maybe Blue Velvet is not the fantastic masterpiece many make it out to be, but it's definitely NOT a 1-star movie like Ebert rated it. He may be the most famous movie critic, but he has written some really lousy and inexplicable reviews. This is the same guy who gave a 3-star rating to "Cop and a Half", which is easily one of the worst movies ever made. I liked "Cop and a Half" when I was 5. When I saw it again as a teenager, I felt like vomiting.
Every single one of David Lynch's films have been tasteless & disappointing in my opinion ..
His attempt to create dark psychological thriller's always seem weak , because you never get sucked into his world he's trying to create & never feel any sympathy or connection to his characters ... =/
this is very unfair. We can't have limits on arts, i study fine arts it's always a challenge for me, but thank god is not for David Lynch, this guy create his own world, and i love it!
Well you all seem to like and probably have laughed at Rosellini being humilated on screen. I didn't find it funny and was wondering what the hell was Lynch on?
Ebert, the always Hyper- moralist, really missed the mark on this one. Lynch's films are far from perfect, but at least they're interesting to watch, Blue Velvet included. Dennis Hopper is one frightening concept.
I'm with Roger on this one, BV switches from one phony extreme to another. It's either super campy happy small town, or cheap silly "shocking" moments.
I think what Roger says is true as far as it goes. In other words, he's right but for the wrong reason. The scene on the lawn, which he references, seems to me to break the fourth wall. Like Roger, I was thinking about Isabella Rossellini at that point and not her character. This is why hardcore porn didn't cross to the mainstream like it tried to do in the late 70s. At some point, performance becomes so personal that it stops being performance.
I hate when critics dislike a movie simply for it being shocking or "morally wrong", etc... Ebert admitted it's a well-made movie, so stop bitching about the actress being naked. DAMN! Critics with that mindset ruin films that want to be something different but fear negative reactions because of assuming critics takin offense to something.
Roger loves to speak for everyone such the actors and the viewers... He's done this often in his reviews and it is self righteous to the point of obnoxiousness… Gene hit the nail on the head here, great movie!
Ebert is so wrong with his arguments. He's entitled to his opinion, but he backs it up with invalid facts. Rossellini was eager to play this part, she wasn't humiliated in real life. This film deserves the recognition of being one of the best movies of the 80's in my opinion. Hopper should've won an oscar, his best performance in his entire career. Lynch should've won the oscar for best director, not just the nomination.
Movie reviews are by definition subjective, but it's fair to say that Ebert's review of "Blue Velvet" is hopelessly warped by a narrow, myopic perspective and, in the case of Rosselini, complete ignorance. She was fully aware of the film's plot, and her character's role in it, contrary to Ebert's insinuation that Lynch somehow duped her. They're married, for crissakes! And for him to call BV a comedy is frankly idiotic.
Siskel lost some points on Ebert giving thumbs down to Unforgiven, Silence of the Lambs, Bram Stoker's Dracula, Wes Craven's New Nightmare, The Mask of Zorro, and quite a few others. This is one of the chances he got to recover them.
@itstheblueguy He also gave thumbs down to "Aliens" and "Poltergeist". His reasons for disliking "Aliens" was ludicrous... I never liked him as a film critic.
roger ebert was so fucking misguided and stupid when it came to this movie. FFS he wrote BVD, as well two other russ meyer movies. he doesn't give a damn about women and their humiliation.
p.s. i love BVD and russ meyer--i just think ebert is being fucking insanely hypocritical here.
@glassineheart Well, the difference is that BVD didn't pretend to be more than it was. Ebert finds Blue Velvet dishonest because it combines seriously deep stuff with stylistic gags.
But I don't care for his opinion on this one. It's one of Lynch's best films.
@kovvvas my point is that he says he finds Isabella R.'s treatment to be humiliating. First of all, I've never heard IR speak about feeling she was misled or mistreated. If he thinks that no actress in a film he wrote with RM ever felt humiliated--Erica Gavin springs to mind as one of the actresses who spoke out about how she felt at the time--then he is, as I said, being a huge hypocrite. It has nothing to do with BVD 'pretending' to be anything, it has to do with Ebert's own hypocrisy.
