Funny, they were so in favor of letterbox, before people finally bought widescreen TVs and solved that problem. I guess it goes back to seeing movies as they were meant to be seen. Back in the day there were curtains in the theater that opened after the slide show ads ended for wider movies. They could keep them closed for Peter Pan.
I was feeling what they were saying a couple years ago with ads for another drug dealer movie for an automatic villain in the age of decriminalizing cannabis and opioid addiction, who's the worse villain?
Not one of the best Bond movies obviously you haven't seen the Connery ones and at least two or three of the Moore ones just also one of the Brosnan and two at least of the Craig ones
I so enjoyed the summer of 1989. A lot great films were released, including Lethal Weapon 2, Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade and When Harry Met Sally etc...My sister and I saw them all in the theater.
I graduated high shool in 1989 and count 36 movies worth seeing, some more than once like _Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, Ghostbusters II,_ and _Uncle Buck._
If there's one thing I don't miss from the past, it's filmmakers having to alter their work to fit on square television screens. And I hated the jerkiness of pan-and-scan. Letterbox kind of sucked too because of the black bars and how close you had to be to the TV to see anything. If you were rich, you could afford a big-screen or projection TV (and a laserdisc player) which made movies better to watch, but most of us weren't rich and we were stuck with small screens. I'm so glad those days are over and widescreen TV's are now the norm.
Romantic comedies are terrible films save a literal handful of exceptions. So formulaic and most are so far from reality as to be live action children's cartoons.
It’s one of my favorite movies but it rips-off Woody Allen, big time. The end, for example, is the same as “Manhattan,” with the male running through NYC streets to intercept the woman he just realized he’s in love with.
Well, because the movies🍿that predate Rom Coms are the 30s Screwball and early 40s as well🎊 those were excellent movies! Then the 50s & 60s hit and those were different, a bit duller, and nothing light hearted in the 70s lol… Rob Reiner & Nora Ephron collaborated on a great script ❤Siskel is personally upset by the faking orgasm 😂bit
I finally saw When Harry Met Sally ... rom coms really touch eve3ryone, especially the ladies. People enjoyed it, it was fun. I don't have anything bad to say about. It's not something I would see again unless my gf wanted to. Oh well.
My take on the films reviewed: License to Kill = 6/10. A step down from Living Daylights. The pacing seems off and even the action sequences seem labored. Dalton continues to be a great Bond, and Robert Dalvi makes a great villain. Peter Pan = 7/10. Loved it as a kid, but consider it a lesser effort as an adult. I think it's a good movie but not on par with Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty from the same era. When Harry Met Sally = 10/10. I love this film. One of the best romantic comedies ever made. Great dialogue and situations, wonderful soundtrack, and off the charts chemistry between Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan.
I loved When Harry Met Sally until the very end when he ran back to the New Year's Eve Party to find her. It just seemed at that point like they were both each other's consolation prize. There was no fire. And no fireworks! I felt the same way about the reveal scene in the park in You've Got Mail where Meg Ryan finally gets together with Tom Hanks. She says something like, "I was hoping it was you," but it just doesn't ring true. Maybe it's just me, but those two scenes always disappoint me, although it's thumbs up on the rest of those two movies.
Yep. The ending puts the worst taste in my mouth and adheres to the conventions it was previously against. Even the screenwriter Nora Ephron agrees the ending is wrong.
Gene Siskel picked up on the fact that this Bond movie was filmed in Mexican studios due to financial reasons. It may have been exchange rates that that time. I can't remember the exact reason.
It was finances mainly- it’s explained more in the documentary on the DVD/bluray. The original plan was to shoot in China, but that fell through. The powers that be also wanted to save money as the Eady levy was not as viable as it used to be, hence not shooting at Pinewood either.
@@scottyunitedboy2925 It's very strange that the producers built the 007 Soundstage at Pinewood for 'The Spy Who Loved Me' and then filmed 'Moonraker' in France. I guess the fact that the Bond series has lasted this long means they knew and still know what decisions to make picture by picture.
@@ricardocantoral7672 Thanks for that info. Another thing I've always found strange is John Barry not scoring one or two Bond films due to being a tax exile. He also missed one Bond film due to having to undergo throat surgery. Couldn't the Bond producers have arranged for Barry to score those films in America and have the sound mixing done back in England (if necessary). Maybe I'm being naive, but film scores aren't always recorded in the same country as the film is produced/filmed.
This was the film he missed due to throat surgery. Originally he was going to do it but since he was recovering from surgery they deemed it too dangerous to fly him into London. Why they didn’t have him do in the states I don’t know.
