Siskel & Ebert review Dr Strangelove and Paths of Glory and part 2 of their Full Metal Jacket debate

[@killbot_factory]

Roger: "...and you should be ashamed of yourself!" Gene: "No, I'm not." Love and miss these two!

[@65g4]

Roger Ebert i think wrong about Full Metal Jacket it still holds up more than thirty years later

[@marksinger2360]

I agree that he was wrong, but I also think that Siskel's "Benjy the Hunted" accusation was out of line for the context of the show and also wrong.

[@65g4]

@@marksinger2360 i understand it was a kids film that hit its target audience. Im curious if Ebert ever changed his mind on the film

[@comicbookninja5268]

30 plus years later, history has proven Gene Siskel to be right about Full Metal Jacket.

[@killbot_factory]

sad when Roger says "I would be very surprised if you liked [FMJ] in thirty years as much as you liked these" knowing that Gene had less than half as many years left

[@numeristatech]

This is how to have a good spirited but still professional disagreement with a touch of snark. Brilliant :)

[@maskedmarvyl4774]

I always expected them to get to the point where they called each other names and then wound up rolling around on the floor hitting each other....

[@goittoog7563]

Siskel going off on Ebert for giving Benji the Hunter a thumbs up over Full Metal Jacket, and Roger coming clapping back---damn thats good stuff

[@nstents7781]

Thanks for posting that clip. For once the commentary matched the topic.

[@watcher2814]

Watch the sparks fly! 🎬💥👍

[@crithon]

hehe, benji the hunter isn't as much of an insult as Siskel claims it is. I missed when these aired, they really do age well.

[@jasvirdi17]

i was 13 when i saw this on tv my first intro to Dr Strangelove.. the name always stayed with me until I saw it when i was 17-18

[@freddyfurrah3789]

FULL METAL JACKET IS A GREAT FILM.

[@chickenringNYC]

Siskel was almost always right!

[@michaeltaylor6782]

Jack d ripper Merkin muffly Dr strangelove Buck turdgison Premier kissoff I wonder what this film was really about?

[@TheKillerCucumber]

Dick measuring contest? A bunch of power-hungry men circle-jerking each other while they fuck the world over? Those all look like cheesy pornstar names to me

[@michaeltaylor6782]

@@TheKillerCucumber erm.........yes. That's what Dr strangelove is about.

[@HkFinn83]

It’s about the nuclear threat during the Cold War.

[@ViktorDelevski]

Colonel Bat Guano

[@inb4Vera]

Col. Mandrake takes a much more assertive role after Gen. Ripper dies. Like myths about mandrake roots growing from the blood or graves of dead men.

[@cliffordnewell2445]

rog is in top form

[@robertaandersone2363]

I disagree with Roger here. Yes, I agree that FMJ isn't as good as the other two Kubrick films. At the same time- it may be a worse Kubrick film, but it's a great film if we look at the scale of all the films ever made. Roger gives FMJ a thumbs down and argues that he's looking at the context of Kubrick films, but shuts down Gene when he argues his context- the context of all other movies ever made. Gene is in the right here.

[@Steveross2851]

This was a typical display of two self-important movie critics wearing their political agendas (in which realism or crude caricatures can be equally good in anti-war films) on display. Paths of Glory was a realistic portrayal of political corruption in a World War I setting. But these two critics liked the totally contrived Dr. Strangelove equally, because of its grotesquely mocking "humorous" caricature of the Cold War era U.S. defense establishment. This was in contrast to the realistically damning portrayal of a fictional French General Staff in Paths of Glory. Like all movie critics these two men reviewed movies by formula in a self-congratulatory way to protect their political agenda and their status in a movie critic industry utterly devoid of viewpoint diversity. As for Full Metal Jacket, I thought the first half with the cruelly single minded Drill Sergeant was excellent. But the second half meandered badly to its climax with the Communist female Vietnamese sniper seemingly viewed much more favorably than the American Drill Sergeant by the film makers as she would necessarily have to be given the Hollywood formula for anti-war films. In my view the only measure of a film's worth is how much the public likes it. The movie critic industry's reviews with their "review by formula" approach should not be taken seriously.

[@villain7140]

Or their opinions had nothing to do with their "political agendas" or any unrealistic caricature (which they never claimed was realistic, that is the point of a satire which you seem to be missing) and they were celebrating Kubrick's hilariousness in satirizing of the thought of using nuclear weapons in war which is universally thought of as absurd?

[@CaptainBohnenbrot]

@steveross I hope you are aware of the irony, since your comment is also based on your own political beliefs and is completely self-congratulatory.

[@Steveross2851]

@@villain7140the whole point of political satire is to make political points without resort to any sort of intellectual rigor. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. But there is always a political point to satire even though it can be very specific or quite general. The fact that the point may at times be very general doesn't mean it isn't political. One example is Thomas Nast's famous cartoon of politicians standing in a circle each pointing to the one next to them. That cartoon has no specific point but a very general one about politicians always assigning blame elsewhere.

[@Steveross2851]

@CaptainBohnenbrot you don't know anything about my political beliefs. But there's no doubt that the movie critic industry has always reviewed by formula, And these two critics always did so in a very self-contratulatory way. I have Malten's Movie Guides since that aside they are a great source of general information about many films. But I can give a thousand examples of their doing this. In movie review after movie review their praise of or scorn for the political commentary in various films is remarkably politically consistent. Thus they praise Paths of Glory (a great film) not for its portrayal of clear political corruption (which it is) but for the more politically fashionable "shattering study of the absurdity of war." Yet they don't like Mars Attacks! nearly as much. Granted Mars Attacks! is not as good as Paths of Glory alright I agree. But that's not the point. In Mars Attacks! the President's advisors tell him the Martians, advanced as they are must be peaceful (an obvious bit of political satire). But the Martians turn out to be predators. The movie is obviously meant to be humorous and not a serious commentary on war. But what does Malten's Movie Guide say? "Overly self-satisfied spoof of 50s alien invasion movies..." You can argue of course that they simply didn't see much humor (trite etc.) and that no political point was being made in that Movie Guide's review. But there is an undeniable pattern in their 1600+ page volumes. They tend not to like spoofs that don't align with their political viewpoints. That and not their viewpoints per se is what I take issue with here.

[@vigilante8374]

@@villain7140 no, @Steveross2851 is mostly correct, if perhaps a little too tiresomely reactionary. Ebert was a completely insufferable blowhard when it came to politics. He gave 4 star reviews to dreck like The Deer Hunter; meanwhile, he doled out 1-star reviews to anything that might seem even remotely jingoistic (or patriotic), even even-handed efforts like Team America: World Police... which merely had the audacity to state that 1) The world really needed America even if we got things wrong sometimes and 2) Maybe the opinions of actors shouldn't be reported & respected as much as they are (and In a hilarious and sad display of navel-gazing, Ebert openly and pointedly failed to grasp this point, with an exaggerated display of confusion at the notion that movies and actors weren't the center of the universe.

[@rollerhockey69king87]

Oh Roger. Geez.