Siskel & Ebert Review The Films of...David Lynch

A compilation of Siskel & Ebert (and others later) reviewing the films of David Lynch
This is another new and improved redo of a previous episode. The first version of this was 27 minutes long and boy I didn't realize how much I had missed! Really great stuff, too. The additional dialogue on Blue Velvet alone was enough to warrant a redo.
I promise my research process is now such that the only way I would be tempted to redo something for a third time is because something major was recently added to the archives. Otherwise these are truly as comprehensive as I can make them at present.
Unfortunately the Dune clips blocked this from a few territories. Even after I trimmed them.
Primarily for educational purposes, but enjoy however you see fit!
For more of this series:
• Siskel & Ebert Review ...

[@Vanilla_Skynet]

A compilation of Siskel & Ebert (and others later) reviewing the films of David Lynch This is another new and improved redo of a previous episode. The first version of this was 27 minutes long and boy I didn't realize how much I had missed! Really great stuff, too. The additional dialogue on Blue Velvet alone was enough to warrant a redo. I promise my research process is now such that the only way I would be tempted to redo something for a third time is because something major was recently added to the archives. Otherwise these are truly as comprehensive as I can make them at present. Unfortunately the Dune clips blocked this from a few territories. Even after I trimmed them. Primarily for educational purposes, but enjoy however you see fit! For more of this series: kzbin.info/aero/PLjog8SEXXlNV9hSA2USQDeuz-Njrkhuar&si=9MBkX8IAqz2l-B1b

[@FirstNameLastName-kt3zn]

Thanks, I’m enjoying these compilations

[@jarrodhesse391]

Siskel making Ebert bust out laughing during the Dune review is really heartwarming. You are a saint for putting this together in the way that you have. Bravo!

[@cejannuzi]

Their review is kind of dumb, though, since I think the film should mostly be judged relative to the book. I don't always think that. But in this case, I think that was about the only way to deal with the film. And neither of them could even be bothered to read a synopsis.

[@zetetick395]

And them both laughing about the actors 'rodeo'ing on a giant worm' at the films climax really made me laugh too. - They put the image into its base most absurd framing and shaking their heads 🤣 (and I kinda like Dune)

[@ClubCatJohnKite]

All of Lynch's actress adore him and have remained friends with him.

[@SamJohnsonAZ]

Best intro ever

[@Vanilla_Skynet]

Thanks!

[@michaelpfogerty]

Yes! So glad I found this before starting my drive home. This will be fun audio while on the road 🙏

[@michaelpfogerty]

I love Ebert, but I might need to re-read his review of "Irreversible" and find the contradictions between that review and his original review of "Blue Velvet". If he's so uncomfortable with how women are sexually exploited in film, particularly Rossellini, how could he give Irreversible a good review? Which he did. Maybe it's because Blue Velvet had parts that were tongue and cheek, whereas Irreversible was completely bleak throughout, and he just doesn't like that type of contrast in film. Idk. It's interesting to me though. Also, I'm truly surprised Siskel loved Blue Velvet so much given that he usually doesn't praise disturbing movies much at all.

[@spinlok3943]

Yeah his criticisms don't make a lot of sense here. Like Siskel pointed out, Rossellini consented to her nude scenes. Perhaps Ebert just had a visceral reaction to it all and it tainted his view of the movie.

[@spinin1251]

I think he is consistent on his take with Lynch. He would argue that Lynch would go for hokey, almost parody plots with Blue Velvet and Wild at Heart, but then would have deeply disturbing, dark, and violent images and themes. I think he was saying that the humor came across as cruel and sadistic to his own work and the characters on screen. Like he didn't really respect them. He wasn't being consistent and going in one way or the other. That criticism was no longer there with Lost Highway because Lynch did seem to commit more to the bizzare story there. It's just that now Ebert found it to be a mess and too clever for its own good. But by Mulholland Drive, he found Lynch really going for it and the hokey elements to be funny given the context of the story and the criticism of Hollywood. I sort of get the take. There are moments in Blue Velvet that are uncomfortable, not because they are dark, but because they are there to shock and repulse. It takes away from the mystery and suspense in a way. It's a fine line. I disagree with him on Blue Velvet, because the film is so good and lays out those themes in the opening shots: picture perfect small town and something dark and horrifying under the surface. To your point, one could argue that any film that goes that far, like Irreversible, is going too far. Any disturbingly violent or graphic acts depicted for the sake of artistic expression, regardless of whether it is for humor or shock, can be seen as too much, or artistic self-indulgence, or a director taking liberty with what he can do with the actors and the story. It can really be a matter of where anyone draws the line. It seems like Ebert specifically had a problem with why Rosselini was being treated this way in Blue Velvet. The artistic statements, the parody of crime films and small town America, were not justifiable reasons to him, but more of a cop out or excuse. Perhaps if someone made a movie about a group of bullies constantly harassing and abusing someone that's mentally challanged in order to make a statement about human cruelty it might come across the same way. If the tone was all wrong and the message was secondary to the acts on screen, perhaps that might elicit a similar reaction to the one Ebert had with Blue Velvet.

[@cejannuzi]

@@spinlok3943She was also in a romantic relationship with him at the time. I don't think she ever did another Lynch film--despite saying how she was looking forward to that.

