The Oscars?? We are going to judge a movie as to who wins a political, back stabbing award show? Listen, if there was a movie released the year this came out about slavery or some old and tired black plight against whitey that movie would have won. Whether you like or dislike a movie, ever judge it by what awards it wins...because the awards shows...all of them...are too political. YES...I think this movie sucks as well. Miss Foster was MUCH better in "One, two, three, four poke that pussy till its sore."
Felony Strutter In almost 90 years of Oscar history only one movie, that is based on slavery, has won best picture. I don't think you are a movie lover, just another racist who should be watching Alex Jones instead of Siskel & Ebert
Stefan Thapromisseur Oh you are right. Shirley Temple said Louie Mayer chased her around his office all the time. Hollywood hates white people except at Christmas and then they make lots lots of money from them. But they want to get rid of the merry Christmas part. Hahahaha lols. White people who invented everything should stop paying taxes. And take back our damn country. Or have a civil war.
Not a very good movie but it was still the best film of 1991. If you've seen films like goodfellas, full metal jacket, raging bull and apocalypse now beforehand, theres no way you could possibly think silence of the lambs is anything special, especially not deserving of an oscar
To dislike this film in particular is one thing. There's always subjectivity when it comes to liking or disliking anything. But for Siskel to say we shouldn't have films depicting violence towards women because we get enough of that in real-life is a disturbing opinion for a critic. The point of art is to not be constrained by the comfort levels of the masses.
And also to hold a mirror up to society. Gene was often rather uptight about certain things in films, like complaining that Aliens put the little girl in danger too much.
you hit it on the head. Disguise as a review is his intention to confuse fiction from reality and end up as a the option to eliminate violence in film as to eliminate violence itself. Political Correctness in the early stages we now see in full force ans stipidity
Wow, imagine calling The Silence of the Lambs "trashy" and saying it's a career lowlight for Jonathan Demme. Siskel had some bizarre reactions to some great films over the years.
@@massimocasella4201 🤣Do you think I actually meant that he's *literally* insane?? It's a figure of speech. I don't actually think he's insane. You took that way, *way* too seriously.
+texbear21 To be honest, I've never liked Anthony Hopkins' performance as Lector. I always found it to be over the top, and not terribly believable. I prefer Brian Cox's portrayal of Lector in Manhunter. Cox portrays the alternating sense friendliness and menace in the manner that actual serial killers tend to.
+Bill Mason Film is subjective, but I truly believe that had SOTL, came out before Manhunter, the fan reaction wouldn't defend Cox's portrayal as much as it "somewhat" has today in terms of Silence of the Lambs. I really enjoy Manhunter, and while it in many ways a better film than Red Dragon, Hannibal (As a screen villain) is far better realized/utilized in the Silence of the Lambs film.
+deraj nitram I saw SOTL roughly a decade before I saw Manhunter. So I'm not biased by the fact that Manhunter was released first. Perhaps you're correct that some people who saw Manhunter first may view Cox's portrayal as the "original" and thus be prejudiced against Hopkins' portrayal, but my criticism of Hopkin's wasn't similarly influenced. I simply wasn't convinced by Hopkins' portrayal of Lector when I saw SOTL during it's initial theatrical run, long before I even know Manhunter existed.
+deraj nitram totally agree and well said. Brian Cox was great, but nothing compared to Hopkins. I also admire Hopkins because he took a big risk going all out and could have easily crossed into affected and camp. I have to say, however, as much as I love Hopkins as Hannibal, and was skeptical of the pick to play Hannibal in the TV series, Mads Mikkelson is by far my FAVORITE Hannibal of the three. He OWNED it, striking the perfect balance between Hopkins's over-the-top Hannibal with Cox's understated one.
Blue Velvet is one seriously overrated, overhyped movie that makes a helluva impression when you're 19-23, but fails when you see it as an actual adult. The whole scene w/ Hopper tweaking out at Rosselini's pussy is sick, twisted and irredeemable in quality.
"Why can't you criticize it on its own terms?" Roger Ebert, bless your soul. I try an tell that to so many people nowadays. You and Siskel truly exemplify how to watch film.
@@HG-ow9jn Yeah, Ebert's rebuttals here don't really pass the muster even if you agree with him on the movie. Ebert compared movies ALL the time, exactly in the same way that Gene compared SotL to Henry.
I also do not think that it was any coincidence that this was around the time that people stopped listening to what these guys said, and people openly started admitting how out-of-touch reviewers were, in-general, with what people really enjoyed and wanted to see in films.
Dr.Sir Bruce Armstrong Mother Fucker The Third The Silence of the Lambs is undeniably great. Anyone who says otherwise was probably dropped on their head as a kid.
@@kettlepower48 He means more in terms of common public perception he was way off. He assumed it would be remembered as trashy but now it is seen as prestigious.
Amazing how Ebert so totally nailed the film (and perfectly encapsulates the manner in which it will be/is remembered). Siskel's so focused on it as a 'horror movie' that that he simply misses the brilliant acting, directing and excellent screenplay that elevate the movie to near-greatness.
the whole point of the movie is to be dark and disturbing... the fact that you found it "distasteful" and "lacking in redemptive qualities" is proof that the movie did it's job... it wasn't a movie that followed the status quo, with happy endings and black and white themes... it created it's own genre, and blurred the lines between "good" and "evil". i loved this movie.
I also like the movie, but I think the point Siskel was making is that making a movie for the purpose of being dark and disturbing is not, in and of itself, a legitimate basis for creating a work of art. Something should be illuminated or fleshed out (so to speak) as those moods are created, and not simply for the sake of them.
@@adamcortright3445 It was fleshed out. Starling's development as a trainee into an agent and also the juxtaposition and dynamic between her and Lecter and their "relationship" is that very thing. The story forced her to run a gauntlet of emotions, insights and self doubt before emerging a little wiser and more experienced but still with some naivety left for her to grow out of.
@@adamcortright3445 good point. Siskel LOVED films that were way more disturbing than Silence of the Lambs (like a Clockwork Orange, for example) and yet Ebert thought the movie was too disgusting.
but I agree that Henry is a better film on the same subject. Henry I watched once and could barely stand it, yet I can tell you nearly everything about it. I liked Silence and have seen it twice, but it was entertainment, and good entertainment. I enjoyed watching it and would recommend it to someone in their teens or twenties or maybe thirties. And Ebert was right---its a movie. That is where Siskel is wrong--he is looking for art house films for a sophisticated audience, and that is not what this film is, and it never tried to be it.
Siskel is so cocky here. How he says to Roger that "You`re easy, but as for me..." He is in effect saying that he is so much smarter. "You got fooled, but I was too smart to be fooled".
I bet Siskel felt pretty shitty on Oscar night that year, when Silence Of The Lambs won the Big Five Academy Awards: Best Picture, Best Director (Demme), Best Actor (Hopkins), Best Actress (Foster), and Best Adapted Screenplay (Ted Tally).
probably not. Forest fucking gump beat pulp fiction for best picture.....pretty sure those guys knew the academy awards were nothing more than a popularity contest.
doublestrokeroll And not even a popularity contest in terms of all of us, like general popularity, but the Academy is basically a private club who gets to decide depending on who's more popular with THEM.
Siskel has an aversion to violence in film and I think that clouds his critique to be bias against them. If you watch his review of Pulp Fiction, he has to mention THREE TIMES at least about the violence in it that will put off a lot of viewers. Whereas Ebert is more focused on the storylines, characters and dialogue as the driving force in Pulp Fiction and that's really where it's at with film. The violence is part of the story yes, but not in a way that it is the only aspect, as Siskel tends to subconsciously imply, especially in this review of Lambs.
The more of these I watch, it becomes clear: Siskel looks for things to hate about a movie; Ebert looks for things to like. And we always find what we look for.
@@bagman817 For sure, Ebert was way off the mark sometimes. I think he hated Shawshank. But I find his commentary much more relatable than Cynical Siskel's. Siskel was just so grumpy.
