I really miss these two guys. They just gave their reviews in such a simple way that even I could understand what they were saying. Obviously for me movies just don't seem the same anymore.
You unearthed some great stuff here! Had never seen them discuss Sisters. Wish there was a discussion of Dressed To Kill out there somewhere, but I don’t think that one ever happened. Thank you for this! Great content.
I've always mixed up Dressed to Kill (1980) / Body Double (1984) and Crimes of Passion (also 1984 - and not even DePalma, it's Ken Russell!) - Decades go by and my head STILL mis-files these three flicks whenever I think of them! Life remains a mystery!
@@zetetick395 Funny story: In 1979 or even as late as 1980: there was a TV movie called "She's Dressed to Kill". I THINK it was about someone killing fashion models. I never saw it. Then when "DRESSED to Kill" started doing promos, I was all "Are they REMAKING the TV movie?" . The early ads and movie posters for "Dressed to Kill" featured a pair of long sexy legs in high heels , sitting it what looked like a white tiled bathroom . Someone (with a knife?) was in the background of the poster opening the bathroom door. So that gave me even MORE of an impression that the movie was about fashion models being killed. I wrote in my diary about the night me and 2 friends went to see "Dressed to Kill" in the theatre when it was new. We had a good time. Very enjoyable !
It is interesting that Ebert is shocked by Siskel's comment that Scarface "romanticizes" drug culture and then said the film doesn't appear to teens given how much Scarface became a staple of college dorm walls for decades. I had a college roommate who proudly went by "Drunk Dave" and he was off his gourd on an assortment of booze and drugs. He came back to the room and asked me to put something on the TV. We landed on Scarface. He kept going in and out of consciousness and would wake up and shout "You cock-a-roach, say a hello to my little friend."
It's KILLING me to have NO Dressed to Kill review !! BUT the other guy that posts old S & E shows unearthed them doing "Dawn of the Dead" (1979) . I NEVER thought I'd live to see that one !!
I know some smart people, like my Dad, who had troubles figuring it out and explaining it to me as a kid. It took me a couple watch thru’s as an adult to finally grasp the plot clearly. I’d say you’d be the exception to the rule.
Yeah, it’s far from confusing to me. It’s a little all over the place at points in the writing. Cinematically carried along with Tom Cruise and big set pieces. I think it’s the best Mission Impossible movie still to this day.
DePalma has got to be the most divisive director ever. So much artistry, craftsmanship, assuredness, and entrancing imagery and so much shlock and disappointment too. Frequently, all in the same movie. Every movie that he's done, has probably been done better with more nuance, elegance, and originality by someone else. And yet, he's like the greatest sleazy, edge-of-your seat thriller director ever. He makes movies that are the equivalent of page-turner paperback mystery thriller novels that you would buy at the airport and not be able to put down once you start reading them, for better or worse. My favorite of his is Body Double. He just goes all in and doesn't hold back with any of the outrageousness and it works. It's also super stylish.
Roger misunderstood what Gene was saying about Casualties. He didn't grasp that Gene was trying to establish a difference between CoW and movies like Apocalypse Now, Platoon, and Full Metal Jacket. Unfortunately, the film did fail at the box office possibly because audiences wanted a Vietnam movie on a huge scale.
DePalma was like the Tarantino of the ‘70s and early ‘80s (B.U.: Before “Untouchables”). He loved movies and loved making movies for people who love movies. Like Tarantino, he borrowed from and did homages to the greats, but it never felt ripped-off, but rather honored and built upon. His style was very immersive. In all the clips from his early stuff that they showed, even the films I’ve never seen, each clip was utterly compelling and thick with character and texture, making me want to see the whole film---and as Gene noted, many of these plots were out there, but with DePalma, it didn’t matter as much because you were so caught up in the characters and vibe. Not shocked that the “Untouchables” was relatively flat. With some directors, the more money and resources they have, the more underwhelming the results (I give “Untouchables” thumbs-up overall as an above-average mob movie, but it’s just not DePalma-esque).
