This proved they weren’t afraid to criticize the company that employed them.

The Squeeze (1987)

Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel were known for creating playful tests to evaluate films. They had plenty of time to come up with these ideas while watching so many movies! During a review of The Squeeze, Siskel introduced his “Lunch Test”: would the movie hold your attention even if it was just a documentary of the actors eating lunch? Before their discussion, Ebert proposed his own challenge, suggesting a quiz about the film’s plot would reveal how forgettable it was. He famously stated he believed anyone would fail such a quiz days after seeing it, calling the movie “vapor” – meaning it left no lasting impression.

Stardust Memories (1980)

Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel were huge Woody Allen fans in the 1970s and early 80s, but they weren’t afraid to critique his films when they felt he wasn’t at his best. They both disliked Stardust Memories, Allen’s often-controversial comedy about a filmmaker facing a career retrospective filled with bothersome admirers. However, their criticism wasn’t simple dismissal; they had an insightful conversation about the movie. Ebert pointed out that Allen seemed to be trying to copy the styles of other directors, and he cleverly suggested that Allen’s best inspiration was actually his own previous work.

Superman II (1980)

Back in 1981, Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert discussed Superman II and a growing trend in Hollywood. While they both enjoyed the film, Siskel expressed concern that movies were increasingly aimed at younger audiences. He worried this narrowed the range of stories being told and made films feel like they were ‘the exclusive property of the young.’ Ebert agreed, playfully noting he often wrote reviews saying movies made him feel like a kid again – something he enjoyed, as seen with films like Raiders of the Lost Ark and Superman II. However, he added that he sometimes wished movies would offer something for adult viewers as well.

Taps (1981)

This episode of Sneak Previews featured another heated disagreement between the reviewers. Siskel and Ebert had strongly opposing views on the film Taps – Siskel disliked it, calling it “laughable,” while Ebert defended it, saying Siskel’s reaction was way off base. Although they agreed on the next movie (Taxi Zum Klo), they continued to playfully argue about Taps, and Siskel even joked at the end that they’d have to revisit the discussion later.

Tequila Sunrise (And Dirty Rotten Scoundrels) (1988)

The show truly shined when Gene and Roger watched two movies back-to-back and then debated them, not just the films themselves, but also how their opinions differed and revealed their overall tastes. They’d often find themselves arguing – praising Tequila Sunrise for the very things they disliked about Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, and vice versa. This highlights a simple truth: we all like what we like. Everything else is just us trying to explain or justify our personal opinions.

Three Ninjas Kick Back (1994)

Roger Ebert frequently prefaced his critiques of kids’ movies by admitting he wasn’t a child, and that kids might enjoy them anyway since they were made for them. After giving a negative review of 3 Ninjas Kick Back, he conceded that “younger children might find it entertaining,” but Gene Siskel quickly retorted, “Dim-witted younger children.” When Ebert called him out for being unkind, Siskel cheerfully admitted, “Yes! I want to be the cruel one!”

Thriller (1982)

Although many consider Michael Jackson’s Thriller the best music video ever made, film critics Siskel and Ebert surprisingly disliked it. I don’t share their opinion, but I appreciate that their show, At the Movies, discussed music videos – which they playfully called “controversial short films” – when the medium was first developing as an art form.

Up the Creek (1984)

Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel were always willing to give any movie a fair chance. Roger himself admitted that some films defied expectations. He recalled reviewing the comedy Up the Creek and how his experience as a film critic told him it would be terrible. However, he was pleasantly surprised! He found it genuinely funny and laughed throughout the fast-paced, silly story about a whitewater rafting race, particularly following a team from a hilariously bad university whose mascot seemed more intelligent than the students.

Wall Street (1987)

A classic example of a Siskel & Ebert review happened when they both gave a movie the same overall rating, despite completely disagreeing about everything else. An advertisement might simply say “Two thumbs up!” But if you watched the review, you’d see them arguing – for example, over whether Michael Douglas gave a strong or over-the-top performance, or whether the film felt realistic or exaggerated.