I can understand Ebert's objection. It's not that he was opposed to how Dorothy was treated. He was opposed to the fact that the film segways from such darkness, to then comedy. And he makes a good point. Some trashy films go overboard with violence and (usually poor) comedy.
However, in "Blue Velvet" the 'comedy' is less comedy and more just bizarre. This strangeness of the life revolving around Frank attracts us to him. And allows us to further appreciate why people do the things they do.
@ktoimil I agree with that, it's less comedy and more a case of a very disturbed man. Hopper played the role magnificently, and all the strangeness he plays with Frank is pitch perfect. If the film was nothing more than Frank acting the part out without the shocking bizarre parts, it would have just been a very strange movie with a villain that doesn't feel like he doesn't belong. This film would have been as dry as a bone without Frank's terrifying snaps and quips.
Ebert can fuck off, Two reasons why, telling Bam Margera that he is a jackass for letting Ryan Dunn die. And talking shit about this movie for the way it's shown.
Lynch proved Ebert wrong by going out with Rosselini after the picture. Ebert should look at how all good directors treat actors before dismissing the film.
just watched the movie for the first time and followed it with this review... I must but seriously fucked up or we've become desensitized. "Caused a firestorm," it looked like another thriller to me. The internet has warped me (and many others) I suppose. Great movie though, in and of its self.
he criticises the movie for looking like some 50's tv show in some points and being scary in others. But that's the whole beauty! The movie is about idealistic young man who is discovering ''something that was always hidden''. The fact that in such from a first look innocent town there is such a scary underground world is what makes this movie so efective! It gives you the feeling that these things could be happening next door
@ScAgCoWbOy Thats merely the surface of what makes this movie so effective. what seperates Blue Velvet from any other films where seedy underbellys have been discovered in the most ideal of places is that the protagonist in this movie actually becomes a part of this discovered world by choice. Like Dorothy, he begins taking joy in it and sees a scary sinisterness in himself that we gradually begin to realize, and was "always hidden". Frank Booth knows this when he tells Jeffrey "you're like me".
I can't believe Ebert said that. The movie was one of the most original mystery films and that humorous scenes were what made it this way. I remember when I first time saw it on TV, I couldn't believe what was hapening in a ''joy ride'' scene. The next day I was wandering: maybe I fell asleep watching it and it was all a dream, because it was so efective! And talking about nudity, how about those Russ Meyer movies he was writing scripts to?
Excellent movie! loved it since i was 16 when i heard good things about it and became an instant favorite. Thank god Lynch went back to his comfort zone after his Dune became a disaster at the box-office/critics for he was never meant for sci-fi blockbuster hollywood epics and went back to being himself to independent cinema. This movie and Elephant Man are his masterpieces.
People today could learn from watching these guys: they show that people can disagree with each other and STILL have a civilized debate about their differences of opinion.
@underbightdog23 Nope. I disagree with him and whole heartedly agree with Siskel. Which is actually kind of rare, most of the time I tend to take Roger's point of view.
@underbightdog23 not at all... Roger has no self awareness if you read the review... It's paragraph upon paragraph of how much he loathed it... He's failing to realize that he actually likes it, because he acknowledges it to the nth degree. If something is that much in your head, you've connected with in some way
Ebert is my favorite film critic by far and I agree with him 99% of the time. However on this film and The Unforgiven I feel like he missed the mark. At least on this film I feel he has a valid criticism (I think he totally watched the wrong movie when he first reviewed the Unforgiven).
@anatole69 I am 98% sure that Siskel gave it thumbs down and Roger liked it. Although, I can't really do a check on that because the review's not on youtube and the website that used to have all the reviews on it was taken down. Poo.
@pie460 I can't post a link to the article, so google search Eberts worst reviews, Unforgiven. Someone has a site with Eberts 10 worst reviews, Unforgiven is #2.
@anatole69 The article says that Siskel gave it thumbs down while Roger didn't think the movie was great, but that he did enjoy it. He didn't hate it.
