What strikes me is that Ebert's condemnation of 80's Slashers is way more aggressive than what Anita Sarkeesian is doing with video games. Yet the latter has inspired a never ending campaign of hatred and wilful ignorance. Tells you a lot about the comparative maturity of films and gaming when it comes to handling criticism.

@RocStarr913

7 жыл бұрын

It's important to keep in mind that there was no Internet back in 1980 and anything shown on TV was of the moment and vanished into the ether of the public consciousness right away. The reason why Anita Sarkeeshian has been so roundly attacked is simply because more people know about her critiques and they are able to. Plus, Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert were professional newspaper and TV film critics who are approaching this mostly academically, while Sarkeeshian is simply an amateur online feminist with an axe to grind against male gamers because it's mostly still an all-boys club.

@thatbozo

7 жыл бұрын

could be that or the fact that Sarkeesian is a woman. Take your pick I say.

@almanacofsleep

7 жыл бұрын

Ebert can be very wonky when it comes to moralism expressed in his reviews and this is no different, Anita Sarkeesian is a worse reviewer and took the brunt of a huge backlash against a wave of political correctness that had been crewing for a while.

@comaster2

6 жыл бұрын

Don’t forget that this was made in the early 80’s and this two critics are already dead. It’s a little too late for butthurt internet critics to bash them. Besides, Roger Ebert apologized for many of his criticisms before he died.

@TyRiders2

6 жыл бұрын

Or maybe it's because Anita is a liar and a con artist which is why she got so much backlash?

As a woman and a feminist, I would just like to say that I love horror films. In response to some of the comments here, I just want to say that this is not a "feminist agenda" . They certainly don't speak for me, and they leave out the fact that it is often a responsible, independent woman who survives in these films and who you are supposed to root for.

@anthonymichael6346

9 ай бұрын

Absolutely.

I don't know why "When A Stranger Calls" made the list. No overt gore, no POV shots of the killer cornering a semi-nude actress, etc.

@MrFanboyjay

7 жыл бұрын

Probably because these two, while I did watch there show back in the day just because I am a film buff, had a tendency to be pretentious and not really know or understand what they are talking about.

@assuming9735

6 жыл бұрын

It probably had something to do with the movie targeting women.

@damianlatimer5753

6 жыл бұрын

Purge187 right

@twikirobot6897

6 жыл бұрын

A somewhat "classy" horror film if anything.

@Cum007

2 жыл бұрын

@@twikirobot6897 definitely

I remember Gene Siskel reviewing I Spit On Your Grave on the local CBS news station in Chicago on an Friday evening. He said this was the only film he ever saw that made him stand up and say "How can you people sit here and watch this and consider this entertainment?!?"

I love Ebert, he wrote one of my favorite movies of all time (BVD), but I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE is a masterpiece on its own accord, they just saw all the violence and never saw the subtext. It perfectly reflected the women's movement at the time, and in the end, while she succeeds and kills them all, she doesn't necessarily take pleasure in it.

@TexRabbit

8 ай бұрын

Imo there’s way better films with the topic of rape that are better executed than that film

Based on their synopsis for The Howling, I'm guessing they didn't see it.

Long live William Lustig!!!!! RIP Joe Spinell and thanks for the unforgettable performance in the masterpiece that is "Maniac". Oh, and thanks to Tom Savini also....

I just love 80s slasher films.

@Cum007

2 жыл бұрын

Better than the spam supernatural bullcrap that has been coming out in the 2010s 60s-70s Giallos and 70s+ 80s +90s American slashers will always be top of the horror genre for me

@lw3646

11 ай бұрын

The trend started in the 70s I guess with Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Black Christmas and Halloween. 3 great films, especially Texas Chainsaw Massacre it's still shocking now in its edgy look and violence. The 1980s slashers delivered more creative and innovative stunts and effects, it wasn't enough anymore to keep things simple. The look and feel of those films though very memorable. You knew what you were getting, just like a James Bond story having a formula. Group of young people party animals get picked off 1 by 1 after disturbing the monster, before a final battle with the survivoring person or couple. The last few got a bit ridiculous though, Jason Takes Mahattan 😬, Halloween 5 just a mess or A nightmare on elm street 5, just lame and kind of gross more than scary, Freddie is just a clown in that film. The 90s went back to the idea of not a monster but back ti a real person so more of a whodunit.

