I've watched about a hundred Siskel and Ebert reviews, and this is their worst. They are far too hung up with trying to characterize the movie rather than judging it for what it is. Siskel said "it's just not funny", as if he expected it to be a comedy. It's a fantasy film with a lot of amusing moments. I mean, was it not enough that the film was visually unique and imaginative? Was the great music not enough? Of course, this is the same dude who said he would like Terminator more if it were more of a romance movie.
machineofadream I don't recall the film getting great reviews at the time either from many critics. The Daily News gave it one star. I think it did well due to teens going to see it.
I always liked the movie, though I was a kid when I first saw it so perhaps some of it is just nostalgia. Still, many films from my childhood make me cringe today. I do think it's aged well. Part of this is because Hollywood is in a slump of endless sequels and reboots. What is the modern-day Beetlejuice? I wish I knew.
I think if Siskel and Ebert were alive today and re-watched this movie, they might feel differently. There are plenty of classic movies that were originally panned or criticized by critics, and later considered classics upon re-assessment. Citizen Kane was one of those, as was It's a Wonderful Life. While both of those movies were nominated for Best Picture, they weren't considered classics until years later upon re-assessment. But I think due to the staying power this movie has had as a cult classic, they might re-assess their initial critique.
The movie was weird and many of the actors had some doubts about it, including Keaton. It was a very unusual movie and it's understandable many people didn't get it.
+Dale Chawkins He said he didn't know IF he was going to be a "GHOSTBUSTERS" clone... or a film like "MONEY PIT." Gene picked up on something--imagine "GHOSTBUSTERS" from the ghosts' Point-of-View...where the ghosts are the protagonists and the living and the antagonists?
Actually, Beetlejuice is sort of Ghostbusters in reverse: Ghostbusters is about people trying to get rid of ghosts, Beetlejuice is about a ghost trying to get rid of people.
@@petercharleskrug That's not the same, that's what ghosts do in the first place, scare people away, Ghostbusters is the odd ball by actually catching one
@DreBone1986 catching them to prevent a takeover of our world. Beetlejuice is nothing of the sort. How did S&E of all people think BJ is a clone of GB in any sense? (Apart from a human looking for someone to remove a pest infestation like any number of 70s animal invasion flicks I'd guess. but that's as generic as it gets.)
Wow. These guys are way off! This movie is absolutely unique, engrossing, wacky, bizarre, outrageous, and extremely funny. All of the characters are amazing. When I first saw this on HBO back in the 90s, I had to watch it every time it played. I thought it was spellbinding, and unlike anything other movie ever made. It's incredibly creative. The movie has endured and become a classic. Apparently they just didn't get it.
To you, this is a beloved classic you half paid attention to when you were 10 and now declare an all time classic work of the highest art. To Gene and Rog it was Tuesday.
I mean, _Beetlejuice_ holds a lot of nostalgia, but it’s also holds up as unique, daring, and entertaining to this day. It’s a classic in the same vein as _The Wizard of Oz._ I can see it not being to someone’s taste, but it’s an enduring IP that different generations have discovered for a reason.
Thank you. A lot of morons here overreacting to movie critics just doing their job. You're not always gonna agree with film critics. I absolutely adore Ebert, but have some significant disagreements with him. Big deal.
I am in the middle camp. I don't think Beetlejuice is as good as it was when I was 10. However, Siskel and Ebert made some odd statements. They both declared BJ a Ghostbusters clone which is false and Roger claims he went in knowing nothing. How on Earth can you go into that movie and assume it's just about two people fixing up a house?
I think as children this movie was so special and it's one of the rare flicks that we watch as adults and still love. Siskel and Ebert missed the point of the movie. While Ebert didn't know what to expect, I feel like he went in without an open mind and had it made up 20 minutes in. Beetlejuice isn't a wonderful film, but it's an original and good one.
Ebert was usually just wrong in the 80s But he became the best critic sometime in the 90s, understanding that not every movie is made for him, or anyone
WTF? Beetlejuice is Tim Burton's masterpiece. And Beetlejuice is one of the most iconic characters ever put on film. These guys were all wet on this one.
@@EddieHenderson92Nah, Ghostbusters is far sharper and better written. Beetlejuice has a great imagination but it, like many Tim Burton films, gets far too caught up in art direction and character over a coherent story. I liked it a lot more when I was 10 and it isn't bad now but it's nearly as good as Ghostbusters.
If we had more half decent film critics then maybe cinema (and entertainment) wouldn’t be in the state that it’s in. Roger earned a Pulitzer Prize but what does he know about the art of film making.
