The Thing (1982) movie review - Sneak Previews with Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 05. 2019
- This is the original review of The Thing by Siskel & Ebert on "Sneak Previews" in 1982. All of the segments pertaining to the movie have been included.
- Zábava
You really have to give Siskel credit. He was literally the ONLY movie reviewer in the entire country at that time who basically understood this movie and gave it a (relatively) good review (and this was coming from a guy who didn't particularly enjoy horror films). In fact few people outside of teens or twenty year olds liked The Thing in 1982, hense the poor showing at the box office.
the bad box office had a lot to do when it was released
it was not a summer flick
@@thewkovacs316 - remember E.T. came out earlier and was a friendly alien. No one was ready for this type of movie
Which was weird since Roger usually would always like these type of films. This feels like we are in the upside down world right now.
It’s weird, it’s kind of why I admire Siskel so much as a critic. When he was wrong, he was criminally wrong like with Apocalypse Now, but when he was right, often in the face of a serious oppositional critical consensus, time proved that he did really know what he was talking about and was no doubt a remarkably sharp and analytical guy.
Looks to me Roger Ebert chokes again when a movie challenges him.
i saw this in 82...grown men walked out. Siskel actually got this right & Ebert wrong. The Thing might be the greatest horror ever put on film.
vs. "Halloween"? "The Shining"? "Psycho"? "The Exorcist"? "Jaws"? That's huge competition. Let's say solidly top 10 and maybe top 5. I would say that it's the best Agatha Christie movie that wasn't an Agatha Christie movie.
@@cdorman11 The Shining sucks ass. Laughed my ass off at 12, now it just bores the shit outta me. There's nothing scary when you take five motherfucking hours to zoom in on Scatman Crothers' face.
*Or* beauty is just in the eye of the beholder
@@cdorman11 yes, why not? it's better than all those
The Thing is a Top Notch thriller. The acting wasn't as good as some other films, but it was good enough to roll the story along.
this is, in my opinion, the greatest horror film ever made in cinematic history.
With all due respect, you need to watch more horror movies.
I wold agree this is a great and very suspenseful film with awesome effects. Roger called this the most gross film he had ever seen in terms of gore. The same guy gave a big thumb up for the original Dawn of the Dead which is 10 times gorier at least. I loved it too. but Roger can be prudish at times if not hypocritical considering he wrote the screenplay for the unwatchable Return to the Valley of the Dolls.
@@christopherkulik6575 What? The Thing could easily be considered THE greatest horror movie ever
Agree. It’s a horror masterpiece.
@@christopherkulik6575 he said it was his opinion
It's sad that the "disgusting" part freaked critics like Ebert out. It's well written, and so well acted and directed, how can you pan it? (One of my favorite movies)
And Ebert sat through and loved Dawn of the Dead, where that biker gang get ripped apart and eaten before our eyes. Go figure.
@Starscream91 I recently read a review of his of the 2011 prequel where he goes over its two predecessors. He stands by his opinion, unfortunately
If freaked Siskel out too. BOTH were repelled by the special effects.
Ebert was wrong about movies more often that he was right, and he reviewed them for a living. He gave Anaconda a better review than Groundhog Day.
He was a useless FAT PIG.
@@youtubesuresuckscock bruh that's so rude
Amazes me that "The Thing" wasn't highly praised when it came out. Now it's considered one of the greatest horror films ever.
I saw it in the theater when I was a kid and loved it then.
@Follow Your Dreams That's dangerous watching any movies on cable. They like to cut out scenes. I know the sci fi channel completely ruins Twilight Zones by cutting them up.
Can't remember anything about seeing "The Thing" in the theater, other than I loved it.
I believe that they both have good points about the way overdone gross-out factor in this.
After all, ALIEN did it much much better with a lot less gore in it.
@@coltseavers6298 That's like people saying "Halloween 2" wasn't good because it had more violence than the original. So what?
And the gore in "The Thing" was a blast!!! Most people loved it.
And it wasn't like "The Thing" depended on the gore either. Still had a great atmosphere, great suspense, a foreboding musical score, and of course the great Kurt Russell.
@Jade Green Universal should've put Cat People out that month instead of The Thing. BUT remember Halloween III was their scheduled October treat (or trick depending on your pov)
@@citygirl5705 You couldn't go wrong with Carpenter in the early 80s. And I second Halloween 2 was great.
one of, if not the greatest, endings to a movie of all time. I've never appreciated the absolutely loneliness and irony of 2 men, alone, trying to survive each others mistrust. Amazing on all fronts.
