These all reign so true. It doesn't matter how intelligent you are when you watch a movie or how much insight you have, just as long as you create some kind of response to it, no matter what it is.
@featheon Once they get to college, we teach them to use first person whenever it is needed. For most students, this is the most important first step toward improving their writing. Some disciplines still exclude the first-person "I" but most writing in life is centered around that personal perspective. Students already know that the "Never use I" rule is BS because it runs contrary to natural communication.
@paxpaul I'm most interested in why it was so prevalent in the Anglo-American school system. My German language teacher was always expressing confusion about these admonishments, like avoiding "passive voice," that aren't taught in European universities. My younger friends are in college humanities and they are still told not to use first-person and "don't look at Wikipedia." The idea that we can act as objective observers is an ideology that pervaded 20th c. theory in the US.
with all the criticism they gave to films, good criticism, or bad, I can't blame them for ending up feeling like that
it's hard to know a good, or bad film when you see one, but they could tell which films were just that. even if some of US knew if they were good, or bad.
I agree with both of them. A review must contain your personal feelings as well as the facts. You should tell the reader or viewer what you witnessed but at the same time what you felt when witnessing it.
The thing about Roger Ebert is yes you don't always agree but I've always loved his descriptions when I DO agree with the guy. He always seems so spot-on
Very true, Gene (RIP). I love getting into conversations with my friends about why I don't like a movie that they absolutely adored -- Newsies, Moulin Rouge, Rent -- because 1) it's funny to see their reaction to my "review" and 2) I think challenges to one's viewpoint should strengthen it.
Anyway, just watch movies as long as you live!!! I admit, before getting a deep understanding of cinema I used Ebert as a guide to buy my first movies.
Well, my point is that these guys are sending people to the movies just because they are payed to do that even if the movie is bad thay always are going to find a way to make look movies fine FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES. That's not a real appreciation of art; it's more like a commercial way to implant likeliness in movies that sometimes dont make sense.
You are right, that's a good comment. But the analysis here is more like, what it felt" to watch the movie. So, they don't analyse the structure of films. Thanks for your comment.
I don't think either of these guys know what the hell they're talking about. Like all critics, they seem to judge films on completely arbitrary standards. They should be analyzing how the film's structure works, particularly in regards to the characterization and character development. Looking back over their old reviews, most of the films they've given good reviews to (or bad ones) have been largely forgotten. I do agree with their thoughts on political correctness, though.
@SatanicFilmHouse I guess by "legitimately" you mean "inherently", so to answer your question: you have decide, from your own singular perspective, whether you thought it had esthetic merit.
@spidamantruck You're thinking of the difference between liking something, and knowing what's actually good. You may like "It's Pat" but that doesn't mean it isn't a piece of shit. This may sound strange, but it isn't a critic's job to tell us if they liked something or not, but simply to explain how well it functions using an axiomatic set of guidelines.
@SatanicFilmHouse I agree there is a difference between so-called "mindless entertainment" and work that engages emotion and intellect, as I am a fan of both, obviously favoring the latter. But these "axiomatic set of guidelines" are not any indicator of quality, merely certain personal esthetic principles that a person feels constitutes a good work. The reason we come to favor some critic's opinion over another is because we feel that their esthetic principles are somehow congenial to ours.
@spidamantruck I don't know why people keep arguing these points. 99% of all classic novels, movies, stories, etc. all use a very specific set of guidelines and rules in regards to how they're constructed, which makes them logical, realistic, and interesting. I find it severely bizarre that people take the concept of rules far more seriously in games and sports than they do in art.
@SatanicFilmHouse "Logical, realistic, and interesting" are all vague terms. Also the first two words seem to be completely ignoring the fantastical tradition in art, a tradition that reaches back to Homer, Virgil, and Dante through modern fantasists like Kafka, Joyce, and Borges, and in film with Fellini, Lynch and some other guys. These are hardly obscure names. I would like you to clarify what these rules & guidelines are.
@spidamantruck The logical aspect of a story has nothing to do with it's setting; it must be logically consistent within it's own context. "Homer's Odyssey" is consistent in that it's about Greek gods, but if time-travel was randomly dumped in halfway through, it would fall apart. The rules are basically that a story must be divided into three sections: setup, conflict, and resolution, and it must have a lead character who develops through the story.
@spidamantruck And, yes, there are some exceptions, but not very many. Bunuel is a good example of a director who doesn't often follow the rules, mainly because he was as insane as his films were, but he still used them in films like "Los Olvidados."
Roger Ebert does not analyse movies based on film structure but pure subjective opinion. He never discussed about the moviemaking itself, but how it "felt" to watch a movie.
@TheEvilDead8 It's a review of War. I'll send the link. Sorry for late reply. I also did a review of Rear Window, but it is not online, only a file on my computer. Perhaps I could e-mail that one to you. Anyways, here is the first review i've written.