Why Would I Lie? (1980)

Finally, here’s a classic clip of Siskel and Ebert being brutally honest. They really didn’t like the movie Why Would I Lie – let them explain!

  • Ebert: “This is a movie I hate so much you may have to restrain me.”
  • Siskel: “This is a movie that gets you angry.”
  • Ebert: “This movie is not simply a bad movie. This movie is an insult to the intelligence of everyone in the audience. I hated it.”
  • Siskel: “Someone ought to punch him out. That’s the kind of reaction, I mean we’re both kind of violent right now, that’s the kind of reaction that this picture generates.”

Guys, I don’t think they liked it. Why would they lie?

80s Movies That Got Good Reviews That Are Actually Bad

Out of Africa (1985)

With a Rotten Tomatoes score of 62, Out of Africa is easily identified as the 1985 Best Picture Oscar winner. The film stars Meryl Streep as Karen Blixen, a Danish woman who moves to Nairobi to start a farm, and Robert Redford as a big game hunter she becomes involved with – a story inspired by Blixen’s own life. While beautiful to look at, the movie lacks strong dramatic impact and is largely forgettable. Though initially well-received by critics, opinions have shifted over time, leading to its current ‘fresh’ score of 62 on Rotten Tomatoes.

The Big Chill (1983)

With a Rotten Tomatoes score of 69%, The Big Chill was initially seen as a defining film of its time when it came out in 1983. It resonated with audiences as a portrayal of Baby Boomers grappling with aging and a sense of disillusionment. However, viewed today, the film’s focus on a group of friends simply hanging out feels somewhat outdated and like a relic of the past.

For Your Eyes Only (1981)

With a Rotten Tomatoes score of 69%, For Your Eyes Only is often considered Roger Moore’s most grounded Bond film—which is saying something, considering it still features a ski chase with a motorcycle on a bobsled and a parrot having a phone conversation with Margaret Thatcher! However, it’s more accurately described as simply adequate. It doesn’t have the powerful energy of the best Bond films with Sean Connery or Daniel Craig, nor the over-the-top fun of Moore’s more outlandish adventures. The villain, gadgets, supporting characters, and plot (something about a stolen missile launcher) are all easily forgotten. While initially praised as a return to form, many Bond fans now see it as underrated, but I don’t share that opinion.

Revenge of the Nerds (1984)

With a Rotten Tomatoes score of 70%, this well-known comedy has some surprisingly harsh elements for a story about underdogs. It includes jokes that are homophobic and racist, and a significant plotline where a group of nerds seeks revenge on a sorority by breaking into their house and secretly filming them. The story reaches a problematic climax with the nerd leader deceiving a popular girl into a relationship, culminating in a sexual encounter under false pretenses, which she then inexplicably reciprocates.

A remake was planned in the mid-2000s but was canceled before production began. The movie likely only works today if reimagined as a darker, critical take that challenges the idea that anyone, even those who have faced hardship, is entitled to romance, popularity, or success.

Tron (1982)

With a Rotten Tomatoes score of 74%, Tron is visually and aurally impressive, but its story is fairly average. While critics initially lauded its groundbreaking effects, it’s harder to ignore the film’s narrative weaknesses now that special effects technology has advanced so much. The movie is full of interesting concepts and designs, but as a series, it often prioritizes style over substance.

The Goonies (1985)

With a Rotten Tomatoes score of 77%, The Goonies is still fondly remembered by many who grew up in the 80s. While the movie launched the careers of several young actors and has some impressive set design, it doesn’t quite live up to expectations upon revisiting. Perhaps it’s just a sign of getting older, but I now find myself siding with the adults warning the kids about danger, rather than rooting for the adventurous group. (Seriously, all that rusty metal is a tetanus risk!) Thankfully, the Cyndi Lauper song still holds up well.