@pie460 I was wrong about Siskel, but I did see the review when it was still on youtube and Roger gave it a bad review. I give him credit for watching it a second time and bumping it up, and he did that with a few other films... it's one of the things I like about him, he makes an honest attempt to be balanced and justifies his opinion with a well thought out reason.
However he still gave it a bad review the first time.
@anatole69 I still stand by my belief that he did give the movie a moderate recommendation the show. I do agree with your opinion about him though. What's the point about listening to a critic if they aren't even honest about whether or not they liked the movie? If they accurately describe why they liked or didn't like the movie, most of the time you can decide for yourself if you may want to go see it regardless of their rating.
I said it 9 months ago, and I'll say it again - David Lynch created a world inside this movie so captivating, strange, and ultimately believable that a man who reviews films for a living (Ebert) was actually offended by a fictitious situation involving actors, sets, & screenplays. Isabella was playing a character, and that character brought him so far into that world that he was personally offended by the horrendous, but fictitious situation David Lynch had designed. Lynch is a master.
Personally I thought the movie was great for the first 20 minutes, then it was just awful the rest of the time. Everything pre-Dennis Hopper, at least.
The segment with Dean Stockwell was atrocious nonsense. I was waiting for this movie wrap up by that point.
Laura Dern's acting was amateur, unbelievable, and frankly, shit. See her in Jurassic Park for more shitty acting. Thankfully, she barely stars in anything any longer.
I agree with Ebert, I love Lynch but this is my least favorite movie from him.
Still, I wouldn't say it's a totally bad movie either.
culwin 1 week ago
OMG is Ebert U G L Y
bloboshitful 1 week ago
Sorry, I love Blue Velvet. Ebert needs Gene Siskel. However, Ebert can write like the wind.
ndolan943redux 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
maybe Blue Velvet is not the fantastic masterpiece many make it out to be, but it's definitely NOT a 1-star movie like Ebert rated it. He may be the most famous movie critic, but he has written some really lousy and inexplicable reviews. This is the same guy who gave a 3-star rating to "Cop and a Half", which is easily one of the worst movies ever made. I liked "Cop and a Half" when I was 5. When I saw it again as a teenager, I felt like vomiting.
DWaq32 2 weeks ago
I actually agree with Ebert here. I'm sure a lot of film snobs would like to punch me for thinking that. While "In Dreams" is playing, of course.
AgujaAzulMD 3 weeks ago
@AgujaAzulMD
I agree with Ebert
Every single one of David Lynch's films have been tasteless & disappointing in my opinion ..
His attempt to create dark psychological thriller's always seem weak , because you never get sucked into his world he's trying to create & never feel any sympathy or connection to his characters ... =/
CanadianChronic2121 2 weeks ago
Three thumbs down for Roger Ebert ! :P
Dan85046 4 weeks ago
YOU'LL BE FUCKED FOREVER
animalmother4 1 month ago
@animalmother4 Yeah somebody should send him a love letter
sociallogie 1 month ago
this is very unfair. We can't have limits on arts, i study fine arts it's always a challenge for me, but thank god is not for David Lynch, this guy create his own world, and i love it!
lucasfpl 1 month ago
this movie was beyond terrible
Banminator 1 month ago
@Banminator
No way.
askjiir 3 weeks ago
@Banminator
If by that you mean absolutely amazing, then yea!
1612HavenhurstDrive 3 weeks ago
Ebert... the social conscience of a... special segment of American society.
ShakotanFC 1 month ago
I grew up watching these guys miss both of them rip guys ,,,,
TheAbstractedmind 1 month ago
Look at Ebert. THIS THING tells you which film to see?
daveybaby131 1 month ago
Well you all seem to like and probably have laughed at Rosellini being humilated on screen. I didn't find it funny and was wondering what the hell was Lynch on?
blinkzone1 1 month ago
i love that they disagree a lot. Gives us different perspectives. I wonder if that's intentional.
SkyFortStudios 1 month ago
Ebert done fucked up on his review.
bozzutoman 1 month ago
Ebert, the always Hyper- moralist, really missed the mark on this one. Lynch's films are far from perfect, but at least they're interesting to watch, Blue Velvet included. Dennis Hopper is one frightening concept.