It does. Also, The Mist is up there with best endings.
On the DVD Blu-ray it's is the alternate ending
@@jedi4049 The Mist had a shocking and disturbing ending.
I’m shocked at how far off Ebert is with the intention of this film. He mistakes it for a cheesy monster movie when it’s so much more than that. He complains about the lack of character development which shows how little he understood this movie. The characters aren’t supposed to feel three dimensional, they’re supposed to feel like strangers so that the paranoia is more effective. Siskel is closer to understanding the films intention, but I disagree with their criticism of the gore. The gore is a remarkable achievement in practical effects, and help make the creature all the more frightening.
Jack Nolan ebert was blind when it came to horror generally...he liked sone of it but mostly he didn’t get it...Gene gets this totally
One should recognize the practical effects in this movie, indeed!
"they’re supposed to feel like strangers so that the paranoia is more effective" - that is an extremely insightful observation. Well said. It really adds to the unsettling atmosphere throughout the film.
Kevin Gamble thank you sir! I couldn’t agree with you more. it’s truly shocking he missed these themes throughout the film. Every criticism Ebert has on the film is 100% intensional and it helps to achieve Carpenter’s vision.
@Texas Chainsaw Jesus Honestly watching their reviews is like watching two old grandmas, it's really pathetic. I never realized just how shit they were until I saw some of these on CZcams
Gene felt it. Just like the rest of us fans of this classic. One of my all time favs.
Summer of 1982 gave us The Thing, Blade Runner, ET , The Road Warrior and Wrath Of Khan. Summer of 2019 gave us a headache
Also Tron.
And Conan the Barbarian, Poltergeist, and a pile of B movies that have endured to become cult classics. Every year back then had some great stuff, but '82 was remarkable. The big-studio stuff was wild and experimental, the B movies were also wild and readily available, and everything had distinctive character. Spielberg was at the height of his powers, we were all looking forward to the third Star Wars movie... it was an amazing time for imaginative cinema and culture in general. Everything seemed possible. Looking at the dreary, cynical, cookie-cutter dreck that is the norm today, I'm glad to have experienced the prior era of cinema.
@@kevgamble very well said. Hollywood is dead in 2019. Quite a fall too.
And The Misfits released the album Walk Among Us
It gave is the new terminator 🤮
How would a buddy system have worked? They didn't understand the nature of the organism until it was too late and people were affected. If your buddy is an imitation, you're screwed. You then have two imitations walking around.
Absolutely.
"And watch whoever you're with, real close." - MacReady.
That said, people's being alone instead of with a buddy makes it easier for the thing to attack. Lots of mistakes were made--mistakes I think scientists would have worked harder to prevent. "Why were they shooting at a dog? at us?" If a dog were being shot at by someone from another camp, would you intervene? Would you shoot at the person or help by shooting at the dog? Would you intervene to the extent of committing murder? Would you let it lick your face? I would have assumed at a minimum that the dog had rabies, even if I couldn't think immediately of how rabies could make its way to Antarctica.
Continued rant: a chopper that could actually hover would enable them to take out Dog-Thing easily before it reached another camp
Despite the implausibilities, it's no less plausible than a good Agatha Christie. And this movie basically is Christie's "Ten Little Indians," problematic buddy system and all.
Well... flamethrowers.
maybe walk in three? heh..
Yeah, Egbert thinks he's smart but he would have been one of the first to get assimilated by the alien.
I’m with Gene. A few years before Roger praised Dawn of the Dead, which for its time was much more gory and “repulsive.”
True, but there was a more light hearted & comedic tone to Dawn of the Dead, whereas The Thing is totally grim.
As far as I see it, Rogers main criticism were the characters. And although I liked the film, I would agree with Roger on this point.
@@filmbuff2777 there’s a few funny moments in the thing but mostly grim because of how ambiguous it ends up being which is great it is a HORROR movie after all
I would say The Thing was more of a grossout movie
Time has proven Roger woefully wrong in his assessment of The Thing, as it's now widely regarded as one of the best horror films ever made. And don't forget, he gave The Thing a thumbs down, but Home Alone 3 a thumbs up, which proves that you should never take a critic's word as gospel. Go see the movie for yourself, be your own judge.
