In Part One of Thumbs in the Vault – The Siskel & Ebert Reviews You Weren’t Meant to See we enjoyed our first chance to read some of the film reviews by Siskel and Ebert that mysteriously “vanished” and were never shown on television. Here, in Part Two, I’ll share with you eight of their more controversial reviews. Reviews that some postulate the reason why they were “lost” and never seen by the public. I’ll see you at the movies!
The Little Mermaid
Hello. I’m Gene Siskel from the Chicago Tribune, along with Roger Ebert from the Chicago Sun-Times, and you’re “At the Movies with Siskel and Ebert.” Today, we’re diving deep into the heart of the ocean with “The Little Mermaid,” a tale that redefines animated storytelling, weaving a narrative so rich, it’s as if the fabric of the sea itself tells the story. This film, with its groundbreaking animation and a soundtrack that echoes through the depths of the sea, brings to life the story of Ariel, a mermaid princess who dreams of living among humans.
ROGER EBERT: Oh, please, Gene. “Redefines animated storytelling?” What we’ve got here is a fish-out-of-water story that’s been done to death, only this time with more singing and less logic. Let’s start with the direction, shall we? The directors think they’re orchestrating a symphony with their camera angles, but what we’ve really got is a visual lullaby that’s more likely to put you to sleep than enchant you.
GENE SISKEL: Roger, you must have been snoozing through the revolutionary animation techniques that brought the underwater world to life. And speaking of storytelling, the screenplay is a treasure trove of wit, charm, and heartfelt moments. It’s not just a story; it’s an odyssey that challenges the very essence of who we are.
ROGER EBERT: An odyssey? More like a meandering trip down a well-trodden path. The dialogue is as shallow as a tidepool. And let’s talk about the acting—if you can call it that. The voice performances, while charming, lack the depth you’d find in a true cinematic masterpiece. It’s all surface, no substance.
GENE SISKEL: Roger, it’s the voice acting that brought these characters to life in a way live action could never achieve. And as for cinematography and technical execution, the film is a masterclass in animation artistry. The seamless blending of color, light, and shadow under the sea is nothing short of magical.
ROGER EBERT: Magical? It’s basic animation 101, Gene. And don’t get me started on the so-called “artistic merit.” Sure, it’s pretty to look at, but innovation? It sticks to the Disney formula tighter than a clamshell. Where’s the boundary-pushing? The risk-taking?
GENE SISKEL: To dismiss “The Little Mermaid” as formulaic is to ignore its contribution to animation and storytelling. It rejuvenated the animated feature film genre, setting a new standard for both artistry and narrative. It’s a cinematic landmark, deserving of a resounding “Thumbs Up.”
ROGER EBERT: A “Thumbs Up” for playing it safe? I think not. It’s a “Thumbs Down” for me. Despite its visual appeal, it fails to break new ground, settling for the safety of the shore rather than the daring depths of true innovation.
Well, there you have it. A classic Siskel and Ebert split decision on “The Little Mermaid.” Don’t miss our take on “Gone with the Wind” next week—it’ll be a show you won’t want to miss. Thanks for joining us “At the Movies.”
The Muppet Movie
Hello. I’m Gene Siskel from the Chicago Tribune, along with Roger Ebert with the Chicago Sun-Times, and you’re “At the Movies with Siskel and Ebert.”
Diving right in, “The Muppet Movie” is a cinematic journey that’s both a road trip and a coming-of-age tale. It’s about Kermit the Frog’s adventure to Hollywood after a fateful encounter with a talent scout. Along the way, he meets a diverse cast of characters who share his dream, making it a vibrant ensemble piece that blends humor, music, and a touch of nostalgia. It’s a film that intricately layers its narrative, creating a rich tapestry of themes that speak to both children and adults alike.
ROGER EBERT: Oh, come on, Gene. A “rich tapestry”? It’s a puppet show on wheels. The real magic is how they managed to make you believe it’s anything more than a series of felted creatures lip-synching to catchy tunes.
GENE SISKEL: That’s exactly the point, Roger. It’s the magic of cinema that brings these “felted creatures” to life, creating a story that resonates. It’s about ambition, friendship, and the pursuit of dreams, wrapped up in a package that’s both entertaining and heartwarming.
