In Gene last years he was actually becoming Ebert he liked campy, more horror and slice of life films he just enjoyed movies toward the end of his life
I mean that's fair, but the reviews are on TH-cam in full. This is a best of their arguments. I couldn't have the entire thing be full of it, so I just put in the best insults essentially
@@daniverse9625 I'm happy it wasn't just me, you brought insight you just narrated over the entire conversations and then went to the next one, unless there was a copyright problem you should just talk give an option then let the segment go without your conversation so the person watching can form there own opinion or maybe see the same thing that you do just my opinion.
I miss them terribly and would kill having them around , even though I never got to watch them when they were together because I wasnt born and then too young in the 90s, but now I cant stop watching every review they made , also their appearances on the letterman show were gold, thanx for uploading
Benji the Hunted was the next review after Full Metal Jacket, which was also a classic debate. I don't think it would have gotten nearly as heated had there not been such a stark disagreement over that movie minutes earlier. Siskel was in absolute disbelief that Ebert would thumbs-down FMJ and then immediately turn around and recommend Benji the Hunted. Of course, they're different movies in different genres trying different things and a direct comparison is impossible and silly--whatever you want to think of either movie, a family movie about a dog and a Kubrick film about war need to be held to different standards.
I've been surprised to find that after decades of believing that Roger was almost always correct in his arguments with Gene (I admittedly liked Roger's reviewing style and approach much more than Gene's) Gene was actually correct more often when they seriously disagreed about a given movie. It's one of the joys of having sources like youtube around. I would never have come to this conclusion without it. I still like Roger better overall as a reviewer, but Gene wasn't just an uptight elite trying to score intellectual points as a movie sophisticant, as he frequently appeared to be.
I understand you're trying to moderate the top 10, but not actually letting us hear Roger & Gene and basically talking over what they DID say... I thought it might be a lead-in and you'd stop. Oh well. Best to you.
I myself always found Rogers reviews more in line with my own opinions on most movies. I looked forward to watching these guys every weekend. Good video and thank you.
Siskel seemed to speak too much from emotion a lot of the time when he didn't like a film. A movie he didn't like seemed to personally offend him, whereas Ebert maintained that he rated films for their target audiences, not for himself.
It was Roger who defended it. I used to own the laser disc. I don’t remember whether they put his “thumbs up“ on the box. Neither of them caught the film’s attempt at an homage to *Spartacus* by having the kids rise up and say “I’m Devon Butler!” I’m ashamed to admit that when I finally saw *Spartacus,* that’s what set the light off in my head that that is what that other movie was referencing. In theory, they are the first who should’ve noticed an attempt by a movie for children to copy Stanley Kubrick, especially when that movie had just been restored. And 30 years later, it’s not even the worst parody of a Stanley Kubrick movie.
I would love to have known their views of more recent films… alas that was not meant to be, they both have terribly tragic deaths. I always remember that Gene liked Mrs. Doubtfire whereas Roger didn’t and Roger liked Nutty Professor whereas Gene didn’t… sadly missed!
Not really an argument but their review of The Fifth Element (I’m pretty sure it was this movie) was funny, and I can’t find it anywhere. So maybe I’m wrong about what review this happened in. Anyway, they both gave it thumbs up but at some point Ebert gets annoyed and shouts something like “you gonna let me talk?!” Among other things lol after Siskel interrupted him multiple times, butting in to Ebert’s time of the review which Siskel frequently did. It then cut to Siskel either laughing or smiling after Ebert erupted lol. I remember watching that as a kid and laughed out loud. I’m pretty sure it was in The Fifth Element review but I’m not so sure anymore. Not an argument, but boy did I laugh.
