@@danwroy If you're old enough to have watched these shows, particularly if you were too young or too far from a big city to see a lot of the movies they reviewed, watching Siskel and Ebert was how you learned about the movies and became ready to watch them when you finally did have the chance.
@@amitbasu7516 I agree! I particularly enjoyed their segments on small, lesser known films which slipped under the radar but which they highly recommended.
Of course, several years later Ebert would be raving (rightly) about Hannah and Her Sisters and Crimes and Misdemeanors, long after Brooks' skills as a filmmaker had ebbed away.
A shame they don't really talk about Young Frankenstein, to me it's such a perfect blend of parody and homage. They truly capture the atmosphere of what they parody and that's crucial for any parody to work. They film it the same way as those old movies, use the same transitions and all.
I can't believe that Siskel dumped on Brooks' "High Anxiety." I saw that film when it was first released in the theaters; it was hysterical then and it's still hysterical all these years later!
Brooks vs. Allen. It's like Fincher vs. Nolan. The styles of humor are different. Brooks is lowbrow and hilarious at times. Allen is highbrow and very funny in the right movie. But he rarely gives a gut-buster like Brooks can. I don't care for this type of show. It would make much more sense if the critics chose their faves from both directors; not a dopey "which guy is best" contest.
If Allen had followed Ebert's advice, he might have made something like "Broadway Danny Rose", but never "Hannah & Her Sisters" (my all-time favorite of his, by a long shot), "Crimes And Misdemeanors", nor maybe even "Zelig". But yeah, at the time "Interiors" did make most people nervous about the direction Allen was taking.
One opinion (and that is all it is): Mel Brooks' early works were his best. The Producers and The Twelve Chairs are my favorite followed closely by Blazing Saddles (corny but with some brilliant pieces) and Young Frankenstein, the homage to beat all homages. Woody Allen's early works shared a similar absurdity with Brooks but the biggest liability to me was Woody Allen himself and the actors who delivered their lines in Woody Allen's ad-lib-like style. Wood Allen perhaps grew as he made more films while Mel Brooks reverted back to a vaudeville-like over-the-top style. There are brilliant comedic scenes in History of the World Part One that would absolutely kill with a little finesse.
I honestly don't understandf why people undermine and fail to "get" Allen's comedy as being "intellectual" or "highbrow"...ever see his early films "Bananas" or "Sleeper"?? Nothing highbrow about them, full of silly slapstick and I got the humor when I was 12!
The 1970's were the hey-day for both Brooks and Allen. A few hits in the 80's for them, but clearly their best movies were behind them. Especially Brooks, By the time he got to the 1990's his movies paled so much in comparison to the 1970's.
@@emmaduncan2991 Well, Crimes and Misdomeanors is both, funny and dramatic. It's a truly great film. The scene where Woody shows Alan Alda his documentary makes me freakin howl! Lmao.
@@waynej2608 I wanted to give you this letter back. - It's my one love letter. - It's beautiful. I'm just... the wrong person. It's probably just as well. I plagiarised most of it from James Joyce. You probably wondered why all the references to Dublin.
I think that Allen has better writing in his films and is obviously a better director with a much more diverse body of work but in my view Mel Brooks films are funnier because I find the humor to be simpler and easier to get and he does sort of go for the belly laughs. I don't laugh as hard at Woody Allen because his humor tends to be a little too intellectual for my taste. When I watch a comedy my main reason to watch is to laugh and only laugh and with the Brooks approach I know what I'm laughing at and why. With Woody Allen I have to watch for at least an hour before I laugh at his films. The humor is upscale and highbrow whereas Brooks is a little more vulgar and I tend to gravitate towards vulgar humor more. They're both funny in their own way but I favor Brooks style of comedy over Allen.
I honestly don't get where people undermine Allen's humor as being "intellectual" or "highbrow"...ever see "Bananas" or "Sleeper"?? Nothing highbrow about them, full of silly slapstick and I got the humor when I was 12!
Nobody in their right mind gets together with their friends to watch a Woody Allen flick for a laugh. The question wasn't who is the better director but who's movies are funnier. Mel Brooks wins easily.
