Not for me. The fashion is dated, a man wearing a leopard skin vest? The technology is horribly dated, all the 80s huge computers and cassette tapes and so on. Two men in their late to mid 20s playing high school characters. Then you get into the characters, our main one Ferris seems so pleased with himself, the most smug, cocky character you'll meet. He spends his very first scene explaining how he likes to cheat and lie and manipulate his parents. It's like they took 10 year old Bart Simpson then made him an 18 year old, played by a 25 year old, it just doesn't work. There's no consequences for him for anything he does in the film. He learns nothing either, he's the same person by the end as he was at the start. The only bit I think I liked was the museum scene.
I agree with Gene. Even as a kid, I thought it was corny. Buuut, looking back, the whole movie is overly corny, even for its time. Not all in bad ways though
@@4Legacy Yes. He was a serious film critic reviewing a film. If he found it flawed as hell he had to say so. The film is one of those ones where there's no consequences for the character, no development, no learning. He's just the same cocky, smug boy he seems just as pleased with himself at the end of the day as he was at the start. It's the dialogue coming out his mouth too. Basically about being lazy, how to squirm out of things, out to manipulate your parents, it's like taking Bart Simpson or something and dropping him in the movie but then having him as like an 18 or 19 year old, played by a 25 year old which just makes it look even worse. Grow up a bit I'd tell him.
@@leew1598 Absolutely, the genuine honesty these two displayed is still very rare. I disagree with so many of their reviews, yet I respect that they give indepth answers as to why (well, as in-depth as two people can for having less than 5 mins to cover each film). And yeah, I really don't get the trance people are still under with Ferris Bueller's Day Off. It has a couple funny moments, I guess (the valet guys taking the car is kinda funny. And uhhh... I guess that's the only part I can think of that makes me laugh actually). Thumbs down for me Lee lol
Siskel comes off as such an old fart here. The scenes where Ferris speaks to the camera are brilliant, and much of that dialogue was improvised by Broderick.
It's the dialogue coming out his mouth though. Basically about being lazy, how to squirm out of things, out to manipulate your parents, it's like taking Bart Simpson or something and dropping him in the movie but then having him as like an 18 or 19 year old, played by a 25 year old which just makes it look even worse. Bart Simpson works because he's a cartoon character boy.
Also it gives the lesson that you can just lie and cheat your way through life and things work out fine. There's no consequences for the character in this film for anything he says or does. A better ending would have been for Ferris to have been caught yet still insist at the end that he didn't regret it because he thought he helped his friend out.
i truly miss ebert's reviews. you can positively tell that he's 100% fan before critic. he "gets it." some films are just fun. this is a great example.
I played hooky from work to see this movie about playing hooky from school on its opening night. Always loved it, but I admit Gene's criticisms are valid. The joy comes in the complicated tricks Ferris employs to completely snow all the adults and still somehow ALWAYS win. A character like this - loved by everyone, and everything always works out perfectly for him - could easily be disliked and resented by audiences, but thanks to Broderick's performance, we love him, too.
I can see why this film does have its critics. For the main character there's no growth or development. He's pretty much exactly the same person he was at the end as at the beginning, he's learnt nothing. Not terrible in itself, Marty Mcfly in Back to the Future doesn't really change, still a great film. The girlfriend character is also just kind of there. I can't think of a single interesting thing she says. Unlike most stories there isn't really any kind of decent conflict either. The teacher character is too buffonish to be taken seriously, and his sister the other conflict just magically changes her mind in the last minute of the film without any apparent motivation. You could take out nearly any scene too and the film would still make sense, because it's just a series of places they visit.
Eh, depends on your preference. I often times agree with Siskel more than Ebert. And please, for the love of god, don't act like Ebert is this model for "sit back and enjoy the ride." He has his pretentious moments too.
Gene always thought a comedy had to follow a template.... Roger loved the heart and quirks of a comedy , also the forethought of potential cult classics
"Ferris Bueller doesn't do anything fun?" Driving a vintage Ferrari, checking out Chicago Institute of Art while pondering life's purpose, crashing a Chicago parade, playing a famous "Sausage man" to go out for lunch . . . Brilliant classic. Sorry you were way off on this one Gene.
It's the dialogue that comes out of his mouth though that's the problem. How a character can cheat and lie his way through life and it all works out fine. What a great lesson.
The best thing I can say about the film is how the teenage characters don't just spend the day smoking weed and playing video games or something. They go to a fancy restaurant, they visit the tallest building, go to an art gallery, watch a sports game. They even talk about marriage. It's like they're on the cusp of adulthood and want to start doing things that adults would do with their free time and stop being treated like kids. (The irony is that today adulthood has become more infantile and lots of men in their 30s and 40s do come home from work and jump on their xbox.)
An inspirational movie that I saw my senior year of HS resulting in my own day off of school in downtown Philly including a Ratt concert at the Spectrum! Don't blame Gene though. If it wasn't Chariots of Fire he rarely liked it.
I can see why this film does have its critics. For the main character there's no growth or development. He's pretty much exactly the same person he was at the end as at the beginning, he's learnt nothing. Not terrible in itself, Marty Mcfly in Back to the Future doesn't really change, still a great film. The girlfriend character is also just kind of there. I can't think of a single interesting thing she says. Unlike most stories there isn't really any kind of decent conflict either. The teacher character is too buffonish to be taken seriously, and his sister the other conflict just magically changes her mind in the last minute of the film without any apparent motivation. You could take out nearly any scene too and the film would still make sense, because it's just a series of places they visit.
