The review they gave for "Whose Life Is It Anyway?" is very poignant when seen in the present day. Both Gene and Roger were stricken with evil cancers, both of them fought as hard as they could to stay alive, and Gene died not long after his diagnosis in 1999 while Roger later lost his ability to speak and eat or drink but continued to do his brilliant writing for years until his death in 2013. They are missed.
@@stevejohnson1577 Average my ass. The performances by Katherine and Henry and that awesome scene where Jane calls him Dad for the first time and hugs him makes it great.
I wish they would have continued with the Dog of The Week segment, or something similar, on their subsequent review shows. God knows there is never a shortage of lousy movies.
Roger Ebert enjoyed it, loved all the performances, wants to see it again, but recommends others NOT to see it because of it's honesty is in question. No. He should do his critique and recommend people to watch to find out for themselves, otherwise it does not make sense. I myself loved this movie and loved that ending with the judge and Dreyfuss's monolog. If i took Roger Ebert's don't recommend I wouldn't of had the pleasure of liking it and loving the performances. Oh, and I have seen this movie more then once. I still love it.
@@CaptainSpalding72Ebert didn't say it was a bad film. He liked the movie and the acting, just didn't agree with its intellectual arguments. It was a split reaction.
So, Roger didn't recommend Who's Life Is It Anyway, because it made him think about the issue it wanted him to think about. His argument that the character shouldn't have the right to make a decision about his own life because the character is too intelligent to decide to die, is asinine.
My late uncle told me it was partly filmed on North Pond, central Maine. It’s not in the credits bc he didn’t want 1000s of people to visit “our” lake. 15:39
The comments seems to suggest that both of the critics that didn't entirely like Whose Life Is It Anyway? got what was coming to them when they had cancer is very telling. Y'all should be very ashamed of yourselves.
Roger Ebert doesn't think a person should have the right to deprive others of their company??? I assume he didn't think about the implications of this philosophy when it comes to stalking? This is yet another example of Roger voting with his emotions while claiming to judge a movie based on its merits. I agree with Gene: if the point of the movie was to spark a debate, then at least on that front it succeeded.
Based on the clip of whose line movie, I immediately thought that’s a made for lifetime movie. The music was a terrible choice made me feel they were in a bad soap opera. Dreyfus acting was right but the film seems to trivialize the subject matter which I think is Roger’s argument and based on that snip alone I think he’s right.
"...should not have the right to deprive us of his company" Should not have the right?!?!? What the living hell, Roger??? If a quadriplegic feels that his/her life is not worth living, then that's FINAL. What right do we have to dictate the hour and manner of their passing? It's their choice, not ours, and certainly not "God's". I often found that Roger's strict Catholic upbringing skewed his perspective on some of the films he reviewed.
I would have walked across a bed of coals to see a Katherine Hepburn movie, no matter how bad it might have been overall. Sorry Meryl Streep fans but Katherine was/is America's best female movie star. Jimmy Stewart was/is the best male movie star but Henry Fonda was also a classic.
All three of the first segments are total tearjerks, then "... and next we have a dumb Chevy Chase comedy."
The review they gave for "Whose Life Is It Anyway?" is very poignant when seen in the present day. Both Gene and Roger were stricken with evil cancers, both of them fought as hard as they could to stay alive, and Gene died not long after his diagnosis in 1999 while Roger later lost his ability to speak and eat or drink but continued to do his brilliant writing for years until his death in 2013. They are missed.
Gene did not suffer… Roger did sadly.
@@azach5288ummm... Gene absolutely suffered several months of absolutely terrible chemo for BRAIN CANCER, of course he suffered.
My parents couldn't get a babysitter when they saw On Golden Pond.
I was the only ten year old in the audience. I called it On Olden Pond!
So did Mad Magazine! :D
I was a younger audience member
There was a porn movie shortly thereafter titled "On Golden Blonde."
It seems like now, if a movie is not a potential blockbuster, it won't be in theaters. You'll have to stream it.
MODERN PROBLEMS wasn't a great movie to be sure, but Nell Carter steals every scene she's in - loved her performance as Dorita!
Hey Jane Fonda’s character, Maybe if you called your dad “Dad” instead of Norman your relationship wouldn’t have been so icy.