Isn't this still the case, many crappy horror films come out still featuring this kind of tropes.

Siskel and Ebert are way out of line. This was when the slasher genre began to take off. If anything, it empowered women by facing unimaginable terror and surviving it. This was the age of GORE and they just didn't want it to happen. Their outrage was that the innocence of film was lost for good and the attempt to demonize it only provided more power to the genre. It lost steam near the late eighties, but what a ride, lol!

@mr.dirtydan3338

28 күн бұрын

But 80s slashers were fucking terrible. The 70s were great

Thankyou for this terrific upload.

There was no violence in 'When a Stranger Calls'...it was just an urban legend (threatening phone calls to a babysitter originate in the house) brought to the big screen. Sorry, women have to be in danger in movie sometimes, and this wasn't mindless.

It's the same thing as when the PMRC made the filthy 15; they compiled a list of songs I wanna listen to and movies I wanna watch!

Did Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert even watch the original Friday the Thirteenth fully? Or did they watch a couple of clips out of context and jump to misogynistic conclusions about the writers and directors of it? The POV shots exist for no purpose other than to conceal the killer's identity. When said identity is revealed, guess what? The killer is a woman. The movie never makes a point out of it, and a man could just as easily have filled the role. She is not evil, but insane. The most famous kill scene in that film is Jack Burell/Kevin Bacon getting stabbed in the neck with an arrow. More males died than females. Can you say, "Strawman argument?"

Do these guys realize that women usually are the ones who kill the bad guy in the end?

Remember that the 70s were also a time of lots of real serial killers out there in the USA. A scary time to be a young independent woman with Berkowitz, Bundy, etc all out there. Maybe art reflecting life?

Such a sweet & simple time. xoxo The Clarences

Boy ! Boy ! Boy ! While I do respect some of their opinions (even if I may not agree with them), I can't respect all their opinions on this matter. Here are some notable examples : 1. 'When A Stranger Calls' is not a slasher fest, but a well made psychological horror that relies more on suspense than gore. And to add, the character of the film's villain was played by the brilliant British actor Tony Beckley, best known for playing Camp Freddie in 'The Italian Job' in 1969 amongst other roles. Beckley was also terminally ill and died not long after filming 'When A Stranger Calls' I wonder if Siskel and Ebert would have been so savage towards the film had they known that ?? 2. 'The Howling' is a WEREWOLF movie, and not a slasher. While the Dee Wallace character is in peril, it's from supernatural creatures and not masked men. And Siskel showed how hypocritical he was 5 years later. If you look at the review for 'Fright Night', he mentions 'The Howling' in a more favourable fashion. 3. One of the examples mentioned but not shown is the film 'Phobia'. While it does have moments of women in peril, some of the victims are also men. And I wonder if they would have mentioned it if they'd remembered who directed it. None other than JOHN HUSTON !! Yes, THE JOHN HUSTON, one of Hollywood's greatest writer directors, and father of Angelica. I respect Siskel and Ebert, but they should have researched their topic more.

@mattpniewski1718

9 жыл бұрын

I feel as though their points are valid, but their examples are wrong. Keep in mind, Siskel did give the Howling a positive review; It's not about one or two movies, but the trend itself.

@cliffordshafran9250

5 жыл бұрын

Yep. I agree. While the trend was disturbing, some of the examples were wrong, especially The Howling (a werewolf movie, which Gene liked) and Motel Hell (a semi-horror parody, which Roger Liked). This was during a time period where successful, ground-breaking movies like Star Wars were ripped off endlessly just to make a fast buck. Halloween was one of those ripped-off movies.

@ThanhLS88

5 жыл бұрын

"The Howling" wouldn't be out until the next year; they probably ate their words from this show after that movie came out cause Gene liked the movie (Roger gave it 2 out of 4 stars)

"Violence offends people" wow.