@@papigringo5692 Nah, I just watched their review of Shawshank. They both liked it. You're right, though, Ebert was way off base on a few - but I can't remember which ones right now.
He uses the phrase "standard monster in the house movie" to describe what is regarded to this day as one of the most effectively tense and suspenseful scenes of all time.
Of course it's trash. Did you think it was an art piece? If Gene wanted to be vicious about it, he would have called it garbage. There is a difference; trash can be fun. Garbage is just garbage.
I think Gene is wrong about Silence here, but he's spot-on about Henry. That film shows you what real serial killers are like: not suave and sophisticated and brilliant like Hannibal Lecter, but pretty much dull-normal, unimaginative weirdos, loners and losers beset by the miseries of their obsessions and psychoses. In most cases (in a previous time, that is), serial killers got away with their crimes not because they were more brilliant than the police, but because the technology didn't exist then that exists now and because law enforcement didn't really understand the psychology of serial killers. Different states and jurisdictions do a better job of communicating with each other now because of that technology.
Thousands of homicides continue to go unsolved yearly. Technology might improve, but the sentient mind can still out-think it, if it adopts hyper-unorthodox thinking. Not to mention that, with the new feudalism that has been developing in the 21st century, how much easier is it for the rich and powerful killers to get away with stuff by simply barring investigation into their actions? Dr. Robert D. Hare has done a lot of work on this subject, actually, involving the alternate "career paths" that the surprisingly large number of psychopaths in our society take, as opposed to simply crime, murder or otherwise.
@@VampireYoshi As one of the guys in "Scared Straight" pointed out, "The police can make a thousand mistakes. _You_ can only make _one_ mistake, and you're done." No matter how smart a serial killer may believe he is, he's still human. And humans slip up. There's no way to "out-think" your own humanity. Also, if you're a serial killer it's you vs. the world. They live miserable lives because they can never rest. They're constantly afraid that the police might come knocking at their door any minute. Constantly second-guessing themselves as to whether they might have left something at their latest murder scene that's going to incriminate them. You don't hear much about serial killers on the loose anymore, in this year of 2020. There's a reason for that.
I think he would have liked it, actually. He was not against violence when it had a point (as in his defense of Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer). I also think American Psycho's point -- the soullessness and pointless greed of the 80s -- was rather close to his own sentiments, so I think that although the violence might have made him wince, he would have appreciated the movie's use of it to further its metaphor.
I would suppose he was interviewed about that, perhaps as part of a S&E episode. I would like to hear his comments and those of Ebert reprised on the subject.
Nope, but the majority wasn't wrong in this case. Lest you're telling me Silence Of The Lambs wasn't a movie worthy of the accolades. Are you going to do that? If not, then shut yer YAAAP-PER!!!!1
@Red Agreed. I've been an avid horror fan for over 20 years and "Henry" is the only film that stuck with me. Lambs feels like a movie, but Henry feels like a documentary. The home invasion scene alone is more brutal in my opinion than anything we actually see done to a woman in Lambs.
@Red Well, I think that's his point. He wants violence to be realistic and ugly and have consequences. In Silence, it's entertainment. Hannibal is fun... he got several sequels, a TV show, and even an origin story. He's a boogeyman like Freddy the child molester. In Henry, there seems to be a real effort to show how ugly and awful and soulless this sort of person really is.
Siskel and Ebert often differed in opinion - I wonder how much of this had been discussed and set up beforehand. After all this is a show. Siskel had his points, but he was way too harsh. The acting was awesome throughout, the entire movie was very intense and convincing, even with many over the top moments. As Ebert pointed out: the dialog is on a very intelligent level, like the "X-ray" Hannibal does of Starling just by looking at her outfit, analyzing the accent and smelling her cheap perfume - and the "quid pro quo" exchanges. Howard Shore's score with rather unusual woodwind textures works perfectly. Sure, the story isn't all that great, but I remember seeing it at age 29 (not an age where one is easily impressed anymore) when it was released and I loved it. Movies - for me - are mainly about the audiovisuals and the emotions they trigger. I don't care too much about backstories or cumbersome explanations through lame exposition or even lamer narration, in movies, especially when the visuals are overwhelming. Kubrick and Hitchcock definitely would agree with me. There's an old invention called "books" which do that analysis and explanation part so much better.
Respectfully, he didn’t miss. He nailed it by expressing his honest opinion. Movies aren’t one thing to all people. I don’t think he’s wrong for disliking it, even if I might be surprised by his take. That’s the beauty of the show. 😀
Every review of a dark/gruesome movie I've seen siskel do he's slandered and called a menace to society. Wasn't very open minded. I can't believe he liked Henry: Portrait!
I truly think Siskel was blinded by how much he loved Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. Like most people, I haven't seen it. I am definitely going to watch it now. It must be excellent!
What is Siskel smoking?? Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer is 'LESS exploitative than Silence of the Lambs??? Henry usually makes most 'Most Disturbing mainstream movies' lists. Anthony Hopkins wasn't acting good? Holy smokes. Give this man a smack upside the back of the head!!
"I think for the first time in his career has picked a surprisingly trashy project" Yeah, why didn't he stick with classy projects like his directorial debut Caged Heat?
one of my favorite films. i think Buffalo Bill in this movie is the only person in any film that has ever genuinely scared me. i can see him as a real person that could be out there somewhere, blending right in and going unnoticed.
I always loved watching these guys give their reviews. They sometimes surprise you with their criticisms, based on what they went into the movie expecting. I really enjoyed this flick.
Man Gene was waaay off! This is one of the greatest films ever. I wonder what he thought when he saw what reaction the movie would get. (The oscars,high praise,ect)
I understand Siskel's point, but I do think it's unnecessarily dismissive. He makes it seem like it's some sort of hokey, poorly done film. It's meant to make an impression on all audiences, not just refined critics. It's a great movie and it's a dark movie, genuinely good/great dark films are too far and few between to react the way he is. He's like critiquing it in a vacuum or something haha, perfection doesn't really exist man!
Siskel is the only guy who can trash on Silence and be truly respected for it cause he understands cinema better than most of us.RIP to both these giants
I grew up watching these two gentlemen, and loving this show, and I can clearly remember hanging on their every word when they reviewed movies. It always seemed to me that Roger's taste in movies was closets to mine, but I respected and loved their banter. However, this is an excellent example of why we shouldn't take opinions of critics, or others in general, too seriously. This is perhaps one of the 100 best films ever produced and it completely went over this man's head, and then he told his thousands, if not millions of readers/viewers to "skip it". Go and experience things for yourself and YOU be your own judge.
Not only was this one of my favorite films of all time it went on to win ALL the major academy awards for the year. Actor and actress. Director. Adapted screen play. Movie. Also it was released at the beginning of the year where most films are forgotten when nominations are announced later in the year. Go to show you that even great film critics can be wrong. It’s all a matter of taste.
Well which is it? Is he wrong, or is it a matter of taste? I’ll take the latter. Also, think of Oscar-winning movies that you dislike. I’ll bet there are a few. Doesn’t make you wrong, though.
I don't think Siskel was wrong about Hopkins being hammy and overdone in this film. Hopkins himself said he based Hannibal's delivery of the lines on HAL 9000 from 2001.
Hopkins' performance needed to be larger than life to really make an impression. Lots of people love Manhunter, but the film was a box office dud and most people didn't remember anything about it. Cox as Hannibal just wasn't memorable or unique enough to leave an impression with most people. Hopkins turned the character into something bizarre and genuinely memorable and something that could become a part of popular culture, not just applauded as a decent, standard performance that people expect.