Your not comparing apples to apples here. You can't compare a review of Home Alone 3 to The Thing. Two totally different types of movies.
Ebert was not the only one that disliked The Thing. And Home Alone 3 is not comparable.
You will never find any critic that you agree with 100%. I'm sure you have movie opinions that definitely suck.
Come on guys Homr Alone 3 was pretty bad.
And he liked "Speed 2". Neither of these guys opinions were worth anything.
Most critics hated this movie, but over the years it has developed a huge cult following.
The level of suspense is off the charts. Reminded me of the best murder mystery novel ever, Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None
The autopsy scene turned a LOT of people off, I think.
I liked "The Thing". It reminded me of my first marriage.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
You should’ve tested her blood, bro.
Which one of you turned out to be the creature?
@@maskedmarvyl4774 His wife was from Stepford, if that tells you anything.
Holy crap! Caught me totally off guard, thanks for the laughs. Agree with Siskel, great movie, great performances but the special effects, though cool at the time, I was a teenager, now just makes me a little bit nauseous. Having said that, the spider head scene has never been topped by any other movie! Still highly recommend the movie, it has to be experienced at least once or twice if you haven’t seen it.
They had a similar reaction to Aliens in 1986 where both were "disgusted" by the special effects so much that they couldn't see how substantial the film really was. Of course, time is the only critic that matters.
I definitely don’t agree that “time is the only critic that matters.” It’s great when a movie is timeless, but some art says exactly what needs to be said in a particular time but doesn’t speak to later audiences at all.
The Thing was an absolute masterpiece of tension and paranoia, for once Siskel wasn't full of shit but as usual Ebert was. It's sad this movie bombed when it first ran but it's since finally gotten the wide recognition it deserves.
came out same weekend as E.T. - that and the negative reaction to the gore sunk it. it's the scariest movie I have seen.
I agree with you for the most part but I don't get the Siskel/Ebert hate. They were both great critics, just sometimes they made mistakes. My personal favorite movie of all time is The Thing, I think it's the closest any film has ever come to being truly perfect and amazing at everything it did, and my respect for Siskel/Ebert is still immense. I think you should be more open-minded, and if you are personally not a fan of film criticism itself, think of it as an art form, which it is.
@@nathanielphillips3592 Siskel published Betsy Palmer's personal home address so people could harass her for staring as Mrs. Voorhees in Friday the 13th, he did the same for the then head of Paramount too who probably had a family living at his address, that's an incredibly sleazy and irresponsible thing to do to somebody just because he didn't like their movie. I don't fault him for not liking it, far from it, but deliberately and intentionally opening people up to personal harm because of it made him a colossal asshole in my book.
But hey nobody died and made me god so if you like them you're entitled to, and though personally I found him snobby maybe I'm being a little too harsh on Ebert, but what Siskel did is inexcusable.
@@joesmoe71 Okay I'm gonna need some proof of that. I used to be super into horror movies, specifically slashers, when I was younger and I've never heard anything about that. I'm not denying it fully, I'm just gonna need a link or something.
@@nathanielphillips3592 I've read it in a number of places over the years, though that of course doesn't mean it's written in stone since I can't even remember those places. A quick scan brings it up in a lot of discussions but nobody is citing anything I could call confirmation, so I guess it's possible it's urban legend.
I can't believe how amazing this film looks now in HD. Just so well photographed.
Gene usually had a bit of a problem with violence in movies, glad to see he saw beyond that in this case.
Yeah, I was expecting him to be a downvote. Hitchcock was on talk show being interviewed by an audience of journalists after one of his last movies, and Siskel dials in, twice, to ask about Hitch's use of and view on the increasing violence in movies.
I'm still sad that such skillful special effects were unappreciated because they were "gross." These are space alien guts. Didn't that take the edge off?
But CGI comes out and practical effects become better appreciated.
@@cdorman11 Do you have a link to that video? Would love to see it.
@@Goldenwhatever Search CZcams for "96 Minute 'Masterclass' Interview with Alfred Hitchcock on Filmmaking 1976." It's 95 minutes. I don't know where Siskel calls in. Could be anywhere, since questions were taken pretty much from the start.
The Thing is a great movie, John Carpenter and the cast did an excellent job, the movie holds up very well today, thanks John!
👍👍
"The Thing" over time has become a classic. I miss Siskel and Ebert! They helped me raise my standards in watching movies. It would be interesting to hear what they'd say about movies today.