@damianlatimer5753

5 жыл бұрын

It can

@blondwiththewind

5 жыл бұрын

If violence DOESN'T offend you....you need to get your head analyzed.

@fantom5894

5 жыл бұрын

In slasher movies it can be amusing, because you know it's all corn syrup and prosthetics.

@lw3646

11 ай бұрын

Kind of bizzare given how much they loved action movies like Indiana Jones.

Siskel apparently had no knowledge The Howling was a werewolf movie. lol.

LONG LIVE 70S AND 80S SLASHER FILMS.!!!!!!!!

@mr.dirtydan3338

28 күн бұрын

70s slashers were great. The 80s sucked ass

Agree. Horror and slasher films are great.

They have a right to hate them....but to belittle the directors and the people that watch and enjoy them is arrogant.

Siskel and Ebert, my two mentors. May you rest in peace Roger, and I hope you get Gene the heads up on movies he's missed out. I will miss you, Roger; I will never forget you

I love how in one episode, they talk about how amazing 'Halloween' with Jamie Lee Curtis is, and then in the next episode, they trash 'Terror Train' and 'Prom Night' to the ground, other two slasher films with Jamie Lee in it. Make up your fucking mind, people!

@sha11235

6 жыл бұрын

It doesn't matter who is in the damn films.

@stevenbaxter9099

Жыл бұрын

A good actor can be in a good movie and a bad movie they are reviewing the movie not the actor.

@stevenbaxter9099

Жыл бұрын

A good actor can be in a good movie and a bad movie they are reviewing the movie not the actor.

Actually, these early 80s women in danger films were all produced to cash in on the success of Halloween, a movie both Siskel and Ebert liked.

I think I saw this on a PBS re run a few years ago

"The Howling": "A women goes alone on a vacation and is tortured by the locals"? Did he even watch "The Howling," or did he just look at its poster, and maybe glimpse the trailer, and decide what it was about?

@Mondomeyer

2 жыл бұрын

Critics have a history of not seeing the movies they discuss.

you are right Jason

I find it interesting that both of them (though more from Ebert than Siskel) seem to categorize the filmmakers as the lowest of people (misyogists, scumbags, etc.) and that even the film goers are just as despicable. Seems like a huge unfair generalization to me.

@RavenHouseMystery

9 жыл бұрын

dsfrogs Start the video at the 6:10 mark. Roger Ebert says it there.

My parents took me to see Silent Scream! Totally forgot about that one.

@joel8583

8 жыл бұрын

+coffycup75 Good gravy, what were they thinking??

The last example, seeing the killer from the kiilers point of view, is quite interesting because at the time, we aren't aware the killer is (spoiler alert) a woman herself. The point of this scene was to keep the identity of the killer a secret until the very end. Of course this could be done other ways (as films like Psycho and Scream have taught us). But in retrospect, that technique from the original Friday the 13th is actually quite effective and scary. It's also worth noting that the film kills off several male characters as well. And the only survivor is a woman. I'm not saying Siskel & Ebert's special didn't make a few good points, but they are lacking a severe sense of context here.

Siskel gave The Howling 3.5 stars, and Ebert gave Motel Hell 3 stars. They should not have been brought up on this episode. It also would've been better if they acknowledged that some of these films actually had merit, and explained why.

@connorbrennan4233

8 жыл бұрын

+luis balbosa They mentioned Halloween. Nightmare on Elm Street and Hellraiser weren't made at this point.

@sha11235

6 жыл бұрын

I know that Roger liked Motel Hell, but it was Gene who mentioned it. Maybe Roger should've mentioned that he did like it and why.

I respect Siskel and Ebert's opinions, but they fail to point out that in Friday the 13th, more than half of the victims are men. Or that the killer is a deranged WOMAN. I sometimes wonder if either of them saw it. Ebert famously admitted to never having seen the original Terminator, despite having done a review statement with Siskel on that movie, which can be found here on KZread.

I love & own everyone of these movies ..Mothers day (1980) & I Spit On Your Grave (1978), are my absolute favorite movies.

Not '1' cop goes to that house to protect her.