I love watching these years later as these films have matured and our tastes have changed. This became one of the most acclaimed films of the decade and to hear Gene Siskel say that "Last year's Henry:Portrait of a Serial Killer" was a better film made me laugh out loud! In looking through these reviews, Roger seems to be more open minded to having his senses appalled in the theater where Gene reacts viscerally when he's upset or grossed out...the same reaction made him pan Taxi Driver and other violent films that became classics. He also reacted negatively to Full Metal Jacket where Ebert was totally absorbed into Kubrick's vision of Vietnam. Of the two, I think Ebert is the better reviewer if predicting how the public will see these films in the long term is the yardstick.
The Silence of the Lambs is regularly cited by critics, film directors, and audiences as one of the greatest and most influential films. In 2018, Empire ranked it 48th on their list of the 500 greatest movies of all time. The American Film Institute ranked it the fifth-greatest and most influential thriller film, while Starling and Lecter were ranked among the greatest film heroines and villains. The film is considered "culturally, historically, or aesthetically" significant by the U.S. Library of Congress and was selected for preservation in the National Film Registry in 2011.
Wow Siskel stating Demme directing this was his first miss step, and wins the Oscar for it, it s incredible. And the film is so absorbing and good thriller. Siskel was having a bad week…
as usual.. it seems that Siskel has watched a different film than myself...he tends to view films from a visceral perspective on their value to project the hero virtues...but as the Greeks new well a realistic portray of life also has the dark side in view...
Anthony Hopkins gave one of the single greatest performances of all time in Silence of the Lambs. He won an Oscar for 15 minutes of screen time if that. Absolutely chilling.
What I find interesting about this is that neither of these two critics go about saying that the other person's point of view is necessarily wrong, because both make good points. However, I do prefer Ebert's point of view because he goes into why he thinks it's flawed, while also going over what it does right. Siskel just goes on about how much he doesn't like the film. Maybe he was in the wrong mindset while watching it.
HA! ebert trashed DIE HARD and AMERICAN HISTORY X and siskel trashes this??? goes to show ya who to listen to -- yourself! love these two but boy did they miss some real winners. RIP boys.
clinroatan that's definitely true but for instance I saw their review of jurassic park and ebert trashed the characters and went on and on - I think they make the mistake of thinking all films are trying to be oscar winners. jurassic park was an absolute spectacle, one of the most memorable and joyous experience watching that in theaters. it wasn't trying to be schindler's list and I think ebert in his pretense misses the point of the filmmakers sometimes, even when their intentions are obvious.
I respect what Gene Siskel had to say about “Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer”, but it’s unfair to compare it with “The Silence of the Lambs.” They’re two very different films in spite of the similar subject matter.
So it must have sucked for Gene when this movie took home the Best Picture, Best Actor and Best Actress Oscars. Not that the Oscars are flawless, but his review is so ridiculously scathing that it suggests he entered the theater with a closed mind.
Wookieebacon your so right, not only did it take those highly acclaimed and coveted awards, best picture, actor and actress, it also took best director and screenplay too. One of only three movies in history to ever accomplish such lofty distinguishment.
GREAT MOVIES THAT SISKEL TRASHED: * Silence of the Lambs * Aliens * Blade Runner *The Big Lebowski GREAT MOVIES THAT EBERT TRASHED: * Full Metal Jacket * A Clockwork Orange * Die Hard * The Usual Suspects
+tvmattkc the theatrical cut of blade runner was very mediocre with an annoying voice-over and a happy ending, even roger gave it just a 3 stars review at that time, the director's cut was released in the 90s
Very interesting. I agreed with both critics that the ending scenes with Buffalo Bill and Foster chasing in the house did run out of steam a bit, but it's such a small fraction of the film. And I do distinctly recall being on the edge of my seat during those scenes the FIRST time I saw it, so I can give it some benefit of the doubt there. But overall this film is just fantastic, and is one of the textbook examples of a near-perfect screenplay. The writing in this film is so strong that makes it one of those films you can retune to time and time again and pick up something you didn't notice before, which is so hard to do, but they make it look so easy here. Siskel completely missed the mark here.
Well, Roger's panned one Best Picture Oscar winner (Gladiator). This is probably Gene's only negative review to a Best Picture winner. I guess audiences and the Academy were "too easy".
A famous Siskel Thumbs Down of a Best Picture winner....He would make it 2 for 2 when the next year he gave Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven a Thumbs Down as well...He was wrong on both of them...
+Cinema Insiders The best part is that those are often considered to be two of the Best Picture winners that are worth watching on their own merits, as opposed to stuff like The English Patient that faded from memory quickly.Anyway, I'm definitely agreeing with Roger on this one. Only real caveat is that I wouldn't say this is one of my favorite movies. Otherwise there isn't a whole lot to complain about. Sometimes I think that maybe the film was a bit bland outside of the villains being so psychotic.
DaRunningMan: He's allowed to dislike the film, but I think he was objectively wrong to question why these actors wanted to be involved with it. That itself shows a lack of respect for the opinions of others. Also, he says movies shouldn't "trifle with" violence against women, an incredibly unfair stance to take as a movie critic. What is the film director supposed to do with this story if Gene Siskel is uncomfortable with women being hurt? It seems like he feels that this movie should never have been made, a pretty lousy opinion considering how many people enjoyed it.
They're given cheap nicknames because the press, of which Siskel was card-carrying member, were the ones giving the nicknames within the very narrative. There are only so many Zodiacs out there to tell the press what to say and think about them.
Siskel's wrong about it being bad, but he's right that it didn't give much insight into actual serial killers. Hannibal is basically a cartoon character, not that there's anything wrong with it. Also, his comparison to Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer was apt, since that was based on real serial killers. Where Siskel goes wrong is that the point of the movie wasn't to be realistic but to be impressionistic, and arguably it's not even a movie about serial killers. Most movies aren't realistic and most audience members prefer movie magic rather than documentaries.
+mightisright I do kinda think the film would have been bland without the memorable villains...but the villains are very memorable so there.Yeah I wonder what Siskel thought about this film winning 5 Oscars including Best Picture.
Henry is more of a character study. That was a film that was determined to illustrate the inner workings of a serial killer. Silence is more of a thriller.
I loved Silence when it came out and the book is brilliantly written, but Gene’s criticisms are valid. Hopkins was overplaying Lecter in retrospect, almost catroonishly so, and only pulls it off because he makes him just likeable enough to get away it. Foster is OK. In retropect, I think it was a good film overhyped into a great film in a year of many mediocre films. Did it deserve Best Picture? Well, half the films that win that award don’t deserve. Forrest Gump? Dances with Wolves? The English Patient? Shakespeare in Love? Braveheart? Shit, half the films of the 90s didn’t deserve it.
You make a good observation. I have no real idea what a real serial killer might be like, but "Silence" sold me on the idea that Hannibal Lector COULD exist and be a real terror and horror. This was so far beyond my experience in the world that it came down to whether I found the presentation credible. I did. Perhaps I am foolish and naive for doing so. Another example of that phenomena was "In Cold Blood." Again I bought the idea of understanding how real horror could be created. Generally I don't like horror stories. I don't enjoy being frightened, especially by gimmicks.
@@SeattlePioneer Thanks! I love getting responses to old comments and seeing what I said. LOL. Still hold to what I said here, but agree with you 100-percent - and do think the film was brilliantly adapted as well. It is not necessarily as transcendent as, say, The Godfather films, but it works, and is beyond frightening. Plus Buffalo Bill was pretty accurate (based on many real very twisted serial killers), using Ted Bundy's MO to lure women into his van (the poor helpless dude with a broken arm - boohoo). I still rate the film highly - just not as highly as when I first saw it. Plus, without Hopkins's Lecter, we would have never had Lloyd Christmas imitating him in Dumb & Dumber - "I'd like to eat her liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti..."
I'm with Gene on this one. Not that it was a bad movie, no. It's just that the glowing reviews on the papers raised my expectations too high and it didn't quite turn out to be as scary as I hoped it would be. Good that it won the Oscars, but Boyz In the Hood should have been selected.