Siskel giving no praise to Henry Fonda. Fonda and Hepburn were equally brilliant.
Absolutely.
A very so-so movie. On Golden Pond was just a vehicle for KH and HF( in his last role), to be wax sentimental. That's it. Nothing more.
@Jason Hawk to whom would you be referring?
this was an average movie at best. Siskel sees through it... i agree
@@stevejohnson1577 Average my ass. The performances by Katherine and Henry and that awesome scene where Jane calls him Dad for the first time and hugs him makes it great.
I wish they would have continued with the Dog of The Week segment, or something similar, on their subsequent review shows. God knows there is never a shortage of lousy movies.
Roger Ebert enjoyed it, loved all the performances, wants to see it again, but recommends others NOT to see it because of it's honesty is in question. No. He should do his critique and recommend people to watch to find out for themselves, otherwise it does not make sense. I myself loved this movie and loved that ending with the judge and Dreyfuss's monolog. If i took Roger Ebert's don't recommend I wouldn't of had the pleasure of liking it and loving the performances. Oh, and I have seen this movie more then once. I still love it.
On Golden Pond is one of my favorite movies.
The 'Whose Life Is It Anyway?" segment. Jesus.
Ebert's negative reaction to Whose Life Is It Anyway? is interesting considering what happened to him later in life.
No its not. Its not a good film. Simple
@@CaptainSpalding72Ebert didn't say it was a bad film. He liked the movie and the acting, just didn't agree with its intellectual arguments. It was a split reaction.
So, Roger didn't recommend Who's Life Is It Anyway, because it made him think about the issue it wanted him to think about.
His argument that the character shouldn't have the right to make a decision about his own life because the character is too intelligent to decide to die, is asinine.
I think there was some residual Catholicism informing that opinion.
Why is this video housed in the TV box? I think it takes away from the video?
More than likely you would have been watching this episode on such a TV in 1981...
My late uncle told me it was partly filmed on North Pond, central Maine. It’s not in the credits bc he didn’t want 1000s of people to visit “our” lake. 15:39
It was also filmed in Squam Lake in NH near where I was born. I saw Jane and Henry in our little airport
The comments seems to suggest that both of the critics that didn't entirely like Whose Life Is It Anyway? got what was coming to them when they had cancer is very telling.
Y'all should be very ashamed of yourselves.
Roger Ebert doesn't think a person should have the right to deprive others of their company??? I assume he didn't think about the implications of this philosophy when it comes to stalking?
This is yet another example of Roger voting with his emotions while claiming to judge a movie based on its merits. I agree with Gene: if the point of the movie was to spark a debate, then at least on that front it succeeded.
Based on the clip of whose line movie, I immediately thought that’s a made for lifetime movie. The music was a terrible choice made me feel they were in a bad soap opera. Dreyfus acting was right but the film seems to trivialize the subject matter which I think is Roger’s argument and based on that snip alone I think he’s right.
"...should not have the right to deprive us of his company"
Should not have the right?!?!? What the living hell, Roger??? If a quadriplegic feels that his/her life is not worth living, then that's FINAL. What right do we have to dictate the hour and manner of their passing? It's their choice, not ours, and certainly not "God's".
I often found that Roger's strict Catholic upbringing skewed his perspective on some of the films he reviewed.
They miss the whole point of the movie. It's the kid that brings the old man out of his shell. And they gloss over that.
Agree. Simple review for what's become a classic.
And the kid serves as an example to Jane Fonda‘s character on how to get close to her father. I think the use of the kid great decision.
I've seen Four Friends. It's a good movie.
I would have walked across a bed of coals to see a Katherine Hepburn movie, no matter how bad it might have been overall. Sorry Meryl Streep fans but Katherine was/is America's best female movie star. Jimmy Stewart was/is the best male movie star but Henry Fonda was also a classic.
I love FOUR FRIENDS, but neither Siskel nor Ebert mention how bleak and tragic a lot of it is.
These guys always complained about phoniness in Hollywood movies and yet they liked a sentimental, greeting card film like On Golden Pond.
i was not impressed with four friends i found the woman character to be a space case
It seems Jane Fonda learned nothing from this film
Ebert was such a pompous ass.