I'll message the link. Forgot you couldn't post links on comments
A great video, though I have to admit that both Gene and Roger have broken the rule Roger made @0:22. Ebert's even done this recently in his Battle:LA review, where he told teen readers to "tactfully tell your friends they're idiots" if they liked it.
@BlackLeather92 Speaking as a film critic I can tell you that it's almost impossible to be fair to a movie you hated...In my own recent review of "Your Highness" I explained how much I hated it and can't understand why anyone would want to watch it or if they did they shouldn't enjoy it...
@BlackLeather92 i read that review. at 0:22 he isn't just discussing tone, ie 'blasting,' he is saying the opinion should describe what the film is like; and he did, although he happened to feel condescendingly from every viewpoint he took towards 'Battle: LA'
Says the man who slams anyone for saying anything remotely questionable when it comes to race/disability. You can't blast people for saying something harmlessly racist, and then say political correctness is akin to fascism.
He's correct that PC nonsense is garbage, but he's a fairly PC guy.
@hossrex You can. Hypocrisy is almost inherent in being a human. It happens.
Also, stances can be taken for circumstance. A harmless joke about blacks vs. Michael Richard's infamous rant is a comparison that calls for two different levels of political correctness. Either you can be completely superficial and hypersensitive, or you can be more open-minded, and even, dare I say, rational.
Example? I've gotten glimpses of this in his movie reviews, but I don't think he's PC. Being PC is akin to being reactionary. Ebert puts thought into his reviews.
Wouldn't the term 'politically correct' by inference be seen as inherently bad? If a statement is somehow correct, saying that it is politically correct is redundant, but if it is only correct in some arbitrary way like for instance when someone is trying to score a political advantage, then it doesn't have any useful value or inherent truth to it. I think Ebert really believes what he says, so I don't see how it would be political or sophist in nature. But I'm probably just
splitting hairs. To put it another way, I see being 'PC' as being fraudulent. I suppose someone could being PC and really believe that people are only allowed to talk in certain ways, but I've never seen someone defend the idea very well.
Certainly there's a difference. The difference is whether or not you keep them to yourself, or if you try to shove them down the throat of others.
Siskel has made a few notable outbursts, and considering how petty (and often meaningless) it is to throw around a loaded word like that... I'd call it fairly PC.
I want to become a film critic and already write reviews for my message board. I HATE it when people say "you'll have the easiest job in the world". Then when I try to explain to them the stuff you need to do their like "you just don't want to admit you're going to have an easy job. Don't complicate it." Really pisses me off.
@Moviewhiz1 No kidding. Sometimes it isn't easy to express your opinion. It takes more than just anyone to do decent writing on a film review. Saying that a movie is just "good" or that "it sucks" just doesn't cut the cheese.
@CoolerKing37 You are about as cool as Roger Ebert! What taste and style! He now looks even better without a jaw! He wrote way cool movies like those failed porno flicks he tried to make money off of. Aren't you, such a kewl awesome guy, glad he can 'tell" you which movies to see/
@JawRotted What is this your 19th, 20th account? How can you even remember all those passwords and usernames? Please kill yourself. I'm sorry Ebert gave thumbs down to whatever awful movie you like, you bitter cunt.
I don't think Ebert follows his own advice. He says 0:26 "You should never just slam a movie in a way that makes the reader think no reasonable person should go see this film." Hey, Ebert go read your own reviews of North and Deuce Bigalow: European Gigalo.
@bierbuik Yes I am. Look, I'm not defending those two movies; I agree they're both horrid. But I'm pointing out that Ebert did violate the standard he talks about here when he wrote those reviews.
@MeatballsMarlowe Do you really not understand that those movies are clear exceptions to this guideline (not some sort of wierd rule that must be followed)? Your reaction of pointing out inconsistencies is one of the worst answers one could give on Eberts' excellent advice and basicly shows you didn't fully understand the message he tried to convey.
In other words: it would be the reaction of a robot or something, having to rely on set patterns, not an educated man...
@bierbuik First off, there is such a thing in this world as manners and being polite to people. Instead of talking to me like I'm stupid, please tell me WHY those movies are so clearly exceptions? Also please inform me of the part of Ebert's message that apparently went over my head.
@MeatballsMarlowe The questions you ask make no sense again, completely irrelevant. I said what I had to say. Reread if you want, I don't care. It's not that hard to understand. You're probably just doing no effort at all. Or you're indeed very stupid.
@bierbuik I think you and I could have an interesting discussion if you were willing to be civil and not resort to personal attacks. But I see that isn't happening, so I wish you well and will say adieu.
Armond White should see this. He's all of the negative qualities that these two masters ruled against. Siskel and Ebert are personal and interesting in their reviews (both written and on-camera). Armond White's reviews are self-righteous and hypocritical. The only time I ever read his reviews is when I need something to laugh at because here's a guy who, to quote him, has "got the training" and when I read his reviews, I realize that not only do I have better taste, but I'm smarter than he is.
