Siskel & Ebert Review The Films of...George Lucas

[@cfitzgeraldrey]

How bitter sweet to see the steady aging of Ebert along with the silent disappearance of Siskel (and eventually Ebert), especially as one who grew up with them from the beginning.

[@richardenglish2195]

This is such a fantastic idea for a KZbin series. Really enjoying these videos: keep 'em coming!

[@Dr170]

I wonder if their almost embarrassingly upfront love of R2 and 3PO is somehow subconsciously driven by their own fire-forged Rosencrantz and Guildenstern friendship of endless banter

[@ennesshay5040]

Listening to that first clip of the robots [ 2:23 ] gave me a 'US v UK independence' vibe !?

[@jeshkam]

Lol they even resemble Ebert (R2D2) and Siskel (C3PO) 🤣😂

[@moviola12]

1:01:23 Roger Ebert changed his opinion of digital cinema after seeing Attack of the Clones on a digital projection system. I wish someone had that video. But Thank You Old Sport for posting.

[@CharlieNagoo]

Sad that Siskel died without seeing Phantom Menance.

[@jj80808]

I know,man. I feel like he would've enjoyed it too, and even if not he really should've gotten to see another star wars film on the big screen,if only life was fair.

[@todds.6028]

Nobody could ever replace Siskel and Ebert, but I really do dig Roeper and Phillips. They're as worthy as anyone to carry the torch. Wish they would've kept it going.

[@movieatorfilms]

Man, when I lived in Chicago, Fridays in the 90s was always a copy of both the Trib & The Sun-Times.

[@ludwik7326]

I always felt like The Prequels were very similar in spirit to THX, it almost has a documentary feel, they’re presenting a different world. I guess the lack of characterization bothers a lot of people, but it never was a problem to me, everytime I watch these movies, I’m immersed in the overall story and the universe presented

[@ludwik7326]

@@WilliamLyons-ym7ee THX 1138, Lucas's first film

[@zoetropeguardian]

​@@ludwik7326 It was intentional. The Prequels and Originals are shot like a documentary because R2-D2 is telling the story to the Keeper of the Whills for the Journal of the Whills. It's essentially R2's story. The acting style and dialogue is also very consistent across all six films. It's realism acting versus method acting as is the common practice today. The dialogue also follows the same vocabulary as the Original Trilogy. I recommend checking out Everytime Star Wars Quotes Star Wars on here. It will shed light on just how consistent the trilogies are with each other.

[@ludwik7326]

@@zoetropeguardian Very interesting

[@zoetropeguardian]

@@ludwik7326 It really is. The other videos about Star Wars on the channel are also a great resource for understanding George and his intentions with the series. Everything talked about checks out with my years of research and studying George's work. So I can't recommend them enough. There's only one time I've disagreed with the videos.

[@ennesshay5040]

THX 1138 ? Thought they'd at least mention it !

[@jspp80]

"Stopping at Last Crusade." If only.

[@andysorensen1737]

I mean Dial of Destiny was fine. Enjoyed it and I’ll probably stream it again.

[@zoetropeguardian]

Crystal Skull is great though.

[@jj80808]

Lego indiana jones was the best. Tbh tho I think the franchise certainly stayed more consistent than star wars. As the two comments above me prove, it's possible for someone to watch all the indie films and enjoy them. If someone liked all the star wars films I think it'd say they're either too easily pleased or I wouldn't want to know the films they disliked.

[@seancole22]

Im so happy I found this channel. These guys were a part of my childhood in the 90’s. I never a missed a Sunday episode. I followed Ebert on twitter even after he left the show & was tremendously saddened by his passing. RIP to these legends

[@bodine57]

Siskel & Ebert review James Bond films!!

[@andysorensen1737]

That’d be a fun one!

[@sallybrown4947]

really miss these guys. No one can do this like they did.

[@EBurstyn]

I love Ebert’s criticism of the latter Star Wars films

[@zoetropeguardian]

He actually liked both TPM and ROTS based off his reviews on his website. He was more mixed on AOTC.

[@Strateggo]

If only watching vintage tv programs could bring you back in time…

[@williamripke982]

I grew up on Gene and Roger's work. In many ways, you could actually consider them KZbinrs before You Tube.