Methrt3 2 months ago
I'm with Roger on this one, BV switches from one phony extreme to another. It's either super campy happy small town, or cheap silly "shocking" moments.
ChevalierAguila 2 months ago
oh and he didnt like the lost boys, for this i detest you mr.ebert
deftones311100 2 months ago
ROGER EBERT IS KNOWN FOR HATING "SICKO" FILMS. HE SHOULDNT BE A FILM CRITIC IN THIS CASE. BLUE VELVET IS INFACT A MASTERPIECE
deftones311100 2 months ago 2
I think what Roger says is true as far as it goes. In other words, he's right but for the wrong reason. The scene on the lawn, which he references, seems to me to break the fourth wall. Like Roger, I was thinking about Isabella Rossellini at that point and not her character. This is why hardcore porn didn't cross to the mainstream like it tried to do in the late 70s. At some point, performance becomes so personal that it stops being performance.
Raider17 2 months ago
Who would play Ebert's view like a piano?
qwuezalothus 2 months ago
Once again, the eternally dense (in mind and in body) Roger misses the point..
hooskerdu1 2 months ago
DON'T YOU BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR TO HER, EBERT! FAH-KERR!
guitarslinger213 2 months ago
Hopper is epic in this dude, I don't care what anyone says. PABST-BLUE-RIBBON!!!!!
quidseeker 2 months ago
Ebert is right a lot but when he's wrong, he's really, really, REALLY WRONG!!!
word2yourmogwai 2 months ago 8
@word2yourmogwai
Even when he's really wrong, his critiques are a lot more substantial than "This film sucks" so I can't hate anything he says that much.
psychopomp88 1 month ago
@word2yourmogwai He's never right. He's an idiot, as all critics are.
amaxamon 3 weeks ago
I hate when critics dislike a movie simply for it being shocking or "morally wrong", etc... Ebert admitted it's a well-made movie, so stop bitching about the actress being naked. DAMN! Critics with that mindset ruin films that want to be something different but fear negative reactions because of assuming critics takin offense to something.
highwaysonyfan87 2 months ago
Roger loves to speak for everyone such the actors and the viewers... He's done this often in his reviews and it is self righteous to the point of obnoxiousness… Gene hit the nail on the head here, great movie!
BM151 2 months ago
Wow Ebert is way off on this one, at least Siskel tries to set him straight.
wickedtothemisty 2 months ago
Humiliated Isabella? Roger is humiliating himself.
kalaishaw 2 months ago
Ebert's review? ARRR...Candy Colored Clown!... AHHHGG...
nonplayerzealot4 2 months ago
I'll send you a fah-kin love letter, Siskel! Yer FAHK'D forever!
nonplayerzealot4 2 months ago
Sick n depraved?! FAHKER!
nonplayerzealot4 2 months ago
Roger Eggbert
Osthropek 2 months ago
Wow Roger was way wrong on this hahaha..Fat fuck
rockethtown 2 months ago 2
Ebert is so wrong with his arguments. He's entitled to his opinion, but he backs it up with invalid facts. Rossellini was eager to play this part, she wasn't humiliated in real life. This film deserves the recognition of being one of the best movies of the 80's in my opinion. Hopper should've won an oscar, his best performance in his entire career. Lynch should've won the oscar for best director, not just the nomination.
pontusgardinger 3 months ago
Ebert said the director humiliates the actress by being nude. Dude, he said that just to get some poon.
goldensolder44 3 months ago
why is it that the fucking moron always outlives the guy that has a clue.
thedeathfonz 3 months ago
i agree with siskel
i agree with ebert
but never at the same time
SomeBoredGuy94 3 months ago
Movie reviews are by definition subjective, but it's fair to say that Ebert's review of "Blue Velvet" is hopelessly warped by a narrow, myopic perspective and, in the case of Rosselini, complete ignorance. She was fully aware of the film's plot, and her character's role in it, contrary to Ebert's insinuation that Lynch somehow duped her. They're married, for crissakes! And for him to call BV a comedy is frankly idiotic.
kaewonf8 3 months ago
What a putz
mikemat3307 3 months ago
what a wanker
jake56ification 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
One of the best movies I ever saw. Hopper at his best.
