These two guys will always be the ultimate in movie criticism. They did it with sincerity and never got carried away with egos or undo sarcasm. I wish they were with us today.
@@zogwort1522 you’re so off base. There’s no such thing as “accurately judging the quality of films”. The great thing about film is the subjectivity. I could love a movie and it just hits me in a certain emotional way while it bores you to tears. That doesn’t make the film any worse or better. Are some films objectively poorly made on a technical level? Yes. But, it’s only a part of a critic’s job to judge a film on that level
@@zogwort1522 they’re not conmen when its free to read or view their reviews. Movies are not just a technical science. They are an art. Much like how an art critic can not judge the value a painting will bring to different people or a food critic can’t judge if a different person will like the taste of a dish. In a sense, film critics are just authors who are creating reviews as their own art form to be entertaining and informative reads, letting you know their thoughts on the film rather than it being a definitive guide on if you will or will not see a movie. Whether you see the film and your personal takeaways from it are completely up to you. It’d be pretty boring if a critic could just tell you the answer to if something was good or bad and everyone just held that exact same view about a movie
True, they were champions of so much. Just listening to them here and there is also the one on here where in 1995 they talked Hollywood Culture. What Gene said was so passionate. You could tell they were not crying wolf at all. When Gene died, the era ended, although Roger kept going until his death in 2013.
Ebert hit the nail on the head perfectly. Political Correctness isn’t one sort of political ideology. It’s both a conservative thing and a liberal thing. You should tell about your liberal beliefs and not fear about what the conservatives have to say, and you should write about your conservative beliefs and not fear about what the liberals have to say. It’s so sad that this is such a problem now from both sides these days. So many people lack tolerance for other’s beliefs. R.I.P. Siskel and Ebert.
You're right, except the term "politically correct" was coined by conservative republican politicians who were angry that they couldn't couldn't refer to Black people as the N* word, or use other pejorative terms for minority groups. They were angry that their language was being censored. Obviously, this has evolved but that's where it started.
@@deshaunx776Conservatives believe in the kind of free speech that allows them to use racial slurs, but not protests on college campuses against say the ongoing genocide in Gaza.
Gene went against public opinion on a lot of popular movies which told you he was always being sincere and honest. It's why I always respected him despite disagreeing with him a lot.
He did get stuck a lot on what he wanted a movie to be. "Why does it have to be set in Paris with 2 couples? Haven't we seen that enough? How about 2 children, a robot and an orangutan in Ecuador?" But I kind of loved his quirks too.
Right. As did Roger, with films like Blue Velvet, Die Hard, Cabin Fever, etc. I respect the balls of anybody not going with the crowd and just stating their own opinion, whether they happen to like a film others disliked, or vice versa
You could also tell immediately if he'd HATE a movie if it grinded on his personal perspective; even if he gave a movie a Thumbs Up, he'd always give a negative aspect if a movie used a "Child in Peril" (biggest reason he DISDAINED Jim Henson's LABYRINTH)
@@zogwort1522 Very few professional critics let alone RUclips critics ever did a better job at movie criticism than these guys, especially Ebert. Anyone who can't understand the points they make here will continue to fail at any attempt to be a good movie critic.
True but in the social media/blog/podcast world, people seem to be on the total opposite end of the spectrum and only write their personal feelings and conflate those feelings with facts
I thought I had seen every minute of Siskel & Ebert. I am so happy someone posted this video. It is rare, insightful for aspiring writers, and valuable food for thought.
I love Roger Ebert’s take on film criticism. Most people will warn you against using “I”, but he did it all the time, reacting to it as a human instead of a robot like so many nowadays. I have found my distinct voice on my blog, but I am always blatantly honest.
That’s great. I’m actually thinking of starting a film blog (I don’t know how to put together a functioning website to save my life, so I’ll probably need someone else to do that part for me), and I’ve been writing reviews since adolescence, and Ebert played a HUGE part in me finding my own style just by that rule. Using the word ‘I’ injects SO much personality into your review, and it is instantly gonna make people more likely to want to read it, and keep reading your work
This is an incredibly important clip to have in circulation. Not only is it bewilderingly prophetic but it’s just damn good advice from two of the best.
I always felt lucky when I would accidently tune in to their At the Movies program ...because I never knew when it was on. I'd either come across it while flipping through the channels on Saturday afternoons or late at night. They were a pleasure to listen to.
Gosh, everything they said from 0:00 - 3:30 in particular is SO applicable to modern film criticism, especially on RUclips. It is such a slam against all the "film critics" that claim that they give "objective reviews without subjectivity" lol
I don't know what you mean, are RUclipsrs going to be the death of entertainment criticism? they're just random people sharing opinions aren't they? the only power they have is what you give them and the amount of viewers/people that watch their content. A much bigger problem is the "Professionals" the brand names that get put in the movie's "Here's what the critics are saying!" ads with "10/10" or "5/5 stars" next to them, that praise a film and ignore the flaws so that they agree with everyone instead of having courage like this video says.
@@webbedshadow2601 Random YT morons like MauLer who's ability to critique a work begins and ends at bitching at plotholes are trusted more than actual critics who give actual criticism who actually know what they're talking about.
You can give objective reviews without subjectivity. Objectivity means not influenced by personal opinions or feelings. It’s simply choosing which standard to apply to a piece of art and applying it that way.
