Siskel and Ebert review 'Sunset'
http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/ebertandroeper/index2.html ?sec=6&subsec=sunset
shareEbert's closer to right.... although I wouldn't say it's a complete zero, there are some good scenes and Willis isn't all that bad. But it's pretty disappointing, and even Siskel admits that the ending is very dull. Saying that Willis/Garner are on the level of Newman/Redford is like saying that Emelio Estevez is as good as John Wayne.
But I bet if Ebert was reviewing it in 2008, he would give it four stars. He's really lost it.
Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'
Perhaps he has, but after surviving several bouts with cancer I'm sure most people would have a renewed sense of optimism toward life. Also keep in mind that Ebert himself has stated explicitly many times that star ratings are essentially worthless and he only uses them because his newspaper demands it; people should read the reviews instead. The quality of his writing hasn't declined any and he doesn't review the same wide range of films that he used to (because of his health) which largely accounts for the decline in negative reviews.
shareAre you implying John Wayne was a good actor or Estevez is a really, really, really, really bad one? lol. John Wayne was good at playing John Wayne and that was it.
This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.
Bullcrap. Disproof: Red River, The Searchers, Sands of Iwo Jima, and The Shootist. And he has very subtle moments in They were Expendable - underplayed - look at his eyes when he is in the bar dancing in the dark with the nurse.
shareRight. John Wayne was a great actor. The "only playing himself" BS is just something that's heard and repeated by people who aren't really familiar with his movies and probably have a misconception about his politics, which are irrelevant anyway.
"He is a very, very good actor in the most highbrow sense of the word."
--Katherine Hepburn (speaking of John Wayne)