Here are excerpts from some of Gene Siskel’s more than 5,000 Tribune movie reviews. They provide a primer to a remarkable period in this first century of film.
`RASCAL’
Aug. 5, 1969
Note: This was Gene Siskel’s first movie review for the Tribune, a month before he was officially named the paper’s movie critic. At the time, the Tribune did not use a star-rating for movies.
Walt Disney Productions, after adapting (Sterling) North’s book, gives us a raccoon so talented that you wonder if Gentle Ben and Flipper aren’t under-achievers. Bill Mumy, who annoyed you in TV’s “Lost in Space,” gets his role of the young Sterling North confused with that of the raccoon and sets some sort of record by pursing his lips for the entire 85 minutes.
`ALL THE LOVING COUPLES’
Dec. 9, 1969
(0 stars)
“All the Loving Couples” is a tawdry, occasionally out-of-focus exploitation film that would bore a grind house operator.
. . . The dialogue sounds like it was written by a foul-mouthed wino who got hold of a 1940 joke book. Everyone associated with this insult to the film industry and State Street — the people who made it and the people who booked it — should have their mouths washed out with soap.”
`Z’
Dec. 29, 1969
(star) (star) (star) (star)
Mass movie audiences have been complaining about foreign films for years. Whether their displeasure is warranted or not is not important. It exists and thousands of people continually refuse to see “one of those foreign things with sub-titles.”
A different kind of foreign film opened here Friday. It is a great film for many reasons, not the least of which is that it can be enjoyed as a political thriller as well as a political statement.
`MIDNIGHT COWBOY’
Jan. 2, 1970
(star) (star) (star) 1/2
There is no question that this film is flawed by the inclusion of the party scene and Ratzo’s dream, but I cannot recall a more marvelous pair of acting performances in any one film. Dustin Hoffman deserves the Oscar for a role that is prickly on the outside, but tender on the inside.
`M*A*S*H’
March 30, 1970
(star) (star) (star) (star)
For me, “M*A*S*H” contains as much depression as humor. I don’t think I ever recovered after a soldier says about a Korean, “he’s a prisoner of war.”
The reply is, “So are you.”
`FIVE EASY PIECES’
Oct. 23, 1971
(star) (star) (star) (star)
What is more striking about the film is that its secondary characters are also real. The acting appears to be non-acting. . . . Karen Black is a letter-perfect Rayette, and Lois Smith, as Robert’s sister, gives the most sensitive small performance in the film.
(Jack) Nicholson makes it all go. He proves he is more than a “character actor” with many scenes, especially the confrontation with his father.
`FRENCH CONNECTION’
Nov. 8, 1971
(star) (star) (star) (star)
Good films about modern American crimes have been few and far between in the last half-dozen years, and “The French Connection” beautifully fills the void.
There is only one problem with the excitement generated by this film. After it is over, you will walk out of the theater and, as I did, curse the tedium of your own life.
I kept looking for someone who I could throw up against a wall.
`A CLOCKWORK ORANGE’
Feb. 11, 1972
(star) (star) (star) (star)
When we watch Alex sing “Singin’ in the Rain” as he kicks and clubs a man we have two reactions: first that Alex is rotten, and second that Kubrick is clever.
The second reaction, in many but not all of the opening six violent scenes, gets in the way of the first. And though it wouldn’t be as much fun to watch, I wish for the sake of the film’s argument that Alex’s initial violence had been presented with more horror and less wit.
. . . Kubrick’s contributions are his wit and his eye. The wit, too much at times, is as biting as in “Dr. Strangelove,” and the production, while of another order, is as spectacular as in “2001.”
`THE GODFATHER’
March 24, 1972
(star) (star) (star) (star)
Yes, it’s very good, but Brando is hardly the reason.
“The Godfather,” now and maybe forever at the Chicago Theater, ends with a door being closed in the face of the audience, and it is because we have been behind that door for nearly three hours that the film has such remarkable appeal. To permit us a glimpse at The Mob, with all of its ethnic insularity, is like giving a chronic gambler a chance to wander above the false mirrors that overlook every casino.
`SLEEPER’
Dec. 21, 1973
(star) (star) (star)
To say that Woody Allen’s “Sleeper” is the year’s best comedy isn’t saying much: It’s virtually the only comedy. . . .
“Sleeper” has plenty of bald spots, lacks the inspired silent comedy of “Take the Money and Run,” but, these days, comedy beggars can’t be choosers. Woody Allen is about all we’ve got. And Woody, please stay healthy.
`THE EXORCIST’
Dec. 28, 1973
(star) (star) (star) (star)
“The Exorcist” becomes a warm, almost tender experience that reminds one of the necessity of believing in something outside of oneself and of the ecstatic pleasure in being strong despite being scared virtually out of one’s minyd.
. . . Through technical virtuosity at every artistic level — including the brilliant acting debut of playwright Jason Miller as the doubt-filed priest who assists Von Sydow in the exorcism — “The Exorcist” becomes more than a shocking movie: a film with a strong, positive force.
I loved it.