I get it. I prefer Allen but his movies, even the intended comedies often contain more than just comedy. Brooks is more pure and unadulterated as a comic writer/director/actor.
I love everything by Mel Brookes. Annie Hall is really good, but the rest of Woody's films I find very hard to get into, and he creeps me out for some reason.
Funny that Siskel says Brooks kept making the same film. The majority of Allen's films are romantic comedies with the following formula: bumbling, insecure, neurotic, verbose fool attempts to woo charming, artistic type who finds him strangely attractive.
I'd go with Mel Brooks. Most of his films make me laugh, whereas most of Woody Allen's comedy films don't. Admittedly, some of Mel Brooks' movies are silly...but they achieved the laughter factor. Sometimes we just need silly fun, and Mel Brooks provided that.
I think Mel Brooks has made me laugh maybe 6 times total, 5 of them in Spaceballs. The clips Ebert picked out to exemplify him, I didn't laugh at even a single time. He's just not funny to me. Brooks probably hits for more people, but if his humor misses you god it misses by so far. It's like he goes for the most _obvious_ joke, every single time. Emblematic of this is the Blazing Saddles bean scene -- people laugh uproariously, but to me, that is just the most obvious joke you could possibly do given that setup, so it's not clever, it's not amusing, it's just... farts. Lots of people think farts are funny, I guess, but I think "You should get William F Buckley to kill the spider" or pulling Marshall McLuhan out of Mallet-Space to excoriate an idiot is way, way, way more clever and amusing, even if fewer people get it.
I love Mel but as far as being a joke writer he's far behind Woody Allen. Mel does broad, lowest common denominator humor. Woody Allen does absolutely ingenious comedy.
Exactly. I like Brooks, esp The Producers and Young Frankenstein. But, he's no where near the level of Allen. Allen is more versatile and prolific. A true genuis of a filmmaker. Imho.
@@waynej2608 i do think about it a lot maybe it didn't suck but it did seem kind of like one of those if only his wife wasn't so horrible kind of movies
I miss Siskel and Ebert.
Why
@@danwroy If you're old enough to have watched these shows, particularly if you were too young or too far from a big city to see a lot of the movies they reviewed, watching Siskel and Ebert was how you learned about the movies and became ready to watch them when you finally did have the chance.
@@amitbasu7516 I agree! I particularly enjoyed their segments on small, lesser known films which slipped under the radar but which they highly recommended.
I’m with Ebert on this one. Allen’s comedy is more cerebral, but Brooks is just flat out hysterical.
Woody is a much more diverse and prolific filmmaker than Brooks ever was...that being said, both are brilliant comic minds
Brooks was funnier, but Allen did more great films.
Agreed. Woody wants to tell a story but Mel just uses the story as a setup for the gags. But the gags are actually funnier in the Brooks’ movies.
Of course, several years later Ebert would be raving (rightly) about Hannah and Her Sisters and Crimes and Misdemeanors, long after Brooks' skills as a filmmaker had ebbed away.
Every Woody Allen buff should see THE FRONT(1970?). A non-directed by Woody brilliant film on the 1950s black list.
notgrillo college The Front directed by Martin Ritt was in 1976.
A shame they don't really talk about Young Frankenstein, to me it's such a perfect blend of parody and homage.
They truly capture the atmosphere of what they parody and that's crucial for any parody to work. They film it the same way as those old movies, use the same transitions and all.
I can't believe that Siskel dumped on Brooks' "High Anxiety." I saw that film when it was first released in the theaters; it was hysterical then and it's still hysterical all these years later!
He actually gave it three stars. He more despised the film's "sex jokes", which to be honestly I only vaguely noticed my first time watching.
@@daniverse9625 I find it hard to believe Siskel gave it three stars, based on what he said on this program.
@@brianforbes8325 Wikipedia has a link to his review, and it says three stars.