ROGER EBERT: Let me tell you the thing about the movie, it’s the direction that’s pedestrian at best. They play pretend with the camera, sure, but it’s hardly groundbreaking. The storytelling and pacing are predictable. It’s like they found a movie-making manual from the ’70s and followed it to the letter.
GENE SISKEL: Predictable? Perhaps to the cynic. But to the rest of us, it’s a well-crafted homage to the road-trip genre, enhanced by innovative puppeteering that was ahead of its time. The director, James Frawley, showcases a unique blend of live-action and puppetry, creating an immersive experience.
ROGER EBERT: And what about the screenplay? It’s a mishmash of gags and song numbers. It’s as if they threw every conceivable pun into a blender, hoping the mix would come out palatable. Sure, it has its moments, but it’s hardly the work of literary genius you make it out to be.
GENE SISKEL: Yet, it’s that very blend of humor and music that sets “The Muppet Movie” apart. It doesn’t take itself too seriously, yet it delivers a narrative that’s cohesive and, dare I say, touching. The dialogue is witty, the characters memorable.
ROGER EBERT: As for the acting, if you can call it that, the real stars are the puppeteers behind the scenes. They bring depth to characters like Kermit and Miss Piggy, giving them a range of emotions that’s surprising for felt and foam.
GENE SISKEL: Surprising indeed, and that’s the point. The performances are a testament to the talent and ingenuity of Jim Henson and his team. They’ve managed to elevate puppetry to an art form, ensuring that characters like Kermit resonate with audiences of all ages.
ROGER EBERT: Cinematography and technical execution are where I’ll concede they’ve done something right. The seamless integration of puppets into the live-action world is commendable. It’s visually engaging, making you forget these are puppets interacting with humans.
GENE SISKEL: Finally, we agree on something. And let’s not forget the artistic merit and innovation. “The Muppet Movie” broke new ground, blending genres and mediums in a way that was both daring and delightful. It’s a film that not only entertains but also inspires.
ROGER EBERT: Inspires? Perhaps. But while it’s a decent enough film, it’s hardly the cinematic revolution you claim it to be. It’s fun, yes, but let’s not pretend it’s something more than a well-executed children’s movie.
GENE SISKEL: And yet, it’s that very simplicity and joy that make it a standout. It’s a film that reminds us of the power of dreams and the importance of friendship. For that, it gets a resounding “Thumbs Up” from me.
ROGER EBERT: A “Thumbs Down” for me. It’s enjoyable but ultimately forgettable in the grand scheme of cinema.
Wrapping up, “The Muppet Movie” is a film that sparks debate but ultimately stands as a testament to creativity and imagination. It’s a movie that bridges generations, offering something for everyone.
And speaking of debates, don’t miss our take on “Gone with the Wind” next week—it’ll be a show you won’t want to miss.
Little Red Riding Hood
Hello. I’m Gene Siskel from the Chicago Tribune, along with Roger Ebert from the Chicago Sun-Times, and you’re “At the Movies with Siskel and Ebert.”
Today, we’re diving into “Little Red Riding Hood,” a film that attempts to weave a modern twist into the classic fairy tale. And, oh, what a tangled web the director weaves, with an ambition I’d say, is as grand as any cinematic undertaking we’ve seen this year.
ROGER EBERT: Gene, the only thing grand about this movie is the grandiosity of its failure. Let me tell you something about “Little Red Riding Hood”; it’s a misguided attempt at revamping a story that didn’t need a modern twist in the first place. The direction? Laughable. It’s as if the director thought making the camera tilt, then swoosh back and forth would add depth to a story that’s as shallow as a kiddie pool.
GENE SISKEL: Ah, Roger, always so quick to dismiss. But let’s not overlook the screenplay. The script tries to be clever, sprinkling modern-day jargon among the classic tale, but it ends up feeling more like a puzzle missing half its pieces. And the acting—let’s just say there were moments I thought the trees in the background were giving a more compelling performance.
ROGER EBERT: A rare point of agreement, Gene. The acting was as wooden as Pinocchio before he became a real boy. But let’s not ignore the cinematography and technical execution, which you seem to be glossing over. Sure, they managed to avoid making it look like a home video, but that’s hardly a high bar, is it? It felt more like a showcase of “Film Making 101” than anything approaching movie magic.
