Earlier than the age of Rotten Tomatoes metrics and Twitter dunking, there was Gene Siskel—razor-sharp, deeply knowledgeable, and unafraid to fillet a movie on reside tv. As half of the legendary Siskel & Ebert duo, his dynamic with Roger Ebert turned the blueprint for contemporary cultural criticism: aggressive, hyper-verbal, and obsessive about films as each artwork and artifact. However Siskel was all the time the colder blade. The place Ebert sometimes let sentiment sneak in, Siskel saved his emotional vary tight—extra Chicago Tribune than emotional barometer. His criticism was medical, usually surgical, and at instances delivered with the unnerving vitality of a person who knew he was proper earlier than you completed your sentence. Whether or not he was defending Fargo or decimating Friday the thirteenth Half 2, Siskel introduced a journalist’s intuition for fact and a theatergoer’s intolerance for bulls**t.
That readability usually translated into takedowns that had been brutal, sure, but in addition weirdly satisfying. Siskel didn’t simply dislike films. He recognized them. And when a movie was shallow, self-serious, miscast, or simply embarrassingly dangerous, his prose took on the tone of a disillusioned instructor with a scalpel for a tongue. Within the following opinions, you’ll discover him eviscerating every thing from erotic thrillers to shark sequels—not with memeified sarcasm, however with a biting precision that makes the insult land tougher than any punchline within the movie itself. They’re not simply harsh. They’re right. And in as we speak’s period of hyper-polarized fan discourse, they remind us what actual vital authority appears like—generally hilarious, all the time earned.
Listed here are 10 films Gene Siskel completely savaged in his opinions.
10
‘Cease! Or My Mother Will Shoot’ (1992)
On paper, Cease! Or My Mother Will Shoot had the whiff of a bizarre studio gamble that may, by sheer drive of novelty, work: Sylvester Stallone as a tricky cop whose overbearing mom (performed by Estelle Getty) meddles in his circumstances. It’s the sort of high-concept, low-expectation buddy comedy that the early ’90s greenlit with alarming regularity. However even on the time, the movie was virtually universally despised. Gene Siskel delivered the killing blow with precision, calling it “a stunningly unfunny film” on Siskel & Ebert. Roger Ebert was barely extra charitable, suggesting the movie’s greatest crime was how “laborious” it felt. Nobody, even then, mistook this for a misjudged gem—it was an open wound in Stallone’s profession.
From Field Workplace Fiasco to Cautionary Punchline
If something, Cease! Or My Mother Will Shoot has solely grown extra notorious with time, now generally cited in discussions of Hollywood’s worst star autos. It bombed critically, and whereas it wasn’t a catastrophic field workplace failure, it stained Stallone’s fame at a vital second when he was attempting to transition out of pure motion roles. Right now it enjoys a faint afterlife as a cultural punchline, however not a cult revival: it is remembered principally as a what-not-to-do warning, not as a misunderstood curiosity.
Associated
Sylvester Stallone Was Tricked into Doing a Horrible ‘90s Film by Arnold Schwarzenegger
Arnold Schwrzenegger pranked Sylvester Stallone into starring in one of many worst films of his profession.
9
‘The Bonfire of the Vanities’ (1990)
The Bonfire of the Vanities
- Launch Date
-
December 21, 1990
- Runtime
-
125 minutes
- Director
-
Brian De Palma
- Writers
-
Michael Cristofer
- Producers
-
Christine Forsyth-Peters, Jon Peters
Tailored from Tom Wolfe’s razor-sharp novel about greed and social decay in Eighties New York, The Bonfire of the Vanities had all of the substances for achievement: Brian De Palma directing, Tom Hanks and Bruce Willis starring, and a zeitgeisty story in regards to the rot beneath the American dream. What audiences received as a substitute was a bloated, tone-deaf catastrophe that flattened Wolfe’s satire into shrill, unfunny farce. Gene Siskel, by no means one for sugar-coating, summed it up with brutal effectivity, saying “the casting is so fallacious, it’s as in the event that they drew names out of a hat” on Siskel & Ebert. Even Ebert, usually extra forgiving of massive swings, lamented that the film “misunderstands its personal materials.”
