While I agree with the pair's exuberant praise of the movie, the film is not specifically aligned with any particular decade in history. The story is as old as humanity (or inhumanity).
I'd agree with this however .............. today one has the benefit of hindsight which in almost every case makes one feel/look wiser than they actually are.
Uncertain what you mean by this, especially considering when the movie was released and how much of human history had already transpired up until then.
As I recall, it was very much en vogue at the time for people to write history on the fly and it's only gotten worse since then, as if media saturation (which is almost zero compared to now) imparted any meaningful measure of wisdom upon the consumer of said media. Where yesterday's pseudo-intellectuals assumed cinema and the newspapers accurately reflected real life, today's phonies take a long look at their Twitter feed before weighing in with their nonsense. Anyone who thinks that they survey the cultural landscape and declare anything to be a sign of the times is deluded. They take a sliver of a sliver of a sliver of a nothingth of reality and confidently state that "this is what's really going on these days". It's so laughable. And facile cynicism is such a tired, cliched stance to take. It's a form of confirmation bias that is almost a polar opposite of reality.
@Bruno56 the brother cleaned the room, how many mob hits are actually discovered in a charge, not many, you are thinking of Forensic Files set, doesn't work that way
I much prefer Woody's '80s movies to his '70s ones. I think they have a greater sense of maturity and confidence to them. You get the feeling he was settling into himself as a filmmaker and became more intuitive about how to explore 'big' themes with light (or should that be more subtle?) touches. Great director.
One of the only other movies I can think of where the bad guy wins is "No Country For Old Men", another "pessimistic", and great, movie. I knew a very civic minded fireman who absolutely HATED "NCFOM" because he could not stand to see the bad guy get away with it.
Yeah, who needs words? And why would anyone be interested in listening to two professional writers engaged in passionate, intelligent discussion? Beats me. Surely "IT WAS GOOD" or "IT WAS BAD" would suffice, right?
Talk about spoilers - Ebert gave the whole game away!
While I agree with the pair's exuberant praise of the movie, the film is not specifically aligned with any particular decade in history. The story is as old as humanity (or inhumanity).
I'd agree with this however .............. today one has the benefit of hindsight which in almost every case makes one feel/look wiser than they actually are.
Uncertain what you mean by this, especially considering when the movie was released and how much of human history had already transpired up until then.
True, but seldom was this reflected in cinema. Allen is a pioneer, at least of American film.
As I recall, it was very much en vogue at the time for people to write history on the fly and it's only gotten worse since then, as if media saturation (which is almost zero compared to now) imparted any meaningful measure of wisdom upon the consumer of said media. Where yesterday's pseudo-intellectuals assumed cinema and the newspapers accurately reflected real life, today's phonies take a long look at their Twitter feed before weighing in with their nonsense.
Anyone who thinks that they survey the cultural landscape and declare anything to be a sign of the times is deluded. They take a sliver of a sliver of a sliver of a nothingth of reality and confidently state that "this is what's really going on these days". It's so laughable.
And facile cynicism is such a tired, cliched stance to take. It's a form of confirmation bias that is almost a polar opposite of reality.
@Bruno56 the brother cleaned the room, how many mob hits are actually discovered in a charge, not many, you are thinking of Forensic Files set, doesn't work that way
One of his masterpieces for sure
Trash!
A masterpiece, no question. Woody's best, in order, are: 1. "Hannah," 2. "Crimes," 3. "Radio Days, " 4. "Annie Hall," 5. "Manhattan."
I much prefer Woody's '80s movies to his '70s ones. I think they have a greater sense of maturity and confidence to them. You get the feeling he was settling into himself as a filmmaker and became more intuitive about how to explore 'big' themes with light (or should that be more subtle?) touches. Great director.
Radio Days is number 1 for me
@@basehead617 Wonderful film. It's in my top five alongside Crimes, The Purple Rose of Cairo, Hannah and Sweet and Lowdown.
Siskel's reaction mirrored mine.
One of the only other movies I can think of where the bad guy wins is "No Country For Old Men", another "pessimistic", and great, movie. I knew a very civic minded fireman who absolutely HATED "NCFOM" because he could not stand to see the bad guy get away with it.
Don't forget Chinatown. Watching John Huston take his daughter/granddaughter away at the end is a real gut-punch.
Saw it in Cincinnati, with the joke about the Cincinnati Film Festival thrown in
Yes, a masterpiece.
In retrospect, that open jaw comment by Siskel seems a tad foreboding.
Sick man, sick. Funny as hell but sick.
Anyone know what movie they were reviewing after this one?
+Jack Torrance
The film they subsequently review is Look Who's Talking.
***** Thank you!
An honor, sir. I enjoy a challange.
Watching this April 2020. ITS WORSE!!
Bad. Reach for the best of humanity.
These reviews are torture! How full of themselves can they be? So many words, nonsense.
Yeah, who needs words? And why would anyone be interested in listening to two professional writers engaged in passionate, intelligent discussion? Beats me. Surely "IT WAS GOOD" or "IT WAS BAD" would suffice, right?