I think the reason Licence to Kill failed at the U.S. box office against the competition is it just didn't look that fun. Dalton nor any of the actors seem to be happy or having a good time in the film. Dalton isn't a charming hero. That's why he's played so many villains in his career. The deemphasis on sex and half-naked babes takes out more of the traditional Bond fun. The realistic drug lord villain brings up a lot of unpleasant reality to think about as opposed to a megalomaniacal take-over-the-world kind of villain which would have you thinking about fantasy instead of reality. Batman at that time was offering a villain much closer to the typical over-the-top Bond villain with their fantastical schemes. Licence's action is tough and gritty but the movie seemed to lack the comic relief so prevalent that year in Indiana Jones, Lethal Weapon and others. While gritty, realistic movies definitely became more popular in recent years that was not what audiences preferred in 1989. And of course, it didn't help that License came out after all that competition and while they were still in theaters.
A Latino drug dealer sounds good to the moralizing "Just Say No" types. It's too bad Bond or someone didn't go after America assassinating and removing democratically-elected leaders in Latin America. Or someone nearly assassinated fighting back.
He wasn't too harsh. If you make a movie in the same style and genre, you know audiences will be reminded of the water mark in that style and genre, therefore you ought to anticipate the burden of comparison, not cry foul when people inevitably do it. I think both movies have their own merit and of course Annie Hall is a much better film, but Gene is absolutely on the money to mention the two together.
Regarding Bond movies: what Ebert may have been refusing to see is that Bond was only relevant during the Cold War. This film was released in 1989, when the Cold War was ending. Glasnost had begun in 1986, and the Cold War was over in 1991, with the end of the USSR. Bond films have been on life-support ever since.
Life support seems harsh. Some of the Craig pictures have been massive hits. Brosnan also did better box office than Dalton. I liked Dalton, but Licence to Kill has gone down as one of the lowest-grossing in the main Bond series of them all. It got Dalton fired and the series has done much better since.
@Ivor Biggun There appear to be conflicting stories, but the below quote is out there. It's from 2018 so it may be more recent than the "official" story. My guess is the story about Dalton rejecting a 3-to-5-picture deal was a cover story to give him a graceful and non-embarrassing exit. Demanding he do that many after License's bad box office, a 5-year-gap and his age doesn't pass the smell test: United Artists president John Calley and vice president Jeff Kleeman were both opposed to Dalton appearing in a third film. Kleeman gave an interview in MI6 #44 confirming this: “Cubby, Barbara and Michael Wilson initially said, ‘Yeah we’re excited about making another Bond movie, Timothy is ready to go, let’s do it.’ That was a difficult moment for everybody because EON really believed in Timothy and loved Timothy, and I understand why. He is a great actor, but he wasn’t the version of Bond that John [Calley] and I had in mind. We all had to talk it through and come to that consensus … Cubby put his hand around the walking stick and we all quieted and turned to him. He said, ‘All right, we’ll go with a new Bond.’”
@Ivor Biggun What you say suggests it would have been out of the ordinary to offer him a 3 to 5 film contract after already completing two films. It would be even crazier to think that if the studio was skeptical of him that they would have caved in to the point of offering him multiple films. At best he would've been offered one last chance. This Jeff Kleeman who said this was at MGM from 1993 to 1999. There's always the chance he's misremembering things or trying to pump up his credentials to make it look like he was fully responsible for the Brosnan films' success. The only way no one is lying publicly here is if Cubby made Dalton think he was truly being offered 3-5 films, knowing that Dalton would say no, allowing Dalton to truly quit before he was fired. Yes, it does seem like Dalton would've done a third film if it had been made earlier before Calley and Kleeman were running things starting in 1993. I wasn't suggesting he was fired the day after Licence came out, just before it came time to start shooting the next movie.
@Ivor Biggun I've always been a purely casual Bond viewer so I don't have the same understanding of the series you have. I haven't seen most of the films. I saw the '80s ones as a kid including NSNA and remember thinking more highly of The Living Daylights than the others. The airplane action scene with the door hanging open, the sledding in the cello case and the "back end of horse" line always stuck with me. I remember thinking Dalton was a cool and believable Bond but not exactly likable. When Licence came out I had no interest in seeing it. The directing could've been the problem in that it looked like absolutely no technical advancements had been made since the previous film. And as I said in another post, the fun factor really didn't seem to be there in that you had a fairly stiff hero up against a really grim villain. I caught most of it on TV eventually and was also disappointed in the Bond girls in that one. When Goldeneye came out, I felt the hype, saw it and absolutely hated it. I thought it was pure camp and cheese. I skipped a couple, then saw Die Another Day and honestly can't remember much about it. Skipped Casino Royale in theaters but saw it on DVD and thought it was one of the best movies I had ever seen. The action and suspense were simply top-notch and the villain great as well. The other Craigs were much more mixed. None had the same impact of Casino. They all seemed to be asking me to pay attention to the story too much when I wasn't interested in it. But they all looked expensive, which certainly is what Bond needed to stay relevant after they were so outclassed in the '80s by big-budget competitors.
