This episode is actually their tribute to the New Hollywood movement, a period when a new generation of artists were given creative freedom. That explains how these films energized Siskel and Ebert earlier in their careers. Then Spielberg and Lucas has made Jaws, Star Wars, and Raiders of the Lost Ark and those movies led to the rise of the blockbusters. Even though they were never snobbish when it came to clever, well made popcorn movies, the crowd pleasers of the 80s and early 90s has done damaged to the Hollywood they once stood for. I think this episode seems to be a response to the then-recent indie/non-Hollywood films they have been praising during this period like One False Move.
For me, it is sometimes astonishing to see what was popular in the early 1970's. Klute for example is such a low key, borderline experimental film you would think it would have been one of those flops that never found an audience but it did and Jane Fonda won an Oscar for it! I guess 1971 was about a million years ago, LOL!
You raise good points but let's not forget that to a degree the New Hollywood directors sabotaged themselves. There is a fine line between creative freedom and self indulgence. At the end of the day, the studios that fund films are looking to turn a profit. It doesn't take too many pictures bombing like Sorcerer, Nickelodeon or Heaven's Gate to make the studios forget the success of the French Connection, Last Picture Show and Deer Hunter.
I just started watching (for the first time) it on HBO max. I've got it paused right at the very beginning right now. Decided to search for a siskel and every review of it and found this vid
Just saw it on the big screen at the beginning of September. Even after seeing it at least 30 times over the years, it was still a revelation to see it on the big screen. It's simply fantastic, a perfect film!
Their complaints about mainstream Hollywood may ring true today, but I think they would be surprised with the amount of great movies today. In the 90s, they embraced the independent film scene and their positive reviews have increased. And in Roger’s last few years in his life, he voted thumbs up to a wide variety of movies with abandon. By the mid 90s, movies have aligned to S&E’s taste.
@@patrickshields5251Maybe Ebert, but Siskel always seemed less hagiographic in his appraisals, if less intelligent. I respected that about him. Now, the same impulse is regarded by contemporary audiences as contrarianism. And that makes sense: in a world where everyone is a critic, nobody wants competition.
John Huston possibly had the best late career output of any other director in history. He did release some stinkers in that time but his highs in that era were as good, maybe even better, than his best Hollywood golden years.
This really was a Golden Age - internationally in the 60s and 70s, spilling into Hollywood in the 70s - they're speaking during the 90s, which in retrospect looks like a Silver Age where the trend of challenging movies resurfaced, tho more from indie filmmakers, but during this time Hollywood was distributing many of their films - either way, a much richer scene than what we've had for the last 2 decades or so -
“We’re disillusioned with most of the major Hollywood movies coming out these days. They lack daring & originality…” Imagine what they’d think about movies today 🤷♂️ They didn’t know how good they had it 94. It was a golden age compared to what we get today!
They probably wouldn’t be happy with what’s coming out of the major studios today, but I think they would prefer a large amount of smaller films being made today. A few years before Gene Siskel’s death, he embraced the indie film movement and his thumbs up reviews have slightly increased. And over 10 years before Roger Ebert’s death, he voted thumbs up to a wider variety of movies with abandon. His 3.5 to 4 star reviews have increased during that time.
Was just thinking the same thing but in retrospect, the 1990s are kind of other "silver era of films" with many classic animated, independent and great action/scifi classics before overuse of CGI fully tainted the genre. S&E, and we, didn't know how good we had it.
The early 1970s was a great era for male actors; a terrible time for women. I saw Mash when I was in high school and recoiled at the way the movie humiliated women. Very few good roles for women.
I'm sorry boys, but you're wrong. The early 70s was just the beginning of the last golden age. I say it went from 1970 to 2000. I think you guys are far too critical of the movies in the 1990s.
1970 to 2000? You have got be kidding me. I would say it's far more accurate to say 1935 to 1976. The 80's and 90's gave us great cinema but it was the minority.