[@generyan4043]

Is the Temple of Doom review lost forever? I saw the opening of the episode where they review it, but the rest of the video showed a different episode. So there is definitely footage somewhere.

[@jedijones]

It's lost unless someone out there has it sitting on a videotape in their basement. The Natural was also reviewed on that episode. There are a LOT of episodes from the Tribune era lost actually, just ones with movies that are less talked about today. Apparently the producers never saved the episodes, and far less people were recording them and saving the episodes in the early '80s, when VCRs were less common and blank tapes were more expensive.

[@jedijones]

Too bad that the episode where they fully reviewed Temple of Doom as well as The Natural is lost.

[@HkFinn83]

What’s the secret of the success of the Star Wars movies? Imo they (the original three) exist in the tradition of the adventure kids story that doesn’t talk down to it’s audience. Takes itself seriously, but not too much. Revels in the details of world building and creation, but not to the extent of losing sight of the art of storytelling. It should have inspired people to tell their own, original and ambitious stores. Unfortunately it inspired cynical copies and endless remakes/sequels/prequels.

[@zoetropeguardian]

The Prequels were the same way for another generation of kids. So what the Originals were for your generation the Prequels were for mine. I love all six equally though.

[@ralphreinert]

@@zoetropeguardian What did you think of episodes 7-9, Zoetropeguardian?

[@zoetropeguardian]

@@ralphreinert Episode VII - It's a safe and predictable rehash of A New Hope. It's trying to please people and give them "Star Wars". This is vastly different from George's approach of always doing something new and original. Episode VII - An improvement narratively speaking but still too close to being a rehash. Particularly that of The Empire Strikes Back. It makes claims of being something new but we've seen themes of greed, war profiting, and the problems of government becoming business in the Prequels. It's not as original as people think it is. It's also very pessimistic and cynical. Particularly what it did with Luke. We've also seen Luke have a moment of weakness when he nearly kills his father. The movie reverses this to act like it's moving on but in a way that undermines Luke's growth. George's story always was progressing towards something and there were consequences to everything. None of that can be found in this film or trilogy for that matter. The tone I speak of is also very different from George. "You know we live in very cynical times. They're very mean spirited. They're very cynical. It's hip to make fun of people and put them down. And kinda everything is super hip. You know in terms of everybody is put down for everything. And this is the big criticism of Star Wars in the beginning was that it's naive, it's sorta hope filed. It's very young. It's very you know anti-hip. You know it's kinda wide-eyed, optimistic, it's very pollyannish in it's optimism. I think people just need that little bonbon in their life, that little thing that says it's not a terrible world but you aren't that bad. Everything's kinda okay. You know you .. yeah there's bad people in the world and you have bad inside of you, but you can overcome that. And I think you know as silly as it is that's something that's necessary in a society." Episode IX - Back to being a rehash and very predictable. It's Return of the Jedi. It also feels like it's trying to "fix" mistakes leftover from the last film. Rey going through different trials facing her identity or Palpatine coming back. This doesn't make sense as the whole point of the first six is that Anakin has trouble letting go of his attachments and accepting the natural order of life. Palpatine coming back undermines that. All and all they very much are the Anti-Lucas trilogy. That's not for me.

[@ralphreinert]

@@zoetropeguardian Thank for your reply. You have clearly given this more thought than I. I agree with all your points and would add one more. I hate that Rey becomes adept with the force and lightsabres without the pain and trials we saw Luke go though in three whole films. Somehow at the end of Rise of Skywalker, I did not feel she had earned the name. Plus of course, Palpatine coming back just erases the whole point of episodes 1-6. But of course that has been pointed out many times. I did enjoy Solo: A Star Wars Story, but I went in with very low expectations having already seen episodes VII and VIII as well as Rogue One: A Star Wars Story.

