At 9:00 minutes Gene Siskel explains how you could make a successful movie about a father who has sexual thoughts about his daughter but it would take someone like Woody Allen to pull it off. Sometimes the jokes write themselves.
Ha ha .. that's exactly what I was thinking while watching before looking at the comments.... Woody Allen, one of the untouchable Hollywood pieces of trash. All the evidence is out there .. wanna guess why he'll never be brought to justice for it? Open Letter from Dylan Farrow ...
I liked the Music in the Film. I guess the Movie existed as a Kind of long Music Video Clip for different Australian Bands. I liked it when I was young. Great Southern Land became one of my favourites.
3:16 - Gene Siskel says that Eddie Murphy doesn't have the greatest track record as an actor on film. This was before: Norbit, Meet Dave, A Thousand Words, Vampire in Brooklyn, Holy Man, Pluto Nash . . .
That's been his pattern, though. Murphy would make something good and interesting, but then follow it up with something God awful. Then he'd win audiences back, and then squander the good will just as fast. Either he'd pick a terrible project or put his foot in his mouth. Or both.
He probably was predicting Eddie's future? Cause he was coming off of Beverly Hills Cop 2 and Coming to America which were monster box office hits. Unfortunately it did begin with Harlem Nights were his star started to fall until Nutty Professor then by the 2000's the movies you mentioned happened! 😔 Thank goodess for Dolomite! 😊
@@saxongreen78 Someone should go through all of these and tally up who shows up the most. You know, for science. My bet is Robin Williams, based on the longevity of his career. Possibly Eddie Murphy though.
@@1RedHyena Robin Williams played _Patch Adams-_ that surely must count as an extra penalty credit...I have always hated that film based solely on the theatrical trailer. 😬
@@saxongreen78 Hahahaha! I always hated Patch Adams also, just base on the stupid poster. Robin Williams with a stupid red clown nose on his face. I agree on your tally method. One "Patch Adams" type failure is worth Two points. So then....well, we've got a lot of math to do. I believe Rob Schneider and Adam Sandler may have some solid showings in the '90's and beyond.
@@endymallorn Us '80s kids in 1989: "Haha, he said 'It's so bad', he's trying to be all cool by using slang." Us formerly-'80s kids as full grown adults: "Oh no, it wasn't slang at all, it was an actual warning that nobody our then-age would admit was true until after our Christmas wish lists had maybe been fulfilled and we actually tried to use the piece of crap." The only good thing that came of it, aside from some weird fuzzy yet warm memories about how advertising worked so well on us as youths, was that (I've been told) apparently some tech from it eventually went into Wii and Switch controllers.
He was wrong about one thing... showing the games and plugging the product is the exact same thing. He made a distinction like they are totally different
@@Kruppt808 Because Disney is a rapacious, soulless, predatory corporation that no longer does anything without guarantees of enormous profit. They don't care about anything else. A program devoted to old movie reviews from dead guys would be difficult for them to monetize today because it is too far removed from the kiddie content of their streaming service and is wired to an increasingly niche market of people who care about film criticism. Which isn't their audience.
Wow, i watched Her Alibi when I was 12 I think, and liked it. It is amazing when you are young you like movies that you discover to be really garbage when you grow up.
That's my experience with "The Interpreter". I was 10 years old (I watched it on TV) and I was smitten by both the story and Nicole Kidman, obviously but I didn't think much about the plot because, you know, I was ten and I was smitten by all the pretty pictures. The movie is on TV once more during the pandemic and my god, what a bore that movie was.
@@kane4013 They were more like professional rivals, come out of old newspaper kultur? People might actually miss that. Kind of a healthy "Fuck that guy, our paper is better." Chicago Sun-Times vs. Tribune.
Yeah, it's a rare movie that can REALLY connect with teenage reality / truth (Like Say Anything (1989) / Breakfast Club (1985) / Over The Edge (1979) etc)
Gene's comment about Woody Allen possibly being able to make a movie about a father having sexual dreams about their child was definitely cringe worthy.
I like how Ebert opines that such a movie wouldn't be funny, and leaves it there, then Siskel brings up Woody Allen, of all possible contemporary filmmakers. 😬😳
There still are great movies made now. It's just *none* of 'em are made by Hollywood anymore......They've become a corporatized nightmare. You have to look further afield nowadays, but at the same time doing that has never been easier!
No, it’s infuriating. Every scene in the original had something going for it, a clever line, a sight gag, Bill Murray being Bill Murray etc. The sequel is just garbage. The Greek artist character is like nails on a chalkboard.
I'll go so far as to say that the creators of Ghostbusters didn't understand why the first movie was a success. And yet, the guys behind the Real Ghostbusters cartoon somehow did.
it is also interesting to think that as of this time in 1989, it was considered that eastwood had managed a long career. he's as much of his career in years since 1989 than before it. it is interesting. i think an argument could be made that eastwood is the most successful actor of all time.
I saw an interview recently (not of Eastwood) saying that every other profession the people get better with experience, but in Hollywood they're expected to have some failures in their careers, making some bad movies. Of course, art is very subjective and also manipulated by those who expect to make money by formula.
I watched these guys back in the day on my local PBS station on Thursday nights. Was always the highlight of my week. Often imitated, never duplicated...they were the BEST. Wrong...some of the time (as far as I was concerned) but hey...films are a personal taste. Rest in peace Roger and Gene. Hope they are both enjoying the best movies the afterlife has to offer...and of course...just as many BAD ones to critique. Thank you Flaccidus for the memories. Liked and subscribed.
@@danstvguyI think you have them mixed up. Ebert was much more forgiving - he could watch a cop buddy picture, an explosion-filled sci-fi, horror or whatever as long as it entertained. Siskel was the one who liked movies titled "The Autumn of my Discontent".
@@sandal_thong8631 Blockers is a great movie actually. The movie knows that the moral panic is an overreaction and treats all six of its leads with respect.
I absolutely adore Tron, but sometimes I do put it on if I'm trying to sleep. It's weirdly soothing for a movie about being trapped in a computer and fighting programs
I miss these two so much. I didn't always agree with either of them, but they taught me so much about how to approach movies--and art as a whole. I remember watching them on tv on Sundays at 11PM. Yeah, my Mondays at high school were a waste, but it was worth it.
I'm a big fan of Jenny Lewis's music career, but wouldn't watch this film even to see her as a child :) Her music video for "She's Not Me" is apparently chock full of references to the movie.
I loved it as a kid and still really enjoy it now. But they have a point that it could have been a TV movie and no one would have noticed the difference. Hope it never gets rebooted.
Agreed. I actually don't think it's any better or worse than the original, and neither one is anything special. Those movies work primarily because of Bill Murray's improvising.
@@flaccidusminimus2170 couldn’t disagree more. Ghostbusters 1 worked because of the ensemble. Yes, Murray is the one liner king but to say that Akroyd, Ramis, Moranis or Annie Potts didn’t add to that first film which broke new ground as not recognizing the ensemble. As for part 2, it was awful. The villain wasn’t as interesting and the finale with the Statue of Liberty was just asinine.
@@ClaraMBreen I can't quibble with the casting, but I don't think they were given much to do or say that was very funny. Moranis certainly created a unique character (he's vastly underrated in general) but he doesn't have enough screen time in either film to satisfy me. I recall reading that Bill Murray was deeply dissatisfied with the quality of the scripts for both films and ad-libbed most of his lines. I think it shows, and both movies would be rather dull without him.