Call me crazy, but as someone who has seen all the Ghost Busters films and Beetlejuice, I have to say that they don't have much in common aside from the supernatural elements. To say that Beetlejuice was catching some of the success of Ghost Busters by being similar in some aspects (supernatural, comedy, fantasy) is one thing, but to call it a clone? Hell no.
Like Roger Ebert, when I first heard the title 'Beetlejuice' and took one look at the movie poster, I also thought the whole movie was just going to be a charming gentle comedy all about a goofy young couple trying to fix up a house... Imagine how horrified I was when all the ghost stuff started happening! It's like when I watched Die Hard and I thought it would be a nice marital drama about Bruce Willis and his wife, but then all that violent terrorist stuff started happening... :(
LOL! It's so funny watching these reviews in retrospect. Beetlejuice is now considered one of the best comedy classics of all time. My friends in college all loved this film, and saw it on video multiple times.
The public seemed to like this movie, was a big rental movie upon it's release. It had toy figures and spawned a cartoon series. This was not a cult movie that grew over time, this was a hit with the public when it came out.
I think they mean clients called the ghost busters for help. The ghost called beetlejuice. Regardless, this was a horrible interview and a horrible analogy.
The reason why Ebert doesn't have a show anymore is a few years ago he got throat cancer and lost his voice. He also cannot eat anymore he gets his food through a tube. He has a twitter account and writes reviews for the Chicago Tribune (which he always has done) and has a blog where he talks about politics, and anything else that he feels like mentioning. I think people need to have more compassion for others.
Finally, someone who doesn't crap on them and film criticism, generally. Beetlejuice is just ok to me, entertaining but not even close to a favorite or anything like that. I get where Ebert was coming from. Even when I disagree with him, I often understand his objections.
I think I agree to disagree with them on this movie. I liked it, especially Michael Keaton in the title role, who I think did provide some comic energy to the picture.
Yeah this is one of their worst reviews ever, and they also thought Evil Dead was the worst movie ever made and I only went to see it because they complained about the excessive gore as a negative (I loved it and still do to this Day), every movie is subjective to personal taste, now if you see 5-10 reviews that indicate similar opinions without spoilers then you decide to go or skip but you go in with the knowledge that most have a negative view of the movie, Siskel & Ebert put too much thought into the enjoyment of a film, almost like they had a checklist that had to meet criteria before they could give it a thumbs up
Ghostbusters clone?! Oh yeah, because Michael Keaton playing a ghoulish comedic nutcase just SCREAMS Bill Murray and Dan Ackroyd fighting ghosts. THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, EBERT!!!!
reverse of ghostbusters. Reverse of the exorcist which they didn't even mention that Ghostbusters was apparently a rip-off of the exorcist when they said they liked that movie. michael keaton was white hot when beetlejuice came out but no one in the mainstream was aware. I was 9 years old and I thought he was the funniest person on earth when he did Beale juice and I think I was right to today. They literally thought that Michael Keaton and beetlejuice were a dead duck and would not succeed. How more wrong could they have been the tiny movie grossed nearly a 100 million dollars in 1988 becoming 1 of the highest grossing films of its genre and in that year. Past that it became a huge cult success and it's to this day Michael Keaton's most memorable comedy roll.
Precisely. The fact they call this a "clone" and Keaton being "obnoxious" makes me question their professionalism. His acting was exhilirating and intense, it made the character feel real, and "alive", so to speak. The set design also fit together extremely well with the overall theme of the film and had a very cohesive design, with the characters implemented perfectly. This isn't just one of my personal favorites, but one of my critical favorites, and one that I can call a genuinely great film.
I think Cisco and Ebert missed the entire Point completely that Beetlejuice is more of a satire then anything. It was way before it's time and that's why it's one of the greatest movies ever made! I'm going to have to give this siskel and Ebert review a thumbs down! LOL
What exactly is it satirizing? I guess it could be satirizing the caricature of yuppie types and their sometimes gaudy tastes in aesthetics and interior design. What else?
I notice so many dislikes--more than likes. 'Cause the dynamic duo didn't like this one? Still, as a piece of historical documented appraisal... it's worth more than it's weight in gold.
You're not always gonna agree with film critics. So what? I adore Ebert, but have some strong disagreements with him as well. Big deal. It's gonna happen. Their takes are there for people's consideration... or not. Nobody is forcing you to give a shit what they thought.
