0:13 National Lampoon's Vacation 2:05 Sixteen Candles 5:21 The Breakfast Club 6:52 Weird Science 10:25 Pretty in Pink 14:11 Ferris Bueller's Day Off 17:51 Some Kind of Wonderful 20:46 Planes, Trains, & Automobiles 23:51 She's Having a Baby 27:22 The Great Outdoors 30:37 Uncle Buck 33:31 National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation 36:17 Home Alone 43:21 Career Opportunities 46:46 Only the Lonely 49:21 Dutch 52:32 Curly Sue 55:16 Beethoven 57:47 Home Alone 2: Lost in New York 1:00:43 Dennis the Menace 1:03:22 Baby's Day Out 1:05:14 Miracle on 34th Street 1:07:51 101 Dalmations 1:10:23 Flubber 1:12:32 Home Alone 3
I don't know anyone my age can think of their teenage years without the films of John Hughes. He really was the voice of an entire generation. Back then, we looked at his movies and said "that's me, that's my school, these are the people I know". So it's a little surprising to hear so many negative reviews from these two, especially Gene Siskel, who couldn't have been more out of touch about what it was like to be a teenager in the 80s.
The stick hitting the bear was only seen here because the movie clip had the matte opened to make it fit the TV screen. Same reason why in Pee-wee's Big Adventure's 1980s-1990s TV version, you saw the chain being fed into the bottom of the bicycle box. Siskel wouldn't have seen that "mistake" in the theaters, because the top and bottom of the frame were "matted" over to make it a widescreen film.
The way Siskel called Ferris Bueller "unrealistic!?!" Yes it IS! FOR THE ENTIRE MOVIE! It's one of THE MOST PERFECTLY executed comedies of all time! Talk about MISSING THE POINT!?!
Hughes actually seemed to only care about making money. But the initial way he figured out how to make money was by talking to teenagers and accurately depicting their lives on screen. Once he figured out he could make MORE money by having little kids injure crooks with booby traps, he switched over to that, and the quality of his films went downhill.
In the original ending, they didn’t make it into Wally World. The whole ending was re-shot months after they originally wrapped. The studio felt the movie HAD to have a happy ending where they make it into Wally World lol
I remember these reviews in real time, especially that Ebert was one of the very few critics who gave a positive review for Weird Science, as well as Siskel being one of the few who liked Dutch and Career Opportunities.
Siskel's disappointment that the "perfect woman" developed a mind of her own had me in total stitches! It's like tacking on a moral lesson at the end of a porno....HA!
Siskel criticizes the ending of Pretty In Pink because Andie doesn’t choose Duckie, but then doesn’t appreciate the ending of Some Kind Of Wonderful? That is SO inconsistent. Plus nothing concerning the character development of Keith in that movie? Ugh - come on.
For someone who put "Back to the Future" on his ten best in 1985, I think Gene's really unfair to Lea Thompson in his review of "Some Kind of Wonderful." As much as I love Roger invoking Rob Reiner's perennially overlooked "The Sure Thing," also from 1985, this still feels like a betrayal.
Lea was not the bombshell that the script called for. Very unconvincing as a high class snob. Lea was best at playing the nice, innocent girl. And, although she's aged incredibly well, she was far from the sexpot type of character who men drool over in the 1980s. She's much more of a girl-next-door. I think the director just cast her because he was attracted to her. He, of course, later married her.
He wrote the original film. It was based on a short story he wrote in National Lampoon magazine called Vacation '58. Christmas Vacation was written and produced by Hughes,and was based on another short story by Hughes(the name escapes me right now). European Vacation is credited to Hughes, but he didn't contribute any material to it. The producers just reused material from the original film that didn't make it into the original. He had nothing to do with Vegas Vacation.
8:41 Another one of 1,000 examples of why I always loved Ebert way more than Siskel. Because he was so much better at enjoying a movie for what it WAS. Siskel was always ultra nitpicky. Essentially, if the movie wasn't Oscar worthy, Siskel would have SOMETHING negative to say about it. And he was always kind of snobby (like, calling a movie a "picture"). Ebert just seemed to have an unquenchable thirst for cinema. He was never too good for any movie. No movie was "beneath" him. If you go to rotten tomatoes and search ANY movie at random (Before 2013), there's a good chance that Ebert had a review about it. I RARELY see reviews on there from Gene. Even the cheapest, cheesiest, low-budget movies---Ebert would at least be willing to give them a chance. Did that mean he LIKED every movie? Of course not. But he was always objective and fair. He KNOWS that Weird Science is not a masterpiece of modern filmmaking. So he doesn't hold it to those standards. He sees it for what it IS (A fun summer guilty pleasure), and evaluates it accordingly. Hell, the dude even gave UHF two hours of his time. He panned it of course, but just the fact that he was willing to sit through it...speaks volumes. I just wish he would've liked Fletch Lives lol.
