Siskel & Ebert - The Untouchables (1987)

[@CaminoAir]

The movie has some relative weaknesses, but its strengths far outweigh them. It's a demonstration of building a film on a solid script and adding in the elements appropriately (actors, music, production design, camerawork, etc.) It was better than anyone had any right to expect.

[@OhSankYouDoktor]

Roger was really off on this. This is one of the great mob movies of all-time. Beautifully photographed, a great Morricone score, and Connery giving the performance of his career.

[@reactingtoacting]

He was off on a few great films, including The Godfather Part II and Scarface.

[@paulamiller3893]

Ebert's main concern was always about Ebert, getting accolades, getting awards, whatever.

[@Manwithnoname2]

@@reactingtoactingRoger Ebert loved scarface it was gene who disliked it.

[@Plathismo]

'The Untouchables' has aged a lot better than Ebert's review of it.

[@joerich1629]

I loved it at the time of release, but after a recent viewing it’s not nearly as good as I remember. I’d still recommend it though. It does look great and that train station scene is magic

[@steveconn]

You'd think Roger would be splooging in his pants over a film that displayed the classic beauty of Chicago to such an extent. Plus just such a cool movie in itself! Oh well.

[@teejaye6226]

Gene got a lot of flack for being puritanical in his reviews...but he was nearly the only critic in America who gave a positive review to JC's "The Thing". Kudos Mr Siskel!!!

[@sm5574]

Being puritanical caused Gene to be more specific in his criticisms. For me, I found that approach much more informative than Roger's eloquent musings.

[@stonetrooper2]

The version I saw had plenty of fire, passion and humor.

[@stevenwatchorn9816]

I completely agree with Gene, and I think Roger missed the boat on this one. This film builds a considerable emotional power out of the arc Eliot Ness goes through. This film and Die Hard the following year were a couple I thought Roger let "get away."

[@tannerbartko1203]

I like Die Hard but I agree with Roger that the deputy cheif was badly written, unnecessary and paused the movie in its tracks.

[@bobthebear1246]

I thought Roger liked _Die Hard._ No?

[@stevenwatchorn9816]

@@bobthebear1246 He thought the stupid supporting characters (especially the deputy chief character) brought the film down. He gave it two stars.

[@FeverDog420]

The pan-and-scanning in these clips are especially egregious. Hooray for DVD and letterboxing.

[@amstevenson]

I’m surprised at the love this film is getting in the comments. I’m in full agreement with Ebert on this one. The Untouchables feels like a very “safe” movie with little moral stakes. I disagree with Siskel’s framing of the dilemma of breaking the law to catch a law breaker. I just don’t feel like that dilemma was ever actually tested in this film, at least not in an emotionally resonate way. The Ness character is far too pure and two-dimensional from beginning to end to make his story and arc engaging.

[@isuriadireja91]

WOW...!!!! Shocked at how much Ebert dislike The Untouchables... It's one of the cinematic masterpieces of the 1980's.

[@HugoSoup57]

He also gave a bad review to the first Die Hard, which is ridiculous since it is considered by many people including me to be one of the greatest action films ever made. Ebert gave negative reviews to a lot of classic films like Blue Velvet, A Clockwork Orange, Gladiator, Dead Poets Society, The Thing, Reservoir Dogs, Deliverance, To Kill a Mockingbird, Full Metal Jacket, and Unforgiven.

[@malafakka8530]

@@HugoSoup57 And I would agree with him on some of those movies that you mentioned. Not this one though.

[@sha11235]

@@HugoSoup57 When did he give a negative review to To Kill a Mockingbird? And he did like Unforgiven.

[@CaptainSpalding72]

calm down, its not a masterpiece, but it is very good.

[@isuriadireja91]

@@CaptainSpalding72 the f**k? U calm down. oh, and it IS a fv

[@That_Random_Bloke]

Roger totally wrong on this one. Untouchables is a great film

[@nicklengyel356]

It's funny how Roger said about the film, since Sean won an Oscar for it. The film was great

[@squareinsquare2078]

Great movie.