Me and my brother AND sister all loved this movie. We watched it a few times and laughed at every joke. I guess it's different for kids. I could watch it as an adult now and I doubt it would be the same, but I think it's silly to expect just 2 guys to review a movie for 280,000,000 people. You just can't squeeze that many people into ANY two people. But gahhh... the nostalgia. Time never stops killing the past. Better get busy people.... make some good memories worth remembering!!
Ghostbusters Clone? Now this is why I have such a love hate relationship with Siskel & Ebert they're fun to listen to, but oh man do they have some of the craziest takes on some of the greatest classics ever, but that's also what makes their show and reviews fun to listen too now to see what they said about these films when they were brand new and seeing what the public has to say about them 30 Plus Years Later
Ebert surprises me in not knowing the movie quickly turns from being a "Money Pit" clone to a "Ghostbusters" clone (which it isn't - "Ghostbusters" has a completely different premise and execution). Maybe "Ghostbusters" is referenced because the font used for the opening credits is similar. The movie has achieved cult status, along with others like "Death Becomes Her". There is comic energy, but not every movie can be made to fill every aspect of the "lowest common denominator" audience
They clearly weren't ready for this movie yet. I confess, the first time I saw it, neither was I. It took two viewings for me to like it. The first time, it defied my expectations so often, I couldn't settle into its tone. Tim Burton broke new ground.
NO COMIC ENERGY???? They are crazy!!! Michael Keaton was hilarious, especially in the the "commercial scene" where he is trying to sell himself to them LOL! "WOOAA (falls on his back to the ground) I got demons running all through me" LMAO classic! This is what happens when you have middle age men review movies
web detectives apply your gray matter to this. after watching plenty of these episodes i have decided neither of these 2 often watched a movie they reviewed. i think its also likely they did not write their own review, but had staff doing it for them. my reason is that i and many commenters, have picked up on curious mistake after mistake. i note roger ebert incorrectly stated in their hitchcock special that no movie hitchcock directed ever won best picture. incorrect of course rebecca, had to look it up because i never remember names, won best picture oscar. much like thomas edison had a hundred inventors working for him, my thought is that tjese 2 were figureheads that read off a teleprompter. also not genes yale accent. how many people come home from college with a new accent. i just named one, but can we stop this from happening. an accent is a handicap. but if its a trendy accent its ok. smh like cutting off your chin and wearing a box on your head like a retainer cause you heard it was hip to be square on the radio.
Siskel and Ebert have always lacked the ability to accept new ideas. They complain about how everything is old hat in other movies, but then when something truly experimental comes out, they pan it and help maintain the environment where only the old hat crap can survive.
They don't "seek outside help to get rid of ghosts". The ghosts are trying to get rid of the humans. Its kind of like the opposite of Ghostbusters. The ghosts are being haunted by humans.
To clarify (since my nine-month old post is basically a string of fragments, lol), what I was getting at is to compare this film to Money Pit (which I think is completely forgettable, and not even funny except in a situational kind of way, and only marginal at that) or to Ghostbusters (which I absolutely love, but they're different as night and day) shows a staggering lack of vision & taste as foremost critics. This is like saying one hated Meet the Fockers because he expected Napoleon Dynamite!
If it shares certain unique themes, sure. This movie is much closer to being a comedic clone of Ghost than it is of being a clone Ghostbusters, but even then, Beetlejuice still stands as being entirely unique from those films in it's premise. Keaton DID win a Saturn award for best supporting actor in the end anyway.
I don't understand why Siskel and Ebert are saying that Beetlejuice is not a comedy. The movie IS so, since everything in it's three-part acts ends with a happy ending.
OF COURSE it is a comedy. I don't think Michael Keaton's antics and the 'Day-O' scene were meant to be serious. And throwing Dick Cavett and Robert Goulet in there was meant to give a 'serious' vibe. The problem is, Siskel and Ebert just weren't hip enought to 'get it'.
Surprisingly, I liked this movie for all the reasons Siskel and Ebert hated it. Certainly they should've elaborated on the neitherworld and focused less on the comedy, but that was because the original screenplay which focused on those elements was rewritten for more of an audience-friendly film. The special effects then which were definitely special then is now considered a dead form (stop motion over computers) For more check out my review of the animated spinoff on my channel!
“Michael Keaton character detracted from a rather nice couple” what the FUCK, thats the whole point, what did you want this to be a romantic comedy? “Ghostbusters clone because there’s ghosts? Damn, how are these two apes so famous
What they SAID was they didn't KNOW if the film would be "a Ghostbusters clone" or "The Money Pit." They went into the movie cold--being careful not to know anything beforehand. They didn't like the surrealistic ironic ghoulish sit-com motif this thing had. But... didn't just about everyone else? Hey, you can't please everyone...