It’s so crazy hearing the first minute. For one of my classes I had to de-troll an internet critic on the movie “Captain Marvel”. I was so unsure of myself so I researched any words or scientific terms to “help” make my paper look professional. Although I got a 100, I really didn't feel connected to the article like I wanted and was unable to have fun with it from in my mind. I wish I would have found this video long ago!
They get knocked so often as being 'TV critics' and simple reviewers, it's wonderful to be reminded that they were at the top of the field of film criticism, with Ebert even having won a Pulitzer Prize for his interviews.
The writings and conversations of these men is still very apropos today they were towers of intellect in a shallow industry and culture. I enjoy watching these old programs and discovering great commentary and films to discover.
This is really such a wonderful bit of intellectual conversation between two guys I really respected. Shame we never get to see this kind of thing on TV any more
Comments on this clip: "This is so true! Siskel and Ebert were the only critics with the courage to say what they really thought about a movie!" Comments under every other S&E clip: "Waaaaa! They gave my favourite movie a bad review!"
Thanks for posting! These two having this amazing conversation... Its excellent fillmmaking! what they are saying is so interesting as well as their expressions, their entonations, they way they listen to each other. You can feel their passion for their subject, but also their affection and respect for their friend across the aisle. Thanks for posting!!!!!
I used to review films online and I met, talked to and interviewed Roger when he came to my hometown film Festival. So it's interesting to hear Roger and Gene discuss film criticism in this way. I hadn't heard this before. Quite good stuff.
In time I eventually learned that a lot of my favorite critics were ones that I actually disagreed with a lot because they actually always had not only more interesting views, but also were much better film critics and much better writers. You learn a lot more from critics that you disagree with than people that say the same positive things all the time because they are scared about what the internet will say. It kind of annoys me when people on RUclips call themselves critics and they're really just movie lovers with not only boring taste, but they reviews films like entertainment products and not an art form. Siskel and Ebert knew exactly how film worked and passionately and articulately expressed how they felt about every film they reviewed. That's why they will always be one of the best
Well said mate. And then we’ll get a 11 hour long EFAP podcast dedicated to this clip, and 6 parts on why “Siskel and Ebert are wrong”/“Ebert: The Fool” something like that
@@insidethefire3711 - I think this is referring to the part where Ebert mentions objectivity vs. subjectivity in film reviews and analyses (00:48 - 01:27, to be specific).
@@Neville60001 He's a YT film critic who has made critiques several hours long that they have to be broken down into multiple parts. He's also a staunch believer in objectivity within the arts, claiming his critiques are "objective."
Wow. If these guys thought political correctness was bad in the 1990s...I wonder what they would think about 2019...I love that they were railing against "groupthink" back in the mid 90s. There is a lot of great advice in here for writers. Great clip.
Political Correctness existed in the 1980s, 1990s and Early 2000s (2000 - 2005) However it was a minor problem. Ever since 2006 political correctness has gone out of control.
If they thought that not treating people like shit because they were a bit different was bad, then I'm not sure if their definition of bad can be trusted too much in such matters.
@@nerdmasterjohn8028 political correctness ahs always been a thing and is never only about being "progressive" or "liberal" but about belonging to a majority or agreeing with mainstream ideas, what "being politically correct" means shifts as fast as what the mainstream thinks.
Since i was s kid i loved watching Siskel and Ebert because they gave a shit, i mean they gave a shit, about film, about thought, about writing and watching their respect for each other grow over the years was beautiful.
I always loved these two because they were entertaining together. This conversation is a revealing look at the minds of both and what great minds they had. Seeing the forest for the trees and calling out like a voice in the wilderness to the journalists of today. This is maybe why I actually watched them. What shaped their opinions came from a well informed place.
All I want to say is that I wish Ebert and Siskel had taught my English writing courses in high school instead of what I got -- insisting on 3rd person, dry bones, "scientific" book reports, instead of encouraging the kind of personal, passionate tone that these pros knew was the true way of the art of criticism.
"...(criticism) is not a science. You're not talking about the truth. You're not saying, 'This is what happened.' What you're saying is, 'This is what happened to me. This is how I feel.'" Dude, EVERY RUclips media critic needs to watch this video at some point. I've seen way too many people post reviews on movies or video games that come across as voiced Wikipedia articles.
i love what they both said about all film being like other forms of art subjective and that honesty in your opinion is important. this video is especially invaluable in the age of the internet/youtube film critic
I sometimes spend hours of my day watching these two talk and it’s RIVETING. Sometimes I absolutely disagree on some of their reviews but that’s what makes film criticism great, breaking down why you liked or disliked something
1:30 Typical Gene had to take a jab at the Pulitzer prize winner smh that's why I love these guys I would do same, they talk so well together it's so honest that's how the world should be
wow. never seen this video. great stuff. you can't deny the intelligence of these two, and although I disagree with many of his takes, Roger is one of the quickest and smartest guys I've ever heard.
Indeed! I definitely agree with their opinions on that everyone should be able to critique a film however they please, and not worry about how offended others may get over it. Of course, that does not mean you should avoid criticism, obviously. However, I disagree with Ebert’s take on how all criticism is subjective, as criticism can be objective as well as subjective.
