God, they gave great film criticism. Regardless of how they rated a film, they saw nuance in a storyand explained themselves in ways which were unmistakable.
Oh man, Gene accusing Roger that he didn't like Blue Velvet because it confused him sexually...the look of contempt on Roger's face afterward is PRICELESS.
He didn’t say it “confused him sexually,” you’re twisting his words because you think it’s cute to do so. The look of rejection on Roger’s face is simply because he doesn’t like the presumption (his own twisting) that Gene is making instead of Gene just listening to him.
@@michaelmcdonald8452 I think his exact words were "made him sexually uncomfortable," but that is more or less the same thing as "confusing him." I think the original poster is right--Ebert's expression was a mixture of incredulity and contempt.
Thank you for posting this episode. I have been waiting for years to watch again their rehash of "Blue Velvet." Their original review of it was included as a DVD extra; this should have been, too.
Man, I'm really impressed with Siskel's point that initial box office numbers being reported can influence many people to either see or not see a movie. Basically that quite often people follow the crowd when choosing which movies to see.
That's happened to me a couple of times. After The Super Mario Bros Movie made a ton of money in its opening weekend, I went out and saw it to see what all the fuss was about.
Field of Dreams is one of the best-written movies of all time. Every once in a while I just like to read the dialogue and speeches from the film because they simply give me chills. Here's one great example: "Getting thrown out of baseball was like having part of me amputated. I've heard that old men wake up and scratch itchy legs that have been dust for over fifty years. That was me. I'd wake up at night with the smell of the ball park in my nose, the cool of the grass on my feet... The thrill of the grass." Just beautifully vivid writing.
As a woman i couldn’t agree more with Roger Elbert’s Point about the exploitation of Isabella Rossellini. I love David Lynch too, long time fan since 1981, and I adore Gene Siskel and side you him more, film wise. But Ebert has always been spot on about a lot of themes or issues in films that were exploitative and false. For that he was quite prescient and conscientious. As I get older, I have so much more respect For his opinions and his character and integrity as a man and a critic.
"Blue Velvet" (1986) was one of my favorite films and of course it's one of the best movies of the year. Nominated for an 1987 Academy Award for best direction-David Lynch. Released by DEG.
Funny that Scrooged became a cult classic/one of the most popular Christmas movies of all time. It's probably in the top three along with Christmas Story and Christmas Vacation.
It's always on my list, along with other Yet Another Christmas Carol movies (An American Christmas Carol with Henry Winkler, A Christmas Carol with George C. Scott, Scrooge with Albert Finney) and Home Alone.
A friend reminded me of the day I saw Blue Velvet in the theater. I saw it with two other friends. Later tgat day the friend asked us how Blue Velvet was. One friend said "It was great!!!!", I said "it was okay"...and the other friend said "IT SUCKED" opinions vary
It really does warm my heart seeing Roger defend She Devil; it's really imo over hated and deserves more appreciation. It's a wickedly dark satire of women empowerment movies (it attacks the cliches of those movies, while doing a more natural character transformation for Ruth,) while being dark in how how the characters act and evolve (Streep is great and all but Begley Jr is really, really good in this. Prob one of his best performances as the ahole husband.) Roseanne really was good in this too; she hated making it but she wasn't awful in it. She fit the role perfectly. The director was a solid hand and she helped make it more sound and wicked with the satire. Granted it looks cheap in spots and hasn't aged well in a few places but I had a ball watching this recently more so than ever before in the past. Roger pretty much nailed it in terms of how Gene completely didn't get the movies point and whining over Rosie and Meryl not being on screen more. He musta seen the first teaser where they are both in it and that's all he knew. Props to Roger for knowing how the previous adaptions were. I do however disagree with Roger over Scrooged. It's honestly a great modernization of that story and I love how wickedly dark it is (Michael O'Donnahue co-wrote it.) There's nothing overly preachy about the end, Murray's monologue is one of his finest and is very heart warming. Gene nailed it on how awful Frank is; he has to fight to become better it doesn't naturally happen. Great cast and solid direction help makes it very solid imo.
It's Garbage with a capital G and I'm a huge '80s movie fan. The fact that it grossed only 15 million dollars demonstrates most people feel the same way.
