Who was the better film critic, Siskel or Ebert?

That's an all but impossible question. They were both really great.

The magic of the show, of course, was that they played off of each other well.

They both had tremendous insight, were wonderfully articulate, and could appreciate both high art and common entertainment, which made them ideally suited to their tasks as film critics.

Ebert's greatest strength, I think, was his willingness to meet a film on its own terms. Although the only example I can think of is a negative one. One show, he gave Full Metal Jacket a "thumbs down" because he held it to the standards of Kubrick's other films and to the other Vietnam pictures that had come before. Siskel gave him flack for that, but really lit into Ebert when Ebert gave Benji: The Hunted a positive "thumbs up" because the family friendly dog film was being rated by Ebert against its own standards.

Siskel held every film to the same levels, I think, or tried to do so more often. I think he brought something of those standards to the table and his best quality as a critic was that discernment. It could make him come off as snobbish sometimes, but he wanted the best films to get the highest grades and he held all films up that way.

I tended to agree with Ebert more.

Siskel could come through with a great review once in a while too, though. He was one of the few critics to give the Thing a thumbs up when it first came out, for example.

I liked Ebert more because i thought he was the more intellectual of the two.
But I can see how being too high-minded isn't always the best tack, so I'm not totally into the the Roger camp. Gene was very engaged and articulate and usually if a film was good they agreed, so I have no problem with either. I just thought RE had the edge for wanting something a little more thoughtful rather than just thrilling.

I waffled back and forth through the years, mostly thinking Siskel was the better critic. However, now looking back at their shows on YouTube it looks like Siskel was consistently more negative and would nitpick over the smallest flaw. Ebert was more forgiving and could see the wider picture, pardon the pun.

The main point was that there were two of them. If both liked it, you knew it was good or if both disliked it you knew it was bad. If only one liked it, then it was so-so.

Gene for sure.

Liked and respected them both. They were two of the best.

I def preferred Siskel a tad more because I think he didn't take himself as seriously as Ebert did.

To those that listened to sports radio. Siskel was Mad Dog and Ebert was Francessa