@@markparkinson6947 How much objectively worse does the disappearing dagger make The Last Jedi? If this was an actual objective field, like math, we would know-wouldn't we? Whether it makes TLJ a bad film is dependent on how much it as well as other inconsistencies matter to you which varies from person to person, how much do inconsistencies in general affect a movie's overall quality to a certain viewer both in general and compared to other aspects of filmmaking, the subjective limit of minor/major continuity errors (which mauler even admitted at 1 point depends on each person's own scale before forgetting how this affect the rest of his argument) to differentiate an "objectively" good movie from bad? People like mauler can only answer these questions from a subjective standpoint, because the truth is there is no existing definition for an objectively good and bad film, he made that up.
@@knowledgeanddefense1054 That's interesting. Inconsistencies can be very hard to find sometimes, especially in a critically acclaimed film, and without the story being able to backtrack to acknowledge how the supposed flaw affects the movie, it can be very difficult to determine. And I am loving how spot on you can be about Mauler's critiques on objective film criticism. I would love to know which part of the video did Mauler admit the "depends on each person's own scale" part, and I would also like to see you make an entire video where you critique Mauler's entire Force Awakens critique, so I can understand the scope of the arguments he makes, as you act as a very good guide on the subject.
By talking about your personal interpretation of an art form you're closer to understanding the truth of the subject more than if you refuse to acknowledge everything but the facts.
I miss these guys; not only are the movies less interesting these days, but hearing the reviews is a lot less interesting since they departed the scene. There's one instance I can think of when they didn't take their own advice, and did just follow the crowd of critics, when they gave glowing reviews to "The Last Temptation of Christ" in 1988.
@@davidlevy4291 Michael Medved was one of the few critics to publicly slam that movie, and he claimed to know critics who actually hated it but wrote glowing reviews because they didn't want to be seen as agreeing with Christians. I've seen the movie, and it stinks.
PC is much much worse today than in the 1990s to the point that Siskel's advice on being brave would not apply anymore. I can speak from personal experience where I myself gave a review for a guidebook which was honest yet not PC.
No, it really isn't. PC back then was literal government institutions trying to censor media that percieved as corrupting children. PC now is just a bunch of people on Twitter telling you not to be a dick, and private companies caring about their personal interests.
@@robertbarrass9176 Uhhh, I didn't know anyone in fear of losing their job back then for their opinions. Nowadays you have many. And nowadays it is a lot more than what you just said. There are many people who are cancelled and censored, like Paula Dean for something she said 30 years before. You didn't have that kind of crazy stuff. You must be really young or have severe memory problems.
3:55 "We're living in this whole new world called Political Correctness" said over 20 years ago. Now people who were growing up 20 years ago are talking about Political Correctness like it is something that was invented few years ago and didn't exist when they were growing up.
I got a better idea 💡I want to take walks, and live next to my favorite directors and actors (peers) (friends) and hang out and bounce ideas back and fourth, while possibly doing some exercise, in a relaxing, no rush, atmosphere. When I worked in the Czech Republic, I just go inside the studio, the actors are there, and you’re like hey, man what’s up. The perception of actors and directors there, is they are human beings. So in my dream we all live in the same apartment complex, and meet maybe on our bikes, or something else.
I love Chris Stuckmann's passion about movies, and as a result, he has inspired my love for movies, but I feel Chris goes against pretty much all of their advices here, which is a little heartbreaking, unfortunately.
@@knowledgeanddefense1054 Regarding 3:25, Chris breaks that rule a lot when it comes to critically acclaimed films. his review of Blade Runner is a HUGE example of this. When he first watched it, he did not like the film at all, which is perfectly fine. However, as he learnt of the critical acclaim that Blade Runner gathered, he decided to essentially brainwash himself into liking the film by rewatching it mutliple times, which I found extremely damging to his opinion on Blade Runner. Siskel mentions later that you have to summon up the courage to tell the audience how you really feel about a movie, and Chris has that habit of doing the opposite with his reviews of critically acclaimed films. At 4:13, Siskel mentions the prospect of simply going along with a group, and how it's detrimental to a critic, and he recommends "take your best shot". Chris lacks in those areas significantly, especially when it comes to movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey, Citizen Kane or even his more recent review of Earwig and the Witch. Due to the popularity of a certain product, he will use it as an excuse to not give any thought or ponder around the theories of a subject. He mentions specifically in 2001 and Citizen Kane how because the movies have been analyzed to death, that he is not going to take a shot at it himself, which is such an annoying prospect of not just Chris himself, but any critic I see using this excuse when reviewing movies. He does something similar when reviewing Earwig and the Witch in regards to its 3D animation quality. He states that because of how popularly discussed the animation has become, that he is not going to critique it. Like, freakin' hell! If you are going to use that excuse every time you review a critically acclaimed film, you might as well stop reviewing critically acclaimed films! It's restricting his boundaries. It's one of the reasons I like his Hilariocities a lot more, because he puts a lot of effort into actually critiquing his points and he is also more passionate about the bad films he reviews, as opposed to his reviews of critically acclaimed films.
I was thinking the same thing. I would even go further. It is much much worse today to the point that Siskel's advice on being brave would not apply anymore. I can speak from personal experience where I myself gave a review for a guidebook which was honest yet not PC.