Licence to Kill (1989)

Okay, so Licence to Kill is a bit of an odd one in the Bond series. It’s got a 79% on Rotten Tomatoes, which honestly surprised me. This is the movie where Bond basically goes off the books – he quits MI6 after his friend Felix Leiter gets brutally attacked. It’s less about secret agent stuff and more about a personal revenge mission. The story actually feels more inspired by the film Yojimbo than any of Ian Fleming’s novels, with Bond infiltrating the drug lord Sanchez’s operation and taking him down from the inside. It’s not as playfully dark as some other Bond films or even Kurosawa’s work, though. The ending – a massive showdown involving gasoline tankers full of cocaine – is definitely the best part. It’s strange to think it actually has better reviews than some of the more polished Bond movies with Pierce Brosnan or Daniel Craig! It’s a bit of a rougher, grittier Bond, but it has its moments.

Sixteen Candles (1984)

With a Rotten Tomatoes score of 81%, John Hughes is well-known for his realistic and humorous depictions of teenage life in movies like The Breakfast Club and Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. However, not all of his characters have aged well. His film Sixteen Candles includes the character Long Duk Dong, a foreign exchange student who relies heavily on harmful Asian stereotypes—even accompanied by a gong sound effect whenever he appears. Actress Molly Ringwald, who starred in Sixteen Candles, later admitted the character was a problematic stereotype in an essay for The New Yorker, where she also discussed Hughes’ films’ portrayal of women and casual homophobia. While these films are considered classics of their time, they don’t necessarily hold up to modern standards.

Altered States (1980)

With an 85% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, Altered States is a visually strange film from the writer of Network, Paddy Chayefsky. It follows a scientist who experiments with sensory deprivation to explore the origins of human consciousness. However, Chayefsky disagreed with director Ken Russell during production and removed his name from the credits. While it has a dedicated fanbase, I personally find the movie slow and unengaging.

Driving Miss Daisy (1989)

With a Rotten Tomatoes score of 85%, Driving Miss Daisy remains a surprisingly controversial Best Picture winner. While it tackled unusual themes for Hollywood – aging and the dynamic between an employee and boss – its impact feels limited. The film is essentially a character study, but doesn’t delve deeply enough to be truly compelling, and fails to show how its world and characters change over the 25 years it covers. The aging of characters feels abrupt and unconvincing. Compared to other films of that year, like Do the Right Thing (which wasn’t even nominated), or the other Best Picture nominees – Born on the Fourth of July, Dead Poets Society, Field of Dreams, and My Left Foot – Driving Miss Daisy doesn’t hold up as a strong winner in retrospect. Any of those other films would be a more satisfying choice today.

Superman II (1980)

Despite an 88% score on Rotten Tomatoes, many people enjoy this film primarily for Terence Stamp’s performance and the iconic line “Kneel before Zod!” However, the movie itself is quite disorganized. Even the charming chemistry between Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder feels forced. Superman spends so much time showing Lois Lane his Fortress of Solitude that he doesn’t notice three powerful Kryptonians taking over Earth – a strange oversight considering his super-hearing! This version of Superman has new powers like memory-altering kisses, teleportation, and even shooting his emblem from his chest, making the lack of super-hearing even more noticeable. It’s worth noting that both versions of the film aren’t particularly strong.

Crocodile Dundee (1986)

With an 89% score on Rotten Tomatoes, 1986’s biggest blockbuster was Top Gun. But the second highest-grossing film that year was Crocodile Dundee, earning just $2 million less. That’s remarkable when you consider it outperformed iconic ’80s movies like Aliens, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, Stand By Me, Rocky IV, and The Fly. Crocodile Dundee is a comedy about Paul Hogan playing an Australian bushman navigating the unfamiliar streets of New York City – a classic fish-out-of-water story. That simple premise resonated with audiences, turning the film into a huge success, making Paul Hogan a global star, and launching a whole series of sequels. Why it was so popular remains a mystery.

2025-11-17 18:09