@@brianforbes8325 Maybe he thought less of the film a couple years later, happens
Brooks vs. Allen. It's like Fincher vs. Nolan. The styles of humor are different. Brooks is lowbrow and hilarious at times. Allen is highbrow and very funny in the right movie. But he rarely gives a gut-buster like Brooks can. I don't care for this type of show. It would make much more sense if the critics chose their faves from both directors; not a dopey "which guy is best" contest.
If Allen had followed Ebert's advice, he might have made something like "Broadway Danny Rose", but never "Hannah & Her Sisters" (my all-time favorite of his, by a long shot), "Crimes And Misdemeanors", nor maybe even "Zelig".
But yeah, at the time "Interiors" did make most people nervous about the direction Allen was taking.
Mel Brooks
Somehow I originally read this as 'Mel Gibson or Woody Allen'.
Thank god, I'm not the only one.
Mel often thought you're Joan Cusack
Nothing was funnier than “Young Frankenstein.”
I love Roger but he's totally wrong about The Great Dictator speech.
He's wrong about Allen too. Siskel gets it.
Agreed...deadly dull? It's one of the most moving, heartfelt monologues committed to film
One opinion (and that is all it is): Mel Brooks' early works were his best. The Producers and The Twelve Chairs are my favorite followed closely by Blazing Saddles (corny but with some brilliant pieces) and Young Frankenstein, the homage to beat all homages. Woody Allen's early works shared a similar absurdity with Brooks but the biggest liability to me was Woody Allen himself and the actors who delivered their lines in Woody Allen's ad-lib-like style. Wood Allen perhaps grew as he made more films while Mel Brooks reverted back to a vaudeville-like over-the-top style. There are brilliant comedic scenes in History of the World Part One that would absolutely kill with a little finesse.
I honestly don't understandf why people undermine and fail to "get" Allen's comedy as being "intellectual" or "highbrow"...ever see his early films "Bananas" or "Sleeper"?? Nothing highbrow about them, full of silly slapstick and I got the humor when I was 12!
I got the humor when I was 12, as well. I saw "Love and Death" when I was 12 and I have never laughed harder at any movie since.
I would still put Blazing Saddles or Young Frankenstein, as the funniest movie ever made...
Mel Brooks for me.
brooks is better n funnier
Mel Brooks!
3:31 It came out in 1974, months apart from Blazing Saddles.
ZERO= incredible talent! He's in THE FRONT as well.
Mel Brooks all day long for me personally.
The 1970's were the hey-day for both Brooks and Allen. A few hits in the 80's for them, but clearly their best movies were behind them. Especially Brooks, By the time he got to the 1990's his movies paled so much in comparison to the 1970's.
Jetset906 I would rank Hannah and Her Sisters and Crimes and Misdemeanors up there with Manhattan and Annie Hall.
Crimes and misdemeanors is my favorite of his "Serious" films, but then, I enjoyed "Interiors"
@@emmaduncan2991 Well, Crimes and Misdomeanors is both, funny and dramatic. It's a truly great film. The scene where Woody shows Alan Alda his documentary makes me freakin howl! Lmao.
@@waynej2608 I wanted to give you this letter back.
- It's my one love letter.
- It's beautiful.
I'm just... the wrong person.
It's probably just as well.
I plagiarised most of it from James Joyce.
You probably wondered
why all the references to Dublin.
I think that Allen has better writing in his films and is obviously a better director with a much more diverse body of work but in my view Mel Brooks films are funnier because I find the humor to be simpler and easier to get and he does sort of go for the belly laughs. I don't laugh as hard at Woody Allen because his humor tends to be a little too intellectual for my taste. When I watch a comedy my main reason to watch is to laugh and only laugh and with the Brooks approach I know what I'm laughing at and why. With Woody Allen I have to watch for at least an hour before I laugh at his films. The humor is upscale and highbrow whereas Brooks is a little more vulgar and I tend to gravitate towards vulgar humor more. They're both funny in their own way but I favor Brooks style of comedy over Allen.
I honestly don't get where people undermine Allen's humor as being "intellectual" or "highbrow"...ever see "Bananas" or "Sleeper"?? Nothing highbrow about them, full of silly slapstick and I got the humor when I was 12!