@@lerm2866 yes it's quite tough in the film... But it's a role...it's fiction and besides her character is tormented and not simple in the film.. So i'm confused...
And I'd say they're both right about Scrooged. I like the film, but Bill Murray was probably miscast since he can't convincingly play a reformed sweetheart.
Once upon time in America is greatest epic period film, masterpiece 👍🌟🌟🌟🌟 Field of Dreams is ambition sport movie with great performances by Kevin Costner, Amy Madigan & James Earl Jones. 👍🌟🌟🌟🌟 House of Games is devious noir film with impeccable story & twist characters 👍🌟🌟🌟🌟
Siskel is right. Capra , for being criticized so much, had some dark moments. "It's a Wonderful Life" had very dark and moving moments. When Jimmy Stewart visits his mother after he was granted the wish of never being born, that's haunting to me.
Ok, while I agree with Ebert about Bill Murray’s speech at the end of Scrooged was forced, I still seriously enjoyed the film. And Siskel giving thumbs down to Field of Dreams…I am still shocked. Still, I love these guys and I loved hearing them talk about movies! 😄
Funny that Scrooged became a cult classic/one of the most popular Christmas movies of all time. It's probably in the top three along with Christmas Story and Christmas Vacation. That is generally speaking. I like all three but I also have some more obscure favorites: like Emmet Otters Jugband Christmas and Will Vintons Claymation Christmas.
Thats...literally what happens at the end of A Christmas Carol. Scrooge flips as soon as he sees his own grave. Roger hating the movie for following the formula is headscrstching and his criticism of the supporting cast is bonkers.
Escape From New York and Over The Edge, two of my all time favorite films, were also split reviews. Gene gave thumbs up to NY and thumbs down to Edge. Roger was the opposite. However, I think time would have changed their minds. At least, I hope so.
As I’ve gotten older, Escape from NY hasn’t hold up despite loving it as a teenager. Call it maturity…call it a change in interest…but I just don’t care for it anymore. So I’d be curious if they would change their minds also.
Siskel: "Field of Dreams wasn't hard and dark enough" Ebert: "i could never cosign Blue Velvet because it was too exploitative, but see that before Scrooged" absolutely off the rails
I can see where Ebert is coming from in his dislike of Blue Velvet. I wish I could point out to him, though, that Tarantino is every BIT as exploitative and self-serving a director as Lynch (I would say a good deal more so) yet Ebert liked almost all the Tarantino movies, even the nastiest ones.
yes, thank you, they cleared that up. on this video. the video you just watched. or I _assume_ you watched, seeing as how you're commenting on it. laff.
Siskel's work is impossible to find on the web. It's never been collated and made available. Roger has a great website, wrote multiple books and made his work accessible. Other than these RUclips clips Siskel's work is gone. No idea why.
@@WilliamHerlihy-p4g its kind of easy to see why. even in this video. siskel wanted to be right, 110% of the time. he would argue with ebert on just the dumbest things in the world. "you gave it three stars!" siskel is the kind of guy who writes down every victory he ever made in his diary. so when ebert asked if siskel wanted a website i bet siskel decided to never make a website right there and then. because he thought the newspapers would outlast it. hah. the other reasons are probably more mundane. some company bought all the rights to the newspaper in chicago that ran siskels reviews and they dont care to make a special archive of it. you can probably pay $20 to read them all online at the usual scumbag newspaper archiving website.
If Roger was that morally offended with Blue Velvet then it was good that he never could review A Serbian Film. Hell he would have given it a negative one star possibly!
Yes, the ending to Scrooged is "cringe", but it's also a Christmas movie. For whatever reason, Christmas movies can get away with certain tropes that are awful otherwise.
I agree with Gene on Field of Dreams and about movies in general. Some movies are more concerned with creating iconic scenes than with telling a compelling story. (Licorice Pizza, e.g.)
More like Ebert was known to be infatuated with Ingrid Bergman and probably wasn’t able to separate those feelings when seeing someone that shares her blood and looks just like her on screen, abused. He wouldn’t apply the same criticism to a slew of other films that would fall under a similar level of, shall we say, harshness to an actress, which is why Gene was so mystified throughout the years over Roger’s really empty take. He’s projecting a lot onto the screen for an actress that literally dated the director. (This is coming from someone that’s a big fan of both guys.)