GENE SISKEL: Oh, and I suppose you found the artistic merit and innovation of “Little Red Riding Hood” to be groundbreaking? The film barely pushes any boundaries, Roger. It’s a retread of old ground with a few glittery sequins thrown on top in a feeble attempt at innovation.
ROGER EBERT: For once, Gene, you’re not entirely wrong. The film’s attempt at innovation is deplorable. And as for the philosophical underpinnings you’re so fond of, this movie’s depth is about as profound as a puddle in the Sahara. My verdict? A resounding “Thumbs down.” This film is a missed opportunity that fails to deliver on almost every front.
GENE SISKEL: A “Thumbs down” from you doesn’t surprise me, Roger, but I’ll match your negativity with a “Thumbs down” of my own. “Little Red Riding Hood” is a cinematic misstep, a fairy tale that forgot the magic.
As for our viewers, your homework is to join us next week when we review “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy”—a film that promises to be a stark contrast to this week’s disappointment. It’ll be a show you won’t want to miss. We’ll see you “At the Movies.”
Bambi
Hello. I’m Gene Siskel from the Chicago Tribune, along with Roger Ebert with the Chicago Sun-Times, and you’re “At the Movies with Siskel and Ebert.” Today, we’re diving into the heart of the forest with “Bambi,” a film that’s more than just a woodland tale. It’s a journey through life, touching on themes of growth, loss, and the circle of life itself. Let’s get to it.
“Bambi,” a masterpiece of animation, presents a detailed, immersive dive into the life of its titular character, from his first steps to his ascension as the Great Prince of the Forest. It’s storytelling that speaks volumes, transcending age and time. But, I assume you’re going to say it’s just a cartoon for kids, Roger?
ROGER EBERT: That’s rich, coming from someone who probably sees profound life lessons in a bowl of cereal. The real thing about “Bambi” is how it masquerades as this innocent, pastoral fantasy when it’s actually traumatising generations with its blunt portrayal of life’s harsh realities. The direction? Please. It’s like they just let the camera run wild in the woods on the back of a warthog.
GENE SISKEL: Oh, come on. The direction is innovative, capturing the essence of nature like never before. It’s not about “letting the camera run wild”; it’s about creating a narrative that’s both visually and emotionally compelling. And the screenplay, it’s poetic, a delicate balance of joy and sorrow. But I suppose you’d rather have them cracking jokes every five minutes?
ROGER EBERT: It’s a bunch of animals talking and singing, Gene. Where’s the complexity in that? Sure, it’s got its moments, but let’s not pretend it’s Shakespeare. And the acting? Well, for voices behind animated deer and rabbits, I’ll admit there’s charm. But let’s not overstate their contributions. It’s the animation that’s doing the heavy lifting.
GENE SISKEL: Dissecting voice performances as if these actors were mere afterthoughts? That’s rich, Roger. Even for you. Their performances bring these characters to life, giving emotional depth that resonates with audiences of all ages. And as for the cinematography and technical execution, it’s groundbreaking. Does the multiplane camera work? It’s revolutionary, offering a depth to animation that was unheard of at the time.
ROGER EBERT: Groundbreaking? Maybe for the 1940s. But let’s not get carried away. It did introduce new techniques, I’ll give you that. Yet, when we talk about artistic merit and innovation, “Bambi” is comfortably resting on its laurels. It’s beautiful, sure, but it’s hardly the pinnacle of cinematic innovation you make it out to be.
GENE SISKEL: Roger, it set the standard for animation and storytelling in cinema. But, evidently, you missed that. “Bambi” is a testament to the art of filmmaking, pushing boundaries and challenging audiences. It’s not just about the technicalities; it’s the emotional journey, the artistic integrity. But I suppose you’d rather everything be spelled out in black and white.
ROGER EBERT: Artistic integrity? Please. It’s a well-made film, but let’s not elevate it to high art. It’s sentimental, sure, but it’s not breaking any new ground. Now, if we’re talking about pushing boundaries, let’s save that for films that actually challenge the status quo.
GENE SISKEL: Challenging the status quo by teaching generations about the realities of life, growth, and resilience? Sounds pretty groundbreaking to me. But, as usual, we’ll have to agree to disagree. My verdict? A resounding Thumbs Up for “Bambi.” It’s a classic that continues to captivate and educate.
