- Видео 24
- Просмотров 398 682
Deacon Frost
Добавлен 20 июн 2007
Видео
Siskel & Ebert Review Mobsters (1991)
Просмотров 1,6 тыс.4 года назад
Siskel & Ebert Review Mobsters (1991)
Siskel & Ebert Review The Lost Boys (1987)
Просмотров 7 тыс.4 года назад
Siskel & Ebert Review The Lost Boys (1987)
Siskel & Ebert Review The Living Daylights (1987)
Просмотров 12 тыс.4 года назад
Siskel & Ebert Review The Living Daylights (1987)
Siskel & Ebert Review The Fugitive (1993)
Просмотров 143 тыс.4 года назад
Siskel & Ebert Review The Fugitive (1993)
Siskel & Ebert Review Menace II Society (1993)
Просмотров 11 тыс.4 года назад
Siskel & Ebert Review Menace II Society (1993)
Siskel & Ebert Review Wild At Heart (1990)
Просмотров 23 тыс.4 года назад
Siskel & Ebert Review Wild At Heart (1990)
Siskel & Ebert Review True Lies (1994)
Просмотров 15 тыс.4 года назад
Siskel & Ebert Review True Lies (1994)
Siskel & Ebert Review American History X (1998)
Просмотров 13 тыс.4 года назад
Siskel & Ebert Review American History X (1998)
Siskel & Ebert Review Scarface (1983)
Просмотров 92 тыс.5 лет назад
Siskel & Ebert Review Scarface (1983)
I miss these two guys. There are very few, VERY few good accredited film critics out there any more. One of these won a Pulitzer, for f@%$s sake! There are some good reviewers on YT but there are a plethora of bad ones...
Special effects? That was a real train crash.
BEST gangster movie ever!
2:01 can see that Gene Siskel is very sick here. He would only have a few months left.
I'm with Gene on this.
SISKEL: Mara Wilson has a very strong career in Hollywood going forward. THOMAS THE TANK ENGINE: You sure about that? -_-
Ebert was wrong wrong wrong
Best mob movie ever. End of story.
I think if you watched Gene siskel's five favorite movies you would go into a coma and never come out of it
Scarface is a masterpiece Pacino's favorite role and his best
Gene's comb over got thicker as the years went by.😂 Very wispy here.
Two men who made a living being totally irrelevant.
Meh, I don't think so. I lost a small fortune on tickets to lousy movies until I started to heed the words of film critics. No one wants to hear that their favorite actor/actress has been cast in a film that sucks, especially if the topic sounded very interesting.
To me, Miller's Crossing is about the great love Tom Reagan has for Leo. It's why he's so emotionally flat about everything and everybody else. He may be sexually attracted to Verna, but it's Leo he loves. He uses Verna for sex and information, but nothing Tom does indicates that it goes any deeper than that for him.
Roger Ebert did get it wrong a few times. but generally he was alright. King of New York was the first Hip-Hop movie. It came out before New Jack City. You don't expect guys like Siskel & Ebert to have their finger on the pulse of black street culture. Just like you wouldn't expect to see a gang of black muggers in the lobby of the Plaza.
It’s 1000x better than New Jack City too. Way ahead of its time. Props to Biggie Smalls and Donald Trump for understanding Abel’s genius.
Morons
I agree with you but Ebert was pretty damn good. This is one of his very few misses. I think had he come back to it he would have changed his mind especially with the influence it had.
Classic Siskel and Ebert review argument. ❤👍🏻👍🏻❤️
I think Roger Ebert was right on his last point. This was easily the most expensive B film ever made.
I'm very surprised at Roger Ebert here. I thought he really liked _Miller's Crossing_ but I guess it was Gene Siskel who loved it. When I first saw the film I thought much more like Roger Ebert did about it. But with time and maturity I see it much more the way Gene saw it. I think it's a classic.