Comparatively, its a whole lot better now then it was back in the 1990's and even before that. In the 1900's, there was far more organizations in the highest echelons of power (Government and Church) that were actively trying to ban media for potentially corrupting young children into Satanism and Communism. This especially reached a peak in between the 1970's to the 1990's. Films were more widely banned, mostly because of the increase in gore, violence and Satanic imagery that would often be displayed in them. Comics were actively censored by the United States government due to fears that the violent actions taken in them would corrupt children into doing violent actions. Violent Video Games have always been on the brink of destruction since they are a great scape-goat for any school shooting that has happened over the last God knows how many years. Comparatively, now the worst you will get is a brigade on Twitter, maybe an article or two talking about whatever the controversy is, and someone getting fired from the production of the media being created. Government intervention (which is what Political Correctness is) isn't as bad as it use to be.
@@robertbarrass9176 No it wasn't. I lived through the 1990s. And I don't remember anyone in fear of losing their job just because they had a certain political opinion. The crap you are talking about the fear of communism was gone by that time with the fall of the Berlin wall. I don't remember hearing much about satanism either. There was a push to put labels on records with "offensive" language, but not to ban them because of it. I personally actually think that is a good thing since it gave the purchaser a choice. But regardless of what one thinks, that by no means is comparable to the cancel culture today where many artists are actually banned, which is a whole different level. You don't really seem to know what you are talking about.
These two guys will always be the ultimate in movie criticism. They did it with sincerity and never got carried away with egos or undo sarcasm. I wish they were with us today.
@@zogwort1522 you’re so off base. There’s no such thing as “accurately judging the quality of films”. The great thing about film is the subjectivity. I could love a movie and it just hits me in a certain emotional way while it bores you to tears. That doesn’t make the film any worse or better. Are some films objectively poorly made on a technical level? Yes. But, it’s only a part of a critic’s job to judge a film on that level
@@zogwort1522 they’re not conmen when its free to read or view their reviews. Movies are not just a technical science. They are an art. Much like how an art critic can not judge the value a painting will bring to different people or a food critic can’t judge if a different person will like the taste of a dish. In a sense, film critics are just authors who are creating reviews as their own art form to be entertaining and informative reads, letting you know their thoughts on the film rather than it being a definitive guide on if you will or will not see a movie. Whether you see the film and your personal takeaways from it are completely up to you. It’d be pretty boring if a critic could just tell you the answer to if something was good or bad and everyone just held that exact same view about a movie
True, they were champions of so much. Just listening to them here and there is also the one on here where in 1995 they talked Hollywood Culture. What Gene said was so passionate. You could tell they were not crying wolf at all. When Gene died, the era ended, although Roger kept going until his death in 2013.
@@zogwort1522 Zog, you are going to find that many of the truths we cling to, depend greatly on our own point of view.
@@zogwort1522 You hear that, my friend Obi-Wan? Your wisdom is trivial.
4:14 "Wanting to be liked, wanting to go along with the group .. - death to a critic" fantastic quote.
now it's job-threatening not to like certain IP products from Hollywood.
Ebert hit the nail on the head perfectly. Political Correctness isn’t one sort of political ideology. It’s both a conservative thing and a liberal thing. You should tell about your liberal beliefs and not fear about what the conservatives have to say, and you should write about your conservative beliefs and not fear about what the liberals have to say. It’s so sad that this is such a problem now from both sides these days. So many people lack tolerance for other’s beliefs.
R.I.P. Siskel and Ebert.
Damn this is really insightful, well-written stuff. Thank you for this
Well tolerate others beliefs to an extent. Until those beliefs start actually effecting my life and those around me.
You're right, except the term "politically correct" was coined by conservative republican politicians who were angry that they couldn't couldn't refer to Black people as the N* word, or use other pejorative terms for minority groups. They were angry that their language was being censored. Obviously, this has evolved but that's where it started.
@@deshaunx776Conservatives believe in the kind of free speech that allows them to use racial slurs, but not protests on college campuses against say the ongoing genocide in Gaza.
Gene went against public opinion on a lot of popular movies which told you he was always being sincere and honest. It's why I always respected him despite disagreeing with him a lot.
Go back and watch what he says on siskelandebert.org and think, "Man, was he so wise." I loved his dumping on St. Elmo's Fire, for example.
He did get stuck a lot on what he wanted a movie to be. "Why does it have to be set in Paris with 2 couples? Haven't we seen that enough? How about 2 children, a robot and an orangutan in Ecuador?" But I kind of loved his quirks too.
Right. As did Roger, with films like Blue Velvet, Die Hard, Cabin Fever, etc. I respect the balls of anybody not going with the crowd and just stating their own opinion, whether they happen to like a film others disliked, or vice versa
You could also tell immediately if he'd HATE a movie if it grinded on his personal perspective; even if he gave a movie a Thumbs Up, he'd always give a negative aspect if a movie used a "Child in Peril" (biggest reason he DISDAINED Jim Henson's LABYRINTH)
I love how these guys keep complimenting eachother without using compliments. Their chemistry is great.
This is worth showing to students in the classroom.
Zog Wort sciences? It’s art, you moron.
@@zogwort1522 Very few professional critics let alone RUclips critics ever did a better job at movie criticism than these guys, especially Ebert. Anyone who can't understand the points they make here will continue to fail at any attempt to be a good movie critic.