I bet they would be pissed at today's state of cinema
More like a cult classic.
The Thing is amazing!
A Thing of beauty.
It was a great film, IMHO.
The 80's truly were a different time where everything had to be squeaky clean on the surface. If The Thing had come out in the 90's, it would have been applauded for what it truly is: One of the greatest horror movies of all-time with incredible effects that don't age. CGI will never compare with the organic practical effects used in this movie.
i grew up in Chicago watching these two, and still love them. However I am amazed by how often they were wrong about classic movies.
The Thing is one of the greatest horrors ever made.
I still remember the shivers I got when I heard the unearthly scream of The Thing when McReady and the others were approaching the dog kennel. It was such an incredible sound that it made me think this creature was a thousand years old and from a planet a billion light years away from planet Earth.
I remember watching scary movies growing up in the 80s. This was the only one I never finished. I finally watched it around 1998 or so. It's a scary movie for sure and the effects are incredible.
I could not sleep for a full month after seeing this film on VHS when I was 11.
It’s strange that Gene liked it and Roger didn’t. Normally, it’s Roger that likes the violent movies and Gene that hates them. Look at “Taxi Driver” and “Aliens” for example
Gene loved taxi driver though.
I agreed with Gene on Aliens. I LOVED it when he called it wall-to-wall the-monsters-are-on-the-attack, which is why it fails as a sequel to one of the greatest horror movies ever made.
Geez, some people really get triggered when a critic doesn't happen to like a movie that they like.
Still, sometimes I see a review where you wonder whether the critic saw the same movie that i did. I saw this as a setting where everybody is lonely, isolated, on an abnormal sleep schedule, and stir crazy. When you add a terrifying alien presence, people don't act 100% logically. I think Ebert was hung up on the horror conventions of that time when he watched this.
When someone is really reputable and famous for being a """""critic"""""" then obviously you will expect the best opinion from him/her. Ebert here, is woefully wrong, and it just makes him look like a monkey. Gone are the days where you have to get respectable opinions from a famous monkey like him when you could just read some reviews from IMDb.
When this movie came out the special effects blew me away. I don't understand why so many people didn't give it the recognition it deserved.
Siskel definitely had the better analysis here. Ebert seemed to be reacting more to the gore and what he wanted the movie to be than to what it actually was. Though it's interesting to recall - especially those of us who lived through these times - that so many grotesque things we take for granted in mainstream entertainment today were not always the norm. There's a conditioning we have today that people didn't have back then, and in some ways I think these two see things more clearly as a result. In that sense, Ebert's words were prophetic - the masses go for the cheap thrill, and are willing to not care about a lack of substance.
"And watch whoever you're with, real close." - MacReady.
Once again, I side with Siskel over Ebert.
Siskel was wrong on so many classic movies
Siskel always seemed to hate violent horror movies but this one he liked. Weird!
Nitrobotti Yeah, he gave thumbs down to Silence of the Lambs, Taxi Driver, Poltergeist, Rocky, Apocalypse Now, The Terminator, and Chinatown.
@@Nitrobotti And incredibly hypocritical too considering that he ripped on movies like Friday the 13th for their violence, but praised this movie which was even gorier and more gross.
The Thing is one of my favorite films of any genre, and certainly my favorite among horror films. However wrong Ebert was here, he and Siskel really deserve a break. At that time nobody had ever seen special effects like these before. Sure, we had cool looking monsters (Alien) and exploding heads (Scanners), but this was the first sci-fi/horror film that had such expertly crafted, wild and creative gore. Carpenter didn't even spare us when guys are getting stitches or slicing their thumbs for blood samples (there was a point to that, as Carpenter explains in his commentary). The only true precedent was Alien, and that of course was mainly just the chest burster scene. Not being conditioned to such insanely visionary slime like we are today, it's easy to see how in 1982 the special effects would've been a repellent distraction.
Gene was much closer to grasping how genius this movie was. Of course, by today’s standards, the monster effects shouldn’t be that shocking unless you marvel at how GOOD they are for practical effects. In that sense, SHOCKINGLY good. Plus, in a story like this, gruesomeness really is par for the course.
Personally I think it is the greatest horror film ever made. I can't see how anyone can't have it in their top five. It surprises me that someone as experienced as Ebert in reviewing movies didn't see the spectacular storytelling here. I saw this one as a little kid so many times in the theatre the summer it came out that I even remember the commercial that was played before the movie started (Chopper Command from Activision). The sequel/prequel from ten years back is very good as well.