Mean Gene, what on earth are you on about? John Hughes wherever you are, you were a genius brother. Best comedy writer in the history of film. It's not close.
...and you were wrong, Gene!!! The movie is disrespecting to all authority figures, to a large degree, and yet, it's still an absolutely hilarious romp thru the day in the life of a teenager that has to stop and enjoy a break from the more stressful life that authority figures can put you through. Wild, hilarious, fun: those are three key words that make this movie worth watching. Once in a while, we need a break from it all...know what I mean?
"Never send a movie expert to review a movie like this, they'll never see the forest through the trees." Boy, if that doesn't perfectly describe Gene Siskel.
“Classic” is a very overused term. A movie is not a “classic” because just some narcissistic, mediocre white American men commenting on RUclips basically says so.
I'm watching Ferris Bueller on TV and I decide to pull up this review to see what they thought of the movie and in one of those crazy moments the scenes they were showing on the review were the exact same scenes that were being shown on the TV as I was watching it. Exactly in time. It freaked me out
We need another Siskel and Ebert. They were must watch TV because we had few options. We need intelligent critics so badly today. No one wants to say anything about bad movies and tv today. Back then they were honest. Today it’s all about brand and protecting your ass.
I think it's a great movie but I think in fairness to Gene, it's probably best if you are under the age of 25 when you see it for the first time. I saw it when I was 12 and the notion of using a synthesizer (state of the art technology at the time) to simulate vomiting while phoning in sick to school is hilarious to a 12 year old, maybe not so much to a 40 year old.
I agree. I was 15 going on 16 when this movie came out. I was in Hughes's target audience bracket. His last two teen films, whether directed by him (Ferris Bueller) or merely written and produced by him (Some Kind of Wonderful) are explorations of what happens in one's senior year of trying to figure out what one is going to do after high school.
Once again here, Ebert 'gets it' and Siskel doesn't. This movie definitely had stood the test of time. Having looked at all these old shows, I am surprised to find how many times Siskel was way off.
I did not like the film when I first saw it because quite frankly I thought to myself what was the point. Skip school so what. Keep in mind i was 15. As i got older and watched the film a few more times, i appreciated it a lot more. The film basically tells you to enjoy life, experience it, take part in it and cherish it. It does have a lot of heart. I kind of wish my brother can see this film and learn to experience what life has to offer.
I'm so shocked, everytime i watch these old episodes of Siskel & Ebert , i notice whenever Gene Siskel hates on a film it usually becomes a blockbuster film, a classic film or a true cult classic. I never seen anyone be so wrong over & over again. Roger Ebert clearly the better of the two.
Being a blockbuster and being one of the best films of the year is often not the same the thing. If you look at the oscars nominations for this year for instance it's not the big blockbusters that will win the awards otherwise Avengers End Game would have won every award out there a couple of years ago.
They both gave Home Alone 1 and 2 thumbs down, but Ebert gave Home Alone 3 a thumbs up. His reviews make no gd sense. At least Gene hated all the Home Alone movies and didn't prefer part 3 over the two that actually starred Culkin lmao.
Well, I'm a fan of both critics, but Gene really missed the boat on this one! This, along with "Blues Brothers" are great Chicago picture postcards. I loved Broderick, along with all the supporting characters, and his support of Cameron in the story. Even the slapstick with principal Rooney was funny. I've agreed with about 80% of Gene's reviews, but disagreed with every word of this review. Oh well, different strokes for different folks.
ironic... Siskel responds to Ferris the same way the average parent would... he should have gone to the doctor!!! he could have had his funny bone repaired!!!!
Review showed he was simply behind the curve on the tone that Hughes was setting. He picked on scenes that worked much better IN CONTEXT of the tone and the flow of the film. Humans can simply "miss it" on occasion. It's a classic.
At the time, a lot of critics hated Ferris Bueller. Esquire Magaziner's Hell Octoplex featured both Ferris and Pee Wee's Big Adventure as two of their choices.
The original theatrical cut of Blade Runner was different and wasn’t as good. The 1992 cut improved it substantially. Also, just because a movie happens to be popular or particularly iconic doesn’t make it a “classic.”
Once again Ebert hits it out of the park and Siskel has his head in the sand. FBDO was a fantastic movie. I cannot imagine how boring Siskel must have been to hang out with.
Equally though Ebert gave bad reviews to some really great films both high brow and low brow. He disliked Batman and Die Hard while giving positive reviews to the Phatom Meance and Indiana Jones 4. Siskel at least never did that.
This video needs to come with a trigger warning. WARNING! May offend your warm childhood memories and insult the film that reminds you of a time when your life didn't suck! Viewers stuck in the eighties should proceed with caution!
Wow, he almost ruined one of my favourite movies... I played this for my son a year ago and he couldn’t help but love it, despite how popular it is to be cynical this movie holds up and inspires the imagination of young people.
OMG: Gene Siskel is 100% right. The Principal Scenes were so Annoying. Of Course!!!! The Kids would have sat in The Bleachers. I’m from Omaha, and my friends and I went to Wrigley when I was 19 in 1990. We didn’t even consider sitting anywhere but The Bleachers!! And Oh My God, yes: The restaurant scene was a Total Ripoff of the one in Beverly Hills Cop, which came out 2 years before!! This is spot-on. I was 15 when Ferris came out, and always found it stupid. Gene Siskel put the “Why” into words. Bravo!
