Siskel & Ebert (1990): The Rookie, Berkeley in the Sixties, Edward Scissorhands & The Grifters
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ย. 2024
- 0:00 intro
0:50 The Rookie - 👎👎
5:04 Berkeley in the 60's - 👍👍
9:06 Edward Scissorhands - 👎👎
12:51 The Grifters - 👍👍
16:26 talking about Jim Thomson's movies
19:15 Home Video of the week
Last Exit to Brooklyn (1989)
19:49 The reviews
![[Re:all TREASURE] EP.6 in 방콕ㅣ🚩 쩡캠의 방콕 투어 빵 마이 와이 👍](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/uyFw-nItA_s/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm here for The Grifters
Same here.
Grifters is so under appreciated three great actors at the top of their game.
Edward Scissorhands was one of my favourite movies growing up. I was 10 when it came out and I thought it was amazing. Still do. Surprised thy didn't like it but also not THAT surprised?
“Hands? Scissors? No. Scissorhands.”
A strange picture emerges in which Siskel & Ebert are always yearning for novel and original stories and characters. And yet, they often pan those films that - with hindsight - seem to be the most original and game-changing. (As is the case with Edward Scissorhands.)
A lot of it stems from some received ideas they seem to have about what stories children ought to be told. They often fail to understand what elements of a story a child might find appealing because they (like many adults) cling to a Normal Rockwell image of childhood:
To wit, because adults perceive children as cute, they forget that it doesn't feel cute to be a child. Rather, children are inwardly passionate individuals, prisoners of a world in which they don't belong, and driven by fierce terrors and desperate longings. Longing, if for nothing else, just to have some measure of control over their own lives, minute to minute.
When considering films a child might see, there's a lazy backwards logic that emerges: _Because children sometimes ape what they see on the screen, then we really ought to show them only images of people behaving how we wished they would behave in an ideal world, rather than paint a world full of danger and conflict._ We forget that like us, they want stories to reflect, validate, and comfort them in the strong feelings they have to experience everyday, but hardly ever get to fully express or be masters of.
This got me thinking about the end of _Edward Scissorhands._ Is it really that bad? I'll concede that nothing gets resolved, nothing really develops or changes. I guess the Danny Elfman score had always so mercilessly picked the lock on my heart that it just felt like resolution.
But if we ignore the music (as Roger and Gene always seem to, whether good or bad), then is it truly a bad ending? They've now framed it as a fable for children. And what happens to young Edward in this fable?
He's a singular, sensitive soul, made to live in a world not made for him. In the _third act,_ he's forced to endure unbearable emotional cruelty, and pushed to the point where he can't help but explode. And when he does what everyone else is allowed to do, for him it's unforgivable, because he's different and everyone expects better of him. And they send him to his room, where he must stay alone forever.
Nothing will be okay. And the world will never change just because you want it to.
Isn't this exactly what happens to every child most days of their young lives?
Yes its bad.
I wish Raul Julia had done more villian roles.
The Grifters is totally disturbing and powerful. It's a total headfuck of a movie for those who can understand and appreciate it.
I used to watch that movie every so often but 2 years ago someone lied about me to get me fired (and it worked) so I'm not such a fan of "cons" any more.
I am sincerely sorry to hear about that. People can be fucking horrible.
The Grifters is a Fantastic Film, Pat Hingle was truly terrifying
@@ricardocantoral7672 At least in the movies they do it to get rich and no-one innocent gets hurt.
What happened to me was completely pointless (except for the gratification of some insane ugly b1tch)
The Grifters and Edward Scissorhands were both pretty good.
I was twelve years old when I first saw Edward Scissorhands. Roger’s review is immature and Gene’s is shortsighted.
How can you not like Edward Scissorhands?
I like the movie, but I agree with Gene that the third act wasn't as good as the rest of the film.
Simple: different tastes
Because it takes a story about being different and celebrating that, and turns it into a navel-gazing fest of self-pity.
By the end, it isn't about how special an artistic temperament might be. It's about how stupid everyone who doesn't have one is. It's actually a really snooty film, in hindsight.
The Rookie Thumbs 👎 1 & a half out of 4 stars Edward Scissorhands Thumbs 👍 3 stars out of 4
The Rookie is one of these Eastwood crazy guilty pleasures and also a big disappointment in the time. Just one for making money at the box office...but something failed at all
“Edward Scissorhands” (1990)
Review: 9:07
Recap: 20:10
Edward Scissorhands is possibly, my biggest disagreement with Siskel and Ebert. Edward Scissorhands is a classic, pure-hearted masterpiece
I agree. Some of Tim Burton’s very best work/artful addressing of his themes.
Raul Julia was a memorable villain in the rookie.
I don't know how you can say that when everyone forgot about him
@@booknooky9436 I didnt forget. I bought the rookie. I liked his one liners like just a man with poor taste in beers.
My reviews: out of 5
1 " The Rookie " 2.5 out of 5 👎
2 " Edward Scissorhands " 3 out of 5 👍
3 " The Grifters " 3 out of 5 👍
The grifters was real good & deserve a Academy award for best picture. 👍🌟🌟🌟🌟
@Kelly Lumac I think both movies are good. I hope the piano is playing Mozart
The Rookie was fun, but way too long. I think Eastwood just wanted to cash in on the actions flicks of the era.
I like Edward Scissorhands. It was Vincent Price's last movie.
I agreed with them. I didn't like the ending and felt it was just routine. It's touching, but not as successful as it could be.
I agree with them, movie was OK for me, I wish the storyline & ending could've been different. Vincent price died 3 years later
Ebert was wrong about Edward Scissorhands. It’s a fairy tale for adults.
Agreed. Though his criticism of the third act is a fair point.
Ebert totally missed on Scissorhands. The film wasn’t for kids.
Well, it was for everyone and it was marketed for Kids so you are incorrect
Dianne Wiest was the best thing about Edward Scissorhands
She was only person accepts Edward with no questions.
@@Jbaxter85 Well, I meant acting wise