@07foxmulder Its funny you mention that. Siskel received a lot of online attention for his flip flopping review on Blade Runner. Could the directors cut of Blade Runner really have changed his mind that much? Or was it the fact that Blade Runner became a huge cult classic? Or perhaps both?
They only comparison to Ghostbusters would be that you have to call someone to help...it was a nice twist that it was ghosts trying to get rid of humans. Never before in cinema was that premise explored, to the best of my knowledge.
Say what you like about either Siskel and Ebert and their dislike of Beetlejuice but to their credit I think they genuinely attempt to be a constructive in their critical dissection of the movie. Many other critics can be quite nasty and get personal but I didn't get any sense of that from these two guys. Fundamentally there's no nice way to say you didn't like anything, never mind a movie.
I seriously think the issue with both Siskel & Ebert here is that, even as Ebert said, they went in expecting something that this movie wasn't about, and came out disappointed because of it. Sorry guys, but that's your fault for bad research and poor expectations, rather than this being a bad movie. Which it isn't. BEETLEJUICE FTW!!
I've watched about a hundred Siskel and Ebert reviews, and this is their worst. They are far too hung up with trying to characterize the movie rather than judging it for what it is. Siskel said "it's just not funny", as if he expected it to be a comedy. It's a fantasy film with a lot of amusing moments. I mean, was it not enough that the film was visually unique and imaginative? Was the great music not enough? Of course, this is the same dude who said he would like Terminator more if it were more of a romance movie.
machineofadream I don't recall the film getting great reviews at the time either from many critics. The Daily News gave it one star. I think it did well due to teens going to see it.
I always liked the movie, though I was a kid when I first saw it so perhaps some of it is just nostalgia. Still, many films from my childhood make me cringe today. I do think it's aged well. Part of this is because Hollywood is in a slump of endless sequels and reboots. What is the modern-day Beetlejuice? I wish I knew.
Well, they ARE making a sequel.
I think if Siskel and Ebert were alive today and re-watched this movie, they might feel differently. There are plenty of classic movies that were originally panned or criticized by critics, and later considered classics upon re-assessment. Citizen Kane was one of those, as was It's a Wonderful Life. While both of those movies were nominated for Best Picture, they weren't considered classics until years later upon re-assessment. But I think due to the staying power this movie has had as a cult classic, they might re-assess their initial critique.
The movie was weird and many of the actors had some doubts about it, including Keaton. It was a very unusual movie and it's understandable many people didn't get it.
A ghostbusters clone? Is he kidding?
apparently they didn't watch the same movie we did
+Dale Chawkins He said he didn't know IF he was going to be a "GHOSTBUSTERS" clone... or a film like "MONEY PIT." Gene picked up on something--imagine "GHOSTBUSTERS" from the ghosts' Point-of-View...where the ghosts are the protagonists and the living and the antagonists?
Bias as fuck
Big fan but Siskel and Ebert did miss the mark at times.
You’re right, it’s better than Ghostbusters
Ghostbuster is humans trying to remove ghosts.
Beetle juice is ghosts trying to remove humans.
Ghostbusters (1984) was directed by Ivan Reitman
Beetlejuice (1988) was directed by Tim Burton
@@moondiamondteen00 well done and great point. 👍
Beetlejuice and Ghostbusters are two of my all time favorite films, but I don't see how BJ is a clone of GB.
no shit eh?
Actually, Beetlejuice is sort of Ghostbusters in reverse: Ghostbusters is about people trying to get rid of ghosts, Beetlejuice is about a ghost trying to get rid of people.
@@petercharleskrug That's not the same, that's what ghosts do in the first place, scare people away, Ghostbusters is the odd ball by actually catching one
@DreBone1986 catching them to prevent a takeover of our world. Beetlejuice is nothing of the sort. How did S&E of all people think BJ is a clone of GB in any sense? (Apart from a human looking for someone to remove a pest infestation like any number of 70s animal invasion flicks I'd guess. but that's as generic as it gets.)
I agree. A blow job isn’t even remotely the same thing as a game boy.
Wow. These guys are way off! This movie is absolutely unique, engrossing, wacky, bizarre, outrageous, and extremely funny. All of the characters are amazing. When I first saw this on HBO back in the 90s, I had to watch it every time it played. I thought it was spellbinding, and unlike anything other movie ever made. It's incredibly creative. The movie has endured and become a classic. Apparently they just didn't get it.
