Siskel & Ebert Classics - 1/19/90 - Tremors, Internal Affairs 

Where he say that??

@@TobeyStarburst One of their guilty pleasure shows. "Tremors" was Ebert's guilty pleasure.

Well of course Tremors is better on tv. The jokes are dubbed, but with better delivering punch lines

I got to see it with two pals in an empty theater when I was in college. So much fun to enjoy it and enjoy it loudly. : )

He says it here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-FOyVVAlZjsE.html

That is a solid film. Enjoyed it immensely. One of Gere’s better roles.

@@dzanier For sure. And I love films that show the gritty underside of LA like Breathless and The Driver.

andy garcia is a great actor ! when a man loves a women, the man from elysium fields, jennifer 8, godfather 3, things to do in denver while your dead

That’s right Jay

Wait, you mean internal affairs was setting him up? There's nothing like that in the movie. When I get bored, I make up my own movie.

Hey @Renee Dennis - re: "he"(x3) = "Who" are you referring to ?!? No one can read your mind, nor read in-between the lines.

He's good at playing scumbags....and thats it.

gere is awesome, pretty woman, no mercy.. and his best role was Primal fear, also norton's first movie

siskel just gave away the ending lol

I always go back to it, although I find Gere creepy in all his films

It’s terrible

No, it’s a a clumsy and laughable film. Gere isn’t particularly convincing, and Garcia does little more than play up the whole ‘hot under the collar’ Latino angle. There’s some vivid cinematography of early ‘90s LA, but that’s about all there is that’s of any interest. You’re better off watching a few seasons of The Shield if corrupt policing interests you.

@@stoogefest16 I vehemently disagree. Gere was quite nasty at Peck, he was sort of a sick "alpha male" bent on protecting his family yet enjoying how he was antagonizing Garcia. As for Andy, what made his characterization so disturbing is that he had much in common with the villain. The connection between both parties gave the film an uncomfortable atmosphere of ugly feelings for all the right reasons. Of course it's not a perfect film. The biggest problem was that the corruption among Peck and the other officers seemed almost like an afterthought. I really wanted to know more about that criminal Peck worked with and his operation. Had Sidney Lumet direct the film, we would have got more of the crucial details. Anyway, I think Internal Affairs is a good film and it is carried by great performances. As for the cinematography, I do love it as well and it was from the same guy who shot Chinatown.

Are you talking about Garcia's character? How is Garcia's character reprehensible?

@@934ist Um, the volatile temper and slapping around his wife. Last and not least, the death of Dennis Peck.

@@ricardocantoral7672 having a volatile temper alone doesn't render one "reprehensible", and of course Garcia's character doesn't become violent until he has been psychologically tortured and physically beaten by Gere's character... Gere's character Peck had of course just held Garcia's wife hostage and lunged at Garcia with a knife before being killed... The film is hardly placing these characters on the same moral level. A most odd reading of the piece, to be sure.

@@jananilcolonoscopu4034 I suggest you go back and watch the film because it's made obvious in the film that Raymond had issues. When Ray thought his wife was cheating, he didn't just get upset, he smacked her in the face so hard, she fell down. He also didn't even apologize or even remotely regret hitting her. At the end of the film, he just kills Dennis because he hated him. Did Peck do worse overall in this film? Yeah but there were no heroes in this movie and I basically put these characters on the same level.

​@@ricardocantoral7672 Friend, there's no debate over the order of events in the film that I listed for you, and you can re-watch the film to confirm that I'm correct if you wish. Once again, Gere's character elaborately engineers situations that make it seem as if he's sleeping with Garcia's character's wife, and then brutally beats Garcia in a surprise attack in an elevator. Only immediately after this beating does Garcia confront his wife in a restaurant about whether she is having this affair, their mutual misunderstanding (also engineered by Peck) leading to the argument which culminates in Garcia striking his wife. What the film is telling you here is that Gere's character is successfully pushing Garcia's honest and upright cop character over the edge through his Hannibal Lecter-esque manipulation. The scene has weight because of the dramatic effect Gere's plans are having on Garcia's character. As for the ending, once again, Gere's character has JUST NOW mortally wounded Garcia's partner during an escape; he's broken into Garcia's character's house and is about to sexually assault his wife, when Garcia arrives and shoots Gere in the leg. Gere continues to lunge at Garcia with a knife, upon which point Garcia shoots him. Gere's character has committed suicide by cop here, but not for a minute does the film imply that these two characters are comparably reprehensible individuals. The fact that you seem emotionally wedded to this rather bizarre interpretation is very odd to me.

It's really a testimony to human stupidity that cutting movies was ever even invented, let alone how it became dominant. I'm afraid for the future because there are fewer and fewer genuinely intelligent people all the time. And sooner or later the few smart people wont' be able to keep the stupid people at bay and then the whole world will just go haywire.

@@canuck_gamer3359 The stupid people are still stretching their TV picture so any old show is distorted into widescreen to get rid of those "black bars."

Unless it is Gladiator or Apocalypse Now.

They didn’t explain that in the first movie.

siskel just gives away the ending lol

Siskel actually changed his mind about Tremors, two years later when they did a special on guilty pleasures and Ebert picked Tremors as his, and Siskel actually changed his opinion on Tremors and gave it a positive review

What do you the point of a film review is?

@@HkFinn83 to give your opinion, not discourage people from seeing and forming their own.

@@kenernestnation I think you’re misunderstanding what criticism is. It has one purpose. To lead you to see the film, or not. It’s not a form of entertainment in itself. It’s not an academic debate about the relative merits or demerits of a film. It’s a filter of quality, nothing more. If you find a particular critic so opposed to your tastes that their reviews are not valuable, don’t read/listen to them.

lol qq baby

Name a contemporary classic that they both disliked. And before you say something clueless like "Independence Day" be sure that it's widely revered as a true CLASSIC.

It was trash and goofy fun stupid. They were actually kind to it to be honest

@@knownpleasures nope, they were fools who could not appreciate a good movie.

@@mercuriocavaldi2208 just finished watching Tremors for the first time. The movie wasn’t exciting at all and I didn’t laugh once.

@@knownpleasures - re: "to be honest" Are you not "honest" all the time? Or only when using those meaningless words.

S&E did a lot more than criticize, they often brought little-known filmmakers national attention.

This may be the most mindless short-sighted opinion of movie critics I've ever heard, and the fact that you think youtube trailers are a substitute for critical analysis (whether or not you agree with that analysis) is yet another example of millennial short-attention-span stupidity.

Tremors isn't dumb at all. It's actually very smartly written.