He would likely have merely dismissed it as a cult favorite. There are plenty of really entertaining movies that have a following that are nothing really that special.
Mind you I don’t think these two liked Home Alone either and it’s become a holiday classic. And critics hated John Carpenter’s the thing when it came out and people are still talking about that film.
It's possible that this movie would've grown on Siskel had he lived long enough to revisit it. I know I didn't love it first time I saw it, but it gets better and better every time I watch it. Now one of my favourite comedies ever.
I agree had he lived long enough he may have liked it more i wasnt the biggest fan of it the first time i saw it either. But i realise its a classic now
Roger is way more objective and is able to see the value of individual merits a film may carry. Siskel was very subjective and viewed films from his own emotional compass. We all do that. But he seemed to be less capable of stepping away from his own lens when processing films.
I thought this was hilarious the first time around. When I saw it in the theaters I was dying when when Walter started smashing the Corvette with a crowbar.
Roger Ebert is showing proof of why people regard him so highly till date. The fact that he understood this movie 1st time shows why he was special & way ahead of everybody. The Dude & Walter simply have insane, out of the world chemistry looking like real brothers in this movie. Jeff Bridges dude 4 life.
Yeah, many people would take a few viewings. He caught it quick. If Siskel would have a different take if he went in looking for Noir satire paired with idiots.
@@johnnymittle lol, that's why these 2 together work so well. They do disagree but are not fighting over each other's opinions. I remember Gene saying he didn't like Mark Hamill's Joker voice. 🤣🤣🤣 Which I disagree.
Lebowski was the first film I realized plot doesn't have to matter. Nothing is gained or learned by the end, it's just a ride along with these characters
Absolutely! Same with Ghost World, Over the Edge, etc.. just a slice of life, and that’s ok. Though it is a Raymond Chandler template.. in which nothing really matters because the ride was just fun- like you said
Totally agree. If the acting, dialogue, and dramatic/comedic elements are firing on all cylinders, a hazy plot line is totally fine. In fact, I would argue that The Big Lebowski uses a convoluted and confusing plot to give the audience the same sense of disorientation that The Dude is experiencing. The point being that life doesn’t always make sense, and sometimes a person can get tangled up in other people’s drama. The movie Inherent Vice is another one that uses this technique to great affect.
honestly, there is much I and most people failed to realize about The Big Lebowski. We love it because we find something we didn't notice before every time we rewatch it
@@bencarlson4300 Yes, definitely. But, I think ebert just enjoyed films in general a lot more than siskel. And, Ebert's writing was better too as far as articles go. Anyway, I guess I enjoyed Ebert's enthusiasm. He wanted to like the films, whereas I always got the feeling Siskel sorta looked forward to hating on films.
I give Gene a break, because I hated this film the first I saw it. I was so into the plot and by the end was so disappointed. Then I watched it again…..(and again…..and again…..and again…) and started to realize the plot doesn’t even matter in this film. It’s about getting to know and hanging out with the main characters, and it’s one of the greatest movies ever made.
I don't think that I have ever liked any Coen Brothers movie the first time I watched it. I remember my friend raving about O Brother Where Art Thou? And the first time we watched ti together I felt disappointed at the end and thought it was all a load of hype. Then after watching again and again you start to pick out the funny little details in the movie and the plot made more sense on repeated viewings.
Seriously, we could go through YEARS of their various reviews and pick out what we perceive now to be misguided critiques. Siskel certainly wasn't the only one to pan "The Big Lebowski", as I recall several not-so-favorable reviews, and it didn't exactly perform all that well at the box office.
When it came out, my wife and I saw a billboard in the subway and thought "A bowling movie?" It opened and it closed. 13 years later I was in a room in NYC called The Knitting Factory, packed with Lebowski fans during a screening. Each one of us screamed every line throughout the whole movie, which you can only do after you've seen it a few hundred times. It grows on you, Gene.
Gene wasn't alone back then. The reviews and box office receipts were not kind to this film. I saw it opening night and have loved it ever since. Still miss Gene and Roger!
I don't completely trust anyone that doesn't get it. Which includes most of my friends, family, and acquaintances. Apparently you guys are my soulmates. I love you man!
Siskel was an intelligent man. However, this film went WAY over his head. He only perceived the movie from the surface. Didn’t really observe or digest anything. I’m not making TBL out to be Citizen Kane, just saying he didn’t take the film for what it really was.
Siskel was crazy here, this movie is a classic and perhaps one of the best comedies ever made. Ebert definitely got this one right, The Big Lebowski is a great film that holds up on repeat viewings.
@@johnmarcey7176 In a just society, Brain Candy would be known and regarded as one of the all-time greats. You can never have enough Brain Candy. I eat Brain Candy for breakfast!!
The Big Lebowski is a cult classic. So many hilarious scenes. My favorite is the scene surrounding Donny’s remains at the mortuary. “Is there a Von’s nearby?” And then the remains blowing in their faces to me is hilarious. A parody of the clique dumping ashes into ocean goes awry. The whole White Russian joke, “hey, man, there’s a beverage here!”
By the time Lebowski came out it was obvious the Coen brothers were more concerned with philosophy than plot. How Siskel didn’t notice this is beyond me.
1) Understanding that it's a parody of a Raymond Chandler novel, and having a basic understanding of what that is, unlocks a good deal of the movie for the viewer. 2) Despite how beloved it's become, The Dude, Walter, and many of the other characters are not universal. They are very, very, very specific to California and/or the early 90s, and it took me a few viewings to get that it being set in 1991 vs. the late 90s when it came out is important. Walter's character, a Vietnam Vet of that age, was already becoming an anachronism. Ditto bowling alleys of that character (they used to be almost aggressively family/child unfriendly, especially after a certain hour). 3) I love the movie, but it's not immediately funny. I really think on the first viewing you're almost as confused as The Dude to what's going on, especially as he jumps from situation to situation. It's not methodical in revealing the plot, nor is it interested in being that way (like Fargo). Walter is way funnier when you fully understand the plot, and get to just bask in his dialogue and reactions to things.