Ya they were annoying. If you don't think the dialogue between Rooney and Grace, and you don't think the scenes with Genie were funny, then there's something wrong with you.
@@scottwilson599 The dialogue in the film is pretty bad though surely? I can't think of a single thing the girl character says in the whole film worth remembering. Ferris spends most of the film explaining to the camera how to lie and cheat your way through life if I remember rightly and at the end there's no consequences for him? It's like they put Bart Simpson in the film but then made him 18 years old and then cast a 25 year old to play him. It just doesn't work. He learns nothing, he doesn't want to learn anything either, he seems super pleased and in love with himself.
This was one of the episodes of Siskel and Ebert I was pissed at a review Ferris Buelher was one of my favorites as a Kid. Explain about depression in Cameron {Alan Ruck}
Luuuuuved this movie as a sixteen-year-old. Saw it on the big screen a few months ago and I actually thought it was pretty lame. Perspective changes everything.
You'd be amazed. I saw it once back in the day, but never again since. Most people have come to terms that Ferris Bueller is a psychopath who abuses the people around him and has no feelings for anyone. Who would want to hang out with an asshole like that? Also the principle being the bad guy? Sorry... but the guy isn't being a kill joy. Ferris was clearly breaking the rules, faking an illness, lying to an entire town... and it's pretty much his job to expose the twit. It's like a police officer busting a drug dealer. Nothing personal, he's just doing his job.
Well that's your opinion, but i've seen it multiple times throughout my life and it's still as funny then as it is now. Ferris Bueller is a Pyschopath? Ok wacko. It's part of the joke with the whole town concerned with his well-being. Jesus, talk about overanalyzing. And where have you ever seen a principal leave school to find a student that has skipped lol. Rooney is portrayed as a bad guy because of that fact alone.
@@scottwilson599 the teacher is the antagonist in the sense that he's set up to have a personal vendetta which is unprofessional. He's less concerned with the student's wellbeing than with getting even with him, which is petty. The teacher in The Breakfast Club is similar very domineering but more grounded and serious. You need an authority figure for a rebellious character to collide with. Ferris isn't really a hero though in the story, he's not really very admirable but also isn't really hurting anyone either, he's a rebel but he's not mean or angry. In a way he's a sort of Bart Simpson, always in conflict with his teachers.
I loved it at age 11. Saw it again last year and I now think it's an undeniable American classic, one of the great movies that should be preserved and put in a time capsule for anyone who wants to understand our culture in the future.
According to Siskel: If you want to see a good thriller don’t watch Silence of the Lambs watch Speed 2 instead If you want to watch a Mafia movie don’t watch Scarface watch Babies Day Out If you want to watch a comedy don’t watch Ferris Bueller’s Day Off watch Blues Brothers 2000 instead. PS I know that isn’t fair and I actually loved him and Roger. I just got riled up after seeing that review lol
This movie is a CLASSIC, and I think Ebert said it best. A PERFECT example of Siskel not being able to see the forrest because of the trees. #GreatFilmJohnHughes#
I marginally liked the movie, and I was 20 when it came out. I do agree with the criticisms Gene gave it, but it had enough humor and moments to be OK for me.
I ALWAYS FELT THIS MOVIE NEEDED ANOTHER 15-20 MINS, WHY IS IT SO MANY MOVIES I FEEL ARE MISSING SOMETHING, LIKE EXTRA SCENES I ALWAYS FIND MYSELF COMING BACK TOO
JHOT247 Felt the same way about this , truth is I didn’t want to end . John Hughes had a pretty good understanding of the third act wrap up from a youth perspective....miss his style.
Gene should have remembered the word "satire" and maybe the movie would have made more sense to him. Ferris is a likeable villain at all points, it is obvious how he manipulates his friends, of which apparently he only has two irregardless of the strangers that send him flowers. It also needs to be noted that his sociopathic sister who is hell bent on calling him out for skipping school spends her entire day skipping school just to make this point.
Gene was way off on this one! Roger was able to see beyond all the irrelevancies...the movie wasn't about Chicago--that is the backdrop setting; the movie wasn't just about some kids ditching school...that was the vehicle for the deeper themes of friendship, serendipity and making something out of nothing. Brilliant, brilliant film--John Hughes at his best and Matthew Broderick giving his signature and defining performance...it still holds up 32 years later....
I can see why this film does have its critics. For the main character there's no growth or development. He's pretty much exactly the same person he was at the end as at the beginning, he's learnt nothing. Not terrible in itself, Marty Mcfly in Back to the Future doesn't really change, still a great film. The girlfriend character is also just kind of there. I can't think of a single interesting thing she says. Unlike most stories there isn't really any kind of decent conflict either. The teacher character is too buffonish to be taken seriously, and his sister the other conflict just magically changes her mind in the last minute of the film without any apparent motivation. You could take out nearly any scene too and the film would still make sense, because it's just a series of places they visit.
@@lw3646 It's not that his sister immediately started liking him. She just hated Rooney more. To me, the most interesting part of the movie is the plotline about Cameron, his father, and the Ferrari.
@@sha11235 He did a great job but there are more reasons than that to like the film. BTW I own the CDs of the Ferris Bueller and Naked Gun soundtracks. Hopefully he got some royalties from my purchases!
It's not overrated, it's a great comedy, probably Hughes best movie next to Breakfast Club.(Home Alone is popular yes, but it's not one of my favorites)Siskel shoulda pulled the stick out of his ass. How could you not think Rooney was funny, and Grace to. What a bafoon.