I didn't know A. White but your comment made me curious so I went out and read one of his reviews... Just one... And it was the worst review I have ever read. Wow.
Surfur, you hit it on the nose. I had been a critic for years (welcome to the demise of papers!) and my first inspiration was reading Ebert. I found his reviews not only thoughtful and adroit, but surprisingly readable and without pretension. He comes across as a person who truly loves movies, and enjoys sharing his remarkable power of observation with people. Siskel, as you noted, wasn't nearly the writer. But together, they had amazing chemistry. They will be missed in the world of criticism.
Hmmm. I'm not sure I ever sensed much in the way of "humble" about Siskel. Of the two, he seemed a bit more obstinate in slamming movies - not that his criticisms weren't always deserved. Still, both will be missed
to add to eberts opening comment,you should be able to explain the plot without dishing out spoilers,to many reviews now days (and even trailers) dish out spoilers to often
@YoJimBoHugabaJoe . i could not believe it when a couple years ago i read a review of "million dollar baby" during its opening weekend and the critic told us that hillar swank dies. it made me want to set his car on fire.
@SparksDrinker it main reason i usually just look at the summary,like overall rating and closing comments,then again some even manage to put spoilers in closing comments also nowadays
@YoJimBoHugabaJoe Practically all trailers do and have done that for the last ten years at least. I remember seeing a trailer of Castaway on some rental movie way back and they actually showed Tom Hanks returning home!
I think I hadn't seen the film yet and this was probably the experience that made me start closing my eyes and putting my fingers in my ears whenever I have the misfortune to be whown almost any trailer.
That's because they WERE film critics, not movie makers (Gene Siskel passed away in 1989).
Both Siskel and Ebert were true Gate Keepers, in ever sense of the word. They reviewed movies honestly and adeptly. They weren't afraid to take film makers, stars and even studios to task if they felt what they were reviewing was below a certain standard of intelligence. The felt the audience deserved better than trivial pap. Try finding that today.
I'm curious: what "real artists" are you speaking of?
poolboyinla, not to be snide, but I don't think I'll ever watch a movie starring Jaime Kennedy. Sorry.
Just my opinion, but Rocky V wasn't very good. The series really ran out of gas by this sequel, and felt more like Stallone was going through the motions and cashing a paycheck. Again, sorry.
Not trying to be an asshole here, just correcting a typo of yours, so people who don't know Siskel won't be confused. He passed away in 1999, not 1989.
stevenc123, I've already had two people correct me on my mistaking Gene Siskel's death as 1998, not 1999. And both were a month ago! I openly admit that I made a mistake, guessed Mr. siskel's date of death instead of fact-checking it. and thank the previous two commentators for setting me straight. Your flippant "nee-ner, nee-ner" is simply redundant.
Whilst not specifically mentioning Ben Lyons by name, Roger Ebert has written a general commentary on ethical standards for film critics, which other commentators have interpreted as implicitly critical of Lyons and responding to comparisons of Ebert with Lyons. Ebert later acknowledged that Lyons was indeed the subject of the commentary.
I doub there is a single aspiring film critic (especially on the web) who doesn't aspire to be as witty and observant as the two kings you see here. We are all in their debt.
Your personality must come through in your writing.
Do they also say your full of yourself? 'yeah' should have been 'Yes'...and with a capital letter. It's also customary to end a sentence or comment with a full stop. Those 'people' are winding you up or like almost everyone now you are deluded with childish arrogance, so forget about it being 'alot of fun' and try to learn the most basic rules of grammar.
sheesh, sorry. I said yeah because I was agreeing with the first commentator, BillyRVaughan that this video was fascinating. I didn't mean to sound full of myself. As a matter of fact, I have a lack of self confidence, especially with my writing and it makes me feel better when people say I'm a good writer because I didn't expect them to and I usually don't think so, but it feels good that I've entertained people with what I've writen. Plus, I don't always have to write properly. I can be
I can totally sympathise with having a low opinion of one's own work. What it amounts to is believing that you have something to say, and working towards making that real. If you really do have something to contribute, that work will pay off. Talent has a way of forcing itself onto people's attention.
@VegimorphtheMovie Boy, I know spot-on exactly what you're saying. People have said the same of me.
I studied creative writing and art seriously ever since Junior High. I've written a tome of reviews and editiorials for film, television and otherwise. And I owe so much of it to these two.
I've read Roger's work and see why he won the Pulitzer.
Gene is better in person than on paper. But he was solid. These two, they were a national treasure.
LOL
JawRotted 16 hours ago
Happy Birthday Gene Siskel! We miss you.