[@alecaquino4306]

Phenomenal movie.

[@DomoniqueStewart3936]

R.I.P SIR SEAN CONNERY (AUGUST 25th, 1930 - OCTOBER 31st, 2020) YOU WILL BE MISSED FROM THE HEAVENS 2 ALL OF US.

[@michaelperkowski641]

Roger was wrong about The Untouchables and Full Metal Jacket that summer 87. He gave thumbs down on both of those films. There are my two favorite movies that summer.

[@123rockfan]

Every single Siskel and Ebert review I watch, there’s always the comment “Siskel/Ebert was wrong.” Sorry but that’s utterly ridiculous.

[@michaelperkowski641]

@@123rockfan tell it to the fans of those movie's.

[@123rockfan]

@@michaelperkowski641 I would tell them not to get offended by other people’s opinions and that film is subjective. Siskel and Ebert have disliked dozens of movies I’ve loved, but I still respect their opinion and enjoy their reviews.

[@michaelperkowski641]

​@@123rockfan I'm a fan of Siskel and Ebert reviews as well. What I'm saying is that his review is wrong. The way he described the film in his opinion is wrong. Complaining about Robert de Niro having such a small role. The film is not about Al Capone and gene tried to explain that in his review. The film was more about Elliott Ness and his untouchables team fighting corruption and crime during prohibition in the Chicago area.

[@123rockfan]

@@michaelperkowski641 Roger Ebert thought that Kevin Costner played a boring character, and that’s why he thought DeNiro should’ve been in the movie more. This is a subjective opinion, so there’s no way that Ebert is “wrong” about this. I also wanted Deniro to have more screen time.

[@ghostinthemachine8243]

I disagree with Roger. The film is fantastic.

[@GoldwaterB]

I miss these guys. :(

[@omargonzalez2641]

Siskle is right on. Ebert was having a bad week.The movie is great entertainment.

[@ricardocantoral7672]

Ebert expected more because of the considerable talent involved. I enjoy the film but when you are familiar with the works of Brian De Palma, David Mamet, and Robert De Niro then you expect more than a better than average Hollywood entertainment.

[@fromthehaven94]

The question must be asked: what was Ebert smoking?

[@nicholasadammac1049]

I have to agree with Ebert it does not age as well as some of the other gansta crime movies

[@slowboy9565]

disagree. its a solid movie but not really special in any way

[@terryjackson324]

I agree with gene on this one, this movie is a classic.

[@chrisretro81]

Yeah Deniro did say his parts all in a week...that showed to a large degree but a great movie come on! :)

[@cannibalholocaust3015]

Morricones most distinctive scores. Enjoyed the payoff with Connerys dying words echoed later when Ness sends the stylish assassin off the building. “What are you prepared to do?” Thought very interesting societal commentary from De Palma, sometimes we just need to put bad people down and screw “due process”.

[@jeremygill2409]

Ebert was crazy on this one, Untouchables is a very good and entertaining movie. Although, I agree Deniro was nothing special in this one.

[@weegie18]

This movie was absolutely awesome. Incorrect, Roger.

[@chaparama]

This film is fabulous, once again Siskel was spot on and Ebert clueless

[@Comictalent]

I see where they are both coming from. It is a little bit museum-like at times, Costner is inconsistent, & DeNiro basically has an extended cameo. However, the highs are very high (at least 6 great scenes), Morricone's score is an all-timer, and Sean Connery is ridiculously charismatic. It's one of the best performances of the 80s. I like it a lot, despite some flaws.

[@killbot_factory]

what makes Roger great is, despite how much I want to bash him disliking this movie that I like so much, I can't really disagree with anything he says here. Love the film, love De Palma, and love SIskel and Ebert!

[@MrBoyYankee]

This was a masterclass of a film. Here endeth the lesson.

[@alecaquino4306]

It's very rare for me to disagree with Ebert. But man, he was dead wrong about this movie!

[@leonardhughes4521]

To be honest he was off on quite a few films.surprised he really liked Raiders of the lost ark.