[@spinin1251]

@user-sb4ll3ef5s Nothing wrong with some guilty pleasures. He and Siskel both criticized Starship Troopers. I don't remember how Siskel rated it. He might have given it thumbs up. But they both said it was too much and too repetitive. I think Reservoir Dogs is Tarantino's worst movie. It's just so much talking. That's why I didn't like Hateful Eight that much either. I find him overrated in general. But his films from Pulp Fiction through Inglorious Basterds and Once Upon... are pretty great. It makes no sense to pick out four or five movies, ones that you might feel strongly about, as an indication of poor review skills. That's 4 or 5 movies out of what, like 4000 that they've reviewed on their shows? More in print. How do they stack up to your opinion or the opinion of other critics across all of them? And also, you can't get everything right. Do you get everything right in school or at your job? I do agree with you that sometimes Ebert acted as if though he was stating facts and was a bit lazy. He also did seem to act like his opinion was more important, maybe cause he had that Pulizer. But then you fall for it if you treat it as anything more than it is, which is just an opinion.

[@spinlok3943]

@user-sb4ll3ef5s And its possible that if he were still around maybe he would change his mind on some of those movies.

[@jasoncallen1459]

Ebert was never more wrong then he was about Lynch.

[@Tokolos]

What I love about Lynch is that he’s an artist first.

[@NotIfICU1st_]

Films that refuse to be over and the mysteries linger with us

[@SEAsiaTraveler]

Roger on Blue Velvet: Your emotions will tell you the truth.

[@grybnyx]

Lynch's entire ethos for experiencing his movies is "let the mystery wash over you". Don't look for resolution, that's not the point.

[@zetetick395]

If Ebert is so disturbed by Lynch as a director I wonder why they didn't think to get him on the show to talk it through.

[@jamescollins9178]

"I love films that refuse to be over"

[@ricardocantoral7672]

David Lynch: a man who makes live action cartoons.

[@spinin1251]

Boy, did Ebert call it on Dune: "It qualifies as one of the great follies in motion picture history... it deserves a little niche of its own in the cinematic hall of fame." And it was known as a glorious failure, for Lynch, for the studio, and for Hollywood epics. And 40 years later it finally had to be remade, though it still is known as a glorious, astounding failure.

[@cejannuzi]

If they had let Lynch cut a 2.5 hour version for movie theaters and let him use 5 hours for a TV showing, it could have been a success. But he fell out with the producers and wanted nothing to do with it.

[@spinin1251]

@@cejannuzi I don't doubt that at double the length and with more creative control, Lynch could have made something interesting - a 2-parter or a bigger epic. But that and his vision didn't fit with the Star Wars-like thing the studios wanted. He was not the right man for that. He's stuck to a much smaller scale. And in fact, the story is that he was doing something similar with Mulholland Drive. He was planning a mini-series or a Twin Peaks style TV series. The story is also that that's what he said he was going for, but actually just wanted to get financing in such a way to ultimately make the movie he wanted. He may have learned from Dune and Twin Peaks and knew how to spin it to get the project started, but then ultimately made it into the movie he actually really wanted. Maybe it was a making lemonade out of lemons story, or maybe that was his plan all along. The many storylines and loose ends in the movie suggest that it was unfinished, but they also work within the context of the crazy dream film he made quite brilliantly. The Elephant Man was as studio as Lynch ever got. And he wasn't able to do that with Dune. To be more mainstream. And the studio was not willing to go along with his vision either. There are definitely great visionary moments in it. And there is also a longer version out there cut by fans that approximates what he might have been going for that I think he liked. Fans helped him out a bit with that.

[@zetetick395]

I think Dave Lynch may well agree about the 'great folly' part 🤣

[@JustSomeCanadianGuy]

By far the most shocking thing about Roger Ebert is he wasn’t a David Lynch fan! 😂 You’d think he was reviewing Fifty Shades of Grey, man!!!

[@ricardocantoral7672]

Roger was too harsh on him and too soft on Scorsese.

[@zackerycooper7602]

@@ricardocantoral7672 I think he was too harsh on Lynch and perfectly accurate on Scorsese.

[@ThreeToesofFury]

ooooo thanks!

[@janegardener1662]

Siskel and Ebert are the whole reason I'm a movie fan! I always agreed with Siskel more than Ebert but I just loved their friendly disagreements.

[@markpaterson2053]

what about Inland Empire?

[@cejannuzi]

Well, I like Blue Velvet and Fire Walk With Me. That is about it for me and David Lynch.

[@Emulous79]

I wish I hadn't see Blue Velvet on video as a kid. With my family in the room. I think somebody turned it off.

[@WatchitforDays]

Jack Nance

[@user-wo5tc9ux7u]

Wes craven next

[@Vanilla_Skynet]

I did one before, another one I'm re-doing soon

[@ajaylang3212]

What Ebert says about Isabella Rossellini is absurd, she’s an actress and consented to all the scenes she was in, his white-knighting of her is far more demeaning than the film could ever be.

[@franklinshepard]

I will never get tired of Roger Ebert wishing that Doris Day had done a topless lesbian scene.

[@s.m.whiteII]

History isn’t kind to Ebert, he got so many films wrong. Bladerunner, Escape from NY, Blue Velvet, The Elephant Man just to name a few. History has proven Siskel to be more often correct

[@rexdavidson4028]

Blade runner wasn’t great in its theatrical form, and Siskel didn’t like it - Ebert somewhat did. Ebert then reviewed the director’s cut - gave it a good review - and added the Final Cut to his Great Movies.

[@spinin1251]

Siskel didn't like Apocalypse Now or The Silence of the Lambs. One could find them both being wrong like this. It would just depend on which movie and how they split. I think Ebert was generally more correct than Siskel, but they both would have odd takes from time to time.

[@lew115]

@@spinin1251 how can one man's opinion be "more correct" than another's?

[@richardgleaves]

Pee-Wee's Big Adventure