[@zoetropeguardian]

@@ralphreinert My apologies for the delay in answering you back. I meant to answer you and ask your own thoughts but I lost track of time. It's my pleasure. Thanks for your own thoughts. Sometimes less thinking about it is better. Haha. I agree with your own points too. I'd even say Anakin did too. He faced consequences for his inexperiences like when he got his arm cut off or when he and Padmé got caught in the droid factory. Rey always seemed to get out of any situation unharmed. It makes her whole arc feel unearned. I'm really disheartened by Palpatine coming back. I think George's plan of having Darth Maul as the main baddie is significantly better as it creates a link in a way to a lost era since he knew of the Grand Plan and would have a natural rivalry with Luke as he was his first mentor's main rival. George also planned to reveal Sifo-Dyas as a secret Sith. So having Darth Maul connected in some way to that feels very natural. All of this connects so well without undermining Anakin's redemption. I'm glad you enjoyed Solo. I think I was too burnt out to appreciate it. I'm not sure how I feel about anything Disney Star Wars. I kind of liked Rebels at the time. I'm hesitant to go back to it as I'm afraid it won't hold up as well as I remember it. It was really fun at the time. Young Indiana Jones helped me grieve and let go a lot. It's George's show and feels like everything Star Wars used to be. It's vastly different from the Indy films and I like it more than them honestly. I recommend the Adventures version if you've not seen it. It tells the story in sequence order and streamlines it. It's a very magical show and took me back to feeling like a child each time as I watched it.

[@johnkelly1198]

George lucas was a one hit man. Spielberg had vision

[@TitusClough]

Appreciate these!! We'll done!

[@WonderLure42]

Gene is spot on for AG2

[@89tilinfinity29]

4:25 OH God if they were alive today to see what studios are doing nowadays smh.

[@marsneedstowels]

Still out there. Streaming kind of killed the theatre experience for non-spectacle movies though.

[@kthx1138]

Where's the review of THX-1138? The only thing I didn't like about More American Graffiti was the disintegrating Steve and Lori relationship--it was depressing. I, like most of the audience, wanted to see Steve and Lori live happily ever after. The Toad story was really cool, though, as he proves to be a true HERO in Vietnam. John Milner's drag racing was cool too and the Candy Clark story had its share of funny moments.

[@moviola12]

39:12 The epitome of ebbert's enthusiasm

[@MRKYootube]

Damn...no THX1138?

[@AWSVids]

10:09 "It's not a perfect film. Here's a cheap looking sequence. The movie's Cloud City... an obvious drawing there in the background." George Lucas: "...and I took that personally."

[@lloydshanahan154]

you can thank the Lucas's special edition treatment for why it looks better in later versions.

[@Rickyfingers]

Sock puppet? Them's fightin' words!

[@TimeAxisMedia]

In 1999 clips (like for the trailer for Phantom Menace), I feel that Roger looks upon Gene knowingly how sick he has become, and has a definite degree of underlying sad sympathy. I don't think Gene had more than a month or so to live that at point. Anyone know the date of the Phantom Menace airdate?

[@brysimm404]

I don’t know what movie Roeper saw, but it wasn’t Attack Of The Clones. Ebert nailed him on every point!

[@sidbeckett5655]

Why does Ebert sound exactly like Chief Wigum in the Episode 3 review?

[@tonypassaretti]

I think American Graffiti is Lucas' best movie.

[@alexsandell8260]

Why is Gene wearing REALLY obvious blush on his cheeks in the More American Graffiti review?

[@jedijones]

For no reason. Anything else you hear is a filthy lie.

[@johnkelly1198]

The phantom menace preview part, gene show signs of his cancer. Damn shame

[@jonncockrell3606]

Where is THX 1138?

[@blinkzone1]

Anyone liked the fifth movie?

[@KrazyKryptonian]

If you mean Attack of the Clones, then yes.

[@blinkzone1]

@@KrazyKryptonian i meant Ij:Dial of Destiny

[@KrazyKryptonian]

@@blinkzone1 oh, okay. Thanks for the clarification. Dial of Destiny was okay, IMO. I didn’t love but I didn’t hate it either.

[@jedijones]

@@blinkzone1 I thought the villain and the artifact were interesting. The action was a little dull and the sidekick characters weren't written well. Indy's characterization was odd. His older self just didn't seem enough like his old self.

[@swirvinbirds1971]

6 movies not including these characters.... Disney: Oops...

[@ThreeToesofFury]

HUUUGE! awesome!!!