Nobody's perfect, even a broken clock in the mirror universe is wrong twice a day. 😁
lmao "ghostbusters clone" wow "no comic energy" LOL dead wrong ebert.
‘Dead’ wrong. I see what you did there.
wrong wrong wrong. one of the most unique movies that holds up through the years
"there's no comic energy behind it"! How obtuse can they be? Keaton gave a totally energetic comedic performance!
The main character is like Robin Williams suffering from a severe case of ADHD... no comic energy???
bashing a movie because it's not what you wanted it to be is the worst possible reason to bash a movie. worst review ever
I give this review two thumbs down
Wow... they both completely missed the boat on this all-time classic.
The Banana Boat? 😅
Come mr tallyman tally me your thumbs down
@@The.RichRoomDaylight come and me wanna go home.
I don't think anybody cares anymore, they're both dead! lol! Betcha they would've given it two thumbs up then!😆😆
To you, this is a beloved classic you half paid attention to when you were 10 and now declare an all time classic work of the highest art. To Gene and Rog it was Tuesday.
He called Beetlejuice an alien… But yeah, it was us that didn't pay attention
I mean, _Beetlejuice_ holds a lot of nostalgia, but it’s also holds up as unique, daring, and entertaining to this day. It’s a classic in the same vein as _The Wizard of Oz._ I can see it not being to someone’s taste, but it’s an enduring IP that different generations have discovered for a reason.
@evilswa Betelgeuse is a star, maybe why he made a slip of the tongue (and weren’t the sand worms on a moon of Saturn).
Thank you. A lot of morons here overreacting to movie critics just doing their job. You're not always gonna agree with film critics. I absolutely adore Ebert, but have some significant disagreements with him. Big deal.
I am in the middle camp. I don't think Beetlejuice is as good as it was when I was 10. However, Siskel and Ebert made some odd statements. They both declared BJ a Ghostbusters clone which is false and Roger claims he went in knowing nothing. How on Earth can you go into that movie and assume it's just about two people fixing up a house?
A Ghostbusters clone? WTF.
I think as children this movie was so special and it's one of the rare flicks that we watch as adults and still love. Siskel and Ebert missed the point of the movie. While Ebert didn't know what to expect, I feel like he went in without an open mind and had it made up 20 minutes in. Beetlejuice isn't a wonderful film, but it's an original and good one.
Ebert was usually just wrong in the 80s
But he became the best critic sometime in the 90s, understanding that not every movie is made for him, or anyone
Man when these guys are wrong they really go down swinging 😂
They should’ve held their mouth for the war
They were DEAD wrong on this one.
Now they’re just dead….
Ghostbusters clone? Really? This is one of the most original movies ever!
I'll give 'em this: S&R were fun to watch and great to read, even when they misguidedly thumbed-down a favorite flick. Ah, well; end of an era.
@MillionthUsername Apparently they just watched half of the trailer and make their own version.
their expectations hinder their ability to just enjoy something unique
WTF? Beetlejuice is Tim Burton's masterpiece. And Beetlejuice is one of the most iconic characters ever put on film. These guys were all wet on this one.
The original Ken and Karen.
WOW, both of them were so completely wrong on all levels
I think Beetlejuice has aged better than Ghostbusters.
Well, it’s at least aged better than Bill Murray.
Nah, Ghostbusters is a better film.
@@ricardocantoral7672 Incorrect
@@EddieHenderson92Nah, Ghostbusters is far sharper and better written. Beetlejuice has a great imagination but it, like many Tim Burton films, gets far too caught up in art direction and character over a coherent story. I liked it a lot more when I was 10 and it isn't bad now but it's nearly as good as Ghostbusters.
@@ricardocantoral7672 Incorrect again
roger and gene are the biggest buzz kill during movies.
And years later, their opinions become completely irrelevant.
Yet here we all are...
@@jg2904 to mock them
If we had more half decent film critics then maybe cinema (and entertainment) wouldn’t be in the state that it’s in. Roger earned a Pulitzer Prize but what does he know about the art of film making.
Never before have men made so much money for being so wrong, except for the government.
Call me crazy, but as someone who has seen all the Ghost Busters films and Beetlejuice, I have to say that they don't have much in common aside from the supernatural elements. To say that Beetlejuice was catching some of the success of Ghost Busters by being similar in some aspects (supernatural, comedy, fantasy) is one thing, but to call it a clone? Hell no.
***** Maybe that's how they felt to describe it since there was some angle there. Who cares?
Like Roger Ebert, when I first heard the title 'Beetlejuice' and took one look at the movie poster, I also thought the whole movie was just going to be a charming gentle comedy all about a goofy young couple trying to fix up a house...
