LogFAQs > #979633848

Half the time, they were more fun to watch than the movies they reviewed. They were under contractual obligations to give a thumbs down to anything horror-related. And Ebert disliked action movies. He straight up went on record to say that he disliked movies that glamorized violence. Once you accept that and move on with the reviews, they could be funny and insightful. Their banter and back-and-forth argumentation made them fun to watch whether or not you agreed with their opinions.

I find it funny that, between Blue Velvet and Eraserhead, they each liked one David Lynch film and hated the other. Sometimes, their opinions could be unpredictable. Before I realized that Ebert straight up disliked action as a concept, their respective patterns told me what Die Hard was going to be like.

me: "I'm calling it now. Ebert's gonna like it. Siskel's gonna hate it."
*video clip begins with Siskel praising Die Hard*
me: "I guess they're both going to like it."
*Ebert trashes the film and centers his argument on the stupidity of the cops and the unlikelihood that the building could withstand the explosions*
me: "Gene! Talk sense into Roger." <__<

That was part of the fun though. You never knew what their opinions were going to be. There could be a film that everyone else loved and they were would find a sophisticated way of saying that it was pretentious crap. It was also interesting to hear Ebert take a feminist stance on many films, then turn around and talk about how you can't adapt King Lear, add feminist themes, and not have someone at fault. I'm kinda curious how social media would have regarded had they been around today. But then the internet really makes it unnecessary to have film critics beyond answering the simple question of: Is this film for you personally?