It was Siskel & Eberts praise and endorsement of "Henry; Portrait of a Serial Killer" where I stopped taking them seriously. I thought it was awful: soft porn for people who murder. It's amusing to see this review of "Silence" 25 years after since it's become an American classic. I'd love to hear Siskel's review of it now. Judgments take time to develop and sometimes first impressions are muddled.
I don't recall any organ being used. Is he referring to the music played as Clarice walks down the hallway towards Lecter's cell during her first visit? Other than that, if I'm not mistaken, the scenes with Lecter, in general, play out sans music. Lecter's escape scene is an exception, but only in parts of it.
To quote gene siskel himself “you know when you say you missed the boat on this one, you missed the harbour” Gene must’ve been kicking himself in the foot when he realised this film won best picture This film is a Masterpiece. Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster absolutely Rock their respective roles that they’re playing And Roger got it absolutely correct the only thing I can contest him on the ending because I thought it was satisfying
I appreciate the care S&E put into reviews, though each has a few glaring misses: Gene: Thumbs down on The Silence of the Lambs, Aliens, & Lethal Weapon 2 Roger: Thumbs down on Die Hard, A Few Good Men, & Coming to America
Nah. Though I don’t quite agree with Gene on this one, I respect him for giving his honest opinion here. And Roger had plenty of takes that I couldn’t understand.
Siskel had the one thing that most Americans lack - education. He was so right about this movie. It sucked so bad that I and my friend walked out on it.
@@Lorieellesh Totally agree! One of the most overrated movies all times combined! Many other thrillers/crime movies, even older, are way far better than THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS!
Siskel calling Hopkin's and Foster's performances just ok lol. The acting in this movie is off the charts. No one ever mentions the chemistry between them either. It's one the best and most interesting in cinema history. Ebert nailed it 👍
Fascinating! I’ve seen SotL so many times. It’s hypnotizing! Hopkins is mesmerizing, Foster gives several compelling emotions. Plus the pacing and the mood and the dialogue are all well considered and excellent. SotL is indeed a mystery but I came away thinking that demons continue to haunt us, and dangerous predators lurk and hunt us from unexpected places. I always appreciate Siskel’s perspectives. His view here is one I’d not heard about this movie. Great clip!
I'm convinced that Siskel was abused by a good movie as a child.
+Jayson Ducharme ha ha ha...TRUE!
I was eating dinner and read this comment and almost choked. So thanks. :P
Patrick Brownson were you eating live father beans and a nice Canty lol XD
I hear Hopkins approached Siskel with with his Oscar afterwards saying 'That's what you get for overplaying'! Might even be true.
Strangely enough he gave "She's All That" a positive review.
Damn. Gene Siskel must have been very unhappy on Oscar night.
Ebert was the opposite end, sympathizing way too much with fictional women.
The Oscars?? We are going to judge a movie as to who wins a political, back stabbing award show? Listen, if there was a movie released the year this came out about slavery or some old and tired black plight against whitey that movie would have won. Whether you like or dislike a movie, ever judge it by what awards it wins...because the awards shows...all of them...are too political. YES...I think this movie sucks as well. Miss Foster was MUCH better in "One, two, three, four poke that pussy till its sore."
Felony Strutter In almost 90 years of Oscar history only one movie, that is based on slavery, has won best picture. I don't think you are a movie lover, just another racist who should be watching Alex Jones instead of Siskel & Ebert
Stefan Thapromisseur Oh you are right. Shirley Temple said Louie Mayer chased her around his office all the time. Hollywood hates white people except at Christmas and then they make lots lots of money from them. But they want to get rid of the merry Christmas part. Hahahaha lols. White people who invented everything should stop paying taxes. And take back our damn country. Or have a civil war.
Not a very good movie but it was still the best film of 1991. If you've seen films like goodfellas, full metal jacket, raging bull and apocalypse now beforehand, theres no way you could possibly think silence of the lambs is anything special, especially not deserving of an oscar
I loved hearing Roger say, "Gene, THIS IS THE MOVIES! What did you want? A documentary?"
Gene always wanted a purpose when watching movies. Roger always approached movies as entertainment from the audience perspective
To dislike this film in particular is one thing. There's always subjectivity when it comes to liking or disliking anything. But for Siskel to say we shouldn't have films depicting violence towards women because we get enough of that in real-life is a disturbing opinion for a critic. The point of art is to not be constrained by the comfort levels of the masses.
FreedInsanity good comment^^
you have a good point.
And also to hold a mirror up to society. Gene was often rather uptight about certain things in films, like complaining that Aliens put the little girl in danger too much.
you hit it on the head. Disguise as a review is his intention to confuse fiction from reality and end up as a the option to eliminate violence in film as to eliminate violence itself. Political Correctness in the early stages we now see in full force ans stipidity
This comment deserves a pin I’m just saying
Siskel needs to rub the lotion on his body, or he gets the hose.
Give him the hose anyway haha, stick it up his ass and turn it on full blast lol
Damn right
Ben Dover YOU ARE SO RIGHT!
lol!
Hahahaha
Wow, imagine calling The Silence of the Lambs "trashy" and saying it's a career lowlight for Jonathan Demme. Siskel had some bizarre reactions to some great films over the years.
This guy is insane. This is literally one of the greatest films ever made.
The Film Isn't Terrible But It Is Overrated
@@zzevonplant shut up Retard Narcissist. Having a different view doesn't make someone insane.
@@massimocasella4201 🤣Do you think I actually meant that he's *literally* insane?? It's a figure of speech. I don't actually think he's insane. You took that way, *way* too seriously.
I swear he was just being a contrarian
Even when I disagree with Siskel, I can usually see where he's coming from and respect his criticisms. This one I totally don't get.
I was going to write the exact same thing.
@John Smith I know.
Why is he comparing it to a horror doc? It’s a thriller/adventure movie
Looking back at his older reviews, I think gene siskel was not fond of violence on screen
How many Academy Awards?
ebert always seemed to understand that movies were made for the general public rather than critics.
I seem to recall that the general public *adored* this film and still does, if all the subsequent supplementary material is anything to go by.
@@arbitrarychannelyeah and ebert liked the film…
Siskel was unfair about the performances in this movie. Foster and Hopkins acting was brilliant,.
+VoiD1x Especially Anthony Hopkins----------- brilliant performance.
+texbear21 To be honest, I've never liked Anthony Hopkins' performance as Lector. I always found it to be over the top, and not terribly believable. I prefer Brian Cox's portrayal of Lector in Manhunter. Cox portrays the alternating sense friendliness and menace in the manner that actual serial killers tend to.
+Bill Mason Film is subjective, but I truly believe that had SOTL, came out before Manhunter, the fan reaction wouldn't defend Cox's portrayal as much as it "somewhat" has today in terms of Silence of the Lambs. I really enjoy Manhunter, and while it in many ways a better film than Red Dragon, Hannibal (As a screen villain) is far better realized/utilized in the Silence of the Lambs film.
+deraj nitram I saw SOTL roughly a decade before I saw Manhunter. So I'm not biased by the fact that Manhunter was released first. Perhaps you're correct that some people who saw Manhunter first may view Cox's portrayal as the "original" and thus be prejudiced against Hopkins' portrayal, but my criticism of Hopkin's wasn't similarly influenced. I simply wasn't convinced by Hopkins' portrayal of Lector when I saw SOTL during it's initial theatrical run, long before I even know Manhunter existed.
+deraj nitram totally agree and well said. Brian Cox was great, but nothing compared to Hopkins. I also admire Hopkins because he took a big risk going all out and could have easily crossed into affected and camp. I have to say, however, as much as I love Hopkins as Hannibal, and was skeptical of the pick to play Hannibal in the TV series, Mads Mikkelson is by far my FAVORITE Hannibal of the three. He OWNED it, striking the perfect balance between Hopkins's over-the-top Hannibal with Cox's understated one.