@@ricardocantoral7672 I'm not kidding you. Weve got great classics from everyone, including old legends like Robert Redford, Sean Connery and Clint Eastwood. Going to the movies, you almost knew you were going to get another classic from Arnold, Mel, Bruce, Tom, Tom, Julia, Brad, Meg, Sandra, Bobby, Al, Steve, etc. Almost every movie to win Best Picture is a timeless classic that people love to watch over and over. You have The Godfather, sure. But you have Rocky in 76, Star Wars in 77, Annie Hall in 77, The Deer Hunter in 78, Halloween in 78, Superman in 78, Animal House in 78, Kramer vs Kramer in 79, Apocalypse Now in 79, Alien in 79, Raging Bull in 1980, The Empire Strikes Back in 1980, Airplane in 1980, Indiana Jones in 81, The Road Warrior in 81, ET in 82, Blade Runner in 82, The Shining in 82, Star Trek II, Terms of Endearment in 83, A Christmas Story in 83, Amadeus in 84, The Terminator in 84, Ghostbusters in 84, The Karate Kid in 84, Back To The Future in 85, Aliens in 86, Platoon in 86, The Untouchables in 87, Predator in 87, Lethal Weapon in 87, Full Metal Jacket in 87, Planes, Trains and Automobiles in 87, Roxanne in 87, Rain Man in 88, Die Hard in 88, Who Framed Roger Rabbit in 88, Beetlejuice in 88, Field of Dreams in 89, Glory in 89, When Harry Met Sally in 89, The Little Mermaid in 89, Dances With Wolves in 1990, Goodfellas in 90, Hamlet in 1990, Pretty Woman in 1990, Home Alone in 1990, Terminator 2 in 91, Silence of the Lambs in 91, Backdraft in 91, Beauty and The Beast in 91, Unforgiven in 92, A Few Good Men in 92, Aladdin in 92, Jurassic Park in 93, Schindler's List in 93, Tombstone in 93, Sleepless in Seattle in 93, Forrest Gump in 94, Pulp Fiction in 94, Shawshank Redemption in 94, True Lies in 94, The Lion King in 94, Braveheart in 95, Apollo 13 in 95, Heat in 95, Die Hard With A Vengeance in 95, Crimson Tide in 95, Jerry Maguire in 96, Fargo in 96, Se7en in 96, Star Trek: First Contact, LA Confidential in 97, Good Will Hunting in 97, As Good As It Gets in 97, Saving Private Ryan in 98, Shakespeare in Love in 98, Youve Got Mail in 98, American Beauty in 99, The Green Mile in 99, The Sixth Sense in 99, The Cider House Rules in 99, The Matrix in 99, Fight Club in 99, Notting Hill in 99, Gladiator in 2000, Cast Away in 2000, Erin Brockovich in 2000, Almost Famous in 2000, What Women Want in 2000, etc, etc. That's just to list a few. Titanic is the new Gone With The Wind and Casablanca. What more proof do you need?? Between 35 and 76?? You mean movies like Marty, Cleopatra, What A Way to Go are all better movies than the movies I just listed???
@@LukeLovesRose You mentioned a few great movies but a great deal of what you stated is safe and commerical.Not terrible but hardly great cinema. Aladdin? Star Wars? Star Trek First Contact? The Road Warrior? Die Hard? C'mon man, those are weak picks if you are going to make the claim that your selections are golden era.That's nothing compared to the heights of Alfred Hitchcock, John Ford, Howard Hawks, John Casavettes, Orson Welles, Nicholas Ray, Elia Kazan, and Frank Capra. Hell, Charles Laughton's sole directorial effort easily beats a good deal of your selections.
@@ricardocantoral7672 Safe?? Or successful? When your movie is truly great and timeless like Gone With The Wind, Casablanca, Citizen Kane or The Wizard of Oz, you are so caught up in the stories and characters, you can easily take for granted who is responsible for said movie, for that experience. I think film fans like you need to take off the nostalgia glasses.
i personally think there may have been more low quality movies in the 90s because you had vhs and more tv channels while in the 1970s those just wouldn't be made at all
Depends on what you’re watching for. If - to Ebert’s point - one watches for a “canned plot outline”, then you’re probably right. But “Streets” isn’t about that. It’s a character study.
Exactly. This was an era when directors were more important than the studios. Then came Jaws and Star Wars and although they are great movies, they inadvertently ruined everything. That’s why Siskel and Ebert considered the 80s to be Hollywood’s worst decade.
@Patrick Shields I also think that studios gave filmmakers more free reign in the 70's, whereas the studios took back control in the 80's. For example, Chinatown could have only been made in the 70's. Any other era, the studios would have made them rewrite the ending.
@@johnfitzpatrick3094 Yes, the 80s was the era for studio driven films. That why Siskel and Ebert were frustrated with the rise of the summer blockbusters.
