Siskel & Ebert (1989): Batman, Honey, I Shrunk The Kids, Ghostbusters 2 & Kung-Fu Master!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 июн 2021
- 0:00 intro
0:58 Batman: Siskel 👍 & Ebert 👎
8:23 Honey, I Shrunk The Kids: 👎👎
11:40 talks about cartoon Tummy Trouble
13:33 Ghostbusters 2: 👎👎
16:35 Kung-Fu Master!: 👍👍
20:06 The reviews
Ebert missed the fun in HISTK's. Riding an ant, sliding down a waterslide on a leaf, sleeping in a Lego with friends. Just a magical film.
I don’t think so. I completely disagree.
The film is pretty much a theme park ride. Hardly a work of genius but a good entertainment for kids.
I'd have been 7 years old when I saw Batman, and it's remained for me a cherished masterpiece over the years. The funny thing about when I listen to Ebert wail on it is that: _he's right._
Film critics of this vintage tend to expect films to be full of characters who feel like ordinary people (in extraordinary situations), and who engage their sympathies. This is not what Batman provides.
Ebert, however, raved about the film _Beyond Thunderdome_ (Mad Max 3), and I wonder why he could not enjoy it on those terms. ie, A stylized and imaginative transposition of the dangers lurking in the corners of our civilization - as the backdrop of a grand adventure story.
As a child, you don't notice that the characters aren't sympathetic. Because your entire world makes little sense, few adults ever try to be sympathetic, and at least these people make an effort to be colourful and interesting in their implacable cruelty to one another. As a sensitive working-class child, you have a need to believe there's more to life than the humble and prosaic. And this Batman film offers both excess and poetry oozing out of an apparently realist world. And that is enough for some of us.
_Jesus marimba! A lovely beast like that running around could put steam in a man's strides!_
You know what else is good enough? Ghostbusters f*¢king 2. It doesn't have to be a masterpiece. It just has to show us that these people still exist. And they'll continue to be charming and clever. And they'll have adventures we can tag along with. Backed by a glorious musical score. (Which Batman had as well.) And that there are people in this world (or one like it) both powerful and clever enough to stand up to nightmares and vanquish them. That's what some children need when they go to the cinema. And some adults too.
If only Gene was around to see Batman Begins and Dark Knight.
He would have loved Nolans movies for sure.
Incidentally, I'm sure Gene would have admired Matt Reeves' #TheBatman
@FUTUREDCUWARRIORLIFE why so serious?
Ebert rated those movies 4 stars and the 3rd one with 3.
And Dark Knight Rises
What a time to be a 5 year old! ❤
I was 7 - I remember it like yesterday.
Siskel got Batman, when comic-book fan Ebert didn't. I'll remain astonished at this fact.
What I find astonishing is Roger's praise of Dick Tracy. That movie had all of Batman's issues but none of the fascinating, disturbed characters.
Ebert must've had a shitty week! Hating Batman and Honey I Shrunk the Kids...geez
I was a HUGE fan of the first Ghostbusters. The sequel came out 5 years after the first one, and that was just too long after. When we saw part 2 in the theater I can remember the movie just feeling stale. The plot was also lousy and at times boring. Plain and simple, in 1989, the world had moved on from Ghostbusters.
I remember watching this episode of S & E when it aired. As a 12 year-old at the time, I didn't want to believe Ghostbusters II was a "disappointment" as Ebert said, and begged my folks to go see it. Leaving the theater, I felt the exact same way as you.
It tried to hard to be like the cartoon instead of keeping its adult edge.
Its not really that, its just the rule of thumb for sequels, much less comedic sequels. Its almost impossible to recycle the same laughs the second time around. You dont want to stray from the winning formula of the original, but you cant really just copy it verbatum. Its a no-win thing that just about every comedy sequel succumbs to. Lightning in a bottle.....
Per Vicki's reaction, she kind of already figured out Bruce Wayne was Batman, so there wasn't shock there to be had
Correct, idk why people keep skipping over that fact.
Both the Batwing and the batmobile looked like models to Siskel?!? CGI wasn't good enough to be used as vehicles back then like today so what the hell did he think he would see?!?
I’m a sucker for Honey, I Shrunk The Kids.
That theme song takes me back wow
Love Ebert...but daaaamn he was way off and gave away the whole movie! Omg. The only 90s Bat film he gave thumbs up to Mask of the Phantasm
Still the best Batman film.
Ghostbusters 2 is great! Sure it’s not as good as the first but it’s still a damn funny movie
I know Ebert gets a bad rap for disliking the 80's/90's Batman films, but I too never cared for the 1989 Batman. I always felt some of the action scenes and effects composition were amateurish, and the Joker plot and characterization was too cartoony, especially compared to the borderline background performance of Keaton as Batman.
I preferred Batman Returns much more. It may have brought over some of the flaws, but the tone and flow felt way more intentional.
If you were old enough - you'll remember the Summer of 1989 was "Batman Summer" . The HYPE around this movie was incredible and .. people were actually going and paying to see movies they did not care for -- to see the TRAILER months before ! (No internet back then..thankfully). I remember after it was over, I left the theatre and was like "OK, something was not right with that movie".... I felt empty and puzzled. SO I am going to have to agree with .. ROGER. Not much really happened in this movie and a LOT of stuff got cut out .
