Watching Siskel and Ebert 30-40 years later is quite fascinating, as they were around when films seemed to be held to much higher standards than today.
I love when Siskel and Ebert disagreed and argued. Some times I agreed with one, some times the other, but their passion and insights always made it fun to watch. Often they both had good points, even if their opinions differed. I miss these guys. No one has really taken their place.
The best review I ever saw was theirs of red sonya. They are almost slap happy barely getting through it without laughing. I mean they have Been off the mark many times or like something awful. Siskel could never get over ebert loving cop & a half lol.
So true. This kind of kind of spirited but intelligent back and forth is lacking today. Argument not to be mean to the other person but because they're both passionate about what they do and see.
god I miss this show. two deeply intelligent and experienced individuals, well versed in their craft, having a cogent and civil argument sparring with each other without any guff and without taking any offense. they push each other without their language becoming personal. such a brilliant series.
A great film is one in which you can watch it again and again and it still entertains. Wall Street is a great film. And Michael Douglas is superb in this film. Siskel was dead wrong.
@@buddieadkins7808 cause back in the day if it got two thumbs up it would be in every ad for a movie or poster. Usually wouldn't mention any other reviews. Plus there was no RU-vid so the only reviewers with a show was them and they were regularly booked on talk shows to discuss movies as the headline guest for the show. This went on for more than 2 decades. Hope that answers your question.
Lol, Douglas won an Oscar for this film. Siskel was too hung up on the director of “Platoon” and expected every film thereafter to be the same caliber.
NemeanLion I’m not talking about awards. I’m talking about craftsmanship. Awards are political and fad driven. A director should strive to make every film his best. Of course the success rate isn’t high and I’m not saying Stone didn’t try. But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be pointed out, as Siskel did here: Wall Street did not live up to the expectations that Platoon created. Win some, lose some.
Personally, I LOVED "Wall Street" because the movie shows about the politics of capitalism. I was so entertained by the movie and it should be a life lesson for those who want to experience the myth of capitalism.
4:40 Ebert concedes that Sheen is weakest link in the movie because he's too baby faced. 😄 That actually makes this even more fascinating, knowing what was to become of Charlie.
Most critics seemed to be of the opinion Daryl Hannah was actually the weak link. Even she herself has admitted she was wrong for the part. I thought Charlie did an alright job. If he played the character as more cocky it would have undermined Douglas' great performance.
@@birdmantd Yes, I've heard a lot of peop,people, say that, and I would agree. Not so much that she's a weak link, but just that she was wrong for the part. You can be a good enough actor, and still be miscast. I thought the comment on Sheen was strange, though. 😆 He was still a fresh face, but had already shown he can have some menace just below the surface (Wraith, Out of Bounds, Platoon, Ferris Bueller).
@@75aces97 I somewhat agree with Ebert. I don’t think Sheen’s performance was bad, but I wasn’t captivated by it in this film. I don’t agree with Ebert that he’s too much of a baby face though, as long as you can display the emotional complexity of the dilemma he was in. I never really felt it.
@@NemeanLion- I suppose. I kind of view Sheen as a good character actor who got starring roles in major films…until he didn’t. Who would have been a better casting choice at the time? Robert Downey Jr? Cage? Depp? 😕
Wall Street is probably Michael Douglas’s best performance- at least it has the best acted scene by Michael Douglas. That scene in the park where Sheen entraps Douglas is so brilliantly acted by Douglas that that scene alone is probably what got him that Best Actor Oscar.
I love that Big Guy criticized Skinny Guy's criticism because it's just comparison. I HATE it when you say "Hey have you heard Blank's new album?" and the only thing someone can say is "It's not as good as Blank's other stuff." Irrelevant information for judging THAT album, or THAT film. And Wall Street rocked.