`CHINATOWN’
July 15, 1974
(star) (star) 1/2
As much as I admire the work of both (Roman) Polanski and (Jack) Nicholson, I found “Chinatown” tedious from beginning to just before the end. . . .
The majority of problems are to be found in Polanski’s direction of Robert Towne’s (“The Last Detail”) script. The opening shot of almost every scene has been so artificially overcomposed as to make one aware of Jack Nicholson wearing ’30s clothes while standing in a room decorated to look like a ’30s room while talking to stereotypes plucked from an assortment of ’30s movies.
`THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN’
Dec. 19, 1974
(star) (star)
And last of all there is Bond himself, played for the second time by Roger Moore, television’s Saint. To my mind, Moore is a smug performer, insular and conceited where Sean Connery was ebullient and crudely self-aware. One rooted for Connery, whereas Moore’s smugness begs for a pistol-whipping.
`A WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE’
March 14, 1975
(star) (star) (star) (star)
One of the pleasures of watching “A Woman Under the Influence” is considering the character of Mabel from different points of view. In the beginning of the film, I saw her as a disturbed person. The stranger her behavior became, the more I accepted the view held by most of Mabel’s family — that Mabel is crazy. But then, through Cassavetes’ writing, it’s suggested that Mabel might be the sanest one in the whole group. Suddenly, “A Woman Under the Influence” became an entirely different film. That sort of depth is rare in most movies; it’s the trademark, however, of John Cassavetes.
`JAWS’
June 20, 1975
(star) (star) (star)
So far I’ve managed to avoid describing the story or any of the humans involved in it. That’s because what this movie is about, and where it succeeds best, is the primordial level of fear. The characters, for the most part, and the non-fish elements in the story, are comparatively weak and not believable.
When the fear level drops off, for example, you’ll begin questioning the realism of how this little town fights the fish that threatens to close its beaches and thereby destroy its summer tourist economy. You’ll wonder why they don’t ultimately call in the Coast Guard, and you’ll wonder, when it comes to killing the fish, why three men have to risk their necks. Why doesn’t somebody just get a big mother of a gun and blow the shark out of the water?
`TAXI DRIVER’
Feb. 27, 1976
(star) (star) (star)
Remove the cataclysmic ending from “Taxi Driver” and it would be one smashingly good motion picture. As it stands, the film is beautiful to look at, exciting to listen to, but much too much to stomach. . . .
“Taxi Driver” is an urban horror story drenched in lurid night colors: the blues and yellows of a porno moviehouse marquee, stoplight colors mixed with steam pouring out of manholes. If the idea of a neon nightmare holds any appeal, “Taxi Driver” will be worth seeing just for a collection of intense colors rivaled only by the early Disney animation pictures.
`ROCKY’
Dec. 21, 1976
(star) (star) (star)
A great movie? Hardly. Stallone as the next Brando? You’ve got to be kidding. A nice little fantasy picture? Maybe.
That’s the hype and reality of “Rocky,” the flatout schmaltzy saga of a Philadelphia club boxer who, on New Year’s Day of our Bicentennial Year, gets a chance to fight for the heavyweight championship of the world. . . .
Sylvester Stallone, as likable as a basset hound, stars as Rocky Balboa, a fighter who, all together now, could’ve been a contender.
`STAR WARS’
May 27, 1977
(star) (star) (star) 1/2
I’m sure the folks at 20th Century-Fox were thrilled when Time magazine this week called “Star Wars” “the year’s best movie.” But that kind of outlandish remark can hurt the film.
“Star Wars” is not a great movie in the sense that it describes the human condition. It simply is a fun picture that will appeal to those who enjoy Buck Rogers-style adventures. What places it a sizable cut about the routine is its spectacular visual effects, the best since Stanley Kubrick’s “2001.” . . .
“Star Wars” is expected to be a big hit. If that turns out to be the case, then coupled with the success of “Rocky,” a message will have been sent by filmgoers to Hollywood: Give us old-fashioned, escapist movies with upbeat endings.
`SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER’
Dec. 16, 1977
(star) (star) (star) 1/2
There’s an apocryphal story in the movie business about the wise old producer who used to applaud at the end of every movie because he knew how hard it was to make even a bad movie. But “Saturday Night Fever,” a very good new movie, makes a sucker out of that old producer, because “Saturday Night Fever” makes good moviemaking seem easy.
All that “Saturday Night Fever” contains are flashes of reality and tons of energy. It’s the story of a 19-year-old disco dancer, a very fine disco dancer, the very best at his local Brooklyn club. One minute into “Saturday Night Fever” you know this picture is onto something, that it knows what it’s talking about. . . .
To be sure, “Saturday Night Fever” has its weaknesses. The ending is unsatisfactorily sweet. Travolta himself thinks so and tried to have it changed. . . .
As with so many other television properties, (John) Travolta could have elected to play his first movie safely. Instead, at age 23, he gambled on an energetic, gutsy little movie, and he won.