GuernicaByPicasso 1 month ago
These all reign so true. It doesn't matter how intelligent you are when you watch a movie or how much insight you have, just as long as you create some kind of response to it, no matter what it is.
shteeeeeven12345 1 month ago
Great advice, every writer/critic should listen to this :)
pkingo1 2 months ago in playlist Film Analysis
They still tell kids not to use first person pronouns in school; the big positivist ideology still floating.
featheon 2 months ago
@featheon Once they get to college, we teach them to use first person whenever it is needed. For most students, this is the most important first step toward improving their writing. Some disciplines still exclude the first-person "I" but most writing in life is centered around that personal perspective. Students already know that the "Never use I" rule is BS because it runs contrary to natural communication.
paxpaul 2 months ago
@paxpaul I'm most interested in why it was so prevalent in the Anglo-American school system. My German language teacher was always expressing confusion about these admonishments, like avoiding "passive voice," that aren't taught in European universities. My younger friends are in college humanities and they are still told not to use first-person and "don't look at Wikipedia." The idea that we can act as objective observers is an ideology that pervaded 20th c. theory in the US.
featheon 2 months ago
You can really see Siskel is ailing here. So sad he's gone.
Moviewhiz1 3 months ago
with all the criticism they gave to films, good criticism, or bad, I can't blame them for ending up feeling like that
it's hard to know a good, or bad film when you see one, but they could tell which films were just that. even if some of US knew if they were good, or bad.
hemanshera777 4 months ago
Comment removed
jonnypats 4 months ago in playlist Film Critics
Good common sense, clear thinking once again from both S & E.
DaveM599 6 months ago
I agree with both of them. A review must contain your personal feelings as well as the facts. You should tell the reader or viewer what you witnessed but at the same time what you felt when witnessing it.
TheMan3579 6 months ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Who the hell is this tasteless ugly freak to give trashings to others work when he failed at screenplaywriting?
TheDeeFormed 6 months ago
@TheDeeFormed
Beyond The Valley of the Dolls made many times its budget and has fresh critical rating at rottentomatoes. How is that failing
help4343 5 months ago
@help4343 Yours is a fake account. If your idea of taste is this sleaze, you are a loser
TheDeeFormed 5 months ago
@TheDeeFormed
What is a fake account?
help4343 5 months ago
Comment removed
jonnypats 4 months ago in playlist Film Critics
The thing about Roger Ebert is yes you don't always agree but I've always loved his descriptions when I DO agree with the guy. He always seems so spot-on
jeffreybiderpdee 7 months ago
Siskel < Ebert
Casarzino 7 months ago
I'll admit it, I can be a little close minded sometimes, I will always have something to learn from these guys.
AGuyInAHat 8 months ago
"Wanting to be liked: DEATH to a critic."
Very true, Gene (RIP). I love getting into conversations with my friends about why I don't like a movie that they absolutely adored -- Newsies, Moulin Rouge, Rent -- because 1) it's funny to see their reaction to my "review" and 2) I think challenges to one's viewpoint should strengthen it.
ThePhantom135 8 months ago
I wish there was a MUCH longer video of these 2 talking about film criticism.
ThePhantom135 8 months ago
Anyway, just watch movies as long as you live!!! I admit, before getting a deep understanding of cinema I used Ebert as a guide to buy my first movies.
colosal30 9 months ago
Well, my point is that these guys are sending people to the movies just because they are payed to do that even if the movie is bad thay always are going to find a way to make look movies fine FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES. That's not a real appreciation of art; it's more like a commercial way to implant likeliness in movies that sometimes dont make sense.
colosal30 9 months ago
You are right, that's a good comment. But the analysis here is more like, what it felt" to watch the movie. So, they don't analyse the structure of films. Thanks for your comment.
colosal30 9 months ago
I don't think either of these guys know what the hell they're talking about. Like all critics, they seem to judge films on completely arbitrary standards. They should be analyzing how the film's structure works, particularly in regards to the characterization and character development. Looking back over their old reviews, most of the films they've given good reviews to (or bad ones) have been largely forgotten. I do agree with their thoughts on political correctness, though.
SatanicFilmHouse 9 months ago
@SatanicFilmHouse You can't critique anything but by "completely arbitrary standards" because the effectiveness of anything in art is subjective.
spidamantruck 8 months ago
@spidamantruck Then how do we tell the difference between what's legitimately good and bad?
SatanicFilmHouse 8 months ago
@SatanicFilmHouse I guess by "legitimately" you mean "inherently", so to answer your question: you have decide, from your own singular perspective, whether you thought it had esthetic merit.
spidamantruck 8 months ago
@spidamantruck You're thinking of the difference between liking something, and knowing what's actually good. You may like "It's Pat" but that doesn't mean it isn't a piece of shit. This may sound strange, but it isn't a critic's job to tell us if they liked something or not, but simply to explain how well it functions using an axiomatic set of guidelines.