Truth is, Siskel’s opinion was in step with a lot of opinions of TBL at the time. It aged into greatness, but it wasn’t an instant classic. And the reason is pretty much what Gene says here - he went into it thinking it was more of a straight up comedy like, as he says, Kingpin. It’s marketing reinforced that. Quite a few folks went into it with that attitude and came out disappointed. It really wasn’t until the subsequent years that people figured out it was actually a comedic modern film noir and not the zany, madcap romp they had assumed it would be. I like to think that if Gene was still around today, he’d adjust his original take on it.
Even though I "liked" Siskel more, the more and more reviews I see the more it becomes apparent that Roger was more accurate and the better overall critic
Lord, you took him, as you took so many bright flowering young men at Khe Sanh, at Langdok, at Hill 364. These young men gave their lives. And so would Gene. Gene, who didn’t love bowling.
Fun Fact: In the closing scene, the man bowling in the background is none other than Barry Asher. Barry Asher set the PBA high average record in 1970 in South Bend, Indiana with a 247 average for 41 games... a record that stood for more than a decade, and was only broken after the USBC began rapid decline by approving urethane balls.
This is a movie that gets better for at least the first five times you watch it. If Gene only saw it once, not a surprise he wasn't too impressed. I bet he liked it better upon any repeat viewings.
Not sure if he watched it again but many critics who panned the film did admit that their reviews changed as the years passed. Just like with Seinfeld, The Big Lebowski is really a movie about nothing. It's sharply drawn characters with hilarious, original dialogue and it's a film you need to watch more than once to appreciate all the nuances.
@@Dana-wq5tp The Big Lebowski is a social critique in the same way that Seinfeld is, not really a movie about nothing. But, yeah, I don't think Siskel would have come around. He could be a stick in the mud.
Big Lebowski demands several viewings. I saw it in the theatre and thought it was ok. Then the 2nd time on DVD and it was like a whole different film because I felt more prepared for it, if that makes any sense. Laughed my ass off. Justifiably a classic. A great double bill would be this and Repo Man
the first time I saw it I was in awe. I immediately considered it a classic, probably the best comedy I've ever seen. Very easy to recognize too: it's just masterful movie making.
“And boy, isn’t kidnapping for ransom a tired plot these days”? That’s literally the plot of “Fargo”, one of Siskel’s recent favorite films at that time.
And he makes a big deal of the fact that the two Coen Brothers movies he didn't like had wealthy people. Pretty sure a wealthy father-in-law was a character in Fargo who had a profound effect on events.
"And this is not cutting edge humor" (proceeds to show a segment of one of cinema history's profoundly amazing character ambiance film making moments) "What are we supposed to do with that?"
@@apollion888 The Jesus's own movie ("The Jesus Rolls") is currently out and available to watch. It was written and directed by John Turturro, The Jesus actor himself. Every character in TBL is a crafted gem, placed to offset each other, in a crafted setting. I would say "expertly" crafted and placed, but tastes vary. Each character in TBL could be isolated and moved to their own setting, with its own built out and crafted components. Each character could have their own story, their own movie, or whatever. Where they each could blaze with their own crafted grandeur. These characters and their tone are that well built. Speaking more to Siskel's comment... || The blond man stoops to unzip the satchel. He pulls out a bowling ball and || examines it in the manner of a superstitious native. || BLOND MAN: "The f*** is this?" || DUDE: "Obviously you're not a golfer." || The blond man drops the ball which pulverizes more tile. With the above excerpt from the TBL script, The Coens wrote and then shot a broad based allegory into their movie. An allegory of someone who looks at something straight in the face, and doesn't understand what it is, and curses and tosses it away because it's not something specific they're looking for. They can't identify its meaning, they can't recognize its value, and so they aggressively reject it. This happens with BLOND MAN and CHINESE MAN/WOO looking at DUDE. This happens with BLOND MAN looking at a bowling ball. This happens with Gene Siskel looking at "The Big Lebowski". || Siskel stoops to unzip the satchel. He pulls out a finely crafted scene || with the inscription "The Jesus" and examines it in the manner of a || superstitious native. || SISKEL: "What are we supposed to do with that?" || COENS: "Obviously you're not a golfer." || Siskel drops the scene which pulverizes more tile. || SISKEL: Gene? || Gene is zipping his fly. || GENE: Yeah? || SISKEL: Wasn't this movie supposed to be a comedy? || GENE: Uh? || They both look around. || GENE: F***. || SISKEL: What do you think? || GENE: This movie looks like a f***** loser. || The Coens each pull their sunglasses down their nose with one finger, and || peek over them. || COENS: Hey. At least it's housebroken. || Siskel & Gene look at each other. They turn to leave. || GENE: F***** waste of time. || Siskel turns testily at the door. || SISKEL: Thanks a lot, a******.
What’s also amazing is that the Coens have made a number of good movies, several GREAT movies and two full-out masterpieces, Lebowski and Fargo. It’s very rare air they are in.
The Big Lebowski is an off-kilter take on the Raymond Chandler-type of movie. For Siskel, it apparently was too well done for him to recognize it as such. Interestingly, I re-watched TBL just last night, and it still delivers even though I've seen it dozens of times.
It's a Philips Marlowe type detective movie, like "The Big Sleep" with Humphrey Bogart. The Big Sleep - The Big Lebowski. very surprised Siskle didnt get it
Siskel had the oddest take in his last few years, most likely a result of his brain cancer I'd say. I would never in a million years think of comparing Kingpin with The Big Lebowski...both are terrific but absolutely different. And I never thought of The Big Lebowski as "a bowling movie" either.
It’s called postmodernism, Gene. Good god, wonder what he’d say about a Pynchon, DeLillo, Robbins or Brautigan novel - which I feel is the realm the film inhabits and which is rarely remarked upon. Ebert nails it, the basic scaffolding of the plot exists to be gleefully smashed and deconstructed. Someone here said it’s not a masterpiece - I say watch it again. And then again. It really is one of the great all-time comedies,
Siskel says that he likes Fargo, then he says that he doesn’t like The Big Lebowski. Then he says that kidnapping plots are “tired”. Both movies revolve around kidnapping plots.