@@jedijones Well, I am not really talking about the money. I am talking about the cultural framework for the film series. No more Cold War means no more reason for Bond to exist, because there is nothing left for moveigoers to relate to.
LICENSE TO KILL is one of the most underrated bond movies. They're right when they said of the mid 70-late 80s bond movies. They were terrible. Campy and just crap. This was a great bond movie
The film appears to have a lot of defenders. Personally, my problem with the film is the lack of substance. The producers claim they went back to Fleming with that film but there's scant evidence of that. There is none of the internal conflict that haunted the character in the books nor real colour that made his stories so memorable.
@@ricardocantoral7672 thats a really well thought out point of view. Its absent ANY substance. However bond films at the time were. Very few (if any) roger moore films did. They didn't back then. I doubt it went to Fleming as well
@@andrewhoyle1521 ironically, Moore was Fleming’s first pick to be Bond, but was under contract with the TV show “The Saint.” As soon as Moore joined, the movies got corny as hell, the exceptions being The Spy Who Loved Me & For Your Eyes Only.
Can't believe Siskel again how could he not like License To Kill the man was such a misery but Roger Ebert at least got it and enjoyed it so actually agreed with him here it certainly flip flopped between them tho on who enjoyed a film and who didn't and sometimes they both didn't and both did but they ended up being wrong a lot about films that turned out to be classics im just glad not everyone went by their recommendations
Actually it is one of the better James Bond films. I'd take it over Die Another Day, Moonraker, The Living Daylights, Quantum of Solace, and Man With The Golden Gun any day.
I CAN'T STAND Roger Moore as James Bond!!!!!!!!!!!!! He's completely unattractive, totally uncool, and his Bond movies have stupidest plots ever devised for an agent of his genre. They also have some of the dumbest co-stars. It's stomach turning. Every year a certain streaming service runs a bunch of Bond films, and my husband has to watch them all. In deference to me, he waits 'til last to watch the RM films, but try as I might, I can't help but unleash my Siskel-like loathing of the man. I also agree with Siskel that Connery was the best Bond ever. With all the Bonds that have come since, it's impossible to pick a successor. One cringes to anticipate who the next might be. I just ask that they don't RUIN the franchise with a WOKE version. That'll kill it for sure.
In terms of Bond villains, Sanchez was more down to earth but he isn't a particularly memorable villain even though Robert Davi brought a good deal of charisma and energy to the role.
An interesting element of Siskel and Ebert videos is how some of their takes and tastes have aged, saying Annie Hall is a faultless film compared to When Harry Met Sally feels odd in hindsight as When Harry Met Sally is the classic now and Annie Hall has that unfortunate Woody Allen catch of being a lot easier to morally scrutinise with the modern eye
When Harry Met Sally was an homage to Woody Allen's Annie Hall and Manhattan. It was cartoonish light comedy copying Woody's style. Why did Siskel and Ebert expect it to be anything else?
I really cannot understand why critics always want to compare every Romcom to Annie Hall. I watched Annie Hall a while ago and I had to turn it off after about a half hour. A few clever scenes but overall just plain boring boring boring!
Another problem for Licence to Kill's box office was the title. It's definitely the worst Bond title ever. It doesn't represent anything unique about this movie. I know the original title was supposed to be License Revoked and was changed in America. But at least that title would've indicated something different happening in this movie. Without a title indicating the villain or the plot or something flashy sounding, this Bond picture was telling audiences that it had nothing new to offer them other than just another Bond adventure.
I disagree with that, it's a classic, Bond series specific term. If you want to talk generic, 2 of the Brosnan movies had DIE in their title. And the newest film has also DIE in its title. That's totally forgettable IMO.
@@andyfilm5785 Licence to Kill would be like calling the next Indiana Jones, Indiana Jones: The Man with the Hat...or the whip. It implies that whatever the movie is about is so dull that they'd rather just call back to the basic character himself instead of giving a hint about the movie's plot. So it's a marketing error that doesn't generate any curiosity about what the movie is about.
The title in appropriate given the pedestrian nature of the film. I don't hate Licence To Kill but if you have seen the Die Hard or Lethal Weapon, this movie isn't even big deal.
I wholeheartedly agree. It was a mistake to pander to the USA market and although LTK sounds tough and iconic actually it is a lazy and generic title. A direct comparison could be drawn however with 2 other Fleming titles, OHMSS and FYEO both of which are standard secret service terms of the era. Live and let die, talks to the revenge aspect of the story and is highly evocative. One of my faves. License Revoked would have worked better or alternatively, unlicensed to kill (clumsy). How about this option VENGANCE IS MINE That's my proposal for a reworking of LTK Anyone want to fund the screenplay and option the rights?
sorry, the tape is too old and has a bit of damage. I tried these recordings out on multiple VCR's at times to get the least amount of wear and tear on-screen.
