I read that Michael J. Fox, when first diagnosed with Parkinsons Disease in 1991, thought his career would soon be over due to his health issues. Fox admitted just taking any work He could find.
Interesting to hear Gene talk about why Michael J. Fox took on this project. Now we know what was going on in Michael's head at this time period in his life when he took on terrible projects.
The Frighteners is a very underrated film IMO. Saw it opening weekend with my brother and we both loved it. No not all of the comedy works but it's a very entertaining and thrilling film that's well directed by Peter Jackson with a lot of wildly inventive and original camera work/cinematography. "A nonstop gorefest?" LOL really Roger? There's not much gore in it at all.
Because I have a thing for bringing something like this up, one of the most prominent examples of the Mandela Effect consists of people constantly conflating "Kazaam", a Shaquille O'Neal vehicle that Siskel and Ebert pan in this episode, with "Shazaam", a Sinbad vehicle that never even got greenlit by any studio executive.
I think "The Frighteners" deserves more credit than what was given in this episode. As a comedy, it wasn't funny at all, but the action was well-directed, the special effects were good for 1996, and Michael J. Fox is always likeable onscreen.
I quite like the Frighteners. It´s not great, but it is enjoyable as a fun little different horror. And since it became Fox last starring film role makes it even more interesting.
Frighteners was great when I was a kid. Now you got me wondering how much better the 2 Bonds after Goldeneye would have been if adults werent so uptight and douchey back then.
@@Hidihidihidiho I honestly feel that Goldeneye is overrated. Everything done in the film was done better in the 60's films. Tomorrow Never Dies was better.
@@ricardocantoral7672 I can see the appeal of the new tech in Tomorrow Never Dies, but it didn’t have Famke Janssen thigh-crushin dudes to death so I can’t possibly rate it higher than Goldeneye.
The Frighteners is a terrific movie and Siskel & Ebert were totally mistaken that it had no plot. But they were right that it was also a demo reel to get another job: The Lord of the Rings
Loved the classic movie the frightners at the time nobody never heard of Peter Jackson and his vision that's why the movie failed at the box office lol ha ha and turned this a cult classic for Halloween
The Frighteners was a mess of a movie, but an enjoyable mess. I particularly enjoyed the Jeffrey Combs character, which is the best part of the entire film.
I don't recall that first clip from Multiplicity as being in the theatrical cut(or any other I've seen) and the logo for the movie wasn't the gay-rainbow color.
Multiplicity was hilarious when it came out. You can't do it anymore, but the "slow" version of Keaton had me rolling. He puts a slice of pizza in his wallet I love that bit.
I seem to remember some TV spots for "The Frighteners" advertising it as a legit horror-thriller. I didn't think I could do a Michael J. Fox-centered horror movie. I finally saw it years later and was baffled at the slapstick-comedic moments. Now, I didn't think it was a great film or anything (it's ok), but I felt really annoyed that I had been a victim of false advertising all that time ago.
The Frightners is great, they are way off base here. You can argue it has structural/pacing issues, but every action scene is really great and everything is incredibly shot and acted and the SFX were amazing and still mostly hold up. It's what Peter Jackson worked on directly before starting Lord of the Rings trilogy, anyone who hasn't seen it should check it out. It was actually the very first DVD I ever owned because the movie is such a visual delight. Sure it is a little bit grotesque and cynical, but not anymore then a Tim Burton movie.
@@buckaroobanzai7063 well I don't even think it is particularly so, but that is what Roger and Gene are saying turned them off the picture. Yes, no real comparison with Meet the Feebles and Brain Dead when it comes to grossness and mean spirited lol.
Man Siskel and Ebert were harsh on The Frighteners, I almost wonder if they even saw the same film as others did. It's no masterpiece, but it is a good enough horror comedy.
There bugging frighteners is a classic they definitely missed on this they have no clue what there talking about! Basically if the movie wasn't 4 them they rated it bad that's not how it works it definitely was good at everything it did the story was awesome
Michael j fox did a really good job in his finale movie appearance in the frightners but the other movies really sucked multiplepacity and kazam but Shaquille o'neal cant act terrible lol ha ha
To say that Almodovar wished he could make a film like "Celestial Clockwork" has it all backwards. "CC" is a blatant ripoff (not without a few original touches) of Almodovar's 1980's films, but without the subversive streak. Almodovar was already moving into much deeper themes and terrain by the mid-90s.
@@hamupinhere you’re the real winner here! Super critical adults like Siskel and Ebert seemed so joyless back when I was a kid… probably something i should keep in mind now that I’m 25 years older than I was then…