I never saw Ghostbusters 2 mainly because of clips from the film I saw on Siskel & Ebert’s show. It didn’t look right for a comedy, especially for one that had very high caliber SNL alumni like Akroyd and Murray in it. Bill Murray doesn’t like being in sequels and I can completely understand why.
Ghostbusters II wasn't as bad as everyone made it out to be. It may not be as good as the original, but I don't mind it. I watched it recently before I went to see Afterlife.
Yeah, it has its moments. And, if nothing else, the Statue of Liberty bit was awesome, and Peter MacNichol basically steals every scene he's in. The big problem is that it's too sanitized. Because Ghostbusters became so popular with kids, it's a borderline kid's movie, even though the original was written for adults. So the tone feels off. (Also, the theme song was completely overlooked/underrated at the time, and I'm glad it was eventually recognized as a banger.)
Its biggest problem was that it was pretty much a throw together movie. They didn't put anywhere near as much planning into it as they did the original.
Yeah your right it's much worst it's as bad as Terminator woke fate. Ghostbusters reboot tried hard to push feminism try even insulted the fan base. Then they made a Ghostbusters 3 which was good
I was 7 in 1989 and wanted nothing more than to be a Ghostbuster. The sequel was everything to me. I loved it unconditionally. A Ghostbusters cereal box would send a joyous electricity through my body. If I were to watch it for the first time today, it would border on being a derivative, charmless piece of shit. But those goggles of nostalgia are mighty powerful, and I still love it, despite its glaring faults.
i LIKE ghost busters II... I still watch it repeatedly, but I grew up in the 80s and too hot to handle was on the radio frequently while I worked at the BIG D markets during my summer months of high school so maybe there is some nostalgia.. Did you tell him about the twinkie?
They missed the boat, criticizing the 9th-highest grossing movie of the year. It's impossible to recapture lightning in a bottle, but this made a good attempt by bringing back the entire cast, including supporting characters and not just trying to reboot it. In other words I liked it. You can even see how Janine's hair was styled after the popular animated version!
Siskel and Ebert were among the VERY FEW who didn’t like it. They were notorious for bad takes and were pretty hit or miss as far as recognizing good vs. bad movies.
I am a trekkie, and I hated Star Trek 5. It sucked out loud and should never have been made. It made no sense and seemed to drag on forever. Number 4 was so good and so funny, and 5 was such a waste. However, I did like Ghostbusters 2, I thought it was a lot of fun.
Finally. All the other comments were about how much they loved it. I saw it in the theater and was so disappointed. These old guys wanted to talk about death and gods too much, when they could have done social commentary like TOS.
Every other (Shatner era) Star Trek movie was terrible. Star Trek 1: shite Star Trek 2: good Star Trek 3: shite Star Trek 4: good Star Trek 5: shite Star Trek 6: good Btw Star Trek 3 was the worst of all. Leonard Nemoy directed and the effort was Hall of Shame worthy.
Man this takes me back... i love that old saxophone that was in every opening of diff. shows back then... i liked harlem nights and ghostbusters 2 but i realize they arent oscar material... not supposed to be. Still i liked how these guys would critic a movie like its being compared to the godfather.... 80s ruled
I remember my family renting the wizard on vhs once when I was 8-9 years old and being utterly underwhelmed by it not because it was basically a 98 minute commercial for Nintendo Of America and its products but rather because it was just fucking boring.
Yeah what a miscalculation...nobody--kids, parents, ad-men, gamers--cared about the hour-and-a-half preceding the footage of Mario 3. It's fine to make a 90-minute ad for a blockbuster NES game but it's no good making a boring crappy movie.
I think it's awfully precious of Roger to snap back at Gene for being critical of Fred Savage's choices. *He* chose to single out Savage first by selecting "The Wizard" for this special program and then called him out by name, even though he didn't need to do so. Ebert: "The Wizard" is a pile of pig refuse and Fred Savage shouldn't have associated himself with this project! Siskel: Yes, and he was in another worthless movie this year called "Little Monsters". Ebert: Leave Fred Savage alone! He's just a kid!
I remember seeing the wizard in the theater walking right past the little mermaid to see it instead, but plot wise I couldn't tell you a thing about it anymore. I loved hearing Siskel saying Fred Savage can turn down lousy scripts, but should a child be expected to have the kind of refinement of taste to differentiate a terrible film from a better one? Honestly, this criticism is beyond absurd. What I can imagine is a young Fred Savage and all of his young friends loved Nintendo games, got offered a chance to be in a movie all about Nintendo games, and was sold on it immediately, no questions asked.
To be fair, most child actors bemoan the fact they are treated like kids. Chris Columbus gets directing jobs JUST because he is good with child actors and most of them say he 'treats us like adults'-which may be just what they THINK adults are treated like. In this case I think Savage is old enough to take it for what its worth - look carefully at scripts, but lets be fair, actors ALWAYS routinely say that almost ALL the scripts they ever see are garbage. So name the movie needing a 12 year old boy that came out that year that he turned down. Because if he isn't even the star of the movie then its not like his name is going to get a movie made. So you take what you can get.
I don't know why they'd show that scene from Harlem Knights as though it's a stinker scene. That scene is hilarious even if one didn't like the movie. She's ragging on Red Fox because he left a swallow of orange juice in the container in the fridge at which point he says, then swallow it and shut the f**k up! And it's delivered hilariously. It's a scene that my sister, my father and I have randomly echoed from time to time over the years. That's a top tier hilarious moment.
In hindsight it's all the more funny in the context of Vera moving on to do that painfully corny touched by an angel sitcom... Whereas much of that audience doesn't know or is aware that Vera was pimpin hoes prior to doing some corny religious show.
Ahh Siskel and Ebert. Two amazing critics that never came off as being bought by any of the studios (Unlike critics of today) Always enjoyed the showed that came on Sunday afternoons.
Now that they are both gone, I no longer even watch reviewers in general, nothing compares to their dynamic. Even for written reviews, I might skim the rating but Ebert was the only one I'd sit and read his entire review. Sucks they are gone. But they did burn me one time, and I have to believe they were influenced or pushed in some way, and that movie is their glowing review of Under Siege: Dark Territory. I watched that due to their review and was totally flabbergasted they could give this slop an enthusiastic thumbs up. Totally out of character.
Other films on Gene's list of the worst films of 1989 were "UHF" (the "Weird Al" picture that became a long-lasting cult classic on video after numbering itself among the films that helped to fuel bankruptcy for Orion Pictures) and the film version of Stephen King's "Pet Sematary" (which was the only other popular film on his print list and spawned a sequel in 1992). (SOURCE: Chicago Tribune, December 24, 1989)
@@RocStarr913 Actually "cult classic" usually means it was critically or universally panned when it's first released, but eventually picks up a growing audience through video tape or dvd (or streaming, nowadays). So most "cult" movies are in fact "bad" movies during their time.
I recall Ebert separately writing a bad review for UHF, but from what I can tell, didn't dislike it enough for a "worst of" list. I'm part of that cult, but sometimes with comedy you see a generational or cultural divide. One department where I worked a few years ago, quipping that movie was like our secret handshake, but I noticed that people born before and after a certain interval didn't seem to dig it so much.