License to Kill was so disappointing. The Bonds are way much better when they stick to their own style. The film-makers shouldn't listen to "critics" or try to copy other films. Just have some faith in your own brand ffs.
@@chipmichaels5197 I Siskel was being unfair to Roger Moore because what had Siskel ever done except criticize films.There was no reason to insult Roger Moore
@@jedijones Yes but that approach suited James Bond sometimes . Not all Roger Moore James Bond films were camp like For Your Eyes Only and Spy Who Loved Me .James Bond would have probably not survived until today if it wasn't for Roger Moore . James Bond has now become too serious .
@Jack the Film Fanatic I don't hate Siskel though because some of his reviews were spot on .For example, his review of John Carpenter's The Thing was very insightful .Siskel identified how the film dealt with paranoia very well while many critics dismissed the film as garbage .Also he gave Rocky 5 a surprisingly positive review which showed he didn't just conform to the opinions of other critics .He just seemed to really dislike Roger Moore for some reason .He had no time for Moore even when he was playing other roles apart from Bond.Both critics.gave sycophantic reviews to the very average Bond film Never Say Never Again .They seemed to have this great love for Sean Connery .Connery looked older in Never Say Never Again than Roger Moore ever did even in a A View To A Kill
Why did Siskel become a movie critic? He hates any film that's not tailor-made to his exact requirements, and picks away at the most inconsequential things, like a scab, to justify giving it a thumbs down. But that fat grey-haired old woman, sitting opposite, isn't too bad, she's more forgiving
You started by making a good point. But then your comment about Ebert was lame. Ebert was brilliant in his analysis and writing, whether you agreed with his review or not.
![[TH] 2024 PMGC League | กลุ่มสีเหลืองวันที่ 1 | PUBG MOBILE Global Championship](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/I_FdxGT3WV4/mqdefault.jpg)
Roger going off on Disney because of Peter Pan’s aspect ratio is awesome. Same things we’re complaining about today.
Funny, they were so in favor of letterbox, before people finally bought widescreen TVs and solved that problem. I guess it goes back to seeing movies as they were meant to be seen. Back in the day there were curtains in the theater that opened after the slide show ads ended for wider movies. They could keep them closed for Peter Pan.
?
I think license to kill is not only one of the best Bond movies but one of the best thrillers of all time 🎰
I was feeling what they were saying a couple years ago with ads for another drug dealer movie for an automatic villain in the age of decriminalizing cannabis and opioid addiction, who's the worse villain?
Not one of the best Bond movies obviously you haven't seen the Connery ones and at least two or three of the Moore ones just also one of the Brosnan and two at least of the Craig ones
I hated that Connery disliked Dalton as Bond.
Underrated. But i think it has growned over the years. Many disliked it back in -89.
Connery did his stinkers.
These two had such brilliant chemistry. The repartee was a joy.
Them 2 arguing about their age gap is hilarious hahahahahha RIP to both
Their Peter Pan review was very fun to listen to. These two had chemistry.
I so enjoyed the summer of 1989. A lot great films were released, including Lethal Weapon 2, Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade and When Harry Met Sally etc...My sister and I saw them all in the theater.
Indeed. 1989 has been said by many to be the best summer movie year of all time
Me too !!! Best years for theatre fun and double features
Batman.
and you and everyone else probably didn't even know about UHF, other than Close Personal friends of Al
I graduated high shool in 1989 and count 36 movies worth seeing, some more than once like _Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, Ghostbusters II,_ and _Uncle Buck._
i cant believe siskel said "but its a movie" lmao thats some real shit
Yeah it's perfect :D
When Harry met Sally is a classic. Screenplay is very funny.
Yes its a perfectly written film, they even highlighted the screenwriter, rare for these guys.
One of my top 10 all-time favourites.
Should have been titled "When Rob ripped off Woody".
@@joebarr725 oh please 🙄 old boomer
I love Billy Crystal when he's being natural. He was terrific in When Harry Met Sally and Analyze This. None of that dated, Catskills comedian crap.
I much preferred When Harry Raised His Salary, better script
@@booknooky9436 The trilogy didn't feel complete until When Harry Ate Salad came out though.
@@booknooky9436 LOL ! Post fixed !
His best movie was Throw Momma from the Train.
@@gspendlove I like Throw Momma but it's script could have a stood a rewrite.
My reviews
Licence To Kill (two thumbs up)
Peter Pan (two thumbs up)
When Harry Met Sally (two thumbs up, way up; one of 89s best)
License to Kill is one of the very best Bond films.