Gene’s read ended up being what people eventually took from the movie, while Roger’s was what people took from the movie at the time!
Robert Ebert gives "The Swamp Thing" yes...but this a no... go figure. The only thing similar is the word "thing"
Haha....yes, which of those films aged better? Swamp Thing was only cool when I was six and saw it in theaters. I look back on it now and think...wow, this is pure shit. Easily Craven’s worst film, and I’ve seen his crappy werewolf film Cursed.
all is clear in hindsight.
Ebert was a fat pompous douchebag. The Thing is a masterpiece.
At least we got to see Barbeau's boobs! No t & a in the thing but awesome mom cgi effects and genuine scares The only more horrifying sight I saw after was Roger's end day's photos I felt bad for his affliction but I didn't need the images.
They're wrong about the movie, but I sure do miss when film critics had a shred of credibility.
I was in college when it came out and was taking a course in the history of science fiction. We actually read the original story in class and everyone was eager to see the movie and it did not disappoint. Gene Siskel is dead on in his review. That is exactly what the story is about. Maybe if Roger Ebert had a more solid grounding in the genre he would realize what a great film it really is
Hindsight is always interesting when it comes to lasting cinema.
I could never understand why the critics disliked this movie so much. It is a Classic in my world. During the 80's the critics hated everything that was not mainstream or different. I think they were afraid they would lose respect if they stood out frim the other critics opinions at this time.
I got to see this for the first time in theatres last summer, it was fuckn amazing! The theatre had the AC on full blast so it helped add to the cold windy atmosphere the movie has.
Cool Idea. 🥶
Thanks for uploading these. I never thought I'd get to see some of these older reviews they did.
Glad someone saved them. I have informed the owner of the website siskelandebert.org to maybe put these up there, since they are not all there.
If you go to IMDb's page for Sneak Previews you will find quite a few full shows archived including this one.
It's hillarious that the Thing is most well known because of the effects. More horror movies should have those kind of balls. This film made violence into art in the best way.
So many critics hated the film back when it came out and it blows my mind.
Siskel was weirdly ahead of the curve on this one.
It's great to see these old clips. I started watching pretty late, in 1994. Gene was gone five years later. Thanks for uploading.
This was when they originally started out on PBS before going to commercial syndication.
My dad took me to see this, he never believed in hiding movies from me.
If he wanted to see a movie he took me.
Raiders, krull, and the thing I remember seeing in theaters. I was 5 when the thing came out.
For me, the creature isn't merely gross. It's wonderfully otherworldly. A lot of people fail to see that. More's the pity.
This is what being "ahead of its time" is! Ebert (a guy who LOVES cinema) was completely distracted by the amazing, yet disgusting, special effects, and as a result could not see the film for what it was. As great special effects became more and more common, the "shock" of that achievement, in the thing, did not distract people anymore, and The Thing could finally become the masterpiece that it was/is.
The movie is officially 40 years old!
Still one of my favorite horror movies and one of Carpenter's finest, he actually sticks closer to the original short story by John W. Campbell Jr
The screenplay was by Bill Lancaster, the late Burt Lancaster's son
Kurt Russell is amazing next to Wilford Brimley and Keith David
Taps into the fears of our own extinction with themes of mistrust and paranoia
There could also be an AIDS allegory
Love the fantastic practical special creature effects by Rob Bottin along with the late Ennio Morricone's haunting score
Watching The Thing in the time of Covid provides the film an added relevancy
Particularly as cases and related fatalities in the UK are both on the rise once more
Someone you know and trust is carrying an agent that attacks you on a molecular level and, in a very messy fashion, could stop you being you
It's a shame it tanked at the box office and wasn't met with the best reception
But over time it has gained much more appreciation and remains big with fans
Plus it inspired such acclaimed contemporary filmmakers as Quentin Tarantino, Guillermo del Toro, J.J. Abrams, Neill Blomkamp, and countless others
So happy they made a video game sequel 20 years ago
The film continues to reflect man-made apocalypse anxieties (like a literal Cold War between man and alien)
A cult classic... Lots of interpretive material in the Thing... Siskel was on to something ...
Ebert was wrong....
Ebert was very wrong 🤣
Or as we like to call him in sicago, the sun times fat fuck.