Weird Al retaliated by including the lyric "Those Siskel and Ebert bums can just go home and sit on their thumbs" in his parody of U Can't Touch This called I Can't Watch This (from his Off The Deep End album). Guess he was a little bitter about that!
@@davidl570 Missed that one, but in all honesty I think critical reviews are negligible to the fate of vehicles like UHF. Your decision to watch it most likely hinged on how much you liked Weird Al. If you were a fan, you watched it, probably liked or loved it, and if he wasn't your cup of tea, you skipped it. I know I personally didn't read a review until about 10 years later, once online review archives were available.
GB 2 is a great film ... That reboot was shockingly horrible. They took a legendary franchise and turned it into a "look at us quirky girls" flick made for wine drunk 30 somethings.
I'm very forgiving of older films. I will commend GB2 for being ahead of it's time awful - they only make bad movies like that now. It paved the way for the awfulness we have now. Remember it made way less than 1/2 of the 1st film. Then again so did Back to the future 2&3 - which are nearly as good as the original.
Was "The Wizard" a good movie? No. Was it THAT bad? No, especially for the target audience. The first two acts of the movie were pretty entertaining. It was a road/buddy movie but with kids. I thought all three child actors were pretty good...particularly Jenny Lewis as a streetwise teenager. The third act was where it stopped being a movie and started being a commercial. It's like they bolted a shameless advertisement onto the end of a decent movie. It could have been a lot more subtle, but I know Nintendo only cared about pushing the game. And the game was brilliant!
When you click to see the best of the year and don't notice it is the worst of the year and see Brosnan talking to a pimp you are like "Hmm that was not that good." 😂
Harlem Nights was absolutely hilarious!!! Sometimes movie critics just don't have that certain sense of humor. As much as I always valued Siskel and Ebert's movie reviews and recommendations, I have to say Harlem Nights and Ghostbusters 2 really shouldn't be the worst. Eddie Murphy will never act that funny again, especially since he can't work off all the great comedians that have passed away. The Wizard movie was geared more towards young people and kids. I can't imagine what Siskel and Ebert would like about it, especially since I don't see them playing any ANY video games EVER!! TRON wasn't even a video game at first. The plot of a society living in the circuitry world and they had games in that world like that frisbee game but I couldn't believe they compared it to video games. TRON became a video game after it was a movie.
Sometimes Ebert and Siskel just miss the point - IIRC Ebert wanted to rate the original Death Race 2000 as a zero and seemed to miss the silly dark humour. Of course DR2000 went on to become possibly THE cult movie
I remember how fred savage was shown playing Double Dragon i believe and they showed a cut scene. Like he's controlling the cut scene 😆 i really thought what idiot directed this as a 12 year old
Next of Kin was terribler and much more boring- a dud- Road House may be objectively bad but also quite entertaining 😅with standouts from Kelly lynch and Sam Elliot.
I like how they dogged The Wizard but not Nintendo and actually said that there's a good movie possible involving video games in some way....but that that just wasn't it. These guys were super fair critics. Not film snobs at all. Siskel actually gave a positive review to Mortal Kombat and tried to convince Ebert (who was on the fence) to praise it more..
Interestingly, through the fullment of time, here we are some 35 years later and nobody remembers any of those movies except for maybe Ghostbusters II. And we are STILL milking old IP's for every penny they're worth. In fact, few movies today are based on fresh ideas.
I think more are, but there is more money in streaming and television. Now tehre is SO much content out there its harder to find originality. Amazing that with three networks adn relatively few movies coming out they STILL found it h ard to be original.
In contrast to ST 5, popular opinion on GB2 seems to have changed for the better - certainly after the very divisive Ghostbusters: Answer the Call ('16) was released.
I saw Ghostbusters II twice at the local drive during the summer of 1989 and enjoyed immensely both times. Sure, it has some flaws, but I have seen much worse squeals in my time. Also, I think that when GB2 first came out people forgot that many things changed in terms of the story (the cast had to do reshoots midway through filming, including a new ending from what Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis originally wrote) and due to Columbia Pictures having forced a really tight filming schedule on the cast and crew there was not much time to fine tune the movie before it opened. Heck the special effects team had to work around the clock literally to complete the effects on time.
Any movie is first and foremost the writing, end of story. Ghostbusters itself was very rushed, thats why the effects look so cheesy compared to other movies out at that time. To be honest I 'was in the room' when my wife watched 'answer the call' and it TRIED to put in far more jokes and be funnier than ANY other Ghostbusters movie. What they missed is that Ghostbusters wasn't actually a full on comedy, so people really got pissed when they messed with the characters. A lot of people especiallyin america tend to take characters more seriously than people. That last Ghostbusters was not funny hardly at all, but got great reviews, in large part because it 'respected the characters' and 'respected the spirit of the original'. Actors themselves have no such respect, which is why Bill Murray agreed to get killed in ATC and why he WANTED to get killed in the Ghostbusters sequel. Some of that rubbed off in the sequel because people of course assumed Bill and Sigourney 'got together' and the in the sequel it was "oh no they didnt". Thats an interesting way that the audience tried to control Hollywood, and its partly why virtually EVERY Hollywood movie has the exact same ending. There are a few standouts, I remember seeing "To live and die in LA" and one cop you think is the star gets killed at the very beginning, then the other cop partner who is in the whole movie gets killed at the end and thats always stuck in my mind becaues its SO rare, but its not like I watch every movie.
Ghostbusters II was successful and enjoyable, though maybe it couldn't match the excitement of the first movie. I've been thinking about how Star Wars might have been different if all those little decisions were made differently, like if they hadn't killed Obi-Wan or they did kill Darth Vader (who didn't get a lot of screen time and wasn't that important). Then _The Empire Strikes Back_ wouldn't have needed Yoda, and there'd be no Darth Vader! Heck, maybe we wouldn't have gotten Billy Dee Williams, but Ricardo Montalban might have played Lando? Instead of being the greatest sequel of all time (until _Avengers: Endgame) it would have been a cluster and could have been the end of the series.
A lot was working against Shatner during the making of Star Trek V. The writer's strike, amateurs handling the special effects, the studio demanding that the film ran below two hours, there was plenty going on behind the scenes. Yes, William did come up with the crappy story but it's execution wasn't entirely his fault.
@@flaccidusminimus2170 not saying all about story... but common, if there isnt, there better be something that hold interest. I love Star Trek, but most of their movies suck. Shatner's hairpiece is a better story than Star Trek 5
@@stevejohnson1577 There hasn't been a good Trek movie since The Undiscovered Country. The TNG movies sucked and the Kelvin universe films are bad Star Wars movies.
Ebert: Ghostbusters 2 suffers from sequelitis. Hollywood: Hold my beer 🍺. We’re going to wreck the reputation of EVERY SINGLE MOVIE and EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER from ANY MOVIE that was well received and had an immense impact on movies in general with endless sequels that many, many people will never want to see.
Simple solution. Stop looking at box office receipts as a measure of quality. Stop going to the multiplex where the same superhero movie is playing in 22 of the 26 screens. Patronize a local indie film cinema house. There are plenty great studio driven indie-adjacent films out there to be seen. The more people go to them, the more will be made.