Hello, i found you in the backroom of youtube. I liked your video, but i would prefer if your transition segments had the volume lower than the audio for rest. Its incredibly jarring 🐢
@daniverse9625 it's ok it did inspire me to just now watch their review of Batman 89. Ebert seems like a whiny baby most of the time but I did agree with his criticism of the story needing more work on that film. Batman Returns largely fixed those issues for me as a viewer though
Siskel got it wrong a lot, but Ebert got even some of the easy ones wrong. At his best Ebert was still pretty idiosyncratic about his preferences, but to call him capricious would be more accurate. Some of his reviews might be less about the movie and more that his eggs were cold when he had breakfast that morning, and now he seemed to be retroactively viewing the film through that lens. Ebert would often love a bad movie on the basis of a single trait (e.g., thumbs-up because he like the art direction or "look" of a film like "Bram Stoker's Dracula" even though he leveled numerous points against it) or its director's previous track record, which may also explain his love for Bram Stoker's Dracula (See below for more of his Coppola bias in the '90s), like when he praised the almost-forgotten Nick Cage movie Knowing (2009) and gave it 4 stars! He had given Proyas' prior films Dark City (1998) and The Crow (1994), 4 and 3.5 stars, respectively. Worse still was that you couldn't rely on an unbiased review when there were entire genres he was put off by. He almost always hated horror films, so he rated them poorly, regardless of quality. All the following received 2 or fewer stars: Clive Barker's original Hellraiser (1987), Day of the Dead (1985), The Shining (1980), An American Werewolf in London (1981), Day of the Dead, Army of Darkness (1992). I can't find what he gave the original Alien (1979), but like a lot of other films, he went back an tweaked the rating so that his website now has it (and The Shining) at 4 stars. Horror-adjacent directors like Tim Burton didn't fare well either (e.g., Edward Scissorhands (1990), Beetlejuice (1988), Batman (1989)), the aforementioned Lynch (e.g., they both hated Lost Highway (1997) and Fire Walk With Me (1992), neither review of which is on Ebert's site, but Blue Velvet, Dune, and Elephant Man are, all of which are panned. Also Ebert said Lynch demeaned Diane Ladd by directing her performance in Wild At Heart... which went on to earn her a Best Supporting Actress nomination!), and he seemed to hate John Carpenter in particular: In the Mouth of Madness (1994), The Fog (1980), and Big Trouble in Little China (1986), and while Siskel liked The Thing (1982) and Escape from New York (1981), Ebert hated them. Yes, every one of these titles received 2 or fewer stars and/or thumbs down. (As far as I can tell, S&E never reviewed They Live (1988); Carpenter parodied the critics in that film as aliens, so I guess they recused themselves.) What else did Ebert get wrong? Lots of movies that are today considered modern classics like The Usual Suspects (1995), Dirty Dancing (1987), Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998), Gladiator (2000), Die Hard (1988), and Fight Club (1999). Yep, all 2 or fewer stars from Ebert. Siskel and Ebert both hated Reservoir Dogs (two thumbs down). How is this possible? Because for the most part these were not established directors (and the rest had made films S&E didn't like; see Brazil above). Contrast with, say The Godfather, Part III (1990). Ebert gave that 3.5 stars. The inclusion of Sofia Coppola should have demoted it at least one star. (Note that Ebert originally gave Part II only 3 stars, although that's since been revised. Both versions of the review are on his website, unlike The Shining, which has been scrubbed.) Back in the days when I watched, "At the Movies," I generally avoided films where Ebert gave it thumbs up and Siskel didn't, because a recommendation from Ebert alone couldn't be relied upon to mean anything. If Siskel alone liked it, I might give it a chance because sometimes we agreed (though not about Aliens (1986), among other titles). In general though, they weren't reliable reviewers for anything from broad comedies like Ace Ventura (1994) that they would have liked if it was, say, Jerry Lewis (i.e., an established comedian) doing the same exact antics to more literary movies like Brazil (1986) which both hated even though it's almost universally regarded as Terry Gilliam's best film. Ebert's reviews were rarely insightful or useful; they were just about his hangups. It is a setback to film analysis and criticism that he remains the most recognizable name in the business years after his death, primarily because he was so ineffectual in his role that he convinced the public at large that film critics have nothing insightful or useful to say, meaning most people don't even listen to what any of them have to say.
And it's so naive to say he hated horror films, as there were plenty he gave good reviews to. But at the end of the day, it's just one man's opinion. And he always made a good clear point on why he didn't like something. Filn is subjective. Not everyone is gonna share the same opinions.