Siskel wrong again here... Jeffrey Jones was fine, and the film is about Cameron having to overcome his social isolation. There are plenty of movies where main characters are not the point, and it's the secondary characters that grow. This one just does it the best.
You know what I always thought about this film. There was a scene where Farris was lamenting the fact that he would be going off to college and he would be leaving is girlfriend behind. Which is what would happen. And Cameron would then marry her and they would have their own family. Weather they ever saw Farris again or not they would end up together because Farris loved them both. And both of them loved Farris. Because of that, they would end up loving each other. And I'm sure Farris would give them his blessing.
What Siskel misses is the fact he's old. I was 15 when I saw the movie and loved it. Now I'm in my 40's and when a movie like this comes out I hate it. It seems stupid and childish. That's because it is and that's the audience the movie is going for. Someone needs a little perspective I think.
When has their been a teen movie like this that has come out? And i'm not talking about late 90s movies like She's all that(god) or Can't Hardly Wait. Those movies don't hold a candle to John Hughes teen movies. I'm 37 years old and I don't see anything "stupid and childish" about this movie. I see comedy.
I think they said they both were. They usually gave high school films a good review when it sympathised with the underdog character. When the main character in the film though learns nothing, loves himself to death, lies and cheats his way through life and there's consequences it's sort of hard to care about them.
lmao Gene completely whiffed on Ferris Bueller's Day Off. One of the best movies of the 80s and still stands up to this day.
Hardly. There are better.
@@RocStarr913 There can be better and this movie still "stands up" today. It's not a binary.
Wow, Gene sure missed the boat here. FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF is a Top Ten Classic 80's film. And it still holds-up to this day.
And it crosses into the next generation. Like most J.H.'s movies, my kids love Ferris!
Not for me. The fashion is dated, a man wearing a leopard skin vest? The technology is horribly dated, all the 80s huge computers and cassette tapes and so on. Two men in their late to mid 20s playing high school characters. Then you get into the characters, our main one Ferris seems so pleased with himself, the most smug, cocky character you'll meet. He spends his very first scene explaining how he likes to cheat and lie and manipulate his parents. It's like they took 10 year old Bart Simpson then made him an 18 year old, played by a 25 year old, it just doesn't work. There's no consequences for him for anything he does in the film. He learns nothing either, he's the same person by the end as he was at the start. The only bit I think I liked was the museum scene.
@@leew1598 jesus 🤦♂️
@@leew1598 *Okay, Jeannie. How'd you get on your brother's computer?*
Popular and different movies are not always “classic.”
Ebert shows his superb skills as a movie analyst and was right on with this one.
Did Gene really say the Twist and Shout sequence did nothing for him?? That was a great movie moment
He could have least mentioned that it was a homage to a similar scene done in "The Blues Brothers".
Does Chicago often have parades during a workday/school day?
I agree with Gene. Even as a kid, I thought it was corny. Buuut, looking back, the whole movie is overly corny, even for its time. Not all in bad ways though
@@4Legacy Yes. He was a serious film critic reviewing a film. If he found it flawed as hell he had to say so. The film is one of those ones where there's no consequences for the character, no development, no learning. He's just the same cocky, smug boy he seems just as pleased with himself at the end of the day as he was at the start.
It's the dialogue coming out his mouth too. Basically about being lazy, how to squirm out of things, out to manipulate your parents, it's like taking Bart Simpson or something and dropping him in the movie but then having him as like an 18 or 19 year old, played by a 25 year old which just makes it look even worse. Grow up a bit I'd tell him.
@@leew1598 Absolutely, the genuine honesty these two displayed is still very rare. I disagree with so many of their reviews, yet I respect that they give indepth answers as to why (well, as in-depth as two people can for having less than 5 mins to cover each film).
And yeah, I really don't get the trance people are still under with Ferris Bueller's Day Off. It has a couple funny moments, I guess (the valet guys taking the car is kinda funny. And uhhh... I guess that's the only part I can think of that makes me laugh actually). Thumbs down for me Lee lol
I remember having my mind blown by this movie when I saw it at 14 in the theater. Goof of the century, Siskel.
Siskel comes off as such an old fart here. The scenes where Ferris speaks to the camera are brilliant, and much of that dialogue was improvised by Broderick.
Fr. It was so good that even deadpool payed tribute to it in his movie. Idk what gene was on about
It's the dialogue coming out his mouth though. Basically about being lazy, how to squirm out of things, out to manipulate your parents, it's like taking Bart Simpson or something and dropping him in the movie but then having him as like an 18 or 19 year old, played by a 25 year old which just makes it look even worse. Bart Simpson works because he's a cartoon character boy.
Also it gives the lesson that you can just lie and cheat your way through life and things work out fine. There's no consequences for the character in this film for anything he says or does. A better ending would have been for Ferris to have been caught yet still insist at the end that he didn't regret it because he thought he helped his friend out.
Gene showed his age on this one, though Roger liked it, so go figure!
I have seen this movie more than 70 times. I want to watch it 70 more times.
I hope your dream comes true.
Loser.
70 times wow i dont think ive seen any film that many times
i truly miss ebert's reviews. you can positively tell that he's 100% fan before critic. he "gets it." some films are just fun. this is a great example.
Except his review of “Friday the 13th” he does not get that one. But he’s usually the better of the two.
He loved great, stylistic films. He loved fun, entertaining movies.
No lmfao. .🤔😑.