This just seemed like an excuse to get them to fight one more time about old movies... And it's hilarity. . Because neither guy changed his mind LMAO!!!
It's surprising that Gene, in his criticism of Field of Dreams, didn't mention the elephant in the room (or cornfield, as it were) that holds the film back from being great, in my opinion. The monologue by James Earl Jones may be stirring and inspirational, but rings hollow considering that being spoken by an African-American actor, it becomes all too clear that there is not a single Black historical baseball player on the field. By virtue of the choice of James Earl Jones as a Salinger surrogate, it very obviously and cringingly ignores that baseball has not been as wholesome as reported, banning Black players for nearly half a century until Jackie Robinson. And it would have been so easy to remedy, with plenty of players to choose from... Moses Fleetwood (19th century player in professional baseball), Josh Gibson, Jackie Robinson himself, could have been featured, even passingly. They had non-White Sox players by the end, Smokey Joe Wood, Mel Ott. But even by 1989, filmmakers couldn't quite recognize their bias against inclusion.
Gene was right about Field of Dreams. It is a movie of great moments but doesn't really have a cohesive throughline. I still watch it from time to time but I can stop watching it at any point because it just doesn't matter what comes next...just a serious of moments.
I don't understand why Roger was so morally opposed to Blue Velvet and gave a negative review because of it but gave both the Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will 4 stars? I don't know if he just changed that mindset of giving negative reviews to films he morally opposed or if he just gave them good reviews because they are important to cinema history
The problem for me with Once Upon a time in America is the De Niro character raping his new wife inside a car. An awful scene that wrecks the popularity of the movie.
At least Gene knew he was wrong and flip flopped on Broken Arrow. Unlike Roger having to double down on Cop and a Half bc his big ego wouldn't let him change his mind 🤣
Even when they were blatantly wrong, like Ebert with Blue Velvet, and Siskels apocalypse now review, their criticism was still at lest insightful and interesting. RedLetterMedia is no Siskel and Ebert, Mike and jay are siskel and Ebert if they went down two standard deviations in Iq and then became cynical, socially unconscious drunkards. Rich is great though.
Field of Dreams had a useless and nonsensical scene, just so it could spout off how good the 60S were? I bought House Of Games and The Right Stuff. Two of the best movies from the 80s, or from any decade, for that matter.
Gene rates movies highly if he thinks hes supposed to, like rating blue velvet highly hes only doing that because he thinks movie fans will think highly of him for "getting" David Lynch, I guarantee he didn't like it that much. Watching Dennis Hopper huff a gas mask for 2 hours and act like an idiot isn't really all that interesting.
![Kumamoto Masters Japan 2024 | Gregoria Mariska Tunjung (INA) [5] vs. Akane Yamaguchi (JPN) [2] | F](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EIjZybhsWqA/mqdefault.jpg)
God, they gave great film criticism. Regardless of how they rated a film, they saw nuance in a storyand explained themselves in ways which were unmistakable.
Siskel & Ebert Gave Great Insight On Nuance:)
Once upon a time in America.
One of the great movies of all time
Epic
These two really are great,
I love how they can passionately disagree and then make each other laugh the next minute.
Like an old married couple.
Scrooged is one of my favorite films of all time; I have it on VHS, DVD, and Blu-ray.
I watch it once every year around Christmas! Great movie!
Oh man, Gene accusing Roger that he didn't like Blue Velvet because it confused him sexually...the look of contempt on Roger's face afterward is PRICELESS.
That's below the belt i guess
He didn’t say it “confused him sexually,” you’re twisting his words because you think it’s cute to do so. The look of rejection on Roger’s face is simply because he doesn’t like the presumption (his own twisting) that Gene is making instead of Gene just listening to him.
@@michaelmcdonald8452 Gene should not have said that.
@@michaelmcdonald8452 I think his exact words were "made him sexually uncomfortable," but that is more or less the same thing as "confusing him." I think the original poster is right--Ebert's expression was a mixture of incredulity and contempt.
probabaly true though other wise he wouldnt have reacted like that ... i can't imagine him having sex
Thank you for posting this episode. I have been waiting for years to watch again their rehash of "Blue Velvet." Their original review of it was included as a DVD extra; this should have been, too.