He gave it a more positive review later on. I think this is definitely one of those movies that needs rewatching. So much is happening and many things are not spelled out (nor should they be) but I can completely get why Ebert didn't enjoy it first viewing. I didn't get the Bernie/Mink switch first time either but enjoyed the style of the movie
@@owenb8636 You're absolutely right. This film MUST be watched several times to understand. I've probably watched it 100 times, and there are still things that puzzle me. But at the end of the day, it is a beautifully filmed, written, and acted masterpiece. You don't have to understand 100% of the plot to see that
I love this movie so much. I never get enough of Matilda, even if she has a 200+ IQ.
This was an absolutely great film and certainly very bleak. It's the type of story that had to be told back then and should still be told today.
You know if you want to see a movie never watch this stuff. It totally ruins the movie. I mean half the fun is going to the movie they spoiled a lot of the movie. I know critics have to do write ups but really all you need to know is I like or dislike the movie. I know this is stupid. But really if I think I may want to see a movie I avoid all reviews it ruins the movie. They basically outlined the movie even the ending.
If Ebert was alive today he would definitely be a Trumpster with that badgering bullying style of trying to make an idiotic point.
Are you fkin' retarded? Nevermind...On second thought, you already answered that question.
Tell me you haven't read any Ebert without telling me you haven't read any Ebert.
@oscarfeverr is he an author?
@@ethannissani7062 Yes, he was a very fine writer and published film criticism for the Chicago Sun-Times before, during, and after this show's run, and also wrote many books. Whatever you think of his personal style on the show, he was decidedly not on the same page as someone like Trump, especially later in his life, and seemed to admire fellow Chicagoan Obama very much. This is all very easily findable online. No matter the political point of view, everyone can be a little overbearing when passionately expressing that view, especially these days. We all need to improve on this score and keep Lincoln's better angels in our hearts and minds.
@@oscarfeverr Ok, I will acknowledge that you make good points. I take it back. Ebert was a smart guy I know that, I just was reacting, somewhat impetuously, to the way he kind of ran over Siskle in this clip. The point he makes is not a good one, in my opinion It is actually very consistent with the plot that the two thugs (tic tok and the big guy) didn't check for a dead body - throughout the film they are depicted as kind of meat-heads. I feel like Gene was going to point this out but Ebert kind of just kept talking, which may be a more a feature of the format of the show than his personality.
Ebert is right about one thing: First time viewing it, it is confusing who is who. But that’s the beauty of the movie - it’s a movie worth rewatching. This isn’t a film meant to be watched once - and that’s my favorite thing about it.
Absolutely. You hit the nail right on the head here.
Amen. The dialogue is also too quick-paced to be fully appreciated on the first viewing
Wow, this was one of their best arguments ever. RIP guys. 🌹🌹
I think Scarface is either you love it or hate it movies.
Ebert was always steps ahead siskel
if you're talking about the bald guy i dont see how he was even allowed to be a movie critic, he always managed to somehow dislike the BEST movies. what a dumb*ss. seems almost like he was disagreeing with the guy with the hair for personal reasons. maybe the hair guy banged his girl or had a three way with the bald man's wife and sister, who's to say what really went down between them
Roger Ebert got so many things wrong about film. Never got the point. Maybe should have thought more.
Except on the films you liked that he also liked, correct? 😊
Look in your heart
Roger Ebert is wrong.
Fantastic film; Lange and Cusack should've got Oscar nods.
I will say that the "Always bet on Black" line is cringey as fuck. It looked like Wesley Snipes didn't even like saying that incredibly cringey line.
I think Gene makes a bit too much of that sequence. Sure, it's long and kinda boring and slows the film down a bit, BUT it gives us an amazing scene in which Jamie is dancing for the camera, scantily clad (thus marking the end of her sexy period stretching from 1983's _Trading Places_ thru 1994's _True Lies)._ PLUS, there *IS* a payoff for this sequence because this is how Jamie Lee Curtis becomes involved in her husband's activities, which proves out to be both comical and instrumental to the plot towards the end. Overall it's a great film; maybe not 4 stars, but definitely 3.5.