*License To Kill: best Bond film, best Bond (Dalton), best Bond girl (Carey Lowell).*
Licence to Kill👍 ⭐️⭐️⭐️ out of 4
Peter Pan 👍⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
When Harry Met Sally 👍⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
If there's one thing I don't miss from the past, it's filmmakers having to alter their work to fit on square television screens. And I hated the jerkiness of pan-and-scan. Letterbox kind of sucked too because of the black bars and how close you had to be to the TV to see anything. If you were rich, you could afford a big-screen or projection TV (and a laserdisc player) which made movies better to watch, but most of us weren't rich and we were stuck with small screens. I'm so glad those days are over and widescreen TV's are now the norm.
It's very difficult to talk with people about romantic comedies that pre-date When Harry Met Sally, it so redefined the genre.
By doing Woody Allen-lite?
@@jedijones, I can't say how, but anyone who says it didn't define the formula for romantic comedies is living in denial.
Romantic comedies are terrible films save a literal handful of exceptions. So formulaic and most are so far from reality as to be live action children's cartoons.
It’s one of my favorite movies but it rips-off Woody Allen, big time. The end, for example, is the same as “Manhattan,” with the male running through NYC streets to intercept the woman he just realized he’s in love with.
Well, because the movies🍿that predate Rom Coms are the 30s Screwball and early 40s as well🎊 those were excellent movies! Then the 50s & 60s hit and those were different, a bit duller, and nothing light hearted in the 70s lol… Rob Reiner & Nora Ephron collaborated on a great script ❤Siskel is personally upset by the faking orgasm 😂bit
Anybody else surprised to see James Bond scooped Christopher Nolan by 25 years?
Nope. He has no imagination.
It's kind of funny when they don't realize they are reviewing a classic like with When Harry Met Sally.
A marginal thumbs up for “When Harry Met Sally” from Gene? Wow.
Gene was always a bit of a stick in the mud.
@@gheller2261 Yeah, he always came across as tougher on films than Roger. His slow 20 year turnaround on Apocalypse Now is proof
I finally saw When Harry Met Sally ... rom coms really touch eve3ryone, especially the ladies. People enjoyed it, it was fun. I don't have anything bad to say about. It's not something I would see again unless my gf wanted to. Oh well.
My take on the films reviewed:
License to Kill = 6/10. A step down from Living Daylights. The pacing seems off and even the action sequences seem labored. Dalton continues to be a great Bond, and Robert Dalvi makes a great villain.
Peter Pan = 7/10. Loved it as a kid, but consider it a lesser effort as an adult. I think it's a good movie but not on par with Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty from the same era.
When Harry Met Sally = 10/10. I love this film. One of the best romantic comedies ever made. Great dialogue and situations, wonderful soundtrack, and off the charts chemistry between Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan.
One thing they didn't mention about Tinker Bell is that a pre-stardom Marilyn Monroe modelled her torso.
I loved When Harry Met Sally until the very end when he ran back to the New Year's Eve Party to find her. It just seemed at that point like they were both each other's consolation prize. There was no fire. And no fireworks! I felt the same way about the reveal scene in the park in You've Got Mail where Meg Ryan finally gets together with Tom Hanks. She says something like, "I was hoping it was you," but it just doesn't ring true. Maybe it's just me, but those two scenes always disappoint me, although it's thumbs up on the rest of those two movies.
You're damn right. The movie serendipity copies both of those movies terrible endings.
Yep. The ending puts the worst taste in my mouth and adheres to the conventions it was previously against. Even the screenwriter Nora Ephron agrees the ending is wrong.
007 IS a mixed bag for me too
Gene Siskel picked up on the fact that this Bond movie was filmed in Mexican studios due to financial reasons. It may have been exchange rates that that time. I can't remember the exact reason.
It was finances mainly- it’s explained more in the documentary on the DVD/bluray. The original plan was to shoot in China, but that fell through. The powers that be also wanted to save money as the Eady levy was not as viable as it used to be, hence not shooting at Pinewood either.
@@scottyunitedboy2925 It's very strange that the producers built the 007 Soundstage at Pinewood for 'The Spy Who Loved Me' and then filmed 'Moonraker' in France. I guess the fact that the Bond series has lasted this long means they knew and still know what decisions to make picture by picture.
@@CaminoAir When Moonraker was in production, the producers wanted to duck the high taxes in England.
@@ricardocantoral7672 Thanks for that info. Another thing I've always found strange is John Barry not scoring one or two Bond films due to being a tax exile. He also missed one Bond film due to having to undergo throat surgery. Couldn't the Bond producers have arranged for Barry to score those films in America and have the sound mixing done back in England (if necessary). Maybe I'm being naive, but film scores aren't always recorded in the same country as the film is produced/filmed.
