I somehow didn’t even know they made a Stuart movie?? Like Roger said, I didn’t think the sketch would make for a good full length movie. I’ll definitely have to check it out
I agree with Ebert on Kiss of Death. I worked in a video store and this one guy I worked with wouldn't shut up about that movie. I was pretty bored when I finally saw it and found it pretty laughable.
It's not a bad picture the screenplay was subpar & Caruso was miscast. Nothing against him but he was too layed back as what Roger Ebert said, But i enjoyed Cage's performance so i gave it a moderate thumbs 👍 2 & a half stars out of 4
@@flaccidusminimus2170 Very unlikely. Critics back then were expected to have a good knowledge of film history before being hired; nowadays, they hire any youngster who thinks the history of cinema began in 1977.
@@KRhetor Everything about that comment is mistaken. Pre-requisites for obtaining a journalism job were much lower for the baby boomer generation than they are today. Neither Roger or Gene had any special knowledge of film history to distinguish them from the average theatregoer when their careers began. They each obtained film critic jobs because their predecessors retired and they got lucky with these openings. No other reason. Newspapers have much higher standards today for their hiring processes and greater competition for openings. Academic film classes are widespread now whereas they barely existed in the 1960s outside of major cities. Furthermore, prior to the advent of home video, no one had "a good knowledge of film history" like people do today. If you didn't see a film when it came out, chances are, you'd never see it again unless you were lucky enough to catch it at a repertory screening. Most film history books written prior to the 1980s were quite bad and full of mistakes because the authors didn't have any reference points other than memory. Gene and Roger were too young to have seen Kiss of Death in 1947. Home video availability for classics was scattered and unreliable in 1995. Neither one of them were big home video fanatics. Gene was reluctant to embrace it for a long time, but adapted for the sake of his kids. Roger collected his favorites, and in 1997 he began a weekly Great Movies column where he revisited a classic from the past, but even then he was very particular about what he watched. Given the nature of their careers, neither one of them spent a lot of time watching movies at home. It also doesn't follow from a logical standpoint that just because someone may not have seen the original Kiss of Death by 1995 that they *didn't* have "a good knowledge of film history".
Don Bluth showed promise with a couple films then his career went south. The Dragon's Lair games are his finest works because he totally inept when it comes to creating compelling stories and characters.
Dragon's Lair? Those games don't come close to the quality of Secret of Nimh. Whatever you feel of the rest of his career, I think it's Bluth's best work.
Jury Duty wasn't really a hit though; it (apparently/somehow) cost over $20million. Also it was given a very wide release for the time, unlike Stuart which was on way less than 1,000 screens.
I haven't watched the film "Basketball Diaries" in about 20 years, so I do not remember the conclusion. Jim Carroll became a musician in the 1970s, his song "People Who Die" is being played during that rainy basketball scene, so I think he is going on stage to play a show at the end. Like I said before, I don't remember the end at all. As for my take, there are some memorable scenes from that film. "Basketball Diaries" is sort of the DiCaprio's big break in films. The film isn't a must see, but if you like DiCaprio or Mark Wahlberg, and haven't seen this film, then I would advise for you to watch.
I’m sorry why are we supposed to trust the review of a guy who can’t even remember the end of the movie? Very interesting take by the way that basketball diaries was Leonardo DiCaprio’s big break considering he was nominated for an Oscar for what’s eating Gilbert grape two years before. I guess you just didn’t remember that the same way you didn’t remember the ending to this movie you claim is very memorable.
@@owexsolo You need to explain what part of my comment is not trustworthy. If it about Jim Carroll's life post-high school, then I am correct. Also, my comment about DiCaprio's "big break". This is a timeline error. Did I know about "Gilbert Grape"? Of course I did. Did I know if "Basketball Diaries" or "Gilbert Grape" was first? No, but I was also around 10 years old when these films came out. I saw the film "Basketball Diaries", which was the first time I saw a film with DiCaprio, in the theaters. I saw "Gilbert Grape", probably on HBO shortly after. It isn't too odd of an error to get DiCaprio's timeline mixed up.