loufalce 3 months ago
Siskel lost some points on Ebert giving thumbs down to Unforgiven, Silence of the Lambs, Bram Stoker's Dracula, Wes Craven's New Nightmare, The Mask of Zorro, and quite a few others. This is one of the chances he got to recover them.
itstheblueguy 3 months ago
@itstheblueguy Siskel also didn't like True Romance and Thelma and Louise,I can't believe that!
jokermann01 3 months ago
@itstheblueguy He also gave thumbs down to "Aliens" and "Poltergeist". His reasons for disliking "Aliens" was ludicrous... I never liked him as a film critic.
Karosanyo 3 months ago
DoesEbert not realize that it's a movie, and not real?
dklustick 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is one of Lynch's Better movies...he's made some Klunkers too..Lost Highway ..Unggh soo bad.
10HAPPYGILMORE 3 months ago
This is one of Lynch's Better movies...Hr's made some Klunkers too..Lost Highway ..Unggh soo bad.
10HAPPYGILMORE 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ebert revised his review a few years later. It is a masterpiece; and he finally recognize it.
bobzeda 4 months ago
Comment removed
bobzeda 4 months ago
I'm completely at a loss as to where Ebert's coming from here. I don't think I cracked a smile through the entire thing. A comedy!?
mapipolo 4 months ago
roger ebert was so fucking misguided and stupid when it came to this movie. FFS he wrote BVD, as well two other russ meyer movies. he doesn't give a damn about women and their humiliation.
p.s. i love BVD and russ meyer--i just think ebert is being fucking insanely hypocritical here.
glassineheart 4 months ago
@glassineheart Well, the difference is that BVD didn't pretend to be more than it was. Ebert finds Blue Velvet dishonest because it combines seriously deep stuff with stylistic gags.
But I don't care for his opinion on this one. It's one of Lynch's best films.
kovvvas 4 months ago 3
@kovvvas my point is that he says he finds Isabella R.'s treatment to be humiliating. First of all, I've never heard IR speak about feeling she was misled or mistreated. If he thinks that no actress in a film he wrote with RM ever felt humiliated--Erica Gavin springs to mind as one of the actresses who spoke out about how she felt at the time--then he is, as I said, being a huge hypocrite. It has nothing to do with BVD 'pretending' to be anything, it has to do with Ebert's own hypocrisy.
glassineheart 4 months ago
@glassineheart I agree his arguments are feeble on this one. Anyway you should read his review of Blue Velvet to better understand his disapproval.
kovvvas 4 months ago
way off on this classic ebert...its a film, take your jaw off and understand cinema
thekeeler846 4 months ago
Of course, Siskel and I are on the same page. I rarely agreed with Ebert. .
bertonglacy 5 months ago
I can understand Ebert's objection. It's not that he was opposed to how Dorothy was treated. He was opposed to the fact that the film segways from such darkness, to then comedy. And he makes a good point. Some trashy films go overboard with violence and (usually poor) comedy.
However, in "Blue Velvet" the 'comedy' is less comedy and more just bizarre. This strangeness of the life revolving around Frank attracts us to him. And allows us to further appreciate why people do the things they do.
ktoimil 5 months ago
@ktoimil I agree with that, it's less comedy and more a case of a very disturbed man. Hopper played the role magnificently, and all the strangeness he plays with Frank is pitch perfect. If the film was nothing more than Frank acting the part out without the shocking bizarre parts, it would have just been a very strange movie with a villain that doesn't feel like he doesn't belong. This film would have been as dry as a bone without Frank's terrifying snaps and quips.
shogunblade 4 months ago
I love Ebert, but I have to roll my eyes at him sometimes when he gets going on these "Must defend the honor of women" roles.
It's a movie, get over it buddy, I've seen him do that on quite a few reviews and it makes him look silly I think.
darkhawk07 5 months ago 2
It seems that Roger Ebert has forgotten that he wrote the script for Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.
