Times you thought the greatest film critics Siskel, and Ebert were wildly wrong about a movie! (1 Viewer)

[JoeStemme]

I was a devoted fan of the show, even once I sort of outgrew them as critics. They became comfort food. And, younger folks have to keep in mind, that before the internet there were very very few places in the national media that covered indie, foreign and documentary cinema. I will always cherish them for that.
As to their opinions, it was kind of strange for me. If I had to count up the thousands of reviews they did and break them down with who I "agreed with" more often, it would be Siskel. Still, if you only put into consideration the most "important" films, it would Ebert that I agreed with more.
RIP to them both

 

[SixOfTheRichest]

Silence of the Lambs is one of my favorite films, but I think Siskel's criticisms of it are fair.

I think Ebert's assessment of his colleague's criticisms are spot-on too (and I have always tended to agree with Ebert more than Siskel), that Siskel ultimately didn't care for the subject matter and a certain level of glorification of it (to be honest), and that soured his entire view of the film.

I think that's a totally legitimate reason to not like a film -- but I think the reviewer has to be honest that they are sensitive to the subject matter and recognize that others may not have that same level of sensitivity and be willing to say, "it's OK if you like this movie, even if I didn't."

I find Lambs had a kind of quaintness about it upon my last viewing. I have seen many times. What this film did, within the boundaries of a disturbing and macabre subject matter, was a directorial achievement I find quite exceptional and even inspiring. That is why it is now a classic.

Siskel is entitled to his opinion, yet I think he was being a tad pretentious and obstinate too. He appeared to want to endorse the dry and sordid low budget Henry: Portrait Of A Serial Killer, (which is difficult viewing and was never going to win many over ), compared to a heightened Hollywood take on grisly themes that amped up the atmosphere very stylishly, very carefully and gave us strength of character in Clarice who many viewers related too of both genders. Foster did the same a few years earlier with The Accused.

Lambs is a rich film in very many ways and deserved its acclaim. Siskel was being wrongheaded, even pigheaded I feel. As per Ebert's comment, I also can't see how Lambs could have climaxed differently than it did, (I haven't read the book for compare). That was one suspenseful and scary scene with Clarice trapped in the dark with Buffalo Bill. I still find it effective. Good guy Jonathan Demme did himself proud here.

 

[Tino]

, (I haven't read the book for compare).

The film is an extremely faithful adaptation of the novel.