I think Gene Siskel missed the point of this film because he was comparing it to the cohens previous work the Coen brothers are all over the map and I love them for it they have some hit and misses sure but they are great artists and they always try something new and Gene Siskel even if he doesn't like the movie should appreciate that rest in peace love you Gene
Ebert gets it. There is no plot. No kidnapping, no money, no actual bad guys. Just the dude and his friends. Even his lady friend. It did take me 3 viewings to get it. That seems to be the number for a lot of us.
Some movies are often disliked upon first viewing because it takes most of the film for you to get where they're coming from. Then you change from hate to love the next time you see it. Napoleon Dynamite is another example of one of these kinds of movies.
Lebowski was released in Feb 98. Gene Siskel was diagnosed with a brain tumor in May 98. I can imagine he wasn't all too susceptible to comedy when he saw Lebowski. Plus, back then, it could take a couple of viewings to "get it." The film took awhile to be fully appreciated, too.
I'm sure there are classic films you dislike, as well. Right? And I'm sure you feel okay with holding that opinion. Right? Would be kind of strange, otherwise. Just because a lot of people like something, doesn't mean that you have to. Like, I think that The Deer Hunter is a dreadful film, Oscar bait nonsense of the lowest form. And I sleep like a baby at night!
@@BackyardPix Maybe? Unless they changed their minds? That's what I wonder about. I feel like you've responded to a different comment than the one I actually made.
As Gene was speaking over Jesus doing his thing, I realised he is right, however, at the same time, to me, this is one of the most rewatchable scenes ever filmed. Perhaps that is the magic of The Big Lebowski.
The Big Lebowski transcends time. When the 10th anniversary came out it seemed unbelievable it was that old. 25 years later it still holds up and could’ve come out yesterday.
I remember first time watching it I totally got why it developed a cult following, the second time I saw it was when fathom events re released it for its 25th anniversary and it was really fun watching it with a bunch of fans quoting it. I feel like it’s when you realize the plot matters to the film as much as the plot matters in Monty python and the holy grail it becomes way more enjoyable.
If Gene Siskel is alive in 2021, he will test positive for COVID-19 and watch Tiffany Hunter, Andy Price from Price Mortgage, Christine Jackson Brackman from People's Mortgage, Joe Conner from Homeowners Financial Group and Renee Sacco from Union Home Mortgage review Blood Simple, Muriel's Wedding, Mystery, Alaska, High Fidelity, Corky Romano, Out Cold, The Last Castle, Signs, Sorority Boys, One Hour Photo, Calendar Girls, Shanghai Knights, The Ladykillers, I Heart Huckabees, Stay Alive, Annapolis, The Prestige, Deja Vu, Miracle at St. Anna, Burn After Reading, Jobs, Nocturnal Animals, La La Land, Tully, Down a Dark Hall, Hellboy and Her Smell on the Home Hunter show on September 26, 2021 on his laptop computer.
Siskel is a guy who could never even TOUCH the class and style of the perfection this film was. He liked to destroy films, but could never make a film that was a 1/1000th as good. Loder. Ebert. Right on.
What I believe Roger intended to say was the plot is an inconvenience in Jeff Bridge’s or The Dude’s ultimate desire to smoke pot, hang out and go bowling with his friends.
The humor in Jesus’ introduction is how long and drawn out it is with a banging Spanish version of Hotel California kicking in the background. Hell, it was the music that made me laugh
Definitely a miss by Gene - he did (whether he wanted to admit it or not) compare it to ‘Fargo’ - I “got” this movie the first time I saw it. The only movie that I went to see twice in the same day at the theater.
Wow, Gene gets it wrong again. It is so interesting to go back and watch these old S&I shows and see how often Gene got it wrong, Gene was too intellectual about art perhaps. Roger is the greatest film critic of all time - he was able to let go and get taken for the ride that is implicit in the cinematic art form and he always had a child-like exuberance and love for movies.
Did Tiffany Hunter idolize Gene Siskel and did Joe Conner (which he shaved off the beard) from Homeowners Financial Group idolize Roger Ebert on the Home Hunter show on July 19, 2020? Was it because Siskel and Ebert reviewed The Big Lebowski in 1998?
Siskel wouldn't know a great movie if it fell out of the sky and hit him in the head. Check out his take on Scarface. Guy never saw the big picture, whereas Ebert had a great eye to spot a classic.
Well, he gave very positive reviews to movies like Fargo, Pulp Fiction, Shawshank and many others, so to say he wouldn’t know a great movie is kind of dumb.
The story line is fairly inonconsequential, and essentially serves to showcase the awesomeness and absurdity of the characters. So many of the ancillary characters are great too and are brilliant satirizations. The jokes are sometimes heavy handed, others are very subtle. Like how neither Walter nor the Dude know the right species or breed. You can just tell they went over the script a million times, enriching it with quotable gems tht I'll take with me to the grave. I get that a lot of people don't like this movie (women don't seem to get it as much) and it isn't for everyone. But anyone who's been in a friend group of male idiots can relate I think. RIP Philip Seymour Hoffman.
The Big Lebowski is one of those film that is simultaneously underrated and overrated. It's underrated because it was a box office bomb that most have never heard of. It's overrated because, like most cult classics, it's fans will treat it like it's a masterpiece when it's not.
I agree. I finally saw this film in a theater a few years ago because of all the hype surrounding it and the amount of rabidly dedicated fans it has. My conclusion: I liked it. I didn’t LOVE it. I recognized it as a truly original and unique work of art but I think that the cult like devotion is unwarranted.
"Every film I'm gonna see this year or next year isn't gonna measure up to Fargo" Also: "Isn't kidnapping for ransom scheme tired?" The plot of Fargo: a kidnapping for ransom scheme.
Siskel might not like it. I completely understand that. This movie might not be for everyone. But how is he comparing this film with Fargo again and again!? They are completely different from each other.
Yeah well, that's just like your opinion man
Looool
too bad siskel didnt live to see it become cult classic
This is the perfect response
Great comment.
Good one, man.
Ebert gets it. Gene was obviously not a golfer.
I think you mean bowler.