It's funny that Siskel hated this but defended Blue Velvet, which Ebert disagreed with for the same reasons Siskel gives here.
thank you, Ebert was dead right on this film and silence of the lambs kicked ass
Blue Velvet is one seriously overrated, overhyped movie that makes a helluva impression when you're 19-23, but fails when you see it as an actual adult. The whole scene w/ Hopper tweaking out at Rosselini's pussy is sick, twisted and irredeemable in quality.
It's a skillfully made film. I think it's on a similar level to Mulholland Drive, maybe a little worse.
Jeff Travis Don't generalize the fact that you became soft and your tastes got shittier to some principle for everyone else.
I like both films but BV is far superior. Best film of the 80s.
“Way over played” he said about one of the most lauded and respected acting performances of all time...
Both of these guys sometimes ended up on the wrong side of history, and Gene sure did with this one.
@@leczorn In one episode, Roger praised The Dead Pool and slammed Die Hard. Talk about blowing it !
Why ? because Satanic Hollywood said so? It is a great movie, and that's all.
Gene Siskel must've blown a gasket when Silence of the Lambs took home best picture, actor, actress, director and adapted screenplay.
He said after the oscars he thought he could be wrong, rewatched it... decided he still hated it. 🤷♂️
"Why can't you criticize it on its own terms?"
Roger Ebert, bless your soul. I try an tell that to so many people nowadays. You and Siskel truly exemplify how to watch film.
Except Roger also tended to ignore that statement.
Keep in mind that Ebert Thumbed down Full Metal Jacket for the SOLE reason that it wasn't as good as Kubrick's other films.
@@HG-ow9jn Yeah, Ebert's rebuttals here don't really pass the muster even if you agree with him on the movie. Ebert compared movies ALL the time, exactly in the same way that Gene compared SotL to Henry.
Silence of the Lambs is a masterpiece! By far Jonathon Demme's best movie
I also do not think that it was any coincidence that this was around the time that people stopped listening to what these guys said, and people openly started admitting how out-of-touch reviewers were, in-general, with what people really enjoyed and wanted to see in films.
So true
Dr.Sir Bruce Armstrong Mother Fucker The Third The Silence of the Lambs is undeniably great. Anyone who says otherwise was probably
dropped on their head as a kid.
@@HugoSoup57 Many other thrillers/crime movies, even older than this one, are way far better!
I love this movie but I think his best was Philadelphia
Wow, Siskel missed this one by a mile.
bman342a it is not darts. It is an opinion.
@@kettlepower48 He still was a douche.
@@kettlepower48 He means more in terms of common public perception he was way off. He assumed it would be remembered as trashy but now it is seen as prestigious.
bman342a he was the only critic that gave it a bad review
He usually missed most good movies by a mile.
The Silence of the Lambs is an absolute masterpiece and the peak of it's genre even it's title is awesome.
Amazing how Ebert so totally nailed the film (and perfectly encapsulates the manner in which it will be/is remembered). Siskel's so focused on it as a 'horror movie' that that he simply misses the brilliant acting, directing and excellent screenplay that elevate the movie to near-greatness.
the whole point of the movie is to be dark and disturbing... the fact that you found it "distasteful" and "lacking in redemptive qualities" is proof that the movie did it's job... it wasn't a movie that followed the status quo, with happy endings and black and white themes... it created it's own genre, and blurred the lines between "good" and "evil". i loved this movie.
+yurtpoh
It's my second favorite film of all time behind The Empire Strikes Back.
yurtpoh agreed, its obvious siskel and ebert couldn't see(or hear) talent if it stepped on their feet, yelled "IM TALENT" and than punched them.
I also like the movie, but I think the point Siskel was making is that making a movie for the purpose of being dark and disturbing is not, in and of itself, a legitimate basis for creating a work of art. Something should be illuminated or fleshed out (so to speak) as those moods are created, and not simply for the sake of them.
@@adamcortright3445 It was fleshed out. Starling's development as a trainee into an agent and also the juxtaposition and dynamic between her and Lecter and their "relationship" is that very thing. The story forced her to run a gauntlet of emotions, insights and self doubt before emerging a little wiser and more experienced but still with some naivety left for her to grow out of.
@@adamcortright3445 good point. Siskel LOVED films that were way more disturbing than Silence of the Lambs (like a Clockwork Orange, for example) and yet Ebert thought the movie was too disgusting.
And the Oscars go to.....
Titanic
@@nikosvault 🤣
@OP: I was about to write that, lol. I LOVED this film, so to see it become only the 3rd in history to win the top 5 was amazing!😍
Siskel never really understood movies, it seemed to me.
Whoaaaaaa! Siskel is WAY off here. Nothing new but still, holy crap
SNES Drunk Siskel is usually wrong but he is right on this movie . This has to be one of the most overrated movies ever
but I agree that Henry is a better film on the same subject. Henry I watched once and could barely stand it, yet I can tell you nearly everything about it. I liked Silence and have seen it twice, but it was entertainment, and good entertainment. I enjoyed watching it and would recommend it to someone in their teens or twenties or maybe thirties. And Ebert was right---its a movie. That is where Siskel is wrong--he is looking for art house films for a sophisticated audience, and that is not what this film is, and it never tried to be it.
@@christiansoldier77 Totally agree!
You’re everywhere, bro.
Hey it's you! I know you from The RUclipss!
Siskel is so cocky here. How he says to Roger that "You`re easy, but as for me..." He is in effect saying that he is so much smarter. "You got fooled, but I was too smart to be fooled".
siskel was a dumb asshole with a worthless ignorant opinion.
I bet Siskel felt pretty shitty on Oscar night that year, when Silence Of The Lambs won the Big Five Academy Awards: Best Picture, Best Director (Demme), Best Actor (Hopkins), Best Actress (Foster), and Best Adapted Screenplay (Ted Tally).
probably not. Forest fucking gump beat pulp fiction for best picture.....pretty sure those guys knew the academy awards were nothing more than a popularity contest.
doublestrokeroll
And not even a popularity contest in terms of all of us, like general popularity, but the Academy is basically a private club who gets to decide depending on who's more popular with THEM.
doublestrokeroll
Of course Silence of the Lambs is much better than Forest Gump
Only the third film in history to win the "top 5"! Haters gonna hate, lol!
@@doublestrokeroll forest gump is better than pulp fiction tho.
i think siskel's reaction is a great reflection of how shocking and ahead of its time this film was to ppl who saw it in 1991.
I would say that, but he's comparing it to henry portrait of a serial killer, which was even more sleazy and disturbing
AwesomePhantomPig good point
+AwesomePhantomPig And also a much, much better film than this.
nobody's commenting on whether it was popular or not.
Siskel has an aversion to violence in film and I think that clouds his critique to be bias against them. If you watch his review of Pulp Fiction, he has to mention THREE TIMES at least about the violence in it that will put off a lot of viewers. Whereas Ebert is more focused on the storylines, characters and dialogue as the driving force in Pulp Fiction and that's really where it's at with film. The violence is part of the story yes, but not in a way that it is the only aspect, as Siskel tends to subconsciously imply, especially in this review of Lambs.
The more of these I watch, it becomes clear: Siskel looks for things to hate about a movie; Ebert looks for things to like. And we always find what we look for.
Meh, they've both had bad takes over the years (all critics have). Watch the hate Roger gives to Full Metal Jacket as an example.
@@bagman817 For sure, Ebert was way off the mark sometimes. I think he hated Shawshank. But I find his commentary much more relatable than Cynical Siskel's. Siskel was just so grumpy.
@@papigringo5692 Nah, I just watched their review of Shawshank. They both liked it. You're right, though, Ebert was way off base on a few - but I can't remember which ones right now.
@@jonahansen his review of the graduate is so wrong it hurts my brain
Siskel always wanted a purpose to watch a movie. Entertainment value became second to him. Ebert was the opposite
He uses the phrase "standard monster in the house movie" to describe what is regarded to this day as one of the most effectively tense and suspenseful scenes of all time.
I'm okay with Gene disliking the movie (even though I love it) but to call it a trashy project?!