I find it ridiculous that these two were always bashing horror movies, stating that these movies "hate women". Anyone who grew up watching 80's horror movies, or watches Dead Meat's KZread channel knows that the number of men who die in these movies almost always outnumber the women who die. For example, in Friday The 13th, Pamela Voorhees kills four women, but kills five men. Yet I never heard Siskel or Ebert address this fact. I loved these two and respect their opinions, but they were always biased towards the majority of the slasher movies that came out in the 80's. Their point became invalid, whenever they mentioned the amount of women killed in these movies, while completely ignoring the men's deaths, and that there were almost always more male victims than women. Plus, in Friday The 13th, the killer WAS a woman. She didn't hate women. She was a mentally unstable person who was killing to avenge the death of her son. I would have loved to have seen horror movie fans sit with Siskel and Ebert, pointing out everything I mentioned. Men almost never survived horror movies, which is why we have the phrase "final girl", instead of "final man".

@82Jaster

3 жыл бұрын

Since you bring up Dead Meat, it's important to note that he often counts all kills in a movie, regardless of whether they happen on screen or off. So a dead body that you see a character walk by counts as much as someone that takes some time to kill (think Terrifier where we just see the pizza owners head decapitated by Art while we see him sawing through Dawn). I'd also encourage you to watch the Kill Count in Saw 3D. In that there are 19 men that die and only 7 women. But James specifically points out how it has a strangely angry attitude toward women. Think of how there's a subgenre where women get raped and tortured throughout it. Sure, in the end with some of them they survive and kill their abusers. But most of the movie is again them being treated like shit. There's no comparable horror subgenre that specifically targets men like that. And also think of all the horror movies that have to show women being killed while they're naked and compare that to how often you see a guy hanging dong while he's killed. I remember in the Friday the 13th remake where Jason kills a woman on the dock, and just has to lift her up to show show that she's topless.

This is ridiculous...If I remember correctly there are four female victims in Friday 13th, whereas five males meet their demise at the hands of Mrs. Voorhees (this is counting the prologue). So it seems that these guys haven't actually seen the movies if they're saying that basically it's mostly women who are being targetted in them.

What they're NOT right about is the notion they give that the reason that certain women are killed in some of the movies is because they're "independent" and free spirited. Specifically when they reference the female hiker scene from Friday The 13th, she wasn't killed because she was "an independent, strong woman, she was killed because she was going to Camp Blood aka Crystal Lake. And notice how their argument leaves out THAT IT WAS A WOMAN THAT KILLED HER LOL (jason's mother)

Siskel mentions movie tickets in 1980 cost $4.00 dollars. I looked up the inflation calculator and that translates to a little over $13.00 dollars today.

They make no points on most of what they say.

I'd recommend anyone read the book Blood Money, by Richard Nowell. He goes much more into detail why these films were made (money) and who was behind them and their motivation (hint: money, not hatred of women). Having said that, a few of these films and movies in that time were cheap trash, but certainly not all of them, not even some on their list here.

Lol when ebert said "one we'll be discussing" he said "one will be disgusting".

I agree with some of their comments but think they also miss the point too. Horror films often involve women screaming or in peril, go back to the Hammer Mummy film 1959, The Tingler 1959. In Rosemary's baby the main character is seemingly raped by the Devil but its still considered one of the greatest horror movies of all time partly because of its subtext about religion, paranoia, modernity, privacy , the women's movement, its wonderfully directed and acted, its simply a classic. By the 1980s all that had happened was films had just got more graphic. In Friday the 13th which they hated the main villain is actually a woman who kills both men and women without distinction. The final survivor is also a resourceful and brave character who's presented as a good independent positive character throughout isn't a goody goody either, she smokes weed and is in a relationship with her boss at the start. Women girls in danger and needing saving is not new, it goes way back to Dracula and even Little Red Riding Hood.

13:20 - :41 Interestingly, they weren't comparing the killer's point of view to that of the shark in Jaws or Michael Myers in Halloween, which they both liked. Not to mention that the music during that wasn't glamorizing what was happening just the music from the other 2 movies didn't glamorize the terror in them.