Yeah for me, The Untouchables is undoubtedly a good movie, but it’s no where near my favorite from De Palma. I just don’t find myself in on all the comedy much at all. You gotta appreciate that incredible score, beautiful camera work as always with De Palma and even some Hitchcock nods throughout the film.
Genevieve Bujold played both Cliff Robertson's wife & then his adult daughter, whom he thought was killed as a child during a failed kidnapping attempt, near the beginning of the film "Obsession". Roger mistakenly said that she played an exact double of his long dead wife, who was actually killed during that same failed kidnapping attempt. Roger also didn't seem to understand the ending of the film "Carrie", as it was a dream sequence of Sissy Spacek's dead character reaching up from her grave to grab Amy Irving's arm, as she was placing flowers on her grave.
I find it interesting that John Travolta & Nancy Allen played an evil & manipulative high school couple in "Carrie", then 5 years later played a totally different adult couple in "Blowout". Allen's characters died in both films, while Travolta's character survived "Blowout".
my top 5 1. Carlito’s Way 2. Dressed to Kill 3. Scarface 4. Blow Out 5. Mission Impossible I have many more to watch so definitely a chance it’ll change.
I think Untouchables is a good film but Roger isn't entirely off the mark. The film had some very heavy hitters: De Palma, De Niro, and Mamet*. With those names involved, one would expect more. Personally, I think it's a solid entertainment but not one of De Palma's great films. *Mamet wrote and directed a phenomenal neo-noir that very year called House of Games.
@@ricardocantoral7672 The Untouchables is good, but kind of vanilla. It's fun to watch and even exciting, but at the end I think it's true that you don't feel like you watched something new or learned anything. And Costner is very mediocre. Even Connery doesn't stand out for me that much, despite the fact that he got an Oscar for this. I think I know though what The Untouchables is missing: wit and cleverness. Something that there is plenty of in many other DePalma films. As I said, kind of vanilla. House of Games, for example, was a better movie, if not as big, ambitious, or polished.
@@ricardocantoral7672Agreed, I think De Palma failed to truly utilize Robert De Niro in the film. I understand people’s love for it, but there’s many films from De Palma i’d take over The Untouchables. For instance, Carlito’s Way, Dressed to Kill, Scarface, Blow Out, Mission Impossible, Body Double, Sisters.
@@spinin1251 Right, you think De Palma really would have done something subversive with this material. The movie was basically an R rated, feature film version of the TV Show.
@@ricardocantoral7672 He probably wouldn't have. He couldn't turn it into one of his more risky thrillers. And the studio probably wouldn't have wanted that either. But you pointed to Mamet, and it's true that some other movies written or directed by him have been far more engaging and surprising with the narrative twists. GGGR and House of Games are great, but I really also like The Spanish Prisoner. Anyway, DePalma also did the first MI, which I think is comparable in many ways. The twists in that one and some of the story developments were better than a lot in the Untouchables. So between DePalma and Mamet, they could have had something more spicy and twisty. It's a little bit on both of them. Feels like just a product they put together for the studio and not a film at times.
It's too bad De Palma's Redacted doesn't get more respect. I'm not sure why Richard Roeper and the guest critic found it condescending; the former's editorial review of the film was not much help. I think both generalize the film's satirical representation of media culture as glib out of convenience than deduction. Furthermore, criticism of the film for not providing insight in the actions for some of the characters is foolish. To demand or expect insight is to variably assume an acuity for understanding as preordained than strictly relative. The soldiers directly responsible for the rape and subsequent slaughter of the victim's family persistently invoke institutional jingoism, cultural intolerance, political ignorance, and even technical incompetence (such as pressing the white balance mode on a video camera instead of the power button during an incriminating discussion). One soldier films the events before and during the crime (complete with amateur iMovie esque editing transitions) and later provides a dubious account of the events, believing the footage from his video camera could fulfill his aspirations as a film student; he is killed instead via filmed decapitation. While one soldier stays docile, the remaining solder is left vindictive yet remorseful; his tearful recollections during the final scene overshadowed by the obliging fervor of his consoling wife and an audience of men, as captured on a videocamera. In essence, Redacted is thoroughly polemical in portraying media perpetuity and patriarchal superiority. To demand insight is to remain ignorant of how others believe and think. Roeper and other like minded film critics back in 2007 were too dismissive on anything not conducive to their political ideals or now outdated preferential basis of cinematic quality, ironically dependent on malleably propagated values. Fortunately, Roger Ebert recognized the film for its strengths, giving it a 3 and a half out of 4 stars, and even praising the "curious" and inauthentic performances for seeming more real because they are not acted flawlessly.
