10 Essential ‘Siskel & Ebert’ Episodes, From Fighting About ‘Full Metal Jacket’ to Raving Over ‘Hoop Dreams’

Siskel and Ebert’s TV debut began with a peppy montage of classic film icons like Mae West and Charlton Heston. But in stark contrast to those legendary stars, when the two Chicago newspaper critics finally appeared together on camera for the first time, they were amateurish and borderline unwatchable. Between Siskel’s absurd ’70s mustache and Ebert’s deer-in-the-headlights expression, humble beginnings doesn’t begin to cover it.

The first film they reviewed on the show was “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest,” which had just premiered a few days earlier, and neither of them seemed overly enthusiastic about it. “You watch that pilot episode and you think, how in the world did this become a show that lasted for more than 20 years?” Singer says. “What’s astonishing is that they had both worked a little bit in TV prior to this, but if you watch that first show, you would think they had never even seen a television before, much less been on one.”

One of the pleasures of revisiting Siskel and Ebert’s show today is seeing dramatic changes occurring in the movie industry as they happened, and nowhere is that more evident than in the way they dealt with the burgeoning home video market. The pair first began discussing VHS tapes during their ’70s PBS era, but the technology was still quite new at the time, so their conversations about it were largely theoretical.

“Early on, they wouldn’t even admit to owning a VCR,” Singer says. “But you notice it becoming a little more important over time, and by 1982 they’ve clearly seen the positive side of home video, and that’s when they start hosting these special cassette store episodes, which are real time capsules.” Adding to the curiosity factor, Siskel and Ebert didn’t always showcase the newest movies released on VHS that week. Instead, they sometimes recommended offbeat titles, like Duran Duran music videos and Jane Fonda’s workout tapes.

On this controversial show from 1980, Siskel and Ebert discuss the rise of the slasher subgenre, and they take aim at recent films like “Friday the 13th” and “I Spit on Your Grave,” which they claim are misogynistic movies that force the audience to identify with the killer’s POV in scenes where women are graphically slaughtered. “What’s interesting is that it’s basically a long form critical essay by two journalists who cite specific examples from a number of movies using clips to make their point,” Singer says. “And while I don’t necessarily agree with all of their conclusions, they argue their case pretty well.”

Throughout the episode, Siskel frames the slasher cycle as a response to the feminist movement of the 1970s, and he suggests that gruesome films like “Don’t Answer the Phone” cater to an ugly urge in certain audiences to push back against that. “If you’re a horror fan, you might see them as scolds, and maybe you could argue that Siskel was being too sensitive,” Singer adds. “But he’s making the kind of argument that could be written in a scholarly film journal, and to me, it’s a perfectly reasonable stance to take, especially if you’re going to discuss it at length.”

Renowned for their epic feuds, Siskel and Ebert fought bitterly about films like “Blue Velvet,” “Rocky IV,” “Dirty Dancing,” and dozens of others. But it was their war over “Full Metal Jacket” and “Benji the Hunted” – which they reviewed on the very same episode – that made for unforgettable television. Bucking popular opinion, Ebert voted thumbs down on Stanley Kubrick’s acclaimed 1987 Vietnam drama, while voting thumbs up on Benji’s latest wilderness adventure. Both decisions baffled Siskel, who accused his partner of making a “gross mistake.” Their debate grew so combative and personal, it ended with Ebert literally shouting “You should be ashamed of yourself!” at Siskel.

Part of what made arguments like this so compelling was that Siskel and Ebert didn’t take long breaks between reviews during taping, so they were often still fuming about a previous disagreement after moving on to the next film. “They rarely did retakes, because they wanted to capture the energy and spontaneity of that first reaction, which meant that if they got into a heated argument, it didn’t just go away,” Singer explains. “So they began this episode by fighting about Kubrick’s movie, and then they fought almost as intensely about Benji a few of minutes later. It’s like a snowball rolling downhill. A perfect microcosm of the show.”

Watching Siskel and Ebert unleash their critical fury was always entertaining, and no film got under their skin more than the dismal 1989 Tony Danza comedy “She’s Out of Control.” After skewering everything from Danza’s voice to the movie’s cinematography and plot, the episode culminated with Siskel confessing that he became so depressed while watching it, he actually considered quitting his job as a film critic. “It’s among the harshest reviews they ever gave to any movie,” Singer says. “At the end of the show, Gene sums it up as one of the worst experiences of their professional lives, and when you think about the thousands of movies he and Roger saw, that’s pretty bad.”

At one point in the episode, the pair speculate on why people remain in the theater when a film is this awful. “Life is precious and life is short, and the idiots who made this movie are taking two hours of my life and robbing it from me!” Ebert declared on camera. That type of reaction became increasingly common in later seasons of the show. “Their relationship to time was very interesting,” Singer says. “The idea that it was two hours of their life they would never get back was something they were clearly thinking about a lot, and they highlighted it in that episode.”

