Lots of great disagreements and arguments in this episode; might be the record for most split decisions. I’m with Ebert on most of them, but I’ve never seen the flick where the power went out in LA.
Nah, they just got a little bit worked up. There is some good footage of them having real fights/arguments in the 70s and early 80s. By the 90s, they were just like the 2 old muppets like Statler and Waldorf.
Roger is a better judge of film because he doesn't judge the film, he judges how the film made him feel, then he retro-actively analyzes what about the film may have caused the reaction. This is more objective because it allows Roger to interpret art *prima facie*. The only problem with Roger is he's a coal burner; so any movie that's about black people he automatically likes, unless the black people are portrayed as just dumb and/or violent. But it's easy to simply be aware of his biases and discard, or deduct, praise from those films. Gene has an ulterior motive (that applies to cinema in totality) which is to elevate film as an artistic form. This undermines Gene's ability to judge film because he wants the film to do and be certain things. When a film is not the specific things he wants it to be, it effects him negatively because it reminds him he's not in control, which he then resents.
@@Shorty_Lickens You really shouldn't be a slave to the Siskel and Ebert ratings. They gave two thumbs down to both Home Alone 1 and 2, and those are far more endlessly watchable than a lot of the oscar bait films they typically gave thumbs up to.
@@nopemcgee2831 Well at no point did I or anyone else ever say I was a slave to their ratings but you go ahead and spend the rest of your life assuming instead of thinking. It seems to be working so well for you.
@@Shorty_Lickens You are a slave to the ratings through your words and actions my dude. You didn't personally see the movie yet are going entirely off their ratings just so you can leave a comment on youtube. People should watch movies with concepts they find interesting and judge them afterwards if it's up to THEIR personal standards.
I ❤ how and when they disagree and still respect each other, remain friends! The world today could use a lot more of that!👍👍
"I think it would be better if you reviewed the movies that are made rather than your rewrites." An evergreen statement if there ever was one
what a burn
ebert W right here. i will also say siskel does that alot.
I honestly think Gene should have been a screenwriter instead of a critic.
Spicy episode
It’s because they were reviewing a bunch of middling movies. Neither obviously good or obviously bad, hence their marginal recommendations.
Lots of great disagreements and arguments in this episode; might be the record for most split decisions. I’m with Ebert on most of them, but I’ve never seen the flick where the power went out in LA.
I agree with Gene. "The Trigger Effect" is a good movie.
bullet proof and dr Moreau just made me uncomfortable.. such a confusing mix of emotions..
They seem like they are fighting in real life before they filmed this
Nah, they just got a little bit worked up. There is some good footage of them having real fights/arguments in the 70s and early 80s. By the 90s, they were just like the 2 old muppets like Statler and Waldorf.
The older I get I find myself agreeing with Gene more and more. He doesn’t let his emotions get in the way of his reviews as often as roger does
I agree
Well, movies are emotions
I am typically on Roger's side and I think your emotions should largely dictate your reaction to a film.
Roger is a better judge of film because he doesn't judge the film, he judges how the film made him feel, then he retro-actively analyzes what about the film may have caused the reaction. This is more objective because it allows Roger to interpret art *prima facie*.
The only problem with Roger is he's a coal burner; so any movie that's about black people he automatically likes, unless the black people are portrayed as just dumb and/or violent. But it's easy to simply be aware of his biases and discard, or deduct, praise from those films.
Gene has an ulterior motive (that applies to cinema in totality) which is to elevate film as an artistic form. This undermines Gene's ability to judge film because he wants the film to do and be certain things. When a film is not the specific things he wants it to be, it effects him negatively because it reminds him he's not in control, which he then resents.
This is a perfect thread of people’s opinions on what makes a movie good or not :)
Adam Sandler was also in Happy Gilmore. The same year he did bulletproof with Damon Waynes.
Yup.
never heard of the trigger affect until now. the premise is great. is it worth watching?
they gave it marginal two thumbs down, so I will say No unless you are super bored.
@@Shorty_Lickens You really shouldn't be a slave to the Siskel and Ebert ratings. They gave two thumbs down to both Home Alone 1 and 2, and those are far more endlessly watchable than a lot of the oscar bait films they typically gave thumbs up to.
@@nopemcgee2831 Well at no point did I or anyone else ever say I was a slave to their ratings but you go ahead and spend the rest of your life assuming instead of thinking. It seems to be working so well for you.
@@Shorty_Lickens You are a slave to the ratings through your words and actions my dude. You didn't personally see the movie yet are going entirely off their ratings just so you can leave a comment on youtube. People should watch movies with concepts they find interesting and judge them afterwards if it's up to THEIR personal standards.
@@Shorty_Lickensdid you fall asleep or not pay attention? Gene gave it a thumbs up and found it very effective - it was Roger who was let down.
Wow Siskel did seem to like pretty bad movies!
And disliked pretty good movies.
This was not easy to watch. Yikes
why??
???
Because they seem actually angry with each other. Outside of the usual movie review arguments. They’re legit mad.
Did you try keeping your eyes open?