@@babymammoth34 😂😂😂
@@williamhicks7736 Hey hahahaha, I call 'em as I see 'em and do not sugar coat shit. In addition, rodge was a lot less consistent with his standards (moral and otherwise) when reviewing, whereas Siskel was at least much more consistent. And during the times when he did provide us a rare surprise in praising a type of movie he usually didn't (such as this one and Batman 1989), he would be able to back his opinion up and effectively explain his reasoning. I actually agreed with Ebert usually far more than Siskel but I often saw rodge as being the more irrational and petulant of the two. Snotty.
For example, when they reviewed Predator 2, ebert must have lost it and been trippin' on some high grade substance that day cuz he was knocking the movie for ugly violence and foul language. The movie had a very moderate amount of foul language in fact. Never mind his dumb gripe about insulting to women dialogue. There was hardly any of it, lol. The violence was intense and gory but not constant. He, I think, gave it a thumbs down. Yet, he gave The Last Boyscout (which has a slew of far more realistic violence and graphic bloodshed and brutality than the aforementioned film not to mention all kinds of foul and derogatory language) a thumbs up. In addition, he gave Pulp Fiction an enthusiastic thumbs up which is horridly graphic and obscene as hell. We can discuss the artistic merit or lack of as well as tarantino's cinematography all day, another time. But the fact stands, it is a severely brutal movie. And by the way, I happen to like The Last Boyscout a lot in some parts (some of the language and Bruce Willis' douchey hero character bother me) but Ebert simply wasn't being consistent and reliable.
I saw this in the theater when I was 13. The early 80s gave us a ton of awesome horror flicks!
Funny thing about this film: Directed by the same man who did Halloween, who had clips of the original Thing in it. Maybe that's where he got the idea to remake this.
He loved the old stuff, enough to know where the sounds were in "Forbidden Planet" to use as sound effects for The Shape (carrying Annie's body while Tommy watched).
Not quite. He was a lifelong fan of Howard Hawks, and The Thing From Another World was/is one of his favorite sci-fi/horror films. A few years later he was tapped to direct a remake based on a new screenplay by Bill Lancaster (son of Hollywood star Burt Lancaster), which incidentally follows the original short story Who Goes There? by Joseph Campbell more closely. Carpenter leapt at the chance, because he was such an admirer of the original film. I've always thought it was cool how Carpenter's remake incorporates footage from the original (when the crew is examining the video footage discovered at the Norwegian camp, we see a couple of shots from the older movie spliced in, a nice little homage).
1:32 you forgot it looked pissed off, Roger.
Thanks Eric wanted to see review for long time. I remember seeing john carpenter The Thing at the drive in double feature with Rocky 3 when I was kid with my mom.
I miss these guys...!
Fuchs played Gary from Gary's Old Towne Tavern on CHEERS.
YES! I remember revisiting Cheers a few years back and seeing him, thinking, 'Where have I seen that guy before?', and it dawned on me.
6:30 If only Gene could have to seen how deep people read into it online to this day, he’d smile how right he was about the film’s deeper intentions.
5:00 "I wish this movie was less ugly than it is." This movie is a visual effects MASTERPIECE. F Siskel and Ebert pretentious I-know-better attitudes. They were reviewing MONUMENTAL movies of their time and apparently had no idea. Jaws. Star Wars. Alien. The Thing. Rob Bottin's effects in this movie were literally off the charts. The sculpting and just the great understanding of physics and how to combine all of it with pneumatics and motors etc and how to create a truly repulsive looking mess is just a beautiful sight to behold.
Rare that I agree with Gene over Roger, but it seems like one or both of them often miss the boat when it comes to horror or sci fi. The Thing is in my top 20 of all time, I like it more every time I watch it!
The "thing" that will always stick with me in memory is back when it premiered on cable, my dad prepared some Italian chicken dish, all gooey and slathered in sauce(delicious) and my family and I all sat down to eat and watch the movie , and I thought, this chicken looks like what I'm seeing on the screen. My plate could've been alive. Good fun and good food!
I've been trying to find the Siskel & Ebert review of The Thing, for over a decade now. I thought they both crapped all over it, but they didn't. I always knew Ebert didn't like it, he was too distracted by the awesome special fx, at least Gene saw the deeper subtext of this film. Thanks for uploading this.
Thank you so much for this! I've only seen this review once, when it first aired. I've been trying to convince fans ever since of it's existence and some of the harsh comments from Roger.
