I found this site where Siskel and Ebert are together many years ago and I never realized how Gene Siskel was a bit off on some of his critiques.. He didn't even like Barfly! Too much violence?? Mickey's funny voice! Please..
http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/ebertandroeper/index2.html?sec=1&subsec=1175
[deleted]
I never liked the late Gene Siskel to be honest. Never understood why he was ever chosen for that job in the first place.
share[deleted]
Siskel was right that there's a lot of violence in the film. During the fights, Rourke is bleading out of his mouth profusely; when Wanda beats him up, he's bleeding just all over himself for the longest time; there's a knifing in the gut of a guy next door; that guy and his wife are at each other's throats for the entire film; in the chick fight scene, Alice Kriege gets a chunk of her hair ripped from her head...
But, I don't think that is too much violence. It's just a well depicted underworld.
I agree with Siskel on Rourke's voice. It doesn't ring true to me, and I too think he's over the top. However, Ebert recollected so many of the good aspects of the film, that it's obvious Siskel was wrong in writing off this film.
But I like Siskel, and always have. When Siskel & Ebert ran, I liked Siskel better than Ebert.
no i am db
Siskel was totally wrong on this film, and I'm glad Ebert reminded everyone of Gene's panning of "Apocalypse Now". He deserved that one.
HOWEVER, I will say that in this same year (1987 - a great year for great films) Gene correctly called out "Full Metal Jacket" as a masterpiece and gave Roger lots of flack for his thumbs-down while simultaneously praising "Benji the Hunted" on the same show.
So, I guess then they're "even", or something.
"There is no inner peace. There is only nervousness and death." - Fran Lebowitz
Don't forget Ebert's one star review of Blue Velvet because he couldn't tell the difference between the real Isabella Rossellini and the character she played.
shareYeah, as much as I enjoy reading Ebert's reviews he at times is too concerned with socio-political contexts in film - it is an important thing to notice, but it's another thing to be such an advocate. I don't know of anyone else who reviewed "Blue Velvet" in those same terms. Siskel did put Ebert in his place by actually having to explain that Isabella Rossellini is probably walking around somewhere just fine. It was almost wince-inducing to see on the show, as Ebert clearly felt he was being condescended to but didn't really have any real retort. I've heard criticisms of "Blue Velvet" before, but nothing quite so mind-bogglingly one-dimensional as Ebert's "platform" review.
Please nest your IMDB page, so you respond to the correct person.
He actually gave it a reassessment recently, but said his feelings still haven't changed.
share