My God, these two... The conversations they had... This conversation is invaluable! Must see for people who want to write.
Yey, and net for anyone who must and need to use their own voice!!!
@@zogwort1522 great point!
True but in the social media/blog/podcast world, people seem to be on the total opposite end of the spectrum and only write their personal feelings and conflate those feelings with facts
@@StephenRahrig Absolutely, confusing facts with feelings is just as bad as confusing feelings with facts.
Some of the best advice a young person can receive in any kind of writing career.
I thought I had seen every minute of Siskel & Ebert. I am so happy someone posted this video. It is rare, insightful for aspiring writers, and valuable food for thought.
Go to the website siskelandebert.org. You will see stuff from the early days that is fuckin' great.
@@sha11235 Someone else must have bought that website. There's nothing about Siskel or Ebert there now.
I love Roger Ebert’s take on film criticism. Most people will warn you against using “I”, but he did it all the time, reacting to it as a human instead of a robot like so many nowadays. I have found my distinct voice on my blog, but I am always blatantly honest.
That’s great. I’m actually thinking of starting a film blog (I don’t know how to put together a functioning website to save my life, so I’ll probably need someone else to do that part for me), and I’ve been writing reviews since adolescence, and Ebert played a HUGE part in me finding my own style just by that rule. Using the word ‘I’ injects SO much personality into your review, and it is instantly gonna make people more likely to want to read it, and keep reading your work
This is an incredibly important clip to have in circulation. Not only is it bewilderingly prophetic but it’s just damn good advice from two of the best.
I feel like more RUclips reviewers and critics should watch this especially in today age when we have internet toxic discourse
Such a terrible loss that these two guys had to pass away so young and from the most horrible cancer. I miss them very much.
Maybe sitting in a theater all day, every day for 30 years causes cancer
Thank you for this. Eye opening and intelligent. Both of these men are deeply missed.
"I've been given this lucky break to have the chance to say what I think. If I censor myself I'm gonna regret it, and I'm gonna regret it" Best part.
I always felt lucky when I would accidently tune in to their At the Movies program ...because I never knew when it was on. I'd either come across it while flipping through the channels on Saturday afternoons or late at night. They were a pleasure to listen to.
This is unbelievable how much this can be applied to today as it did back in the 90's. My heroes!
Gosh, everything they said from 0:00 - 3:30 in particular is SO applicable to modern film criticism, especially on RUclips.
It is such a slam against all the "film critics" that claim that they give "objective reviews without subjectivity" lol
Ebert isn't gonna notice you Zog Wart, he's dead
I don't know what you mean, are RUclipsrs going to be the death of entertainment criticism? they're just random people sharing opinions aren't they? the only power they have is what you give them and the amount of viewers/people that watch their content.
A much bigger problem is the "Professionals" the brand names that get put in the movie's "Here's what the critics are saying!" ads with "10/10" or "5/5 stars" next to them, that praise a film and ignore the flaws so that they agree with everyone instead of having courage like this video says.
@@webbedshadow2601 Every film has flaws, who gives a shit? That's not how Ebert, or anyone views movies
@@webbedshadow2601 Random YT morons like MauLer who's ability to critique a work begins and ends at bitching at plotholes are trusted more than actual critics who give actual criticism who actually know what they're talking about.
You can give objective reviews without subjectivity.
Objectivity means not influenced by personal opinions or feelings.
It’s simply choosing which standard to apply to a piece of art and applying it that way.
It’s so crazy hearing the first minute. For one of my classes I had to de-troll an internet critic on the movie “Captain Marvel”. I was so unsure of myself so I researched any words or scientific terms to “help” make my paper look professional. Although I got a 100, I really didn't feel connected to the article like I wanted and was unable to have fun with it from in my mind. I wish I would have found this video long ago!
I am an English major and I watch this every year as a reminder to stay true to myself in my writing. Two thumbs up!
They get knocked so often as being 'TV critics' and simple reviewers, it's wonderful to be reminded that they were at the top of the field of film criticism, with Ebert even having won a Pulitzer Prize for his interviews.
The writings and conversations of these men is still very apropos today they were towers of intellect in a shallow industry and culture. I enjoy watching these old programs and discovering great commentary and films to discover.
Unfortunately, it seems like youtube pseudo-intellectuals took the opposite approach.
It is even more apropos today compared to before.
This is really such a wonderful bit of intellectual conversation between two guys I really respected. Shame we never get to see this kind of thing on TV any more
I miss these guys. We need someone like these guys on tv today.
Comments on this clip: "This is so true! Siskel and Ebert were the only critics with the courage to say what they really thought about a movie!"
Comments under every other S&E clip: "Waaaaa! They gave my favourite movie a bad review!"
This is just a prophetic as Ego's speech in Ratatouille and yet THIS was 10 years prior to that.
Thanks for posting! These two having this amazing conversation... Its excellent fillmmaking! what they are saying is so interesting as well as their expressions, their entonations, they way they listen to each other. You can feel their passion for their subject, but also their affection and respect for their friend across the aisle. Thanks for posting!!!!!
It’s strange to hear “Political correctness is the fascism of the 90s”. Now 20+ years later, it still hasn’t been beaten.