Another big split was the Charles Bronson film 10 to Midnight. Ebert gave it zero stars, but Siskel was positive towards the film to the point where his blurb was on the back of the VHS box.
Dang--Ebert used to only reserve the big goose-egg for movies he considered morally evil. That kind of went away in the '90s, but in the early '80s that was squarely his policy.
Daniverse cool list dude. I especially love your number 1 choice. THAT TRULY SURPISED me becuz I thought you were going with "COP and a half" for just how insanely long that one went (review, worst of, late show, Broken Arrow). But great choice. I love that film and give it 3.5 too outta 4. I even own it on criterion blu-ray. I love Croenenberg.
I still can't believe Siskel gave the original Aliens and the Terminator a thumbs down. They definately missed on some films. I think I sided more with Ebert on most films I've seen them review. I mean how could you give Ferris Buelers Day Off a thumbs down. Unless you have no sense of humor at all....SMH
I watched Alaska at the drive-in with my mom's friend Dani and my little sister. I like corny crap like this but i can only watch it now after I've had a few drinks
I clicked on this video with an expectation of hearing Gene and Roger arguing. You would have been better off setting the clip up, let it play so we can experience their banter, then explain your thoughts on their arguement after the clip played. Instead, you chose to narrate over the majority of their clip. I don't want to hear your arguement that there are other channels with these clips in their entirety, so go visit them so we can hear Gene and Roger debate. You suggest to another person who has the same complaint as I do to go watch other channels if they want to hear the two argue. Not a great business model. The format you've presented is nearly clickbait.
@daniverse9625 I admire your attempt to try something different. After you show their clip of a movie review, perhaps you could offer your own opinion on the film they critiqued and say whether you agree or disagree with their take and talk about why you feel this way. With this approach, you could explore their criticisms and delve deeper into their opinions with your own commentary. I think that may be a unique approach to a channel. It would take a lot more work than what you're doing now; but if you are a true lover of cinema, it will become a labor of love. Whatever you choose to do, I strongly advise you not to speak over Gene and Roger.
I remember Roger's review of the remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre starring Jessica Biel. He spent the whole time vilifying the film. Didn't talk about the actors, the cinematography, the sets, or even the plot. He just spent his entire review bemoaning how bleak amd violent and depressing the film was and that we should all go out and watch something much more uplifting. I remember thinking "What part of the words Chainsaw and Massacre" did you not get?"
@@daniverse9625 Romance films are escapism. Comedies are escapism. Police procedurals and thrillers are escapism. Sci-fi and fantasy films are also escapism. So are horror films. I've seen a lot of good horror films, and a lot of really terrible horror films. Just like Ebert had seen a lot of really good and really bad family films. You have to remember exactly what it is you're reviewing. If horror films offend you, then don't review them. But then you can't really claim to be a critic if you only review film types that appeal to you.
His review of Die Hard didn`t mention Bruce Willis (great hero) or Alan RIckman (great villain) just the idiotic police chief...missed some important points...in Gladiator he didn`t mention Russel Crowe who was great in the lead
Anybody who's ever seen The Kids in the Hall can identify what's going on in a heartbeat. A bunch of Canadian kids loved Monty Python, and wanted to try it themselves. You can almost see a 1-to-1 comparison of the bits. 'Trapper' being the prime example, not terribly funny and quite obviously a Python inspired ripoff.