Of course it's trash. Did you think it was an art piece? If Gene wanted to be vicious about it, he would have called it garbage. There is a difference; trash can be fun. Garbage is just garbage.
I think Gene is wrong about Silence here, but he's spot-on about Henry. That film shows you what real serial killers are like: not suave and sophisticated and brilliant like Hannibal Lecter, but pretty much dull-normal, unimaginative weirdos, loners and losers beset by the miseries of their obsessions and psychoses. In most cases (in a previous time, that is), serial killers got away with their crimes not because they were more brilliant than the police, but because the technology didn't exist then that exists now and because law enforcement didn't really understand the psychology of serial killers. Different states and jurisdictions do a better job of communicating with each other now because of that technology.
Thousands of homicides continue to go unsolved yearly. Technology might improve, but the sentient mind can still out-think it, if it adopts hyper-unorthodox thinking. Not to mention that, with the new feudalism that has been developing in the 21st century, how much easier is it for the rich and powerful killers to get away with stuff by simply barring investigation into their actions? Dr. Robert D. Hare has done a lot of work on this subject, actually, involving the alternate "career paths" that the surprisingly large number of psychopaths in our society take, as opposed to simply crime, murder or otherwise.
VampireYoshi No
@@VampireYoshi As one of the guys in "Scared Straight" pointed out, "The police can make a thousand mistakes. _You_ can only make _one_ mistake, and you're done." No matter how smart a serial killer may believe he is, he's still human. And humans slip up. There's no way to "out-think" your own humanity. Also, if you're a serial killer it's you vs. the world. They live miserable lives because they can never rest. They're constantly afraid that the police might come knocking at their door any minute. Constantly second-guessing themselves as to whether they might have left something at their latest murder scene that's going to incriminate them. You don't hear much about serial killers on the loose anymore, in this year of 2020. There's a reason for that.
Hannibal Lecter is not supposed to be a a plausible serial killer. He's a latter day take on Dracula.
@@ricardocantoral7672 Yes, I'm sure we're all aware of how fiction works. Thanks for replying and have a great day.
I wonder what Siskel would say about American Psycho lmao
I think he would have liked it, actually. He was not against violence when it had a point (as in his defense of Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer). I also think American Psycho's point -- the soullessness and pointless greed of the 80s -- was rather close to his own sentiments, so I think that although the violence might have made him wince, he would have appreciated the movie's use of it to further its metaphor.
I wonder how Gene felt at Oscar time. Oops.
Exactly...
Probably that his opinion mattered more and that the Academy was/is a joke.
Though I think here gene is blind to art, Oscars don't automatically trump all other opinions.
I would suppose he was interviewed about that, perhaps as part of a S&E episode. I would like to hear his comments and those of Ebert reprised on the subject.
Did Siskel ever like anything?? He probably was the 6 year old at Xmas opening gifts asking "What the hell is this?"
He may have also wondered, "Why are we celebrating Christmas?"
+Joseph Cleary good one I overlooked that he was Jewish lol. Perhaps a different analogy next time:)
Lol. The movie he calls a trashy project winds up taking the Oscar for Best Pic. Good call.
So when the majority like something that suddenly invalidates the opinion of someone that dislikes the same thing?
Nope, but the majority wasn't wrong in this case. Lest you're telling me Silence Of The Lambs wasn't a movie worthy of the accolades. Are you going to do that? If not, then shut yer YAAAP-PER!!!!1
It's his opinion. I don't get how he got to that opinion but he's a critic. He's telling it as he saw it.
Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, and Best Writing for Adapted Screenplay.
nonplayerzealot4 If The Exorcist can be called ‘claptrap’, then the SOL can be called a ‘trashy project’.
Siskel missed this one about as bad as a guy can miss.
"there are two kind of movies and you are using one to criticize the other", roger really had his moments
Nobody remembers "Henry: portait of a serial killer"
I do
Nobody forgets Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer
It got the dreaded "X" rating. Because that movie wasn't from a major studio, it was released unrated.
@Red Agreed. I've been an avid horror fan for over 20 years and "Henry" is the only film that stuck with me. Lambs feels like a movie, but Henry feels like a documentary. The home invasion scene alone is more brutal in my opinion than anything we actually see done to a woman in Lambs.
@Red Well, I think that's his point. He wants violence to be realistic and ugly and have consequences. In Silence, it's entertainment. Hannibal is fun... he got several sequels, a TV show, and even an origin story. He's a boogeyman like Freddy the child molester. In Henry, there seems to be a real effort to show how ugly and awful and soulless this sort of person really is.
Siskel must have been high during this clip. This was a fantastic film
Siskel and Ebert often differed in opinion - I wonder how much of this had been discussed and set up beforehand. After all this is a show. Siskel had his points, but he was way too harsh. The acting was awesome throughout, the entire movie was very intense and convincing, even with many over the top moments. As Ebert pointed out: the dialog is on a very intelligent level, like the "X-ray" Hannibal does of Starling just by looking at her outfit, analyzing the accent and smelling her cheap perfume - and the "quid pro quo" exchanges. Howard Shore's score with rather unusual woodwind textures works perfectly. Sure, the story isn't all that great, but I remember seeing it at age 29 (not an age where one is easily impressed anymore) when it was released and I loved it. Movies - for me - are mainly about the audiovisuals and the emotions they trigger. I don't care too much about backstories or cumbersome explanations through lame exposition or even lamer narration, in movies, especially when the visuals are overwhelming. Kubrick and Hitchcock definitely would agree with me. There's an old invention called "books" which do that analysis and explanation part so much better.
i love siskel but sometimes he sees movies from a long distance.Kinda like paraphrasing.Ebert is just better
do you think they were silenced by top of the line movie producers. because thats my theory i just want to know if anyone agreea with me
WOW! Hard to believe a pro like Siskel could be this far off on a movie. I guess everyone misses once in a while.
Respectfully, he didn’t miss. He nailed it by expressing his honest opinion. Movies aren’t one thing to all people. I don’t think he’s wrong for disliking it, even if I might be surprised by his take. That’s the beauty of the show. 😀
Every review of a dark/gruesome movie I've seen siskel do he's slandered and called a menace to society. Wasn't very open minded. I can't believe he liked Henry: Portrait!
Siskel has a point - but Ebert nailed it.
I truly think Siskel was blinded by how much he loved Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. Like most people, I haven't seen it. I am definitely going to watch it now. It must be excellent!
What did you think?
Arguably the best movie of the 90s, loved by fans & the industry.. these guys were clueless, but I miss them ~
Swing and a miss for Siskel on this one
plumlogan swing miss fly out of the ball park
Nolan Hewitt Strike homerun? No comprende
plumlogan i ment he is clumsy on the ball park and flys off with the bat or just lets go of the bat like in benchwarmers
Nolan Hewitt That makes sense ... and I agree
plumlogan the movie and book are both perfect
What is Siskel smoking?? Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer is 'LESS exploitative than Silence of the Lambs??? Henry usually makes most 'Most Disturbing mainstream movies' lists. Anthony Hopkins wasn't acting good? Holy smokes. Give this man a smack upside the back of the head!!
"I think for the first time in his career has picked a surprisingly trashy project"
Yeah, why didn't he stick with classy projects like his directorial debut Caged Heat?
Long live Roger Ebert. You are so greatly missed.
one of my favorite films. i think Buffalo Bill in this movie is the only person in any film that has ever genuinely scared me. i can see him as a real person that could be out there somewhere, blending right in and going unnoticed.
I always loved watching these guys give their reviews. They sometimes surprise you with their criticisms, based on what they went into the movie expecting. I really enjoyed this flick.
Man Gene was waaay off! This is one of the greatest films ever. I wonder what he thought when he saw what reaction the movie would get. (The oscars,high praise,ect)
"Trashy project" is what siskle describes as the winner of 5 oscars. What a good review!