SatanicFilmHouse 8 months ago
@SatanicFilmHouse I agree there is a difference between so-called "mindless entertainment" and work that engages emotion and intellect, as I am a fan of both, obviously favoring the latter. But these "axiomatic set of guidelines" are not any indicator of quality, merely certain personal esthetic principles that a person feels constitutes a good work. The reason we come to favor some critic's opinion over another is because we feel that their esthetic principles are somehow congenial to ours.
spidamantruck 8 months ago
@spidamantruck I don't know why people keep arguing these points. 99% of all classic novels, movies, stories, etc. all use a very specific set of guidelines and rules in regards to how they're constructed, which makes them logical, realistic, and interesting. I find it severely bizarre that people take the concept of rules far more seriously in games and sports than they do in art.
SatanicFilmHouse 8 months ago
@SatanicFilmHouse "Logical, realistic, and interesting" are all vague terms. Also the first two words seem to be completely ignoring the fantastical tradition in art, a tradition that reaches back to Homer, Virgil, and Dante through modern fantasists like Kafka, Joyce, and Borges, and in film with Fellini, Lynch and some other guys. These are hardly obscure names. I would like you to clarify what these rules & guidelines are.
spidamantruck 8 months ago
@spidamantruck The logical aspect of a story has nothing to do with it's setting; it must be logically consistent within it's own context. "Homer's Odyssey" is consistent in that it's about Greek gods, but if time-travel was randomly dumped in halfway through, it would fall apart. The rules are basically that a story must be divided into three sections: setup, conflict, and resolution, and it must have a lead character who develops through the story.
SatanicFilmHouse 8 months ago
@spidamantruck And, yes, there are some exceptions, but not very many. Bunuel is a good example of a director who doesn't often follow the rules, mainly because he was as insane as his films were, but he still used them in films like "Los Olvidados."
SatanicFilmHouse 8 months ago
im a huge movie buff, Roger is a big influence on how i reviewed movies..
moviebuff383 9 months ago
Roger Ebert does not analyse movies based on film structure but pure subjective opinion. He never discussed about the moviemaking itself, but how it "felt" to watch a movie.
colosal30 9 months ago
@colosal30 If a film is properly structured, then it will feel good to watch.
SatanicFilmHouse 9 months ago
@colosal30 You're SUPPOSED to review a film subjectively. That's what any type of criticism towards art is.
CoolerKing37 9 months ago
message a link back
highwaysonyfan87 10 months ago
I have done 1 review of a movie. If anyone would like to read it and let me know what they thought of it, message me, and I'll
highwaysonyfan87 10 months ago
@highwaysonyfan87 Can I have that link? What movie did you review?
TheEvilDead8 8 months ago
@TheEvilDead8 It's a review of War. I'll send the link. Sorry for late reply. I also did a review of Rear Window, but it is not online, only a file on my computer. Perhaps I could e-mail that one to you. Anyways, here is the first review i've written.
I'll message the link. Forgot you couldn't post links on comments
highwaysonyfan87 8 months ago
though 5 min are just amazing
TooCool1993 11 months ago
A great video, though I have to admit that both Gene and Roger have broken the rule Roger made @0:22. Ebert's even done this recently in his Battle:LA review, where he told teen readers to "tactfully tell your friends they're idiots" if they liked it.
BlackLeather92 11 months ago
@BlackLeather92 Speaking as a film critic I can tell you that it's almost impossible to be fair to a movie you hated...In my own recent review of "Your Highness" I explained how much I hated it and can't understand why anyone would want to watch it or if they did they shouldn't enjoy it...
WeaponXXIV 11 months ago
@BlackLeather92 i read that review. at 0:22 he isn't just discussing tone, ie 'blasting,' he is saying the opinion should describe what the film is like; and he did, although he happened to feel condescendingly from every viewpoint he took towards 'Battle: LA'
JJJ10JJJ 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
WHAT A RETARDED JOB.
SunnyLovetts 1 year ago
I always thought the whole idea of political correctness was simply to not offend others.
petercharleskrug 1 year ago
"political correctness is the facism of the 90s."
Says the man who slams anyone for saying anything remotely questionable when it comes to race/disability. You can't blast people for saying something harmlessly racist, and then say political correctness is akin to fascism.
He's correct that PC nonsense is garbage, but he's a fairly PC guy.
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex Example?
CoolerKing37 1 year ago
@hossrex You can. Hypocrisy is almost inherent in being a human. It happens.
Also, stances can be taken for circumstance. A harmless joke about blacks vs. Michael Richard's infamous rant is a comparison that calls for two different levels of political correctness. Either you can be completely superficial and hypersensitive, or you can be more open-minded, and even, dare I say, rational.
RuthlessVision 1 year ago
@hossrex
Example? I've gotten glimpses of this in his movie reviews, but I don't think he's PC. Being PC is akin to being reactionary. Ebert puts thought into his reviews.
