LogFAQs > #921890192

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	General Movie Discussion Topic
LinkMarioSamus 05/14/19 4:08:33 PM #230:	Hardcore_Adult posted... LinkMarioSamus posted... I have absolutely no idea. What comes to mind immediately is that Gene Siskel was WAY too harsh on it, think he was offended at some of the supposed stereotypes and thought the plot didn't break any new ground. I thought it still at least had the John Hughes touch I liked so much in Ferris Bueller's Day Off, but felt like the plot never really seemed to go anywhere. Come to think of it, that might have been a problem with Ferris Bueller too, but it was largely masked by amazing comic timing from the cast and director. Oh yeah Gene's review of Ferris Bueller's Day Off was dumb crap as well, what kind of complaint is "every scene is done better in another movie"? That's not really the point of movies like these. At least Roger rated the films more appropriately even if it ultimately only came to a marginal recommendation (he gave both films 3 stars). Siskel and Fuckin' Ebert man... What a right pair, eh? TBH I heavily respect them both, but it's hard to deny that they had their misses. Although a lot of that is just hindsight, and you could say they were more reacting to movies than truly going in-depth with them. See Siskel having a tough time wrapping his head around The Silence of the Lambs of all movies. Most of my point about Ferris Bueller is that the film has legitimate flaws which Gene didn't touch on, instead going into stuff that doesn't matter. Oh, Ferris doesn't say much insightful in the film? Well for someone in the target audience he is. At least Ebert took this viewpoint into account. Admittedly that's one of my favorite films of all time, but still. --- "Nothing I could do!" -Darksydephil <cite>LinkMarioSamus posted [p:921890192] in General Mo... [t:77535770]...</cite> <quote><cite>Hardcore_Adult posted...</cite> <quote><cite>LinkMarioSamus posted...</cite> <quote>I have absolutely no idea. What comes to mind immediately is that Gene Siskel was WAY too harsh on it, think he was offended at some of the supposed stereotypes and thought the plot didn't break any new ground. I thought it still at least had the John Hughes touch I liked so much in Ferris Bueller's Day Off, but felt like the plot never really seemed to go anywhere. Come to think of it, that might have been a problem with Ferris Bueller too, but it was largely masked by amazing comic timing from the cast and director. Oh yeah Gene's review of Ferris Bueller's Day Off was dumb crap as well, what kind of complaint is "every scene is done better in another movie"? That's not really the point of movies like these. At least Roger rated the films more appropriately even if it ultimately only came to a marginal recommendation (he gave both films 3 stars).</quote> Siskel and Fuckin' Ebert man... What a right pair, eh?</quote> TBH I heavily respect them both, but it's hard to deny that they had their misses. Although a lot of that is just hindsight, and you could say they were more reacting to movies than truly going in-depth with them. See Siskel having a tough time wrapping his head around The Silence of the Lambs of all movies. Most of my point about Ferris Bueller is that the film has legitimate flaws which Gene didn't touch on, instead going into stuff that doesn't matter. Oh, Ferris doesn't say much insightful in the film? Well for someone in the target audience he is. At least Ebert took this viewpoint into account. Admittedly that's one of my favorite films of all time, but still. --- "Nothing I could do!" -Darksydephil</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1