Siskel and Ebert were on the money with Bonfire of the Vanities. One of the worst adaptations of a good book. This movie should be taught in film school on how not to adapt a good book. The movie also had some of the worst casting decisions I've ever seen.
I have to confess I actually enjoyed The Bonfire Of The Vanities. I have more appreciation for at least some of the intent after reading The Devil's Candy. The casting is really what screwed it up.
Did you read the book the film was based on? As Ebert said, someone who hadn't read the book might enjoy it more. I have also read The Devil's Candy and was amazed at what went on behind the scenes so no wonder it failed.
@@johnfitzpatrick3094 I used the word I meant to use. Siskel could never be objective when it came to certain genres. He let his personal feelings and private morality get in the way of real film criticism.
@@brandoncollins1225Ebert thought that his feelings about a movie were very important with his reviews. He definitely let his feelings get in the way of Blue Velvet. Siskel and Ebert were more similar than you think they were.
@@johnfitzpatrick3094 Don't move the goalposts. You said I used the word "objective" incorrectly. I did not. Siskel was extremely squeamish and pearl-clutching when it came to horror and thrillers. He was also very easy on big Hollywood action fare, while Ebert's criticisms were more insightful. Ebert was the better critic. He was the one with the Pulitzer.
"Not as great as "The Conversation" " hard agreement. 100%. "Scarface" is kind of boring. But "romantic about the drug world"? No, dude. No. It's boring and ugly.
Unfortunately, fans of Scarface don't seem to pick up on what De Palma and Stone were saying. Montana is an anti-hero but he was a man that isn't suppose to be emulated.
I love it when Siskel and Ebert heap praise on Blow Out. In my opinion, De Palma's masterpiece. They played it at Ebertfest in 2016.
This is the compilation I've been waiting for. Siskel and Ebert, that's the Chicago way!
Thank you for making this.
I really miss these two guys. They just gave their reviews in such a simple way that even I could understand what they were saying. Obviously for me movies just don't seem the same anymore.
Thanks for making these compilations- I’m loving them
You unearthed some great stuff here! Had never seen them discuss Sisters. Wish there was a discussion of Dressed To Kill out there somewhere, but I don’t think that one ever happened. Thank you for this! Great content.
SISTERS is so underrated. One of my favorite DePalma movies.
I couldnt agree with you more. De palma movies he has written himself are something else.
the birthday cake murder scene was hard to watch, way too graphic.
That was a clever opening you did. Siskel and Ebert would've loved it.
Thank you for taking the time to put these together very entertaining appreciate it! 😸😎
Thank you! I've been waiting for this one!
Me too.
Dressed to Kill is my favorite DePalma film
I've always mixed up Dressed to Kill (1980) / Body Double (1984)
and Crimes of Passion (also 1984 - and not even DePalma, it's Ken Russell!)
- Decades go by and my head STILL mis-files these three flicks whenever I think of them!
Life remains a mystery!