@@sha11235 Gene owed money all over town, including to known pornographers.......and that's cool....
@@sha11235 Obviously you're not a golfer.
@@msilverthorpe - Touché
@@msilverthorpe underrated
I love when Ebert says that the characters are way out of their element. That's exactly what Walter told Donny.
I feel like he was searching for a different word because he didn't want to repeat the line from the movie, but couldn't think of anything.
I caught that too and immediately heard Walter's voice castigating Donny
That was great. I think that might be why Ebert hesitated just a tiny bit before he said it.
Yeah, but should he not also have told Siskel to STFU and that he had no frame of reference?
You know who were really 'out of their element?' How about those brave but overmatched kids who were sent to Vietnam!!??
Gene went over the line. This isn't Nam, there are rules.
Mark it an 8, dude.
🤣
Very lucky to not end up entering a world of pain
@@Islanders83 you're entering a world a pain...
Why dont ya get over the lamest movie of 1998.
That little pause before Ebert said, “Out of their element.” You just know he was chuckling on the inside.
i dont think he knew lol, much like how The Dude keeps repeating lines like "this aggression will not stand" and "In the parlance of our times"
Imagine trying to explain to Gene Siskel that this movie would grow to be so beloved that it inspired its own religion 😂
He would likely have merely dismissed it as a cult favorite. There are plenty of really entertaining movies that have a following that are nothing really that special.
Ths dude abides.
Code Blue 89
@@RocStarr913your moms porn movie for example.
Mind you I don’t think these two liked Home Alone either and it’s become a holiday classic. And critics hated John Carpenter’s the thing when it came out and people are still talking about that film.
"Kingpin was a much funnier film set in the world of bowling."
Most ludicrous thing ever said about film, or bowling.
Agree. "Kingpin" was AWFUL, tho I did at least laugh a couple times.
@@ashandwit We have no dairy cattle on this farm
@@kurtmetzler9910 O yeah!! I almost forgot about that scene with Woody H! Nice call!
Kingpin is funny, but no where close to Big Lebowski.
I tried rewatching kingpin, it was only funny the first time, the big Lebowski is easy to watch again.
It's possible that this movie would've grown on Siskel had he lived long enough to revisit it. I know I didn't love it first time I saw it, but it gets better and better every time I watch it. Now one of my favourite comedies ever.
Agreed. It is much better and funnier on repeat viewings.
I didn't get it the first time, neither. So... Yes, I agree with you.
I think that’s true for a lot of people including me. It’s really quotable and iconic
I hated it first time i saw it...Repo Man too....
I agree had he lived long enough he may have liked it more i wasnt the biggest fan of it the first time i saw it either. But i realise its a classic now
i typically agree with Gene but he got this one way off. This movie is timeless and Roger got it spot on
I typically agree with Roger and just like you said, he was spot on. 😉
Roger is way more objective and is able to see the value of individual merits a film may carry. Siskel was very subjective and viewed films from his own emotional compass. We all do that. But he seemed to be less capable of stepping away from his own lens when processing films.
Siskel (RIP) invariably had a stick up his a$$
@@ktheintz He expected more from film makers. I dont think thats a bad thing
I thought this was hilarious the first time around. When I saw it in the theaters I was dying when when Walter started smashing the Corvette with a crowbar.
Roger Ebert is showing proof of why people regard him so highly till date.
The fact that he understood this movie 1st time shows why he was special & way ahead of everybody.
The Dude & Walter simply have insane, out of the world chemistry looking like real brothers in this movie.
Jeff Bridges dude 4 life.
Yeah, many people would take a few viewings. He caught it quick. If Siskel would have a different take if he went in looking for Noir satire paired with idiots.
@@johnnymittle lol, that's why these 2 together work so well.
They do disagree but are not fighting over each other's opinions.
I remember Gene saying he didn't like Mark Hamill's Joker voice. 🤣🤣🤣
Which I disagree.
Complete opposites that fit perfectly?
Yeah BUT....Ebert hated Raising Arizona. He also didn't like The Usual Suspects.
Man.....
siskel was just a guy with an opinion. Ebert was a devoted authority on film and one of the best critics of the art form, ever.
Gene Siskel is out of his element.
Shut the fuck up, Gene!
Fuckin’ A
He’s over the line.
@@mikef2813mark it zero
The rug really tied the room together did it not lol
Lebowski was the first film I realized plot doesn't have to matter. Nothing is gained or learned by the end, it's just a ride along with these characters
Absolutely! Same with Ghost World, Over the Edge, etc.. just a slice of life, and that’s ok. Though it is a Raymond Chandler template.. in which nothing really matters because the ride was just fun- like you said
Mean Streets, another brilliant and plot optional film.
After Hours was also a wild ride
Totally agree. If the acting, dialogue, and dramatic/comedic elements are firing on all cylinders, a hazy plot line is totally fine. In fact, I would argue that The Big Lebowski uses a convoluted and confusing plot to give the audience the same sense of disorientation that The Dude is experiencing. The point being that life doesn’t always make sense, and sometimes a person can get tangled up in other people’s drama. The movie Inherent Vice is another one that uses this technique to great affect.
Dazed and Confused
Siskel, you're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie!
He’s out of his element.
When he said the humor was uninspired, my jaw dropped . The audacity
This aggression will not stand man!
This will not stand, man.
Ebert's jaw dropped so hard, he lost it.
It’s the most layered comedy film I can think of
The Dude abides!
Gene Siskel, was always like a bummer man.
What Siskel FAILED to understand or realize is that this film is a very clever, sly parody of The Big Sleep.
honestly, there is much I and most people failed to realize about The Big Lebowski. We love it because we find something we didn't notice before every time we rewatch it
Just because it's a parody of something doesn't mean it has to be good or a joyful watch. A lot of parodies are trash.
@@okyouknowwhatever And this is not one that is trash.
@@okyouknowwhateveryour mom is trash
Yea! It’s a parody of Philip Marlow detective thrillers
Siskel was usually out of touch. He actually seemed offended by how rich people are portrayed in this film. Ebert was always my favorite.
