|
|
Post by airborne3502 on Jul 3, 2017 3:06:21 GMT
Watching their old reviews on YouTube, one is struck by how many films they thumbed down that are now considered classics.
|
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Jul 3, 2017 3:23:07 GMT
Watching their old reviews on YouTube, one is struck by how many films they thumbed down that are now considered classics. links? |
|
|
|
Post by rateater on Jul 3, 2017 3:28:02 GMT
i take it that they're from a different era and have a different belief on the rules of what a good film is. i love a lot of films that they put down and see things in them that they clearly don't, but nowadays i find myself hating certain modern films that the younger generation thinks are awesome. but also i'm not a professional critic and also still have a childish love for cheesy and fantastical movies and some of the raunchy comedies, where they have an educated mindset on how to critique a film and a background in the media that stems way before i ever saw my first film. they also come from a more classy serious era.
it does seem that they are too hard headed though sometimes, or at least playing the part, and can't at least say they enjoyed the silly film even if it was pure crap or it's been done better before etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkknightofgotham on Jul 3, 2017 3:38:09 GMT
Ebert gave A Clockwork Orange and Die Hard a thumbs down. He also originally gave The Good, The Bad,The Ugly a thumbs down too, but changed his mind on the film a few years later.
|
|
|
|
Post by airborne3502 on Jul 3, 2017 3:41:51 GMT
Watching their old reviews on YouTube, one is struck by how many films they thumbed down that are now considered classics. links? Some examples: They both panned Blade Runner and Big Trouble In Little China.
Die Hard Gene Siskel - thumbs up. Roger Ebert - thumbs down. Batman Gene Siskel - thumbs up. Roger Ebert - thumbs down. Predator Gene Siskel - thumbs down. Roger Ebert - thumbs up. Aliens Gene Siskel - thumbs down. Roger Ebert - thumbs up. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 3, 2017 3:57:39 GMT
1. That is one of the dumbest questions I have ever seen posted here. Of course the liked movies (loved them with a passion in fact). They would often have heated arguments over movies and no one does that without having a serious love of film.
2. Every critic and every person on the planet dislike many movies that are considered great films by the majority.
I can't imagine anyone on here not being offended by your question, unless they like 99% of every movie praised by the majority.
|
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Jul 3, 2017 4:00:58 GMT
Some examples: They both panned Blade Runner and Big Trouble In Little China.
Die Hard Gene Siskel - thumbs up. Roger Ebert - thumbs down. Batman Gene Siskel - thumbs up. Roger Ebert - thumbs down. Predator Gene Siskel - thumbs down. Roger Ebert - thumbs up. Aliens Gene Siskel - thumbs down. Roger Ebert - thumbs up. ah well, it's fairly well known that Ebert wasn't a big fan of Burton's films and finally found what he wanted in Nolan's films ......and I have to agree with him at times.but regarding everything else. sometimes the reception of a film is simply of its time. for example "Casino" coming off the heels of "Goodfellas." while Casino is still a solid film, many felt that Scorsese was treading old water, and may have even resented how similar the two films were leading to more negative reviews. even today there are films that might be panned, but after given time to breathe they're rediscovered, and there are films that are showered with applause only to eventually vanish, to fade into obscurity. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 3, 2017 4:15:08 GMT
Some examples: They both panned Blade Runner and Big Trouble In Little China.