There's one scene in this movie that encapsulates it and tells you everything about how great it is despite the horror and gross out scenes. A head falls off of an exam table, sprouts legs like an insect and starts walking around and one of the characters says "OH COME ON!" I laughed hysterically and was horrified at the same time! Alien is #1, The Thing is #2. I still, all these years later, have trouble watching it.
“You gotta be fucking kidding me!”
Roger says no to almost all classic movies, and movies overall. But he gave anchorman 2 thumbs up
I couldn’t find his review of Anchorman 2
A good majority of people (me including) nowadays would agree with Gene here.
Even the 'prequel' couldn't come close to the scares in this film. I saw it as a teen and was petrified. The practical effects hold up well even if they are a bit dated. I wish Carpenter would have remade Creature From the Black Lagoon like he once wanted to.
I'd give Roger a pass on this one because at the time it was not immediately apparent that this was the great movie that we now know it is. Even now most viewers and critics miss out on the subtextual political dimensions of a movie about paranoia and shifting suspicions (Gene got it). This goes all the way back to films like Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and with all the other many strengths of this film it pretty much works on every level.
kevin r. Having seen the film, I don't think this is Roger's finest hour. But I see what you are coming from though.
kevin r.
He’s not getting a pass from me. You don’t need to immediately hail a film as a masterpiece to give it a passing grade. He gave negative reviews to Die Hard, Fight Club and Gladiator. He was a good writer but often demonstrated horrible taste.
PurushaDesa While I agree that Die Hard and Gladiator were great films, I have to side with Ebert on Fight Club. It left me underwhelmed, and I even saw it a second time, but it still didn’t work for me. 🤷🏻♂️
@@patrickriley674
Yeah I mean that's cool. No one can tell you to have a connection to a film when it's just not there for you. (My big dirty secret is I'm not that keen on Godfather 1!)😂
But for me _Trainspotting_ and _Fight Club_ are probably the two quintessential examples of exuberant 90s perfection. And in the case of _Fight Club_ the themes of alt-right toxic masculinity and nihilistic antiestablishment sentiments have only grown more relevant.
PurushaDesa Ah, well there you are. The Godfather was one I did love. 😛
Different strokes for different folks. Agree to disagree. 🙂🤝
The pile on this movie at the time was nuts. 40 years later it’s probably the most rewatched and studied film of 1982. Who even cares about E.T anymore?
Wow when Ebert says that the Thing was the most nauseating thing he had ever seen on the screen, that says a a great deal given him being a movie critic. Still this is an amazing movie and still scary in 2020.
Man I thought Gene hated this film. Good to see he liked it.
I saw it when it came out. My buddies and I didn't know what to expect. We left satisfied.
John Carpenter had several successful movies ("Halloween" "The Fog" "Escape From New York") so he was given a big budget to make whatever he wanted to. I think critics had such high expectations from this that they initially felt let down - that's why it got bad reviews upon first release.
The Fog and Escape from New York were not that successful at the box office
I've seen this movie twice , as a kid in the 80's and right now and it's not anything special
It has a few good scenes, but the special effects overwhelmed the movie as far as plot
@@kdohertygizbur Incorrect. The Fog made 20 times it's budget. Escape, $25 Mil against a $6 Million dollar budget.
They really overlook the practical effects in that they had never been seen before.
The practical effects hold up better than most anything produced since then..
Compared this to any CGI effects driven film, its no contest.
With Ebert in that theater, I'm shocked there was anything left at the concession stand.
Well, I will way this much. The Thing 1982 has stood the test of time even if it did have some short comings. I almost always watch it if it is on the television. Apparently this film was closer to the novella "Who Goes There" than the 1951 version.
"It ain't Fuchs. It ain't. "
The sound effects designers for The Thing should have won an Academy Award.
The critics even hated the musical score.
roger revisited this movie years later and changed his opinion
i loved the summer of 82....there were weeks when i could watch two different movies during a weekend....that is how many came out
i went to see the thing in a mostly empty theater
the movie shouldve been released in the fall
and in fact, it is a testament to the power of real fx
The big mistake of Universal people was put The Thing on theaters two weeks after ET. John Carpenter didn't understand this decision and he felt so bad when the movie failed; it was a hard moment for him. I think is his masterpiece, and it contains the worst horror for the mankind: the horror about lose the identity and humanity.