This was the film he missed due to throat surgery.
Originally he was going to do it but since he was recovering from surgery they deemed it too dangerous to fly him into London.
Why they didn’t have him do in the states I don’t know.
I think the reason Licence to Kill failed at the U.S. box office against the competition is it just didn't look that fun. Dalton nor any of the actors seem to be happy or having a good time in the film. Dalton isn't a charming hero. That's why he's played so many villains in his career. The deemphasis on sex and half-naked babes takes out more of the traditional Bond fun. The realistic drug lord villain brings up a lot of unpleasant reality to think about as opposed to a megalomaniacal take-over-the-world kind of villain which would have you thinking about fantasy instead of reality. Batman at that time was offering a villain much closer to the typical over-the-top Bond villain with their fantastical schemes. Licence's action is tough and gritty but the movie seemed to lack the comic relief so prevalent that year in Indiana Jones, Lethal Weapon and others. While gritty, realistic movies definitely became more popular in recent years that was not what audiences preferred in 1989. And of course, it didn't help that License came out after all that competition and while they were still in theaters.
The marketing material such as the posters were redone at the last minute because of the name change.
@@s.ormgamalson6489 yup. It was going to be called Licence Revoked.
I know on the summer of 89, I dont remember even seeing a commercial of Licence To Kill on TV
@@greatwuta I don't either, but maybe because we all thought of Bond as boring at that time and didn't really pay attention.
A Latino drug dealer sounds good to the moralizing "Just Say No" types. It's too bad Bond or someone didn't go after America assassinating and removing democratically-elected leaders in Latin America. Or someone nearly assassinated fighting back.
I adore these old episodes. Gene needs to get over Annie Hall already.
He wasn't too harsh. If you make a movie in the same style and genre, you know audiences will be reminded of the water mark in that style and genre, therefore you ought to anticipate the burden of comparison, not cry foul when people inevitably do it. I think both movies have their own merit and of course Annie Hall is a much better film, but Gene is absolutely on the money to mention the two together.
Did Christopher Nolan, borrow the idea for hitching the airplane to the larger airplane for License to Kill?
The original Peter Pan could be extended using ai "paint out" preventing excessively close crops.
Regarding Bond movies: what Ebert may have been refusing to see is that Bond was only relevant during the Cold War. This film was released in 1989, when the Cold War was ending. Glasnost had begun in 1986, and the Cold War was over in 1991, with the end of the USSR. Bond films have been on life-support ever since.
Life support seems harsh. Some of the Craig pictures have been massive hits. Brosnan also did better box office than Dalton. I liked Dalton, but Licence to Kill has gone down as one of the lowest-grossing in the main Bond series of them all. It got Dalton fired and the series has done much better since.
@Ivor Biggun There appear to be conflicting stories, but the below quote is out there. It's from 2018 so it may be more recent than the "official" story. My guess is the story about Dalton rejecting a 3-to-5-picture deal was a cover story to give him a graceful and non-embarrassing exit. Demanding he do that many after License's bad box office, a 5-year-gap and his age doesn't pass the smell test:
United Artists president John Calley and vice president Jeff Kleeman were both opposed to Dalton appearing in a third film. Kleeman gave an interview in MI6 #44 confirming this:
“Cubby, Barbara and Michael Wilson initially said, ‘Yeah we’re excited about making another Bond movie, Timothy is ready to go, let’s do it.’ That was a difficult moment for everybody because EON really believed in Timothy and loved Timothy, and I understand why. He is a great actor, but he wasn’t the version of Bond that John [Calley] and I had in mind. We all had to talk it through and come to that consensus … Cubby put his hand around the walking stick and we all quieted and turned to him. He said, ‘All right, we’ll go with a new Bond.’”
@Ivor Biggun What you say suggests it would have been out of the ordinary to offer him a 3 to 5 film contract after already completing two films. It would be even crazier to think that if the studio was skeptical of him that they would have caved in to the point of offering him multiple films. At best he would've been offered one last chance. This Jeff Kleeman who said this was at MGM from 1993 to 1999. There's always the chance he's misremembering things or trying to pump up his credentials to make it look like he was fully responsible for the Brosnan films' success. The only way no one is lying publicly here is if Cubby made Dalton think he was truly being offered 3-5 films, knowing that Dalton would say no, allowing Dalton to truly quit before he was fired. Yes, it does seem like Dalton would've done a third film if it had been made earlier before Calley and Kleeman were running things starting in 1993. I wasn't suggesting he was fired the day after Licence came out, just before it came time to start shooting the next movie.