I understand Siskel's point, but I do think it's unnecessarily dismissive. He makes it seem like it's some sort of hokey, poorly done film. It's meant to make an impression on all audiences, not just refined critics. It's a great movie and it's a dark movie, genuinely good/great dark films are too far and few between to react the way he is. He's like critiquing it in a vacuum or something haha, perfection doesn't really exist man!
Siskel is the only guy who can trash on Silence and be truly respected for it cause he understands cinema better than most of us.RIP to both these giants
I grew up watching these two gentlemen, and loving this show, and I can clearly remember hanging on their every word when they reviewed movies. It always seemed to me that Roger's taste in movies was closets to mine, but I respected and loved their banter. However, this is an excellent example of why we shouldn't take opinions of critics, or others in general, too seriously. This is perhaps one of the 100 best films ever produced and it completely went over this man's head, and then he told his thousands, if not millions of readers/viewers to "skip it". Go and experience things for yourself and YOU be your own judge.
Not only was this one of my favorite films of all time it went on to win ALL the major academy awards for the year. Actor and actress. Director. Adapted screen play. Movie. Also it was released at the beginning of the year where most films are forgotten when nominations are announced later in the year. Go to show you that even great film critics can be wrong. It’s all a matter of taste.
Well which is it? Is he wrong, or is it a matter of taste? I’ll take the latter. Also, think of Oscar-winning movies that you dislike. I’ll bet there are a few. Doesn’t make you wrong, though.
This movie was way ahead of its time. As far as psychological thrillers go, this one is very hard to beat.
I don't think Siskel was wrong about Hopkins being hammy and overdone in this film. Hopkins himself said he based Hannibal's delivery of the lines on HAL 9000 from 2001.
Hopkins' performance needed to be larger than life to really make an impression. Lots of people love Manhunter, but the film was a box office dud and most people didn't remember anything about it. Cox as Hannibal just wasn't memorable or unique enough to leave an impression with most people. Hopkins turned the character into something bizarre and genuinely memorable and something that could become a part of popular culture, not just applauded as a decent, standard performance that people expect.
I love watching these years later as these films have matured and our tastes have changed. This became one of the most acclaimed films of the decade and to hear Gene Siskel say that "Last year's Henry:Portrait of a Serial Killer" was a better film made me laugh out loud! In looking through these reviews, Roger seems to be more open minded to having his senses appalled in the theater where Gene reacts viscerally when he's upset or grossed out...the same reaction made him pan Taxi Driver and other violent films that became classics. He also reacted negatively to Full Metal Jacket where Ebert was totally absorbed into Kubrick's vision of Vietnam. Of the two, I think Ebert is the better reviewer if predicting how the public will see these films in the long term is the yardstick.
I love watching these guys bicker,
I agree more with Ebert but they both make good points
The Silence of the Lambs is regularly cited by critics, film directors, and audiences as one of the greatest and most influential films. In 2018, Empire ranked it 48th on their list of the 500 greatest movies of all time. The American Film Institute ranked it the fifth-greatest and most influential thriller film, while Starling and Lecter were ranked among the greatest film heroines and villains. The film is considered "culturally, historically, or aesthetically" significant by the U.S. Library of Congress and was selected for preservation in the National Film Registry in 2011.
I mean, that doesn't mean you can't have a different opinion.
Wow Siskel stating Demme directing this was his first miss step, and wins the Oscar for it, it s incredible. And the film is so absorbing and good thriller. Siskel was having a bad week…
as usual.. it seems that Siskel has watched a different film than myself...he tends to view films from a visceral perspective on their value to project the hero virtues...but as the Greeks new well a realistic portray of life also has the dark side in view...
Siskel had a brain fart. This was a great film.
Anthony Hopkins gave one of the single greatest performances of all time in Silence of the Lambs. He won an Oscar for 15 minutes of screen time if that. Absolutely chilling.
What I find interesting about this is that neither of these two critics go about saying that the other person's point of view is necessarily wrong, because both make good points. However, I do prefer Ebert's point of view because he goes into why he thinks it's flawed, while also going over what it does right. Siskel just goes on about how much he doesn't like the film. Maybe he was in the wrong mindset while watching it.
HA! ebert trashed DIE HARD and AMERICAN HISTORY X and siskel trashes this??? goes to show ya who to listen to -- yourself! love these two but boy did they miss some real winners. RIP boys.
Goes to show ya...people have opinions. Their job is not to predict box-office success, but rather their opinion of the film.
clinroatan that's definitely true but for instance I saw their review of jurassic park and ebert trashed the characters and went on and on - I think they make the mistake of thinking all films are trying to be oscar winners. jurassic park was an absolute spectacle, one of the most memorable and joyous experience watching that in theaters. it wasn't trying to be schindler's list and I think ebert in his pretense misses the point of the filmmakers sometimes, even when their intentions are obvious.
I wouldn't say Ebert "trashed" American History X, he said it was "good not great"
+Lark Macallan Ebert didn't trash AHX. He just thought it was ok. He did give it thumbs up.
+Lark Macallan at least roger was parcial, siskel just kinda hated things
I agree with Roger on this one.
We all do
I agree on Henry>Silence Of The Lambs
Lambs is all pulp, is good but is airport novel pulp.
I thought "Manhunter" was scarier and more effective, but hardly anyone has heard of it.
Michael Mann film, excellent! It's better than "Red dragon" imo.
You may want to discount my opinion. I just spent 20 minutes trying to get that black thing off your head.
I'll say the film was a bit clunky in some parts, the lead performances were great and the cinematography was beautiful.
To those who think Ebert was a pansy (via his Blue Velvet review), here is the flipside.
Fucking wow. This is why I loved Roger Ebert, because he knew you couldn't compare apples to oranges.
I respect what Gene Siskel had to say about “Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer”, but it’s unfair to compare it with “The Silence of the Lambs.” They’re two very different films in spite of the similar subject matter.
So it must have sucked for Gene when this movie took home the Best Picture, Best Actor and Best Actress Oscars. Not that the Oscars are flawless, but his review is so ridiculously scathing that it suggests he entered the theater with a closed mind.
Wookieebacon your so right, not only did it take those highly acclaimed and coveted awards, best picture, actor and actress, it also took best director and screenplay too. One of only three movies in history to ever accomplish such lofty distinguishment.
@@JohnFarris2_Zac-MyDox_LZ_BF The other two are It Happened One Night and One Flee Over the Cuckoo's Nest. That's very good company.
GREAT MOVIES THAT SISKEL TRASHED:
* Silence of the Lambs
* Aliens
* Blade Runner
*The Big Lebowski
GREAT MOVIES THAT EBERT TRASHED:
* Full Metal Jacket
* A Clockwork Orange
* Die Hard
* The Usual Suspects
+tvmattkc The lesson of this is...nobody's perfect...except for me...and you...and that guy.
...and that other guy
+tvmattkc the theatrical cut of blade runner was very mediocre with an annoying voice-over and a happy ending, even roger gave it just a 3 stars review at that time, the director's cut was released in the 90s
+tvmattkc Don't forget about Brazil in the Ebert pile.
I actually agree wholesale with Ebert on The Usual Suspects.
Very interesting. I agreed with both critics that the ending scenes with Buffalo Bill and Foster chasing in the house did run out of steam a bit, but it's such a small fraction of the film. And I do distinctly recall being on the edge of my seat during those scenes the FIRST time I saw it, so I can give it some benefit of the doubt there.
But overall this film is just fantastic, and is one of the textbook examples of a near-perfect screenplay. The writing in this film is so strong that makes it one of those films you can retune to time and time again and pick up something you didn't notice before, which is so hard to do, but they make it look so easy here. Siskel completely missed the mark here.
Well, Roger's panned one Best Picture Oscar winner (Gladiator). This is probably Gene's only negative review to a Best Picture winner. I guess audiences and the Academy were "too easy".
A famous Siskel Thumbs Down of a Best Picture winner....He would make it 2 for 2 when the next year he gave Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven a Thumbs Down as well...He was wrong on both of them...
