Easily. And while it’s sequel is one of the 90’s worst action movies and one of the worst sequels ever every time I watch the original it still blows me away. Excellent cinematography and stunts and it just moves so fast to keep you entertained and you’re never bored for a second even though some of it is ridiculous and makes you roll your eyes. But it’s a movie that respected its audience by giving them pure entertainment they wanted by paying admission. Unfortunately with a small exception of Willem Dafoe and a few excellent stunts the total reverse can be said about Speed 2.
I don’t know if this is meant to be a sarcastic comment or not because I know some people don’t like Keanu’s acting but the more I watch Speed I appreciate his performance more in that he is just a typical cop trying to keep his hostages and himself alive and doesn’t act like a macho Dirty Harry type except maybe at the end on the Subway train. If this isn’t a sarcastic comment I’m happy we agree. His performance at first to me was the weakest element of Speed but the more I watch him in it and see what a good guy he is in real life I think Keanu is great.
Very often, I don't agree with these fellas, but as a kid, I loved hearing them discuss something I loved so much: movies. I really enjoyed their company a lot. If I could call it that.
"The prettiest woman on board. There isn't a whole lot of competition. It's Sandra Bullock." Well that seems unnecessarily cruel to the other women on the bus Gene. 😂
Or Frank Costanza would put it in context: "Two months ago I saw a very provocative film on cable📺 it was called The Net (Sandy's 1995 thriller) with that girl from the bus." Best Seinfeld episode right there.
Their skill was in expressing their opinions. And the show was just an extension of their published reviews, meaning, they were professional writers. It's difficult to stand out in that field. That and their chemistry together was the key to their success. (There's a reason the era after Siskel's death is not nearly as fondly remembered.)
The Endless Summer 2 was not intended to be an instruction or history lesson on the evolution of surfing itself. I watched it dozens of times at home in the 90s while working many hours so I could quit my job and go travel the world to my heart's content, which I did for about 10 years. The movie was a big influence and motivator to keep that dream alive until it could become real. Sure it's a surf movie, but at least to me more of a celebration of taking a chance and heading out for unknown adventures and exotic destinations.
Well you also have to remember it was kind of something new where is the others were based on classic and somewhat known fairy tales this was also during the Disney Renaissance when they were a lot of really some of the best Disney movies ever made coming out so the scrutiny was a lot higher when they were fresh
0:00 Intro 0:47 Speed is simple nonstop fast-paced action delivers the goods. 👍 🌟🌟🌟 4:32 Endless Summer 2 is a movie that keep searching for the perfect wave pointlessly 👎🌟🌟 6:23 Lion King not as great as other animated films but enjoyable 👍🌟🌟🌟 10:13 In Current Release 10:25 City Slickers 2- searching treasures that went nowhere 👎🌟 12:52 Siskel interview Eddie Murphy Video pick of the week 18:03 (1992) Glengarry Glen Ross 19:40 The reviews
Love the Gene interview with Eddie, but I want more! I like how Gene can speak frankly, but not insultingly. I don't think you'd see an interview like that nowadays.
I completely agree with Siskel about The Lion King. It's such a shame that they don't let that second act play out more. I wanted to see more of Simba in the jungle and Scar's evil established more fully. As it stands, the second act feels rushed and the climactic showdown isn't as potent as it should be.
Siskel and Ebert had no idea how big this film was going to be. This is the pinnacle of the Disney Renaissance. This one would be the one that defined animated films and has been the measuring stick for which all animated films since have been judged just like Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs and also be one of the greatest animated films of all time.
Well, critically, The Lion King is not great. They made good critical points about it. The movie is charming and engaging and it caught a moment in the zeitgeist.