I cannot believe that Gene Siskel actually gave the AWFUL _Blankman_ a marginal thumbs-up. Even Roger Ebert only gave it a marginal thumbs-down. I cannot believe this because I saw this film in the theater and I was so embarrassed for having done so. _Blankman_ is stupid, overwrought, and unfunny. I think I laughed maybe two or three times during the whole film and that would have been just in the first 20 minutes. 🙄👎🏻 I suppose it's funny that Damon Wayans speaks with this annoying high-pitched chirpy nerd voice throughout the *entire fucking film.* I suppose it's funny that he gets his mother and her 3 best friends machine-gunned to death by Jon Polito's gang at the halfway point. Ho, ho. I also suppose it's funny that every time he gets sexually attracted to a woman, his body goes into spasms that could only suggest a severe form of epilepsy. Yeah, dat's funny awright. 🙄🤦🏻♂️ Basically, if this film comes onto your paid cable movie channel and you want to pass the next hour and a half for free, then be my guest. But don't say you weren't warned. And at least you can say that you didn't pay 7 bucks to see this unfunny piece of trash film. Zero stars.
I still need to see this film.
I can hear both sides here. I thought the film was great, although it's certainly a film I don't ever want to watch again. RIP S&E. 🌹🌹
They’re both right
"He probably needed the money." A little faux pas hiccup. Anyway, even though it was not my favorite Lynch movie, any work that has walkouts, jeers, and such a passionate opposition like Ebert's (and I like Roger) has my vote. I don't know what the competition at Cannes was, but I have to wonder if part of the controversy was that it didn't conform to elite sensibilities, which, if so, is another reason to approve.
his passion (if you want to call it that) and your admiration for it are misplaced.
Pierce Brosnan was famously offered the role in 1986, but unfortunately, his contract with CBS for the very James Bond-like TV series "Remington Steele" prevented him from doing the film, which is precisely the reason why he had to wait a couple more installments in order to do Bond.
Wonder what these guys thought of Barton Fink
Ebert was an arrogant, f***ing idiot. Siskel should have stuck to finance and real estate reporting.
Siskel & Ebert so wrong about so many movies. So many good and even great movies because they lacked vision and imagination.
"Good to see the old man is still an artist with a Thompson."
remember, martin scorsese thinks ebert was a genius.
Ebert was such an emotional ass. Totally didn’t get Lynch.
Ebert is one big crybaby when it comes to Lynch films. Complaining about Isabella Rosellini’s “forced nudity” in Blue Velvet(when her character is at a crucial point in her life to do something like that and now this, whining about violent subtext and how he can’t control the visual narrative of another directors vision. Keep in mind, this is the same man who OWNED the movie Salo, or the 120 days of Sodom, but never watched it due to its reputation. That movie is not bad (altho it can be quite horrific in scenes) and it is astonishingly well made. Are any of the 3 films horror? No. But they challenge, provoke thought and sentiment, and shake up what cinema can do to an active participating viewer. And that is only possible in the hands of a great director, like Lynch and Pasolini. Ebert is the same man that wrote that atrocious and campy Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. No one remembers that. They remember these films tho,
I also think there's something uncanny about sex and violence in many Lynch films. I can't seem to articulate this now. Something at the core, unsettling on an almost spiritual level. Sex isn't, well, "sexy" (nor in Salo...). Violence isn't necessarily repulsive and/or gratifying. Itś something deeper. Yeah... I should have stayed with the first sentence alone. No words now.
Ebert was a Dick.
I saw Menace2Society just once and honestly I still remember scenes from this movie years later. It's that brilliant. Another theme in that movie which Siskel and Ebert didn't allude to for understandable reasons (because you could talk for hours about this film) is that the tragically poignant thing is that Cain does not make it because he is too slow to figure out that the way that he had been raised is all wrong and that he needs to change his life. I was rooting for him to figure it out, but it didn't happen.
J5!!!
One of the few times Ebert was wrong
Both were hating on Wesley Snipes
No they weren't.
Both actually liked Wesley.