[@2taggs2]

They were right about DeNiro - De Palma said how lazy he was during this film and didn't remember his lines.

[@TannerBartko]

Roger was way off on this. Fantastic movie

[@kdohertygizbur]

No, he was actually spot on

[@orionkalahari2037]

I recall one of Ebert's comments at the time on Carson or Letterman that the light bulbs flashing on reporters' cameras sounded like dishes dropping, which one of the reasons he disliked the movie.

[@bobthebear1246]

WOW. I had no idea that Roger Ebert didn't like this film. I'm pretty shocked, actually. I agree 100% with Gene here. I thought _The Untouchables_ WAS a great film that had plenty of plot, character development (especially in Elliott Ness), and that last climactic shootout is fucking legendary. I am VERY disappointed that my favorite critic didn't like this film. I thought it was one of the best films of 1987. Sean Connery richly deserved his Oscar® for Best Supporting Actor. He came out of nowhere and 100% nailed his character which was not an easy character to play, especially given his Scottish brogue. Robert de Niro I thought was great too and, as Gene said, the movie wasn't about Al Capone. It was about *how to get* Al Capone.

[@patrickandersen412]

How come they never mention the musical score?

[@marcussilva7698]

What film does roger say the gunfight was a direct copy of?? I couldnt hear it clearly

[@stevendreifach7737]

Battleship Potemkin

[@ricardocantoral7672]

The baby carriage rolling down the stairs, to be specific, was lifted from Battleship Potemkin.

[@stevenbaxter9099]

Nice to be your first

[@sm5574]

"Your friend died squealing like a pig." Ness throws him off the roof, screaming all the way down. "Sound anything like that?" Roger: "Ness is too passive." 🙄

[@stephanegosselin2861]

Poor Roger he never understood the Untouchables and Scarface

[@sleuthentertainment5872]

Roger Ebert and I watched a different movie for sure

[@GoldwaterB]

I see what Roger is saying, but I think he was expecting and hoping for more -- perhaps too much more.

[@thefatman69dude]

He was expecting the film to be about al capone it seems and it just wasn't. He's there sure and desirous does a fine job but he's not as important as what the cops go through and what he lost along the way trying to fight the good fight and take down badguys. They lost good people but they fought the good fight until the end. Capote could of been anyone really. It was about the struggle these few good cops had going against a giant.

[@michaelwhalen5836]

They are both correct

[@kdohertygizbur]

Hey Mister...you forgot your... EXPLOSION I was STUNNED Siskel didn't bitch about it, since he's always been the first and only Major Critic who complained about putting kids in danger

[@ArthurCSchaperMR]

Ebert is WAY OFF on this one. WAY OFF. This was an engaging, suspenseful movie. Siskel was RIGHT ON! Kevin Costner was going through a RITE OF PASSAGE. Sean Connery was excellent. 🎉

[@YouTubeKnight]

Hard disagree. Only because a character is the same at the end as at the beginning, doesn't make it flat. Ness is a character that holds onto his morals till the end and that's the point of the character, but there are are moments where we see him battling with his ideals. It sure might've been done differently or better at times, but that by no means makes the character lifeless.

[@beckydoesit9331]

What is Roger's problem?

[@reneperez7903]

Nice to be your third

[@Mr.Goodkat]

Nice to be your second

[@Maniac1607]

Nice to be your 5th.

[@thatcanadian6698]

I think Ebert was disappointed because it wasn't what he was expecting or wanted and because of that he wouldn't accept the film on it's own merits.

[@xander66644]

This is one of the few films on which I can say both critics were right. In other words, both critics had valid points. I am literally right smack in the middle. To me this film was good but not great. To me Brian DePalma's best film was Scarface (1983).