@@ricardocantoral7672 He's the only person I've ever encountered from his generation who called them "pictures". Oh, and Ebert is also from his generation.
I enjoyed Ferris Beulers day off, but even as a kid it was never amazing, but I've always liked it. But looking at it now, I think it was miscast something fierce (I know Hughes wanted Anthony Hall and wrote the part for him... it's unfortunate that he turned it down, because his delivery would have been much more natural and humorous). I think it's comparable to Eric Stolz in Back to the Future vs Michael J Fox... had we only known the Stolz version we may have still enjoyed it, but it''s significantly better with Fox. With Matthew Broderick all of the jokes are in the blatant comedic writing jokes... there's no extra humor that comes through in his delivery... everything comes out flat and even comes out a little harsh/cruel... I don't think that was the intention in the writing. He's supposed to be seen as a like-able guy by the audience, but some viewers especially in recent years see him as a sociopath and that certainly wasn't the intention in the writing. A lot of people will disagree with Broderick being miscast, just as people would if Stolz was cast as Marty instead of Fox, but it's a gargantuan miscast. I know Hughes wasn't thrilled about it during shooting and I bet even Broderick wasn't either. The reception I'm guessing was an unexpected surprise from them both.
I would've honestly loved to see someone like John Cusack as Ferris (although I'm perfectly fine with Broderick). Funnily enough, Cusack was originally cast as Bender in The Breakfast Club, but Hughes decided to change course to Judd Nelson since he felt he was more physically intimidating than John.
Siskel's fixation on the Sheen-Grey scene is typical of a big flaw he had. He would get caught up in some small aspect of a film and blame the rest of the film for not being more of that. He was upset that Taxi Driver abandoned the Travis-Betsy courtship for "all that urban violence stuff"
He likes Howling when it comes to Vampire films? He might of wanted to give The Howling another re-watch in heaven because The Howling is about Werewolves
@@jasonvoorhees-wr7iq I meant Fright Night came out around the same time as Weird Science. Thats why my reply said that he mightve been referring to that but said the Howling instead.
I’ll always have Planes and Trains as my fav Hughes film, Pretty In Pink coming in second, but I wanna say a couple things about his underrated titles, Curly Sue and Dutch. Now, they are both very predictable and formulaic, but I really liked those two flicks. Curly Sue had great chemistry between the two main characters and Curly Sue herself, stealing every scene she’s in. Also the movie theater scene still makes me laugh out loud to this day, along with the maid and her gambling with the two on the clock 😅. Now Dutch was both panned by S&E and pretty much the rest of America, and I can understand why. And maybe it’s because I grew up with these movies starting at a young age and my nostalgia goggles for them turned into laser eye surgery but Ed O Neal, I thought, was very likable, not overly abrasive, and had great chemistry with the kid. To this day there are 3 scenes that still make me crack up loudly and I admit I still have a goofy smile throughout the rest of the flick. Are these two movies great? No. Are they objectively bad? Probably. But I like Curly Sue and Dutch darn it, and I think they still have a couple of very good redeeming qualities.
I loved Gene but these were all good movies. When you compare them to really bad general other comedies like Porkys. These were all at a certain higher level.
Hard to believe how many of these movies they DIDN'T like!?! I can't imagine my childhood in the 80's without John Hughes! My brother was a teenager; and to THIS DAY when we're together, we're still quoting The Breakfast Club, Ferris Bueller, AND YES!, Roger and Gene, Weird Science. "Did you spit in this?!?"
At the time, a lot of critics hated Ferris Bueller. In fact, Esquire had an annual issue called 'Dubious Achievements Awards" where they had a feature called "Now Playing at the Hell Octoplex" and Ferris was one of the movies. Of course, the year before they had "Pee Wee's Big Adventure" on it.
To me Hughes exploded onto the scene with his first 4 or so films and then his writes became more schlock and studio pleasing, but few of them are horrible for those first 8 years or so.... a lot of them are middle of the road if you keep an open mind.