`PRETTY BABY’
May 5, 1978
(star) (star) (star) (star)
There are those who will see red immediately when considering “Pretty Baby,” which most often has been described as “a film about a 12-year-old prostitute.”
But “Pretty Baby” is not about a 12-year-old prostitute. It’s about a world in which a 12-year-old prostitute exists. Sad to say, that’s our world today, but “Pretty Baby” is about another real world, one that existed 60 and 70 years ago: the Storyville section of pre-World War I New Orleans. . . .
“Pretty Baby” is not a totally likable film. It’s more likely to leave one quizzical about the film and about one’s reactions to it. It’s a take-it-or-leave-it exercise. If you want to make moral judgments about Storyville, (Louis) Malle leaves room for that. If you want to simply look at the period clothes, the furniture, and the whores, you can do that too. Whatever you want. You’ve paid your money.
`HALLOWEEN’
Nov. 22, 1978
(star) (star) (star) 1/2
Don’t see “Halloween” in an empty theater on a weekday afternoon. See it on a weekend night in a packed house. “Halloween” is a film to be enjoyed with a boisterous crowd; it’s an “audience picture,” a film designed to get specific reactions from an audience at specific moments.
With “Halloween,” the most often desired reaction is screaming. It’s a beautifully made thriller — more shocking than bloody — that will have you screaming with regularity. “Halloween” was directed by John Carpenter, 30, a natural filmmaker and a name worth remembering.
`THE DEER HUNTER’
March 9, 1979
(star) (star) (star) (star)
Is it as good as its advance word and nine Academy Award nominations suggest? Yes. In fact, if “The Deer Hunter” had opened in Chicago last year, as it did in New York and Los Angeles to qualify for this year’s Oscar show, “The Deer Hunter” — and not Dustin Hoffman’s “Straight Time” — would have topped my 1978 “10 Best” list.
What distinguishes “The Deer Hunter” most is its many rich characters and the size of its vision. This is a big film, dealing with big issues, made on a grand scale. Much of it, including some casting decisions, suggest inspiration by “The Godfather.”
Like “The Godfather” films, “The Deer Hunter” takes us inside an immigrant American subculture — this time, Russian Orthodox immigrants living in a Pennsylvania steel town — and concludes with a dinner table sequence that evokes a profound sense of loss, of broken dreams, of an America that has not lived up to its promise.
`APOCALYPSE NOW’
Oct. 5, 1979
(star) (star) 1/2
Let’s start with a premise: That it’s no great achievement to make an emotionally powerful film about the Viet Nam War. Even the worst of the current Viet Nam films (Henry Winkler’s “Heroes,” “The Boys in Company C”) can develop a lump in your throat.
As soon as we see a Vietnamese location in a movie, we begin to sigh. We know what’s coming next. We know of the human waste. We sigh during the Viet Nam sequences in “More American Graffiti” and in “The Deer Hunter,” and we sigh during the pre- and postwar sequences in “Hair” and in “Coming Home.” A friend of mine said that, after “The Deer Hunter,” he felt guilty that he had two legs.
In other words, that “Apocalypse Now” does manage to evoke strong emotions about the war says merely that its subject is the war. The film needs more than that to recommend it, and we have the reasonable expectation of getting more from Francis Coppola, the celebrated director of “The Godfather I & II.”
`THE BLUES BROTHERS’
June 20, 1980
(star) (star) (star) (star)
Take your pick: “The Blues Brothers” is the year’s best film to date; one of the all-time great comedies; the best movie ever made in Chicago.
All are true, and, boy, is that ever a surprise.
In recent months the advance word on “The Blues Brothers” has been that it was a problem-filled picture, a runaway, megabuck monster fueled by the outsized egos of its principal stars, John Belushi and Dan Aykroyd, formerly of “Saturday Night Live,” who apparently turned off a number of people during their stay here.
Well, forget manners. “The Blues Brothers” is a flat-out winner, from its opening eerie helicopter shot of the East Chicago steel mills at dawn to its concluding 120 mile-an-hour chase, which piles up a dozen Chicago police cars at the intersection of Lake and La Salle streets.
`RAGING BULL’
Dec. 19, 1980
(star) (star) (star) (star)
“Raging Bull” still stands as a superior achievement of film and acting art. Frankly, in 1980 you could take most Hollywood films and throw them in a blender and it wouldn’t make that much difference how you reassembled them. Safe and boring describes most Hollywood products, with major stars selling their artistic souls in the name of sequels and big-budget action.
What “Raging Bull” does so well is venture into the dark side of the human animal, in this case, the animal that was La Motta, the one-time middleweight champion who has admitted throwing a championship fight and who, in his private life, was a bullying louse to his first and second wives.
Filmed in black-and-white and shockingly well acted by De Niro, “Raging Bull” suggests that if you are looking for the source of evil in the world, you don’t have to look any further than yourself. It’s inside you or it isn’t. And it comes out or it doesn’t.
`RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK’
June 12, 1981
(star) (star) (star) (star)
Yes, it’s as entertaining as you have heard. Maybe more so. “Raiders of the Lost Ark” is, in fact, about as entertaining as a commercial movie can be.