SuperWillHatch 1 year ago
@SuperWillHatch
You're reflecting on the term "PC" as if it were some catch-all blanket "evil" phrase... such as how "racist" has become.
If you hold opinions that delineate people of different races into any sort of prejudged categories... you're a racist.
Just like if you think people shouldn't say certain things for the sole reason that someone somewhere might be offended... you're politically correct.
I'm not saying he's an asshole... just that he's occasionally PC.
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex
Wouldn't the term 'politically correct' by inference be seen as inherently bad? If a statement is somehow correct, saying that it is politically correct is redundant, but if it is only correct in some arbitrary way like for instance when someone is trying to score a political advantage, then it doesn't have any useful value or inherent truth to it. I think Ebert really believes what he says, so I don't see how it would be political or sophist in nature. But I'm probably just
SuperWillHatch 1 year ago
@hossrex
splitting hairs. To put it another way, I see being 'PC' as being fraudulent. I suppose someone could being PC and really believe that people are only allowed to talk in certain ways, but I've never seen someone defend the idea very well.
SuperWillHatch 1 year ago
@SuperWillHatch
You think the phrase "Political Correctness" is synonymous with the word "fraudulent"?
That's obviously the problem we're having here... you don't know what "PC" actually means. Look it up.
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex There's a difference between being PC and having personal morals.
TheRydog100 1 year ago
@TheRydog100
Certainly there's a difference. The difference is whether or not you keep them to yourself, or if you try to shove them down the throat of others.
Siskel has made a few notable outbursts, and considering how petty (and often meaningless) it is to throw around a loaded word like that... I'd call it fairly PC.
hossrex 1 year ago
Jonathan Rosenbaum should watch this. He could learn a lot.
Quadzilla99 1 year ago
I want to become a film critic and already write reviews for my message board. I HATE it when people say "you'll have the easiest job in the world". Then when I try to explain to them the stuff you need to do their like "you just don't want to admit you're going to have an easy job. Don't complicate it." Really pisses me off.
Moviewhiz1 1 year ago
@Moviewhiz1 No kidding. Sometimes it isn't easy to express your opinion. It takes more than just anyone to do decent writing on a film review. Saying that a movie is just "good" or that "it sucks" just doesn't cut the cheese.
MrDemonSushi 1 year ago
How old is this video?
frankwolftown 1 year ago
Both these dudes rule. I wish Siskel's written reviews were available online somehow...
CoolerKing37 1 year ago 16
@CoolerKing37 You are about as cool as Roger Ebert! What taste and style! He now looks even better without a jaw! He wrote way cool movies like those failed porno flicks he tried to make money off of. Aren't you, such a kewl awesome guy, glad he can 'tell" you which movies to see/
JawRotted 16 hours ago
@JawRotted What is this your 19th, 20th account? How can you even remember all those passwords and usernames? Please kill yourself. I'm sorry Ebert gave thumbs down to whatever awful movie you like, you bitter cunt.
CoolerKing37 13 hours ago
@CoolerKing37 Too bad everyone tells you the same thing: you are totally UNcool
JawRotted 12 hours ago
I could watch this discussion for hours.
joelcrary 1 year ago 2
The reason I only read Ebert is that he actually explains *why* a film does/doesn't work.
1:16 What Gene says here also applies to veteran critics frankly.
jessc1979 1 year ago
I don't think Ebert follows his own advice. He says 0:26 "You should never just slam a movie in a way that makes the reader think no reasonable person should go see this film." Hey, Ebert go read your own reviews of North and Deuce Bigalow: European Gigalo.
MeatballsMarlowe 1 year ago
@MeatballsMarlowe I think those are understandable exceptions to the rule.
Jornev 1 year ago
@MeatballsMarlowe There are exceptions to every rule. Those two movies definitely fall into that category.
jessc1979 1 year ago
@MeatballsMarlowe are you serious??
bierbuik 1 year ago
@bierbuik Yes I am. Look, I'm not defending those two movies; I agree they're both horrid. But I'm pointing out that Ebert did violate the standard he talks about here when he wrote those reviews.
MeatballsMarlowe 1 year ago
@MeatballsMarlowe Do you really not understand that those movies are clear exceptions to this guideline (not some sort of wierd rule that must be followed)? Your reaction of pointing out inconsistencies is one of the worst answers one could give on Eberts' excellent advice and basicly shows you didn't fully understand the message he tried to convey.
In other words: it would be the reaction of a robot or something, having to rely on set patterns, not an educated man...
bierbuik 1 year ago
@bierbuik First off, there is such a thing in this world as manners and being polite to people. Instead of talking to me like I'm stupid, please tell me WHY those movies are so clearly exceptions? Also please inform me of the part of Ebert's message that apparently went over my head.