Ebert liking Home Alone 3, you'd think was a joke... it boggles the mind that he was serious. I could understand part 2, because they had a chance to see the audiences adoration for the first one. But to nay part 1 & 2 and then cave into the 3rd one doesn't make any sense. Did he accept a bribe I wonder? I have to imagine that it happens. It would easily be worth it for a studio to pay Ebert 1 million dollars for a positive review... of course they wouldn't go that high, but it would easily worth it for them to.
I love how Siskel goes from trashing The Breakfast Club in one review to calling it "funny and sensitive" 10 seconds later in the one immediately following.
Over and over they both are. They often have ridiculous of the moment opinions. Makes you realise how much the context you see a film effects your viewing of it
To be fair we grew up with it so we love it, but at the time a lot of older practical people who’d outgrown their imaginations probably saw Ferris as fantastical, obnoxious, and unlikeable.
The irony of Gene Siskel, of all people, saying that James Spader's character in Pretty in Pink is "racist" against WASPs (white fragility, it seems, is eternal) when I think we've all heard him ranting about WASPs by now lol
Career Opportunities bored me. Looking back at Home Alone I totally agree that a kid would be able to do all of that in order to stop burglars. I did like Sixteen Candles, Pretty in Pink, Some Kind of Wonderful and I loved and I mean loved Planes, Trains and Automobiles, Uncle Buck and The Great Outdoors.
Siskel is so clueless and does not appreciate Hughes. Pretty sad to see. A critic with only high-brow taste. As so many of Hughes movies are now classics we can see who got it and who didn't.
The queer coding in John Hughes film is brilliant in so many ways! Alison in Breakfast Club is the absolute outcast who no one understands, I knew so many Duckie's in high school and they were gay, gay, gay and Watts in Some Kind of Wonderful....hello!! This is what 80s queer kids did in that time period, we hid behind "crushes" on our best friends because it was safe and allowed us to seem hetro but not to actually have to be hetro! Thanks JH, you saw us and we thank you!
you are single handledly helping create a Siskel and Ebert Masterclass.....rock and roll!!!
0:13 National Lampoon's Vacation
2:05 Sixteen Candles
5:21 The Breakfast Club
6:52 Weird Science
10:25 Pretty in Pink
14:11 Ferris Bueller's Day Off
17:51 Some Kind of Wonderful
20:46 Planes, Trains, & Automobiles
23:51 She's Having a Baby
27:22 The Great Outdoors
30:37 Uncle Buck
33:31 National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation
36:17 Home Alone
43:21 Career Opportunities
46:46 Only the Lonely
49:21 Dutch
52:32 Curly Sue
55:16 Beethoven
57:47 Home Alone 2: Lost in New York
1:00:43 Dennis the Menace
1:03:22 Baby's Day Out
1:05:14 Miracle on 34th Street
1:07:51 101 Dalmations
1:10:23 Flubber
1:12:32 Home Alone 3
You da real MVP!
Commenter knows more than actual dumass author.
Boy did the end of his career get REAL uneven there! '@_@'
"By the rude and annoying off-screen noises you're emitting, I take it you disagree"
God, I miss these two!
Great series. It's so fun to watch these guys.
This series is so great
Siskel thinks it's crap.
I don't know anyone my age can think of their teenage years without the films of John Hughes. He really was the voice of an entire generation. Back then, we looked at his movies and said "that's me, that's my school, these are the people I know". So it's a little surprising to hear so many negative reviews from these two, especially Gene Siskel, who couldn't have been more out of touch about what it was like to be a teenager in the 80s.
The stick hitting the bear was only seen here because the movie clip had the matte opened to make it fit the TV screen. Same reason why in Pee-wee's Big Adventure's 1980s-1990s TV version, you saw the chain being fed into the bottom of the bicycle box. Siskel wouldn't have seen that "mistake" in the theaters, because the top and bottom of the frame were "matted" over to make it a widescreen film.
The way Siskel called Ferris Bueller "unrealistic!?!" Yes it IS! FOR THE ENTIRE MOVIE! It's one of THE MOST PERFECTLY executed comedies of all time! Talk about MISSING THE POINT!?!
Is it though? Ferris is kind of an asshole.
Hughes had a brief golden age and thankfully, he made every minute count.
@@WilliamLyons-ym7ee
They weren't documentaries but they were certainly relatable. His best films have held up well.
Hughes actually seemed to only care about making money. But the initial way he figured out how to make money was by talking to teenagers and accurately depicting their lives on screen. Once he figured out he could make MORE money by having little kids injure crooks with booby traps, he switched over to that, and the quality of his films went downhill.