@@zetetick395 Funny story: In 1979 or even as late as 1980: there was a TV movie called "She's Dressed to Kill". I THINK it was about someone killing fashion models. I never saw it. Then when "DRESSED to Kill" started doing promos, I was all "Are they REMAKING the TV movie?" . The early ads and movie posters for "Dressed to Kill" featured a pair of long sexy legs in high heels , sitting it what looked like a white tiled bathroom . Someone (with a knife?) was in the background of the poster opening the bathroom door. So that gave me even MORE of an impression that the movie was about fashion models being killed. I wrote in my diary about the night me and 2 friends went to see "Dressed to Kill" in the theatre when it was new. We had a good time. Very enjoyable !
Body Double is a piece of garbage.
It is interesting that Ebert is shocked by Siskel's comment that Scarface "romanticizes" drug culture and then said the film doesn't appear to teens given how much Scarface became a staple of college dorm walls for decades. I had a college roommate who proudly went by "Drunk Dave" and he was off his gourd on an assortment of booze and drugs. He came back to the room and asked me to put something on the TV. We landed on Scarface. He kept going in and out of consciousness and would wake up and shout "You cock-a-roach, say a hello to my little friend."
It's KILLING me to have NO Dressed to Kill review !! BUT the other guy that posts old S & E shows unearthed them doing "Dawn of the Dead" (1979) . I NEVER thought I'd live to see that one !!
DePalma is definitely one of my favorite filmmakers. I did a ranking on my channel and blowout was number one
I've always found Mission Impossible to be fairly straightforward. The confusion so many critics expressed back then, well, confuses me.
I know some smart people, like my Dad, who had troubles figuring it out and explaining it to me as a kid. It took me a couple watch thru’s as an adult to finally grasp the plot clearly. I’d say you’d be the exception to the rule.
its about the list !!!
Yeah, it’s far from confusing to me. It’s a little all over the place at points in the writing. Cinematically carried along with Tom Cruise and big set pieces. I think it’s the best Mission Impossible movie still to this day.
DePalma has got to be the most divisive director ever. So much artistry, craftsmanship, assuredness, and entrancing imagery and so much shlock and disappointment too. Frequently, all in the same movie. Every movie that he's done, has probably been done better with more nuance, elegance, and originality by someone else. And yet, he's like the greatest sleazy, edge-of-your seat thriller director ever. He makes movies that are the equivalent of page-turner paperback mystery thriller novels that you would buy at the airport and not be able to put down once you start reading them, for better or worse. My favorite of his is Body Double. He just goes all in and doesn't hold back with any of the outrageousness and it works. It's also super stylish.
Roger misunderstood what Gene was saying about Casualties. He didn't grasp that Gene was trying to establish a difference between CoW and movies like Apocalypse Now, Platoon, and Full Metal Jacket. Unfortunately, the film did fail at the box office possibly because audiences wanted a Vietnam movie on a huge scale.
DePalma was like the Tarantino of the ‘70s and early ‘80s (B.U.: Before “Untouchables”). He loved movies and loved making movies for people who love movies. Like Tarantino, he borrowed from and did homages to the greats, but it never felt ripped-off, but rather honored and built upon. His style was very immersive. In all the clips from his early stuff that they showed, even the films I’ve never seen, each clip was utterly compelling and thick with character and texture, making me want to see the whole film---and as Gene noted, many of these plots were out there, but with DePalma, it didn’t matter as much because you were so caught up in the characters and vibe. Not shocked that the “Untouchables” was relatively flat. With some directors, the more money and resources they have, the more underwhelming the results (I give “Untouchables” thumbs-up overall as an above-average mob movie, but it’s just not DePalma-esque).
yet he bounced back 2 years later with "Casualties of War", one of his best films in my opinion.
@@johnbrennan4449
I think Casualties works so well because it challenges the viewer. Asking you what you would have done.
Yeah for me, The Untouchables is undoubtedly a good movie, but it’s no where near my favorite from De Palma. I just don’t find myself in on all the comedy much at all. You gotta appreciate that incredible score, beautiful camera work as always with De Palma and even some Hitchcock nods throughout the film.
Hey Mr Skynet
Would you consider doing one for the films of Ken Russell? 🤞😸
Roger got Body Double bang on.
