Both takes on 'taxi zum klo' are very good. Really admirable that neither one of them have any squeamishness about reporting on an explicitly sexual gay film in 1980
I enjoyed Roger's take on Taps calling it a fantasy. When I saw Taps in 1982 I was already newly honorably discharged veteran, having completed my initial enlistment in the Army and was attending college that year in an ROTC Program to become an army officer. Not much at all of the film was realistic, from their junior ROTC ranks to their ability to secure both weapons and ammunition. Sure it was all a silly premise, but I focused on the acting and to see all these young guys and future superstars at the time Hutton, Cruise and Penn was just incredible. Esp. Tom Cruise' character. I still remember at the end when he let loose on the M60 and was like "its beautiful man". The ending was was sad. I thought it was a great movie, not a realistic movie but a great piece of fiction and as Roger stated a great fantasy.
Siskel was wrong even based on his other reviews. On many occasions he has ignored the logical inconsistencies of films that he enjoyed. This was a better performance from Hutton than Ordinary People, for which he was won an Oscar. It is also the film that began my dislike of Tom Cruise. He was actually good in this one...I just didn't like him.
I had the same problem with Taps that Gene Siskel did. I'm surprised that Gene's and Roger's perspectives seem reversed here. Usually it's Roger that attacks a movie for not being logical. This movie almost follows what Roger described as The Idiot Plot. A simple logical conversation (the kind Gene wanted to see) could resolve a lot of issues; or at least confront them. Instead, the local authority's Only response to the blockade by the students is to try to intimidate them by rolling in tanks and heavy armor. Sure. No negotiations. No dialogue. Timothy Hutton's cement-headed father shows up to talk to him, and of course he is a pigheaded moron who refuses to listen to Hutton, and physically assaults Hutton when his bullying fails to work. Again, not believable. George C. Scott's character gets killed in an idiotic way when a drunk "Townie" with an IQ of minus six jumps on his back, pulls Scott's gun out of its holster and kills another kid with it, then Scott gets the blame, which causes him to have a heart attack and die. Again, an idiotic event that wouldn't occur in real life, and if it did happen, could be resolved by one witness coming forward and telling what they saw. The entire film is composed of idiot moments like that, that result in tragedy, when a more logical and believable story could have evolved without these gimmicks forcing the movie down a contrived preordained path. This was a very frustrating film to watch, because contrived events and unbelievable actions and behavior kept getting in the way of a believable story that could have said something. The performances were all very good, which made this movie feel like a tremendous waste of potential.
A few observations from watching these videos (there are non-scientific observations, so please correct me if I'm wrong). 1. They agreed much more often than they disagreed. 2. Ebert tended to be the tougher critic, so when they disagreed, it was usually when Siskel liked a film and Ebert didn't. 3. Their disagreements tended to be more heated when Ebert liked a film and Siskel didn't.
I saw Taps after a 3 year enlistment in the Army and right before I started college ROTC to become a commissioned officer. I didn't take it seriously, I knew it was fantasy, so I enjoyed it from that perspective, plus it was great to see these new young actors basically starting their careers except for Tim Hutton who was already a star. I mean if you watch Alien, or the blob or Superman or whatever, you know you aren't watching reality but people enjoy horror or fantasy movies like Field of Dreams just the same. Oh and seeing a young Tom Cruise and how intense he was, like he is in all his movies after this one and that ending scene with him. I know it was nothing close to reality, but as a piece of art, I thoroughly enjoyed it 😀😀
They clued in that it was a very strange, very dark, very R-rated black comedy. Most critics expected it to be like THE BLUES BROTHERS or ANIMAL HOUSE and were pissed off that it was NOTHING like those films.
no memory at all of "Heartbeeps" but that might be the most normal Kaufman ever played. i personally do not get the praise showered on him by so many people, i have always found that weird guy that never goes out of character things tiresome. i disliked Robin Williams for decades for the same reason, and still dont care for Dana Carvey or Jim Carey. those people that cant just sit down and do a normal interview on a talk show.
![Lp. Последняя Реальность #107 РОДНОЙ ДОМ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IK3QKzKUlHM/mqdefault.jpg)
I really do appreciate you posting these old videos. I'm definitely a fan
Both takes on 'taxi zum klo' are very good.
Really admirable that neither one of them have any squeamishness about reporting on an explicitly sexual gay film in 1980
Ebert is SPOT ON with TAPS!
I enjoyed Roger's take on Taps calling it a fantasy. When I saw Taps in 1982 I was already newly honorably discharged veteran, having completed my initial enlistment in the Army and was attending college that year in an ROTC Program to become an army officer. Not much at all of the film was realistic, from their junior ROTC ranks to their ability to secure both weapons and ammunition. Sure it was all a silly premise, but I focused on the acting and to see all these young guys and future superstars at the time Hutton, Cruise and Penn was just incredible. Esp. Tom Cruise' character. I still remember at the end when he let loose on the M60 and was like "its beautiful man". The ending was was sad. I thought it was a great movie, not a realistic movie but a great piece of fiction and as Roger stated a great fantasy.
