I remember seeing this episode 'live' as a child. And really wanted to see the Frankenstein Island move, which my brother and I oddly referred to for decades as the "well, my balloon just crashed" movie. And remember Gene's snuck in 'extra' review of "The Challenge", which I really badly wanted to see from the tv ads, and was not disappointed when it appeared on HBO the following year.
Blaxploitation went down when major studios tried to make the same movies just for the box office profits...killing the spirit. But at least sometimes they got good supporting roles in some movies, like Yaphet Kotto in Brubaker. In this specials Siskel and Ebert were always ahead of the times
As someone who freshly watched this one for the first time, straight after the first two, I have to agree with them, they did not miss the point at all. There's just a very big sudden tonal change on everything, from the plot to characters, etc. And it's still good, just not as much as the first two. It really did feel like we missed some beats of character development on how they got to where they are now in this film and how that changed them, and sure, the intro montage was an attempt at that, but it went by so quick, it was just a whiplash and at the end made me think "these are not the characters I got to know." How did Rocky get used to the fame and fortune after struggling with it in the second film, how did Adrian get so confident, and as they pointed it out, how did Apollo soften up so much? Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy his redemption of teaching Rocky and preparing for the fight, but again, this is not the character we left with at the end of the second film. Everyone here just became generic and cookie cutter, without their soul, without their personalities that made them who they are, in the environments they grew up in. And without that, we are just left with the same story beats of trying to beat someone and training for it.
I agree with S&E. The atmosphere is right and I like the fact that... SPOILER ...the opening murders are never solved. Other than that, the film feels like a feature length TV Show. Paul Newman was obviously looking for an easy payday.
When you look at the entire filmography of John Derek, his movies take on an entirely creepy subtext. They’re being too polite to this movie, which deserved a lot worse, but it was probably looked over because Bo Derek naked on screen.
Great point by Gene. Chris' acting was what made these films work. He was a FANTASTIC actor who took the work very seriously. Crazy to think about it, but he changed my life. Also Richard Donner was another genius.
I can appreciate the beauty of the cinematography and the landscapes, but it's hard to cope with the often cringe inducing acting, which unfortunately was typical of Australian movies of the time, and persists today.
Judas Priest... Gene Siskel likes this one better than Richard Donner's epic, precedent setting original? Cripe-A-Mighty, what a load of crap! The only thing more epic than Donner's genius, original Superman film is the TRAITOROUS, back-stabbing he endured at the hands of the viper producers, the Salkinds. They completely yanked this garbage sequel out from under Donner and took it over because they felt apparently they didn't need him anymore. What a bunch of vile, disgusting creeps! Even Margot Kidder AND Reeve were furious at these development and spoke out LOUDLY against the Salkinds, as well they should have. The Salkinds should RUE THE DAY they ever executed this massive injustice against Richard Donner. He deserved better, A LOT better.
Boy, living in those beginning of 80s, with all those disgusting exploitation slashers around, had to be very obnoxius, especially if you was a conservative middle-age person
As great as this review is for 'Superman,' it is unconscionable that both Siskel and Ebert would completely ignore praising this films director and true driving force, the inimitable Richard Donner!~ A glaring omission guys, hope you're both up there with Donner in the here after, peeling him grapes and affirming what an irreplaceable, critically important force he was behind the magic of 'Superman,' 1978.
So funny to see these guys destroying little grindhouse movies that were screened in drive-ins and not only big failed mainstream films, as they would do from the 80s
It's too bad Disney didn't take better care with this film, because according to both Siskel and Ebert, this could have been a good one. It's too bad, because who doesn't like Michael Crawford? Long before he was _The Phantom Of The Opera,_ he was the infectiously funny Cornelius in the wonderful _Hello Dolly._ He is very charming in the right roles.
I LOVE this film. I've seen it twice and it was even better the 2nd time around. Charles Durning was only in maybe 15 minutes of the film, but you could not take your eyes off him, and he richly deserved his Oscar® nomination for Best Supporting Actor. (His first of 2 consecutive ones, the 2nd in 1983 for the excellent remake of "To Be Or Not To Be" by Mel Brooks. Both Dolly and Burt were great in this, and who couldn't love Jim Nabors in it, playing a somewhat smarter version of Gomer Pyle here? Not to mention the great, dastardly performance of Dom DeLuise as the self-appointed 'muckraker' who gets the place closed-down. Burt Reynolds' punching him out at the end was SO satisfying. 😁 _The Best Little Whorehouse In Texas,_ is great, slapdash fun. I thoroughly recommend it. BTW, I can bet that Dolly sucked much more than Burt's face during the making of this movie. 😈😜
In his print review of "The Thing" Siskel gave it 2.5 out of 4 stars, the same rating Ebert gave it. That means he should have voted "No" on the show, as Ebert did. Siskel did this several times, to the point that Ebert called him out on it and reminded him that 2.5 out of 4 stars meant "No" or "thumbs-down".
This had many Modern Problems; namely the writers ran out of the building before the script was written. AND, the main house set looked claustrophobic and needlessly filled with garbage all over.
Soooo...if he "kinda liked" _Polyester,_ then Roger Ebert should have given it a "Yes" vote instead of voting "No" on it AND pronouncing it the Dog Of The Week. 🤷🏻♂️