Mr. Ebert, I'm with you on this one! It was a very zany adventure, and I'll never get over it!
I played hooky from work to see this movie about playing hooky from school on its opening night. Always loved it, but I admit Gene's criticisms are valid. The joy comes in the complicated tricks Ferris employs to completely snow all the adults and still somehow ALWAYS win. A character like this - loved by everyone, and everything always works out perfectly for him - could easily be disliked and resented by audiences, but thanks to Broderick's performance, we love him, too.
I can see why this film does have its critics. For the main character there's no growth or development. He's pretty much exactly the same person he was at the end as at the beginning, he's learnt nothing. Not terrible in itself, Marty Mcfly in Back to the Future doesn't really change, still a great film.
The girlfriend character is also just kind of there. I can't think of a single interesting thing she says. Unlike most stories there isn't really any kind of decent conflict either. The teacher character is too buffonish to be taken seriously, and his sister the other conflict just magically changes her mind in the last minute of the film without any apparent motivation. You could take out nearly any scene too and the film would still make sense, because it's just a series of places they visit.
Unsurprisingly, Ebert enjoyed the ride while Siskel was a shoe stuck in the mud.
Can't stand Siskel.
Eh, depends on your preference. I often times agree with Siskel more than Ebert. And please, for the love of god, don't act like Ebert is this model for "sit back and enjoy the ride." He has his pretentious moments too.
That wasn’t the case with Beethoven and Die Hard. Lol. Or Full Metal Jacket.
Who could thumbs down Ferris??
See what you did there…
i seen most films from the 1980s, but only got round to watching this film on netflix last month, brilliant film.
saw not seen. Fix it!!
Arse Robinson this films really ages well. Just watched it with my 7 year old and it’s a masterpiece
@@jsteinig one day, your 7 year old is gonna be just like Ferris. Teenagers are a handful
'Have seen' works better, unless they are a) dead or b) not watching 80s films anymore.@@suzycreamcheesez4371
Gene always thought a comedy had to follow a template.... Roger loved the heart and quirks of a comedy , also the forethought of potential cult classics
Mia sara was so hot back then
"Ferris Bueller doesn't do anything fun?" Driving a vintage Ferrari, checking out Chicago Institute of Art while pondering life's purpose, crashing a Chicago parade, playing a famous "Sausage man" to go out for lunch . . . Brilliant classic. Sorry you were way off on this one Gene.
AND eating pancreas.
Gene was usually wrong on things that are considered classic comedies in the present day.
And a Cub game!
At the age of 17. Pretty awesome in my book.
Epic fail, breaking down the 4th wall, was the best part of the movie
It's the dialogue that comes out of his mouth though that's the problem. How a character can cheat and lie his way through life and it all works out fine. What a great lesson.
How can you say anything bad about this film.
I have watched this so many times.
If I feel bad, I put this on and I'm smiling again x
The best thing I can say about the film is how the teenage characters don't just spend the day smoking weed and playing video games or something. They go to a fancy restaurant, they visit the tallest building, go to an art gallery, watch a sports game. They even talk about marriage. It's like they're on the cusp of adulthood and want to start doing things that adults would do with their free time and stop being treated like kids. (The irony is that today adulthood has become more infantile and lots of men in their 30s and 40s do come home from work and jump on their xbox.)
It shows at the very least that John Hughes approached teenage characters with far more profundity than a lot of writers did.
An inspirational movie that I saw my senior year of HS resulting in my own day off of school in downtown Philly including a Ratt concert at the Spectrum! Don't blame Gene though. If it wasn't Chariots of Fire he rarely liked it.
Ratt was great!
Siskel went way overboard with his review.
I can see why this film does have its critics. For the main character there's no growth or development. He's pretty much exactly the same person he was at the end as at the beginning, he's learnt nothing. Not terrible in itself, Marty Mcfly in Back to the Future doesn't really change, still a great film.
The girlfriend character is also just kind of there. I can't think of a single interesting thing she says. Unlike most stories there isn't really any kind of decent conflict either. The teacher character is too buffonish to be taken seriously, and his sister the other conflict just magically changes her mind in the last minute of the film without any apparent motivation. You could take out nearly any scene too and the film would still make sense, because it's just a series of places they visit.
I was a Ebert guy.....Time proved him right more times than Gene..RIP for both..
Yea but Ebert had his bad moments and gene had his ones where he got it and roger didn't
Me too. Ebert saw the heart of a film. Siskel was too rigid.
RIP to both of these legends. I miss your movie debating.
Mean Gene, what on earth are you on about? John Hughes wherever you are, you were a genius brother. Best comedy writer in the history of film. It's not close.
...and you were wrong, Gene!!! The movie is disrespecting to all authority figures, to a large degree, and yet, it's still an absolutely hilarious romp thru the day in the life of a teenager that has to stop and enjoy a break from the more stressful life that authority figures can put you through. Wild, hilarious, fun: those are three key words that make this movie worth watching. Once in a while, we need a break from it all...know what I mean?
"Never send a movie expert to review a movie like this, they'll never see the forest through the trees."
Boy, if that doesn't perfectly describe Gene Siskel.
He meant an expert on Chicago.
This is an accurate representation of how polarizing this film gets.
It's kind of shocking Siskel didn't like this movie. It's definitely one of the greatest movies of the 80s.
He didn't like Aliens either, shockingly.
Change my mind. This is one of the greatest movies of all time.
You're right.
You just haven’t seen many movies.