Yes. It's his best film, IMO. He goes all in on the outrageousness and it works. Super stylish too.
@@spinin1251 we made a video on it should you be interested. I feel the same way.
Genevieve Bujold played both Cliff Robertson's wife & then his adult daughter, whom he thought was killed as a child during a failed kidnapping attempt, near the beginning of the film "Obsession".
Roger mistakenly said that she played an exact double of his long dead wife, who was actually killed during that same failed kidnapping attempt.
Roger also didn't seem to understand the ending of the film "Carrie", as it was a dream sequence of Sissy Spacek's dead character reaching up from her grave to grab Amy Irving's arm, as she was placing flowers on her grave.
The best De Palma movies:
1. Carlito's Way
2. Blow Out
3. Femme Fatale
4. Carrie
5. Sisters
I find it interesting that John Travolta & Nancy Allen played an evil & manipulative high school couple in "Carrie", then 5 years later played a totally different adult couple in "Blowout". Allen's characters died in both films, while Travolta's character survived "Blowout".
Femme Fatale is very underrated. As is Body Double.
my top 5
1. Carlito’s Way
2. Dressed to Kill
3. Scarface
4. Blow Out
5. Mission Impossible
I have many more to watch so definitely a chance it’ll change.
Thanks
46:31 "In the jungle is only one standard, the standard of power" Interesting quote. Reminds me of the whole "New World Order, law of the jungle" one.
None with Roger and Richard?
Not that I could find. I think Femme Fatale would've been one
Pretty shocked by Eberts negative Untouchables review its an awesome movie
He gave it 2.5 stars in his print review.
They did not review his greatest film, the antidote to "American History X," "Bonfire of the Vanities."
They didn't review Raising Cain on the show.
Guy was born Sept. 11.
Ebert is SO wrong about The Untouchables.
I think Untouchables is a good film but Roger isn't entirely off the mark. The film had some very heavy hitters: De Palma, De Niro, and Mamet*. With those names involved, one would expect more. Personally, I think it's a solid entertainment but not one of De Palma's great films.
*Mamet wrote and directed a phenomenal neo-noir that very year called House of Games.
@@ricardocantoral7672 The Untouchables is good, but kind of vanilla. It's fun to watch and even exciting, but at the end I think it's true that you don't feel like you watched something new or learned anything. And Costner is very mediocre. Even Connery doesn't stand out for me that much, despite the fact that he got an Oscar for this. I think I know though what The Untouchables is missing: wit and cleverness. Something that there is plenty of in many other DePalma films. As I said, kind of vanilla. House of Games, for example, was a better movie, if not as big, ambitious, or polished.
@@ricardocantoral7672Agreed, I think De Palma failed to truly utilize Robert De Niro in the film. I understand people’s love for it, but there’s many films from De Palma i’d take over The Untouchables. For instance, Carlito’s Way, Dressed to Kill, Scarface, Blow Out, Mission Impossible, Body Double, Sisters.
@@spinin1251
Right, you think De Palma really would have done something subversive with this material. The movie was basically an R rated, feature film version of the TV Show.
@@ricardocantoral7672 He probably wouldn't have. He couldn't turn it into one of his more risky thrillers. And the studio probably wouldn't have wanted that either. But you pointed to Mamet, and it's true that some other movies written or directed by him have been far more engaging and surprising with the narrative twists. GGGR and House of Games are great, but I really also like The Spanish Prisoner. Anyway, DePalma also did the first MI, which I think is comparable in many ways. The twists in that one and some of the story developments were better than a lot in the Untouchables. So between DePalma and Mamet, they could have had something more spicy and twisty. It's a little bit on both of them. Feels like just a product they put together for the studio and not a film at times.
I love DePalmas films, from Carrie, Dressed to Kill, Blow Out..
I'm just here for the banter
Carrie is his masterpiece. And, Raising Cain rules!
It’s funny how they both had the same opinions essentially, only reversed, for the De Palma movies Scarface and The Untouchables.
my 2nd favorite director
Casualties of war,de palmas best film. Imo.