Imagine how horrified I was when all the ghost stuff started happening! It's like when I watched Die Hard and I thought it would be a nice marital drama about Bruce Willis and his wife, but then all that violent terrorist stuff started happening... :(
I suggest you don't watch their review on Die Hard. Same clueless review.
Keaton's greatest performance
"Ghostbusters clone"? Seriously? Sometimes you have to wonder if they actually watched the movie.
LOL! It's so funny watching these reviews in retrospect. Beetlejuice is now considered one of the best comedy classics of all time. My friends in college all loved this film, and saw it on video multiple times.
The public seemed to like this movie, was a big rental movie upon it's release. It had toy figures and spawned a cartoon series. This was not a cult movie that grew over time, this was a hit with the public when it came out.
I didn’t think for one instance of Ghostbusters when I saw this.
This movie is an absolute classic! Charming to the max
"as in Ghostbusters, they must call on outside help" um...what? The Ghostbusters didn't need any "outside help"
I think they mean clients called the ghost busters for help. The ghost called beetlejuice. Regardless, this was a horrible interview and a horrible analogy.
24 years later this movie is still beloved by billions of people!!
Probably the most shocking review by these guys. They BOTH totally missed the boat
The reason why Ebert doesn't have a show anymore is a few years ago he got throat cancer and lost his voice. He also cannot eat anymore he gets his food through a tube. He has a twitter account and writes reviews for the Chicago Tribune (which he always has done) and has a blog where he talks about politics, and anything else that he feels like mentioning. I think people need to have more compassion for others.
For the most part, I agree with most of their takes. However, this time, I strongly disagree with them.
Finally, someone who doesn't crap on them and film criticism, generally. Beetlejuice is just ok to me, entertaining but not even close to a favorite or anything like that. I get where Ebert was coming from. Even when I disagree with him, I often understand his objections.
I think I agree to disagree with them on this movie.
I liked it, especially Michael Keaton in the title role, who I think did provide some comic energy to the picture.
They missed the mark on so many comedies and horror movies.
@@EddieHenderson92 Still, their opinions are just as valid as anyone else’s, and it’s important that we respect them regardless.
@@MovieFan1912 No
Yeah this is one of their worst reviews ever, and they also thought Evil Dead was the worst movie ever made and I only went to see it because they complained about the excessive gore as a negative (I loved it and still do to this Day), every movie is subjective to personal taste, now if you see 5-10 reviews that indicate similar opinions without spoilers then you decide to go or skip but you go in with the knowledge that most have a negative view of the movie, Siskel & Ebert put too much thought into the enjoyment of a film, almost like they had a checklist that had to meet criteria before they could give it a thumbs up
Ghostbusters clone?! Oh yeah, because Michael Keaton playing a ghoulish comedic nutcase just SCREAMS Bill Murray and Dan Ackroyd fighting ghosts.
THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, EBERT!!!!
reverse of ghostbusters. Reverse of the exorcist which they didn't even mention that Ghostbusters was apparently a rip-off of the exorcist when they said they liked that movie. michael keaton was white hot when beetlejuice came out but no one in the mainstream was aware. I was 9 years old and I thought he was the funniest person on earth when he did Beale juice and I think I was right to today. They literally thought that Michael Keaton and beetlejuice were a dead duck and would not succeed. How more wrong could they have been the tiny movie grossed nearly a 100 million dollars in 1988 becoming 1 of the highest grossing films of its genre and in that year. Past that it became a huge cult success and it's to this day Michael Keaton's most memorable comedy roll.
Precisely. The fact they call this a "clone" and Keaton being "obnoxious" makes me question their professionalism. His acting was exhilirating and intense, it made the character feel real, and "alive", so to speak. The set design also fit together extremely well with the overall theme of the film and had a very cohesive design, with the characters implemented perfectly. This isn't just one of my personal favorites, but one of my critical favorites, and one that I can call a genuinely great film.
Like the movie or not, how the hell is this a Ghostbusters clone? 🤣
I never liked Beetlejuice, but its fanbase prooves that it is a good movie.
I think Cisco and Ebert missed the entire Point completely that Beetlejuice is more of a satire then anything. It was way before it's time and that's why it's one of the greatest movies ever made! I'm going to have to give this siskel and Ebert review a thumbs down! LOL
What exactly is it satirizing? I guess it could be satirizing the caricature of yuppie types and their sometimes gaudy tastes in aesthetics and interior design. What else?