Thank you for uploading this, and with such great quality, too. I’d somehow never seen it before.
I used to review films online and I met, talked to and interviewed Roger when he came to my hometown film Festival.
So it's interesting to hear Roger and Gene discuss film criticism in this way. I hadn't heard this before. Quite good stuff.
Siskel's review of LA Confidential was perfect - "It's not Chinatown, it's Hollywood and it's very good"
Siskel’s review of Blue Velvet: “A powerful experience, a masterful exercise in controlling an audience’s attention”
Haha dead on. Not the same depth, but perfect for what it was!
I miss listening to these two exchanging such intelligent and articulate ideas
In time I eventually learned that a lot of my favorite critics were ones that I actually disagreed with a lot because they actually always had not only more interesting views, but also were much better film critics and much better writers. You learn a lot more from critics that you disagree with than people that say the same positive things all the time because they are scared about what the internet will say. It kind of annoys me when people on RUclips call themselves critics and they're really just movie lovers with not only boring taste, but they reviews films like entertainment products and not an art form. Siskel and Ebert knew exactly how film worked and passionately and articulately expressed how they felt about every film they reviewed. That's why they will always be one of the best
Amen! ❤
Here here, mate!
If Mauler & his cronies see this they are gonna make a 10 hour response.
Well said mate. And then we’ll get a 11 hour long EFAP podcast dedicated to this clip, and 6 parts on why “Siskel and Ebert are wrong”/“Ebert: The Fool” something like that
They're talking about speaking with your own voice. I don't know why mauler would have a problem with this advice.
@@insidethefire3711 - I think this is referring to the part where Ebert mentions objectivity vs. subjectivity in film reviews and analyses (00:48 - 01:27, to be specific).
Who's this Mauler, may I ask?
@@Neville60001 He's a YT film critic who has made critiques several hours long that they have to be broken down into multiple parts. He's also a staunch believer in objectivity within the arts, claiming his critiques are "objective."
These guys are the only movie critics I ever paid attention to.
Yes, this is worth showing to students in the classrooms.
Wow. If these guys thought political correctness was bad in the 1990s...I wonder what they would think about 2019...I love that they were railing against "groupthink" back in the mid 90s. There is a lot of great advice in here for writers. Great clip.
Political Correctness existed in the 1980s, 1990s and Early 2000s (2000 - 2005) However it was a minor problem. Ever since 2006 political correctness has gone out of control.
NerdMaster John I would say 2012. Don’t remember anything like this during the mid 2000s
Wow....
Wow. I knew these guys weren't politically correct but to hear them talk about it directly this long ago is amazing. Way ahead of there time.
If they thought that not treating people like shit because they were a bit different was bad, then I'm not sure if their definition of bad can be trusted too much in such matters.
@@nerdmasterjohn8028 political correctness ahs always been a thing and is never only about being "progressive" or "liberal" but about belonging to a majority or agreeing with mainstream ideas, what "being politically correct" means shifts as fast as what the mainstream thinks.
Since i was s kid i loved watching Siskel and Ebert because they gave a shit, i mean they gave a shit, about film, about thought, about writing and watching their respect for each other grow over the years was beautiful.
I always loved these two because they were entertaining together. This conversation is a revealing look at the minds of both and what great minds they had. Seeing the forest for the trees and calling out like a voice in the wilderness to the journalists of today. This is maybe why I actually watched them. What shaped their opinions came from a well informed place.
We must remember that they built this relationship over many years. It didn't start that way.
3:48 They were dead-on about being PC & 'wanting to be liked."
Siskel was describing virtue-signaling before it had a name.
Yep, and then Roger said political correctness was the fascism of 90’s (4:50). I also LOVE that comparison to ventriloquism (5:16) 🤣
little did they know that every film student would become a youtube movie critic on youtube.
The Critic as Artist. Oscar Wilde must have had these gentlemen in mind.
Two geniuses. Absolutely brilliant advice!
How I miss them!
Great to hear this conversation. I had heard Roger's stuff before and a bit of Gene's but some of this is new and you really learn a lot from them.
What a brilliant conversation. I really miss the discourse between Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert.
Wonderful talk. I really miss Mr.Ebert.
All I want to say is that I wish Ebert and Siskel had taught my English writing courses in high school instead of what I got -- insisting on 3rd person, dry bones, "scientific" book reports, instead of encouraging the kind of personal, passionate tone that these pros knew was the true way of the art of criticism.
Good Advice.
"...(criticism) is not a science. You're not talking about the truth. You're not saying, 'This is what happened.' What you're saying is, 'This is what happened to me. This is how I feel.'"
Dude, EVERY RUclips media critic needs to watch this video at some point. I've seen way too many people post reviews on movies or video games that come across as voiced Wikipedia articles.
i love what they both said about all film being like other forms of art subjective and that honesty in your opinion is important. this video is especially invaluable in the age of the internet/youtube film critic
These guys and all great critics keep art great. They dig toward the objective to challenge artists to be more honest.
Amazing that 2 film critics from the 90s warned us about the world we live in today
3:30 is great advice
And over 30 years later there are no movie critics as well known as these guys,
Showing this to my litterary teacher, hopefully she'll let me write in first person from now on.