Now as much as I agree with them about Pauly Shore, I _completely_ disagree with them about _Basketball Diaries_ which I found to be a powerful film. Not quite as hard hitting as _Requiem For A Dream_ but it comes very close at times. And DiCaprio’s performance was one of his best from early on in his career.
I can understand not liking the film-you can tell it was directed by someone who had previously only done music videos-but you're right, DiCaprio was absolutely superb.
I sort of agree with them on The Basketball Diaries. I loved it when I was younger, but I think it was more to do with my own fascination with drugs back then and how I related to the DeCaprio character in the film. Looking back on it, Leo's performance was only OK. It wasn't a great performance by any means, and Mark Wahlberg was actually the actor who stole every scene he was in. Mark was fantastic in that film, and I believe it was his breakout role.
The recommendation should've been "Leave Her to Heaven". Gene Tierney outdid herself playing Ellen. Sadly, she lost the Oscar to Joan Crawford in "Mildred Pierce".
Always love it to see Siskel and Ebert shit on Pauly Shore once in a while, good god that guy is the most annoying comedian IMO, if you want proof, watch the Nostalgia Critic's review of Bio-Dome and you'll see what I mean. P.S. never saw any of Shore's films, btw.
Regarding Leave to Her Heaven, I think Ellen Berent is probably the best written villain in cinema history. Why ? The film illustrates evil as an external force that corrupts instead of it being something that stems from a person. With each kill, Ellen slowly drives herself to a point when her own death seem attractive. She doesn't gain, she loses because she is driven by evil and a loneliness eating away at her soul.
It definitely gave the underrated Gene Tierny her best role. Because of her beauty she was too often cast in lightweight roles or simple decoration. She had a tragic life and should have had a better career.
I gave Kiss of Death a moderate thumbs 👍 i enjoyed Nicolas Cage, Samuel L. Jackson & Stanley Tucci's performance, but i felt David Caruso was miscast. Of course Jury Duty is very bad thumbs way 👎👎👎👎The Basketball Diaries i give a moderate thumbs 👍 also despite the story being too routine, but enjoyed DiCaprio's performance.
I can’t believe Siskel gave such a glowing review for “Kiss of Death” - especially Cage. It was a terrible movie... and Cage gave one of his weird overacting performances.
Great job Roger on pointing out the racist undertones of how the bad guys in cartoons are always drawn dark or brown, while the good guys are always drawn white. This is around the 17 minute mark
The "light vs dark" paradigm is as old as time. It has far more to do with day time and night time than any 19th or 20th century "racist" notion or view. We make a primal association with "evil" and "darkness" because humans--and all their early predecessors--have traditionally feared the dark; it was that time we were at our highest risk to be susceptible to our natural predators. This sort of outdated mechanism can still be found in who else, but children. Hence, the obvious reason to convey the themes and message to them in their entertainment. Not everything has to do with systemically oppressing minorities, but if some people look hard enough, they will find that shit in their breakfast cereals if it so pleases them.
@@hamupinhere wow you really just dismissed all of racism based on light versus dark paradigm… I guess based on your own logic you can dismiss it if you just try hard enough as well… by the way you’re kind of full of it… Because see filmmakers use light and dark in their lighting all the time. They use dark to show scary parts and they use light to show not scary parts. Because that’s the dynamic you’re talking about. Which has nothing to do with casting dark people as the villains and white people as the heroes… You know how I know? Because in other countries that’s not what they do… Notice how in India it’s not white people in the good people roles and Black people in the bad people roles. Because your stupid paradigm Is just that: stupid.
I'm watching this on my TV but had to come here to say WTF to them about Basketball Diaries!! Leo in that movie is one of the most Transcendent performances I have ever seen and as a movie lover,I rewatch it to see true acting and emotional carnage at some points. I wish they both had the chance to rewatch it and give it time. Nobody else was delivering performances like this back then.NO ONE.
My reviews: out of 5 1 " Kiss of Death " 2.5 out of 5 👎 2 " Jury Duty " 1 out of 5 👎 3 " Stuart Saves His Family ". 2 out of 5 👎 4 " The Basketball Diaries " 2.5 out of 5 👎 5 " The Pebble and the Penguin " 2 out of 5 👎
They're often way off with their reviews. That Stuart Smalley movie is absolute junk with almost no redeeming qualities. I can only assume they were friendly with Franken and were doing him a personal favour by recommending this garbage.
