Gene Siskel & Roger Ebert are upset with the spy comedy and Bill Cosby vehicle known as "Leonard Part 6" This movie is "highly", "highly" hilarious Nothing belongs to me
That should be some sort of icon for horrible films -"so bad it pixellated Ebert's face" or, since it looks like a keffiyah scarf, "so bad it turned Ebert into Yasser Arafat". :) The only plus I can think of about "Leonard Part 6" is that I got a free promotional "spy camera" from the local Mac's convenience store. It fit around the old 110 film cassette (remember those?) and had a tiny flip-up viewfinder, shutter button (to take a photo), and a thumbwheel to wind and rewind the film. (You know the technology is ancient when your smartphone doesn't recognize the phrases I used above.)
Yeah, you can hear him laughing. Wouldn't you have loved to have seen Gene do the plot description? Well, he did that on the Worst of the year show so he got his chance.
This reminds me of the summer 92 when my dad bought a fancy RV and traveled up and down the West coast for two weeks. We watched this movie over and over. Leonard 6 brings back happy childhood memories.
I'll never forget the synopsis about this movie that I read on one of my cable movie channels. It only got one star out of four which obviously is the worst rating and the plot said: Not even Doctor Huxtable could cure this ailing vehicle for Bill Cosby as a spy who comes out of retirement to stop a madwoman. Spoken like the true word, clear and to the point! ~Dutch
I believe E.T. started it with Reese’s Pieces so Spielberg was at least responsible for the concept in a dignified way, not just the PG-13 rating itself for Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
How did they not point out that Cosby came up with the story? He and his agent didn't find this, he was the one who came up with it (although he didn't write the screenplay). Even the director said he told Cosby that his lines weren't funny.
Maybe they didn't know that or remember because they were too pissed off about it. Actually, I found out about that not too long ago when I looked on wikipedia about this garbage. And how do you know the director said what you said?
Ushers enforced patron etiquette. Now they don't even have the authority to and are only in theaters to clean up after the movie's over. When I worked at an AMC in 1990 we had to monitor a showing periodically. In fact, we had to remain in the theatre for the first 10 minutes of a show to make sure it didn't start off, and continue on, with an inappropriate moviegoer.
In fairness, even when he wasn't known as a serial rapist, no one ever cared for his cinematic career. He was clearly far better on TV and stand-up than in movies.
Coca-Cola sure has made a profit on Columbia Pictures Entertainment, Embassy and Merv Griffin Enterprises This was hilarious, but at the same time, I agree with Siskel & Ebert "what the hell was Cosby thinking?"
People like to bring up stuff like Plan 9 or Manos when talking about the "worst films ever," but at least those can be made fun of. Leonard Part 6 can't even provide that. There is no benefit whatsoever to watching it.
We can be glad that Gene was wrong in his prediction that "tons" of people would go to it; it was a box office disaster, earning back only about 1/6 of its budget. It opened in theatres on Dec. 18, 1987, and was gone from most of them by New Year's Eve.
This. Wikipedia has the numbers. "Leonard Part 6" made back 13% of its budget (that's with marketing included), "Ishtar" made back 27% (marketing not included). Here's something shocking: all told with filming and marketing this movie cost $30 million. Knowing that, I'm offended. Thing looks like it cost $20 and was shot on a weekend.
A question. At times bad movies are fun to watch. Plan 9 From Outer Space, Fair Game, Problem Child, Mac and Me. Is Leonard Part 6 that kind of movie, or will I be wasting my life if I watch it?
That's a great question, and I think the answer is to check it out for yourself; you may enjoy it, or you may be in league w/Siskel and Ebert (you never know until you try).
"How funny, the door is still there, how hilarious, how highly highly humorous" (Siskel laughs uncontrollably) Possibly my favourite Roger Ebert moment - RIP
Actually, I think it's the second most embarrassing part of his life, rather than the least. It was Leonard Part 6, then everything else. Then it became serial rape, Leonard Part 6, then everything else.
Seriously, was there any hard evidence for his conviction? I've only heard a lot of hearsay and verbal claims from witnesses--useless as evidence, and only complete idiots believe that women never lies about rape. And of course they can also go together in herds as well as all other people.
Seriously, was there any hard evidence for his conviction? I've only heard a lot of hearsay and verbal claims from witnesses--useless as evidence, and only complete idiots believe that women never lies about rape. And of course they can also get together in herds as well as all people.
Hee! And he's has a problem with Lisa bonet and Lenny Kravitz! And he's has a problem with Victoria Rowell dating a 80 year old man! It's like OK having a problem with Sydney dating Erik Menendez! The nerve of this hypocrite!
@@RustyMuck Coca-Cola did a great job in the 80's owning Columbia Pictures and Columbia Pictures Television as well as Norman Lear's Embassy Television and Merv Griffin Enterprises Coca=Cola was better at owning Columbia Pictures than SONY
@@JamesOhGoodie Yeah but even mentioning Plan 9 in the same context as Leonard Part 6 is a grave insult to the former. At least the former is bad in an *endearing* way.
The best thing about this movie is Siskel & Ebert’s ranting on just how bad a movie this really is. I’d rather watch Gene and Roger ranting about this movie than watch the movie itself anyway. Thanks fellas.
it's a shame to several stars totally wasted, gene hackman, christopher reeve, dustin hoffman, elaine may, joseph sargent (his film taking the pelham 123 was a classic), warren beatty, michael caine, very sad.
Sadly, there's no longer a clip that I can find online, but the Coke bottle scene is truly unbelievable. If anything, it's WORSE than how Ebert describes it.
I remember I was 13 when me and my dad saw this, he got up walked out and asked for a refund! They denied it of course, we sat there in pain watching it!
The problem with advertising keeps getting worse. But then there was that episode of the simpsons where they had the American Idol judges and they made fun of the Coca-Cola logo must be seen on the glasses at all times gimmick. Doesn't really make it much better that you acknowledge the corporate overlords.
Probably Roger's second-most classic review, topped only by the "hated, hated, hated.........." North. I wish Nostalgia Critic would trash this, since he already slammed Ghost Dad.
25 bucks on Amazon? Why? I feel they should either give copies away, or else bury every single hellborne copy in the desert like a huge cinematic guano pile.
