Picnic at Hanging Rock (1979) movie review - Sneak Previews with Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 чер 2019
- This is the original review of Picnic at Hanging Rock by Siskel & Ebert on "Sneak Previews" in 1979. All of the segments pertaining to the movie have been included.
- Розваги
This was the very first "art film" I ever watched on cable back in the day. I was transfixed and has stuck with me to this very day.
A cinematic masterpiece.
This might just be my favourite film ever. Every single scene I wouldn't change a thing about it.
The dreamlike quality of the stiory, the casting, the costumes, the music, its all just sublime.
Surprised that Siskel, who appreciated the challenging vagueness of "2001", had such a problem with this film for not providing a solution to the fate of the missing girls.
I know, what did he want, a shot of a UFO flying over the college at the end? 🛸
A final image of Edith's gloves with blood on them?
A crocodile with a bone in its mouth? 🐊
Classy.....
If I recall, Siskel later liked the movie on it's 1998 re-release.
Polythene Pam He changed his mind on a lot of movies from the 1970s.
Good thing, because he really is embarrassing in this review.
kevin r. As bad as his Taxi Driver review huh? When he came off as a pussy regarding it's graphic violence. Thankfully, Roger got Taxi Driver.
I was right, I rewatched their 1998 review and Siskel goes as far as calling it one of his favourite films.
He changed his mind because history has shown this film to be incredibly respected & well recieved. Lots of critics do a complete u-turn on their past opinions influenced by future opinion, it just shows you shouldn't invest much in a " professional critics" opinion, they are no more credible in their views than your average Joe.
The original Miranda was incredibly beautiful
There's not always a payoff in life, Gene.
If Roger loves movies where you don't get any answers at the end, there are a Lot of them out there for him to enjoy....
in 1998, Gene Siskel called this film "one of the best films he's ever seen". He never acknowledged that he dumped on this film when it first came out. He was very sick by this time, and Roger Ebert was kind enough not to call him out on his original negative review of the film.
It says a lot about Siskel's character that he didn't mention his earlier negative review.
I love a mystery film usually like Knives Out, Gosford Park or Manhattan Murder Mystery. They are all kind of comedies though.
Then you have Hitchcock's films like Vertigo and Rebecca.
The Big Sleep is another good one.
But this film for me is still the greatest, so romantic and dreamy with such a feel for the landscape and so much subtext.
I miss both these guys a lot, but damn SIskel just had no imagination some times.
I agree with his perspective that the film was designed to jerk around the viewer, while giving them no insight, information or resolution; just a disturbing feeling. And that's not a film, in my opinion.
@@maskedmarvyl4774 who says a film needs a resolution? Real life doesn’t always have resolutions.
@@3000_Year_Old_Man No one ever said that films with a mystery needed a solution. The point of no solution is that it is creepier for the effect of horror, which this film partly is.
@@3000_Year_Old_Man , I want you on my debate team.
That was the comment I would have made, If I'd had the ability to express it....
@@3000_Year_Old_Man The entire film would have been ruined with an explanation. As it goes on it becomes more about the destruction the ambiguous loss has caused. The ending with Mrs. Appleyard in her black veil perfectly encapsulates this annihilative force. Also Siskel later changed his mind and agreed more with Ebert.
Without reading the original novel (which I haven't, but want to), the thematic intentions might well elude some, as it seems to have for Gene, who really belly flops here. Roger gets it. This is about enigma -- which Roger understands -- about civilization meeting the imperatives of nature, which can be merciless, and ultimately the determiners of our fates. It's a great film, though some of the segues in it as shown here can be on-the-nose in a dated sort of way. A bit of the Pied Piper, Ingmar Bergman, Lord of the Flies, and maybe even, anachronistically, David Paulides' Missing 411. I wish more movies were like this.
The book is good I thought the films far better. The book kind of over explains the characters, makes much more of a deal about the wealth of the girls, kills Miss Lumley, Albert gets a huge cash reward, the police get more to do, I think at the end the college burns down, lots of unneeded extras.
Actually Hanging rock is 70 miles north west of Melbourne there is no sea there the rock is inland
Siskel missing the point again, as usual.
Ebert nailed it. The best choice was leave it without an objective explanation. That can cause frustration, yes, but it also disturbs us and in the case of this particular film, disturbance overcomes by far the frustration. Why? Because a eerie shadow of subtly hinted possibilities fills the void.
This movie scared the crap out of me, but It's riveting!
Frustration tolerance is a developmental milestone, Gene 🙂
They always differ over films that one or the other could have liked the same way as other films they enjoyed but disliked on first glance. I think it all comes down to what mood or expectations they were having at the time and I'm sure time is what helped Siskel appreciate this film more for what it is before he passed away.
Can't believe this review is 50 years old, because Ebert said that the movie is set 70 years ago. Also I agree with Ebert.
1979 was not 50 years ago. 🤷♂️
I agree with Ebert too. Re the date, Ebert is mistaken. He says nearly 70 years ago, or so an old story goes, but there was no actual old story. It's understandable he thinks so, since the movie was teased as part fact, but it's not. I think perhaps he meant to say nearly 80 years ago. The review is from 1979, and the movie is set in 1900.
What a great movie
I'm with Roger on this one.