ImmortalDestructor 5 months ago 23
Ebert can fuck off, Two reasons why, telling Bam Margera that he is a jackass for letting Ryan Dunn die. And talking shit about this movie for the way it's shown.
rajlle 5 months ago
Siskel was amazing.
christiankinney 5 months ago 2
yet he doesnt object to tarantino movies where women are beaten and shot at....
dusk1234567890 5 months ago
She's an artist... Stop being so silly, Ebert.
reignofrock 5 months ago
pl33b2 g0n pl33b
MultiNotyourbusiness 5 months ago
ANGRY PEOPLE ARE ANGRY BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T LIKE MOVIES THEY LIKE
TheTelepathicKid 6 months ago
@TheTelepathicKid I think it was just a bit 2deep4u.
MAJORdorMo1992 6 months ago
@MAJORdorMo1992 oh u. :3
TheTelepathicKid 6 months ago
@TheTelepathicKid But seriously, Ebert is a total plebeian.
MAJORdorMo1992 6 months ago
@MAJORdorMo1992 you actually use that term? you're silly.
TheTelepathicKid 6 months ago
@TheTelepathicKid Plebeians gonna pleb.
MAJORdorMo1992 6 months ago 2
Lynch proved Ebert wrong by going out with Rosselini after the picture. Ebert should look at how all good directors treat actors before dismissing the film.
Randyhart 6 months ago
You wanna take this outside Gene!!!
FrankieA 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Don't know how it is possible to get more ugly and tasteless than Roger Ebert....oh wait...
ZarahLean 7 months ago
just watched the movie for the first time and followed it with this review... I must but seriously fucked up or we've become desensitized. "Caused a firestorm," it looked like another thriller to me. The internet has warped me (and many others) I suppose. Great movie though, in and of its self.
MickyAvStickyHands 8 months ago
Wierd to see Frank Booth not saying fuck.
sigfurt 8 months ago
he criticises the movie for looking like some 50's tv show in some points and being scary in others. But that's the whole beauty! The movie is about idealistic young man who is discovering ''something that was always hidden''. The fact that in such from a first look innocent town there is such a scary underground world is what makes this movie so efective! It gives you the feeling that these things could be happening next door
ScAgCoWbOy 8 months ago 2
@ScAgCoWbOy Thats merely the surface of what makes this movie so effective. what seperates Blue Velvet from any other films where seedy underbellys have been discovered in the most ideal of places is that the protagonist in this movie actually becomes a part of this discovered world by choice. Like Dorothy, he begins taking joy in it and sees a scary sinisterness in himself that we gradually begin to realize, and was "always hidden". Frank Booth knows this when he tells Jeffrey "you're like me".
1HalfASSreViewer 6 months ago
@1HalfASSreViewer wow that's very interesting, I never thought about that. I'm gonna have to watch this movie again with this in mind.
ScAgCoWbOy 6 months ago
I can't believe Ebert said that. The movie was one of the most original mystery films and that humorous scenes were what made it this way. I remember when I first time saw it on TV, I couldn't believe what was hapening in a ''joy ride'' scene. The next day I was wandering: maybe I fell asleep watching it and it was all a dream, because it was so efective! And talking about nudity, how about those Russ Meyer movies he was writing scripts to?
ScAgCoWbOy 8 months ago
I miss these two going at it. The thing I loved the most was when they saw a complete shite movie and took turns dissecting it.
SimonHenrichsen 9 months ago
i still need to see blue velvet but something tells me siskel has understood this film better than Ebert.
Regenmacher175 10 months ago
Excellent movie! loved it since i was 16 when i heard good things about it and became an instant favorite. Thank god Lynch went back to his comfort zone after his Dune became a disaster at the box-office/critics for he was never meant for sci-fi blockbuster hollywood epics and went back to being himself to independent cinema. This movie and Elephant Man are his masterpieces.
Johnlindsey289 10 months ago
People today could learn from watching these guys: they show that people can disagree with each other and STILL have a civilized debate about their differences of opinion.
cchires2 11 months ago
Am I the only person who disagrees with roger
underbightdog23 1 year ago 30
@underbightdog23 Nope. I disagree with him and whole heartedly agree with Siskel. Which is actually kind of rare, most of the time I tend to take Roger's point of view.