My pleasure
Man, I'm really impressed with Siskel's point that initial box office numbers being reported can influence many people to either see or not see a movie. Basically that quite often people follow the crowd when choosing which movies to see.
That's happened to me a couple of times. After The Super Mario Bros Movie made a ton of money in its opening weekend, I went out and saw it to see what all the fuss was about.
Field of Dreams is one of the best-written movies of all time. Every once in a while I just like to read the dialogue and speeches from the film because they simply give me chills. Here's one great example: "Getting thrown out of baseball was like having part of me amputated. I've heard that old men wake up and scratch itchy legs that have been dust for over fifty years. That was me. I'd wake up at night with the smell of the ball park in my nose, the cool of the grass on my feet... The thrill of the grass." Just beautifully vivid writing.
Scrooged is my favorite adaptations of A Christmas Carrol. Two thumbs up.
I love Murray comedies - But personally I'd give it to A Muppets Christmas Carol
(from the following year after Scrooged?)
I do love em both though
As a woman i couldn’t agree more with Roger Elbert’s
Point about the exploitation of Isabella Rossellini. I love David Lynch too, long time fan since 1981, and I adore Gene Siskel and side you him more, film wise. But Ebert has always been spot on about a lot of themes or issues in films that were exploitative and false. For that he was quite prescient and conscientious. As I get older, I have so much more respect
For his opinions and his character and integrity as a man and a critic.
I saw Blue Velvet when I was younger and it offended me.
So refreshing to see critics admit they may have been wrong.
But neither one of them did lol!
Amazing episode thanks! Their debate on Scrooged and Blue Velvet was awesome
"Blue Velvet" (1986) was one of my favorite films and of course it's one of the best movies of the year. Nominated for an 1987 Academy Award for best direction-David Lynch. Released by DEG.
To this day, it is the most original film I have ever seen.
Dennis Hopper was great....
Boring. I made it maybe a half hour into it before turning it off
I only watch one holiday-themed movie around the Christmas season: Scrooged. Shine on, Gene!
Funny that Scrooged became a cult classic/one of the most popular Christmas movies of all time. It's probably in the top three along with Christmas Story and Christmas Vacation.
It's always on my list, along with other Yet Another Christmas Carol movies (An American Christmas Carol with Henry Winkler, A Christmas Carol with George C. Scott, Scrooge with Albert Finney) and Home Alone.
I would have liked to have seen a segment in which they raise movies that they feel other critics blew it on.
A friend reminded me of the day I saw Blue Velvet in the theater. I saw it with two other friends. Later tgat day the friend asked us how Blue Velvet was. One friend said "It was great!!!!", I said "it was okay"...and the other friend said "IT SUCKED"
opinions vary
It really does warm my heart seeing Roger defend She Devil; it's really imo over hated and deserves more appreciation. It's a wickedly dark satire of women empowerment movies (it attacks the cliches of those movies, while doing a more natural character transformation for Ruth,) while being dark in how how the characters act and evolve (Streep is great and all but Begley Jr is really, really good in this. Prob one of his best performances as the ahole husband.) Roseanne really was good in this too; she hated making it but she wasn't awful in it. She fit the role perfectly. The director was a solid hand and she helped make it more sound and wicked with the satire. Granted it looks cheap in spots and hasn't aged well in a few places but I had a ball watching this recently more so than ever before in the past. Roger pretty much nailed it in terms of how Gene completely didn't get the movies point and whining over Rosie and Meryl not being on screen more. He musta seen the first teaser where they are both in it and that's all he knew. Props to Roger for knowing how the previous adaptions were.
I do however disagree with Roger over Scrooged. It's honestly a great modernization of that story and I love how wickedly dark it is (Michael O'Donnahue co-wrote it.) There's nothing overly preachy about the end, Murray's monologue is one of his finest and is very heart warming. Gene nailed it on how awful Frank is; he has to fight to become better it doesn't naturally happen. Great cast and solid direction help makes it very solid imo.
I saw She Devil awhile back and I enjoyed it. Roseanne stole that movie.