Stuart was an awful, boring movie. Tommy Boy, ironically, is a bonafide 90’s buddy movie classic. Both Siskel & Ebert were often wrong, and yes they were wrong, but that’s what made them special. It was always their opinions that made ‘em popular, they never felt they sold out to the studios.
Took me years to get the courage to watch Stuart. I thought it was like the other B rated SNL movies. Man, I ended up loving it
Stuart Saves His Family is one of my most favorite and treasured movies from my childhood.
Hell yeah, Stuart Saves His Family is great.
I like Eberts description of Pauly Shore. I agree!
It depends on the filmmaker
Same here. He never did anything I liked.
I couldn’t agree more. I _despise_ Pauly Shore and I couldn’t fathom how he ever got as popular as he did in the 90s.
@@olaoluwaafolayan6554 his mom owned comedy clubs
@@stevejohnson1577 ah I see... good ole nepotism at work folks lol
Fun Fact:
Pauly Shore is still mad about this review of jury duty almost 30 years later.
Best scene in Stuart is when all his different sponsors show up at his apartment.
I somehow didn’t even know they made a Stuart movie?? Like Roger said, I didn’t think the sketch would make for a good full length movie. I’ll definitely have to check it out
I agree with Ebert on Kiss of Death. I worked in a video store and this one guy I worked with wouldn't shut up about that movie. I was pretty bored when I finally saw it and found it pretty laughable.
It's not a bad picture the screenplay was subpar & Caruso was miscast. Nothing against him but he was too layed back as what Roger Ebert said, But i enjoyed Cage's performance so i gave it a moderate thumbs 👍 2 & a half stars out of 4
I am surprised neither critic mentioned that the film was a remake of the 1947 film noir of the same name !
@@ricardocantoral7672 They probably hadn't seen it and didn't read the press book.
@@flaccidusminimus2170 Very unlikely. Critics back then were expected to have a good knowledge of film history before being hired; nowadays, they hire any youngster who thinks the history of cinema began in 1977.
@@KRhetor Everything about that comment is mistaken. Pre-requisites for obtaining a journalism job were much lower for the baby boomer generation than they are today. Neither Roger or Gene had any special knowledge of film history to distinguish them from the average theatregoer when their careers began. They each obtained film critic jobs because their predecessors retired and they got lucky with these openings. No other reason. Newspapers have much higher standards today for their hiring processes and greater competition for openings. Academic film classes are widespread now whereas they barely existed in the 1960s outside of major cities.
Furthermore, prior to the advent of home video, no one had "a good knowledge of film history" like people do today. If you didn't see a film when it came out, chances are, you'd never see it again unless you were lucky enough to catch it at a repertory screening. Most film history books written prior to the 1980s were quite bad and full of mistakes because the authors didn't have any reference points other than memory. Gene and Roger were too young to have seen Kiss of Death in 1947. Home video availability for classics was scattered and unreliable in 1995. Neither one of them were big home video fanatics. Gene was reluctant to embrace it for a long time, but adapted for the sake of his kids. Roger collected his favorites, and in 1997 he began a weekly Great Movies column where he revisited a classic from the past, but even then he was very particular about what he watched. Given the nature of their careers, neither one of them spent a lot of time watching movies at home. It also doesn't follow from a logical standpoint that just because someone may not have seen the original Kiss of Death by 1995 that they *didn't* have "a good knowledge of film history".
these guys were good.......thank you.....
Gene Siskel and I are the only ones who enjoyed "Kiss Of Death", lol.
LOL! Ebert's criticism of Pauly Shore. Yikes.
Don Bluth showed promise with a couple films then his career went south. The Dragon's Lair games are his finest works because he totally inept when it comes to creating compelling stories and characters.
Dragon's Lair? Those games don't come close to the quality of Secret of Nimh. Whatever you feel of the rest of his career, I think it's Bluth's best work.
" because he totally inept when it comes to creating compelling stories and characters."