@@WilliamLyons-ym7ee They were _never_ realistic Bill,
they are relatable and funny though
I love this series of videos, thank you so much.👏
In the original ending, they didn’t make it into Wally World. The whole ending was re-shot months after they originally wrapped. The studio felt the movie HAD to have a happy ending where they make it into Wally World lol
loving these videos, keep em coming!
Gene really took a dump on Ferris Bueller. It’s aged into one of the all time Chicago movies
I remember these reviews in real time, especially that Ebert was one of the very few critics who gave a positive review for Weird Science, as well as Siskel being one of the few who liked Dutch and Career Opportunities.
Siskel's disappointment that the "perfect woman" developed a mind of her own had me in total stitches! It's like tacking on a moral lesson at the end of a porno....HA!
They were too caught up in the argument for Roger to call Gene on "I liked The Howling when it came to vampire films."
Yeah. I think he meant Fright Night.
"Well, your credentials are terrific, but you missed the boat on this one."
I love The Great Outdoors!
Ebert softened his stance as years went on about the Hughes films he didn't like
Which is weird, cause Gene was the harshest and most nit-picky on John Hughes than Ebert was.
Oh god that twist ending where Ebert likes Home Alone 3 😂😂😂
I think it's more shocking he liked Curly Sue.
Siskel criticizes the ending of Pretty In Pink because Andie doesn’t choose Duckie, but then doesn’t appreciate the ending of Some Kind Of Wonderful? That is SO inconsistent. Plus nothing concerning the character development of Keith in that movie? Ugh - come on.
Nice work! They got pretty heated in those earlier ones!
Did Siskel & Ebert ever review Paul Verhoven?
Of course. They reviewed Flesh & Blood, Robocop, Total Recall, Basic Instinct, Showgirls and Starship Troopers.
Gene also liked The Breakfast Club.
For someone who put "Back to the Future" on his ten best in 1985, I think Gene's really unfair to Lea Thompson in his review of "Some Kind of Wonderful." As much as I love Roger invoking Rob Reiner's perennially overlooked "The Sure Thing," also from 1985, this still feels like a betrayal.
Lea was not the bombshell that the script called for. Very unconvincing as a high class snob. Lea was best at playing the nice, innocent girl. And, although she's aged incredibly well, she was far from the sexpot type of character who men drool over in the 1980s. She's much more of a girl-next-door. I think the director just cast her because he was attracted to her. He, of course, later married her.
The Vacation films weren't John Hughes movies were they?
He wrote them and they were loosely based on his family, originally anyway
He wrote the original film. It was based on a short story he wrote in National Lampoon magazine called Vacation '58. Christmas Vacation was written and produced by Hughes,and was based on another short story by Hughes(the name escapes me right now). European Vacation is credited to Hughes, but he didn't contribute any material to it. The producers just reused material from the original film that didn't make it into the original. He had nothing to do with Vegas Vacation.
8:41 Another one of 1,000 examples of why I always loved Ebert way more than Siskel. Because he was so much better at enjoying a movie for what it WAS. Siskel was always ultra nitpicky. Essentially, if the movie wasn't Oscar worthy, Siskel would have SOMETHING negative to say about it. And he was always kind of snobby (like, calling a movie a "picture").
Ebert just seemed to have an unquenchable thirst for cinema. He was never too good for any movie. No movie was "beneath" him. If you go to rotten tomatoes and search ANY movie at random (Before 2013), there's a good chance that Ebert had a review about it. I RARELY see reviews on there from Gene. Even the cheapest, cheesiest, low-budget movies---Ebert would at least be willing to give them a chance. Did that mean he LIKED every movie? Of course not. But he was always objective and fair.
He KNOWS that Weird Science is not a masterpiece of modern filmmaking. So he doesn't hold it to those standards. He sees it for what it IS (A fun summer guilty pleasure), and evaluates it accordingly.
Hell, the dude even gave UHF two hours of his time. He panned it of course, but just the fact that he was willing to sit through it...speaks volumes.
I just wish he would've liked Fletch Lives lol.
Well said. TEAM EBERT 4 LIFE! lol
His generation called movies pictures. That isn't snobbery.
@@ricardocantoral7672 He's the only person I've ever encountered from his generation who called them "pictures". Oh, and Ebert is also from his generation.
This is evidence of your own ignorance, not snobbery by Siskel.
@@DonnieBrook69 Cool bro.
The whiplash of their reviews on the Home Alone franchise. Wow.