No Revival for This Vainness
In contrast to some box-office bombs that ultimately earn ironic admiration, The Bonfire of the Vanities stays radioactive. It bombed commercially and critically, with even De Palma later admitting it was a profession low. Critics as we speak typically deal with it as a textbook instance of the right way to mangle an adaptation, and whereas the making-of guide (The Satan’s Sweet) enjoys cult standing, the movie itself remains to be considered a near-total failure. No quantity of retrospective curiosity has rehabilitated this one.
8
‘The Scarlet Letter’ (1995)
The Scarlet Letter
- Launch Date
-
October 13, 1995
- Runtime
-
135 minutes
- Director
-
Roland Joffé
- Writers
-
Douglas Day Stewart
- Producers
-
Andrew G. Vajna, Dodi Fayed
Hollywood’s mid-’90s obsession with turning traditional literature into shiny, vaguely erotic status footage peaked—and crashed—with Roland Joffé’s The Scarlet Letter. Starring Demi Moore as Hester Prynne and that includes artistic additions like steamy bathtub scenes and a ludicrously blissful ending, the movie appeared decided to sand down each sharp edge Nathaniel Hawthorne had rigorously constructed. Gene Siskel dismissed it completely, calling it “a misbegotten adaptation that misses the purpose completely” throughout their evaluate. Roger Ebert, for as soon as, agreed, calling it “dumbed down and sexed up.”
One other Misinterpret Basic That Remained a Catastrophe
The Scarlet Letter was a vital and business catastrophe upon launch, and its fame hasn’t improved. It sometimes surfaces in web lists about horrible literary variations, however no actual cult following has emerged. If something, it serves as a reminder that even A-list expertise can catastrophically misread supply materials—and that some novels resist being crammed into the shallow aspirations of studio cinema.
7
‘Nothing however Hassle’ (1991)
Nothing however Hassle stays one of many weirdest cautionary tales in mainstream Hollywood historical past. Directed by Dan Aykroyd in his first (and final) directorial outing, the movie stars Chevy Chase, Demi Moore, and John Sweet in a grotesque, genre-blending horror-comedy a few rich couple trapped in a deranged small-town courthouse.
Initially pitched as a sort of warped Looney Tunes for adults, the venture ballooned right into a pricey, grotesque mess, well-known for its nightmarish manufacturing design and for making audiences (and critics) deeply uncomfortable. Gene Siskel didn’t maintain again, describing it bluntly as “an unfunny mess from begin to end”. Roger Ebert agreed, noting that the movie had “too many creepy concepts, and never sufficient laughs.”
A Cult Film That By no means Discovered a Cult
On the time, Nothing however Hassle was a high-profile bomb: it grossed lower than $9 million towards a $40 million finances and was savaged by critics virtually throughout the board. In contrast to some Hollywood oddities (Showgirls, Loss of life Turns into Her), it hasn’t actually been rescued by a devoted cult following. Some admirers as we speak argue for its worth as a nightmarish oddity of extra and ego—a real glimpse of what occurs when studio executives do not say no to a beloved comedy star’s worst instincts—however even that appreciation is tinged with irony. Largely, Nothing however Hassle survives as a darkish, surreal warning about what occurs when the auteur intuition goes unchecked in a style that wants tightness, not indulgence.
Associated
Willem Dafoe and Madonna Starred in an 8% RT Erotic Thriller, and Roger Ebert Hated It
Roger Ebert described Physique of Proof as an “excruciatingly incompetent entry,” and the movie remains to be extensively considered inept and implausible.
6
‘Physique of Proof’ (1993)
Physique of Proof
- Launch Date
-
January 15, 1993
- Runtime
-
101 minutes
- Director
-
Uli Edel
In concept, Physique of Proof ought to have surfed the erotic thriller wave of the early Nineties that movies like Primary Intuition made into cultural touchstones. Starring Madonna on the peak of her controversial energy, alongside Willem Dafoe, the movie promised courtroom intrigue, high-voltage sexuality, and psychological thoughts video games. What audiences received as a substitute was a bizarrely flat thriller, clumsily written and self-serious to the purpose of parody.