Secret of NIHM, Land Before Time and American Tail diagree
love when they completely disagree
Other Prints Of This Video Use The Buena Vista Television Comets Logo From Late 1995
The irony here being Jury Duty made 17 million at the box office, Stuart Saves His Family didn't even make 1 million.
That’s not ironic. They don’t predict box office numbers.
Hence why audiences deserve as much blame for bad movies as the studios
Jury Duty wasn't really a hit though; it (apparently/somehow) cost over $20million. Also it was given a very wide release for the time, unlike Stuart which was on way less than 1,000 screens.
I haven't watched the film "Basketball Diaries" in about 20 years, so I do not remember the conclusion. Jim Carroll became a musician in the 1970s, his song "People Who Die" is being played during that rainy basketball scene, so I think he is going on stage to play a show at the end. Like I said before, I don't remember the end at all.
As for my take, there are some memorable scenes from that film. "Basketball Diaries" is sort of the DiCaprio's big break in films. The film isn't a must see, but if you like DiCaprio or Mark Wahlberg, and haven't seen this film, then I would advise for you to watch.
I’m sorry why are we supposed to trust the review of a guy who can’t even remember the end of the movie? Very interesting take by the way that basketball diaries was Leonardo DiCaprio’s big break considering he was nominated for an Oscar for what’s eating Gilbert grape two years before. I guess you just didn’t remember that the same way you didn’t remember the ending to this movie you claim is very memorable.
@@owexsolo You need to explain what part of my comment is not trustworthy. If it about Jim Carroll's life post-high school, then I am correct.
Also, my comment about DiCaprio's "big break". This is a timeline error. Did I know about "Gilbert Grape"? Of course I did. Did I know if "Basketball Diaries" or "Gilbert Grape" was first? No, but I was also around 10 years old when these films came out. I saw the film "Basketball Diaries", which was the first time I saw a film with DiCaprio, in the theaters. I saw "Gilbert Grape", probably on HBO shortly after. It isn't too odd of an error to get DiCaprio's timeline mixed up.
Now as much as I agree with them about Pauly Shore, I _completely_ disagree with them about _Basketball Diaries_ which I found to be a powerful film. Not quite as hard hitting as _Requiem For A Dream_ but it comes very close at times. And DiCaprio’s performance was one of his best from early on in his career.
I can understand not liking the film-you can tell it was directed by someone who had previously only done music videos-but you're right, DiCaprio was absolutely superb.
I am shocked they liked Stuart.
I sort of agree with them on The Basketball Diaries. I loved it when I was younger, but I think it was more to do with my own fascination with drugs back then and how I related to the DeCaprio character in the film. Looking back on it, Leo's performance was only OK. It wasn't a great performance by any means, and Mark Wahlberg was actually the actor who stole every scene he was in. Mark was fantastic in that film, and I believe it was his breakout role.
Mark has always been a far more impressive actor than Leo.
that look at 4:17 hahahahaha
Stuart Saves His Family didn't do well, but Tommy Boy did. What does that tell us?
I mean, Tommy boy is far better than Stuart for sure, but comparing two movies box office tells us nothing just as often as it indicates quality.
@@Harkness78 They're referring to the fact that _Tommy Boy_ got poor reviews but audiences knew better
The recommendation should've been "Leave Her to Heaven".
Gene Tierney outdid herself playing Ellen. Sadly, she lost the Oscar to Joan Crawford in "Mildred Pierce".
The recommendation was “Leave Her To Heaven”....?
Always love it to see Siskel and Ebert shit on Pauly Shore once in a while, good god that guy is the most annoying comedian IMO, if you want proof, watch the Nostalgia Critic's review of Bio-Dome and you'll see what I mean.
P.S. never saw any of Shore's films, btw.
I think id rather watch pauly shore over the nostalgia critic....
@@standarsh8056 true!
Even as a kid, I thought Paula Shore was the worst thing to happen to Hollywood.
that lady at the end in the train - _what is wrong with her eyes???_
Samuel L Jackson is still everywhere.
Regarding Leave to Her Heaven, I think Ellen Berent is probably the best written villain in cinema history. Why ? The film illustrates evil as an external force that corrupts instead of it being something that stems from a person. With each kill, Ellen slowly drives herself to a point when her own death seem attractive. She doesn't gain, she loses because she is driven by evil and a loneliness eating away at her soul.