It's Garbage with a capital G and I'm a huge '80s movie fan. The fact that it grossed only 15 million dollars demonstrates most people feel the same way.
Very cool find! Thanks. and as far as Blue Velvet goes they’re both right.
You beleive it was humiliating and mysoginist for isabellz rosselini ?
@@JeanAriaMouy I believe those scenes focusing on her degradation are effective and a bit tasteless but they work for the film
@@lerm2866 yes it's quite tough in the film... But it's a role...it's fiction and besides her character is tormented and not simple in the film.. So i'm confused...
And I'd say they're both right about Scrooged. I like the film, but Bill Murray was probably miscast since he can't convincingly play a reformed sweetheart.
Gene could have said Rossellini chose to do that movie. Surely she wasn’t ambushed by full frontal
Once upon time in America is greatest epic period film, masterpiece 👍🌟🌟🌟🌟
Field of Dreams is ambition sport movie with great performances by Kevin Costner, Amy Madigan & James Earl Jones. 👍🌟🌟🌟🌟
House of Games is devious noir film with impeccable story & twist characters 👍🌟🌟🌟🌟
nobody in the comments is talking about House of Games. i don't think anyone saw it. it's good!
Siskel is right. Capra , for being criticized so much, had some dark moments. "It's a Wonderful Life" had very dark and moving moments. When Jimmy Stewart visits his mother after he was granted the wish of never being born, that's haunting to me.
Ok, while I agree with Ebert about Bill Murray’s speech at the end of Scrooged was forced, I still seriously enjoyed the film. And Siskel giving thumbs down to Field of Dreams…I am still shocked.
Still, I love these guys and I loved hearing them talk about movies! 😄
I LOVE this...giggle
Funny that Scrooged became a cult classic/one of the most popular Christmas movies of all time. It's probably in the top three along with Christmas Story and Christmas Vacation. That is generally speaking. I like all three but I also have some more obscure favorites: like Emmet Otters Jugband Christmas and Will Vintons Claymation Christmas.
How about Gene thumbing down Apocalypse Now? Must be the biggest wonderment in the series.
A few years later Gene admitted he was wrong on Apocalypse now
Scrooged was funny, but it was completely unbelievable that he actually changed at the end. It didn’t even really feel like he did.
I totally agree. The film was quite funny and cynical until the end and then it became insincere.
Thats...literally what happens at the end of A Christmas Carol. Scrooge flips as soon as he sees his own grave.
Roger hating the movie for following the formula is headscrstching and his criticism of the supporting cast is bonkers.
Escape From New York and Over The Edge, two of my all time favorite films, were also split reviews. Gene gave thumbs up to NY and thumbs down to Edge. Roger was the opposite. However, I think time would have changed their minds. At least, I hope so.
Over the Edge will forever be relevant
As I’ve gotten older, Escape from NY hasn’t hold up despite loving it as a teenager. Call it maturity…call it a change in interest…but I just don’t care for it anymore. So I’d be curious if they would change their minds also.
Over the Edge was great.
@@losttribe3001 It's not that great. It's a great idea for a movie that wasn't realized with much imagination.
The irony was Roger didn't like escape from new York and gene did, yet Roger liked escape from la and yet Gene didn't.
Siskel: "Field of Dreams wasn't hard and dark enough"
Ebert: "i could never cosign Blue Velvet because it was too exploitative, but see that before Scrooged"
absolutely off the rails
That James Earl Jones speech is EPIC!
Not if you know what the word epic means.
She Devil is really funny
Ebert with the nice hair cut
I can see where Ebert is coming from in his dislike of Blue Velvet. I wish I could point out to him, though, that Tarantino is every BIT as exploitative and self-serving a director as Lynch (I would say a good deal more so) yet Ebert liked almost all the Tarantino movies, even the nastiest ones.
Ding ding ding Fight! MORTAL COMBAT! FINISH HIM! FATALITY!
😂😂😊
Ebert gave SCROOGED one star.
yes, thank you, they cleared that up. on this video. the video you just watched. or I _assume_ you watched, seeing as how you're commenting on it. laff.
It's funny how Ebert is always quoted in media and Siskel almost always never is...