Die Hard Gene Siskel - thumbs up. Roger Ebert - thumbs down. Batman Gene Siskel - thumbs up. Roger Ebert - thumbs down. Predator Gene Siskel - thumbs down. Roger Ebert - thumbs up. Aliens Gene Siskel - thumbs down. Roger Ebert - thumbs up. Roger Ebert gives all versions of Blade Runner thumbs up, though he may have re-evaluated his position after his initial review. He actually rates The Final Cut 4/4 stars. www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-blade-runner-the-final-cut-1982Movie critics are human just like the rest of us and like many people a re-watch can change one's view on a movie. Both also rated Unforgiven and Star Wars thumbs down but Ebert eventually rated both 4/4 stars. |
|
|
|
Post by airborne3502 on Jul 3, 2017 4:21:49 GMT
1. That is one of the dumbest questions I have ever seen posted here. Of course the liked movies (loved them with a passion in fact). They would often have heated arguments over movies and no one does that without having a serious love of film. 2. Every critic and every person on the planet dislike many movies that are considered great films by the majority. I can't imagine anyone on here not being offended by your question, unless they like 99% of every movie praised by the majority. The question was posed sarcastically. I assumed it was understood they liked movies because it was what they did for a living and they were indeed passionate about it. I sometimes forget on a message board one has to spell everything out. Sorry if I offended your frail sensibilities. People get in serious arguments all the time and it isn't necessarily about having a serious love of film, or a particular film. It's about proving they are right. I think Siskel and Ebert panned a lot of good movies because they wouldn't allow themselves to sit back and enjoy them without "being on the clock." |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 3, 2017 4:40:19 GMT
1. That is one of the dumbest questions I have ever seen posted here. Of course the liked movies (loved them with a passion in fact). They would often have heated arguments over movies and no one does that without having a serious love of film. 2. Every critic and every person on the planet dislike many movies that are considered great films by the majority. I can't imagine anyone on here not being offended by your question, unless they like 99% of every movie praised by the majority. The question was posed sarcastically. I assumed it was understood they liked movies because it was what they did for a living and they were indeed passionate about it. I sometimes forget on a message board one has to spell everything out. Sorry if I offended your frail sensibilities. People get in serious arguments all the time and it isn't necessarily about having a serious love of film, or a particular film. It's about proving they are right. I think Siskel and Ebert panned a lot of good movies because they wouldn't allow themselves to sit back and enjoy them without "being on the clock."
That is an assumption with no basis. Are you honestly going to tell me you like every movie that is praised as a great film? If so, you would be in the vast minority. I don't think it has anything to do with being on the clock, I think it has to do with the fact that not everyone likes the same things. The question was posed sarcastically.That was a fail on your part. There was absolutely nothing that suggests you were being sarcastic besides maybe the ignorance of your question. And yes, you have to be more specific because I have seen people ask that question on here who were very serious. People get in serious arguments all the time and it isn't necessarily about having a serious love of film, or a particular film.
It's about proving they are right.
Watching Siskel and Ebert, I don't feel that is the case. I assumed it was understood they liked movies because it was what they did for a living and they were indeed passionate about it.
Then what is the point of the question? Just to bash Siskel and Ebert and anyone who doesn't agree with majority opinion? Sorry if I offended your frail sensibilities.
Just annoyed by your attitude, not offended. You are basically calling anyone out who doesn't agree with your opinions. Maybe you are just a sheep  |
|
|
|
Post by airborne3502 on Jul 3, 2017 4:55:48 GMT
The question was posed sarcastically. I assumed it was understood they liked movies because it was what they did for a living and they were indeed passionate about it. I sometimes forget on a message board one has to spell everything out. Sorry if I offended your frail sensibilities. People get in serious arguments all the time and it isn't necessarily about having a serious love of film, or a particular film. It's about proving they are right. I think Siskel and Ebert panned a lot of good movies because they wouldn't allow themselves to sit back and enjoy them without "being on the clock."
That is an assumption with no basis. Are you honestly going to tell me you like every movie that is praised as a great film? If so, you would be in the vast minority. I don't think it has anything to do with being on the clock, I think it has to do with the fact that not everyone likes the same things. The question was posed sarcastically.That was a fail on your part. There was absolutely nothing that suggests you were being sarcastic besides maybe the ignorance of your question. People get in serious arguments all the time and it isn't necessarily about having a serious love of film, or a particular film.
It's about proving they are right.
Watching them I don't feel that is the case. I assumed it was understood they liked movies because it was what they did for a living and they were indeed passionate about it.
Then what is the point of the question? Just to bash Siskel and Ebert and anyone who doesn't agree with majority opinion? The point was to bring up the fact that Siskel and Ebert panned a lot of films that are now considered by many to be classics. I thought that would be a fun conversation to have. You mentioned Star Wars and Unforgiven. darkknightofgotham mentioned The Good The Bad and the Ugly. You can stop being a pretentious and argumentative dick at any time. Or don't, suit yourself. However, I'm done with you. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 3, 2017 4:58:25 GMT
i take it that they're from a different era and have a different belief on the rules of what a good film is. i love a lot of films that they put down and see things in them that they clearly don't, but nowadays i find myself hating certain modern films that the younger generation thinks are awesome. but also i'm not a professional critic and also still have a childish love for cheesy and fantastical movies and some of the raunchy comedies, where they have an educated mindset on how to critique a film and a background in the media that stems way before i ever saw my first film. they also come from a more classy serious era. it does seem that they are too hard headed though sometimes, or at least playing the part, and can't at least say they enjoyed the silly film even if it was pure crap or it's been done better before etc.They have done that on several occasions. Anaconda comes to mind immediately. In fact Ebert had a soft spot for enjoyably dumb movies. Pure crap isn't enjoyable. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 3, 2017 5:02:13 GMT
I think Siskel and Ebert panned a lot of good movies because they wouldn't allow themselves to sit back and enjoy them without "being on the clock."