I disagree - KITH is inspired by monty python of course, but they do quite a few things different than them: 1. they for the most part focus on ordinary people or the lower class. their characters are most likely the homeless, cops, prostitutes, working men, housewives, ordinary teenagers, etc. 2. they are much more focused on psychological issues. most of their characters are just nutballs - the tea addict, the guy who crushes people's heads, the chicken lady, the guy from 'creative possibilities' who wears the body of a guitar as underwear just because he is 'creative'. 3. when they are surreal they are surreal in a very personal way. They are not afraid to put up some very dark past traumas as black humor. for example the guy who takes his son to a big rock on his birthday and gets pathetically drunk. Or the sketch 'daddy drank' which shows the point of view of a kid as his father berates and threatens him whilst holding a bottle in his hand. Yes there are similarities (I'm assuming you think that 'Trapper' is somehow a ripoff of 'The lumberjack song' but just because monty python does a skit on someone who wants to be a lumberjack doesn't mean that Canadians can't do skits satirizing their OWN PAST). And perhaps Buddy Cole being gay hearkens back to the gay stereotypes that monty python does - but really the focuses of both these skits are very different. The Lumberjack song is just plain surrealistic comedy with the goal of disorienting the audience because you have no idea where it is heading. 'Trapper' is directly satirizing both the idea and practice of capitalism. And Buddy Cole is a fantasy with a gay guy who is projecting how he would like to face the world which is hostile to his presence, whereas Monty Python used gay stereotypes to mock the upper class or institutions (the gay judges sketch, military marches). So yeah they are different. I'd say the only way they ARE similar is that they use absurdist tropes to make their points. In a simple phrase KITH focuses on the lower class and Monty Python on the upper.
Great idea for a video but I'd like to hear their arguments rather than your descriptions; maybe do a *brief* commentary after letting them play. Two thumbs way down for this video.
I like seeing you're a Spidey fan, but I understand Ebert, I really do. My gf showed me a tik tok this morning that was funny for 3 seconds but 2 mins later she's still laughing and I want to shoot myself bc it was just dumb and repetitive af, and blue velvet was horrible
Would rather have heard what Sickle and Ebert actually said rather than have their debates described.
My thoughts exactly
Ditto
As soon as this guy pronounced "cliche" as "klitch" I turned it off and that's all you need to know.
Pronounces it horribly wrong and then correctly seconds later!?
He has a second video where you do get to hear them go at it.
In Gene last years he was actually becoming Ebert he liked campy, more horror and slice of life films he just enjoyed movies toward the end of his life
What a waste of time. Its hard for them to argue when they don't get a chance to talk.
I mean that's fair, but the reviews are on TH-cam in full. This is a best of their arguments. I couldn't have the entire thing be full of it, so I just put in the best insults essentially
@@daniverse9625 I'm happy it wasn't just me, you brought insight you just narrated over the entire conversations and then went to the next one, unless there was a copyright problem you should just talk give an option then let the segment go without your conversation so the person watching can form there own opinion or maybe see the same thing that you do just my opinion.
Notice how the mainstream media covered up the fact that Siskel was actually stabbed by Ebert during an argument over the film "Space Jam."
you went through all this trouble just to summarize the clips instead of showing them? wut? why? this could have been a great video.
th-cam.com/video/5Wi4i5Q97zM/w-d-xo.html
Maybe an honorable mention for their disagreement on the film Casino.
What a tremendous compilation. Well done, Dan!
I miss them terribly and would kill having them around , even though I never got to watch them when they were together because I wasnt born and then too young in the 90s, but now I cant stop watching every review they made , also their appearances on the letterman show were gold, thanx for uploading
Siskel thumbs downed The Terminator! WTF!
I never missed their reviews when I was growing up. I think it's where I developed my love of watching movie reviews on this platform.
@1:45. wow. who screwed up Raiders rating?
That freaking Benji the Hunted sparked such heat between them remains amazing.
It really speaks to how their personalities could clash, because they had different ideas of what they wanted out of movies.
Siskel: this comming from the guy who like Benji the hunted.
Ebert: hay you like carnasour
This episode from 1987, with the disagreements on both "Full Metal Jacket" and "Benji the Hunted," was one of their most entertaining.
I fell asleep during that movie, and I was four years old when it came out.
Benji the Hunted was the next review after Full Metal Jacket, which was also a classic debate. I don't think it would have gotten nearly as heated had there not been such a stark disagreement over that movie minutes earlier. Siskel was in absolute disbelief that Ebert would thumbs-down FMJ and then immediately turn around and recommend Benji the Hunted. Of course, they're different movies in different genres trying different things and a direct comparison is impossible and silly--whatever you want to think of either movie, a family movie about a dog and a Kubrick film about war need to be held to different standards.