They were expecting Ghostbusters, apparently.
I thought it was going to be he-man.
Again Siskel doesn't like a great movie
Man, did they get this movie wrong.
I notice so many dislikes--more than likes. 'Cause the dynamic duo didn't like this one? Still, as a piece of historical documented appraisal... it's worth more than it's weight in gold.
These two don’t know Shit
You're not always gonna agree with film critics. So what? I adore Ebert, but have some strong disagreements with him as well. Big deal. It's gonna happen. Their takes are there for people's consideration... or not. Nobody is forcing you to give a shit what they thought.
I just saw this movie for the first time and it absolutely does NOT deserve the hype and praise it's gotten over the years. S & E were right!!!!!
😂 Wow. It's still a great movie. Tim Burton rules! I liked it when I saw it when I was little and adult
I never got this movie either.
This movie, and michael keatons acting are fucking brilliant. These twits are way off.
+Phone Home I like him going, "NICE FUCKIN' MODEL!!!!!" and then grabbing his crotch and making a horn sound.
These 2 were so far off point sometimes…it’s not even funny.
Me and my brother AND sister all loved this movie. We watched it a few times and laughed at every joke. I guess it's different for kids. I could watch it as an adult now and I doubt it would be the same, but I think it's silly to expect just 2 guys to review a movie for 280,000,000 people. You just can't squeeze that many people into ANY two people.
But gahhh... the nostalgia. Time never stops killing the past. Better get busy people.... make some good memories worth remembering!!
now that we have the internet we can figure out that critics are about 50% of the time right and about 50% percent DEAD wrong!
Ghostbusters Clone? Now this is why I have such a love hate relationship with Siskel & Ebert they're fun to listen to, but oh man do they have some of the craziest takes on some of the greatest classics ever, but that's also what makes their show and reviews fun to listen too now to see what they said about these films when they were brand new and seeing what the public has to say about them 30 Plus Years Later
If Beetlejuice 2 is made, I hope Keaton has a longer screen time.
+thesnakeman It is getting made.
@@Dane_Youssef 4 years later...
@@zufgh They abandoned the project,.
@@Dane_Youssef I know. So much as I wished you were right, you are wrong!
@@zufgh They were MAKING it! It just that they abandoned the project. It's true! Look it up...
LOL, worst S&E take of all time.
Ebert surprises me in not knowing the movie quickly turns from being a "Money Pit" clone to a "Ghostbusters" clone (which it isn't - "Ghostbusters" has a completely different premise and execution). Maybe "Ghostbusters" is referenced because the font used for the opening credits is similar.
The movie has achieved cult status, along with others like "Death Becomes Her". There is comic energy, but not every movie can be made to fill every aspect of the "lowest common denominator" audience
They clearly weren't ready for this movie yet. I confess, the first time I saw it, neither was I. It took two viewings for me to like it. The first time, it defied my expectations so often, I couldn't settle into its tone. Tim Burton broke new ground.
To quote Weird Al Yankovic, "Those Siskel and Ebert bums oughta go home and just sit on their thumbs."
Hahah, they wanted the movie to be about the Maitlands.
NO COMIC ENERGY???? They are crazy!!! Michael Keaton was hilarious, especially in the the "commercial scene" where he is trying to sell himself to them LOL! "WOOAA (falls on his back to the ground) I got demons running all through me" LMAO classic! This is what happens when you have middle age men review movies
Movie is legendary. It's wacky, but very unique. Burton has a specific style that you gotta respect.
The Day-O scene was awesome.
web detectives apply your gray matter to this. after watching plenty of these episodes i have decided neither of these 2 often watched a movie they reviewed. i think its also likely they did not write their own review, but had staff doing it for them. my reason is that i and many commenters, have picked up on curious mistake after mistake. i note roger ebert incorrectly stated in their hitchcock special that no movie hitchcock directed ever won best picture. incorrect of course rebecca, had to look it up because i never remember names, won best picture oscar. much like thomas edison had a hundred inventors working for him, my thought is that tjese 2 were figureheads that read off a teleprompter. also not genes yale accent. how many people come home from college with a new accent. i just named one, but can we stop this from happening. an accent is a handicap. but if its a trendy accent its ok. smh like cutting off your chin and wearing a box on your head like a retainer cause you heard it was hip to be square on the radio.
These guys should just watch the English Patient over and over again, since they don't actually want to be entertained by a movie.
only Siskel would complain about too many amazing fx scenes
Siskel and Ebert have always lacked the ability to accept new ideas. They complain about how everything is old hat in other movies, but then when something truly experimental comes out, they pan it and help maintain the environment where only the old hat crap can survive.