@Ivor Biggun I've always been a purely casual Bond viewer so I don't have the same understanding of the series you have. I haven't seen most of the films. I saw the '80s ones as a kid including NSNA and remember thinking more highly of The Living Daylights than the others. The airplane action scene with the door hanging open, the sledding in the cello case and the "back end of horse" line always stuck with me. I remember thinking Dalton was a cool and believable Bond but not exactly likable. When Licence came out I had no interest in seeing it. The directing could've been the problem in that it looked like absolutely no technical advancements had been made since the previous film. And as I said in another post, the fun factor really didn't seem to be there in that you had a fairly stiff hero up against a really grim villain. I caught most of it on TV eventually and was also disappointed in the Bond girls in that one. When Goldeneye came out, I felt the hype, saw it and absolutely hated it. I thought it was pure camp and cheese. I skipped a couple, then saw Die Another Day and honestly can't remember much about it. Skipped Casino Royale in theaters but saw it on DVD and thought it was one of the best movies I had ever seen. The action and suspense were simply top-notch and the villain great as well. The other Craigs were much more mixed. None had the same impact of Casino. They all seemed to be asking me to pay attention to the story too much when I wasn't interested in it. But they all looked expensive, which certainly is what Bond needed to stay relevant after they were so outclassed in the '80s by big-budget competitors.
@@jedijones Well, I am not really talking about the money. I am talking about the cultural framework for the film series. No more Cold War means no more reason for Bond to exist, because there is nothing left for moveigoers to relate to.
Funny thing is goldfinger didnt want to take over the world.
Take over the world's gold?
Feeling good -a song by micheal buble and his sound would have been a perfect promotional and soundtrack match for the Bond franchise.........
LICENSE TO KILL is one of the most underrated bond movies. They're right when they said of the mid 70-late 80s bond movies. They were terrible. Campy and just crap. This was a great bond movie
The film appears to have a lot of defenders. Personally, my problem with the film is the lack of substance. The producers claim they went back to Fleming with that film but there's scant evidence of that. There is none of the internal conflict that haunted the character in the books nor real colour that made his stories so memorable.
@@ricardocantoral7672 thats a really well thought out point of view. Its absent ANY substance. However bond films at the time were. Very few (if any) roger moore films did. They didn't back then. I doubt it went to Fleming as well
@@andrewhoyle1521 ironically, Moore was Fleming’s first pick to be Bond, but was under contract with the TV show “The Saint.” As soon as Moore joined, the movies got corny as hell, the exceptions being The Spy Who Loved Me & For Your Eyes Only.
God I hate that word, "underrated." It's so overused in TH-cam comments. Please stop using it.
Can't believe Siskel again how could he not like License To Kill the man was such a misery but Roger Ebert at least got it and enjoyed it so actually agreed with him here it certainly flip flopped between them tho on who enjoyed a film and who didn't and sometimes they both didn't and both did but they ended up being wrong a lot about films that turned out to be classics im just glad not everyone went by their recommendations
License to Kill is good, but it's not one of the better James Bond films. Laurence Olivier was one of my late mother's favorite actors.
Actually it is one of the better James Bond films. I'd take it over Die Another Day, Moonraker, The Living Daylights, Quantum of Solace, and Man With The Golden Gun any day.
Licence To Kill was a lousy attempt at capturing Fleming's Bond.
Oooh Siskel totally dissed Roger Moore
I CAN'T STAND Roger Moore as James Bond!!!!!!!!!!!!! He's completely unattractive, totally uncool, and his Bond movies have stupidest plots ever devised for an agent of his genre. They also have some of the dumbest co-stars. It's stomach turning. Every year a certain streaming service runs a bunch of Bond films, and my husband has to watch them all. In deference to me, he waits 'til last to watch the RM films, but try as I might, I can't help but unleash my Siskel-like loathing of the man. I also agree with Siskel that Connery was the best Bond ever. With all the Bonds that have come since, it's impossible to pick a successor. One cringes to anticipate who the next might be. I just ask that they don't RUIN the franchise with a WOKE version. That'll kill it for sure.
He was right. Roger Moore was distinctive for comedy, one-liners and camp.
So what davi is not a classic villain? He is way more realistic
In terms of Bond villains, Sanchez was more down to earth but he isn't a particularly memorable villain even though Robert Davi brought a good deal of charisma and energy to the role.
I'm with Siskel on Licence to Kill. Uneven. That basically sums it up and not much else needs to be said.
For me, James Bond is Roger Moore.
My reviews: out of 5
1 " Licence to Kill " 3 out of 5 👍
2 " Peter Pan " 3 out of 5 👍
3 " When Harry Met Sally " 3 out of 5 👍
An interesting element of Siskel and Ebert videos is how some of their takes and tastes have aged, saying Annie Hall is a faultless film compared to When Harry Met Sally feels odd in hindsight as When Harry Met Sally is the classic now and Annie Hall has that unfortunate Woody Allen catch of being a lot easier to morally scrutinise with the modern eye
They are an older generation… no one would watch what’s his name today
At the movies
When Harry Met Sally was an homage to Woody Allen's Annie Hall and Manhattan. It was cartoonish light comedy copying Woody's style. Why did Siskel and Ebert expect it to be anything else?