Siskel's work is impossible to find on the web. It's never been collated and made available. Roger has a great website, wrote multiple books and made his work accessible. Other than these RUclips clips Siskel's work is gone. No idea why.
@@WilliamHerlihy-p4g its kind of easy to see why. even in this video. siskel wanted to be right, 110% of the time. he would argue with ebert on just the dumbest things in the world. "you gave it three stars!" siskel is the kind of guy who writes down every victory he ever made in his diary. so when ebert asked if siskel wanted a website i bet siskel decided to never make a website right there and then. because he thought the newspapers would outlast it. hah. the other reasons are probably more mundane. some company bought all the rights to the newspaper in chicago that ran siskels reviews and they dont care to make a special archive of it. you can probably pay $20 to read them all online at the usual scumbag newspaper archiving website.
Roger was dead on about “Field of Dreams.” Gene was asleep at the wheel on this one.
No gene was right. It’s an odd unconvincing mixture of fantasy and reality
Scrooged was fabulous 😍
Except it wasn't.
There's some serious cryptic things only certain people see that are very very wrong with the movie Scrooged
Like what
@@jvick87 can't tell you 😠🤪😓
Gene slayed Roger here
If Roger was that morally offended with Blue Velvet then it was good that he never could review A Serbian Film. Hell he would have given it a negative one star possibly!
One critic (I forget who) said perfectly, "You don't want to see A Serbian Film. You just think you do." I agree. It's trash.
Yes, the ending to Scrooged is "cringe", but it's also a Christmas movie. For whatever reason, Christmas movies can get away with certain tropes that are awful otherwise.
I like Scrooged but I agree with Roger about the ending, it just didn't work.
I liked Scrooged
Blue Velvet is weird! 🥴
All Lynch films are weird.
Better than normal, especially in film.
Weird=stupid
That was Lynch's most accessible film.
"Warm f'ing beer makes me f'ing puke!!"
Gene was wrong about She Devil, Roger was wrong about Scrooged.
I agree with Gene on Field of Dreams and about movies in general. Some movies are more concerned with creating iconic scenes than with telling a compelling story. (Licorice Pizza, e.g.)
I can't believe the one guy hated the movie I loved, and the other guy loved the movie I hated. I mean, what a couple of idiots!
Hmm. I loved "Blue Velvet." And I liked "Scrooged." A Lot. I didn't care for "Field of Dreams." Or "She-Devil." Guess I'm Team Gene.
I think Ebert had some inside info regarding how Lynch treated Rosselini.
More like Ebert was known to be infatuated with Ingrid Bergman and probably wasn’t able to separate those feelings when seeing someone that shares her blood and looks just like her on screen, abused. He wouldn’t apply the same criticism to a slew of other films that would fall under a similar level of, shall we say, harshness to an actress, which is why Gene was so mystified throughout the years over Roger’s really empty take. He’s projecting a lot onto the screen for an actress that literally dated the director. (This is coming from someone that’s a big fan of both guys.)
Even though he totally missed it on Field of Dreams, Gene won this one. Ebert lost all credibility for defending She Devil.
With the exception of She-Devil, I think all of these movies are considered (varying-levels of) classics now 🎉
Field of dreams...oh what a snoozer!!
Yeah I don’t like sports movies.
This just seemed like an excuse to get them to fight one more time about old movies... And it's hilarity. . Because neither guy changed his mind LMAO!!!
Siskel is spot-on about BLUE VELVET!
Roger blew it big time on Blue Velvet.
Nah. It was an icky film.
@@gheller2261 icky ???
I guess I identify more with Siskel because I think Field of Dreams sucked and Scrooged was okay.
It's surprising that Gene, in his criticism of Field of Dreams, didn't mention the elephant in the room (or cornfield, as it were) that holds the film back from being great, in my opinion. The monologue by James Earl Jones may be stirring and inspirational, but rings hollow considering that being spoken by an African-American actor, it becomes all too clear that there is not a single Black historical baseball player on the field. By virtue of the choice of James Earl Jones as a Salinger surrogate, it very obviously and cringingly ignores that baseball has not been as wholesome as reported, banning Black players for nearly half a century until Jackie Robinson. And it would have been so easy to remedy, with plenty of players to choose from... Moses Fleetwood (19th century player in professional baseball), Josh Gibson, Jackie Robinson himself, could have been featured, even passingly. They had non-White Sox players by the end, Smokey Joe Wood, Mel Ott. But even by 1989, filmmakers couldn't quite recognize their bias against inclusion.