Excuse me...the CHARACTERS are misogynistic NOT the movie. It's critical of men's point of view, not validating. The final scene is tragic. The only way he can get it up at that point is by over the top exaggerated ego stroking. It's so sad. The condition of men and the dead end they're headed to is the subject. What's misunderstood nowadays is any connection to human flaws. A flawed character is somehow twisted into a celebration of that character. NO! The film is not misogynist! It's ABOUT one misogynist and his friend.
@@lagilbert67 Thank you. What you mentioned was not unlike the reaction to The Wolf of Wall Street. Everyone kept complaining that it was celebrating Jordan Belfort and condoning his crimes. Scorsese was clearly making fun of Belfort's appalling greed. There isn't a minute of that film that venerates Jordan.
They mentioned how by the 90s movies had become "products." Now they are not even products, just "content."
This episode is actually their tribute to the New Hollywood movement, a period when a new generation of artists were given creative freedom. That explains how these films energized Siskel and Ebert earlier in their careers. Then Spielberg and Lucas has made Jaws, Star Wars, and Raiders of the Lost Ark and those movies led to the rise of the blockbusters. Even though they were never snobbish when it came to clever, well made popcorn movies, the crowd pleasers of the 80s and early 90s has done damaged to the Hollywood they once stood for. I think this episode seems to be a response to the then-recent indie/non-Hollywood films they have been praising during this period like One False Move.
For me, it is sometimes astonishing to see what was popular in the early 1970's. Klute for example is such a low key, borderline experimental film you would think it would have been one of those flops that never found an audience but it did and Jane Fonda won an Oscar for it! I guess 1971 was about a million years ago, LOL!
You raise good points but let's not forget that to a degree the New Hollywood directors sabotaged themselves. There is a fine line between creative freedom and self indulgence. At the end of the day, the studios that fund films are looking to turn a profit. It doesn't take too many pictures bombing like Sorcerer, Nickelodeon or Heaven's Gate to make the studios forget the success of the French Connection, Last Picture Show and Deer Hunter.
Chinatown is a masterpiece
I enjoy that movie because jack Nicholson in it. 👍🌟🌟🌟🌟
Jack Nicholson isn't the only good thing about Chinatown.
I just started watching (for the first time) it on HBO max. I've got it paused right at the very beginning right now. Decided to search for a siskel and every review of it and found this vid
I am reading a book on Chinatown and it took writer Robert Towne five years to get it right. It went through many different versions.
Just saw it on the big screen at the beginning of September. Even after seeing it at least 30 times over the years, it was still a revelation to see it on the big screen. It's simply fantastic, a perfect film!
30 years on and S&E’s observations/complaints about Hollywood are not only still relevant, but things have gotten *worse* .
They weren't wrong but they didn't know how good they had it.
Their complaints about mainstream Hollywood may ring true today, but I think they would be surprised with the amount of great movies today. In the 90s, they embraced the independent film scene and their positive reviews have increased. And in Roger’s last few years in his life, he voted thumbs up to a wide variety of movies with abandon. By the mid 90s, movies have aligned to S&E’s taste.
@@patrickshields5251Maybe Ebert, but Siskel always seemed less hagiographic in his appraisals, if less intelligent. I respected that about him. Now, the same impulse is regarded by contemporary audiences as contrarianism. And that makes sense: in a world where everyone is a critic, nobody wants competition.
@@spb7883 Oh yes, Gene had his own way of addressing movies and doesn’t cave in to the popular consensus.
love China town what a classic film noir movie
Chinatown falls under the category of Neo Noir.
Thank you for posting this- what an amazing collection of films
John Huston possibly had the best late career output of any other director in history. He did release some stinkers in that time but his highs in that era were as good, maybe even better, than his best Hollywood golden years.
It's crazy to think that if we went back 20 years from now it would be 2002. Seems like yesterday
This really was a Golden Age - internationally in the 60s and 70s, spilling into Hollywood in the 70s - they're speaking during the 90s, which in retrospect looks like a Silver Age where the trend of challenging movies resurfaced, tho more from indie filmmakers, but during this time Hollywood was distributing many of their films - either way, a much richer scene than what we've had for the last 2 decades or so -
I enjoy Cabaret, Sounder, Chinatown & The Godfather.
“We’re disillusioned with most of the major Hollywood movies coming out these days. They lack daring & originality…”
Imagine what they’d think about movies today 🤷♂️
They didn’t know how good they had it 94. It was a golden age compared to what we get today!
To borrow a line from Hannah and Her Sisters: "They'd never stop throwing up."