[@MrFairfax40]

Michael Phillips AO Scott Star Wars See It

[@jackroberts6938]

How wonderful to see Siskel & Ebert's spot-on analyses and fresh-faced delight at the groundbreaking Star Wars and Raiders movies when they were brand new. On the other hand, Richard Roeper's ridiculous rave reviews of Star Wars Episode 2 and Indy 4 drive home how much we lost with the passing of both these great reviewers.

[@papachewie1280]

Ebert liked Indy 4 as well, so I'm not exactly sure what point you're making here.

[@MJSpiderman7116]

> implying that Siskel and Ebert didn’t also have ridiculous reviews too Ever seen Siskel’s review of Terminator? Or Ebert’s reviews of Garfield 1 and 2, or his review of More American Graffiti in this very video? I’ve wholeheartedly disagreed with some of Ebert, Siskel, and Roeper’s takes before, but it doesn’t take away from their passion and knowledge of film. Siskel would’ve been impossible to replace, and Roeper did arguably the best job anyone could have. Plus some of their future guests (AO Scott, Michael Phillips, etc) were great as well

[@zoetropeguardian]

I love both. They're great films that are greatly misunderstood.

[@jedijones]

Episode 2 is a pretty amazing entertainment. Roeper is absolutely right that it's an improvement on Phantom Menace. It has much more of the Star Wars feel than did that movie about car racing, talking rabbits and mute Satan worshipers.

[@SDfan2002]

⁠@@jedijonesThere’s no entertainment value of Episode 2. By far the worst of the Prequels, making it the worst film in the entire Saga. The Phantom Menace is the best of the Prequels.

[@alexsandell8260]

Where's Howard the Duck?

[@Vanilla_Skynet]

See description

[@alexsandell8260]

@@Vanilla_Skynet I'm dumb.

[@jedijones]

@@Vanilla_Skynet I would have included it. Howard the Duck was his baby. He brought the comic book and the idea to the screenwriters before Star Wars even came out. He helped with the story ideas, including wanting to make Howard simply start out as a detective on Earth, but the studio insisted they tell his origin story. Lucas also tried to get John Landis to direct it. And he tried to defend the film on several occasions after it was poorly received.

[@ciadella1971]

The coolest character in Star Wars is black, yet....the movie is racist? I don't get it.

[@markula_4040]

Because you misheard. They said the FIRST movie was labeled racist for no black characters. Lando was added in the second film.

[@EthanPedraza-uc5cy]

@@markula_4040 that went over your head apparently

[@jasondouglas152]

There are now 6 more star wars movies. They all sucked except force awakens

[@zoetropeguardian]

The Force Awakens is cunning and manipulative as it used familar imagery and false promises to draw the viewer in. It's very shallow once you pull it back and see it's nothing more than corporate greed.

[@hinhwood1629]

siskel was so off so often

[@eurolicious1]

Wow! Roeper gets “Attack of the Clones” disastrously wrong! Literally wrong on every single thing that he says on the topic. Ebert gets it right, again! (Although he is a bit too positive on Phantom Menace - jar Jar Binks is an exciting new character!? WTF Ebert?!)

[@KrazyKryptonian]

I’m the opposite. I have to agree with Roeper on this one and disagree with Ebert.

[@mikedowswell]

It is a disaster...and then he goes on to say he loves Kingdom of the Crystal Skull....holy sweet potato.......he seems to like bad movies....lol.

[@zoetropeguardian]

There's no "correct" answer. Film is both subjective and objective. Subjectively and objectively though I agree. Attack of the Clones is great on both accounts. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has more flaws but subjectively I loved it. It's my second ranked Indy film after Temple of Doom. And Jar Jar is great on both accounts too. He's funny and solves the issue at the end of the movie. He also met his goal of being immensely popular with the children he was made for. 🙂

[@jaredlucas4815162342]

I love Roger. His liking More American Graffiti baffles me. That is just an awful film. Everyone that made it knew it. They were embarrassed about it.

[@wickedlateok1697]

Yeah, they were so embarrassed about making an Oscar-winning film that was nominated for best picture. So terrible!

[@jaredlucas4815162342]

@@wickedlateok1697 uh, what?

[@MJSpiderman7116]

@@wickedlateok1697…the second American Graffiti movie got nominated for Best Picture?