Roger Moore was the best, James Bond! Fight me!
I really cannot understand why critics always want to compare every Romcom to Annie Hall.
I watched Annie Hall a while ago and I had to turn it off after about a half hour. A few clever scenes but overall just plain boring boring boring!
When Harry meet Sally is amazing
Anne hall was trash
Another problem for Licence to Kill's box office was the title. It's definitely the worst Bond title ever. It doesn't represent anything unique about this movie. I know the original title was supposed to be License Revoked and was changed in America. But at least that title would've indicated something different happening in this movie. Without a title indicating the villain or the plot or something flashy sounding, this Bond picture was telling audiences that it had nothing new to offer them other than just another Bond adventure.
I disagree with that, it's a classic, Bond series specific term. If you want to talk generic, 2 of the Brosnan movies had DIE in their title. And the newest film has also DIE in its title. That's totally forgettable IMO.
@@andyfilm5785 Licence to Kill would be like calling the next Indiana Jones, Indiana Jones: The Man with the Hat...or the whip. It implies that whatever the movie is about is so dull that they'd rather just call back to the basic character himself instead of giving a hint about the movie's plot. So it's a marketing error that doesn't generate any curiosity about what the movie is about.
The title in appropriate given the pedestrian nature of the film. I don't hate Licence To Kill but if you have seen the Die Hard or Lethal Weapon, this movie isn't even big deal.
I wholeheartedly agree. It was a mistake to pander to the USA market and although LTK sounds tough and iconic actually it is a lazy and generic title. A direct comparison could be drawn however with 2 other Fleming titles, OHMSS and FYEO both of which are standard secret service terms of the era. Live and let die, talks to the revenge aspect of the story and is highly evocative. One of my faves.
License Revoked would have worked better or alternatively, unlicensed to kill (clumsy).
How about this option
VENGANCE IS MINE
That's my proposal for a reworking of LTK
Anyone want to fund the screenplay and option the rights?
Fix the Tracking!
sorry, the tape is too old and has a bit of damage. I tried these recordings out on multiple VCR's at times to get the least amount of wear and tear on-screen.
License to Kill was so disappointing. The Bonds are way much better when they stick to their own style. The film-makers shouldn't listen to "critics" or try to copy other films. Just have some faith in your own brand ffs.
Roger Moore was a lot better looking than Siskel.
So?
@@chipmichaels5197 I Siskel was being unfair to Roger Moore because what had Siskel ever done except criticize films.There was no reason to insult Roger Moore
@@martinjones8861 He just didn't like Moore's campy approach to the character.
@@jedijones Yes but that approach suited James Bond sometimes . Not all Roger Moore James Bond films were camp like For Your Eyes Only and Spy Who Loved Me .James Bond would have probably not survived until today if it wasn't for Roger Moore . James Bond has now become too serious .
@Jack the Film Fanatic I don't hate Siskel though because some of his reviews were spot on .For example, his review of John Carpenter's The Thing was very insightful .Siskel identified how the film dealt with paranoia very well while many critics dismissed the film as garbage .Also he gave Rocky 5 a surprisingly positive review which showed he didn't just conform to the opinions of other critics .He just seemed to really dislike Roger Moore for some reason .He had no time for Moore even when he was playing other roles apart from Bond.Both critics.gave sycophantic reviews to the very average Bond film Never Say Never Again .They seemed to have this great love for Sean Connery .Connery looked older in Never Say Never Again than Roger Moore ever did even in a A View To A Kill
Timothy Dalton really sucked as James Bond Thank God for Pierce Bronson 😏
Why did Siskel become a movie critic? He hates any film that's not tailor-made to his exact requirements, and picks away at the most inconsequential things, like a scab, to justify giving it a thumbs down. But that fat grey-haired old woman, sitting opposite, isn't too bad, she's more forgiving
Roger was man, you clueless putz.
They've got to say something about a movie and not every movie is a classic
I don’t really get Siskel. Dude seems like an accountant that was sentenced to review films every weekend for the rest of his life.
You started by making a good point. But then your comment about Ebert was lame. Ebert was brilliant in his analysis and writing, whether you agreed with his review or not.
Don't insult my man Ebert. Siskel on the other hand, that's okay. He was a hack.
No Meg Ryan at the restaurant was not a funny bit. She’s not sexy and it’s embarrassing
We all have opinions, so here are mine. The scene in the restaurant was funny, and Meg Ryan was sexy in a cute sort of way.