That is an assumption with no basis. Are you honestly going to tell me you like every movie that is praised as a great film? If so, you would be in the vast minority. I don't think it has anything to do with being on the clock, I think it has to do with the fact that not everyone likes the same things. The question was posed sarcastically.That was a fail on your part. There was absolutely nothing that suggests you were being sarcastic besides maybe the ignorance of your question. People get in serious arguments all the time and it isn't necessarily about having a serious love of film, or a particular film.
It's about proving they are right.
Watching them I don't feel that is the case. I assumed it was understood they liked movies because it was what they did for a living and they were indeed passionate about it.
Then what is the point of the question? Just to bash Siskel and Ebert and anyone who doesn't agree with majority opinion? The point was to bring up the fact that Siskel and Ebert panned a lot of films that are now considered by many to be classics. I thought that would be a fun conversation to have. You mentioned Star Wars and Unforgiven. darkknightofgotham mentioned The Good The Bad and the Ugly. You can stop being a pretentious and argumentative dick at any time. Or don't, suit yourself. However, I'm done with you. I'm done with you too and you are the one who is coming off snobby. The point was to bring up the fact that Siskel and Ebert panned a lot of films that are now considered by many to be classics.
But so do MOST critics. The question makes you sound like a closed minded fool. |
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Jul 3, 2017 5:09:56 GMT
Watching their old reviews on YouTube, one is struck by how many films they thumbed down that are now considered classics.  Did your chute open too late and you took a hard hit to the head? They both knew more about film and treasured the art more than you can ever hope to do. Do you even like movies? |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 3, 2017 5:13:54 GMT
Fine, I will just list other movies that Ebert disagreed with the majority about. I will also include poorly rated movies that he likes.
To Kill a Mockingbird
Gladiator
Fight Club
Anaconda
Eraser
Collateral Damage
Cop and a Half
Home Alone 3
XXX
It was clear that Siskel legitimately disliked The Silence of the Lambs. He didn't even like Hopkins's performance. It almost came off as a 1.5/4 star rating.
Ebert also clearly stated when he disliked a movie because the subject matter offended him - Leon for example.
Ebert didn't "get" The Usual Suspects and rates it 1.5/4 stars.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 3, 2017 5:14:49 GMT
Watching their old reviews on YouTube, one is struck by how many films they thumbed down that are now considered classics. Did your chute open too late and you took a hard hit to the head? They both knew more about film and treasured the art more than you can ever hope to do. Do you even like movies? Thank you. They both knew far more about film than most people on here. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2017 5:45:19 GMT
Watching their old reviews on YouTube, one is struck by how many films they thumbed down that are now considered classics. Did your chute open too late and you took a hard hit to the head? They both knew more about film and treasured the art more than you can ever hope to do. Do you even like movies? So the movies they panned that are now considered classics are objectively crap, then? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2017 5:45:55 GMT
Did your chute open too late and you took a hard hit to the head? They both knew more about film and treasured the art more than you can ever hope to do. Do you even like movies? Thank you. They both knew far more about film than most people on here. So people are wrong to hail John Carpenter's The Thing as a classic? |
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jul 3, 2017 6:07:22 GMT
"Hi, we're Siskel and Ebert. We don't blindly love every movie everyone else loves which means we're movie-hating troll monsters. Roger didn't even like Batman '89, can you imagine?!"
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jul 3, 2017 6:16:22 GMT
@weirdraptor So people are wrong to hail John Carpenter's The Thing as a classic?
Yes ! But we've gone 'round this particular mulberry bush before and have pretty much agreed to disagree, One thumb UP and One down = a draw.  ? |
|