Heartbeeps was nominated for Best Makeup in 1981, the year the category was introduced.
The first of many for Stan Winston.
Watching this show every week as a ten year old turned me into a film-obsessed weirdo.
My late father called Taps one of the silliest movies he had ever seen. I actually like it.
Siskel was wrong even based on his other reviews.
On many occasions he has ignored the logical inconsistencies of films that he enjoyed.
This was a better performance from Hutton than Ordinary People, for which he was won an Oscar.
It is also the film that began my dislike of Tom Cruise. He was actually good in this one...I just didn't like him.
@@o.c.kiddkidd5163 Yup.
I loved this movie as a kid. As an adult I, like your father, realize how silly it is.
My late father, a vet, took me to see it in the theater. He said something similar. I still like it too.
Yeah Siskel got Taps wrong. It’s absolutely about kids getting swept up into something so much they disregard logic
I enjoyed Taps back then but I haven't seen it since 1981. It is the only one of these movies I have seen.
I had the same problem with Taps that Gene Siskel did. I'm surprised that Gene's and Roger's perspectives seem reversed here. Usually it's Roger that attacks a movie for not being logical. This movie almost follows what Roger described as The Idiot Plot. A simple logical conversation (the kind Gene wanted to see) could resolve a lot of issues; or at least confront them. Instead, the local authority's Only response to the blockade by the students is to try to intimidate them by rolling in tanks and heavy armor. Sure. No negotiations. No dialogue. Timothy Hutton's cement-headed father shows up to talk to him, and of course he is a pigheaded moron who refuses to listen to Hutton, and physically assaults Hutton when his bullying fails to work. Again, not believable. George C. Scott's character gets killed in an idiotic way when a drunk "Townie" with an IQ of minus six jumps on his back, pulls Scott's gun out of its holster and kills another kid with it, then Scott gets the blame, which causes him to have a heart attack and die. Again, an idiotic event that wouldn't occur in real life, and if it did happen, could be resolved by one witness coming forward and telling what they saw. The entire film is composed of idiot moments like that, that result in tragedy, when a more logical and believable story could have evolved without these gimmicks forcing the movie down a contrived preordained path.
This was a very frustrating film to watch, because contrived events and unbelievable actions and behavior kept getting in the way of a believable story that could have said something. The performances were all very good, which made this movie feel like a tremendous waste of potential.
Liking movies is better than not liking them.
Yes. I saw Taps at a local mall at the age of 13. I remember feeling exactly the way you do.
A few observations from watching these videos (there are non-scientific observations, so please correct me if I'm wrong).
1. They agreed much more often than they disagreed.
2. Ebert tended to be the tougher critic, so when they disagreed, it was usually when Siskel liked a film and Ebert didn't.
3. Their disagreements tended to be more heated when Ebert liked a film and Siskel didn't.
Taxi Zum Klo should be restored by Criterion. A great film.
Ebert was right that Siskel was injecting too many logical questions about this film. He protesteth too much.
I saw Taps after a 3 year enlistment in the Army and right before I started college ROTC to become a commissioned officer. I didn't take it seriously, I knew it was fantasy, so I enjoyed it from that perspective, plus it was great to see these new young actors basically starting their careers except for Tim Hutton who was already a star. I mean if you watch Alien, or the blob or Superman or whatever, you know you aren't watching reality but people enjoy horror or fantasy movies like Field of Dreams just the same. Oh and seeing a young Tom Cruise and how intense he was, like he is in all his movies after this one and that ending scene with him. I know it was nothing close to reality, but as a piece of art, I thoroughly enjoyed it 😀😀
Aykroyds characters’ name in Neighbors was Vic
when i was a kid i would watch heartbeeps on hbo and loved it. i alwys wanted to see taps but my parents wouldnt let me
Gene liked Neighbors?
Roger did, too. He gave it a good review.
They clued in that it was a very strange, very dark, very R-rated black comedy. Most critics expected it to be like THE BLUES BROTHERS or ANIMAL HOUSE and were pissed off that it was NOTHING like those films.
And that he can believe Lord of the Flies yet has an issue with Taps when he’s using the same logic to defend one and attack the other
Jerry Garcia's Guitar played Heartbeeps' Phil. Hey Now!
the jungle book and 101 dalmations were the best to my mind.
no memory at all of "Heartbeeps" but that might be the most normal Kaufman ever played. i personally do not get the praise showered on him by so many people, i have always found that weird guy that never goes out of character things tiresome. i disliked Robin Williams for decades for the same reason, and still dont care for Dana Carvey or Jim Carey. those people that cant just sit down and do a normal interview on a talk show.
He was truly unfunny
Very true, irritants
it was kind of a bland movie..not sure who the target audience was...
I dislike the manic "comics" too.
You either get Kaufman or you don't, just like Robin Williams, Dennis Miller, George Carlin, or any other comic. That's it, and that's all.
Taps had good actors but a preposterous plot that was an unnecessary tragedy particularly since it was cadets. It was too dramatic.
Heartbeeps looks awful lol
I Truly Hated Taps..It was pure Garbage and truly unbelievable! Made Zero Sense!