@@sha11235The pinnacle? I mean, no, it's alright but it's nowhere near as good as The Little Mermaid (better villain, much better protagonist and supporting characters, better comedy) or even Aladdin (Aladdin & Jasmine were blah but Genie, Iago and Carpet made up for it.) Heck I'd even put The Rescuers Down Under over this (Joanna was hilarious.) Musically, the Lion King's songs were good but lyrically they were pretty darn bland compared to previous movies. You could argue about the visuals I guess but animation quality alone can't carry a whole movie. The whole plot and moral that tries to revolve around responsibility vs. escapism is really weakly done, the comedy is weak, the romance is phoned in, the characters are all weak and forgettable except Scar.
speed is a great action film whats interesting about lion king is the different sequences, i like the comic relief involving zazu aside from Later in the film where simba meets timon and pumbaa but whats interesting is, the story is Mixed what the film couldve helped increase it, is increase the Length of the Love story to help Heal from the First half involving scar city slickers 2 is as entertaining as the first film but Both Movies tend to have their own types of Humor and what makes it good to the viewer for Both movies is the obvious character interaction
Speed was definitely the best movie on this show. Sure it has some moments that are corny and ridiculous but what makes it so great is the cinematography is some of the best I have ever seen in any film the attention to detail is magnificent and the stunts were also incredible and Reeves brings a lot of humanity to his role of a cop and a natural quality as well. Add in a fantastic villain by Hopper and a great female lead and it all works even if the story is just plain ridiculous it knew audiences just wanted entertainment and delivered plenty of it. City Slickers 2, on the other hand for me was unwatchable. Without Bruno Kirby I just felt it didn’t work, and the story was just uninteresting. The first movie worked because it was funny and insightful but the sequel was a desperate cash grab that had nothing going for it and audiences seemed to agree because the first film made over $100 million whereas the sequel didn’t even make $50. A completely unnecessary sequel only made to capitalize on the success of its far superior original and the original film was more than enough. Also Jon Lovitz wasted his talent in this and a month later in North which Roger infamously hated with a passion. 1994 was not his year. A very talented guy that can get some of the best laughs with the right material his performance in The Wedding Singer is so funny I feel I need to almost be hospitalized from laughing every time I see it. Sadly he has participated in some stinkers and is way too talented to do movies like the ones he did in 94.
So many upset comments from people who have trouble accepting that The Lion King is an overrated movie. It's an epic and entertaining film yes, but the film's central message is botched, because if Simba wasn't responsible for Mufasa's death, then his journey of taking responsibility and facing his past and problems is meaningless, since he ran away for absolutely nothing. As for comments saying that Siskel and Ebert having no idea that The Lion King would be successful, well I got news for ya, neither did Disney because the movie was a B list production. Disney paid more attention to Pocahontas than Lion King.
Yeah the comments have been surprising me as well... the only thing I can figure is a lot of these people watched it when they were *young* children and have it cemented in their minds as a classic on those grounds. Not just a kid, but specifically as a little kid. I could see a young kid being swept up in the animals, the nice animation and the unexpected death of Mufasa and stuff, but when I saw it as an older kid I was pretty underwhelmed. The comedy is nowhere near as good as the earlier Disney renaissance stuff, the characters are all forgettable except Scar (and even then... he's no Ursula), the romance subplot phoned in, and as you correctly point out the central theme of the film is really thin and illogically executed.
@@vigilante8374 I know people defended the movie because it’s about Simba taking responsibility for his kingdom when it’s thrust upon him. I can’t quibble with the message, but I don’t think there’s any reason for Simba to run away from his responsibilities as king since he’s not responsible for Mufasa’s death. You know the story that Disney didn’t have faith in the movie? I think it shows, and its reputation is primarily a nostalgia trip.