Good points.
Lynch comments on sexual violence 'cause unfortunately it happens in real life not 'ceuse he enjoys it, some people just dont wanna see the truth
Gene was right about Field of Dreams. It is a movie of great moments but doesn't really have a cohesive throughline. I still watch it from time to time but I can stop watching it at any point because it just doesn't matter what comes next...just a serious of moments.
I don't understand why Roger was so morally opposed to Blue Velvet and gave a negative review because of it but gave both the Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will 4 stars?
I don't know if he just changed that mindset of giving negative reviews to films he morally opposed or if he just gave them good reviews because they are important to cinema history
The problem for me with Once Upon a time in America is the De Niro character raping his new wife inside a car. An awful scene that wrecks the popularity of the movie.
What a great show. Great guys. Real men who could disagree while staying composed & not acting like emotional women.
Rivals The Godfather....uhhh no
It is specifically moments like JEJ’s cheeseball speech that make me like FoD less and less every time I watch it.
Field of Dreams is a terrible movie.
Field of dreams is one of the most overrated movies ever.
Gladiator is overrated (despite the good performances).
I like it, but…masterpiece? No.
It's just plain old lousy.
Roger couldn't have been more WRONG about Field of Dreams. Most overrated piece of crap sports film ever.
Bull Durham is an overrated piece of crap.
Are Bobby Deerfield & LeMans Sports films or racing films?are they a sub-genre like Quentin Tarantino might say??:)
Field of Dreams was excellent.
It was nauseating DRECK!! I wouldn't date guys who liked it, lol. Blue Velvet was better!
blue velvet is well directed but it's just lame
the story is boring and uninteresting
At least Gene knew he was wrong and flip flopped on Broken Arrow. Unlike Roger having to double down on Cop and a Half bc his big ego wouldn't let him change his mind 🤣
It's Hard To Figure-Out Just How Big Was Roger Eberts Ego About As Big As His Fat-Keester Was I Guess
@@keithforsay4204 childish comment
What does his “ego” have to do with simply having a consistent point of view thats different from yours?
Your view of and use of “wrong” regarding criticism of art is hilarious.
@@michaelmcdonald8452 How so? You trolling douche!
Blue Velvet is horrible.
field of dreams i did not like
I never saw.
@@goldentaco4970 wow, two unsolicited pointless comments
@@michaelmcdonald8452 I guess three unsolicited pointless comments if we include your random shit. Move along now.
Scrooged is okay but She-Devil is GOD awful.
Even when they were blatantly wrong, like Ebert with Blue Velvet, and Siskels apocalypse now review, their criticism was still at lest insightful and interesting. RedLetterMedia is no Siskel and Ebert, Mike and jay are siskel and Ebert if they went down two standard deviations in Iq and then became cynical, socially unconscious drunkards. Rich is great though.
The Star Wars! Movies Are The Biggest Overrated Bores In Movie-History Darth Vader Sounds Like A Obsene Phone-Caller With That Heavy Breathing Of His
Your comments are idiotic
Seek professional help
Or some dude who simply smokes too many cigarettes 🚬
For me Ebert comes across in these shows as just not a nice guy....
Both of them could be very nasty to each other.
Field of Dreams had a useless and nonsensical scene, just so it could spout off how good the 60S were? I bought House Of Games and The Right Stuff. Two of the best movies from the 80s, or from any decade, for that matter.
House of Games is one of the top Neo Noir films. The Right Stuff was inspiring and highly accessible.
Gene rates movies highly if he thinks hes supposed to, like rating blue velvet highly hes only doing that because he thinks movie fans will think highly of him for "getting" David Lynch, I guarantee he didn't like it that much. Watching Dennis Hopper huff a gas mask for 2 hours and act like an idiot isn't really all that interesting.
If that's all you saw, then the movie went over your head. The film is a literally journey of the mind.
@@ricardocantoral7672 Sure it is dummy, nice generic response used for every david lynch film.