It's too bad De Palma's Redacted doesn't get more respect. I'm not sure why Richard Roeper and the guest critic found it condescending; the former's editorial review of the film was not much help. I think both generalize the film's satirical representation of media culture as glib out of convenience than deduction. Furthermore, criticism of the film for not providing insight in the actions for some of the characters is foolish. To demand or expect insight is to variably assume an acuity for understanding as preordained than strictly relative. The soldiers directly responsible for the rape and subsequent slaughter of the victim's family persistently invoke institutional jingoism, cultural intolerance, political ignorance, and even technical incompetence (such as pressing the white balance mode on a video camera instead of the power button during an incriminating discussion). One soldier films the events before and during the crime (complete with amateur iMovie esque editing transitions) and later provides a dubious account of the events, believing the footage from his video camera could fulfill his aspirations as a film student; he is killed instead via filmed decapitation. While one soldier stays docile, the remaining solder is left vindictive yet remorseful; his tearful recollections during the final scene overshadowed by the obliging fervor of his consoling wife and an audience of men, as captured on a videocamera. In essence, Redacted is thoroughly polemical in portraying media perpetuity and patriarchal superiority. To demand insight is to remain ignorant of how others believe and think. Roeper and other like minded film critics back in 2007 were too dismissive on anything not conducive to their political ideals or now outdated preferential basis of cinematic quality, ironically dependent on malleably propagated values. Fortunately, Roger Ebert recognized the film for its strengths, giving it a 3 and a half out of 4 stars, and even praising the "curious" and inauthentic performances for seeming more real because they are not acted flawlessly.
Oooh, I never saw Sisters, nice, I get to watch it now!
(Did they really choose that knifing scene to show on network TV? Wow.) 3:16
Siskel and Ebert were on the money with Bonfire of the Vanities. One of the worst adaptations of a good book. This movie should be taught in film school on how not to adapt a good book. The movie also had some of the worst casting decisions I've ever seen.
I have to confess I actually enjoyed The Bonfire Of The Vanities. I have more appreciation for at least some of the intent after reading The Devil's Candy. The casting is really what screwed it up.
Did you read the book the film was based on? As Ebert said, someone who hadn't read the book might enjoy it more. I have also read The Devil's Candy and was amazed at what went on behind the scenes so no wonder it failed.
@@sha11235 I actually read the book way after. It's certainly a better book. The Devil's Candy is pretty amazing and would make a good movie itself...
The critics at the end are horrible they serve no purpose
The Untouchables is excellent
Sickle's review of SCARFACE stinks .
Siskel is such a moralist. I liked a lot of his reviews, but he was never as objective or insightful as Ebert.
The proper word is subjective, not objective. Ebert hated the word objective.
@@johnfitzpatrick3094 I used the word I meant to use. Siskel could never be objective when it came to certain genres. He let his personal feelings and private morality get in the way of real film criticism.
@@brandoncollins1225Ebert thought that his feelings about a movie were very important with his reviews. He definitely let his feelings get in the way of Blue Velvet. Siskel and Ebert were more similar than you think they were.
@@johnfitzpatrick3094 Don't move the goalposts. You said I used the word "objective" incorrectly. I did not. Siskel was extremely squeamish and pearl-clutching when it came to horror and thrillers. He was also very easy on big Hollywood action fare, while Ebert's criticisms were more insightful. Ebert was the better critic. He was the one with the Pulitzer.
@brandoncollins1225 Because Ebert was the better writer. Siskel's reviews were more 60 second reviews. Siskel was also a lot harder to please.
"Not as great as "The Conversation" " hard agreement. 100%.
"Scarface" is kind of boring. But "romantic about the drug world"?
No, dude. No. It's boring and ugly.
you sound Scarface boring?
Unfortunately, fans of Scarface don't seem to pick up on what De Palma and Stone were saying. Montana is an anti-hero but he was a man that isn't suppose to be emulated.