Ebert was typically more on track than Siskel, but Ebert had plenty of his moments of being “out of touch” as well
@@bencarlson4300 Yes, definitely. But, I think ebert just enjoyed films in general a lot more than siskel. And, Ebert's writing was better too as far as articles go. Anyway, I guess I enjoyed Ebert's enthusiasm. He wanted to like the films, whereas I always got the feeling Siskel sorta looked forward to hating on films.
I feel the opposite, but Gene is off on this one.
The funeral scene is literally a top 10 comedy scene of all time. Period.
Speaking as a Dudeist Priest - Siskel's aggression will not stand, man.
I abide!
Speaking as a fellow Ordained Dudeist, yeah well, you know, that's just like your opinion, man
Well he needs to adhere to a pretty strict uh drug regiment to ah, keep his mind ah..limber
@@jbilyard3 Don't we all ;-)
I was gonna say something but everybody took the quotes from the movie I was gonna use.
I give Gene a break, because I hated this film the first I saw it. I was so into the plot and by the end was so disappointed. Then I watched it again…..(and again…..and again…..and again…) and started to realize the plot doesn’t even matter in this film. It’s about getting to know and hanging out with the main characters, and it’s one of the greatest movies ever made.
"'The Big Lebowski' is about an attitude, not a story." - Roger Ebert
I don't think that I have ever liked any Coen Brothers movie the first time I watched it. I remember my friend raving about O Brother Where Art Thou? And the first time we watched ti together I felt disappointed at the end and thought it was all a load of hype. Then after watching again and again you start to pick out the funny little details in the movie and the plot made more sense on repeated viewings.
More like it just flattered your massive ego.
Kind of the same for me, I didn't hate it the first time, but I was sort of frozen and didn't know what to make of it.
This review didn’t age well.
It did, actually. Siskel's review didn't age well.
At least I understand what Siskel is saying with his unfavorable critique, it's fairly well reasoned. That being said, Ebert's is more well reasoned.
Tit for tat, Ebert gave a thumbs down to Full Metal Jacket.
Seriously, we could go through YEARS of their various reviews and pick out what we perceive now to be misguided critiques. Siskel certainly wasn't the only one to pan "The Big Lebowski", as I recall several not-so-favorable reviews, and it didn't exactly perform all that well at the box office.
@@77barrymacThis one is a way homer. You don't get till your way home.
When it came out, my wife and I saw a billboard in the subway and thought "A bowling movie?" It opened and it closed. 13 years later I was in a room in NYC called The Knitting Factory, packed with Lebowski fans during a screening. Each one of us screamed every line throughout the whole movie, which you can only do after you've seen it a few hundred times. It grows on you, Gene.
Upvote for the Knitting Factory. 😊
Gene wasn't alone back then. The reviews and box office receipts were not kind to this film. I saw it opening night and have loved it ever since. Still miss Gene and Roger!
I don't completely trust anyone that doesn't get it. Which includes most of my friends, family, and acquaintances. Apparently you guys are my soulmates. I love you man!
Siskel was an intelligent man. However, this film went WAY over his head. He only perceived the movie from the surface. Didn’t really observe or digest anything. I’m not making TBL out to be Citizen Kane, just saying he didn’t take the film for what it really was.
I revere Citizen Kane, but I think The Big Lebowski is a better film.
He's out of his element.
Maybe the Big Lebowski isn't Citizen Kane, but Citizen Kane isn't the Big Lebowski either.
Agree. I think he maybe had some personal experience with stoners or maybe even had HIS rug stolen.
I took a pass my first time too. Now it's my all-time favorite movie - along with Fargo, of course.
Siskel was crazy here, this movie is a classic and perhaps one of the best comedies ever made. Ebert definitely got this one right, The Big Lebowski is a great film that holds up on repeat viewings.
It's not as good as Brain Candy.
@@BackyardPix What does that have to do with anything? Brain Candy was minimal at best. And I love kids in the Hall.
More like a cult classic.
@@johnmarcey7176 In a just society, Brain Candy would be known and regarded as one of the all-time greats. You can never have enough Brain Candy. I eat Brain Candy for breakfast!!
The Big Lebowski is a cult classic. So many hilarious scenes. My favorite is the scene surrounding Donny’s remains at the mortuary. “Is there a Von’s nearby?” And then the remains blowing in their faces to me is hilarious. A parody of the clique dumping ashes into ocean goes awry. The whole White Russian joke, “hey, man, there’s a beverage here!”
Oh brother, you're regretting this review now, El Siskelino.
@Jack The Film Fanatic Yeah, well, that's like, your opinion, man.
Tim Wright
Is that an o brother where art thou reference?
Tim Wright
Thou accepts thy denial
@Jack The Film Fanatic why do you think this film sucks?
@Jack The Film Fanatic this aggression will not stand, man.
3:38 roger said ' they were totally out of their element ' without being ironic .
Only time will tell if a movie is a hit, how it holds up over time. This one definitely holds up. Classic.
More like a cult classic.
Siskel and ebert you are out of your element !
Siskel was out of his element
This whole court is out of its element!
Bridges wasn't a cliche. Those dudes really exist.
Especially in California
Yeah well, you know, that's just like your opinion, man
Based on a real Dude, man.
This is why roger is remembered. He see it for what it is.
Who??
BIG Lebowski is a masterpiece. It went over the head of the bald guy!!
Justice Hussein Roger Ebert is the one who isn’t bald, the one who liked the film.
@@charlieo.possum5501your mom
Even a bright, erudite, brilliant intellectual like Gene could be very wrong sometimes. And I think that's a good thing.
Only human, dude. One thing I've noticed about fans of this film is they don't take everything too seriously.
In the end it’s two opinions vs the worlds. We all gotta remember to take things with a grain of salt
It takes a Big Lebowski fan to say that. 😊
You're not always gonna agree with what film critics think. And it isn't that big of a deal at all.
"Do you have a JOB SIR!"
One of the best movies of the last 75 years.
Siskel steps up to the plate. A swing and a miss. Strike three. Siskel walks back to the dugout. Branded . Is this your homework Larry?