At 9:00 minutes Gene Siskel explains how you could make a successful movie about a father who has sexual thoughts about his daughter but it would take someone like Woody Allen to pull it off. Sometimes the jokes write themselves.
Oh wow, oh no 😅lol 😂
Ha ha .. that's exactly what I was thinking while watching before looking at the comments.... Woody Allen, one of the untouchable Hollywood pieces of trash. All the evidence is out there .. wanna guess why he'll never be brought to justice for it? Open Letter from Dylan Farrow ...
😂😂😂
My jaw dropped ! What a moment !
This was the comment I was looking for.😅
"he wants the full credit and title, let him take the full credit of blame" WOW. GENE WAS A FUCKIN SAVAGE TO FRED ;)
He was.
He was, but, knowing what we know now, Fred probably was the Savage.
“Oh, don’t look so shocked.” -Bart Simpson, 1996
"Yahoo Serious Festival" "I know those words, but that sign makes no sense." Lisa Simpson
I'd forgotten all about that guy
I was alive then. Watched it weejly. That intro! Brought back memories of watching it live. Better times for me for sure…
R.I.P. to both of these guys.
I enjoyed watching Siskel and Ebert, even when I totally disagreed with their assessments.
As an Australian, I apologize profusely for Young Einstein!
Have no illusions, humanity will never forgive you.
I liked the Music in the Film. I guess the Movie existed as a Kind of long Music Video Clip for different Australian Bands. I liked it when I was young. Great Southern Land became one of my favourites.
We'll forgive 'Young Einstein' if your government eases up on Lockdown mandates... how bout that.
Don’t worry. We as a nation said no to Yahoo Serious
You gave us mad max, your debts been repaid
I miss 1989
If a movie with Red Fox, Richard Pryor, and Eddie Murphy isn’t funny something went terribly wrong.
Weird right?
I'd say the first 15 minutes of Harlem Nights is hilarious. Its when the weak plot kicks in is where it kinda flounders.
I remember liking it enough but that was a long time ago.
There are much worse Eddie Murphy films. It isn't that bad
'80s ego inflation was outta control!
If Ebert didn't care for The Wizard, he would've hated, hated, hated 2017's Krispy Kreme Presents Power Rangers.
I like how Gene forgot to introduce himself and Roger had to ask “Gene who are you?”
I liked that, too.
I am Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune
Good chemistry to help gene out there
As though we don't all know by that point, they'd been on TV nearing 20 years by 1989
_"Who's THIS guy??"_
I loved this show back in the day!
When Ebert spoke, people listened.
3:16 - Gene Siskel says that Eddie Murphy doesn't have the greatest track record as an actor on film. This was before: Norbit, Meet Dave, A Thousand Words, Vampire in Brooklyn, Holy Man, Pluto Nash . . .
That's been his pattern, though. Murphy would make something good and interesting, but then follow it up with something God awful. Then he'd win audiences back, and then squander the good will just as fast. Either he'd pick a terrible project or put his foot in his mouth. Or both.
He's still correct
He probably was predicting Eddie's future? Cause he was coming off of Beverly Hills Cop 2 and Coming to America which were monster box office hits. Unfortunately it did begin with Harlem Nights were his star started to fall until Nutty Professor then by the 2000's the movies you mentioned happened! 😔 Thank goodess for Dolomite! 😊
Eddie made a quiet little movie called Mr Church. I thing it is his best work. Surprisingly, it's not a comedy.
I ❤ Harlem Nights and so does everyone I know! Can’t imagine it not being loved
Dan Ackroyd, Eddie Murphy, Robin Williams, Whoopi Goldberg and Richard Pryor showed up in these lists rather often.
Agreed. Also Burt Reynolds.
@@1RedHyena Most certainly Burt Reynolds! I think he made every year.
@@saxongreen78 Someone should go through all of these and tally up who shows up the most. You know, for science. My bet is Robin Williams, based on the longevity of his career. Possibly Eddie Murphy though.
@@1RedHyena Robin Williams played _Patch Adams-_ that surely must count as an extra penalty credit...I have always hated that film based solely on the theatrical trailer. 😬
@@saxongreen78 Hahahaha! I always hated Patch Adams also, just base on the stupid poster. Robin Williams with a stupid red clown nose on his face. I agree on your tally method. One "Patch Adams" type failure is worth Two points. So then....well, we've got a lot of math to do. I believe Rob Schneider and Adam Sandler may have some solid showings in the '90's and beyond.
Stars cashing in on their name and too many sequels. If only these two knew.
So it's something that was happening long before today.
Roger was right about the Wizard. The Power Glove wouldn’t have sold anything without the product placement from the Wizard.
It’s so bad.
@@endymallorn
Us '80s kids in 1989: "Haha, he said 'It's so bad', he's trying to be all cool by using slang."
Us formerly-'80s kids as full grown adults: "Oh no, it wasn't slang at all, it was an actual warning that nobody our then-age would admit was true until after our Christmas wish lists had maybe been fulfilled and we actually tried to use the piece of crap."
The only good thing that came of it, aside from some weird fuzzy yet warm memories about how advertising worked so well on us as youths, was that (I've been told) apparently some tech from it eventually went into Wii and Switch controllers.
@@endymallorn AVGN: And i mean baaaaaad
He was wrong about one thing... showing the games and plugging the product is the exact same thing. He made a distinction like they are totally different
Not to mention one of my favorite deaths in Freddy's Dead the Final Nightmare.
I don't know who owns the Siskel and Ebert footage but someone needs to release a compilation. I'd buy that yesterday 😅
Disney owns the 1986-2010 material and always has, which means you'll never see a release.
Why?
@@Kruppt808 Because Disney is a rapacious, soulless, predatory corporation that no longer does anything without guarantees of enormous profit. They don't care about anything else. A program devoted to old movie reviews from dead guys would be difficult for them to monetize today because it is too far removed from the kiddie content of their streaming service and is wired to an increasingly niche market of people who care about film criticism. Which isn't their audience.
@@flaccidusminimus2170 Well said.
The wizzard with the infamous power glove.
Its so bad.
The Glove! So bad it’s truly a stinnnnnker!😂
Wow, i watched Her Alibi when I was 12 I think, and liked it. It is amazing when you are young you like movies that you discover to be really garbage when you grow up.
That's my experience with "The Interpreter". I was 10 years old (I watched it on TV) and I was smitten by both the story and Nicole Kidman, obviously but I didn't think much about the plot because, you know, I was ten and I was smitten by all the pretty pictures. The movie is on TV once more during the pandemic and my god, what a bore that movie was.
Unfortunately, too many people nowadays refuse to admit what they liked as a child was really garbage.
Her Alibi is a good movie. Funny.
@@salmanedyThe Interpreter was also a good movie.
Paulina Porizkova was such a cutie.
13:30
I love The Money Pit. That is my answer to that statement
You’re not alone. When Tom Hanks was fun to watch.
It’s a classic! 🌞
I did not care for The Godfather. It insists upon itself.
No Holds Barred was the first of many times Hollywood would regret letting Vince McMahon and Hulk Hogan in.
I remember seeing The Wizard in the theaters as a kid with my grandma. We snuck in a bag of microwave popcorn! Lol
Troop Beverly Hills had a great line......."She gets lost in her walk-in closet."