Nobody in their right mind gets together with their friends to watch a Woody Allen flick for a laugh. The question wasn't who is the better director but who's movies are funnier. Mel Brooks wins easily.
I guess it depends on whose friends. Most of mine prefer Allen. I like Brooks, but Woody is more prolific.
I get it. I prefer Allen but his movies, even the intended comedies often contain more than just comedy. Brooks is more pure and unadulterated as a comic writer/director/actor.
I dislike the whole either/or premise. I like the films of both Allen and Brooks.
Both great writers!!!!...I prefer Mel....Woody tends to drone on but that's not really a complaint as I love that style.
Woody Allen is so overrated
@@216Eva Not even close. If anything he's very underrated. With exception of New York and Europe, where he's best appreciated. He's a genius.
Mel for me by a million %!
I love everything by Mel Brookes.
Annie Hall is really good, but the rest of Woody's films I find very hard to get into, and he creeps me out for some reason.
Funny that Siskel says Brooks kept making the same film. The majority of Allen's films are romantic comedies with the following formula: bumbling, insecure, neurotic, verbose fool attempts to woo charming, artistic type who finds him strangely attractive.
Allen is a better director, but Brooks has always been a superior writer and comedian.
No, Woody's earlier movies are hilarious and much more clever than Brooks
(It's Mel Brooks)
Young Frankenstein is a parody of son of Frankenstein not Bride of Frankenstein
i mean Mel Brooks every step of the way is better, as a filmmaker and as a person
The first 30 minutes of Annie Hall are funnier, but Manhattan is a better film than Annie Hall.
I'd go with Mel Brooks. Most of his films make me laugh, whereas most of Woody Allen's comedy films don't. Admittedly, some of Mel Brooks' movies are silly...but they achieved the laughter factor. Sometimes we just need silly fun, and Mel Brooks provided that.
I like Allen better as a writer. I like Mel for over-the-top humor. And fart jokes may be funny to some but crude and repugnant to others.
I think Mel Brooks has made me laugh maybe 6 times total, 5 of them in Spaceballs. The clips Ebert picked out to exemplify him, I didn't laugh at even a single time. He's just not funny to me.
Brooks probably hits for more people, but if his humor misses you god it misses by so far. It's like he goes for the most _obvious_ joke, every single time. Emblematic of this is the Blazing Saddles bean scene -- people laugh uproariously, but to me, that is just the most obvious joke you could possibly do given that setup, so it's not clever, it's not amusing, it's just... farts. Lots of people think farts are funny, I guess, but I think "You should get William F Buckley to kill the spider" or pulling Marshall McLuhan out of Mallet-Space to excoriate an idiot is way, way, way more clever and amusing, even if fewer people get it.
Diane Keaton ruins all the films she is in.
no
wow R Ebert called Chaplin an american ...........he was English .... school boy error
Horrible theme music. Glad that improved later.
Both are overrated, but at least Mel Brooks doesn't come with an aura of pretentiousness.
I absolutely cannot stand Woody Allen. I just don't get it.
I love Mel but as far as being a joke writer he's far behind Woody Allen. Mel does broad, lowest common denominator humor. Woody Allen does absolutely ingenious comedy.
Exactly. I like Brooks, esp The Producers and Young Frankenstein. But, he's no where near the level of Allen. Allen is more versatile and prolific. A true genuis of a filmmaker. Imho.
exactly
"Woody Allen is riding high right now." Well, that aged well.
Mel Brooks is somewhat forgotten today, unfortunately
Definitely Woody Allen
Notice how these jews cast only jews in their movies, playing jewish characters with jewish names?
How about who is the better person? What Allen did to Dylan Farrow is unforgivable.
Interiors is a horrible movie. Remember I've tried to warn u
Woody Allen is the homophobe NOT Brooks. I prefer Brooks' late wife (over him) academy award winner A. Bancroft, anywho!
I always thought that Anne Bancroft was Mel's best feature.
Midnight in Paris sucked
Midnight in Paris was awesome!!
@@waynej2608 i do think about it a lot maybe it didn't suck but it did seem kind of like one of those if only his wife wasn't so horrible kind of movies