By the time Lebowski came out it was obvious the Coen brothers were more concerned with philosophy than plot. How Siskel didn’t notice this is beyond me.
1) Understanding that it's a parody of a Raymond Chandler novel, and having a basic understanding of what that is, unlocks a good deal of the movie for the viewer. 2) Despite how beloved it's become, The Dude, Walter, and many of the other characters are not universal. They are very, very, very specific to California and/or the early 90s, and it took me a few viewings to get that it being set in 1991 vs. the late 90s when it came out is important. Walter's character, a Vietnam Vet of that age, was already becoming an anachronism. Ditto bowling alleys of that character (they used to be almost aggressively family/child unfriendly, especially after a certain hour). 3) I love the movie, but it's not immediately funny. I really think on the first viewing you're almost as confused as The Dude to what's going on, especially as he jumps from situation to situation. It's not methodical in revealing the plot, nor is it interested in being that way (like Fargo). Walter is way funnier when you fully understand the plot, and get to just bask in his dialogue and reactions to things.
3:40 out of their element. Hahaha perfect words roger
you're out of your element, Donnie!
Truth is, Siskel’s opinion was in step with a lot of opinions of TBL at the time. It aged into greatness, but it wasn’t an instant classic. And the reason is pretty much what Gene says here - he went into it thinking it was more of a straight up comedy like, as he says, Kingpin. It’s marketing reinforced that. Quite a few folks went into it with that attitude and came out disappointed. It really wasn’t until the subsequent years that people figured out it was actually a comedic modern film noir and not the zany, madcap romp they had assumed it would be. I like to think that if Gene was still around today, he’d adjust his original take on it.
I remember when I got it. The dude's soliloquy in the back of the limo. I realized then that I was watching genius.
My favorite comment from the movie " He treats possessions like women"
*objects
Even though I "liked" Siskel more, the more and more reviews I see the more it becomes apparent that Roger was more accurate and the better overall critic
There are a lot of reasons why Roger Ebert won a Pulitzer and Siskel never did.
Literally, 3 of the greatest movies of the 1990's. Siskel gave thumbs down. (Big Lebowski, Casino and Unforgiven)
@@kevinfinnerty8414 wow
Lord, you took him, as you took so many bright flowering young men at Khe Sanh, at Langdok, at Hill 364. These young men gave their lives. And so would Gene. Gene, who didn’t love bowling.
Oof siskel.. you clearly didn't get this movie at all..
Fun Fact: In the closing scene, the man bowling in the background is none other than Barry Asher. Barry Asher set the PBA high average record in 1970 in South Bend, Indiana with a 247 average for 41 games... a record that stood for more than a decade, and was only broken after the USBC began rapid decline by approving urethane balls.
Also, the "Mark it zero, Dude" scene could not take place today with automated scoring.
@@joebarr725and?
So his toe slipped over a little bit. It's just a game, man.
@@jorisw_joris, this is not rumble, this is youtube, there are rules
This is a movie that gets better for at least the first five times you watch it. If Gene only saw it once, not a surprise he wasn't too impressed. I bet he liked it better upon any repeat viewings.
Not sure if he watched it again but many critics who panned the film did admit that their reviews changed as the years passed. Just like with Seinfeld, The Big Lebowski is really a movie about nothing. It's sharply drawn characters with hilarious, original dialogue and it's a film you need to watch more than once to appreciate all the nuances.
@@Dana-wq5tp The Big Lebowski is a social critique in the same way that Seinfeld is, not really a movie about nothing. But, yeah, I don't think Siskel would have come around. He could be a stick in the mud.
I will forever love Ebert for getting this movie (and many other reasons) on his first viewing. It took me many years to finally get it.❤
Big Lebowski demands several viewings. I saw it in the theatre and thought it was ok. Then the 2nd time on DVD and it was like a whole different film because I felt more prepared for it, if that makes any sense. Laughed my ass off. Justifiably a classic. A great double bill would be this and Repo Man
the first time I saw it I was in awe. I immediately considered it a classic, probably the best comedy I've ever seen. Very easy to recognize too: it's just masterful movie making.
“And boy, isn’t kidnapping for ransom a tired plot these days”?
That’s literally the plot of “Fargo”, one of Siskel’s recent favorite films at that time.
And he makes a big deal of the fact that the two Coen Brothers movies he didn't like had wealthy people. Pretty sure a wealthy father-in-law was a character in Fargo who had a profound effect on events.
@@CrabbyOldLady Exactly. He was a good critic overall but there were some real head scratchers.
This is a review where Roger wants to absolutley love this movie and Gene want to burn it to hell, but neither get what they want.
I saw this at a theater on the outside of Tokyo in 1998. Man I miss those times.
"And this is not cutting edge humor"
(proceeds to show a segment of one of cinema history's profoundly amazing character ambiance film making moments)
"What are we supposed to do with that?"
Plus The Jesus may still get his own movie!
@@apollion888
The Jesus's own movie ("The Jesus Rolls") is currently out and available to watch. It was written and directed by John Turturro, The Jesus actor himself.
Every character in TBL is a crafted gem, placed to offset each other, in a crafted setting. I would say "expertly" crafted and placed, but tastes vary.
Each character in TBL could be isolated and moved to their own setting, with its own built out and crafted components. Each character could have their own story, their own movie, or whatever. Where they each could blaze with their own crafted grandeur. These characters and their tone are that well built.
Speaking more to Siskel's comment...
|| The blond man stoops to unzip the satchel. He pulls out a bowling ball and
|| examines it in the manner of a superstitious native.
|| BLOND MAN: "The f*** is this?"
|| DUDE: "Obviously you're not a golfer."
|| The blond man drops the ball which pulverizes more tile.
With the above excerpt from the TBL script, The Coens wrote and then shot a broad based allegory into their movie. An allegory of someone who looks at something straight in the face, and doesn't understand what it is, and curses and tosses it away because it's not something specific they're looking for. They can't identify its meaning, they can't recognize its value, and so they aggressively reject it.