ROGER EBERT: And I’ll throw in a cautious Thumbs Up. It’s a classic, no doubt, but let’s not overstate its impact. It’s a beautiful piece of animation that has its place in history, but it’s just one piece of the cinematic puzzle.
Well folks, thanks for enduring another spirited exchange and teasing in cinematic exploration. “Don’t miss our take on ‘The Big Lebowski’ next week—it’ll be a show you won’t want to miss. We’ll see you “At the Movies.”
The Little Engine That Could
Hello. I’m Gene Siskel from the Chicago Tribune, along with Roger Ebert with the Chicago Sun-Times, and you’re “At the Movies with Siskel and Ebert.”
Today, we’re taking a look at “The Little Engine That Could,” a film that, on the surface, appears to encapsulate the very essence of determination and inspiration. It’s a narrative deeply embedded in the psyche of American folklore, telling the story of a small but determined locomotive overcoming the odds to achieve what was thought to be impossible. This film attempts to transport us back to our childhoods, reminding us of the value of perseverance and belief in one’s own capabilities.
ROGER EBERT: Oh, Gene, spare me the nostalgia trip. Watching this movie is like watching paint dry on a miniature train set. The direction? It’s as if the director thought they were orchestrating a grand symphony but ended up with a cacophony of predictable shots and tired pacing. It’s storytelling by numbers, and the numbers don’t add up to anything worth watching.
GENE SISKEL: Predictable? Perhaps to the untrained eye, Roger. But the director’s approach to the camera work— the swooshes and tilts— they’re not just for show. They serve to immerse the viewer in the story, making the narrative’s message resonate more profoundly.
ROGER EBERT: More like submersion into boredom. And let’s talk screenplay. They turned a simple, endearing story into a convoluted mess. It’s as if they were trying to pad out what should have been a short film into a feature-length snooze-fest.
GENE SISKEL: On the contrary, the screenplay dives deep into the ethos of “I think I can,” transforming it from a mere motto into a layered exploration of resolve and self-belief. It’s anything but a snooze-fest.
ROGER EBERT: Layered exploration? The only thing deep here is how profoundly it misses the mark. And as for the acting, it’s wooden. There’s more emotion in the faces of actual trains.
GENE SISKEL: Disagree there, Roger. The performances bring warmth and depth to what could easily have been a one-dimensional tale. It’s in those subtle facial expressions and the voice acting that the film finds its heart.
ROGER EBERT: As usual Gene, you’re wrong. I’ve seen more convincing performances in a high school play. Now, onto the cinematography and technical execution—finally, something I thought couldn’t be botched, but I was wrong. It’s all flash and no substance.
GENE SISKEL: I must say, the cinematography is where this film truly shines. The innovative use of lighting and angles adds a layer of sophistication to the story, elevating it beyond its simple roots.
ROGER EBERT: Were we watching the same film? Sophistication? It’s like putting lipstick on a pig. And don’t get me started on the supposed artistic merit and innovation. It’s a children’s story, not a groundbreaking cinematic experience.
GENE SISKEL: But that’s where you’re wrong, Roger. It’s precisely its roots in a children’s story that allow it to innovate and push boundaries, reminding us of the power of storytelling and its impact on both children and adults alike.
ROGER EBERT: The only boundary it pushes is the limit of my patience. But let’s get to the point. My verdict on “The Little Engine That Could” is a resounding “Thumbs Down”. It’s a film that tries to puff its way up the mountain of cinema but barely makes it out of the station.
GENE SISKEL: And I’ll counter with a Thumbs Up. It’s a film that reminds us of the value of perseverance and the impact of a well-told story.
Well, that about wraps things up for this episode. And speaking of stories, don’t miss our take on “Airplane!” next week—it’ll be a show you won’t want to miss. We’ll see you “At the Movies.”
Dumbo
Hello. I’m Gene Siskel from the Chicago Tribune, along with Roger Ebert from the Chicago Sun-Times, and you’re “At the Movies with Siskel and Ebert.”
Today, we’re diving into the timeless classic, “Dumbo.” A tale that’s more than just about an elephant with oversized ears; it’s a heartwarming journey of self-discovery and triumph over adversity. Dumbo, through his unique difference, teaches us the importance of embracing our individuality and turning perceived weaknesses into strengths.
