Sleeping Beauty (1979) movie review - Sneak Previews with Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 чер 2019
- This is the original review of Sleeping Beauty by Siskel & Ebert on "Sneak Previews" in 1979. All of the segments pertaining to the movie have been included.
- Розваги
Gene criticizing Sleeping Beauty’s animation style is hilarious. Walt Disney pushed the animation standards so extremely high on Sleeping Beauty that the very next film, 101 Dalmatians, collapsed into a simpler style.
I can't believe Gene hated the animation for it. I actually rather liked it. It felt like they were trying to emulate that old school medieval French Gothic style and it felt like a huge tapestry telling its tale in vivid life. Plus I thought it was one of the darker Disney flicks of the late 50s early 60s. It really isn't as adolescent as one would think when they sit down to watch it. Heck, it's even ne of the first few Disney films to actually have blood in it.
Gene goes so comically hard on Sleeping Beauty that it almost makes me wonder if it didn’t traumatize him at an earlier time in his life and he was getting back at it as a mature ‘critic.’
Some people, believe it or not, hate vivid beauty, art, music, storytelling, & gripping suspence, but these guys?? I CANT GET THEM.
I remembered that this movie is on Disney plus and it's also in the program Once Upon a Studio.
I saw this film for the first time a few years back on Blu-ray. It's notable for being filmed in a very wide aspect ratio of 2.55:1, though many re-releases were presented in 2.20:1 or 2.35:1, presenting a much more cinematic experience compared to earlier Disney classics. But apparently wasn't even a factor here. It didn't impress Siskel and Ebert was a marginal recommendation. The film was actually quite an ambitious project for Disney, and they may have bitten off more than they could chew at the time. It's a good film, but I don't blame Siskel for disliking it.
Don't know the difference between those ratios.
Sleeping Beauty is the best-looking Disney film of all time. Siskel is absolutely nuts for thinking the animation was poor!
Gene would rather see Star Trek: The Motion Picture over Sleeping Beauty? Yeesh!
2:45 why he would say that its one of the classic disney movies of all time and I know that every theater back then show all the old movies in reissue for screening in the cinema
I'm grateful that you post these really old clips, but I feel like they would be more enjoyable if the thumbnail didn't contain the spoiler of what Gene and Roger thought of the films.
So sleeping beauty marks the 20th anniversary back in 1979
Although Gene makes a good point about this not being as good as some of the greatest Disney movies, his criticism is weak: the backgrounds are more flat? Really? Not that the heroine Aurora is a weaker character than Cinderella, or that the movie feels like a watered-down retread of Snow White?
Agree. The backgrounds were actually more detailed and the animators actually used medieval art for their research. Clearly, Gene didn't do his research.
@@patrickshields5251
I will say, Sleeping Beauty can't be seen unless you're watching the 70mm version, which is thankfully the one that is being used for releases nowadays.
@@TooCooFoYou I only have a pan and scan Laserdisc sadly. But I have seen the film in it's original widescreen form at my aunt's house.
Sleeping Beauty was Walt’s last animated masterpiece.
100% true.
That was the Jungle Book. Sleeping Beauty was the final fairy tale film during Walt’s life time
@@matthewhedrichjr.5445 I don’t think The Jungle Book is as good as Sleeping Beauty. And, Walt did not live to see The Jungle Book finished.
@@nickperkins8477 sleeping beauty would have been more depth if Aurora and her parents get fleshed out. Taylor Holmes was the miscasted choice which is much worse than Aurora having no personality and screen time to develop her role as a character, same goes for Queen Leah, who is just a Mary Sue with no personality and a lot more boring than Aurora herself. Goes to show why it’s overrated and the weakest Princess movie ever, while it’s still okay in its own right
@@matthewhedrichjr.5445 I’m not inclined to fault it, as you do, respectfully, for those features. The character sketches, even for supposedly major characters, hearken to a minimalist style often read in older fairytales.
This movie for some reason is regarded as one of Disney lesser films by movie critics. Okay maybe it's no Beauty & the Beast or The Little Mermaid but I still think it's a great movie & it's also underrated. It's one of my favorite movies from Disney. I like this movie a lot better than Cinderella personally. People often say Sleeping Beauty is boring but I find Cinderella boring personally. Sleeping Beauty is much more engaging than Cinderella IMO. I disagree with Siskel & Ebert that Cinderella is better than Sleeping Beauty.
I agreed with you. Aurora is one of my favorite Disney Princesses, and every time I see it, it's give me thrills, specially the climatic battle!!!
I kinda disagree as it could have been better if Aurora were to be active like other princess like Cinderella. I also would have like it if Taylor “Jack Ruby” Holmes turns down the role of King Stefan to have Hans Conried as King Stefan.
@@matthewhedrichjr.5445 I think when you realize that Sleeping Beauty focuses on the fairies & not Aurora, it becomes more enjoyable
@@arielanderic Also, Queen Leah does not get any focus either. Neither did the the Kings. Plus her voice sounds way off, same can apply to King Stefan who was voiced by the Jack Ruby of the voice cast himself, Taylor Holmes.
@@matthewhedrichjr.5445 I like that Sleeping Beauty doesn’t focus on the romance between Aurora & Phillip & focuses more on the fairies & Maleficent. By the time Disney got to Sleeping Beauty, the bland docile princess was becoming a cliche so I think having the movie not a focus on a character type that’s been overused by Disney was the way to go & plus Sleeping Beauty was more about the visuals & the soundtrack than the actual plot
This review pretty much sums up how Siskel and Ebert review animated movies. Siskel would be very critical of the movie while Ebert would say why he liked the movie and tell the audience to see it. I don’t think I’ve ever seen them review an animated movie where both of them have to give it a thumbs down.