What did siskel want at the end? a shot of a UFO flying over the college at the end? 🛸
A final shot of Edith's gloves with blood on them?
A crocodile with a bone in its mouth? 🐊
Classy.....
Several years later siskel changed his mind on this film and recommended it
For those that want an ending-look up this movie on Wikipedia. The book originally included an explanation that was removed. It is included in the article. I thought it was really fun and it has increased my enjoyment of the movie.
the solution to what happened is in the opening line of the film at the beginning, when miranda says that "we are in a dream within a dream". that line is there for a reason, it's not a random line. so basically they were in a dream and simply woke out and exited the matrix. or passed through another dimension. it's the only logical explanation. either that or they were abducted by aliens, which has been reported throughout history for thousands of years.
This supposed missing chapter from the novel has itself collected an air of mystery and controversy--it's widely believed to be a literary hoax from a different hand, though debate continues.
@@happierabroadyou’re taking it too literally
Thanks for that. If would be super to see the original full-length version on Blu Ray. Can't see that ever happening.
the blu ray of siskel and ebert or picnic?
-I'm the guy that posts your videogame pron- Picnic at Hanging Rock - the Blu Ray had the cut version. I have the original version on DVD.
I agree with Anne Louise Lambert, the original should not have been cut.
They were reviewing the film four years after it came out? Did it not screen in the U.S. till then?
Siskel should have read the book.
I remember seeing this movie when it was released in the greater Boston area sometime in the late ‘70s/early ‘80s and being somewhat underwhelmed by it. I would, however, like to see it again someday. I could have been wrong in my estimation.
5:59 "That's what I love: the fact that you think something is going to happen and nothing does." - wow. By that criteria, a movie that goes nowhere is wonderful.
tbh thats pretty much every art movie review mentality from 80s till now
Never heard of this movie 🎉
Obviously a film about repression and transcendence of that repression
Perceptions and views can change and perhaps the initial impression does not always provide full satisfaction. Just as a fair number of films that many acknowledge as classics may have not been well-received at it's release, as it might be the case in music. I do not feel that Siskel's reaction was invalid. The film builds up expectations and many could very well feel left wanting something in the way of explanation. But this is what makes the film as unique as it is, yet on account of that, it might not resonate universally for the viewers' expectations and left wanting for a denouement.
Is this really 1979? Because I'm pretty sure the film came out in 1975
5:24 condescend much?
Ha. Gene was setting up the for the gotcha, and failed, since Roger demonstrated his greater understanding of the film.
lol! You're projecting!
I don't agree. That was a legit question.
Dingos ate these babies
Bahaha It’s nowhere near the Sea....,
It's near nowhere.
Ahem, BBC/Netflix, you're Welcome!
1975, not 1979.
Guess that was a spoiler, Roj.
It’s all Marion’s fault
Wow spoilers much fellas
Quit bitching. If you've had your whole entire fucking life to acquant yourself with something, that's not a spoiler, that's on you. Quit taking it out on others just because you're to lazy to know a 45 year old movie. There's a limit to how much stupid shit you can bitch about.
@@nl3064 Yeah but what do you really think?
I remember they did a preview of this film in another episode, but hadn't seen it. To see them actually review it after a screening ... it satisfies my desire to see it. If there's no resolution to the mystery, then there's no reason to see it. If this happened, then the girls probably just got stuck in some inlet, were too scared to leave, and then got drowned and washed away to sea.
Leave it to Siskel and Ebert to give away the ending...
Quit bitching. If you've had your whole entire fucking life to acquant yourself with something, that's not a spoiler, that's on you. Quit taking it out on others just because you're to lazy to know a 45 year old movie. There's a limit to how much stupid shit you can bitch about.
I like this movie until I found out the whole thing was totally made up, and then I felt lied to, and objected that there was no conclusion.
@@3000_Year_Old_Man If there was a conclusion, the whole film would be ruined. I mean, can you imagine an answer that would be satisfactory?
@@3000_Year_Old_Man to you at least
@@3000_Year_Old_Man Actually, it isn’t really satisfactory. You’re right. But that’s why I like it. I leaves you on a note of darkness and reflection.
It is partly based on the truth and an ending would just spoil because in Australia we love our unsolved mysteries xxx
Only people with no imagination have an oppressive demand for realism in art.
This is a film based on a fictional story by a female writer. The story is even more frustrating than the film is. This was, pardon my language, a "mindfuck" story, as written by a woman. Its purpose is to disturb the reader without informing them, frustrate the reader, and to purposefully give the characters and reader no closure.
Its statement is, if loved ones disappear, don't bother looking for them, you'll never know what happened, assume the worst, and live with not knowing. The story did its best to jerk the reader around as much as possible in this regard, and I'm frankly surprised it was published. Imagine an entire book of such stories, that have no perspective, no story arc, no action, no explanation, no resolution, only disturbing events that go nowhere. It would get very old, very fast.
The end of this film and the end of the story it was based on gives one last jerk-around to the audience, to frustrate them further with no clue or resolution to the story.
It's beautiful to look at, but pointless to see twice. I think it was just written as an experiment in frustration and bizarre events by the author, and am surprised it was ever published, much less a film made of it.
You certainly seem to object to being "jerked" around by a woman. I'm going to guess that, wish though you might, no woman has ever jerked you.
if it did have an answer it'd be like any other mystery.