Siskel & Ebert - All of Me, Amadeus, Places in the Heart, Until September, Bolero, 1984
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 июл 2024
- In this episode, from 1984, Siskel and Ebert review: All of Me, Amadeus, Places in the Heart, Until September and Bolero.
▬ Contents of this video ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
00:00 - Intro
02:02 - All of Me
05:37 - Amadeus
11:18 - Places in the Heart
16:20 - Until September
19:59 - Bolero (Stinker of the Week)
21:05 - Recap
I miss these guys. They both love Amadeus but argue back and forth about why they like it in different ways.
Interestingly they both somehow missed the fact that the film was about Salieri, not Mozart.
I agree. It's nice to hear intelligent observations and thoughtful critiques. They even let each other speak without interrupting. They were able to agree to disagree. Nowadays there is too much screaming trite platitudes over each other.
Amadeus. #1 on my all time greats list!
Its one of my favourites
It’s my #1 too! One of the best movies ever made
@@JustinZarian Defamation of the Character of the great Mozart.
Travesty and crude lies made up by the envious.
@@psalm2764 I’m well aware it’s not even remotely historically accurate (though Mozart being a vulgar and immature man is historically supported). But if you go with that logic, it’s a humongous character assassination of Salieri too. I accept it as a brilliant metaphor about jealousy and mediocrity rather than a history lesson.
I actually saw all 5 of these movies in the cinema.......Amadeus, Places in the Heart and All of were excellent
Amadeus is indeed the best movie I have seen at depicting creativity, as well as about a dozen other themes besides. I remember seeing it at age 12 and being stunned, and affected for hours afterwards until I fell asleep. Only a handful of movies in my life have ever had that effect on me.
These guys acknowledge it's a great movie here, but I don't think they quite knew just what they had on their hands here. Yet.
I was 10 when all these movies came out. If it wasn't for this review, I probably would've never seen Amadeus as I thought it might be a boring period piece that wouldn't hold a then 10 year olds attention. Went to see it BECAUSE of this review and actually loved it.
Also loved All Of Me. Still haven't seen Places In The Heart.
If i saw it at 10 it would have gone over my head. I was born in 86 didnt see it for the first time till 2010 loved it. Its one of my favs i rank it very highly on my list of best picture winners
And here I am, waiting for the review of 1984 with John Hurt. I misunderstood the title!
Always thought Steve Martin should've been nominated for All of Me. I mean the courtroom scene alone.
I miss both these guys. They were here, and just like that, they were gone. They became movie icons themselves, just like the big box office stars they talked of.
i was 12 back then and i remember Amadeus being a huge hit and having lots of hype and i remember watching bits and pieces of it on cable a lot but i do not remember what i actually thought of it. i watched it again for the first time in decades about a month ago on Netflix and it really is a fantastic film. and i have no memory of the Falco song playing in the entire film.
Even when they agree on all the films, they manage to find ways to disagree.
Now I need to see "All of Me" and "Places in the Heart."
All of Me is very funny and it's free on YT. It's more PG-13 than PG, but I laughed a lot. I haven't seen Places in years, but I remember liking it.
I think they realized the reviews where they disagreed on the verdicts were always more entertaining. The weeks where they agreed on all the movies were a problem: no conflict equals bad television. Apparently, they resolved that issue with "Look, if we can't disagree on which movies are good or bad, we can still disagree on WHY the movies are good or bad."
Amadeus 5:20
Places 11:05. I asked Danny Glover “what’s your favorite role?” “Places / Heart,” he replied
Love the skunk for the stinker of the week!
Didn't Sally Fields win the "Oscar" for Places in the Heart? Where she gave her you really really like me speech.
=
Yes sir! It is as you say.
She did. So much so that you pluralised her name 😁
It was,but she never said those words like that
F.Murray Abraham reminds me of Gene Siskel.
I’ve always found their review for Amadeus fascinating. They both loved it but Siskel had to make the point that he enjoyed it for different reasons! Why did that matter so much to him?
Interestingly Karen Allen got it right with her next movie, Starman.
Nahhh All of Me was funny as hell especially with Steve Martin. This was probably his most physical gig and man did he nail it!!!
I wonder if Jim Carrey was inspired by Steve Martin. I see some similarities.
Thierry... "Theory".... So cool
You know what Amadeus needed? Spaceships.
I just got this image of Close Encounters, but with Mozart on the light-up keyboard at the end communicating with the aliens:
Aliens: "doo-dee-doo-dee-doooooo"
Mozart: "That doesn't really work, does it? Did you try..."
And a post-credits scene that ties it into the extended classical composers universe.
Arm wrestling 😆
The thin guy has a suitcase full of food, and the tonnage finds a notepad in the food dispenser.