They probably wouldn’t be happy with what’s coming out of the major studios today, but I think they would prefer a large amount of smaller films being made today. A few years before Gene Siskel’s death, he embraced the indie film movement and his thumbs up reviews have slightly increased. And over 10 years before Roger Ebert’s death, he voted thumbs up to a wider variety of movies with abandon. His 3.5 to 4 star reviews have increased during that time.
It makes me sad that we are nearly thirty years on from this episode and the early 70s is STILL the last golden era of American film.
Was just thinking the same thing but in retrospect, the 1990s are kind of other "silver era of films" with many classic animated, independent and great action/scifi classics before overuse of CGI fully tainted the genre. S&E, and we, didn't know how good we had it.
@@chonconnor6144 I think from their POV the nineties looked poor compared to the 70s. From 2024, the 90s looks awesome.
Cracks me up the notion of a flick like 5 Easy Pieces coming out today. Social Media would lose their shit over the ending,
The Last Picture Show and The Last Detail were made in the last Golden Era of American moviemaking.
It’s unbelievable that a generation later, “Mean Streets” is now *underrated* . Thank a generation raised on DiCaprio.
Have you got any more Siskel and Ebert Special Editions episodes?
Can't find any more episodes
@@Jbaxter85 aww darn it, many thanks mate
@@dragondaveltd1992
Your welcome & I am sorry
@@dragondaveltd1992
The content of videos are protected which I cannot upload them.
@@sha11235 You know this would have been on DVD and Blu-Ray Disc (despite all films were copyright by entire Hollywood companies)
Imagine them saying this about the time when pulp fiction, Shawshank redemption and Forrest Gump were in the theaters.
I wish whoever originally recorded this did so with the volume higher. I am having an extremely difficult time hearing the volume.
Obviously this was recorded before 1999.
The early 70s, 50 years ago,.. America was a different country.
I’m sorry but I love Towering Inferno. It deserves the Best Picture nomination.
I thought Siskel didnt like Chinatown. He was wrong.
This was from 1993 actually, not 1994.
Great episode. The Last Goodbye was released in 1973 not 1972 though.
The Long Goodbye
Yeah, it was 1973, but a great film nonetheless. One of my faves from that era.
well they didn't have the internet to easily look that up back then so its forgivable
It's 2023 and nothing has changed, in fact things are woke, I mean worse...
The early 1970s was a great era for male actors; a terrible time for women. I saw Mash when I was in high school and recoiled at the way the movie humiliated women. Very few good roles for women.
Martin Scorsese's first film Whose That Knocking At My Door is far superior to Mean Streets.
I'm sorry boys, but you're wrong. The early 70s was just the beginning of the last golden age. I say it went from 1970 to 2000. I think you guys are far too critical of the movies in the 1990s.
1970 to 2000? You have got be kidding me. I would say it's far more accurate to say 1935 to 1976. The 80's and 90's gave us great cinema but it was the minority.
@@ricardocantoral7672 I'm not kidding you. Weve got great classics from everyone, including old legends like Robert Redford, Sean Connery and Clint Eastwood. Going to the movies, you almost knew you were going to get another classic from Arnold, Mel, Bruce, Tom, Tom, Julia, Brad, Meg, Sandra, Bobby, Al, Steve, etc. Almost every movie to win Best Picture is a timeless classic that people love to watch over and over. You have The Godfather, sure. But you have Rocky in 76, Star Wars in 77, Annie Hall in 77, The Deer Hunter in 78, Halloween in 78, Superman in 78, Animal House in 78, Kramer vs Kramer in 79, Apocalypse Now in 79, Alien in 79, Raging Bull in 1980, The Empire Strikes Back in 1980, Airplane in 1980, Indiana Jones in 81, The Road Warrior in 81, ET in 82, Blade Runner in 82, The Shining in 82, Star Trek II, Terms of Endearment in 83, A Christmas Story in 83, Amadeus in 84, The Terminator in 84, Ghostbusters in 84, The Karate Kid in 84, Back To The Future in 85, Aliens in 86, Platoon in 86, The Untouchables in 87, Predator in 87, Lethal Weapon in 87, Full Metal Jacket in 87, Planes, Trains and Automobiles in 87, Roxanne in 87, Rain Man in 88, Die Hard in 88, Who Framed Roger Rabbit in 88, Beetlejuice in 88, Field of Dreams in 89, Glory in 89, When Harry Met Sally in 89, The Little Mermaid in 