Gordon Gecko to me is one of the best bad guys ever in film. That look on Buds face when he realizes he's been played is classic. But not as much as when Gecko realized that Foxx found out before he was supposed to. I thought this film was very good. The end was a bit of a letdown but it's good. I love that scene where Bud Foxx's dad told his son exactly who Gecko was. Not only did he not fool the old man he was disappointed in the fact that his son didn't see it. Good stuff. It's like he blamed himself for it. One should see it if they haven't. Michael Douglass was great.
Great film. I always thought one of the plot holes was a guy like Gekko meeting with union reps that low on the food chain. In reality, there would be several layers of union management between them and Gekko.
Douglas was masterful ...Sheen doesn't get credit , but he really good in this you see his transformation as his father warns him early on what he's becoming. It's a great film .
Oh my God Siskel is so wrong when he says that Michael Douglas is overacting. Michael Douglas was extremely good in Wall Street. We all make mistake and siskel made on reviewing Wall Street
It's fascinating watching these old reviews and really makes you appreciate their original show, "Sneak Previews" which being on PBS, was not constrained by commercial-requirements. Would have loved to hear these two talk some more about it, but their budgeted their 5 minutes and must move on!
I've binged A LOT of Siskel and Ebert reviews and it's shocking how many times Siskel gets it wrong. In contrast, Ebert's reviews nail it and hold up 30+ yrs later. It's just so shocking how different these guys are. Siskel is out of touch, much of the time.
Siskel’s problem is he rejected too many movies on principle alone, without seeing movies for what they are. He just sees it as an Oliver Stone film and if it’s not the caliber of Platoon, he considers it a failure. He can’t see how good it is because he’s wearing rose colored glasses and his standards are set too high. His sound criticism of Michael Douglas’ performance, shows just how ridiculous he can get, especially considering how Douglas won the Oscar for this performance.
How could anyone not be entertained by this film?...You don't need to know much about trading and Wallstreet to enjoy the film. And Douglas gives one of the all time great performances here. Siskel really was hard to please...he was always looking for something to nit pick about.
Well, to be fair, his job is literally to be critical. A critic who loves everything or who treats everything as a binary (it's the best or it's the worst) has little value to his audience. Siskel says the movie is worth watching, it just doesn't meet the high standard that he had in mind for it.
Ebert's comment that "Wall Street" should be regarded in the same genre as "Sweet Smell of Success" was right on target. In fact, Oliver Stone later admitted that "Wall Street" was modeled on "Sweet Smell of Success," with some scenes and situations coming directly from that earlier movie classic. And Stone was a big fan of Ernest Lehman, who co-wrote "Sweet Smell of Success."
I think Gene was right on this one. Unlike most of Stone’s early movies, this one does not necessarily reward repeat viewings. Good to see at least once for Douglas’s iconic “greed is good” speech, which still resonates, much like Baldwin’s “ABC” speech in Glengarry Glen Ross.
@@johnwilburn Except Trump doesn't give a shit about any of that. He plays to his middle-class base, but he really doesn't care about them beyond playing to their emotions to get their vote. Trump's true base consists of billionaires and corporate lobbyists, because they're the people who benefit most from his policies.
@@80s_Boombox_Collector The people who have the most will benefit the most, but that’s true of a lot of things. If the real estate market is up 10%, that benefits a person with a $500,000 house twice as much as a person with a $250,000 house. Ultimately, everyone is better off under Trump, but you’d never know it from listening to the media trying to blame him for the current rioting, coronavirus, and everything else.
@@johnwilburn Better off? That's debatable. If you're in banking or real estate or fossil fuels or defense, then sure. But in other industries it's a mixed bag. The blue collar jobs he brought back to the US were negated by the jobs he destroyed with his trade war. And sure, his corporate tax cuts have caused stocks to go up, but they haven't caused salaries to increase for most workers. Also, I don't agree with tax cuts if they cause an increased deficit, which is what happened after he approved those cuts. I also don't agree with cutting regulations that protect the environment, which also often protects our health as well.
After watching dozens (maybe hundreds?) or these reviews over the years, I've come to the conclusion that: A)Siskel just lost a coin flip, and had to take the contrary side just to make an argument or B)He doesn't really know what's he's talking about...
