1994 was maybe one of the single best years for film in the last thirty years. The pair do a good job of discussing the reasons for their selections, and if they disagreed that any film on the other's list was excellent they did not voice that disagreement here.
Gene Siskel's list:
1. Hoop Dreams (#1 on both lists) - an absorbing documentary about two youths who want to be NBA players.
2. Pulp Fiction (on both lists)
3. Ed Wood
4. Thirty-Two Short Films About Glenn Gould
5. Quiz Show (on both lists)
6. Forrest Gump (on both lists)
7. Vanya On 42nd Street - Not discussed
8. The Shawshank Redemption
9. Red Rock West - Not discussed
10. Little Women
Roger Ebert's list:
1. Hoop Dreams (#1 on both lists)
2. Blue / White / Red = three separate films that are part of a trilogy that tied as far as Roger's assessment.
3. Pulp Fiction (on both lists)
4. Forrest Gump (on both lists)
5. The Last Seduction
6. Fresh - Not discussed
7. The Blue Kite - Not discussed
8. Natural Born Killers
9. The New Age - Not discussed
10. Quiz Show (on both lists)
For a total of 16 films from both critics.
It's interesting that as the two critics go through their lists they don't discuss Forrest Gump even though it is on both of their lists. I will mention that the popularity of Forrest Gump that year drove many film critics crazy. I don't know if Siskel and Ebert were among them, but if so their own reaction must have driven them crazy because they indeed liked it but apparently neither wanted to discuss why they did.
It was interesting to see Gene list and discuss two films enthusiastically that had lots of violence in them - Pulp Fiction and Shawshank Redemption. That usually kills his praise.
I was a big moviegoer in 1994, and the ones I had never heard of are Red Rock West, Fresh, and The Blue Kite. Of course I've heard of Little Women and seen several of its many adaptations, but I don't recall this one made in the modern era at all.
This show was made at the end of 1994, not that long before online critics would begin to saturate the internet.
Gene Siskel's list:
1. Hoop Dreams (#1 on both lists) - an absorbing documentary about two youths who want to be NBA players.
2. Pulp Fiction (on both lists)
3. Ed Wood
4. Thirty-Two Short Films About Glenn Gould
5. Quiz Show (on both lists)
6. Forrest Gump (on both lists)
7. Vanya On 42nd Street - Not discussed
8. The Shawshank Redemption
9. Red Rock West - Not discussed
10. Little Women
Roger Ebert's list:
1. Hoop Dreams (#1 on both lists)
2. Blue / White / Red = three separate films that are part of a trilogy that tied as far as Roger's assessment.
3. Pulp Fiction (on both lists)
4. Forrest Gump (on both lists)
5. The Last Seduction
6. Fresh - Not discussed
7. The Blue Kite - Not discussed
8. Natural Born Killers
9. The New Age - Not discussed
10. Quiz Show (on both lists)
For a total of 16 films from both critics.
It's interesting that as the two critics go through their lists they don't discuss Forrest Gump even though it is on both of their lists. I will mention that the popularity of Forrest Gump that year drove many film critics crazy. I don't know if Siskel and Ebert were among them, but if so their own reaction must have driven them crazy because they indeed liked it but apparently neither wanted to discuss why they did.
It was interesting to see Gene list and discuss two films enthusiastically that had lots of violence in them - Pulp Fiction and Shawshank Redemption. That usually kills his praise.
I was a big moviegoer in 1994, and the ones I had never heard of are Red Rock West, Fresh, and The Blue Kite. Of course I've heard of Little Women and seen several of its many adaptations, but I don't recall this one made in the modern era at all.
This show was made at the end of 1994, not that long before online critics would begin to saturate the internet.