An enduring classic unlike most subtitled love stories Gene likes that 7 people saw
“Classic” is a very overused term. A movie is not a “classic” because just some narcissistic, mediocre white American men commenting on RUclips basically says so.
I'm watching Ferris Bueller on TV and I decide to pull up this review to see what they thought of the movie and in one of those crazy moments the scenes they were showing on the review were the exact same scenes that were being shown on the TV as I was watching it. Exactly in time. It freaked me out
Will always have a special fondness for this film because my cousin did the score on the film.
He did the scores on a lot of good John Hughes movies and other comedies too!
Roger gets it yet again...this is a comedy classic now
It's amazing how much Ebert generally enjoyed movies & how much Siskel did NOT...
We need another Siskel and Ebert. They were must watch TV because we had few options. We need intelligent critics so badly today. No one wants to say anything about bad movies and tv today. Back then they were honest. Today it’s all about brand and protecting your ass.
One of my Top ten movie's of all time.
I think it's a great movie but I think in fairness to Gene, it's probably best if you are under the age of 25 when you see it for the first time. I saw it when I was 12 and the notion of using a synthesizer (state of the art technology at the time) to simulate vomiting while phoning in sick to school is hilarious to a 12 year old, maybe not so much to a 40 year old.
Love that movie and I'm 55!
As a critic, he failed to put in in the proper context. The movie remains a classic.
I agree. I was 15 going on 16 when this movie came out. I was in Hughes's target audience bracket. His last two teen films, whether directed by him (Ferris Bueller) or merely written and produced by him (Some Kind of Wonderful) are explorations of what happens in one's senior year of trying to figure out what one is going to do after high school.
I'm gonna be 40 July 3 saw this on Netflix it's funny
Same
Once again here, Ebert 'gets it' and Siskel doesn't. This movie definitely had stood the test of time. Having looked at all these old shows, I am surprised to find how many times Siskel was way off.
I did not like the film when I first saw it because quite frankly I thought to myself what was the point. Skip school so what. Keep in mind i was 15. As i got older and watched the film a few more times, i appreciated it a lot more. The film basically tells you to enjoy life, experience it, take part in it and cherish it. It does have a lot of heart. I kind of wish my brother can see this film and learn to experience what life has to offer.
Thank God so many of these reviews are on RUclips, I love Siskel and Ebert, whether or not I agree with them about any specific films.
I'm so shocked, everytime i watch these old episodes of Siskel & Ebert , i notice whenever Gene Siskel hates on a film it usually becomes a blockbuster film, a classic film or a true cult classic. I never seen anyone be so wrong over & over again. Roger Ebert clearly the better of the two.
Gene liked Brain Candy, Roger didn't.
Ebert wasn't infallible. His thumbs down for Die Hard was for the flimsiest reason I've ever seen someone use to pan a movie.
Being a blockbuster and being one of the best films of the year is often not the same the thing. If you look at the oscars nominations for this year for instance it's not the big blockbusters that will win the awards otherwise Avengers End Game would have won every award out there a couple of years ago.
@@hotchiemotchie yeah, but gene has a lot worse track record overall.
They both gave Home Alone 1 and 2 thumbs down, but Ebert gave Home Alone 3 a thumbs up. His reviews make no gd sense. At least Gene hated all the Home Alone movies and didn't prefer part 3 over the two that actually starred Culkin lmao.
The principal had PLENTY to do.
Well, I'm a fan of both critics, but Gene really missed the boat on this one! This, along with "Blues Brothers" are great Chicago picture postcards. I loved Broderick, along with all the supporting characters, and his support of Cameron in the story. Even the slapstick with principal Rooney was funny. I've agreed with about 80% of Gene's reviews, but disagreed with every word of this review. Oh well, different strokes for different folks.
ironic... Siskel responds to Ferris the same way the average parent would... he should have gone to the doctor!!! he could have had his funny bone repaired!!!!
Review showed he was simply behind the curve on the tone that Hughes was setting. He picked on scenes that worked much better IN CONTEXT of the tone and the flow of the film. Humans can simply "miss it" on occasion. It's a classic.
Gene really was an old fuddy duddy sometimes.
Yes, Siskel was out to lunch on this one
At the time, a lot of critics hated Ferris Bueller. Esquire Magaziner's Hell Octoplex featured both Ferris and Pee Wee's Big Adventure as two of their choices.
Add this to the Terminator and Blade Runner, as films that are now looked at as classics of the 80's, and Siskel hated them all.
The original theatrical cut of Blade Runner was different and wasn’t as good. The 1992 cut improved it substantially. Also, just because a movie happens to be popular or particularly iconic doesn’t make it a “classic.”
Once again Ebert hits it out of the park and Siskel has his head in the sand. FBDO was a fantastic movie. I cannot imagine how boring Siskel must have been to hang out with.
Equally though Ebert gave bad reviews to some really great films both high brow and low brow. He disliked Batman and Die Hard while giving positive reviews to the Phatom Meance and Indiana Jones 4. Siskel at least never did that.
Siskel was way off. This movie is a f*cking CLASSIC!
I honestly think this has aged better for siskel
It's an American Comedy Classic for Young Adults! John Hughes Nailed His Target Audience Most Pictures! Another 80's High School Romp!
This video needs to come with a trigger warning.
WARNING! May offend your warm childhood memories and insult the film that reminds you of a time when your life didn't suck! Viewers stuck in the eighties should proceed with caution!
classic siskel miss. that happens from time to time. it's a hilarious film!