Oh I remember. Ghostbusters II was right there with it and I was so excited for both. Ghostbusters II came out a week earlier than Batman, and both were incredible childhood memories. ❤️
Yooo this was crazy, the comments said it all...but why ain't we talking bout that awkward French flick and them dudes defending it 🤣🤣😄
I agree with Ebert few things on Batman like it's dark comic-book movie with good special effects, the direction was sensational, Gotham has futuristic look like movie Blade Runner, it focus too much on JOKER & less on Batman & other than that I enjoy it anyway 👍🌟🌟🌟.
Ghostbusters 2 was disappointed because it wasn't funny or entertainment than the original 👎🌟🌟.
Shrunk the kids has well-done effects, realistic creatures but story was dead end because no sense of fun, not enough silliness & wild imagination like Ebert said 👎🌟🌟.
read Ebert's review of Batman Begins and you'll understand why he was so upset during that review of Batman.
Egon : i had a slinky once, but i straightened it.
"Ill let you borrow my Laura Antonelli Tapes."-Peter Venkman,Ghostbusters 2:)so funny
4:01-4:03 Where does he get those wonderful toys?
I wonder if Kung Fu Master had some kind of effect on Mary Kay Letourneau.
I'm very pleased w GB2
A big gripe that I had with GB2 is that there's only one real ghostbusting scene (just like the first movie), yet somehow they think it's been overdone so now we need mood slime? 🤦♂️
if they where alive today then they would've seen Michael Keaton as the Dark Knight in the Flash film. what would their rating for that film been?
Come on, I Shrunk the Kids is an amazing movie!!
"I don't know why it's necessary for me to be here on this show --"
- "I thought about that, too."
😂
June 23, 1989 The Come Out in Movie Theaters
Batman (1989) from Warner Bros
Inside Out (1989) from 20th Century Fox and Blue Sky Studios
Honey I, Shurnk The Kids (1989) from Walt Disney Pictures
If you consider the villain of Batman 89 to be Gotham itself instead of The Joker, then the film is actually quite brilliant.
I want to write that my name is Josh Tate and i'm writing that the year 2024 will be Batman' 85th anniversary year and the 35th anniversary of Tim Burton's 1989 Batman film.
Batman (1989) is my favorite movie of all time and I'm glad Gene gave it a thumbs up.
Geeze, Ebert. Spoiler-alert , much?
The world made sense when these guys were around.
Now every movie that comes out is completely stupid.
Gene was always complaining that kids in movies are written to be way too smart (which is true) but then he doesn’t like HISTK cuz the kids aren’t smart enough! There’s no pleasing these guys sometimes!
He was insufferable and contradicted himself all the time!
I liked Ghostbusters 2. I hated Ghostbusters 3.
I liked it too. Good villian, good ideas
Ghostbusters 3?
Afterlife. I didn’t like it either, save for the ending.
Where Inside Out (1989) from Blue Sky Studios and 20th Century Fox with Siskel and Ebert
Their analysis of Kung Fu Master is sad and a look into how society didnt take pedophilia seriously even as late as the 80s.
The whole movie is about a pedo grooming a child but presented in a way to try and make the audience sympathize with the feelings of the offender. The writer/director are pedos sympathizers (type of person who still exists today). These sympathizers either are pedos themselves or are so out of touch with the reality that children being taken advantage of is not wrong and that "love" is the same for all ages when in fact it indeed isnt.
What surprises me the most is that they bashed robocop 2 and firestarter for how children were used in the story but somehow when their written into a pedo story is suddenly ok?
The movie is disgusting and has nothing to do about love, its about pedophilia and trying to get normal people to think that preying on children is ok
They were definitely odd. They said "Sleepers" was homophobic because how it presented paedophiles.
They didn't do away with pre-movie cartoons because of greed, it was just an outdated thing. People wanted to show up to the movie and watch the movie. And trailers got people excited about shit that was on the way. I don't want to sit there for 7 minutes watching a cartoon when I can do that at home.
TV killed all the short subjects and it's really a shame, especially regarding animation. No animation on TV has come remotely close to the genius of vintage Warners or Fleischer.
Trailers used to play after the film thus the word trailers. I would love to see modern films play with cartoons before them!
Hey Walt Disney’s Honey I Shrunk The Kids (1989 live action movie) is not that bad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I liked Honey I Shrunk The Kids. These guys should have their HEADS SHRUNK. LOL
i don't buy keaton as batman.
Batman is a good movie because Batman is bisexual.
Defuq are you talking about
@@TheMarc388 himself
@@TheMarc388 assigned sex just doesn't matter to batman when it comes to attraction, dude just lives his love life and i think that's wonderful for him
@@ryangettig274 you cowards are too chicken to realize a guy like bruce Wayne doesn't drop a grant on Alex Knox's research like that unless he's flirting with him. 😔
@@aldenmartin623 1/10 on the troll job