It definitely gave the underrated Gene Tierny her best role. Because of her beauty she was too often cast in lightweight roles or simple decoration. She had a tragic life and should have had a better career.
I gave Kiss of Death a moderate thumbs 👍 i enjoyed Nicolas Cage, Samuel L. Jackson & Stanley Tucci's performance, but i felt David Caruso was miscast. Of course Jury Duty is very bad thumbs way 👎👎👎👎The Basketball Diaries i give a moderate thumbs 👍 also despite the story being too routine, but enjoyed DiCaprio's performance.
I can’t believe Siskel gave such a glowing review for “Kiss of Death” - especially Cage. It was a terrible movie... and Cage gave one of his weird overacting performances.
Why would you colorize a film noir?
Great job Roger on pointing out the racist undertones of how the bad guys in cartoons are always drawn dark or brown, while the good guys are always drawn white. This is around the 17 minute mark
The "light vs dark" paradigm is as old as time. It has far more to do with day time and night time than any 19th or 20th century "racist" notion or view. We make a primal association with "evil" and "darkness" because humans--and all their early predecessors--have traditionally feared the dark; it was that time we were at our highest risk to be susceptible to our natural predators. This sort of outdated mechanism can still be found in who else, but children. Hence, the obvious reason to convey the themes and message to them in their entertainment.
Not everything has to do with systemically oppressing minorities, but if some people look hard enough, they will find that shit in their breakfast cereals if it so pleases them.
@@hamupinhere wow you really just dismissed all of racism based on light versus dark paradigm… I guess based on your own logic you can dismiss it if you just try hard enough as well… by the way you’re kind of full of it… Because see filmmakers use light and dark in their lighting all the time. They use dark to show scary parts and they use light to show not scary parts. Because that’s the dynamic you’re talking about. Which has nothing to do with casting dark people as the villains and white people as the heroes… You know how I know? Because in other countries that’s not what they do… Notice how in India it’s not white people in the good people roles and Black people in the bad people roles. Because your stupid paradigm Is just that: stupid.
@@owexsolo Exhibit A.
What color is your favorite breakfast cereal?
Yawn.
Ebert showed what kind of a D-Bag he was with that take.
None of the songs is the least bit memorable.
I liked Jury duty Paulie Shore is stupid here and that's what you want 😜
Kiss of Death. What a waste of a great cast.
Really not a fan of Al Franken - I think he is so unbelievably obnoxious - and his Stuart Smalley character is more obnoxious than HE is!
I'm watching this on my TV but had to come here to say WTF to them about Basketball Diaries!! Leo in that movie is one of the most Transcendent performances I have ever seen and as a movie lover,I rewatch it to see true acting and emotional carnage at some points. I wish they both had the chance to rewatch it and give it time. Nobody else was delivering performances like this back then.NO ONE.
My reviews: out of 5
1 " Kiss of Death " 2.5 out of 5 👎
2 " Jury Duty " 1 out of 5 👎
3 " Stuart Saves His Family ". 2 out of 5 👎
4 " The Basketball Diaries " 2.5 out of 5 👎
5 " The Pebble and the Penguin " 2 out of 5 👎
Siskel & Ebert walked so Chris Stuckmann and Jeremy Jahns could run.
Amen
RUclips critics aren't in the same league as Siskel or Ebert.
@@CoolhandLukeSkywalkr nowhere near at all
Downvote
These guys must be friend with Al Franken.
They're often way off with their reviews. That Stuart Smalley movie is absolute junk with almost no redeeming qualities. I can only assume they were friendly with Franken and were doing him a personal favour by recommending this garbage.
Roger, *no* R word 🚫
Dig him up from his grave and tell him that.
Pebble and the Penguin looks dire.
Stuart was an awful, boring movie. Tommy Boy, ironically, is a bonafide 90’s buddy movie classic. Both Siskel & Ebert were often wrong, and yes they were wrong, but that’s what made them special. It was always their opinions that made ‘em popular, they never felt they sold out to the studios.