Wow, Siskel really missed the mark on this one.
Great movie watched it so many times
Wow, he almost ruined one of my favourite movies...
I played this for my son a year ago and he couldn’t help but love it, despite how popular it is to be cynical this movie holds up and inspires the imagination of young people.
It doesn't even bother me anymore when one of them did an off review...I miss both of them!
@ 3:36 Ebert nails it in one sentence
Gene, I love ya man. But you were wrong about this one too. Still a legend though.
OMG: Gene Siskel is 100% right. The Principal Scenes were so Annoying. Of Course!!!! The Kids would have sat in The Bleachers. I’m from Omaha, and my friends and I went to Wrigley when I was 19 in 1990. We didn’t even consider sitting anywhere but The Bleachers!! And Oh My God, yes: The restaurant scene was a Total Ripoff of the one in Beverly Hills Cop, which came out 2 years before!! This is spot-on. I was 15 when Ferris came out, and always found it stupid. Gene Siskel put the “Why” into words. Bravo!
Ya they were annoying. If you don't think the dialogue between Rooney and Grace, and you don't think the scenes with Genie were funny, then there's something wrong with you.
@@scottwilson599 The dialogue in the film is pretty bad though surely? I can't think of a single thing the girl character says in the whole film worth remembering. Ferris spends most of the film explaining to the camera how to lie and cheat your way through life if I remember rightly and at the end there's no consequences for him? It's like they put Bart Simpson in the film but then made him 18 years old and then cast a 25 year old to play him. It just doesn't work. He learns nothing, he doesn't want to learn anything either, he seems super pleased and in love with himself.
I'm not buying Siskel's negative take, but he was right when he said that Jennifer Grey/Charlie Sheen had an excellent scene.
This was one of the episodes of Siskel and Ebert I was pissed at a review Ferris Buelher was one of my favorites as a Kid. Explain about depression in Cameron {Alan Ruck}
Classic! Bomp Bomp... Chka Chka...Bomp Bomp...Oh Yeah!
Gene siskel so wrong movie is great one of hughes best and can be seen on repeat viewings
these guys missed all the iconic movies that have defined a few generations... i guess it's like having old guys review new music...
This was Roeper's, Siskel's replacement after his death, favorie movie!
Luuuuuved this movie as a sixteen-year-old. Saw it on the big screen a few months ago and I actually thought it was pretty lame. Perspective changes everything.
You'd be amazed. I saw it once back in the day, but never again since. Most people have come to terms that Ferris Bueller is a psychopath who abuses the people around him and has no feelings for anyone. Who would want to hang out with an asshole like that?
Also the principle being the bad guy? Sorry... but the guy isn't being a kill joy. Ferris was clearly breaking the rules, faking an illness, lying to an entire town... and it's pretty much his job to expose the twit. It's like a police officer busting a drug dealer. Nothing personal, he's just doing his job.
Well that's your opinion, but i've seen it multiple times throughout my life and it's still as funny then as it is now. Ferris Bueller is a Pyschopath? Ok wacko. It's part of the joke with the whole town concerned with his well-being. Jesus, talk about overanalyzing. And where have you ever seen a principal leave school to find a student that has skipped lol. Rooney is portrayed as a bad guy because of that fact alone.
@@scottwilson599 the teacher is the antagonist in the sense that he's set up to have a personal vendetta which is unprofessional. He's less concerned with the student's wellbeing than with getting even with him, which is petty. The teacher in The Breakfast Club is similar very domineering but more grounded and serious. You need an authority figure for a rebellious character to collide with. Ferris isn't really a hero though in the story, he's not really very admirable but also isn't really hurting anyone either, he's a rebel but he's not mean or angry. In a way he's a sort of Bart Simpson, always in conflict with his teachers.
I loved it at age 11. Saw it again last year and I now think it's an undeniable American classic, one of the great movies that should be preserved and put in a time capsule for anyone who wants to understand our culture in the future.
According to Siskel:
If you want to see a good thriller don’t watch Silence of the Lambs watch Speed 2 instead
If you want to watch a Mafia movie don’t watch Scarface watch Babies Day Out
If you want to watch a comedy don’t watch Ferris Bueller’s Day Off watch Blues Brothers 2000 instead.
PS I know that isn’t fair and I actually loved him and Roger. I just got riled up after seeing that review lol
One of those movies you love when you were young but learn to hate it more when you get older,I put Arthur and MASH in that category also.
This movie is a CLASSIC, and I think Ebert said it best. A PERFECT example of Siskel not being able to see the forrest because of the trees.
#GreatFilmJohnHughes#
Just because a movie is popular and different enough for the time is hardly “classic.”
New Years' Eve at 15...took my then-girlfriend to see this. lol 1986....wow. lol Still one of my favorites.
I marginally liked the movie, and I was 20 when it came out. I do agree with the criticisms Gene gave it, but it had enough humor and moments to be OK for me.
I ALWAYS FELT THIS MOVIE NEEDED ANOTHER 15-20 MINS, WHY IS IT SO MANY MOVIES I FEEL ARE MISSING SOMETHING, LIKE EXTRA SCENES I ALWAYS FIND MYSELF COMING BACK TOO
JHOT247 Felt the same way about this , truth is I didn’t want to end .
John Hughes had a pretty good understanding of the third act wrap up from a youth perspective....miss his style.
Did Gene Siskel like ANY movie????
Ebert was even a bit subdued, but far closer to being right than Gene.
You think Gene ever had a day like this?