I sometimes spend hours of my day watching these two talk and it’s RIVETING. Sometimes I absolutely disagree on some of their reviews but that’s what makes film criticism great, breaking down why you liked or disliked something
What were the films you disagreed with their reviews of? I’m curious
@@Overseer2579 mainly slashers and comedies
Does anyone know where to find the full interview?
1:30
Typical Gene had to take a jab at the Pulitzer prize winner smh that's why I love these guys I would do same, they talk so well together it's so honest that's how the world should be
wow. never seen this video. great stuff. you can't deny the intelligence of these two, and although I disagree with many of his takes, Roger is one of the quickest and smartest guys I've ever heard.
Indeed! I definitely agree with their opinions on that everyone should be able to critique a film however they please, and not worry about how offended others may get over it. Of course, that does not mean you should avoid criticism, obviously.
However, I disagree with Ebert’s take on how all criticism is subjective, as criticism can be objective as well as subjective.
@@markparkinson6947 Even the value of the criticism that is objective is applied subjectively.
@@knowledgeanddefense1054 What would be an example of this?
@@markparkinson6947 How much objectively worse does the disappearing dagger make The Last Jedi? If this was an actual objective field, like math, we would know-wouldn't we? Whether it makes TLJ a bad film is dependent on how much it as well as other inconsistencies matter to you which varies from person to person, how much do inconsistencies in general affect a movie's overall quality to a certain viewer both in general and compared to other aspects of filmmaking, the subjective limit of minor/major continuity errors (which mauler even admitted at 1 point depends on each person's own scale before forgetting how this affect the rest of his argument) to differentiate an "objectively" good movie from bad? People like mauler can only answer these questions from a subjective standpoint, because the truth is there is no existing definition for an objectively good and bad film, he made that up.
@@knowledgeanddefense1054 That's interesting. Inconsistencies can be very hard to find sometimes, especially in a critically acclaimed film, and without the story being able to backtrack to acknowledge how the supposed flaw affects the movie, it can be very difficult to determine.
And I am loving how spot on you can be about Mauler's critiques on objective film criticism. I would love to know which part of the video did Mauler admit the "depends on each person's own scale" part, and I would also like to see you make an entire video where you critique Mauler's entire Force Awakens critique, so I can understand the scope of the arguments he makes, as you act as a very good guide on the subject.
Never seen this before. This is great stuff.
Gene kept the air intellectual, bringing the best out of roger and also allowing him to show his comedic muscles.
By talking about your personal interpretation of an art form you're closer to understanding the truth of the subject more than if you refuse to acknowledge everything but the facts.
I wonder what they would've thought about today's movies and streaming shows.
This is awesome! I wish they took their own advice though.
Why do you think they didn't?
I can barely believe this was ever broadcast on a network on America
Armond White should be required to watch this ten times a day.
LOL. I wonder..
RIP Siskel and Ebert!! The best.
I miss these guys; not only are the movies less interesting these days, but hearing the reviews is a lot less interesting since they departed the scene.
There's one instance I can think of when they didn't take their own advice, and did just follow the crowd of critics, when they gave glowing reviews to "The Last Temptation of Christ" in 1988.
Woah.. Why are you so convinced they didn't sincerely like that film? I thought it was fantastic.
@@davidlevy4291 Michael Medved was one of the few critics to publicly slam that movie, and he claimed to know critics who actually hated it but wrote glowing reviews because they didn't want to be seen as agreeing with Christians. I've seen the movie, and it stinks.
How relevant to this day!!!
What year was this interview taped?
My old teachers told me to never, ever start an essay with "since the beginning of time"
This is fabulous.
What I liked about their critique of political correctness was that they did it in the 1990s. It shows that this concept is not new.
what year is this from?
PC is much much worse today than in the 1990s to the point that Siskel's advice on being brave would not apply anymore. I can speak from personal experience where I myself gave a review for a guidebook which was honest yet not PC.
No, it really isn't. PC back then was literal government institutions trying to censor media that percieved as corrupting children. PC now is just a bunch of people on Twitter telling you not to be a dick, and private companies caring about their personal interests.
@@robertbarrass9176 Uhhh, I didn't know anyone in fear of losing their job back then for their opinions. Nowadays you have many. And nowadays it is a lot more than what you just said. There are many people who are cancelled and censored, like Paula Dean for something she said 30 years before. You didn't have that kind of crazy stuff. You must be really young or have severe memory problems.
This is gold
3:55 "We're living in this whole new world called Political Correctness" said over 20 years ago. Now people who were growing up 20 years ago are talking about Political Correctness like it is something that was invented few years ago and didn't exist when they were growing up.
It’s almost as if definitions of terms change and are reappropriated overtime ;)
@@britneyhochman5204 I rather call it using the term wrong long enough so lot of people have wrong idea about it.
@@MIloszKluski also valid!
I mis these guys.
This is why the best reviews come from folks like RedLetterMedia these days.
Does anyone know the year this was recorded?
I got a better idea 💡I want to take walks, and live next to my favorite directors and actors (peers) (friends) and hang out and bounce ideas back and fourth, while possibly doing some exercise, in a relaxing, no rush, atmosphere. When I worked in the Czech Republic, I just go inside the studio, the actors are there, and you’re like hey, man what’s up. The perception of actors and directors there, is they are human beings. So in my dream we all live in the same apartment complex, and meet maybe on our bikes, or something else.