MeatballsMarlowe 1 year ago
@MeatballsMarlowe The questions you ask make no sense again, completely irrelevant. I said what I had to say. Reread if you want, I don't care. It's not that hard to understand. You're probably just doing no effort at all. Or you're indeed very stupid.
bierbuik 1 year ago
@bierbuik I think you and I could have an interesting discussion if you were willing to be civil and not resort to personal attacks. But I see that isn't happening, so I wish you well and will say adieu.
MeatballsMarlowe 1 year ago
Armond White should see this. He's all of the negative qualities that these two masters ruled against. Siskel and Ebert are personal and interesting in their reviews (both written and on-camera). Armond White's reviews are self-righteous and hypocritical. The only time I ever read his reviews is when I need something to laugh at because here's a guy who, to quote him, has "got the training" and when I read his reviews, I realize that not only do I have better taste, but I'm smarter than he is.
TheUnknown837 1 year ago
@TheUnknown837
I didn't know A. White but your comment made me curious so I went out and read one of his reviews... Just one... And it was the worst review I have ever read. Wow.
Audioepics 6 months ago
Is this an FMV video game
spicychicken93 1 year ago
Surfur, you hit it on the nose. I had been a critic for years (welcome to the demise of papers!) and my first inspiration was reading Ebert. I found his reviews not only thoughtful and adroit, but surprisingly readable and without pretension. He comes across as a person who truly loves movies, and enjoys sharing his remarkable power of observation with people. Siskel, as you noted, wasn't nearly the writer. But together, they had amazing chemistry. They will be missed in the world of criticism.
Marc010 1 year ago
@Marc010
Yes, but Siskel had the vibrancy of humble ingenuity and genuine humanity. If I had to choose between Ebert and him, I'd go with Siskel anytime.
Dally3232 1 year ago
@Dally3232
Hmmm. I'm not sure I ever sensed much in the way of "humble" about Siskel. Of the two, he seemed a bit more obstinate in slamming movies - not that his criticisms weren't always deserved. Still, both will be missed
Marc010 1 year ago
to add to eberts opening comment,you should be able to explain the plot without dishing out spoilers,to many reviews now days (and even trailers) dish out spoilers to often
YoJimBoHugabaJoe 1 year ago
@YoJimBoHugabaJoe . i could not believe it when a couple years ago i read a review of "million dollar baby" during its opening weekend and the critic told us that hillar swank dies. it made me want to set his car on fire.
SparksDrinker 1 year ago
@SparksDrinker it main reason i usually just look at the summary,like overall rating and closing comments,then again some even manage to put spoilers in closing comments also nowadays
YoJimBoHugabaJoe 1 year ago
@YoJimBoHugabaJoe Practically all trailers do and have done that for the last ten years at least. I remember seeing a trailer of Castaway on some rental movie way back and they actually showed Tom Hanks returning home!
I think I hadn't seen the film yet and this was probably the experience that made me start closing my eyes and putting my fingers in my ears whenever I have the misfortune to be whown almost any trailer.
Jornev 1 year ago
At 1:20, Siskel sounds like he's describing the critics for Entertainment Weekly,..
CoolerKing37 1 year ago
They are actually criticising each other. Very subtly.
nikosvault 1 year ago
Well I'll give the clip Thumbs Up!
NY4Life 2 years ago 12
"... political correctness is the facism of the 90s."
Well said, Roger.
KajiCarson 2 years ago 81
@KajiCarson - yes, that is very well said.
AlsatianCousin 1 year ago
@KajiCarson sadly it the same now
TooCool1993 11 months ago
@KajiCarson I don't usually agree with Ebert, but that is one of the best quotes ever.
FesteringHeadsFilm 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
These guys are morons that could never make a film themselves. Thats why they criticize real artists.
poolboyinla 2 years ago
That's because they WERE film critics, not movie makers (Gene Siskel passed away in 1989).
Both Siskel and Ebert were true Gate Keepers, in ever sense of the word. They reviewed movies honestly and adeptly. They weren't afraid to take film makers, stars and even studios to task if they felt what they were reviewing was below a certain standard of intelligence. The felt the audience deserved better than trivial pap. Try finding that today.
I'm curious: what "real artists" are you speaking of?
rktsncalnc 2 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
Ebert deemed Rocky IV "unnecessary." It was necessary because it is entertaining and exciting.
Ebert's one movie he made was a joke.
You should watch Heckler by Jaime Kennedy.
poolboyinla 2 years ago
poolboyinla, not to be snide, but I don't think I'll ever watch a movie starring Jaime Kennedy. Sorry.
Just my opinion, but Rocky V wasn't very good. The series really ran out of gas by this sequel, and felt more like Stallone was going through the motions and cashing a paycheck. Again, sorry.
rktsncalnc 2 years ago
Rocky Balboa was good though.
j04370859 2 years ago
Not trying to be an asshole here, just correcting a typo of yours, so people who don't know Siskel won't be confused. He passed away in 1999, not 1989.