1:39 "And who are you?" I burst out laughing at that, these guys were so hilariously snarky to each other
They bickered like a married couple 😂
@@kane4013 They were more like professional rivals, come out of old newspaper kultur? People might actually miss that. Kind of a healthy "Fuck that guy, our paper is better." Chicago Sun-Times vs. Tribune.
Yo, I love SNES drunk videos.
@@paulocorrea521 snnnnnnnneeeesssssss drunk
I am Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune
Ebert was spot on about The Breakfast Club
Yeah, it's a rare movie that can REALLY connect with teenage reality / truth
(Like Say Anything (1989) / Breakfast Club (1985) / Over The Edge (1979) etc)
Gene's comment about Woody Allen possibly being able to make a movie about a father having sexual dreams about their child was definitely cringe worthy.
Oddly prescient, too.
Sane with Louis ck and that movie that never got released. It had creepy stuff relates to his sexual tastes
It was prophetic, since he married his adopted daughter
I like how Ebert opines that such a movie wouldn't be funny, and leaves it there, then Siskel brings up Woody Allen, of all possible contemporary filmmakers. 😬😳
Yep. This was going on long before we knew about it
And here they were thinking that films were awful in 1989, their heads would explode today after seeing Hollywood’s absolute drek.
It's totally different now
Their heads would explode if they saw that movie theaters are all but obsolete
Well, today, generally speaking, Hollywood is just nothing but a factory of trash
What an original thought.
There still are great movies made now.
It's just *none* of 'em are made by Hollywood anymore......They've become a corporatized nightmare.
You have to look further afield nowadays, but at the same time doing that has never been easier!
You can’t catch lightning in a bottle twice they say but Ghost Busters II at least puts the bottle in rain. It’s not only watchable it’s enjoyable.
No, it’s infuriating. Every scene in the original had something going for it, a clever line, a sight gag, Bill Murray being Bill Murray etc. The sequel is just garbage. The Greek artist character is like nails on a chalkboard.
@@thefonzkiss you are like flies to vigo, sir.
I'll go so far as to say that the creators of Ghostbusters didn't understand why the first movie was a success. And yet, the guys behind the Real Ghostbusters cartoon somehow did.
it is also interesting to think that as of this time in 1989, it was considered that eastwood had managed a long career. he's as much of his career in years since 1989 than before it. it is interesting. i think an argument could be made that eastwood is the most successful actor of all time.
I saw an interview recently (not of Eastwood) saying that every other profession the people get better with experience, but in Hollywood they're expected to have some failures in their careers, making some bad movies. Of course, art is very subjective and also manipulated by those who expect to make money by formula.
Fred Savage was in a couple of good movies. 1987’s The Princess Bride. 1988’s Vice Versa. After that though, his movies declined.
Little Monsters was a funny one.
And he became a Perv
He was best in austin powers
@@LordSathar the mole
@@LordSathar Mole^
I watched these guys back in the day on my local PBS station on Thursday nights. Was always the highlight of my week. Often imitated, never duplicated...they were the BEST. Wrong...some of the time (as far as I was concerned) but hey...films are a personal taste. Rest in peace Roger and Gene. Hope they are both enjoying the best movies the afterlife has to offer...and of course...just as many BAD ones to critique. Thank you Flaccidus for the memories. Liked and subscribed.
Ebert was a film snob.
@@danstvguy well yeah, the guy critiqued films for a living.
@@danstvguyI think you have them mixed up. Ebert was much more forgiving - he could watch a cop buddy picture, an explosion-filled sci-fi, horror or whatever as long as it entertained. Siskel was the one who liked movies titled "The Autumn of my Discontent".
By all indications, the 2016 Ghostbusters movie would make the Ghostbusters 2 movie look like a masterpiece.
And Afterlife makes GB2 looks as brilliant as the first film.
Not quite. It wasn't great but it wasn't bad either
Dude, the 2016 Ghostbusters makes Manos the hands of Fate look like silence of the lambs.
The Ghostbusters cartoon is a million times more entertaining than Ghostbusters 2016.
Ok, can we all agree frozen empire was trash?
Funny that Gene says Woody Allen could write a comedy about having sexual thoughts about his daughter. Lol, very foretelling.
I remember hearing about a 2018 movie called _Blockers_ about parents freaking out about their daughters wanting to have sex.
@@sandal_thong8631 omg I remember that
@@sandal_thong8631 Blockers is a great movie actually. The movie knows that the moral panic is an overreaction and treats all six of its leads with respect.
"Tron was a lot of fun"?
I remember seeing it in my junior high school gymnasium back in 1984,and being bored out of my mind.
I, on the other hand, was blown away. It was original and a lot of fun. But I do remember a lot of people not liking it.
I remember trying to watch it as a kid in the 90’s and being so bored I had to turn it off
I absolutely adore Tron, but sometimes I do put it on if I'm trying to sleep. It's weirdly soothing for a movie about being trapped in a computer and fighting programs
I miss these two so much. I didn't always agree with either of them, but they taught me so much about how to approach movies--and art as a whole. I remember watching them on tv on Sundays at 11PM. Yeah, my Mondays at high school were a waste, but it was worth it.
Troop beverly Hills was another good one. It was goofy and silly and really sweet and fun
I never seen it but my brother was crazy about that movie he seen it about 50 times
@@BigDave50 its a really funny movie. This was the kind of movie Shelley long should have done
I'm a big fan of Jenny Lewis's music career, but wouldn't watch this film even to see her as a child :) Her music video for "She's Not Me" is apparently chock full of references to the movie.
I loved that movie when I was a kid.
I loved it as a kid and still really enjoy it now. But they have a point that it could have been a TV movie and no one would have noticed the difference. Hope it never gets rebooted.
Yes kids, there was once a time when middle aged white men were allowed to criticize a movie with an all black cast.
9:06... That quote from Siskel about Woody Allen... ouch...
Yeah that aged like fine milk.
I've haven’t seen any of these movies except Ghostbusters 2, and I didn’t think that was bad.
Agreed. I actually don't think it's any better or worse than the original, and neither one is anything special. Those movies work primarily because of Bill Murray's improvising.
@@flaccidusminimus2170 couldn’t disagree more. Ghostbusters 1 worked because of the ensemble. Yes, Murray is the one liner king but to say that Akroyd, Ramis, Moranis or Annie Potts didn’t add to that first film which broke new ground as not recognizing the ensemble. As for part 2, it was awful. The villain wasn’t as interesting and the finale with the Statue of Liberty was just asinine.
@@ClaraMBreen I can't quibble with the casting, but I don't think they were given much to do or say that was very funny. Moranis certainly created a unique character (he's vastly underrated in general) but he doesn't have enough screen time in either film to satisfy me. I recall reading that Bill Murray was deeply dissatisfied with the quality of the scripts for both films and ad-libbed most of his lines. I think it shows, and both movies would be rather dull without him.
Only thing I remember about this movie was the Titanic scene.
I never saw Ghostbusters 2 mainly because of clips from the film I saw on Siskel & Ebert’s show. It didn’t look right for a comedy, especially for one that had very high caliber SNL alumni like Akroyd and Murray in it. Bill Murray doesn’t like being in sequels and I can completely understand why.
Ghostbusters II wasn't as bad as everyone made it out to be. It may not be as good as the original, but I don't mind it. I watched it recently before I went to see Afterlife.