ROGER EBERT: Gene, please. It’s a circus act that thinks it’s a philosophy class. Let’s not forget, it’s also a story where a mouse is the brains of the operation. Only in a cartoon, right?
GENE SISKEL: That’s rich, Roger. The direction of “Dumbo” is nothing short of visionary. The way the director uses animation to bring a depth of emotion and character to life is revolutionary. It’s not just about the swoosh of the camera, Roger. It’s about storytelling, pacing, and the emotional journey.
ROGER EBERT: Revolutionary? It’s a cartoon elephant flying with feathers! The screenplay is where it falls flat, Gene. The dialogue is simplistic, and the plot is as thin as the paper it was written on. And don’t get me started on the crows.
GENE SISKEL: As usual Roger, you’re missing the forest for the trees. The screenplay is elegantly simple, and designed to speak to both children and adults. And as for the acting, the voice performances bring these characters to life in a way that’s both endearing and compelling.
ROGER EBERT: Endearing? The only thing compelling was trying to figure out if the actors were trying not to laugh at their lines. Now, let’s talk cinematography and technical execution. Sure, the animation was innovative for its time, but let’s not pretend it’s the zenith of cinematic achievement.
GENE SISKEL: Innovative is an understatement. The animation broke new ground, creating a magical world that’s as vibrant today as it was then. It’s a technical marvel that sets the stage for future animations.
ROGER EBERT: But, it’s just a kid’s movie, Gene. As for artistic merit and innovation, sure, “Dumbo” has its moments. It dared to be different in a time when animation was just finding its footing. But let’s not act as if it’s a monolith of artistic achievement.
GENE SISKEL: Daring to be different is exactly why “Dumbo” is a classic. It’s a story that continues to resonate because of its emotional depth and artistic innovation. It’s a film that pushes the boundaries of animation and storytelling. Thumbs Up for me, for its enduring message and cinematic beauty.
ROGER EBERT: Emotional depth? We watched a flying elephant, Gene. Thumbs Down from me. It’s charming but ultimately forgettable in the grand scheme of cinema.
Wrapping it up, our debate today showcases the polarizing views on “Dumbo’s” direction, screenplay, acting, cinematography, and its overall contribution to cinema. Whether seen as a masterpiece of animation or a simple children’s story, its place in cinematic history is undeniable.
Thank you for joining us on “At the Movies.” Don’t miss our take on “Jesus Christ Superstar” next week—it’ll be a show you won’t want to miss. We’ll see you “At the Movies.”
Toy Story
Hello. I’m Gene Siskel from the Chicago Tribune, along with Roger Ebert from the Chicago Sun-Times, and you’re “At the Movies with Siskel and Ebert.”
Today, we’re diving into “Toy Story,” a groundbreaking film that introduces us to a world where toys come to life when humans aren’t looking. It’s an exploration of friendship, jealousy, and the anxiety of obsolescence, all through the eyes of a cowboy doll named Woody and his rivalry with the new space action figure, Buzz Lightyear.
ROGER EBERT: Please, Gene, the only ground it’s breaking is in how it manages to turn adult critics into gushing children over computer animations. Let me tell you the thing about this movie; it’s like watching a kid play with action figures, except you’re forced to listen to the toys’ existential crises for an hour and a half.
GENE SISKEL: Roger, the charm of “Toy Story” lies precisely in its ability to reignite that childlike wonder, something you’re obviously in short supply of. The direction by John Lasseter is innovative, using technology to bring a fresh perspective to storytelling. The camera work isn’t just “playing pretend.” It’s meticulously crafted to immerse viewers in a toy-sized world, offering a narrative depth that’s anything but child’s play.
ROGER EBERT: Meticulously crafted? More like meticulously overrated. Sure, the camera swooshes and tilts are neat, but it’s the storytelling and pacing that feel rushed, like they’re trying to cram every toy ad on TV into a single storyline. As for the screenplay, it’s witty but hardly the literary masterpiece you’re making it out to be. The plot is as convoluted as a child’s explanation of quantum physics.
GENE SISKEL: Convolution or not, it speaks volumes that you compare it to quantum physics, Roger. The screenplay cleverly navigates through themes of acceptance and identity without losing its humor or charm. And the acting—Tom Hanks and Tim Allen bring Woody and Buzz to life with such enthusiasm and sincerity, it’s hard not to get invested in their journey.