+Cinema Insiders The best part is that those are often considered to be two of the Best Picture winners that are worth watching on their own merits, as opposed to stuff like The English Patient that faded from memory quickly.Anyway, I'm definitely agreeing with Roger on this one. Only real caveat is that I wouldn't say this is one of my favorite movies. Otherwise there isn't a whole lot to complain about. Sometimes I think that maybe the film was a bit bland outside of the villains being so psychotic.
+Cinema Insiders "He was wrong on both of them..."
in your opinion.
You don't have to like a movie just because it wins an Oscar or it has a good rotten tomatoes score
Iam Aware Very true. Still remember really liking this film though.
DaRunningMan: He's allowed to dislike the film, but I think he was objectively wrong to question why these actors wanted to be involved with it. That itself shows a lack of respect for the opinions of others. Also, he says movies shouldn't "trifle with" violence against women, an incredibly unfair stance to take as a movie critic. What is the film director supposed to do with this story if Gene Siskel is uncomfortable with women being hurt? It seems like he feels that this movie should never have been made, a pretty lousy opinion considering how many people enjoyed it.
They're given cheap nicknames because the press, of which Siskel was card-carrying member, were the ones giving the nicknames within the very narrative. There are only so many Zodiacs out there to tell the press what to say and think about them.
Nice
Siskel's wrong about it being bad, but he's right that it didn't give much insight into actual serial killers. Hannibal is basically a cartoon character, not that there's anything wrong with it. Also, his comparison to Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer was apt, since that was based on real serial killers. Where Siskel goes wrong is that the point of the movie wasn't to be realistic but to be impressionistic, and arguably it's not even a movie about serial killers. Most movies aren't realistic and most audience members prefer movie magic rather than documentaries.
+mightisright I do kinda think the film would have been bland without the memorable villains...but the villains are very memorable so there.Yeah I wonder what Siskel thought about this film winning 5 Oscars including Best Picture.
How on Earth could Siskel have found "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" less exploitive than "Silence of the Lambs"?
Henry is more of a character study. That was a film that was determined to illustrate the inner workings of a serial killer. Silence is more of a thriller.
This is why we remember Ebert and not Siskel. Ebert could see art. Siskel is a disgruntled hipster.
Well Ebert wasn't perfect. Remember, he gave Crash a 4/4 and gave Deliverance and A Clockwork Orange bad reviews
I found myself agreeing with both of them about half the time. I remember Siskel just as much as I do Ebert.
And he also hated The Usual Suspects
FallaciousScotsman I don't agree with Siskel most of the time but I'm with him on this one, I found this movie lame and depressing.
Although let's not forget Ebert gave Speed 2 three stars
I loved Silence when it came out and the book is brilliantly written, but Gene’s criticisms are valid. Hopkins was overplaying Lecter in retrospect, almost catroonishly so, and only pulls it off because he makes him just likeable enough to get away it. Foster is OK. In retropect, I think it was a good film overhyped into a great film in a year of many mediocre films. Did it deserve Best Picture? Well, half the films that win that award don’t deserve. Forrest Gump? Dances with Wolves? The English Patient? Shakespeare in Love? Braveheart? Shit, half the films of the 90s didn’t deserve it.
You make a good observation.
I have no real idea what a real serial killer might be like, but "Silence" sold me on the idea that Hannibal Lector COULD exist and be a real terror and horror. This was so far beyond my experience in the world that it came down to whether I found the presentation credible. I did. Perhaps I am foolish and naive for doing so.
Another example of that phenomena was "In Cold Blood." Again I bought the idea of understanding how real horror could be created.
Generally I don't like horror stories. I don't enjoy being frightened, especially by gimmicks.
@@SeattlePioneer Thanks! I love getting responses to old comments and seeing what I said. LOL. Still hold to what I said here, but agree with you 100-percent - and do think the film was brilliantly adapted as well. It is not necessarily as transcendent as, say, The Godfather films, but it works, and is beyond frightening. Plus Buffalo Bill was pretty accurate (based on many real very twisted serial killers), using Ted Bundy's MO to lure women into his van (the poor helpless dude with a broken arm - boohoo). I still rate the film highly - just not as highly as when I first saw it. Plus, without Hopkins's Lecter, we would have never had Lloyd Christmas imitating him in Dumb & Dumber - "I'd like to eat her liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti..."
I'm with Gene on this one. Not that it was a bad movie, no. It's just that the glowing reviews on the papers raised my expectations too high and it didn't quite turn out to be as scary as I hoped it would be. Good that it won the Oscars, but Boyz In the Hood should have been selected.
It was Siskel & Eberts praise and endorsement of "Henry; Portrait of a Serial Killer" where I stopped taking them seriously. I thought it was awful: soft porn for people who murder. It's amusing to see this review of "Silence" 25 years after since it's become an American classic. I'd love to hear Siskel's review of it now. Judgments take time to develop and sometimes first impressions are muddled.
Did Siskel win a Razzie??
"Henry Portrait of a serial killer" Never heard of it and yet people still talk about silence.
Shame on you and anyone who has never seen "Henry".
@@ricardocantoral7672
My point is his comments haven't aged well
"once she gets into the house of Buffalo Bill it becomes pretty standard" thats like the last 8 minutes of the movie LOL.
I don't recall any organ being used. Is he referring to the music played as Clarice walks down the hallway towards Lecter's cell during her first visit? Other than that, if I'm not mistaken, the scenes with Lecter, in general, play out sans music. Lecter's escape scene is an exception, but only in parts of it.
Gee I wonder what Siskel thought when this won Best Picture.Armageddon thumbs up, Silence of the Lambs thumbs down. Okay man, whatever you say.
one of the greatest movie of all time
To quote gene siskel himself “you know when you say you missed the boat on this one, you missed the harbour”
Gene must’ve been kicking himself in the foot when he realised this film won best picture
This film is a Masterpiece.
Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster absolutely Rock their respective roles that they’re playing
And Roger got it absolutely correct the only thing I can contest him on the ending because I thought it was satisfying
I appreciate the care S&E put into reviews, though each has a few glaring misses:
Gene: Thumbs down on The Silence of the Lambs, Aliens, & Lethal Weapon 2
Roger: Thumbs down on Die Hard, A Few Good Men, & Coming to America
Siskel really blew this one and Ebert showed he’s the much more intelligent guy-he totally got the nature of their relationship
Nah. Though I don’t quite agree with Gene on this one, I respect him for giving his honest opinion here. And Roger had plenty of takes that I couldn’t understand.
Siskel Got It Wrong! It won the top 5 Oscars which never happens in one movie!
Siskel had the one thing that most Americans lack - education. He was so right about this movie. It sucked so bad that I and my friend walked out on it.
Noelle Jordan Well,there's no accounting for taste.
@@Lorieellesh Totally agree!
One of the most overrated movies all times combined!
Many other thrillers/crime movies, even older, are way far better than THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS!
That must have been one awkward morning for Siskel after the Oscars.
Clicked on this thinking "this is one of the greatest horror films of all time, surely they'll both love it"..*started video* "okay, maybe not..."
Siskel calling Hopkin's and Foster's performances just ok lol. The acting in this movie is off the charts. No one ever mentions the chemistry between them either. It's one the best and most interesting in cinema history. Ebert nailed it 👍
Siskel always attempts to inject his moral compass into his reviews, and never thinks objectively.
The film is a masterpiece!!! 10/10
Fascinating!
I’ve seen SotL so many times. It’s hypnotizing!
Hopkins is mesmerizing, Foster gives several compelling emotions. Plus the pacing and the mood and the dialogue are all well considered and excellent.
SotL is indeed a mystery but I came away thinking that demons continue to haunt us, and dangerous predators lurk and hunt us from unexpected places.
I always appreciate Siskel’s perspectives. His view here is one I’d not heard about this movie.
Great clip!