In this case Ebert didn't understand NOTHING
I was one of those kids that bought a ticket to see the lone ranger and snuck in by myself to see it. I was 14 and loved every minute of it, lol.
Saw this at the Saxon Theatre in Boston the weekend it came out. I remember the Globe gave it a bad review saying the creature overshadowed any characters in the movie. The theater was packed when we went and everyone was woopin', hollerin', and having a blast! Who doesn't watch this at least once a year?
Snuck into this at the CINE 1,2,3,4 (RIP) as a 14yo budding horror buff, strung out on Stephen King and slasher flicks and just then discovering how much cannabis improves the cinema experience. This movie...an absolute mind-blowing masterpiece, no matter what any of the goomba's think. Bloody genius! Cheers!
I remember being so psyched to go see this movie when it came out. But life got in the way for a couple of weeks, and when I finally got the chance it was no longer in any of my local theaters. Again, Rob Bottin's special effects were groundbreaking for the time and more or less hold up (although the KY jelly budget would break the bank in movies today). It's funny how Roger and Gene switched roles in this one as opposed to Taxi Driver. Gene was the one saying the gore in that movie turned him off completely and thus his thumbs down.
This is one of my favorite movies.
Compare this with other movies of the time and it's still a masterpiece. How any serious movie fan could not like it I'll never understand.
0:00 Absolutely love this WTTW ident. Calm music.
Classic! So many wrong critics. I saw it in the theater at 10 years old and loved it. Scared the chit out of me though.
😊❤
When it came out a lot of people in the country did not like the movie critics didn't like it it's a classic now I loved it when it came out
They both make a pretty good case either way.
We watched it at a drivein back in the good old days and loved every frame of it.......
What annoys about this review, Robert Ebert judges the film based on the gore only, for me that’s one aspect of the movie and it’s brilliantly done but the real horror of the film is being isolated, paranoia, claustrophobia for example and the scene with blood tests was fantastic and really highlighted the feeling of distrust among a group of people were friends and work colleagues a few hours before.
He simplified he’s review based on the gore without actually seeing what the film was about and it’s a shame because bad takes like that can kill a film but luckily enough the film found a audience who can appreciate it for what it and John Carpenter and Rob Bottin did fantastic work for this film
Siskel had the eye to see the film with the right eye. In the future it was a instant classic of scfi horrer. I was 12 and I was facinated by the movies tension and music and horror effects. Woow.
Nobody even talks about E.T. I saw it once. I couldn't tell you how many times I've seen The Thing.
Siskel & Ebert just hated horror movies in general. But that's what critics do. They are seldom objective arbitors of what's good or not. If you have a certain dislike for a certain type of genre, 99% of the time no matter how well that movie is made you'll never fully appreciate it.
Yup, they both hated horror for the most part along with dark comedy's if I remember correctly. They both were the "better" movie critics for their time but it always bothered me that they didn't give horror a chance. The Thing will be always remembered as a classic.
Crazy how an accomplished critic like Ebert can be so wrong. I saw this in '82 and had to go see it again the next day because of how much I loved it.
Pleasantly surprised that Gene got it on this one. Although the monster effects are some of the all-time movie greats, their visceral gross-out impact (shocking at the time, especially compared to the feel-good "E.T." that was also in theaters) has diminished somewhat over the years as other filmmakers have since imitated the techniques. The interesting thing is that this had the effect of bringing the film's other strength to the fore as it's aged: as Gene recognized, its exquisite paranoid suspense and metaphor for the isolation of individuals from society based on suspicious fear. A tendency not unlike real life 2020-21, I might add.
You make good points, I'll add to one: It was a huge mistake to release this as a summer film in 1982 and extremely unlucky for it to have been the same summer ET became the highest grossing film of all time.
respect and love Roger and Gene but they got THE Thing wrong - fantastic movie!
Wow, Gene Siskel got this one right. I'm usually more of an Ebert guy, but he completely didn't SEE what he was watching.
I remembered seeing this and Roger Ebert's comment about McCarthyism.
Yeah consumerism for Dawn of the Dead, McCarthyism for The Thing. Normal audiences don't think like that nor should they
But that's the thing (no pun intended) with great movies. They work on many levels, catering to both high-brow and low-brow audiences. Take Aliens, for example. Great action horror, but also a critique of corporate capitalism and in favour of family unit (Ripley, Newt and Biehn's character).