I've been surprised to find that after decades of believing that Roger was almost always correct in his arguments with Gene (I admittedly liked Roger's reviewing style and approach much more than Gene's) Gene was actually correct more often when they seriously disagreed about a given movie. It's one of the joys of having sources like youtube around. I would never have come to this conclusion without it. I still like Roger better overall as a reviewer, but Gene wasn't just an uptight elite trying to score intellectual points as a movie sophisticant, as he frequently appeared to be.
dont be a menace in south ceentral was a huge argument
I really liked their debates over The Silence of the Lambs and the 1995 Oscars
The 1995 Oscars is interesting, since they never actually reviewed The Usual Suspects, despite Ebert's infamous one star review.
His screenplay for that Russ Meyer movie touched on similar themes.
I understand you're trying to moderate the top 10, but not actually letting us hear Roger & Gene and basically talking over what they DID say... I thought it might be a lead-in and you'd stop. Oh well. Best to you.
Sorry, at the time, I was trying to do something unique. I understand that complaint
Why are we listening to you describe their arguments?
Don't ask me, I just wanted to do something different at the time
I myself always found Rogers reviews more in line with my own opinions on most movies. I looked forward to watching these guys every weekend. Good video and thank you.
I wish I heard more of the arguments rather then the comments. Great idea poorly executed.
I mean I agree now. At the time I was just trying to talk about them more.
Probably the greatest movie critics ever Awesome Show
They were huge
I've always thought that Ebert made better arguments in their debates.
Siskel seemed to speak too much from emotion a lot of the time when he didn't like a film. A movie he didn't like seemed to personally offend him, whereas Ebert maintained that he rated films for their target audiences, not for himself.
That's because Roger Ebert was a far better movie critic and writer than Gene Siskel.
You forgot their fight over. Cop and a half. Gene actually defends that one.
It was Roger who defended it. I used to own the laser disc. I don’t remember whether they put his “thumbs up“ on the box.
Neither of them caught the film’s attempt at an homage to *Spartacus* by having the kids rise up and say “I’m Devon Butler!” I’m ashamed to admit that when I finally saw *Spartacus,* that’s what set the light off in my head that that is what that other movie was referencing. In theory, they are the first who should’ve noticed an attempt by a movie for children to copy Stanley Kubrick, especially when that movie had just been restored.
And 30 years later, it’s not even the worst parody of a Stanley Kubrick movie.
The Benji / Full Metal Jacket clash was epic!
I would love to have known their views of more recent films… alas that was not meant to be, they both have terribly tragic deaths. I always remember that Gene liked Mrs. Doubtfire whereas Roger didn’t and Roger liked Nutty Professor whereas Gene didn’t… sadly missed!
I don't see the point of summarising what S&E said, rather than just letting them speak for themselves.
What is the movie at 1:47 they disagree on?
The Terminator
Thanks, I thought it was that but I froze the screen and still couldn’t read it “properly”.
Thumbs way down for this video. Instead of talking all over it, how about just play the clips next time?
th-cam.com/video/5Wi4i5Q97zM/w-d-xo.html
Not really an argument but their review of The Fifth Element (I’m pretty sure it was this movie) was funny, and I can’t find it anywhere. So maybe I’m wrong about what review this happened in. Anyway, they both gave it thumbs up but at some point Ebert gets annoyed and shouts something like “you gonna let me talk?!” Among other things lol after Siskel interrupted him multiple times, butting in to Ebert’s time of the review which Siskel frequently did. It then cut to Siskel either laughing or smiling after Ebert erupted lol. I remember watching that as a kid and laughed out loud. I’m pretty sure it was in The Fifth Element review but I’m not so sure anymore. Not an argument, but boy did I laugh.
They both liked the movie, but found it strange, I believe. Sadly the review isn't available anymore.
I always wanted to see their review of "Halloween 3".....Siskel liked it and Ebert didn`t (I always liked it) ....can`t find show`s video
I tended to side with Ebert a fair amount more than Siskel when they disagreed with films I myself had seen.
Siskel got it wrong more than Ebert did, but they both got it wrong often, just my opinion.