Gene Siskel delivered maybe certainly one of his most hilarious roasts right here, calling it “a silly and empty thriller that’s worse than Madonna’s espresso desk guide Intercourse,” referencing her infamous, scandal-baiting 1992 images guide. Roger Ebert was marginally kinder however nonetheless unimpressed, writing that it “offers new which means to the time period ‘exhausting to swallow.’”
Trashy, however Not Trashy Sufficient
Physique of Proof was a vital catastrophe and a monetary disappointment, grossing solely about $13 million domestically. Even on the time, audiences appeared bored with Madonna’s makes an attempt to leverage her shock persona into severe performing credibility. Right now, the movie enjoys a wierd half-life in bad-movie circles—it’s not fairly dangerous sufficient to be enjoyable, nor adequate to be intriguing. It is primarily remembered for just a few absurdly express scenes (wax play particularly) that attempted to push boundaries with out the thematic heft or slyness of its higher style contemporaries. Siskel’s brutal dismissal stays right: Physique of Proof isn’t curiously dangerous—it’s simply boring.
5
‘The Lonely Girl’ (1983)
The Lonely Girl
- Launch Date
-
October 2, 1983
- Runtime
-
92 minutes
- Director
-
Peter Sasdy
- Writers
-
John Kershaw
Forged
-
Lloyd Bochner
Walter Thornton
-
Pia Zadora
Jerilee Randall
-
Bibi Besch
Veronica Randall
-
Joseph Cali
Vincent Dacosta
The Lonely Girl was presupposed to launch Pia Zadora into severe performing fame. As a substitute, it cemented her as a cautionary story of Hollywood’s worst-case eventualities: dangerous script, dangerous casting, dangerous optics. Tailored from a novel by Harold Robbins, the movie follows an aspiring screenwriter’s debasement and exploitation within the sleazy corridors of Hollywood. However what may have been a gritty melodrama turned one thing far worse: campy, shrill, and deeply incompetent. Gene Siskel wasn’t mild about it, saying “this can be a movie that fails on each conceivable stage.” Roger Ebert chimed in throughout their televised evaluate, including that it wasn’t even “dangerous in a enjoyable manner” — it was simply numbing.
How Not To Construct a Star
The Lonely Girl bombed spectacularly, making simply over $1 million and sweeping the 1983 Golden Raspberry Awards (it gained Worst Image, Worst Actress, Worst Director, and Worst Screenplay). Right now, it is sometimes referenced in worst-film-ever lists, but it surely hasn’t loved a correct camp revival the way in which Showgirls or Mommie Dearest have. It is just too miserable, too earnest in its ambition, and too embarrassing in its execution. Zadora’s profession by no means recovered from the debacle, and the movie stands as a stark reminder which you could’t drive an underdog story with dangerous materials—and critics like Siskel made certain Hollywood did not overlook it.
4
‘Rollerball’ (1975)
Rollerball had formidable DNA. Directed by Norman Jewison (Within the Warmth of the Night time, Fiddler on the Roof), it imagined a dystopian future the place international firms have outlawed battle and changed it with a brutally violent sport designed to pacify the plenty. James Caan starred as Jonathan E., a star athlete who begins to insurgent towards the system. The idea sounds well timed even as we speak: company authoritarianism, the commodification of violence, the erosion of individuality. But regardless of the massive concepts, Gene Siskel discovered the movie deeply hole, dismissing it as “vapid, pretentious, and conceited.” Roger Ebert was additionally unimpressed, noting that the film didn’t belief its viewers to soak up any complexity with out heavy-handed exposition.
When Massive Concepts Skate on Skinny Ice
On the time of its launch, Rollerball was a modest monetary success, however critics had been sharply divided—and its fame has stayed polarizing. Some style followers argue it deserves credit score for anticipating tendencies in dystopian fiction (and it actually appears higher now in comparison with its 2002 remake disaster), but it surely’s hardly ever cited as a sci-fi traditional. Its pacing feels glacial by as we speak’s requirements, and its philosophical pretensions usually undercut its kinetic vitality. Siskel’s critique endures: regardless of flashes of intelligent world-building, Rollerball by no means actually earns the self-importance it tasks.
