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
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.
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.
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.
@@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 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!
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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******.
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,
“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.
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.
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
Ebert's "out of their element" is so perfect here and feels totally accidental. As far as the movie goes, Siskel just didn't "get it"...but some of these guys' best clips are when time has proven them wrong.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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
"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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
03:38 _The Big Lebowski_ is so good, Ebert even explains to Gene (who doesn't like the film) that the inept characters are, "Out of their element" Without realizing he's using dialogue from the film itself.
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.