I enjoyed Ferris Beulers day off, but even as a kid it was never amazing, but I've always liked it. But looking at it now, I think it was miscast something fierce (I know Hughes wanted Anthony Hall and wrote the part for him... it's unfortunate that he turned it down, because his delivery would have been much more natural and humorous). I think it's comparable to Eric Stolz in Back to the Future vs Michael J Fox... had we only known the Stolz version we may have still enjoyed it, but it''s significantly better with Fox. With Matthew Broderick all of the jokes are in the blatant comedic writing jokes... there's no extra humor that comes through in his delivery... everything comes out flat and even comes out a little harsh/cruel... I don't think that was the intention in the writing. He's supposed to be seen as a like-able guy by the audience, but some viewers especially in recent years see him as a sociopath and that certainly wasn't the intention in the writing. A lot of people will disagree with Broderick being miscast, just as people would if Stolz was cast as Marty instead of Fox, but it's a gargantuan miscast. I know Hughes wasn't thrilled about it during shooting and I bet even Broderick wasn't either. The reception I'm guessing was an unexpected surprise from them both.
I would've honestly loved to see someone like John Cusack as Ferris (although I'm perfectly fine with Broderick). Funnily enough, Cusack was originally cast as Bender in The Breakfast Club, but Hughes decided to change course to Judd Nelson since he felt he was more physically intimidating than John.
Siskel's fixation on the Sheen-Grey scene is typical of a big flaw he had. He would get caught up in some small aspect of a film and blame the rest of the film for not being more of that. He was upset that Taxi Driver abandoned the Travis-Betsy courtship for "all that urban violence stuff"
He likes Howling when it comes to Vampire films? He might of wanted to give The Howling another re-watch in heaven because The Howling is about Werewolves
I wonder if he meant to say Fright Night. Since that released around the same time.
@@SmoothCriminal12 fright night was 85. The Howling was 81
@@SmoothCriminal12I can’t think of vampire film he would mean. Salem’s Lot perhaps but I think he just flubbed which happens
@@jasonvoorhees-wr7iq I meant Fright Night came out around the same time as Weird Science. Thats why my reply said that he mightve been referring to that but said the Howling instead.
@@SmoothCriminal12 that makes sense then
I see you put the second look at Home Alone here as well. I agreed with them I didn't think it was that good.
You both are in the minority
Shouldn't they make a beeping sound when they reverse their opinions as with Home Alone?
Micheal Mann would also be a good one
Goddamn… I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone swing and miss as hard as Siskel repeatedly does here.
Gene forgets that the purpose of being a teen is to make knuckle-headed decisions that defy good judgement.
If Gene thinks alot of these were bad? Which were the good teen or kid movies.
Gene Pupkiss really exposes himself with the characters who he identifies with.
Uncle Buck is so much fun!!
BC, WS, FBDO, PT&A, UB - my top 5 Hughes picks.
Too bad they didn’t review Class Reunion
I’ll always have Planes and Trains as my fav Hughes film, Pretty In Pink coming in second, but I wanna say a couple things about his underrated titles, Curly Sue and Dutch. Now, they are both very predictable and formulaic, but I really liked those two flicks. Curly Sue had great chemistry between the two main characters and Curly Sue herself, stealing every scene she’s in. Also the movie theater scene still makes me laugh out loud to this day, along with the maid and her gambling with the two on the clock 😅. Now Dutch was both panned by S&E and pretty much the rest of America, and I can understand why. And maybe it’s because I grew up with these movies starting at a young age and my nostalgia goggles for them turned into laser eye surgery but Ed O Neal, I thought, was very likable, not overly abrasive, and had great chemistry with the kid. To this day there are 3 scenes that still make me crack up loudly and I admit I still have a goofy smile throughout the rest of the flick. Are these two movies great? No. Are they objectively bad? Probably. But I like Curly Sue and Dutch darn it, and I think they still have a couple of very good redeeming qualities.
I loved Gene but these were all good movies. When you compare them to really bad general other comedies like Porkys. These were all at a certain higher level.
Hard to believe how many of these movies they DIDN'T like!?! I can't imagine my childhood in the 80's without John Hughes! My brother was a teenager; and to THIS DAY when we're together, we're still quoting The Breakfast Club, Ferris Bueller, AND YES!, Roger and Gene, Weird Science. "Did you spit in this?!?"
Man did Siskel miss the boat on Hughes.
Ebert "maybe you should get your own Word Processor". So clever.