This happens with BLOND MAN and CHINESE MAN/WOO looking at DUDE. This happens with BLOND MAN looking at a bowling ball. This happens with Gene Siskel looking at "The Big Lebowski".
|| Siskel stoops to unzip the satchel. He pulls out a finely crafted scene
|| with the inscription "The Jesus" and examines it in the manner of a
|| superstitious native.
|| SISKEL: "What are we supposed to do with that?"
|| COENS: "Obviously you're not a golfer."
|| Siskel drops the scene which pulverizes more tile.
|| SISKEL: Gene?
|| Gene is zipping his fly.
|| GENE: Yeah?
|| SISKEL: Wasn't this movie supposed to be a comedy?
|| GENE: Uh?
|| They both look around.
|| GENE: F***.
|| SISKEL: What do you think?
|| GENE: This movie looks like a f***** loser.
|| The Coens each pull their sunglasses down their nose with one finger, and
|| peek over them.
|| COENS: Hey. At least it's housebroken.
|| Siskel & Gene look at each other. They turn to leave.
|| GENE: F***** waste of time.
|| Siskel turns testily at the door.
|| SISKEL: Thanks a lot, a******.
The annoying part is the punch line is cut. "5 year olds, Dude."
What’s also amazing is that the Coens have made a number of good movies, several GREAT movies and two full-out masterpieces, Lebowski and Fargo. It’s very rare air they are in.
I would add No Country for Old Men to the masterpiece list.
@@mjwbulich don’t forget Blood Simple and Miller’s Crossing
The Big Lebowski is an off-kilter take on the Raymond Chandler-type of movie. For Siskel, it apparently was too well done for him to recognize it as such. Interestingly, I re-watched TBL just last night, and it still delivers even though I've seen it dozens of times.
It's a Philips Marlowe type detective movie, like "The Big Sleep" with Humphrey Bogart. The Big Sleep - The Big Lebowski. very surprised Siskle didnt get it
Siskel had the oddest take in his last few years, most likely a result of his brain cancer I'd say. I would never in a million years think of comparing Kingpin with The Big Lebowski...both are terrific but absolutely different. And I never thought of The Big Lebowski as "a bowling movie" either.
Cynical bald man. Can we really blame him?
i think this exposed that he really did not watch it. he gave snippets of his time
Bowling is simply another character in this movie.
It’s called postmodernism, Gene. Good god, wonder what he’d say about a Pynchon, DeLillo, Robbins or Brautigan novel - which I feel is the realm the film inhabits and which is rarely remarked upon. Ebert nails it, the basic scaffolding of the plot exists to be gleefully smashed and deconstructed. Someone here said it’s not a masterpiece - I say watch it again. And then again. It really is one of the great all-time comedies,
Siskel often didn't get it and he missed it completely on this one. The Dude is seen on screens 24 hours a day, a classic.
That means nothing. Flypaper on the television watched by low-common denominator rubes is hardly a “classic.” More like a cult classic really.
@@RocStarr913 Cry harder.
My favorite movie EVER, and Gene Siskel was mostly always wrong about EVERYTHING!
Oddly enough, Gene loved Blue Velvet while Roger hated it. That's one of the few times the universe folded in on itself.
@@aquamarine99911 And Gene give thumbs up to the The Thing 1982 and Die Hard 1988 and Roger give thumbs down to both them classics.
Gene, you are out of your element! RIP sweet movie prince.
Little did they know it would turn out to be arguably the most popular cult classic ever😂
I thought Rocky Horror Picture Show, Reefer Madness, or Deep Throat would rank as highest on the cult classic list. 🤷
Siskel says that he likes Fargo, then he says that he doesn’t like The Big Lebowski. Then he says that kidnapping plots are “tired”. Both movies revolve around kidnapping plots.
I think Gene Siskel missed the point of this film because he was comparing it to the cohens previous work the Coen brothers are all over the map and I love them for it they have some hit and misses sure but they are great artists and they always try something new and Gene Siskel even if he doesn't like the movie should appreciate that rest in peace love you Gene
Ebert gets it. There is no plot. No kidnapping, no money, no actual bad guys. Just the dude and his friends. Even his lady friend.
It did take me 3 viewings to get it. That seems to be the number for a lot of us.
They mentioned NOTHING about the rug.. What the whole movie was about.. 👊😎💨💨💨💨💨
The "MacGuffin". (See Hitchcock)
This is why I prefer Ebert over Siskel.
Roger to the rescue once again. Sometimes I can’t believe Siskel was paid to review movies for a living.
The great brilliance about the movie is that all the F-ups are understated, deadpan, yet at the same time extreme
This was ahead of its time for the time they reviewed it. It’s a classic!
More like a cult classic
@@RocStarr913 More like you're crying.
Gene was in a bad mood when he watched the film. Its a hilarious film.
Ebert and I have such similar taste in movies. Siskel seems like such a "movie snob" sometimes, and I love it when Ebert tries to set him straight.
It makes it interesting if they just both agreed and said the same things the show would get old I loves seeing two personalities clash
Part of Siskel’s problem here is he keeps comparing it to Fargo. They are very different films.
Gene was the kind of guy to give a film like Cremaster Cycle a standing ovation.
Did he really? Those films were pure pretentious garbage.
Some movies are often disliked upon first viewing because it takes most of the film for you to get where they're coming from. Then you change from hate to love the next time you see it. Napoleon Dynamite is another example of one of these kinds of movies.
The Dude abides! One of the best all time comedies! Hey hey hey... There's a beverage here!
Lebowski was released in Feb 98. Gene Siskel was diagnosed with a brain tumor in May 98. I can imagine he wasn't all too susceptible to comedy when he saw Lebowski. Plus, back then, it could take a couple of viewings to "get it." The film took awhile to be fully appreciated, too.
The Big Lebowski is a great comedy! It honestly had me rolling!
that and office space are my favorites comedies, i would even say favorite movies
"It honestly had me rolling" I'm with you ;) *cough cough*
@@alexscott1257 oh shoot! I didn’t even know that I made a joke lol!
I wonder how they felt about this review after the film became a perennial classic to a degree that even Fargo never achieved.