What is it? An adventure film that plays like an old-time 12-part serial that you see all at once, instead of Saturday-to-Saturday. It’s a modern “Thief of Baghdad.” It’s the kind of movie that first got you excited about movies when you were a kid. (Translation for today’s children: It’s better than anything on TV.)
What is it not? A film for kids under the age of, say, 8 — it’s probably too intense.
“Raiders of the Lost Ark” is the product of two of the most gifted people working in the American film industry: George Lucas, 37, and Steven Spielberg, 33.
`CHARIOTS OF FIRE’
Oct. 23, 1981
(star) (star) (star)
The film has received choruses of praise prior to its nationwide opening this week. Although it is extremely well made, I frankly don’t understand what the shouting is about. Good, yes; great, no.
The primary reason that I’m less enthusiastic about the film than some others is that I found it to be a safe story. . . .
When you say that “Chariots of Fire” honors the competitive spirit, you’ve said all there is to say about the film.
`MY DINNER WITH ANDRE’
Dec. 11, 1981
(star) (star) (star) (star)
A brave little experiment is taking place this weekend at the Sandburg Theater. At a time when the big Hollywood production companies are beginning to unload their most expensive, glamorous and heavily advertised productions, the Sandburg’s opening a film that consists almost entirely of two men sitting at a dinner table and talking.
That’s right — just talking.
That’s Louis Malle’s “My Dinner with Andre,” which recounts an elaborate dinner conversation between two old friends, playwright Wally Shawn and stage director Andre Gregory. . . .
With its colorful language, “My Dinner with Andre” is to overproduced Hollywood films what radio is to television. Our minds supply the pictures.
“My Dinner with Andre” was financed outside of the Hollywood mainstream, with many small investors buying $500 shares in the film. The result is a picture that represents so much of what I want and rarely get from a movie — a couple of hours filled with characters who are as exciting as the people I know in real life.
`ON GOLDEN POND’
Jan. 22, 1982
(star) (star) (star)
The biggest surprise with “On Golden Pond” is that the best performance in the film is not turned in by a Fonda. Rather, it is Katharine Hepburn, in a performance without gimmicks or “great scenes,” who communicates so much of the film’s emotional power as a portrait of the serenity and anger associated with old age. . . .
“On Golden Pond” is a beautiful film to look at, honoring nature as much as the survivors of human life. Loons and flowers and a shimmering pond. There is a natural rhythm to the film that makes its own quiet, life-affirming statement.
`E.T.: THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL’
June 11, 1982
(star) (star) (star) (star)
The word is already out on this film, and yes, it is as enchanting as most everyone has made it out to be. “E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial,” the story of a suburban boy protecting a lost outer space creature, is a pure delight. It is the kind of film that young people are going to want to see again immediately after they’ve seen it. (In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if some theaters have trouble ejecting children who want to stay for the next show.)
“E.T.” essentially is director Steven Spielberg’s reworking and expansion of the touching, final scene in his popular “Close Encounters of the Third Kind.” . . .
I have written elsewhere that love stories seem to be in short supply these days, as they have been in the last decade of American movies. . . . But the hunger for love on the screen is there, and director Spielberg gives it to us in “E.T.,” and because the lovers are a little boy and a little creature, we accept it.
Of such simple concepts, timeless entertainments are made.
`THE RIGHT STUFF’
Oct. 21, 1983
(star) (star) (star) (star)
Leave it to the media to ruin a good time. After all, possibly the least interesting aspect of “The Right Stuff,” a great American movie, is whether or not it will help the Presidential candidacy of former astronaut John Glenn. (Of course it will help; how can it hurt?)
But that issue, having occupied the media’s attention for the last two weeks, is now threatening to dwarf the movie itself. And if it does, that would be a shame, because “The Right Stuff,” written for the screen and directed by former Chicagoan Philip Kaufman, is one terrific movie.
Like so many terrific movies, “The Right Stuff” works on a variety of levels. First and foremost, it’s a grand adventure film, dealing with the nature of courage.
`TERMS OF ENDEARMENT’
Nov. 23, 1983
(star) (star) (star) (star)
Most movies, even some good ones, are about just one thing: one caper, one relationship. “Terms of Endearment” is about three relationships and students of screenwriting would do well to study the way in which these three stories are told completely and effortlessly in a movie of average length. Oddly enough, the writing secret revealed here is to leave enough wordless passages so that the actors have time simply to be their characters. . . .
“Terms of Endearment” is filled with the same crazy quilt of emotions and odd behavior as “The World According to Garp,” The goal is the same, too, I suspect — to reflect life with all of its energy, missed opportunities, warmth, cruelty, joy and bad luck.
`THE NATURAL’
May 11, 1984
(star) (star) (star) (star)
In adapting “The Natural” for the screen, director Barry Levinson (“Diner”) and his screenwriters elected to change Malamud’s downbeat ending and swing for the emotional fences with an uplifting finish.