Hello, i found you in the backroom of youtube. I liked your video, but i would prefer if your transition segments had the volume lower than the audio for rest. Its incredibly jarring 🐢
Sorry, was an issue trying to deal with older audio
@daniverse9625 it's ok it did inspire me to just now watch their review of Batman 89. Ebert seems like a whiny baby most of the time but I did agree with his criticism of the story needing more work on that film. Batman Returns largely fixed those issues for me as a viewer though
Siskel got it wrong a lot, but Ebert got even some of the easy ones wrong. At his best Ebert was still pretty idiosyncratic about his preferences, but to call him capricious would be more accurate. Some of his reviews might be less about the movie and more that his eggs were cold when he had breakfast that morning, and now he seemed to be retroactively viewing the film through that lens.
Ebert would often love a bad movie on the basis of a single trait (e.g., thumbs-up because he like the art direction or "look" of a film like "Bram Stoker's Dracula" even though he leveled numerous points against it) or its director's previous track record, which may also explain his love for Bram Stoker's Dracula (See below for more of his Coppola bias in the '90s), like when he praised the almost-forgotten Nick Cage movie Knowing (2009) and gave it 4 stars! He had given Proyas' prior films Dark City (1998) and The Crow (1994), 4 and 3.5 stars, respectively.
Worse still was that you couldn't rely on an unbiased review when there were entire genres he was put off by. He almost always hated horror films, so he rated them poorly, regardless of quality. All the following received 2 or fewer stars: Clive Barker's original Hellraiser (1987), Day of the Dead (1985), The Shining (1980), An American Werewolf in London (1981), Day of the Dead, Army of Darkness (1992). I can't find what he gave the original Alien (1979), but like a lot of other films, he went back an tweaked the rating so that his website now has it (and The Shining) at 4 stars. Horror-adjacent directors like Tim Burton didn't fare well either (e.g., Edward Scissorhands (1990), Beetlejuice (1988), Batman (1989)), the aforementioned Lynch (e.g., they both hated Lost Highway (1997) and Fire Walk With Me (1992), neither review of which is on Ebert's site, but Blue Velvet, Dune, and Elephant Man are, all of which are panned. Also Ebert said Lynch demeaned Diane Ladd by directing her performance in Wild At Heart... which went on to earn her a Best Supporting Actress nomination!), and he seemed to hate John Carpenter in particular: In the Mouth of Madness (1994), The Fog (1980), and Big Trouble in Little China (1986), and while Siskel liked The Thing (1982) and Escape from New York (1981), Ebert hated them. Yes, every one of these titles received 2 or fewer stars and/or thumbs down. (As far as I can tell, S&E never reviewed They Live (1988); Carpenter parodied the critics in that film as aliens, so I guess they recused themselves.)
What else did Ebert get wrong? Lots of movies that are today considered modern classics like The Usual Suspects (1995), Dirty Dancing (1987), Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998), Gladiator (2000), Die Hard (1988), and Fight Club (1999). Yep, all 2 or fewer stars from Ebert. Siskel and Ebert both hated Reservoir Dogs (two thumbs down). How is this possible? Because for the most part these were not established directors (and the rest had made films S&E didn't like; see Brazil above). Contrast with, say The Godfather, Part III (1990). Ebert gave that 3.5 stars. The inclusion of Sofia Coppola should have demoted it at least one star. (Note that Ebert originally gave Part II only 3 stars, although that's since been revised. Both versions of the review are on his website, unlike The Shining, which has been scrubbed.)
Back in the days when I watched, "At the Movies," I generally avoided films where Ebert gave it thumbs up and Siskel didn't, because a recommendation from Ebert alone couldn't be relied upon to mean anything. If Siskel alone liked it, I might give it a chance because sometimes we agreed (though not about Aliens (1986), among other titles). In general though, they weren't reliable reviewers for anything from broad comedies like Ace Ventura (1994) that they would have liked if it was, say, Jerry Lewis (i.e., an established comedian) doing the same exact antics to more literary movies like Brazil (1986) which both hated even though it's almost universally regarded as Terry Gilliam's best film. Ebert's reviews were rarely insightful or useful; they were just about his hangups. It is a setback to film analysis and criticism that he remains the most recognizable name in the business years after his death, primarily because he was so ineffectual in his role that he convinced the public at large that film critics have nothing insightful or useful to say, meaning most people don't even listen to what any of them have to say.