I should see Amadeus
All of Me. The car scene. 🤣
That was a keenly delivered low key amazing one live review/hilarious "only-half-joking" breed of joke that my boy Ebert half-roasted Gene with there with his review for Bolero, expertly delivered and phrased in a way in which it sounds like it's just a trivial generic thing to say about some crap movie, as though it wasn't an extremely witty, double entendre subtextual reference to the very silly mentioning of the for-sure-definitely-tallied-up-by-himself-as-he watched-the-film-to-review-it (likely in a state of a hysteria not unlike a fit that ya might often notice one of these super elderly, lingering & clinging, decrepit octogenarian old maids to be suffering under the affliction of all the damned time), precise number of three sex scenes that the actress Bo Derrick (more like 'Ho' Derrick, am I right? Highfive me from the grave, Gene!) personally acted in while she was shooting that movie...And Roger comes back at him with an earnest/ironic in no way/covert response of "yeah, the movie is cheap and terrible, to the point of hilarity....but I did really enjoy watching those three scenes in which you get to see Bo Derrick all naked and getting softcore-porn-boned, though. So, if you are into that type of thing, you may want to check this movie out.".....I feel like Gene must have actually just missed the quick jab or it went over his head or something, because I cannot imagine that there's any way that Siskel couldn't have responded to it in some way or another if he had caught on to it, nor would he have been able to hide his response to it from registering very visibly on his face when he first understood what Ebert had just said... But, then again, he had just said the thing about the three scenes a very short amount of time before Roger's review, and I kinda feel like there's no possible way that Gene couldn't have understood that that was a reference to what he had just said in his review...but, then again, Roger's impeccable, plausibly-deniable-as-unintentional delivery of the line might have threw him for a loop for a second there, too, on the other hand. Hell, he might have even been in a slight state of shock, incredulously not believing to have heard what he is pretty sure that he thinks he actually had just heard Roger say.....I fucking love you Roger-that right there is a prime example of why you is my boy. My guy never swings and misses on any opportunity to more than slightly dickishly mock Gene, usually through his very subtle use of language. Like, I kind of feel like Roger's motive here was to see if he could say something mocking of Gene right to Gene's face and not even have him realize it, all for his own personal amusement. Cuz my boy is definitely kind of dick like that a lot of times, but...I find it to actually be super endearing. Ya know, usually he's right to be mocking Gene for whatever thing he is currently mocking him for, like he was in this very situation, and it's part of the reason why he's the fucking GOAT-he treats film like an artform, and if you're seriously critiquing any art, and if it elicits the strong emotional responses within you like it obviously is capable of doing within Ebert, well...even though I very rationally know that opinions on art are entirely subjective in nature, I know that I am very capable of (and I can't stress this next thing enough- knowing that it's completely irrational to feel such a way WHILE I am feeling such a way) feeling a touch of true disgust for someone if they were to happen to disagree with me on some opinion I have about, for intance, Frank Zappa or Pink Floyd. Like, them's possible fighting words in my book and I would for sure probably hold it against any person who could even just ever feel such a way, in a way that runs counter to one of my deepest held opinions, and also against anyone whoo would say such a thing to me, for whatever reason, for the entirety of the rest of that person's life...so, I get it. It's really just another indication of how seriously he takes his craft.
And that's not to say that I don't think that Gene takes his craft just as serious as Roger takes it. I think he does, for sure. I've seen him land many a hilarious quip at Roger's expense and I love him also for when he is rightly calling out Roger over some bullshit thing Roger said... I think film might actually be the only art form in which you HAVE to let yourself get emotionally invested in the aft in order to critique it properly, because there's no way to objectively experience watching film. Great films are great films precisely because they absolutely force their viewers to feel some feels while the viewer is taking it all in and experiencing it in real time....and these two cats seem to have understood that, down deep their bone, as as being the proper way to critique film. And that passion is going to overflow sometimes and it might get messy-I'm pretty sure that I've seen both of these guys, on multiple occasions, give the nastiest glares back at each other that I've ever witnessed any other humans give to one another-legit hatred and, even sometimes I swear, forrealz insanely murderous glares directed at each. Like, I'm pretty sure that either one of them was probable capable of murdering the other one if they thought that they could get away with it on a few heated debate occasions during their careers. I truly feel as though I've definitely read that in their eyes quite a few times anyway. But, again, that just portrays how passionate/honest they are concerning their love of the critique of film, in my eyes. Two GOATS.
***Shit, I just watched that part again and I guess that I just didn't hear Siskel chuckle the first time around because he for sure does... Woops.
"How can a movie have the nerve to be that bad and have only 3 good parts? I mean, that's really cheating.“
-Roger Ebert, comedic genius
What’s up with the sound?
Unfortunately, some of these old recording will have issues that can't be fixed.
Nearly all audio issues can be fixed.
Steve Martin was absolutely hilarious and great in All of me, but the movie itself isnt excellent as some of his others. It was good nothing of amazing
It's not Planes, Trains and Automobiles that's for sure. It's still quite good and funny though.
9:30 I feel like Siskel had a really wrong take on the movie here. I don't think Amadeus is a portrayal of the creative process since it's potrayal of the creative process is so clearly farcical. Mozart, as portrayed in the film, is an absurdly gifted genius, and he just hears whatever God plays to him in his head, according to Salieri. The point of the film is that there is precisely no process there, and this is literally the crux of Salieri's jealousy for Amadeus.
They reviewed the best picture and the worst picture in the same show lol
The only timepiece better than Amadeus is Barry Lyndon.
Fun fact: Mozart kept a diary of his farts
Definition of a bad movie when you make French toast look bad That scene with them eating was horrible
This audio is horribly tinny.
Why can't they blow this up to full screen?.... start out with the funky tv to display the brand and then pull out to give the full view. I like this channel, and click on these videos all the time ... but damn this format is kind of annoying.
The original assets are low resolution. When these were filmed, they were filmed at 480i. Most of the episodes were captured before broadband. So they are even a lower resolution. When you take something that's low resolution at blow it up, it gets super blurry and full of artifacts. Many of these videos are made bigger to fit the TV, not smaller. The TV is just wallpaper.
@@ThatOldTV I don't mind blurry ... People understand this stuff is low res older material ... I'd just like to not have to squint when I'm watching this stuff on the television. No big deal... just a minor criticism. Love all these old Siskel and Ebert reviews... keep it up.
This audio is useless
Mozart was not vulgar! This movie is a lie. Disgusting. (Play Händel - "I don't like him". What foolishness). Salieri was right - Mozart came from God, he was an angel in the form of a man, and he was in no was obscene or ridiculous. This film verges on blasphemy. And, his name was not "amadeus". The life of Mozart was wasted in this world of mediocre dilettantes, such as the ones who snuffed him out.