PrivateUbermensch 10 months ago
@underbightdog23 of course not. It's not the first time he's wrong
ScAgCoWbOy 8 months ago
@ScAgCoWbOy Yeah, A Clockwork Orange, Lost Highway, The Elephant Man, Wild at Heart, and a few others
underbightdog23 8 months ago
@underbightdog23 nope, I usually disagree with this guy
SuperHeroMania 4 months ago
@underbightdog23 not at all... Roger has no self awareness if you read the review... It's paragraph upon paragraph of how much he loathed it... He's failing to realize that he actually likes it, because he acknowledges it to the nth degree. If something is that much in your head, you've connected with in some way
BM151 2 months ago
I have wanted to hear the entirety of this review for so long. The Minute 30 second video didn't do it all for me, but I am glad to see it now.
shogunblade 1 year ago
Ebert is my favorite film critic by far and I agree with him 99% of the time. However on this film and The Unforgiven I feel like he missed the mark. At least on this film I feel he has a valid criticism (I think he totally watched the wrong movie when he first reviewed the Unforgiven).
anatole69 1 year ago
@anatole69
Roger liked Unforgiven. It's on his "Great Movies" list. Siskel was the evil man who didn't like Unforgiven.
pie460 1 year ago
@pie460 Nope. Siskel loved it. Ebert originally gave it a bad review, only much later did he rewatch the film and change his mind.
anatole69 1 year ago
@anatole69 I am 98% sure that Siskel gave it thumbs down and Roger liked it. Although, I can't really do a check on that because the review's not on youtube and the website that used to have all the reviews on it was taken down. Poo.
pie460 1 year ago
@pie460 I can't post a link to the article, so google search Eberts worst reviews, Unforgiven. Someone has a site with Eberts 10 worst reviews, Unforgiven is #2.
anatole69 1 year ago
Comment removed
pie460 1 year ago
@anatole69 The article says that Siskel gave it thumbs down while Roger didn't think the movie was great, but that he did enjoy it. He didn't hate it.
pie460 1 year ago
@pie460 I was wrong about Siskel, but I did see the review when it was still on youtube and Roger gave it a bad review. I give him credit for watching it a second time and bumping it up, and he did that with a few other films... it's one of the things I like about him, he makes an honest attempt to be balanced and justifies his opinion with a well thought out reason.
However he still gave it a bad review the first time.
anatole69 1 year ago
@anatole69 I still stand by my belief that he did give the movie a moderate recommendation the show. I do agree with your opinion about him though. What's the point about listening to a critic if they aren't even honest about whether or not they liked the movie? If they accurately describe why they liked or didn't like the movie, most of the time you can decide for yourself if you may want to go see it regardless of their rating.
pie460 1 year ago
i'm with siskel on this. ebert's being a straight plonker here.
walidb123 1 year ago
I said it 9 months ago, and I'll say it again - David Lynch created a world inside this movie so captivating, strange, and ultimately believable that a man who reviews films for a living (Ebert) was actually offended by a fictitious situation involving actors, sets, & screenplays. Isabella was playing a character, and that character brought him so far into that world that he was personally offended by the horrendous, but fictitious situation David Lynch had designed. Lynch is a master.
OLTJOE 1 year ago
Siskel crushed him haha.
Kennedy1op 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Gene Siskel was smoking Hamburger Helper when he reviewed this film!
styx4ever1963 1 year ago
Comment removed
styx4ever1963 1 year ago
One of the worst movies of the 80,s
styx4ever1963 1 year ago
For God sakes, Ebert, let Siskel talk.
BlackOut0189 1 year ago 2
Also, side note: David Lynch is a transcendental meditation believer, which makes him an utterly gullible dolt !
coil311 1 year ago
Personally I thought the movie was great for the first 20 minutes, then it was just awful the rest of the time. Everything pre-Dennis Hopper, at least.
The segment with Dean Stockwell was atrocious nonsense. I was waiting for this movie wrap up by that point.
Laura Dern's acting was amateur, unbelievable, and frankly, shit. See her in Jurassic Park for more shitty acting. Thankfully, she barely stars in anything any longer.
coil311 1 year ago
That was a screwy, screwy movie.
CountArtha 1 year ago