"This is a world where sex and love have less of a connection than sex and violence" Roger Ebert you magnificent beautiful man. I'm writing this quote down so I don't forget it.
i dont mean to be so offtopic but does someone know of a way to get back into an Instagram account?? I was dumb forgot my password. I would appreciate any tricks you can offer me
@@leonidasmarlon676 ur not gonna like this but the only advice i can give you in that regard is to never log back into it and perform esteemable actions for your own souls sake instead of the gratitude of others. Off topic too but u asked me so this is my answer brother lol.
Comparisons to 1993's Hollywood-manufactured Philadelphia is inevitable when analysing the thematic treatment. For me, this underrated Norman Rene film is way better 👍👍👍
@@kd17Burger Me too. I remember them giving Rocky 3 two thumbs down and thinking "these guys are idiots." I often disagree with them but still love watching them.
Siskel always thought of himself as a smart man, equal or smarter than Ebert. Not even close. His idea of a strong rebuttal was talking over and yelling at Ebert.
0:00 Intro 0:56 Bird on a Wire 👎🌟 4:49 Last exit to Brooklyn 👍🌟🌟🌟🌟 9:03 BTTF 3 👍🌟🌟🌟 12:44 Cadillac Man 👎🌟🌟 16:45 Longtime Companion 👍🌟🌟🌟🌟 20:22 The reviews
This episode is such a gammit of how they could both be entirely wrong on a movie then rebound and be entirely right, it's honestly amazing. Bird on a Wire they fail utterlly on, and they get Last Exit to Brooklyn and Longtime Companion perfectly right. BOAW is a underrated and fun romantic comedy/action flick of a bygone era and the other 2 are two excellent human saga dramas. What a week to pick something to watch lol. Ebert's criticism of Hawn's so dumb.. just because someone is a "tough," attorney doesn't mean they won't be scared in a life or death situation, not was her and Mel's chemistry awful. That's what makes the movie so fun, they get along well as a legit pairing. Time's aged the movie better than their reviews there. Then 4-5 minutes later Ebert has that poignant quote in the Brooklyn review about tone's not making a movie good, dude could say something utterly idiotic then rebound to being poignant in a heartbeat. Makes me lmao thinking about it. Siskel wasn't that smart but he had his moments too.
Very strange how they split on Back to the Future Parts 2 and 3. (Especially given that in many ways, they're the same long film.) I note that both of them will often attack a film's realism when they don't like it, and then turn around and praise the zaniness and originality of a film that makes no attempt to be realistic. Therefore, the idea of _realism_ is a red herring. The real question is whether or not you're susceptible to a film's conceit. If I recall correctly, Ebert relished the science-fictiony temporal mechanics of Part 2, whereas Siskel savoured the homespun nostalgiafest that is Part 3. I suppose one could reasonably deduce that the Chicago-born Siskel had fond boyhood memories of Hop-Along Cassidy matinées, whereas the hayseed Ebert probably used the movies as an escape from the mundanity of his small-town Illinois upbringing.
I don't think I was ever impressed with Back to the Future III. I thought they were reduced to doing a Western parody, and how often have we seen THAT?! But I enjoyed Back to the Future II more than I liked the first one. Which was still pretty good.
@@ricardocantoral7672 True. Also the minor shift in personalities when Doc Brown starts quoting Marty's own catchphrases, which was amusing. But the appearance of ZZTop immediately destroyed the illusion for me. And the Clint Eastwood joke was kinda pathetic - he did NOTHING worthy of having a ravine named after him. 😄
@@kali3665 Yeah, there is too much of the contemporary world influencing the film. That didn't bother me as a kid but now I see it as annoying. Still, I think it's refreshing to see a major film franchise bringing a curtain down instead of simply fizzling out.
@@ricardocantoral7672 I said years ago the biggest problem was that there should have been an extension of the time paradoxes created by Marty's initial visit to 1955. All are interrelated, but BTTF3 virtually forgets about that in favor of doing the western parody. Something else the franchise forgot. If you notice, each film *except the last* begins in 1985 -- but each a very DIFFERENT 1985, showing how much influence over the timestream Marty really had. I have this vision of the third film beginning when Marty confronts Evil Biff to find out when he got the sports almanac (during BTTF2 in the Evil 1985), and he runs to the roof to meet with Doc. But, before Doc can knock out Biff, someone shoots Doc and Marty dead. Evil Biff swirls to see Old Biff with the smoking gun, Old Biff: Get in the car, Butthead! Evil Biff: Who you calling Butthead! Old Biff: I said, get in the car, Tannen! We've got a lot of work to do. And THEN the movie begins proper, with an even more disastrous time paradox. That would have been very interesting if they had gone that route.
@@kali3665 This definitely comes down to personal preference. I thought a change in tone was needed after the dark, frantic BTTF 2. I think continuing that route would meant further reducing the presence of these characters to point where they are just blank slates. BTTF 3 definitely featured some miscalculations but at least there was a heart, there was human emotion front and center.
The first one is definitely far ahead of the sequels but I like the shifts in tone and the fact that series concluded with the characters moving on in life.