ROGER EBERT: Enthusiasm and sincerity? More like they found the only way to make toys more commercial. And while Hanks and Allen have their moments, it’s the animation that steals the show, not the so-called acting. The real stars are the animators who managed to give plastic figures more personality than half the actors in Hollywood.
GENE SISKEL: Perhaps the only thing we agree on is the animation’s brilliance. The cinematography and technical execution are indeed impressive. The way light plays on surfaces, the textures, the movements—it’s all rendered with an attention to detail that sets a new standard for animated films.
ROGER EBERT: Finally, something sensible out of your mouth, Gene. The technical wizardry is commendable, but let’s not forget the artistic merit and innovation here. “Toy Story” didn’t just set a standard; it blew the doors off what an animated film could be. It’s a seminal work that pushed boundaries, combining art and technology in a way that was truly innovative.
GENE SISKEL: Thumbs Up for me, Roger. It’s a cinematic landmark that marries technology with storytelling in an unprecedented way.
ROGER EBERT: And it’s a Thumbs Up from me as well, despite its flaws. The innovation and impact of “Toy Story” can’t be overstated.
Next week, we’ll tackle “Blazing Saddles,” a film that promises to be as divisive as it is unique. Don’t miss our take on it—it’ll be a show you won’t want to miss. We’ll see you “At the Movies.”
Mary Poppins
Hello. I’m Gene Siskel from the Chicago Tribune, along with Roger Ebert from the Chicago Sun-Times, and you’re “At the Movies with Siskel and Ebert.”
Today we’re diving into the whimsical world of “Mary Poppins,” a film that ostensibly combines magical realism with a dash of Edwardian England societal critique. And let’s not forget the unforgettable Julie Andrews, who brings Poppins to life, floating down from the clouds with her umbrella as if she’s the only beacon of hope for the Banks family.
ROGER EBERT: Oh, Gene, only you could find a societal critique in a nanny popping out of the sky. Let me tell you the thing about the movie: it’s a fanciful dance around the real issues, wrapped up in catchy tunes. The direction? Sure, Robert Stevenson whirls the camera like he’s painting a masterpiece, but it’s all smoke and mirrors to distract from the lack of depth.
GENE SISKEL: Lack of depth? Are you kidding me? The screenplay is a veritable tapestry of whimsy and wisdom, Roger. It speaks volumes about family, responsibility, and the joy of life. The way Poppins orchestrates change within the Banks household is nothing short of literary genius.
ROGER EBERT: Oh, please, the dialogue is as sugary as a spoonful of sugar itself. And as for acting, Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke are delightful, but let’s not pretend there’s groundbreaking method acting going on. It’s the charm of the characters that carries the day, not some profound performance revelation.
GENE SISKEL: Dissecting acting like you’re some seasoned theatre critic, Roger? Andrews and Van Dyke bring an unmatched energy and warmth. And the cinematography and technical execution are pioneering for the era. The blend of live-action and animation was revolutionary.
ROGER EBERT: It was a neat trick, Gene, but let’s not get carried away. As for artistic merit and innovation, sure, it pushed a few boundaries. But it’s hardly the cinematic revolution you’re painting it to be.
GENE SISKEL: Ah, there’s the philosophical Roger I know, always ready to downplay innovation. “Mary Poppins” brought a new dimension to family films and musicals alike, combining them with visual effects that were ahead of its time.
ROGER EBERT: And yet, for all its supposed innovation, it’s still just a so-so family movie. Nothing more, nothing less. I’m giving it a “Thumbs down” for pretending to be more profound than it is.
GENE SISKEL: Well, I’m giving it a “Thumbs up” for its enduring charm, technical prowess, and the sheer joy it brings to audiences, Roger. Your cynicism can’t take that away.
Wrapping it up, despite Roger’s skepticism, “Mary Poppins” remains a classic that transcends generations with its innovation, artistic merit, and heartwarming performances. It’s a film that deserves its place in cinematic history, offering more than just a superficial nanny tale.
Don’t miss our take on “Dumb and Dumber” next week—it’ll be a show you won’t want to miss. We’ll see you “At the Movies.”