Oh Gene, how can you be so wrong so often? Nobody quotes Platoon ever, but I don't know anyone who has no Wall Street quotes on their lips - even today.
"Although Gekko's law-breaking would of course be opposed by most people on Wall Street, his larger value system would be applauded. The trick is to make his kind of money without breaking the law. Financiers who can do that, such as Donald Trump, are mentioned as possible presidential candidates, and in his autobiography Trump states, quite simply, that money no longer interests him very much. He is more motivated by the challenge of a deal and by the desire to win. His frankness is refreshing, but the key to reading that statement is to see that it considers only money, on the one hand, and winning, on the other. No mention is made about creating goods and services, to manufacturing things, to investing in a physical plant, to contributing to the infrastructure." Quote from Ebert's written review of the movie.
Siskel had a bad habit of letting his own already-well-formed opinions affect his viewpoint of certain films, and this is a good example. He says it's not reflective of the actual state of finance in the US... so what?? Like Roger says, look what's on the screen
Siskel's analysis that Gekko could run for political office was dead right....Donald Trump went up to Oliver Stone after a screening of that film and said he liked the Gekko character a lot.
rxtsec1 Lots of Oscar-winning performances are horrendously overacted. Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs, and Tom Hanks has in almost all of his Oscar-winning and nominated performances come readily to mind. I’ll throw Bette Davis in there. In fact, early Oscars really loved over-the-top melodramatic performances. Having said that, I don’t think Douglas was that bad by comparison.
@@AngusRockford not always but I happen to agree with them here. You agree with siskel & Ebert who once gave speed 2 two thumbs up. Again speed 2 so I guess they have great taste like you
rxtsec1 All I said was that lots of bad performances have won Oscars. If you think, conversely, that all Oscar-winning performances are golden, by definition, it’s your privilege to feel that way. If you thought Hanks in “Forest Gump,” Pacino in “Scent of a Woman,” Hopkins in “Silence of the Lambs,” or Crowe in “Gladiator” were the best male performances of those years, you do you.
It never occurred to me before because the Gekko character is so devilishly fun to watch but Siskel is right. Michael Douglas does over-act the performance.
Even though Ebert loved this film, he was right that Charlie Sheen's performance had a weakness - he did seem too fresh-faced or baby-faced to sell any one on these manipulations. And while Siskel was overly critical of the film, he did have a point that many of the big heavy-hitting Wall Street raiders were (and are) cold, quiet, cunning, ruthless types, more so than Gordon Gekko was.
Ebert is right on this one. This is easily Michael's best performance he ever did and won an Oscar for it. Siskel's review on this movie is wayyyyyy off!
I wonder what siskel thought when Douglas win best actor. Roger has a more tuned in sensibility when it comes to films that will be well received. He loved chariots of fire and thought it was the best film. Gene didn’t agree. Then it won
I would say Wolf of Wall Street, just. But it's unfair to compare the student to the master (yes Scorsese taught Stone at University). They're both great films in their own right
I think they're both right. I think Douglas could have played it way more subtly and it would have made it better. I think it was a better movie than he gave credit. The evidence is how it remains an '80s masterpiece
Wall Street is an entertaining movie. I think it's about the seduction of money and wealth and all it brings. It's got a lot of classic lines. It's funny they talk about money men as possible politicians....hmmm. Anyway, it's makes a great statement about our current world where there seems to be no more middle class. Just rich and those who struggle. It sucks. But that's capitalism. "How much is enough? How many yachts can you ski behind? How much is enough?"
Gene was wrong here in his critique. It lacked substantive criticism. I used to watch Siskel and Ebert. Whenever Ebert gave a thumbs up to a film, I was usually sure I could trust his review. 9/10. No, you can’t compare Platoon to Wall Street. But you could expect a good film from Stone. Both were good. I might now agree with Gene that Platoon was Stone’s better film.