You really thought this post over, lol.
I think it's an exaggeration to suggest he hated a film. Because a two star review doesn't constitute hate. Hating a film is a zero to 1.5 stars.
And it's so naive to say he hated horror films, as there were plenty he gave good reviews to. But at the end of the day, it's just one man's opinion. And he always made a good clear point on why he didn't like something. Filn is subjective. Not everyone is gonna share the same opinions.
Never have I wished more to have gone with my first instinct and TL;dr 'd this post.
Another big split was the Charles Bronson film 10 to Midnight. Ebert gave it zero stars, but Siskel was positive towards the film to the point where his blurb was on the back of the VHS box.
I wish somebody could find those reviews, that 82 - 83 era is largely missing
Dang--Ebert used to only reserve the big goose-egg for movies he considered morally evil. That kind of went away in the '90s, but in the early '80s that was squarely his policy.
Daniverse cool list dude. I especially love your number 1 choice. THAT TRULY SURPISED me becuz I thought you were going with "COP and a half" for just how insanely long that one went (review, worst of, late show, Broken Arrow). But great choice. I love that film and give it 3.5 too outta 4. I even own it on criterion blu-ray. I love Croenenberg.
I still can't believe Siskel gave the original Aliens and the Terminator a thumbs down. They definately missed on some films. I think I sided more with Ebert on most films I've seen them review. I mean how could you give Ferris Buelers Day Off a thumbs down. Unless you have no sense of humor at all....SMH
Wait? No COP AND A HALF?
I made a second video
@@daniverse9625 Yes. Saw it. Thanks!
Can you upload this without your commentary?😂
Yes I can actually, but I made a sequel video instead
I wanna hear the debates, not that guy's annoying voice
Another good one was Alaska from 1996.
Gene is so salty in that one, lol
I watched Alaska at the drive-in with my mom's friend Dani and my little sister. I like corny crap like this but i can only watch it now after I've had a few drinks
I liked Ebert more, what an intellect, Siskel was too, almost contemptuous of the opinions of others, whom he often looked at with a little smirk ;-)
I clicked on this video with an expectation of hearing Gene and Roger arguing. You would have been better off setting the clip up, let it play so we can experience their banter, then explain your thoughts on their arguement after the clip played. Instead, you chose to narrate over the majority of their clip. I don't want to hear your arguement that there are other channels with these clips in their entirety, so go visit them so we can hear Gene and Roger debate. You suggest to another person who has the same complaint as I do to go watch other channels if they want to hear the two argue. Not a great business model. The format you've presented is nearly clickbait.
I mean, I'm sorry that happened. At the time I was trying to be different. I should have let the clips runs more with just written notes in retrospect
@daniverse9625 I admire your attempt to try something different. After you show their clip of a movie review, perhaps you could offer your own opinion on the film they critiqued and say whether you agree or disagree with their take and talk about why you feel this way. With this approach, you could explore their criticisms and delve deeper into their opinions with your own commentary. I think that may be a unique approach to a channel. It would take a lot more work than what you're doing now; but if you are a true lover of cinema, it will become a labor of love. Whatever you choose to do, I strongly advise you not to speak over Gene and Roger.
@@sal44287 I have considered doing a follow-up in the future, with something else. Thank you for your genuine criticisms, though
I remember Roger's review of the remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre starring Jessica Biel.
He spent the whole time vilifying the film. Didn't talk about the actors, the cinematography, the sets, or even the plot.
He just spent his entire review bemoaning how bleak amd violent and depressing the film was and that we should all go out and watch something much more uplifting.
I remember thinking "What part of the words Chainsaw and Massacre" did you not get?"
Ebert could get worked up over movies because he thought they were too cruel. He was a human being like all of us
@@daniverse9625 Romance films are escapism. Comedies are escapism. Police procedurals and thrillers are escapism. Sci-fi and fantasy films are also escapism.
So are horror films.
I've seen a lot of good horror films, and a lot of really terrible horror films.
Just like Ebert had seen a lot of really good and really bad family films.
You have to remember exactly what it is you're reviewing.