Have you ever visited The Unitarian Universalist Church of Studio City? It's great.
@@thebrushpainter I haven’t
This seems to be the most practical form of post-structuralism that I can imagine, being a old curmudgeon structuralist myself.
What year did this show come out, and which show was this in?
Siskel and Ebert and the movies......sometime in the mid to late 90s
4:50 "Political Correctness is the Fascism of the 90's" -Roger Ebert ... And still is today.
Brilliant.
Send this to IGN
This is intelligent and beautiful
It's like a posthumous love letter to RedLetterMedia
Political correctness is the fascism of the 90’s - Ebert
That statement is 1000x more relevant today. A of what they talk about was ahead of its time
In other words, trust us, we are real.
0:59, 3:49, 8:24.
I love Chris Stuckmann's passion about movies, and as a result, he has inspired my love for movies, but I feel Chris goes against pretty much all of their advices here, which is a little heartbreaking, unfortunately.
How so?
@@knowledgeanddefense1054 Regarding 3:25, Chris breaks that rule a lot when it comes to critically acclaimed films. his review of Blade Runner is a HUGE example of this. When he first watched it, he did not like the film at all, which is perfectly fine. However, as he learnt of the critical acclaim that Blade Runner gathered, he decided to essentially brainwash himself into liking the film by rewatching it mutliple times, which I found extremely damging to his opinion on Blade Runner.
Siskel mentions later that you have to summon up the courage to tell the audience how you really feel about a movie, and Chris has that habit of doing the opposite with his reviews of critically acclaimed films.
At 4:13, Siskel mentions the prospect of simply going along with a group, and how it's detrimental to a critic, and he recommends "take your best shot". Chris lacks in those areas significantly, especially when it comes to movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey, Citizen Kane or even his more recent review of Earwig and the Witch.
Due to the popularity of a certain product, he will use it as an excuse to not give any thought or ponder around the theories of a subject. He mentions specifically in 2001 and Citizen Kane how because the movies have been analyzed to death, that he is not going to take a shot at it himself, which is such an annoying prospect of not just Chris himself, but any critic I see using this excuse when reviewing movies. He does something similar when reviewing Earwig and the Witch in regards to its 3D animation quality. He states that because of how popularly discussed the animation has become, that he is not going to critique it.
Like, freakin' hell! If you are going to use that excuse every time you review a critically acclaimed film, you might as well stop reviewing critically acclaimed films! It's restricting his boundaries.
It's one of the reasons I like his Hilariocities a lot more, because he puts a lot of effort into actually critiquing his points and he is also more passionate about the bad films he reviews, as opposed to his reviews of critically acclaimed films.
Someone needs to strap the EFAP crew to Clockwork Orange chairs and make them watch this on a loop until they can recite this in their sleep.
Ah, who am I kidding? They'll just memorize the part about political correctness and block out the rest.
They'll just make a 5 hour breakdown where they distort every single syllable spoken by Silkel and Ebert.
Zog Wort How dare somebody make fun of your precious Mauler!
Zog Wort If anybody’s offended it’s you. You see somebody make fun of Mauler and you just have to defend him.
Zog Wort I’m not even defending Ebert dumbass, I’m just making fun of Mauler and his EFAP buddies.
The dirty little secret about Siskel & Ebert is most viewers watched them because of their interactions not really caring about their opinions.
This is good stuff
Two Thumbs Up.
Political correctness is the "Fascism of the 1990s." You know, that comment is even more true today.
I was thinking the same thing. I would even go further. It is much much worse today to the point that Siskel's advice on being brave would not apply anymore. I can speak from personal experience where I myself gave a review for a guidebook which was honest yet not PC.
Comparatively, its a whole lot better now then it was back in the 1990's and even before that. In the 1900's, there was far more organizations in the highest echelons of power (Government and Church) that were actively trying to ban media for potentially corrupting young children into Satanism and Communism. This especially reached a peak in between the 1970's to the 1990's. Films were more widely banned, mostly because of the increase in gore, violence and Satanic imagery that would often be displayed in them. Comics were actively censored by the United States government due to fears that the violent actions taken in them would corrupt children into doing violent actions. Violent Video Games have always been on the brink of destruction since they are a great scape-goat for any school shooting that has happened over the last God knows how many years.
Comparatively, now the worst you will get is a brigade on Twitter, maybe an article or two talking about whatever the controversy is, and someone getting fired from the production of the media being created. Government intervention (which is what Political Correctness is) isn't as bad as it use to be.
@@robertbarrass9176 No it wasn't. I lived through the 1990s. And I don't remember anyone in fear of losing their job just because they had a certain political opinion. The crap you are talking about the fear of communism was gone by that time with the fall of the Berlin wall. I don't remember hearing much about satanism either. There was a push to put labels on records with "offensive" language, but not to ban them because of it. I personally actually think that is a good thing since it gave the purchaser a choice. But regardless of what one thinks, that by no means is comparable to the cancel culture today where many artists are actually banned, which is a whole different level. You don't really seem to know what you are talking about.
Imagine them alive today. The PC world would cancel both. Rotten tomatoes and IMDb are 🤡
So Gene was a film critic for 30 years and Roger 46.