I'm sure there are classic films you dislike, as well. Right? And I'm sure you feel okay with holding that opinion. Right? Would be kind of strange, otherwise. Just because a lot of people like something, doesn't mean that you have to. Like, I think that The Deer Hunter is a dreadful film, Oscar bait nonsense of the lowest form. And I sleep like a baby at night!
@@BackyardPix Maybe? Unless they changed their minds? That's what I wonder about. I feel like you've responded to a different comment than the one I actually made.
What a whiff by siskel. He's just pissy because he didn't get it.
Sounds more like you're the one who's pissy
@@WoahLookAtThatFreak hmm nope
It didn’t get good reviews when it first came out but has since become a revered cult classic. I liked it from the get go.
When he first said Twilight I almost threw up in my mouth a little bit lol
As Gene was speaking over Jesus doing his thing, I realised he is right, however, at the same time, to me, this is one of the most rewatchable scenes ever filmed. Perhaps that is the magic of The Big Lebowski.
The Big Lebowski transcends time. When the 10th anniversary came out it seemed unbelievable it was that old. 25 years later it still holds up and could’ve come out yesterday.
It’s a film that took me awhile to get. I didn’t like it the first time but then it grew on me and it’s great.
I remember first time watching it I totally got why it developed a cult following, the second time I saw it was when fathom events re released it for its 25th anniversary and it was really fun watching it with a bunch of fans quoting it. I feel like it’s when you realize the plot matters to the film as much as the plot matters in Monty python and the holy grail it becomes way more enjoyable.
Siskel was a boomer who simply never got movies not made by boomers. Ebert always had much more breadth and depth of understanding.
Too bad Siskel isn't here today to revisit his review.
If Gene Siskel is alive in 2021, he will test positive for COVID-19 and watch Tiffany Hunter, Andy Price from Price Mortgage, Christine Jackson Brackman from People's Mortgage, Joe Conner from Homeowners Financial Group and Renee Sacco from Union Home Mortgage review Blood Simple, Muriel's Wedding, Mystery, Alaska, High Fidelity, Corky Romano, Out Cold, The Last Castle, Signs, Sorority Boys, One Hour Photo, Calendar Girls, Shanghai Knights, The Ladykillers, I Heart Huckabees, Stay Alive, Annapolis, The Prestige, Deja Vu, Miracle at St. Anna, Burn After Reading, Jobs, Nocturnal Animals, La La Land, Tully, Down a Dark Hall, Hellboy and Her Smell on the Home Hunter show on September 26, 2021 on his laptop computer.
Siskel is a guy who could never even TOUCH the class and style of the perfection this film was. He liked to destroy films, but could never make a film that was a 1/1000th as good. Loder. Ebert. Right on.
Gene was a stereotypical critic. Bald and cynical
Watching a slew of their old reviews and Gene just gets so so so so so so so much wrong.
What I believe Roger intended to say was the plot is an inconvenience in Jeff Bridge’s or The Dude’s ultimate desire to smoke pot, hang out and go bowling with his friends.
One of the few appearances throughout 1998 when Gene was still looking well. Shame! :(
@Dalle Smalhals if gene had lived longer he might have realised this film has become a cult classic
@Dalle Smalhals was dying of cancer said to say
@Dalle Smalhals Gene was dying of cancer at the time of the review
@Dalle Smalhals
Not experiencing that springtime freshness, huh?
The humor in Jesus’ introduction is how long and drawn out it is with a banging Spanish version of Hotel California kicking in the background. Hell, it was the music that made me laugh
And a nice footnote about the Gipsy Kings, who did that awesome Spanish version of Hotel California is that they're not Spanish. They're French.
Definitely a miss by Gene - he did (whether he wanted to admit it or not) compare it to ‘Fargo’ - I “got” this movie the first time I saw it. The only movie that I went to see twice in the same day at the theater.
Wow, Gene gets it wrong again. It is so interesting to go back and watch these old S&I shows and see how often Gene got it wrong, Gene was too intellectual about art perhaps.
Roger is the greatest film critic of all time - he was able to let go and get taken for the ride that is implicit in the cinematic art form and he always had a child-like exuberance and love for movies.
Did Tiffany Hunter idolize Gene Siskel and did Joe Conner (which he shaved off the beard) from Homeowners Financial Group idolize Roger Ebert on the Home Hunter show on July 19, 2020? Was it because Siskel and Ebert reviewed The Big Lebowski in 1998?
"way out of their element" Ebert understands. I always thought he was better than Siskel.
Siskel wouldn't know a great movie if it fell out of the sky and hit him in the head. Check out his take on Scarface. Guy never saw the big picture, whereas Ebert had a great eye to spot a classic.
Well, he gave very positive reviews to movies like Fargo, Pulp Fiction, Shawshank and many others, so to say he wouldn’t know a great movie is kind of dumb.
The story line is fairly inonconsequential, and essentially serves to showcase the awesomeness and absurdity of the characters. So many of the ancillary characters are great too and are brilliant satirizations. The jokes are sometimes heavy handed, others are very subtle. Like how neither Walter nor the Dude know the right species or breed. You can just tell they went over the script a million times, enriching it with quotable gems tht I'll take with me to the grave. I get that a lot of people don't like this movie (women don't seem to get it as much) and it isn't for everyone. But anyone who's been in a friend group of male idiots can relate I think. RIP Philip Seymour Hoffman.
The Big Lebowski is one of those film that is simultaneously underrated and overrated. It's underrated because it was a box office bomb that most have never heard of. It's overrated because, like most cult classics, it's fans will treat it like it's a masterpiece when it's not.
I agree. I finally saw this film in a theater a few years ago because of all the hype surrounding it and the amount of rabidly dedicated fans it has. My conclusion: I liked it. I didn’t LOVE it. I recognized it as a truly original and unique work of art but I think that the cult like devotion is unwarranted.
"Every film I'm gonna see this year or next year isn't gonna measure up to Fargo" Also: "Isn't kidnapping for ransom scheme tired?" The plot of Fargo: a kidnapping for ransom scheme.
Siskel might not like it. I completely understand that. This movie might not be for everyone. But how is he comparing this film with Fargo again and again!? They are completely different from each other.
Or comparing it to Kingpin lol
This aggression will not stand, man.