Siskel or Ebert?

Both of these patricians were great critics and would have been top tier Sup Forums posters. Who was better?

artforum

they were pretty fucking awful user, at least Ebert was anyway.

So Siskel.

Ebert is a pleb when it comes to Asian cinema

>they were pretty fucking awful user
In what way?

He's a pleb when it comes to anything, did you see his review of Brazil?

in fairness Siskel i dont know much about, but Ebert was pretentious as hell and would give films poor reviews for the most menial of reasons, or even if he just disagreed with its message.

The thing that got me however, was refusing to give 'The Good, the Bad and the Ugly' a full star rating due to it being a Western, and therefore 'Not true art'.

Reading his Thing review felt like he hadn't even seen the film.

I think he also said something like that he would rate a film poorly if he was having a bad day, good or not.

Is that the guy who made a bunch of bad porn movie scripts, failed and then went on to be a movie critic?

Which one is Mike?

i felt most of his criticism was fair, but he did tend to give poor reviews for stupid reasons sometimes
like giving blue velvet a thumbs down because he was infuriated by the graphic rape of issabella rossillini on camera or the time he had to backtrack his bad review of Unforgiven and admit he was wrong because he was going through a divorce at the time he saw it. he wasn't perfect i suppose and he definitely didn't like horror movies, but i thought he had a good wit about him

Thats fair, in the end i suppose it just comes down to personal taste

Ebert, because he wrote a screenplay for an exploitation movie that made a bunch of money, also Pulitzer price.

> I think he also said something like that he would rate a film poorly if he was having a bad day, good or not.

Every critic and film viewer ever has done that; he was just honest about it.

Ebert wasn't perfect, but he had his own opinions and he was prepared to debate them. I wonder how many "elite film critics" on this board read up on what the general feel of a movie is online or in wider culture and then base their opinions on that.

They both sucked but Siskel sucked less.

Ebert unironically thought 2005's Crash was an incredible film. Fucking HACK.

Ebert never stuck by his pleb opinions. He gave Clockwork Orange zero but then when he realized it was popular suddenly remembered it was a 5 star film.

>I wonder how many "elite film critics" on this board read up on what the general feel of a movie is online or in wider culture and then base their opinions on that.
i mean, not many at a guess, this board is pretty contary, not to say being that is always wrong in the long run.

>movies Ebert gave 4/4 stars:
Knowing
Prometheus
Avatar
Crash (2004)

>movies Ebert gave 3.5/4 stars:
Cars 2
Star Wars Episode I The Phantom Menace
Star Wars Episode III Revenge of the Sith
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
The Matrix Reloaded
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
Anonymous
The Karate Kid (2010)
Diary of a Wimpy Kid
Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs
Paranormal Activity
2012
Brüno
Junior (1994)
The Amazing Spider-Man

>movies Ebert gave 3/4 stars:
Paul Blart: Mall Cop
Speed 2: Cruise Control
Transformers
The Matrix Revolutions
Ghosts of Mars
Deep Blue Sea
Zack and Miri Make a Porno
The Santa Clause 2
Garfield: The Movie
Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties
Jennifer's Body
The Omen (2006)
Straw Dogs (2011)

>movies Ebert gave 2.5/4 stars:
The Omen (1976)
The Thing (1982)
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
Wild at Heart
Naked Lunch
Rushmore
Reservoir Dogs
Grindhouse
Caddyshack
Spider-Man

>movies Ebert gave 2/4 stars:
Straw Dogs (1971)
Die Hard
A Clockwork Orange
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Big Trouble in Little China
Prince of Darkness
The Fog
Starship Troopers
Basic Instinct
National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation
Lost Highway
Brazil
The Fisher King
Fight Club
Bottle Rocket
Papillon

>movies Ebert gave 1.5/4 stars:
Day of the Dead (1985)
A Nightmare On Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors
The Usual Suspects
Dead Man

>movies Ebert gave 1/4 stars:
Blue Velvet
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
The Frighteners
Scrooged
The Raid: Redemption

>movies Ebert gave .5/4 stars:
Hellraiser

>hellraiser a 0.5
im interested now, gonna have to look that up

>movies Ebert gave 0/4 stars:
Freddy Got Fingered (funniest comedy of all time)

It has some great gore effects. It's not a 4/4 but definitely not 0.5/4 either, it's well worth watching.

Why was Ebert considered such a great and influential critic anyway? Is it because he had a TV show once and lived longer than Siskel?

>The Usual Suspects
>1.5
Oh Roger, why do you do this to me

There wasn't much competition back then. Once you "made it" you were pretty much set.

God, his Thing review was terrible. It seemed like he just didn't enjoy it, but couldn't find something to hate on

yeah, this is really fucking good

>The Thing
>Big Trouble in Little China
>The Fog
>Prince of Darkness
>Mouth of Madness
>all below 3 stars

Did based Carpenter cuck Ebert or something? He's shat almost everything he worked on post-Halloween

Is anybody on here actually a critic of any kind of renown or are you all just armchair quarterbacking people who decided to do something more productive than to bitch about dead film critics?

he was pretty engaging writer/communicator and not a total sperg, that was all you needed back then

it's about accurate, it's like a 4 out of 10

>It's an "I'm better than all of you by ironically talking about how worthless you are for discussing something in a thread while I don't contriubute anything to the thread" post

What have you contributed to film criticism?

I dont think Ebert actually dismissed his first review at all. I reckon Pauline Kael also disliked A Clockwork Orange. It"s pretty fedora and edgy so it's no wonder that adult-minded people disliked it.

In the other hand Ebert gave 3.5/5 for Barry Lyndon and later a 4/4.

Did she tell them to make it ugly on purpose to make some point about feminism and unrealistic standards of beauty?

They wouldn't post here, on a follow-the-lemming, tard-o-matic, contrarian edgelord site of 14 year olds and autists and 14 year old autists.

>implying that doesn't look just like her.

All they did was watch movies and contribute nothing to the industry. They should have been paid as critics and editors, not lauded as celebrities.

Its fake you fags will believe anything.

You shut your whore mouth

i hate these idiots who don't appreciate serious film criticism, like Roger Ebert, Film Comment and Chris Stuckmann