Associated
Ernie Hudson Needs to Return as Monroe Kelly in Congo 2
If Ernie Hudson may revisit any function from his profession, he’d decide Monroe Kelly from the 1995 film Congo.
3
‘Congo’ (1995)
Congo
- Launch Date
-
June 9, 1995
- Runtime
-
109 Minutes
Based mostly on Michael Crichton’s novel and arriving within the wake of Jurassic Park mania, Congo ought to have been a slam dunk. As a substitute, it turned one of the unintentionally hilarious big-budget misfires of the ’90s. Directed by Frank Marshall (Arachnophobia), the film follows a crew of explorers—together with a speaking gorilla named Amy—trying to find misplaced diamonds within the Congolese jungle. Gene Siskel famously skewered it, saying “this can be a film that’s so dangerous, it makes you query all the idea of filmmaking.” Ebert was additionally brutal, calling it “a wonderfully ridiculous film” and rating it amongst his most hated of the 12 months.
Dangerous Sufficient To Be a Little Good?
Regardless of scathing opinions, Congo was a stunning field workplace hit, grossing over $150 million worldwide. Right now, it has discovered a minor cult following, principally amongst followers who respect it as a high-camp fever dream. Tim Curry’s unhinged accent, the absurdity of the killer gorillas, and the dead-serious tone regardless of the absurd materials all contribute to its so-bad-it’s-good fame. However even looking back, it’s exhausting to argue with Siskel’s ruthless readability: Congo stays a deeply foolish film that solely by accident entertains.
2
‘Jaws: The Revenge’ (1987)
Jaws: The Revenge
- Launch Date
-
July 17, 1987
- Runtime
-
89 minutes
- Director
-
Joseph Sargent
Jaws: The Revenge is the fourth and most notorious entry within the Jaws franchise, notorious for a way far it falls from the unique’s taut, nerve-shredding perfection. This time, the shark holds a grudge towards the Brody household, follows them to the Bahamas, and someway roars. Gene Siskel captured the absurdity completely, remarking, “Let’s put it this manner: If you see and listen to the nasal Lorraine Gary on display screen, you need the shark to eat her.” Roger Ebert was equally savage, labeling it “not merely a nasty film, but in addition a silly and incompetent one.”
Sunk With out a Hint
Upon launch, Jaws: The Revenge was savaged critically and carried out modestly on the field workplace, however not sufficient to save lots of Common from embarrassment. Over time, it’s achieved a sort of minor cult standing amongst dangerous film aficionados, usually cited in the identical breath as Plan 9 from Outer House and Troll 2. It’s the uncommon sort of movie that’s dangerous sufficient to encourage real, slack-jawed marvel—however not in the way in which anybody concerned supposed. Siskel’s savage takedown stays one of the well-known (and correct) within the historical past of movie criticism.
1
‘North’ (1994)
North
- Launch Date
-
July 22, 1994
- Runtime
-
87 minutes
- Writers
-
Andrew Scheinman
- Producers
-
Jeffrey Stott
The story of North virtually defies perception: directed by Rob Reiner (When Harry Met Sally, A Few Good Males), starring a younger Elijah Wooden, with a supporting solid that included Bruce Willis, Jason Alexander, and Julia Louis-Dreyfus, the movie follows a boy who divorces his dad and mom and embarks on a surreal journey to seek out new ones. Regardless of the pedigree, it turned one of the reviled movies of the Nineties. Gene Siskel memorably annihilated it, saying, “I hated this film. Hated, hated, hated, hated, hated this film. Hated it.” Even Roger Ebert, sometimes the softer critic, joined in, calling it “one of the disagreeable, contrived, synthetic, cloying experiences I’ve ever had on the films.”
A Legendary Misfire That Stays Legendary
North bombed exhausting on the field workplace and was torched by virtually each critic who noticed it. Right now, it stays a defining case examine in nice skills collectively shedding their minds. In contrast to different Hollywood disasters that discovered ironic cult audiences, North principally exists as a cautionary story, frequently invoked by critics (and Reiner himself) as a lesson in hubris. There is no such thing as a motion to “reevaluate” North—solely a unanimous settlement that Gene Siskel’s takedown was fully, devastatingly justified.