Kagehelvede 2 years ago 5
1999 not 1989
GeistWerk 2 years ago 4
He died in 1999.
stevenc123 2 years ago
Comment removed
rktsncalnc 2 years ago
stevenc123, I've already had two people correct me on my mistaking Gene Siskel's death as 1998, not 1999. And both were a month ago! I openly admit that I made a mistake, guessed Mr. siskel's date of death instead of fact-checking it. and thank the previous two commentators for setting me straight. Your flippant "nee-ner, nee-ner" is simply redundant.
Can we move along now?
rktsncalnc 2 years ago
Wow, you're sensitive. I just didn't see the other comments because youtubes comment organisation is a mess.
stevenc123 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oh, fuck you, asshole!
rktsncalnc 2 years ago
I miss Ebert's intellect so much.
zzfour 2 years ago 3
I love these guys. No-one will ever top them. Very smart, insightful people.
prismgap 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Good critics, Ebert and Siskel are.
They always offer two interesting counter points to a film.
degree7 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Agreed. Even if I don't get to agree with all of their reviews (like their Back To The Future sequels reviews), but I still like to see them review.
Too bad that Siskel passed away since. He's sorely missed.
IamConnorMacLeod 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yeah, Roeper couldn't review a film for shit.
degree7 2 years ago
i hate how there is so much dick riding going on in the entertainment business. people shouldn't be afraid to state how they really feel.
Maztuhmind 2 years ago 3
100% agree, and dick riding is the correct term 100% agree
KronantheBarbarian 2 years ago 3
i think ben lyons should learn from these guys
QuietGiantProduction 2 years ago 35
Absolutely.
feelingpeanuty 2 years ago
And Scott Holleran.
jstrewth 2 years ago
@QuietGiantProduction Ben Lyons did learn from Roger Ebert.
Whilst not specifically mentioning Ben Lyons by name, Roger Ebert has written a general commentary on ethical standards for film critics, which other commentators have interpreted as implicitly critical of Lyons and responding to comparisons of Ebert with Lyons. Ebert later acknowledged that Lyons was indeed the subject of the commentary.
Hectorferjr2 1 year ago
@QuietGiantProduction And Armond White.
LibraHorse1 11 months ago
@QuietGiantProduction Oh, if only. If only.
nickjudt 9 months ago
anyone know where I can gene siskels reviews from the tribune?
QuietGiantProduction 2 years ago
I doub there is a single aspiring film critic (especially on the web) who doesn't aspire to be as witty and observant as the two kings you see here. We are all in their debt.
Your personality must come through in your writing.
pg2nd 2 years ago 10
The Nostalgia Critic?Spoonyone?I dont know?
Headache100000 2 years ago
Spoony is GOD.
DemonmachinE 2 years ago
yeah. Too bad I'm not a journalism major. People say I'm a good writer and writing movie reviews would be a lot of fun
VegimorphtheMovieBoy 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Do they also say your full of yourself? 'yeah' should have been 'Yes'...and with a capital letter. It's also customary to end a sentence or comment with a full stop. Those 'people' are winding you up or like almost everyone now you are deluded with childish arrogance, so forget about it being 'alot of fun' and try to learn the most basic rules of grammar.
robhere1982 2 years ago
sheesh, sorry. I said yeah because I was agreeing with the first commentator, BillyRVaughan that this video was fascinating. I didn't mean to sound full of myself. As a matter of fact, I have a lack of self confidence, especially with my writing and it makes me feel better when people say I'm a good writer because I didn't expect them to and I usually don't think so, but it feels good that I've entertained people with what I've writen. Plus, I don't always have to write properly. I can be
VegimorphtheMovieBoy 2 years ago 2
(continued) casual with my writing too.
VegimorphtheMovieBoy 2 years ago 2
Don't respond to trolls. They usually have an overlong stick firmly lodged in a place it shouldn't be.
textthing 2 years ago
ah yeah. you're right. thanks. sorry about that
VegimorphtheMovieBoy 2 years ago
I can totally sympathise with having a low opinion of one's own work. What it amounts to is believing that you have something to say, and working towards making that real. If you really do have something to contribute, that work will pay off. Talent has a way of forcing itself onto people's attention.
textthing 2 years ago
yeah. very true. thanks : }. no kidding. I'm going to work really really hard. I love film and storytelling and I want to see what I can do.
VegimorphtheMovieBoy 2 years ago
@VegimorphtheMovie Boy, I know spot-on exactly what you're saying. People have said the same of me.
I studied creative writing and art seriously ever since Junior High. I've written a tome of reviews and editiorials for film, television and otherwise. And I owe so much of it to these two.
I've read Roger's work and see why he won the Pulitzer.
Gene is better in person than on paper. But he was solid. These two, they were a national treasure.
--For Two Thumbs Forever, Dane Youssef
SURFUR 1 year ago
Fascinating stuff!
BillyRVaughan 2 years ago