"Ferris Bueller doesn't do anything fun," everybody.
They ate pancreas!!!!
Gene should have remembered the word "satire" and maybe the movie would have made more sense to him. Ferris is a likeable villain at all points, it is obvious how he manipulates his friends, of which apparently he only has two irregardless of the strangers that send him flowers. It also needs to be noted that his sociopathic sister who is hell bent on calling him out for skipping school spends her entire day skipping school just to make this point.
Gene was way off on this one! Roger was able to see beyond all the irrelevancies...the movie wasn't about Chicago--that is the backdrop setting; the movie wasn't just about some kids ditching school...that was the vehicle for the deeper themes of friendship, serendipity and making something out of nothing. Brilliant, brilliant film--John Hughes at his best and Matthew Broderick giving his signature and defining performance...it still holds up 32 years later....
One of my all-time favorite movies, as I'm sure it is for a lot of people. I think Gene missed the mark on this one.
And hundreds others
I think so too. But I like the film because my cousin did the score.
I can see why this film does have its critics. For the main character there's no growth or development. He's pretty much exactly the same person he was at the end as at the beginning, he's learnt nothing. Not terrible in itself, Marty Mcfly in Back to the Future doesn't really change, still a great film.
The girlfriend character is also just kind of there. I can't think of a single interesting thing she says. Unlike most stories there isn't really any kind of decent conflict either. The teacher character is too buffonish to be taken seriously, and his sister the other conflict just magically changes her mind in the last minute of the film without any apparent motivation. You could take out nearly any scene too and the film would still make sense, because it's just a series of places they visit.
@@lw3646 It's not that his sister immediately started liking him. She just hated Rooney more.
To me, the most interesting part of the movie is the plotline about Cameron, his father, and the Ferrari.
@@sha11235 He did a great job but there are more reasons than that to like the film. BTW I own the CDs of the Ferris Bueller and Naked Gun soundtracks. Hopefully he got some royalties from my purchases!
I think this is a fun 80s comedy but nothing more.
People who call it "The greatest movie of all time" needs to watch better movies.
It's an American Comedy Classic for Young Adults! John Hughes Nailed His Target Audience Most Pictures!
NostalgiNorden yeah it's very overrated
It's not overrated, it's a great comedy, probably Hughes best movie next to Breakfast Club.(Home Alone is popular yes, but it's not one of my favorites)Siskel shoulda pulled the stick out of his ass. How could you not think Rooney was funny, and Grace to. What a bafoon.
Scott Wilson gtfoh with that bullshit
Winner: Ebert
@Wallace Cadwallader Footrot I agree with Ebert's opinion was what I meant. It's subjective - other people may feel differently.
As a kid I loved it was my favorite 80’s movie back then but right now it’s boring and looks outdated. I love the soundtrack though!
I watched until Siskel started speaking. I laughed out loud, commented and moved on. I just can't take him as seriously as he takes himself.
Middle aged person doesn't like movie aimed at youth? Grasping my pearls
Teen movies were always lowbrow. John Hughes happening to be particularly good at them is not that high of a bar.
Classic movie. Sorry to hear Gene didn't care for it. I've always thought that, Cameron, is the true heart and soul of this film.
Siskel wrong again here... Jeffrey Jones was fine, and the film is about Cameron having to overcome his social isolation. There are plenty of movies where main characters are not the point, and it's the secondary characters that grow. This one just does it the best.
Why did Siskel always get it wrong?
Siskel is Cameron looking at the painting. So concerned with the points that he misses the point.
Wow insane that Siskel didn’t like it
I usually agreed with Sisley but not on this film, still one of my favorite comedies of all time!
Siskel really was history's worst criminal.
Let my Cameron go.
Gene Siskel sure was the stereotypical grouchy old man in reviewing this! LOL
Just a serious film critic giving his honest reaction and pointing out some flaws as he saw it. Do you think it's better than the Breakfast Club?
You know what I always thought about this film. There was a scene where Farris was lamenting the fact that he would be going off to college and he would be leaving is girlfriend behind. Which is what would happen. And Cameron would then marry her and they would have their own family. Weather they ever saw Farris again or not they would end up together because Farris loved them both. And both of them loved Farris. Because of that, they would end up loving each other. And I'm sure Farris would give them his blessing.
What Siskel misses is the fact he's old. I was 15 when I saw the movie and loved it. Now I'm in my 40's and when a movie like this comes out I hate it. It seems stupid and childish. That's because it is and that's the audience the movie is going for. Someone needs a little perspective I think.
When has their been a teen movie like this that has come out? And i'm not talking about late 90s movies like She's all that(god) or Can't Hardly Wait. Those movies don't hold a candle to John Hughes teen movies. I'm 37 years old and I don't see anything "stupid and childish" about this movie. I see comedy.
I'm the same age as you and Can't hardly wait is a god damn master piece, yu dumbass!
This is ANOTHER classic.. and this dweeb doesn't like it ??? He such a dope!
The movie is about Ferris saving Cameron from a path to eventual suicide
Gene was the nerdy uncool kid in high school. That comes through on this review.
I think they said they both were. They usually gave high school films a good review when it sympathised with the underdog character. When the main character in the film though learns nothing, loves himself to death, lies and cheats his way through life and there's consequences it's sort of hard to care about them.
Ferris Bueller's Day Off IS a great movie. These guys were wrong so often.
Probably because it flattered your white male ego.
I actually liked this movie 🎥, I respectfully disagree with Siskel