If horror films offend you, then don't review them.
But then you can't really claim to be a critic if you only review film types that appeal to you.
@@riffgroove I mean Ebert had his own qualms with horror movies in general like that. It goes back to I Spit on Your Grave
His review of Die Hard didn`t mention Bruce Willis (great hero) or Alan RIckman (great villain) just the idiotic police chief...missed some important points...in Gladiator he didn`t mention Russel Crowe who was great in the lead
He was expecting old English ladies sipping tea in a drawing room talking about absolutely nothing with a received dialect.
Sickle and Ebert, what a duo!!!! 😁😊
Anybody who's ever seen The Kids in the Hall can identify what's going on in a heartbeat. A bunch of Canadian kids loved Monty Python, and wanted to try it themselves. You can almost see a 1-to-1 comparison of the bits. 'Trapper' being the prime example, not terribly funny and quite obviously a Python inspired ripoff.
I disagree - KITH is inspired by monty python of course, but they do quite a few things different than them:
1. they for the most part focus on ordinary people or the lower class. their characters are most likely the homeless, cops, prostitutes, working men, housewives, ordinary teenagers, etc.
2. they are much more focused on psychological issues. most of their characters are just nutballs - the tea addict, the guy who crushes people's heads, the chicken lady, the guy from 'creative possibilities' who wears the body of a guitar as underwear just because he is 'creative'.
3. when they are surreal they are surreal in a very personal way. They are not afraid to put up some very dark past traumas as black humor. for example the guy who takes his son to a big rock on his birthday and gets pathetically drunk. Or the sketch 'daddy drank' which shows the point of view of a kid as his father berates and threatens him whilst holding a bottle in his hand.
Yes there are similarities (I'm assuming you think that 'Trapper' is somehow a ripoff of 'The lumberjack song' but just because monty python does a skit on someone who wants to be a lumberjack doesn't mean that Canadians can't do skits satirizing their OWN PAST). And perhaps Buddy Cole being gay hearkens back to the gay stereotypes that monty python does - but really the focuses of both these skits are very different. The Lumberjack song is just plain surrealistic comedy with the goal of disorienting the audience because you have no idea where it is heading. 'Trapper' is directly satirizing both the idea and practice of capitalism.
And Buddy Cole is a fantasy with a gay guy who is projecting how he would like to face the world which is hostile to his presence, whereas Monty Python used gay stereotypes to mock the upper class or institutions (the gay judges sketch, military marches).
So yeah they are different. I'd say the only way they ARE similar is that they use absurdist tropes to make their points. In a simple phrase KITH focuses on the lower class and Monty Python on the upper.
Python could match them gay-for-gay thanks to Graham Chapman.
Full Metal Jacket is my least favorite Kubrick film. But I haven't seen it in years, so maybe it's better than I remember.
This video is crummy. Stop the narration. I want to hear THEM talk about the movies
I don't care for this either anymore, just watch this - th-cam.com/video/5Wi4i5Q97zM/w-d-xo.html
If gene siskel was still alive what would he think of Michael bay
Not much, I'd imagine
Do you think he might have liked his movies more than some other critics
@@carsonpeterson758 I have no idea, Gene did like action movies
Then I believe he would have liked and Ben a defender of bay if he was still alive right
He did recommend "Armageddon" which is kind of a surprise...but he looked really sick in the show,,,
Great idea for a video but I'd like to hear their arguments rather than your descriptions; maybe do a *brief* commentary after letting them play. Two thumbs way down for this video.
I like seeing you're a Spidey fan, but I understand Ebert, I really do. My gf showed me a tik tok this morning that was funny for 3 seconds but 2 mins later she's still laughing and I want to shoot myself bc it was just dumb and repetitive af, and blue velvet was horrible
I wanted to hear what they had to say, not You.
You be quiet after the stage is set to what they are reviewing!!!
Sorry, Gene was correct. Mulan was just awful.
You sound kinda like Jeff ross
Armageddon was one of the absolute, stupidest movie, ever made.
first half was kind of funny, second half was woefully inept with the trademark `Bay` use of slow motion without any purpose or meaning
My mum loves that movie.
yasss