I think the ending in the book works; I think the ending in the movie works, too. And the reason it works in the movie is that “The Natural” is a fairy tale from start to finish, full of wildly implausible scenes that win over our emotions because, frankly, that’s the way we’d like life to be. Being a baseball fan involves repeatedly experiencing exquisite pain and exquisite joy. Well, there’s a lot of both in “The Natural.”
`AMADEUS’
Sept. 19, 1984
(star) (star) (star) 1/2
The subject of artistic creation is typically handled badly in the movies. The most common images: A drunken writer ripping sheets of paper out of his typewriter, a mad pianist striking the keys until his fingers bleed.
“Amadeus,” an adaptation of the Peter Shaffer thriller about the possible murder of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, treats the subject of creativity in a fresh way. Mozart creates easily and gloriously, and his genius is presented here refreshingly as a gift from God. It’s as simple and as awe-inspiring as that.
`THE FALCON AND THE SNOWMAN’
Jan. 25, 1985
(star) (star) (star) (star)
It’s been a long road back to quality filmmaking for director John Schlesinger (“Darling,” “Midnight Cowboy,” “Sunday Bloody Sunday”). His most recent films — “Yanks” and “Honky Tonk Freeway” — have been grossly beneath him.
But now comes something special once again, “The Falcon and the Snowman,” the first fine film of 1985. The title suggests a Disney True-Life Adventure, and although its story is true, it’s hardly about life according to Disney.
“The Falcon and the Snowman” tells the story of two young California men convicted in 1977 of selling CIA spy satellite secrets to Russia at its Mexican embassy. The reasons the young men become spies involve an anti-CIA attitude and greed. . . .
And so, just as in Schlesinger’s “Midnight Cowboy,” we have the idealist and the pragmatist trying to accomplish a dream.
`SHOAH’
Oct. 27, 1985
(star) (star) (star) (star)
To say that Claude Lanzmann’s “Shoah,” a monumental, 9 1/2-hour documentary on the destruction of Jews during World War II, is among the greatest films ever made is, oddly enough, not the best compliment one can give the film. After all, there are many great movies.
More pertinent is this: “Shoah” is the greatest use of film in motion picture history, taking movies to their highest moral value. For what director/interviewer Lanzmann has done on film is nothing less than revive history, a history so ugly that many would prefer to forget.
`TOP GUN’
May 16, 1986
(star) (star) (star)
No doubt about it: “Top Gun” is going to be the hit that “The Right Stuff” should have been. They are not in the same class of films, but this much must be said: The aerial sequences in “Top Gun” are as thrilling — while remaining coherent — as any ever put on film.
Believe me, you’ll sit there asking yourself about the filmmakers, “How did they do that?”
As a result “Top Gun” makes us idolize jet pilots, and surely that’s one of its goals. If the Navy brass had any brains, they’d have a jet pilot school recruiter in the lobby of every theater where “Top Gun” is playing. . . .
Where “Top Gun” falls apart to the point of being offensive is in its pedestrian, silly, sexist love story in which a Navy cadet pilot (Tom Cruise from “Risky Business”) seduces his senior female flight instructor (Kelly McGillis from “Witness”).
`THE FLY’
Aug. 22, 1986
(star) (star) (star) (star)
“The Fly,” is certain to be one of the more controversial films of the year. But as slimy and as grotesque as some of its special effects become, “The Fly” is a far superior horror film to the top-grossing film in America of late, “Aliens.”
Whereas “Aliens” simply throws alien, spindly creatures at Sigourney Weaver for two hours, David Cronenberg’s adaptation of “The Fly” is more appealing because its creature is part human. Thus — as with a Frankenstein’s monster, a classic vampire or a Mr. Hyde — we can empathize with the “monster” rather than merely fear it.
`PLATOON’
Jan. 2, 1987
(star) (star) (star) (star)
“Platoon” was written and directed by Oliver Stone, a Vietnam vet. Although he commits the sin of overwriting, which also plagued his other political scripts — “Midnight Express,” “Year of the Dragon” and “Salvador” — the overall effect of “Platoon” is the next best (or worst) thing to being there in the stifling jungle watching your buddies getting blown away while you fight an enemy you can’t see. . . .
“Platoon” is filled with one fine performance after another, and one can only wish that every person who saw the cartoonish war fantasy that was “Rambo” would buy a ticket to “Platoon” and bear witness to something closer to the truth.
`FATAL ATTRACTION’
Sept. 18, 1987
(star) (star) (star)
“Fatal Attraction” (is) a solid thriller growing out of lawyer Michael Douglas’ decision to have a fling with editor Glenn Close while his wife is out of town.
What Douglas doesn’t realize until he tries to break off the relationship is that Close is a desperately lonely and possessive woman.
The result is a manic yet methodical attempt by Close to follow Douglas to his office and to his home. She even confronts his wife and children. It’s full of tension because of the realistic playing by the principal actors, including Anne Archer as Douglas’ wife.
This is the best “crazed woman” thriller since Clint Eastwood’s gem “Play Misty for Me.” Only a gimmicky ending spoils an otherwise competently made shocker.