Yeah, it has its moments. And, if nothing else, the Statue of Liberty bit was awesome, and Peter MacNichol basically steals every scene he's in. The big problem is that it's too sanitized. Because Ghostbusters became so popular with kids, it's a borderline kid's movie, even though the original was written for adults. So the tone feels off.
(Also, the theme song was completely overlooked/underrated at the time, and I'm glad it was eventually recognized as a banger.)
Its biggest problem was that it was pretty much a throw together movie.
They didn't put anywhere near as much planning into it as they did the original.
Yeah your right it's much worst it's as bad as Terminator woke fate. Ghostbusters reboot tried hard to push feminism try even insulted the fan base. Then they made a Ghostbusters 3 which was good
I was 7 in 1989 and wanted nothing more than to be a Ghostbuster. The sequel was everything to me. I loved it unconditionally. A Ghostbusters cereal box would send a joyous electricity through my body. If I were to watch it for the first time today, it would border on being a derivative, charmless piece of shit. But those goggles of nostalgia are mighty powerful, and I still love it, despite its glaring faults.
I think I may have seen Ghostbusters II at the theatre, but I have no memories of the experience.
great tunes. it really brings me back to my 50s
i LIKE ghost busters II... I still watch it repeatedly, but I grew up in the 80s and too hot to handle was on the radio frequently while I worked at the BIG D markets during my summer months of high school so maybe there is some nostalgia.. Did you tell him about the twinkie?
I remember watching Young Einstein as a kid and even then realizing what a ridiculous waste of time it was.
Yahoo serious was big at the time because anything from Australia was big at the time and they put him in anything they could to make a buck.
Amazing film, probably my favorite of all time and easily the best film of the 1980s.
Redd Foxx and Della Reece went on to star in CBS Royal Family Foxx would die of a heart attack on set in 1992 Kind of sad 😔
Redd died in a hospital 4 hours after the heart attack on set and it was 91
Imagine a world were GB 2 is considered to be one of the worst films of the year. Makes me wanna go back in time.
They missed the boat, criticizing the 9th-highest grossing movie of the year. It's impossible to recapture lightning in a bottle, but this made a good attempt by bringing back the entire cast, including supporting characters and not just trying to reboot it. In other words I liked it. You can even see how Janine's hair was styled after the popular animated version!
It's a shit movie. Unfunny and forgettable
Siskel and Ebert were among the VERY FEW who didn’t like it. They were notorious for bad takes and were pretty hit or miss as far as recognizing good vs. bad movies.
@@hellsunicornI don't agree with this at all. They had a good hit-to-miss ratio. Especially, when attacking bad movies.
GB 2 was 6.6 on IMDB, a big drop from GB 1.
As for Box Office? Look who's talking was above GB 2 and that was crappy, right?
I am a trekkie, and I hated Star Trek 5. It sucked out loud and should never have been made. It made no sense and seemed to drag on forever. Number 4 was so good and so funny, and 5 was such a waste. However, I did like Ghostbusters 2, I thought it was a lot of fun.
Finally. All the other comments were about how much they loved it. I saw it in the theater and was so disappointed. These old guys wanted to talk about death and gods too much, when they could have done social commentary like TOS.
Every other (Shatner era) Star Trek movie was terrible.
Star Trek 1: shite
Star Trek 2: good
Star Trek 3: shite
Star Trek 4: good
Star Trek 5: shite
Star Trek 6: good
Btw Star Trek 3 was the worst of all. Leonard Nemoy directed and the effort was Hall of Shame worthy.
Star Trek 1 was so boring.
I had to pee so badly during ST5, but didn't want to miss anything. Big mistake, bigger waste of time.
@@Rick-C-117I've always liked 3, but as has been said 1 is long and boring, 5 is idiotic.
Good God, I remember "No holds barred," with Hulk Hogan. I actually saw it in the theater, in my defense; i was 12-13.
Don’t feel too bad. Hulkamania and the WWF were a phenomenon in the 80s. You had no choice as a kid
Haha, Me too. My wrestling fan uncle took me and we loved it.
yep, me too. i'd forgotten it before watching this vid though
Man this takes me back... i love that old saxophone that was in every opening of diff. shows back then... i liked harlem nights and ghostbusters 2 but i realize they arent oscar material... not supposed to be. Still i liked how these guys would critic a movie like its being compared to the godfather.... 80s ruled
Okay them saying I guess Woody Allen could come up with a better comedy about your daughter and having sexual thoughts REALLY didn’t age well
Three years later....
From a behind-the-scenes standpoint, true. But in all likelihood, that screenplay would have been gold.
Gene Siskel really blamed a 13 year old for selecting bad movies to star in. lol
That was hilarious and cruel at the same time. Blame the kid’s agent, not the kid.
@@MrsBlaileen1 exactly
thank you for keeping in the promos at the end
11:56 "And we'll also launch our annual attack... On sequels."
The subdued irony from these guys was at times world class!!!
Haha, fwiw, I'm not sure they were self-aware enough to get the irony, but thank you for pointing it out :)
Tom and Jerry.
I looked forward to S&E's worst of show all year. TY
I liked Ghostbusters 2, however I can also identify it as a let down compared to the original Ghostbusters.
There's no way they could match that super-hit, but they tried and I liked it. The only thing that fell flat was the gay joke about Vigo.
@@sandal_thong8631there is a way as Godfather proved
@@sandal_thong8631don't be such a prude why don't ya
I remember my family renting the wizard on vhs once when I was 8-9 years old and being utterly underwhelmed by it not because it was basically a 98 minute commercial for Nintendo Of America and its products but rather because it was just fucking boring.
Watching 98 minutes of actual vintage Nintendo commercials is more entertaining.
Yeah what a miscalculation...nobody--kids, parents, ad-men, gamers--cared about the hour-and-a-half preceding the footage of Mario 3. It's fine to make a 90-minute ad for a blockbuster NES game but it's no good making a boring crappy movie.
1989 was a whole different world than the utter shitshow of 2022.
I think it's awfully precious of Roger to snap back at Gene for being critical of Fred Savage's choices. *He* chose to single out Savage first by selecting "The Wizard" for this special program and then called him out by name, even though he didn't need to do so.
Ebert: "The Wizard" is a pile of pig refuse and Fred Savage shouldn't have associated himself with this project!
Siskel: Yes, and he was in another worthless movie this year called "Little Monsters".
Ebert: Leave Fred Savage alone! He's just a kid!
I haven't seen either, but to be fair, he did do The Princess Bride.
In the case of The Wizard, the crime of that movie was more that it was basically just a lot of product placement for Nintendo and Universal Studios.
I remember seeing the wizard in the theater walking right past the little mermaid to see it instead, but plot wise I couldn't tell you a thing about it anymore. I loved hearing Siskel saying Fred Savage can turn down lousy scripts, but should a child be expected to have the kind of refinement of taste to differentiate a terrible film from a better one? Honestly, this criticism is beyond absurd.
What I can imagine is a young Fred Savage and all of his young friends loved Nintendo games, got offered a chance to be in a movie all about Nintendo games, and was sold on it immediately, no questions asked.
@@nosilverharbinger I agree with your assessment 100%. I would have been quite happy to be in The Wizard, even as an extra. I was 9 in 1989.