[@DoubleA93]

Nice to be your fourth

[@jasonmarcel4823]

I'm with Roger on this one. It never really stuck with me 30 yrs ago when I first saw it on video, and when I revisited about 100 different old crime pictures this pandemic (winters are so great for crime & noir movies) this still didn't do much for me. "The Public Enemy" and "Once Upon a Time In America" are the real deal while this one is playing dressup. I think Roger used the word "preordained" in his review, and he's totally right. The movie has some good moments, but it never sizzles. And though I liked Sean Connery just fine, I felt the writing was a little too obvious in the way it makes him an all-knowing figure. He's like all-knowing in ALL CAPS. The expositional dialogue is a lot like that, too, always telling instead of showing.

[@sha11235]

True, I think the DeNiro stuff is not very interesting. The scene where he hits the guy in the head with the bat really shocked me as a teen seeing this in the theater.

[@ricardocantoral7672]

Connery knew so much because he was getting information from his dirty friend.

[@1002l]

really diasgre with roger on this

[@twmax6525]

Ebert is so off. I just watched this and it was so well-executed and casted! Just as good as Scarface imo!

[@kdohertygizbur]

He's not that off, I just finished watching this movie for the first time in 10 years and I haven't changed my opinion on it, it was a good movie, not Great by any means and I also felt the same way, Costner was a wimp in this movie, his Acting was not strong at all and DeNiro was also meh The Scene on the steps was embarrassing, especially in the DePalma department, the henchmen were cringe, this movie had alot of good things, but for 2 hours, it just wasn't as good as it could have been, considering the talent involved

[@TBP1212]

Agree with Ebert, nice to watch but not a compelling film

[@filmnobelpreis]

Ebert was spot on

[@robaquarian]

Connerys death was poignant

[@gheller2261]

He was very good in the role, but the Oscar should have gone to Albert Brooks for Broadcast News. They gave it to Connery as a lifetime achievement award.

[@damianlatimer5753]

Roger Ebert was a lie! The Untouchables was one of the best movies ever made and some people think that it was one of the best movies Brian DePalma ever made

[@nationalcoasternews5798]

Nice to be your 7th

[@kdohertygizbur]

Connery still owns the worst Irish Accent in film History, I was born in Ireland, so before you say anything about it, it was horrible, yet I thought his performance was the best thing in it

[@ricardocantoral7672]

Connery clearly didn't bother to speak in an Irish accent.

[@linkbiff1054]

Nice to be your 6th

[@ghostwolf1435]

I love Siskel an Ebert but I disagree this was a great film

[@ck8671]

Ebert wrong on this. Siskel wrong on Full Metal Jacket.

[@IAmAHeater]

Sean Connery lifeless? Roger was watching a different movie

[@noahstewart5054]

Actually, he said Eliot Ness was lifeless, which I disagree.

[@mrfarkyhars9192]

If only modern movies were an eighth as good

[@peartalks3876]

Parasite is way better. The Untouchables is awful

[@patrickc3419]

The Untouchables has a great look to it, but honestly, the acting was almost across-the-board awful.

[@ricardocantoral7672]

Bull. The acting wasn't the issue, the script was. Every actor did well but nobody in the film appeared to be three dimensional.

[@movieman104]

sikel is right over ebert rare that happens

[@morgan8757]

the tv series was way better

[@morgan8757]

robert stack was way better than costner

[@eargasm1072]

I feel its one of DePalma's best, along with Carrie, Dressed to Kill and Carlitos Way

[@HugoSoup57]

Sebastian Baca I think Scarface might be his best, Carrie is good too though

[@linkbiff1054]

And Scarface and Blow-Out and Casualties Of War.

[@ruly8153]

Eh I dunno It’s a bit cheesy And that just doesn’t suit the violence

[@zimmicks3170]

Don't forget Body Double - absolute classic.

[@citygirl5705]

You can't forget "Blow Out." That's a great film and Travolta's best performance.

[@jjstraka1982]

Among other gangster movies, this movie falls way, way short

[@TheSmsawyer]

Wow, why did we care about Siskel and Ebert's takes?

[@geoycs]

Every was right. It was nothing special.

[@andyvanvlierberghecovers1221]

Indeed these guys are what depending this movie review are cinifiel morouns

[@paulamiller3893]

Ebert was always useless.

[@bloodorange6713]

Pretty average movie honestly