[@Dragonpuncher123]

@@MJSpiderman7116 No he is confusing it with the original. Roger loves to sound smart. When Siskel was confused of course he couldn’t help himself to sound smarter by getting it.

[@MJSpiderman7116]

Kinda funny to hear Siskel saying that Lando was added potentially in response to people back in the late 70’s saying that Star Wars was racist. Especially since far right freakshows today act like people discussing political and social issues in movies today is a new phenomenon and that people are “more offended” these days lol. Either way, Lando ended up being a beloved character in the end, so it worked out wonderfully. Imagine if A New Hope was released today. You can imagine the grifters making videos like “SJW’s CRY that Star Wars is RACIST, and George Lucas CAVED to their demands! Boycott Star Wars!!”

[@Redfoot138]

@@WilliamLyons-ym7ee It was announced a couple of months ago that they're moving forward with a Lando movie.

[@jedijones]

Imagine someone complaining about people bashing Star Wars over nonsensical claims like it being racist! You seem not to realize that the ACTUAL grifters are the people falsely claiming that everyone is racist and sexist. They create a following of people who are angry about things that aren't actually true.

[@SDfan2002]

EXACTLY

[@scottlombardi4603]

Roeper’s takes on Attack of the Clones and Crystal Skull are unbelievably bad.

[@KrazyKryptonian]

I actually agree with Roeper in regards to AOTC.

[@zoetropeguardian]

Both are great films.

[@MJSpiderman7116]

Crystal Skull’s reviews were very positive for the most part (78% on rotten tomatoes). He’s not out of line with the consensus of the time. Besides, it’s a fun movie. Dumb, but most of the series is about dumb fun. I’d watch it over Temple of Doom any day. AOTC is pretty bad though lol

[@ToscheStation666]

I think you should re-upload this video and cut out those absolutely terrible garbage film critics, Matt Singer, and whoever else that has such a garbage opinion on the George Bush movie. not a fan of George Bush but they are not Siskel and Ebert

[@MediaBuster]

Shows you AWFUL prequels are.. just awful and the CGI didn't age well, Yoda looks AWFUL..

[@zoetropeguardian]

That's a very subjective opinion. There's plenty of things you could say about the Originals that haven't aged well either. Ulimately though they're all a product of their time. Art expands as the canvas of technology to tell your story does. Art is built on technology.

[@MediaBuster]

@@zoetropeguardian Actually despite what you think, it's not all subjective. Films are not just subjective. And it's easily provable because I guarantee you have seen movies you use to love (or hate) and then later you see things that no longer make them good, Just because you didn't see it at firsts doesn't mean it's not in there. It's a matter of what you know and don't know.

[@zoetropeguardian]

@@MediaBuster Of course. Film like any art is both subjective and objective. Your comment said the CGI and Yoda look awful. This is a subjective opinion. To pretend it's anything other than that does a disservice to what it means to have a subjective opinion. Everyone is entitled to a subjective opinion but that doesn't mean it's objectively correct or necessarily true or factual. I also find film criticism is more than this is good, this is bad. It's very narrow-minded. However that's all many focus on. They don't look at film as anything but a black and white issue that can be easily defined in grips of what is only personal to them. It's more complicated than that.

[@MediaBuster]

@@zoetropeguardian It's not really that complicated. Bad means it's not believable and good means it is. The CGI and Yoda look bad because it doesn't look real/believable. Just becaus you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't true.

[@zoetropeguardian]

@@MediaBuster It was made in the early 2000's. What do you expect it to look like? It was state of art for its time. It's not going to be completely smooth or perfect by today's standards but that's because they were experimenting and going into unknown territories with pushing ahead in things that weren't being considered to where today the artist's canvas has been expanded because of the early work done in no small part due to the Prequels. They pushed cinema to the digital age with CGI, shooting digitally, and pushing the need for digital projection in cinemas. These are the common practice today. Just like how King Kong from 1933 is a product of its time. It still looks great though for its time and it pushed what was thought possible. You make due with what you have and push forward where possible. Just because something doesn't meet a modern lenses doesn't mean it's automatically "bad" or "unbelievable". I find they do for their time and that's the more right way to judge something instead of putting modern sensibilities onto something. You can't move forward without understanding where things were beforehand.