`NAKED GUN’
Dec. 2, 1988
(star) (star) (star) 1/2
“The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!,” the latest silliness from the writing and directing team that gave us “Airplane!” Their formula for success seems so simple you wonder why no one else tries it. Cram as many outrageous visual and verbal jokes as possible into 90 minutes.
Actually, the “Police Academy” gang tries it and fails. “The Naked Gun,” however, truly is, in show-business parlance, a laff riot. It gave me about 10 big laughs and 20 small laughs and as many smiles. That’s value for time and money spent.
`RAIN MAN’
Dec. 16, 1988
(star) (star) (star) 1/2
Tom Cruise plays a Los Angeles hustler who discovers after his estranged father’s death that he has a long-lost brother to whom his father has left $3 million while giving Cruise nothing in cash.
The brother (Dustin Hoffman) is an autistic man confined to a mental institution. Cruise kidnaps him in an effort to get half of his estate, but during their one-week, cross-country journey, Cruise’s attitude toward his brother changes.
The strength of the film is really that of Cruise’s performance, his finest since “Risky Business.” Hoffman takes the risky, thankless role of playing someone who is uncommunicative and decidedly uptight. He dares to make the character annoying and frustrating, and the combination of two superior performances makes the movie worth watching.
`DEAD POETS SOCIETY’
June 9, 1989
(star) (star) (star)
Director Peter Weir keeps Williams from running away with the movie, and the film works as well when he is off-screen as on. The title refers to a secret club that honors poetry and free-thinking. The Williams character created it when he was a student and it is his gift to the current class and to all young people watching the film.
`PARENTHOOD’
Aug. 4, 1989
(star) (star) (star) 1/2
Ron Howard’s first-rate dramatic comedy (is) “Parenthood,” with Steve Martin headlining a first-rate cast in a most clever script about the joy and pain of being both a parent and a child. The form of the picture is a series of interlocking vignettes that describe everything from the movement for building brighter babies to the exquisite pain of watching a child try to catch a fly ball in a Little League game.
“Parenthood” could easily have focused exclusively on yuppie parents and their kids; however, the script by Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel is more sophisticated than that, remembering that every parent is still a child too.
`MY LEFT FOOT’
Feb. 2, 1990
(star) (star) (star) (star)
The surprisingly fresh and non-syrupy true story of Christy Brown, an Irishman who thrived as an artist despite having cerebral palsy, which allowed movement in only one limb.
Daniel Day-Lewis gives an extraordinary performance that never degenerates into “disease-of-the-week” TV show material. His Christy Brown is irascible and downright mean in addition to being an artist. Too often in films like this you only get a token single scene of the crippled person feeling sorry for himself. Instead, we see in “My Left Foot” just how much work is done by Christy’s family in their crowded, working-class home.
“My Left Foot” celebrates the nurturing, healing power of the family unit while avoiding every cliche about the disabled.
`GOODFELLAS’
Sept. 21, 1990
(star) (star) (star) (star)
Ostensibly the central character of the story is its narrator, Henry Hill (Ray Liotta), who joins the New York syndicate as a teenage gofer and ends up participating in mob hits, truck hijackings and air-cargo thefts. His is a true story–Henry Hill would go on to become a major mob informant, as recounted in Nicholas Pileggi’s book, “Wiseguy”–but the centerpiece of (Martin) Scorsese’s adaptation is contained in the character of tough guy Tommy DeVito (Joe Pesci), who repeatedly explodes in violence simply because he’s an animal and no one in his world cares to stop him.
The strength of “Goodfellas” is that, unlike so many mobster movies, it is anything but a recruiting film for the Mafia. These criminals throw away loyalty when self-interest comes first. Marriage means nothing to them. They view the honorable workingman’s life as a sucker’s life.
`THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS’
Feb. 15, 1991
(star) (star)
“The Silence of the Lambs” has been billed as one of the most frightening, depraved films ever made. Would that it were so.
Instead, this is a case of much ado about nothing. Jonathan Demme, one of our most inventive directors, has made a grab for the money in filming this story of an attempt by an FBI trainee (Jodie Foster) to catch a serial killer by subscribing to the theory that it takes one to know one.
Foster, smartly following her victim role in “The Accused” with a heroic role here, interviews the terrible killer Dr. Hannibal “The Cannibal” Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) in an effort to catch a freak named “Buffalo Bill” who likes to skin women.
Dr. Lecter is no Boy Scout by comparison; he likes to eat the body parts of his victims. And right now you are probably thinking, “Maybe I’ll go see `Home Alone’ again.” Smart move.
Or you could take a chance and screen on home video “Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer,” which was a fascinating, illuminating, deadpan portrait of the same lethal subject. Instead, director Demme superheats “The Silence of the Lambs” to the point of silliness, in terms of both gross behavior and a pulsating soundtrack. The conclusion of the film is nothing more than a grisly version of every mad-slasher picture you’ve ever missed. Jodie’s in trouble. Shoot, Jodie, shoot.