@@patrickshields5251 The general theme of running away vs. taking responsibility is fine and it could work out great in some other movie, but I don't see how it can be fixed in The Lion King. It's not just about what Simba did and didn't do.... the movie's universe and internal logic is just too damn silly. And sure, it's ok to have silly nonsense in a kid's film, but not as an integral part of the serious central theme. I think the Lion King supposedly began with a quasi-nature documentary tone before they started adding Shakespearean elements and it REALLY shows. Maybe this sounds like quibbling, I dunno, but um... what exactly are the king's responsibilities again? The hyenas are evil and/or overly destructive why exactly? Scar and Mufasa controlled all of this how exactly? The attempt to blend bits of ultra-simplified environmentalism with some sort of handwavy, medieval absolute monarchy just doesn't work. It didn't make any sense to me at 10 years old and it makes tremendously less sense now. At heart it's just *dumb* , and if you squinted and dumped ALL of that 'circle of life' nonsense to one side and tried to take it all super metaphorically the only thing you'd left with is a nakedly pro-classist / pro-racist / pro-monarchical universe. (To be clear, I'm not a conspiratorial w*** sort of person--I don't think that's what the movie actually reinforces; I just think that if you tried to be clever and sophisticated and completely ignore the idiotic ecology of the movie's universe you'd just be left with equally idiotic sociology.) Compare LK to the monarchies in The Little Mermaid or Aladdin-- by making the antagonists singular, magic and powerful, those movies' universes, internal logic and moral signposts are clear. But you can't do that in the LK's universe, so I don't think you could fix it without basically ditching the entire universe. (In other words: why the hell was Simba the only one who could stop Scar... and whence came Scar's power, anyway?)
I would imagine it was because it was one of the first times that someone had publicly challenged him on the relatively poor quality of his recent filmography. For a long time, Murphy I think had been surrounded by a whole group of people (friends, family, agents, managers) who did nothing but praise every single thing he did, as they weren't going to stop the goose laying golden eggs.
@@scottyunitedboy2925 S&E absolutely loved and adored Eddie Murphy as a talent and actor. They just didn't like a lot of the movies he was making. I am sure he knew that.
How did Siskel even get that interview? And yeah, having someone tell you to your face, even with tactfulness, that they didn't like your career choices can't be an easy feeling to mask.
I never surfed & I like ES2. It's about finding a dream & making it happen. Ebert is happy doing nothing but couch surfing, watching movies with a box of twinkies. Good for him he was able to earn a living at it.
Swing and a miss on Lion King from these guys ! Time is always the biggest and most important critic and boy oh boy did these two get Lion King wrong. Lion King became one of the most iconic animated films of all time that turned into a broadway play and a major box office success remake in 2019. Just like Unforgiven, Gladiator, The Professional, and Lion King - these two guys didn't always get it right.....
They didn't always get it right? What do you think a critic's job is? There is no "right" with movie reviews. Opinions are completely subjective. And they gave it "two thumbs up", their trademark seal of approval. They both agreed on recommending it. Not enough gushing and fawning over Lion King for you? If mass appeal and box office success (Lowest Common Denominator) are your criteria for "good" movies, and you'd prefer a show where critics from opposing newspapers correctly predict and agree upon which of those will be "good" enough to remake and rebrand and remarket, you not only have philistine taste but you simply don't understand the point of criticism or difference of opinion.
What you’re talking about is their opinions on films they have actually watched, which is subjective. My problem with them is how they joined right in with the Tipper Gore’s of the time, and protested Horror movies of the early 80s. They did an entire special show on it in which they speak about characters and films they hadn’t even seen, and state they would never see based on “women in peril” tropes. Roger’s opinion was especially dumbfounding, because he once was a major force in getting The Wild Bunch shown in more theaters, as well as championing the use of violence in more realistic ways. For how much they hated the rating system, and told parents it was up to them on what their kids see or not, they dropped all of it over slasher movies and a couple Christmas themed horrors.
The day my wife and I took our young daughters to take The Lion King we stopped to buy tires and I spent a lot more than I had planned. Then when the movie started the sound was W-A-A-A-Y too loud. The only interesting character that day was Scar. Upon further viewing years later I thought it was fine. But, to my ears anyways, young Simba was rather annoying.
I'm surprised Gene thinks Lion King isn't in the class of Beauty in the Beast or Little Mermaid. I always thought it was regarded as the best of the bunch (personally I've always had Aladdin as my top Disney flick of that era).
My review for these movies: Speed 👍🏻👍🏻⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ The Lion King 👍🏻👍🏻⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ Movies which I never see (includes one of them I'll never see) City Slickers 2 👎🏻👎🏻 Endless Sunmer 2 👎🏻👎🏻
Siskel said he watched 4 movies after watching kids in one afternoon. I imagine stuff starts to blend together and they definitely got a lot wrong. I blame oversaturation lol