To be fair, most child actors bemoan the fact they are treated like kids. Chris Columbus gets directing jobs JUST because he is good with child actors and most of them say he 'treats us like adults'-which may be just what they THINK adults are treated like. In this case I think Savage is old enough to take it for what its worth - look carefully at scripts, but lets be fair, actors ALWAYS routinely say that almost ALL the scripts they ever see are garbage. So name the movie needing a 12 year old boy that came out that year that he turned down. Because if he isn't even the star of the movie then its not like his name is going to get a movie made. So you take what you can get.
The UA-cam algorithm has clearly gained sentience
They actually called a film Old Gringo and thought that would sell?
The Old Gringo was Jane Fonda.
I don't know why they'd show that scene from Harlem Knights as though it's a stinker scene. That scene is hilarious even if one didn't like the movie. She's ragging on Red Fox because he left a swallow of orange juice in the container in the fridge at which point he says, then swallow it and shut the f**k up! And it's delivered hilariously. It's a scene that my sister, my father and I have randomly echoed from time to time over the years. That's a top tier hilarious moment.
In hindsight it's all the more funny in the context of Vera moving on to do that painfully corny touched by an angel sitcom... Whereas much of that audience doesn't know or is aware that Vera was pimpin hoes prior to doing some corny religious show.
I loved basically all these movies as a kid
Same ... Still do
Ahh Siskel and Ebert. Two amazing critics that never came off as being bought by any of the studios (Unlike critics of today) Always enjoyed the showed that came on Sunday afternoons.
Now that they are both gone, I no longer even watch reviewers in general, nothing compares to their dynamic. Even for written reviews, I might skim the rating but Ebert was the only one I'd sit and read his entire review. Sucks they are gone. But they did burn me one time, and I have to believe they were influenced or pushed in some way, and that movie is their glowing review of Under Siege: Dark Territory. I watched that due to their review and was totally flabbergasted they could give this slop an enthusiastic thumbs up. Totally out of character.
Yes!!! Critics today really do come off as shills. Just making commercials for the studios
I don't know too much but I feel like RLM fits that niche
@@jeehoonlee5150 I hope you can find an internet UA-cam reviewer you like or agree with a lot. I like www.youtube.com/@BeyondTheTrailer
@@jeehoonlee5150The Critical Drinker is the best, now.
Other films on Gene's list of the worst films of 1989 were "UHF" (the "Weird Al" picture that became a long-lasting cult classic on video after numbering itself among the films that helped to fuel bankruptcy for Orion Pictures) and the film version of Stephen King's "Pet Sematary" (which was the only other popular film on his print list and spawned a sequel in 1992). (SOURCE: Chicago Tribune, December 24, 1989)
“Cult classic” doesn’t always mean actually good.
@@RocStarr913 Actually "cult classic" usually means it was critically or universally panned when it's first released, but eventually picks up a growing audience through video tape or dvd (or streaming, nowadays). So most "cult" movies are in fact "bad" movies during their time.
I recall Ebert separately writing a bad review for UHF, but from what I can tell, didn't dislike it enough for a "worst of" list. I'm part of that cult, but sometimes with comedy you see a generational or cultural divide. One department where I worked a few years ago, quipping that movie was like our secret handshake, but I noticed that people born before and after a certain interval didn't seem to dig it so much.
Weird Al retaliated by including the lyric "Those Siskel and Ebert bums can just go home and sit on their thumbs" in his parody of U Can't Touch This called I Can't Watch This (from his Off The Deep End album). Guess he was a little bitter about that!
@@davidl570 Missed that one, but in all honesty I think critical reviews are negligible to the fate of vehicles like UHF. Your decision to watch it most likely hinged on how much you liked Weird Al. If you were a fan, you watched it, probably liked or loved it, and if he wasn't your cup of tea, you skipped it. I know I personally didn't read a review until about 10 years later, once online review archives were available.
Man i forgot how pretentious these dudes were, remember when they said star wars was a stinker then had to recant.
Not true. They loved the first 3 Star Wars films right off the bat. Ebert even liked The Phantom Menace,
There were movies the public liked and still liked years later that their reviews panned, but not those ones I think.
If they thought GB 2 was bad imagine if they’d seen the 2016 reboot...
Eh, I like it
GB2 is Citizen Kane compared to the 2016 Reboot.
@@sadboi7537 absolutely
GB 2 is a great film ... That reboot was shockingly horrible. They took a legendary franchise and turned it into a "look at us quirky girls" flick made for wine drunk 30 somethings.
I'm very forgiving of older films. I will commend GB2 for being ahead of it's time awful - they only make bad movies like that now. It paved the way for the awfulness we have now. Remember it made way less than 1/2 of the 1st film. Then again so did Back to the future 2&3 - which are nearly as good as the original.
I actually saw "Young Einstein", "Money Pit", and "Ghostbusters 2" in the theatre in 1989. Not sure what that says about me.
omg yes, Young Einstein was so bad
If Young Einstein wasn't produced, perhaps Mel Gibson would not have become as Anti-Semetic as he is today!
I was upset they substituted _Young Frankenstein_ for it the night I wanted to see it on campus. But not so much after hearing it was really bad.
Was "The Wizard" a good movie? No. Was it THAT bad? No, especially for the target audience.
The first two acts of the movie were pretty entertaining. It was a road/buddy movie but with kids. I thought all three child actors were pretty good...particularly Jenny Lewis as a streetwise teenager.
The third act was where it stopped being a movie and started being a commercial. It's like they bolted a shameless advertisement onto the end of a decent movie. It could have been a lot more subtle, but I know Nintendo only cared about pushing the game. And the game was brilliant!
When you click to see the best of the year and don't notice it is the worst of the year and see Brosnan talking to a pimp you are like "Hmm that was not that good." 😂
My Saturday mornings siskl and ebert
Harlem Nights was absolutely hilarious!!! Sometimes movie critics just don't have that certain sense of humor. As much as I always valued Siskel and Ebert's movie reviews and recommendations, I have to say Harlem Nights and Ghostbusters 2 really shouldn't be the worst. Eddie Murphy will never act that funny again, especially since he can't work off all the great comedians that have passed away. The Wizard movie was geared more towards young people and kids. I can't imagine what Siskel and Ebert would like about it, especially since I don't see them playing any ANY video games EVER!! TRON wasn't even a video game at first. The plot of a society living in the circuitry world and they had games in that world like that frisbee game but I couldn't believe they compared it to video games. TRON became a video game after it was a movie.
Sometimes Ebert and Siskel just miss the point - IIRC Ebert wanted to rate the original Death Race 2000 as a zero and seemed to miss the silly dark humour. Of course DR2000 went on to become possibly THE cult movie
Nope. No energy. Mosty just vulgar
I remember how fred savage was shown playing Double Dragon i believe and they showed a cut scene. Like he's controlling the cut scene 😆 i really thought what idiot directed this as a 12 year old
Surprised they mentioned Swayze's 'Next of Kin' but not 'Roadhouse'.
Road House at least has the advantage of camp value. It doesn't take itself seriously. Roger even kinda enjoyed it and came close to recommending it.
Next of Kin was terribler and much more boring- a dud- Road House may be objectively bad but also quite entertaining 😅with standouts from Kelly lynch and Sam Elliot.
MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS, DAD!
“ Gaadam that hurts doesn’t it”
@@donaldpaluga “If you’re gonna have a pet, keep it on a leash.”