Sleeping Beauty is one of the weaker entries in the classic line up (Snow White, Cinderella and especially Pinocchio are much better), but it's still a lovely film. Wish Aurora herself was more of a prominent character, I think that would have improved it drastically. But, the gorgeous animation is still there, the songs are great (Once Upon A Dream is just great) and it's memorable.
Aurora is on the passive side--she doesn't even make her own decision to touch the needle! But I liked the fairies, both the good ones and the villainess, and the lavish '50s look.
SLEEPING BEAUTY IS WONDERFUL YOU BITCH
In terms of main characters, it’s definitely lacking compared to the others, but I honestly think it’s the most visually interesting of the classics.
@@notcardlinsytaccount1355 I mean, who do you even regard as the main characters in Sleeping Beauty? Because the last time I watched the movie it suddenly dawned on me that Aurora and Prince Philip aren't the main characters _at all_ -- and watching the movie with the mindset that those two dullards _are_ the main characters is doing oneself _and the movie_ a grave disservice... No, the _real_ main characters of Sleeping Beauty are the Three Fairies, and the real conflict of the movie is the one between them and Maleficent, and as far as main characters go I have to say that all the fairies, both good and evil, are anything but lacking... The minor characters, however? They are sorely lacking. And unfortunately they just so happen to include both the title character and her lover boy. (It says a bit about the quality of the cast when Maleficent's pet raven is the 5th best character in the entire movie.)
@@GrahamChapman I actually like King Hubert for his humor and Prince Phillip for having no corrupting factors and does take an active role by defeating Maleficent and saving the whole kingdom while the fairies, despite being the main characters, can be a bit reckless in their care for Aurora, since both Flora and Merryweather can act like selfish jerks because they fought over the color of Aurora’s gown for weak reasons. Their bickering caused Diablo to expose their cover up and caused Aurora to be tricked by Maleficent. Here’s the thing: Aurora and Queen Leah both contributed very little to the plot and let’s be real, both King Stefan and Queen Leah weren’t really major characters nor they were fleshed out, as neither of them appear too much in the film. Aurora and Leah have very little screen time to develop their roles as characters, while King Stefan and King Hubert, despite being supportive, barely did anything heroic or admirable and can be extremely wrathful
Wow Gene 🙄
It’s funny how after Sleeping Beauty became the first Disney Film released on VHS it really moved up the rungs of popularity, from were it was in 1979
Snow White Pinocchio Dumbo Bambi Cinderella Alice in Wonderland Peter Pan Those 7 animated Disney films Were released by RKO Radio pictures While Lady And The Tramp Sleeping Beauty 101 Dalmatians The Sword In The Stone those 4 animated films was released by Buena Vista Distribution.
Lol😆 the only thing he could criticise, was the quote on quote “flat backgrounds” witch was a highly deliberate stylistic and artistic choice from the animators and disney at the time, so that can hardly count as a valid criticism. but more like his own taste!
Also what kind of criticism is “it is not as good as Bambi or Pinocchio” Strange you cant go see a film, because its is not as good as some other Disney movies. Im sorry, but I Can’t take this dude seriousley😂😂😂
Actually, Walt Disney’s Sleeping Beauty was released in 1959.
Ebert said that.
Naminski The 1979 in this video’s title refers to the 1979 re-release.
And by "original review", that means it was the first time it was reviewed on this show.
We know.
A "no" on Sleeping Beauty? Wow. Whatever.
No offense but while I do think it’s still decent in a way, I still consider it a little bit overrated probably because (not just with Aurora and Queen Leah being bland Mary Sues)Taylor Holmes (while not awful and was tolerable as the singing voice) was not a good casting choice as King Stefan because this all did more to destroy Hans Conried’s chance in becoming King Stefan and reuniting with Bill Thompson. No offense though but opinion tolerated on this film (neutral).
1979 was a 20th Anniversary rerelease of Sleeping Beauty.
Gene Siskel was drunk on this one~
Gene: "I think YOU are too easy on family entertainment films."
Roger: "And I think YOU are too hard."
Classic. Just classic. Chicago and the world misses film critics, like these two.
Gene's review is offensive to my sensibilities. I think the reason for his thumbs down is that Sleeping Beauty was the last time they would completely ink all the animation drawings, and the characters Aurora and Philip are realistic much like Snow White and the prince are and vice versa. Granted, it ended in ruin for Disney, but Sleeping Beauty is shown to be majestic and groundbreaking especially for me at 2 years old. The animation in Dumbo may not have been up to par with the others, but I can honestly that there is some realism in the circus animals aside from facial expressions.
What's wrong with Siskel? This and the other Disney classic animations are excellent. "Sleeping Beauty" is not as great as "Pinocchio" "Bambi" "Cinderella" and others, but it's still very well made. As Ebert says, the animators put much effort into even the smallest details.
I'm viewer 420 on this video :)
Sleeping Beauty is better than Bambi.
Absolutely. Bambi is boring
I prefer Beauty and the Beast or Swan Princess a lot better than Sleeping Beauty, which they miscasted Taylor Holmes in the role of King Stefan that should have rightfully belong to Hans Conried, Aurora did not have enough screen time to develop her character, and making Queen Leah a Mary Sue character with no personality and not enough lines. No offense but that’s my criticism towards this film that I still enjoy despite the problems.
@@matthewhedrichjr.5445 do you like The Little Mermaid?
@@arielanderic yes. I do. Back to Sleeping Beauty, Queen Leah is just a Mary Sue with no personality or character
@@matthewhedrichjr.5445 I know you have said that already. Do you like The Little Mermaid more than Sleeping Beauty?