Siskel doesn't like formulaic movies. Hughes movies in that era were incredibly competent, but also formulaic.
Pretty in pink is the best brat pack movie. Besides James Spader wearing a leisure suit to high school I would say it's perfect
Talk about missing the boat on Christmas Vacation 😂
Some of Stickler's reviews here were off base, but his review of Ferris Bueller is criminal!
At the time, a lot of critics hated Ferris Bueller. In fact, Esquire had an annual issue called 'Dubious Achievements Awards" where they had a feature called "Now Playing at the Hell Octoplex" and Ferris was one of the movies. Of course, the year before they had "Pee Wee's Big Adventure" on it.
@@yournamehere6002 Siskel hated Pee-wee's Big Adventure too.
To me Hughes exploded onto the scene with his first 4 or so films and then his writes became more schlock and studio pleasing, but few of them are horrible for those first 8 years or so.... a lot of them are middle of the road if you keep an open mind.
she should not have ended up with that tool in the end. but its not as bad siskel said. he really had it out for Hughes after weird science.
Ebert liking Home Alone 3, you'd think was a joke... it boggles the mind that he was serious. I could understand part 2, because they had a chance to see the audiences adoration for the first one. But to nay part 1 & 2 and then cave into the 3rd one doesn't make any sense. Did he accept a bribe I wonder? I have to imagine that it happens. It would easily be worth it for a studio to pay Ebert 1 million dollars for a positive review... of course they wouldn't go that high, but it would easily worth it for them to.
“The portrayal of rich WASPs in this movie is racist” is at the top of my list of Siskel & Ebert takes that did not age well.
I love how Siskel goes from trashing The Breakfast Club in one review to calling it "funny and sensitive" 10 seconds later in the one immediately following.
he did the same with The Abyss
Has John Hughes ever cast anybody black or asian? Can't see any examples in all of his movies. Incredible.
Long Duk Dong
😊😂😂
The guys that take the Ferrari for a joy ride in Ferris Bueller are black and Hispanic
Weird Science is my favorite movie
It's kinda sad how often Siskel made the wrong call. I mean, over and over and over he's on the wrong side of history with these clips.
Over and over they both are. They often have ridiculous of the moment opinions. Makes you realise how much the context you see a film effects your viewing of it
I think in this video he is very fair though, for a fully grown adult I think it makes sense to be bored by continues films made for teens
How in the actual f*** can you not like Ferris Buehler's Day Off? 🙄
To be fair we grew up with it so we love it, but at the time a lot of older practical people who’d outgrown their imaginations probably saw Ferris as fantastical, obnoxious, and unlikeable.
8
Weird Science is classic, Ferris is an Icon, Vacation rocks, some of the others are "meh"...
The irony of Gene Siskel, of all people, saying that James Spader's character in Pretty in Pink is "racist" against WASPs (white fragility, it seems, is eternal) when I think we've all heard him ranting about WASPs by now lol
Career Opportunities bored me. Looking back at Home Alone I totally agree that a kid would be able to do all of that in order to stop burglars. I did like Sixteen Candles, Pretty in Pink, Some Kind of Wonderful and I loved and I mean loved Planes, Trains and Automobiles, Uncle Buck and The Great Outdoors.
Home Alone was silly but it was fun for kids.
Siskel is so clueless and does not appreciate Hughes. Pretty sad to see. A critic with only high-brow taste. As so many of Hughes movies are now classics we can see who got it and who didn't.
16 Candles is the greatest film ever made
Gene was a stick in the mud back in the day. He changed.
i always hated the great outdoors. i usually differ from siskel too.
The great outdoors is great. Lol they absolutely shit on it
I'll have to give their Home Alone reviews a thumbs down
The queer coding in John Hughes film is brilliant in so many ways! Alison in Breakfast Club is the absolute outcast who no one understands, I knew so many Duckie's in high school and they were gay, gay, gay and Watts in Some Kind of Wonderful....hello!! This is what 80s queer kids did in that time period, we hid behind "crushes" on our best friends because it was safe and allowed us to seem hetro but not to actually have to be hetro! Thanks JH, you saw us and we thank you!
christmas vacation is horrible. never liked one minute. why so many people like it is beyond me
Sickel is an aweful film critic he has no basic sense let alone any academic knowledge of film making, intstead he wings it and does it very bady!
I'm shocked that Ebert was so positive about Some Kind Of Wonderful. It's a dreadful, tedious retread of the far superior Pretty In Pink.