`BARTON FINK’
Aug. 23, 1991
(star) (star) (star) 1/2
The latest film from the adventurous Coen brothers and the grand prize winner of this year’s Cannes Film Festival. It’s easy to see why an international film jury would embrace its story of a seeming innocent in venal Hollywood. But what is exciting about “Barton Fink,” aside from its compelling visuals, is the Coens’ point of view that Hollywood is what it is and has always been so, and that those who complain about it being some sort of amorphous evil have only themselves to blame. They themselves are the problem.
“Barton Fink” suffers only when the contrivances of its story overwhelm its characters. It’s at its best when young Barton Fink simply stares at a picture of a bathing beauty contemplating the ocean — a Hollywood dream.
`BASIC INSTINCT’
March 20, 1992
(star)
“Basic Instinct” has been making news lately because about 45 seconds of its steamier scenes were trimmed in order to get the film an “R” instead of a more prohibitive “NC-17” rating. In retrospect, this seems like a publicity gimmick because the record-breaking $3 million script by Joe Eszterhas offers nothing more than a series of kinky couplings to gain attention. The picture opens with a statuesque woman tying up her male lover on a bed and stabbing him with an ice pick during their orgasm. What a lovely attitude toward sex!
Gay groups have protested the needless introduction of lesbianism into a murder mystery; they have a point, but the inclusion is as thoughtless as the rest of the script. The lesbianism is there just to add to the sexual titillation of the male filmmakers.
`SISTER ACT’
May 29, 1992
(star) (star)
Was I ever uncomfortable reviewing this picture. Why? Because while most of the preview audience I saw it with last week was obviously enjoying it immensely — the laughter and applause for the musical numbers was the tipoff — I sat there only mildly amused. What limited my appreciation was that I thought its reach was so slight.
Goldberg plays a Reno lounge singer who witnesses a murder and is hidden as a federal witness in a convent, where she promptly revitalizes the nuns and their parish by teaching them soul. And based on that description, there isn’t a scene in the movie that will surprise you.
`INDECENT PROPOSAL’
April 9, 1993
(No star rating given)
“Indecent Proposal” (is) the latest woman-hating Hollywood fantasy in which money buys a guy a fabulous babe. It cost Richard Gere only $3,000 for a week with Julia Roberts in “Pretty Woman.” But Robert Redford is willing to fork over a cool million for just one night with the married Demi Moore. Who says implants aren’t worth it?
About the only smart element in this script is that the million-dollar night takes place off-screen. But that’s because icon Redford, playing a variation on his “Great Gatsby” character, wouldn’t have it any other way. Either he didn’t want to look old in bed or he didn’t want to manifest the evil of his character.
`SCHINDLER’S LIST’
Dec. 17, 1993
(star) (star) (star) (star)
By now you’ve already heard it called “the movie of the year” by critics and news magazines. That’s my feeling as well. What Spielberg has done in this Holocaust story is simply and forcefully place us there. In Krakow. In the ghetto.
I’m not surprised that Spielberg was able to capture the heroism of (Oskar) Schindler; so many of his movies are about the better part of mankind. What is surprising is how well Spielberg captures the horror, moving his camera with the fury of a combat photographer on the run.
Some of the violence is difficult to watch, but there is a story with genuine tension that runs throughout the crimes. And then there is that magical ending that came to Spielberg with only five weeks remaining in the shoot. That you must see. Don’t cheat yourself.
`THE FLINTSTONES’
May 27, 1994
(star) 1/2
Unfortunately, much less thought has been put into this screenplay than into the production design and publicity campaign for this profoundly dull enterprise. In other words, “The Flintstones” looks great but is a complete bore, and for my $7, I’d rather have seven rock-themed glasses from McDonald’s.
`PULP FICTION’
Oct. 14, 1994
(star) (star) (star) (star)
“Pulp Fiction” takes three pulpy, violent, low-life tales and interweaves them in a daring story line that doubles back upon itself in a way that just isn’t done in American movies today. Add some bracing dialogue that sounds like the kind of craziness you might hear standing next to a pay phone in a big city, and what you have is the best film yet from an exciting new talent.
If you smile at David Mamet’s dialogue, you’ll laugh out loud at the words of Quentin Tarantino.
`BEFORE SUNRISE’
Jan. 27, 1995
(star) (star) (star) (star)
The first really good film I’ve seen this year and a true rarity — an intelligent romance. You may not have been in exactly this situation in your life, but you may have been close to it. . . .
In one of the great — and I do mean great — pickup scenes in movie history, (Ethan) Hawke asks (Julie) Delpy to look ahead in her life, say, some 20 years and imagine how she might come to regret not having gotten off the train with him. I won’t give away his leap in logic, but it’s the kind of smart, whimsical dialogue that you almost never hear in an American movie. “Pulp Fiction” brought great dialogue to the crime genre; “Before Sunrise” does the same for romance.
`OUTBREAK’
March 10, 1995
(star)
I found much to laugh at in “Outbreak” — and even more to scorn. Every hoary cliche is trotted out to bolster a weak script. (Dustin) Hoffman has a divorced wife (Renee Russo) and they fake-feud over their two big dogs. Hoffman also has a wisecracking subordinate officer, and you know what happens to wiseacres in the movies. And then there’s the young major, who is a virgin when it comes to dealing with plagues, and guess what he does with his space helmet on when he sees his first corpses in Africa. Right, he loses his lunch.