Even when they agreed on a film’s merit, or lack thereof, Siskel and Ebert often found ways to argue about why they voted two thumbs up or down. “A lot of my favorite episodes are the ones where they share the same overall opinion about a movie, but disagree on what’s good or bad about it, and their review of ‘Jacob’s Ladder’ is a perfect example,” Singer says.

Both critics gave Adrian Lyne’s 1990 psychological thriller a thumbs up, but Siskel admitted he was disappointed by its muddled climax. “In other words, you wanted the ending to be more simple-minded!” Ebert angrily fired back, setting off one of their funniest exchanges. “I’d like the ending to be less complicated than it is,” Siskel replied, choosing his words carefully. “It’s like watching a chess game unfold in front of you,” Singer says. “Obviously, Gene would never admit that he wanted something to be simple-minded, and he certainly wouldn’t admit that Roger was right about anything, so he pauses for a second, and then he delivers a beautifully tactical response.”

Famous for their intractable opinions, only one movie ever caused a change of heart on camera during the show: John Woo’s 1996 action pic “Broken Arrow.” At first, Siskel called the film “a lot of fun” and praised its “high energy” and “colorful characters.” But when Ebert pointed out its flaws, particularly its routine story and overlong ending, Siskel did something completely unexpected. He grudgingly reversed the direction of his thumb, much to Ebert’s amazement. “It’s the only example of that ever happening on the show,” Singer says. “They were both so determined to always be right, and they would never concede a point or let the other one win an argument, so the fact that it actually happened that one time makes it quite special.”

What pushed the moment over the top, however, wasn’t just that Siskel changed his vote during the show. A second later, he attempted to save face by demanding that Ebert admit he was wrong about the 1993 Burt Reynolds comedy “Cop and a Half,” which Ebert reviewed positively. “Gene often made fun of Roger about that review, but Roger still would not budge,” Singer says. “It’s just a perfect example of their hilarious and fascinating relationship.”

Championing movies they loved, particularly independent gems like “My Dinner With Andre” and “The Plot Against Harry,” was important to Siskel and Ebert, but it was the ambitious 1994 documentary “Hoop Dreams” that they truly went to bat for. In an unusual turn of events, they saw the film before it premiered at Sundance, and they proclaimed it a masterpiece on their show prior to its festival debut. “It’s fair to say they were very important to that film’s success, and there are quotes from director Steve James to that effect in my book,” Singer says. “What they did was help spread the word about it, and their support made the distributors reassess what ‘Hoop Dreams’ could be. Steve told me that after their review aired, the film’s last Sundance screening was standing room only.”

When “Hoop Dreams” was snubbed by the Oscars, Siskel and Ebert vehemently criticized the Academy’s documentary branch for failing to nominate the film. “They got really angry about that, and they talked about it some more, which had an impact as well,” Singer says. “At the time, maybe one documentary a year would play in a theater, and it was almost unheard of for a three hour documentary to get a major release, especially one shot on video like ‘Hoop Dreams.’ So their review made a big difference.”

In early May, 1998, Siskel was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor, and he underwent surgery to remove it soon after. Remarkably, he joined Ebert on the show via telephone less than a month later. It was the first time in the 23-year history of the series that they shot an episode without being on set together. The teleconferencing technology worked surprisingly well, and the show was more or less successful. The remake of “Godzilla” was one of several big films they reviewed on it. “Neither of them could see each other while taping that episode, but it’s a testament to the chemistry they had built up that even when Gene was literally in his hospital bed talking on the phone, they could still do a pretty good show,” Singer says. “It’s kind of miraculous that they pulled it off.”

When Siskel eventually returned to the studio following his recovery, however, the dynamic between them was noticeably different. Gone were the days of two adversaries furiously fighting over their opinions on “Fatal Attraction” and “3 Ninjas Kick Back.” Although Siskel’s illness slowed his reactions somewhat, and made it difficult for him to speak, it also added a degree introspection and vulnerability to his reviews. “Their final year together was very poignant,” Singer says. “All of their disagreements, their animosity, their frustration with one another, and their refusal to concede a point, gradually gave way to respect and appreciation, and then this horrible thing happens to Gene.”

Seven days after Siskel’s death, Ebert hosted a bittersweet compendium of clips devoted to the life and career of his broadcasting companion. “My colleague and sparring partner was only 53 years old when he died from an illness he’d been fighting since last May,” Ebert said at the top of the show. “This program is a collection of memories of the Gene Siskel we knew. Not only the film critic, but the journalist, the sports fan, and the very funny guy.” Wistful and moving, yet often quite funny, the episode included home movie footage, talk show appearances, behind-the-scenes outtakes, and interviews. It paints a warm portrait of two former rivals who became friends after clashing on TV for decades.

“It’s a very heartfelt episode with some amazing clips from the history of the series, but it doesn’t shy away from the fact that they did have a combative relationship at times,” Singer says. “That’s part of what makes it a great tribute. It acknowledges that the love they eventually came to have for one another was hard fought and took a long time to grow, so you feel like you’re seeing a real glimpse into their relationship. It’s perhaps more real than all of their other episodes, which were already pretty real.”