I like how they dogged The Wizard but not Nintendo and actually said that there's a good movie possible involving video games in some way....but that that just wasn't it. These guys were super fair critics. Not film snobs at all. Siskel actually gave a positive review to Mortal Kombat and tried to convince Ebert (who was on the fence) to praise it more..
Eberts comment on She’s out of Control just made me spit out my coffee. Love these guys and miss them both.
Ebert, if you're reading this from above, I liked Ghostbusters II.
They got some hits wrong. Maybe a couple years after this they changed their minds.
Dang they were awfully hard on Harlem Nights, I thought it was entertaining.
jeebus clint eastwood was getting praise for his career longevity 25 years ago.
I'm surprised they didn't put in The Karate Kid Part III. Such a downgrade from the first 2.
Fred Savage was a child, give him a break.
Damn Siskel went hard on Fred Savage
Interestingly, through the fullment of time, here we are some 35 years later and nobody remembers any of those movies except for maybe Ghostbusters II. And we are STILL milking old IP's for every penny they're worth. In fact, few movies today are based on fresh ideas.
I think more are, but there is more money in streaming and television. Now tehre is SO much content out there its harder to find originality. Amazing that with three networks adn relatively few movies coming out they STILL found it h ard to be original.
They've got to take risks and risk failure. But at $30 million for a movie like John Wick, who's going to pony up the money?
Most of these I haven’t seen.
I like Ghostbusters 2 but hate Star Trek 5
Love the intro… doesn’t work anymore. “We’re so busy and important watching movies”
Siskel & Ebert, MacNeil & Lehrer, Click & Clack, Andy Rooney, Nightline with Ted Koppel....Nothing comparable today.
1:51 I don't hate many movies, but Harlem Nights is one of my least favorite movies. It has its moments, but overall- ick.
Its moments
@@Wellch Thank you.
true. the first 30 minutes was gold. then it drags its way with only 2 more funny scenes the rest of the way.
@@TariqBusy That's actually a decent assessment.
8:05 : Funny how that was Tony Danza's character in Who's the Boss also, always worried about Samantha getting hit on.
I remember a co-worker telling me way back in 1989 that Star Trek 5 was lousy. Still haven't seen it.
Lucky you.
Your co-worker was right.
the worst of the first cast
As a general rule, if you haven't already seen the original cast ST movies, just skip the odd numbered ones and see the evens.
@@75aces97 , you got it pegged!
My list of 1989
The Karate Kid Part 3, Little Monsters, and The Great Outdoors.
Karate kid 3 had Silver in it!
No way, The Great Outdoors had its laughs…I still quote it today
Got a new vcr? No, but I’d like one.
In contrast to ST 5, popular opinion on GB2 seems to have changed for the better - certainly after the very divisive Ghostbusters: Answer the Call ('16) was released.
I saw Ghostbusters II twice at the local drive during the summer of 1989 and enjoyed immensely both times. Sure, it has some flaws, but I have seen much worse squeals in my time. Also, I think that when GB2 first came out people forgot that many things changed in terms of the story (the cast had to do reshoots midway through filming, including a new ending from what Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis originally wrote) and due to Columbia Pictures having forced a really tight filming schedule on the cast and crew there was not much time to fine tune the movie before it opened. Heck the special effects team had to work around the clock literally to complete the effects on time.
A female Ghostbuster wasn't the problem. Having Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon as the main cast was.
Any movie is first and foremost the writing, end of story. Ghostbusters itself was very rushed, thats why the effects look so cheesy compared to other movies out at that time. To be honest I 'was in the room' when my wife watched 'answer the call' and it TRIED to put in far more jokes and be funnier than ANY other Ghostbusters movie. What they missed is that Ghostbusters wasn't actually a full on comedy, so people really got pissed when they messed with the characters. A lot of people especiallyin america tend to take characters more seriously than people.
That last Ghostbusters was not funny hardly at all, but got great reviews, in large part because it 'respected the characters' and 'respected the spirit of the original'. Actors themselves have no such respect, which is why Bill Murray agreed to get killed in ATC and why he WANTED to get killed in the Ghostbusters sequel. Some of that rubbed off in the sequel because people of course assumed Bill and Sigourney 'got together' and the in the sequel it was "oh no they didnt".
Thats an interesting way that the audience tried to control Hollywood, and its partly why virtually EVERY Hollywood movie has the exact same ending. There are a few standouts, I remember seeing "To live and die in LA" and one cop you think is the star gets killed at the very beginning, then the other cop partner who is in the whole movie gets killed at the end and thats always stuck in my mind becaues its SO rare, but its not like I watch every movie.
Ghostbusters II was successful and enjoyable, though maybe it couldn't match the excitement of the first movie.
I've been thinking about how Star Wars might have been different if all those little decisions were made differently, like if they hadn't killed Obi-Wan or they did kill Darth Vader (who didn't get a lot of screen time and wasn't that important). Then _The Empire Strikes Back_ wouldn't have needed Yoda, and there'd be no Darth Vader! Heck, maybe we wouldn't have gotten Billy Dee Williams, but Ricardo Montalban might have played Lando? Instead of being the greatest sequel of all time (until _Avengers: Endgame) it would have been a cluster and could have been the end of the series.
What a great retrospective stroll down memory lane. Very cool.
A lot was working against Shatner during the making of Star Trek V. The writer's strike, amateurs handling the special effects, the studio demanding that the film ran below two hours, there was plenty going on behind the scenes. Yes, William did come up with the crappy story but it's execution wasn't entirely his fault.
Film is all about story and shatner was terrible
@@stevejohnson1577 If movies were "all about story" they'd be audiobooks or slideshows of script pages.
@@flaccidusminimus2170 not saying all about story... but common, if there isnt, there better be something that hold interest. I love Star Trek, but most of their movies suck. Shatner's hairpiece is a better story than Star Trek 5
@@stevejohnson1577 There hasn't been a good Trek movie since The Undiscovered Country. The TNG movies sucked and the Kelvin universe films are bad Star Wars movies.
I fkng Love the Final Frontier. Yes its TERRIBLE but in a good way. Shatners hearr was in the right place.lol
Ebert: Ghostbusters 2 suffers from sequelitis. Hollywood: Hold my beer 🍺. We’re going to wreck the reputation of EVERY SINGLE MOVIE and EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER from ANY MOVIE that was well received and had an immense impact on movies in general with endless sequels that many, many people will never want to see.
Yeah, pretty depressing to see how many of these trends are still going as strong or stronger 30 years on.
Simple solution. Stop looking at box office receipts as a measure of quality. Stop going to the multiplex where the same superhero movie is playing in 22 of the 26 screens. Patronize a local indie film cinema house. There are plenty great studio driven indie-adjacent films out there to be seen. The more people go to them, the more will be made.
@@Hexon66ok, hippie
The last movie critics I actually respected.
I never respect any movie critic,it’s a useless job
Which critics have you followed since? And why dont you respect them?
@9:21 Woody Allen was too busy living it to write it.
Always a lot more fun to watch than their best of the year shows
Heathers came out in 89. At the time, I thought it was the best movie of the year.
I like ghostbusters 2 more
I love how ebert would put himself in the shoes of the target audience of a film and felt sorry for the fans of things that get put in movies