The film’s bad guy, an evil general, is played by Donald Sutherland, who would rather blow up an American city than pursue the truth. And that city will be blown away if the young major can’t shoot a monkey with a dart. Oh, I hope he doesn’t hit that little girl standing next to the monkey instead.
`UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL’
March 1, 1996
(star)
“Up Close and Personal” had me debating this issue: Is it worse as a love story or as a drama about the sorry state of television news? The answer: It’s a tie. If you know anything about local TV news — and I’ve worked in such a newsroom for the past 21 years — you can’t help but be mad as hell at “Up Close and Personal.” The details and the big ideas in this fluff are all wrong.
`LONE STAR’
July 5, 1996
(star) (star) (star) (star)
Our Flick of the Week is John Sayles’ brilliant “Lone Star,” a mystery that is really a stunning panorama of America with all of its open landscape and closed-mindedness.
This is a so-called small film because it has none of the special effects or explosions that mark other summertime releases. As a result, “Lone Star” is likely — make that surely — to be overlooked by moviegoers who slavishly trot out to see the empty “Independence Day.”
And come December, when “Lone Star” makes a lot of critics’ best-of-the-year lists, the same moviegoers will say, “Gee, I missed that one.”
It doesn’t have to be that way, you know.
`THE RELIC’
Jan. 10, 1997
(star) (star) (star)
A surprisingly entertaining “monster-on-the-loose” picture set mostly in halls and private passageways of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History. A scientist’s experiment goes terribly wrong as the museum winds up being shipped a rapidly growing and lethal creature that is part bug, part human and part reptile. It also likes to rip the heads off its victims and drink their brain fluid.
Good morning!
Director Peter Hyams, a former anchorman for Chicago’s Channel 2 News, teases us by showing only bits and pieces of the monster until the final act, but once we get full sight of it, the creature can hold its own with “The Alien.” And right there you have an idea for a sequel.
Even if you just happen to be in a multiplex where it is playing, you might want to find out from an usher when its last reel begins. That’s when the creature catches on fire and the special effect is truly awesome. The sight will bring out the adolescent in you, as it obviously did with me.
`TITANIC’
Dec. 19, 1997
(star) (star) (star) 1/2
The most delightful element is watching a 5-foot-9 actor steal the $200 million epic from an 800-foot boat. That’s the achievement of 23-year-old Leonardo DiCaprio, who again delivers on the promise of his thrilling, Oscar-nominated debut two years ago in “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape.”
With his beatific, sweet, open face, DiCaprio gives us a rooting interest in hoping that someone important to us survives the wreck. And that provides strong counterpoint to our more natural disaster film impulse to vicariously watch others suffer. DiCaprio is so good that we tolerate (Kate) Winslet, whose performance and character are boring.
Of course, it’s absurd to spend more than $200 million on a single movie. But I’m reviewing the picture, not the budget, and on that basis “Titanic” works.
`FALLEN’
Jan. 16, 1998
(star) 1/2
I must tell you that my heart sinks these days when I have to see another serial killer movie — and they roll by every month, it seems. I don’t care about any of the special wrinkles in the stories, whether there is more than one killer or whether, as in this case, the killer is inhabited by a devilish spirit that is a fallen angel.
It’s all an excuse for a depressing parade of killing. That Washington reportedly received a record (for him) paycheck for $15 million is small consolation for the audience.
Sequels and TV shows turned into bad movies have been the bane of my existence for a few years now. Add serial killer films to the list.
`ARMAGEDDON’
July 3, 1998
(star) (star) (star)
While you are seeing it you will feel as though you have been in combat, visual and aural. This could have been the movie that Malcolm McDowell was shown with his eyes peeled back in “A Clockwork Orange” to turn him off violence. Am I communicating?
We’re talking non-stop action and noise. That doesn’t make it a bad movie; rather, the audaciousness of the way it has been put together eventually becomes amusing.
Here is one more attempt to communicate the blaring intensity of “Armageddon.” By the end, I didn’t care whether Earth was saved as much as I wanted to survive myself.
`SHE’S ALL THAT’
Jan. 29, 1999
(star) (star) (star)
(Note: This was Gene Siskel’s last review for the Tribune.)
Our Flick of the Week is “She’s All That,” a high school drama that accurately reflects the intense pressures that 17-year-olds feel about their senior prom: from whom they are going with, to what direction their lives will take afterward.
Fortunately, what’s missing from this example of this generation of teenage romances is a dark element of mayhem or malevolence. Refreshingly, no one dies.
This, then, is the sunniest high school picture since “Clueless,” although it lacks that film’s topical sense of humor.
Rachael Leigh Cook, as Laney, the plain Jane, is forced to demonstrate the biggest emotional range as a character, and she is equal to the assignment. I look forward to seeing her in her next picture.