89, Dances With Wolves in 1990, Goodfellas in 90, Hamlet in 1990, Pretty Woman in 1990, Home Alone in 1990, Terminator 2 in 91, Silence of the Lambs in 91, Backdraft in 91, Beauty and The Beast in 91, Unforgiven in 92, A Few Good Men in 92, Aladdin in 92, Jurassic Park in 93, Schindler's List in 93, Tombstone in 93, Sleepless in Seattle in 93, Forrest Gump in 94, Pulp Fiction in 94, Shawshank Redemption in 94, True Lies in 94, The Lion King in 94, Braveheart in 95, Apollo 13 in 95, Heat in 95, Die Hard With A Vengeance in 95, Crimson Tide in 95, Jerry Maguire in 96, Fargo in 96, Se7en in 96, Star Trek: First Contact, LA Confidential in 97, Good Will Hunting in 97, As Good As It Gets in 97, Saving Private Ryan in 98, Shakespeare in Love in 98, Youve Got Mail in 98, American Beauty in 99, The Green Mile in 99, The Sixth Sense in 99, The Cider House Rules in 99, The Matrix in 99, Fight Club in 99, Notting Hill in 99, Gladiator in 2000, Cast Away in 2000, Erin Brockovich in 2000, Almost Famous in 2000, What Women Want in 2000, etc, etc. That's just to list a few. Titanic is the new Gone With The Wind and Casablanca. What more proof do you need??
Between 35 and 76?? You mean movies like Marty, Cleopatra, What A Way to Go are all better movies than the movies I just listed???
@@LukeLovesRose
You mentioned a few great movies but a great deal of what you stated is safe and commerical.Not terrible but hardly great cinema. Aladdin? Star Wars? Star Trek First Contact? The Road Warrior? Die Hard? C'mon man, those are weak picks if you are going to make the claim that your selections are golden era.That's nothing compared to the heights of Alfred Hitchcock, John Ford, Howard Hawks, John Casavettes, Orson Welles, Nicholas Ray, Elia Kazan, and Frank Capra. Hell, Charles Laughton's sole directorial effort easily beats a good deal of your selections.
@@ricardocantoral7672 Safe?? Or successful? When your movie is truly great and timeless like Gone With The Wind, Casablanca, Citizen Kane or The Wizard of Oz, you are so caught up in the stories and characters, you can easily take for granted who is responsible for said movie, for that experience.
I think film fans like you need to take off the nostalgia glasses.
i personally think there may have been more low quality movies in the 90s because you had vhs and more tv channels while in the 1970s those just wouldn't be made at all
Mean Streets is unwatchable.
Depends on what you’re watching for. If - to Ebert’s point - one watches for a “canned plot outline”, then you’re probably right. But “Streets” isn’t about that. It’s a character study.
Mash is atrocious. I can't believe Siskel and Ebert both liked it.
The 1970's. When the inmates took over the insane asylum.
Exactly. This was an era when directors were more important than the studios. Then came Jaws and Star Wars and although they are great movies, they inadvertently ruined everything. That’s why Siskel and Ebert considered the 80s to be Hollywood’s worst decade.
@@patrickshields5251 It's all about money.
@@johnfitzpatrick3094 That’s the 80s for ya.
@Patrick Shields I also think that studios gave filmmakers more free reign in the 70's, whereas the studios took back control in the 80's. For example, Chinatown could have only been made in the 70's. Any other era, the studios would have made them rewrite the ending.
@@johnfitzpatrick3094 Yes, the 80s was the era for studio driven films. That why Siskel and Ebert were frustrated with the rise of the summer blockbusters.
Carnal Knowledge is well done but misonynistic.
Nobody cares.
Excuse me...the CHARACTERS are misogynistic NOT the movie.
It's critical of men's point of view, not validating. The final scene is tragic. The only way he can get it up at that point is by over the top exaggerated ego stroking. It's so sad. The condition of men and the dead end they're headed to is the subject.
What's misunderstood nowadays is any connection to human flaws. A flawed character is somehow twisted into a celebration of that character. NO! The film is not misogynist! It's ABOUT one misogynist and his friend.
@@lagilbert67 Thank you. What you mentioned was not unlike the reaction to The Wolf of Wall Street. Everyone kept complaining that it was celebrating Jordan Belfort and condoning his crimes. Scorsese was clearly making fun of Belfort's appalling greed. There isn't a minute of that film that venerates Jordan.
Ann-Margret and Jack have some of the best scenes ever put on film. This film is a standalone classic.
That's what it's about