True
They don't "seek outside help to get rid of ghosts". The ghosts are trying to get rid of the humans. Its kind of like the opposite of Ghostbusters. The ghosts are being haunted by humans.
They were so wrong. This movie was phenomenal! And too much special effects...just wait 20 years....
Beetlejuice now lauded for its practical effects.
To clarify (since my nine-month old post is basically a string of fragments, lol), what I was getting at is to compare this film to Money Pit (which I think is completely forgettable, and not even funny except in a situational kind of way, and only marginal at that) or to Ghostbusters (which I absolutely love, but they're different as night and day) shows a staggering lack of vision & taste as foremost critics. This is like saying one hated Meet the Fockers because he expected Napoleon Dynamite!
@windowsVD
Other than having ghosts?
If it shares certain unique themes, sure. This movie is much closer to being a comedic clone of Ghost than it is of being a clone Ghostbusters, but even then, Beetlejuice still stands as being entirely unique from those films in it's premise. Keaton DID win a Saturn award for best supporting actor in the end anyway.
I too would've much rather seen a movie about this couple fixing up their house.
...Seriously, wtf?
All the movies Siskel & Ebert trashed back then have become the cult classics of today.
I don't understand why Siskel and Ebert are saying that Beetlejuice is not a comedy. The movie IS so, since everything in it's three-part acts ends with a happy ending.
Are Siskel and Ebert two shrunken heads in purgatory for giving Beetlejuice such a bad review?
OF COURSE it is a comedy. I don't think Michael Keaton's antics and the 'Day-O' scene were meant to be serious. And throwing Dick Cavett and Robert Goulet in there was meant to give a 'serious' vibe.
The problem is, Siskel and Ebert just weren't hip enought to 'get it'.
If this was Roeper instead of Siskel, this would have been 1 thumb up review. Roeper love Beetlejuice.
+Patrick Lange I don't know. Did Richard like it?
sha11235 yes he did. It was on his top Tim Burton list.
i cant believe they hated it. its so good
Surprisingly, I liked this movie for all the reasons Siskel and Ebert hated it. Certainly they should've elaborated on the neitherworld and focused less on the comedy, but that was because the original screenplay which focused on those elements was rewritten for more of an audience-friendly film. The special effects then which were definitely special then is now considered a dead form (stop motion over computers)
For more check out my review of the animated spinoff on my channel!
Embarrassing when two famous critics pan a movie that became a classic.
Beetlejuice is one of my all-time, top-10 favorite comedies. Siskel and Ebert simply weren't hip enough to understand the film's merits . . .
“Michael Keaton character detracted from a rather nice couple” what the FUCK, thats the whole point, what did you want this to be a romantic comedy? “Ghostbusters clone because there’s ghosts? Damn, how are these two apes so famous
Who in their right mind would compare Beetlejuice to Ghostbusters?
What they SAID was they didn't KNOW if the film would be "a Ghostbusters clone" or "The Money Pit." They went into the movie cold--being careful not to know anything beforehand. They didn't like the surrealistic ironic ghoulish sit-com motif this thing had. But... didn't just about everyone else?
Hey, you can't please everyone...
@07foxmulder Its funny you mention that. Siskel received a lot of online attention for his flip flopping review on Blade Runner. Could the directors cut of Blade Runner really have changed his mind that much? Or was it the fact that Blade Runner became a huge cult classic? Or perhaps both?
Wow, that review aged about as poorly as Roger Ebert did
They didn't like it? It's frickin awesome!
They only comparison to Ghostbusters would be that you have to call someone to help...it was a nice twist that it was ghosts trying to get rid of humans.
Never before in cinema was that premise explored, to the best of my knowledge.
The back half is not stuffed with his antics. I think Keaton is only in the whole film for about 15 mins.
Say what you like about either Siskel and Ebert and their dislike of Beetlejuice but to their credit I think they genuinely attempt to be a constructive in their critical dissection of the movie. Many other critics can be quite nasty and get personal but I didn't get any sense of that from these two guys. Fundamentally there's no nice way to say you didn't like anything, never mind a movie.
"I'm gonna get her."
I seriously think the issue with both Siskel & Ebert here is that, even as Ebert said, they went in expecting something that this movie wasn't about, and came out disappointed because of it.
Sorry guys, but that's your fault for bad research and poor expectations, rather than this being a bad movie. Which it isn't.
BEETLEJUICE FTW!!