@sophieluvsummer You're missing the point. Siskel and Ebert lauded Halloween and said "This film doesn't hate women." The final twenty minutes of Friday the 13th are all about the heroic female lead fending off, and ultimately defeating, the killer. Just like Halloween. In fact, Sean Cunningham, the producer of Friday the 13th, said his motive for making Friday the 13th was simply, "Halloween made money, let's copy that." He didn't make it to subvert women, as these two claim.

I have seen it.Some movies are enjoyed solely for the Kitch factor...Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, for example. As far as calling someone depraved for enjoying that movie....you don't define the reasons for enjoying the movie. If one 'gets off' on the rape scenes, yes, they are depraved. If one looks at the whole movie and finds redeeming value in how awful it is, reaching 'camp' status, you are irresponsible in calling that person 'depraved. BTW, Get off your high horse.

One thing we can all agree on. If it wasn't for these movies Jamie Lee Curtis probably wouldn't have been discovered and had the huge career she's had.

Against women? In favor of the killer? Ridiculous.

Friday the 13th had more men that got killed in this movie..what about people in danger.

Wow so many points I can refute. And these guys say the liked Halloween?

I Spit On Your Grave is not a film about hating women. Yes, there are horrific rape scenes and violence aimed towards Jennifer Hill. But the revenge of Jennifer is also very disturbing with genital mutilation and an axing in the back, putting Jennifer in complete control of her position and the mens power is totally usurped by her actions. Surely this will destroy any mysogynistic views about the film.

How about the new Evil Dead? That is about the most violent movie I have seen in years, and it has a girl being held down by trees and penetrated by evil.

WAIT wait wait wait...in the year 1980, a movie ticket cost only FOUR BUCKS?????? No joke, THAT is what scares me the most about this special.

11:38--Wait, the killer in "Friday the 13th" was... I will say no more. But... still. The reason she thought it was safe to hitch a ride is because...

@fantom5894

5 жыл бұрын

The killer was ... someone who was on a lot of game shows in the 1960s. Imaginative casting.

Oddly they show the sequences with Jill in When A Stranger Calls and Annie in Friday the 13th....2 characters whose films spent long sequences building empathy for. Also their argument about killer POV is stupid after they gave Halloween a good review. Get with it.

Siskel: "Like in Easy Rider". Didn't they get bullets in the head when they went on the road?

But I don't care what you say, the original I Spit on Your Grave is a giant, boring, ugly piece of shit that didn't even have the grace to have any CRAFT. At least Friday the 13th was made by people who knew how to make a movie. It's one of the worst films I've ever seen.

@chrisrembert3503

8 жыл бұрын

I Spit Own Your Grave gave a brutal reality of psychotic sadists. It's a Revenge Story.

@Dane_Youssef

7 жыл бұрын

Indeed. What was almost redeeming of I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE is the way Jennifer strikes back. With FRIDAY THE 13TH, you felt sympathy for the killer as when your find out the motive for the killings... But back then, I imagine the audience rooted for at least some of these kids to get out alive.

I tried several times to post it but youtube kept cancelling it.

Me too.

Where's "Maniac" ?

@jacobs1447

6 жыл бұрын

Yeah or Pieces. They mention The Boogeyman, even thought that's not a slasher film.

@jessecoffey4737

4 жыл бұрын

*Maniac* had its Chicago premiere a year after the special's original airing.

I'm trying to think of any examples where men get away with things they claim the women aren't.

I agree

They would not have enjoyed Grand Theft Auto video games.

@Melvinshermen

Жыл бұрын

Ebert say he not video game fan

I did come off as haughty. However, I think it can be easily justified. In most cases, I don't think someone's taste in film bears any indication on your character. However, that movie is an exception. I could see how one could enjoy "Plan 9 From Outer Space" for its kitsch value. While that movie is comically bad, it's not particularly offensive. I can't see how one could watch "I Spit on Your Grave" only for the kitsch factor, as a conscious viewer should also be disturbed by the violence.

This is stupid. I'm a woman and they were just looking for something to talk about to get attention. Women ARE targets for maniacs in real life! That's what makes these films scary. And in most of these films the last one standing is a WOMAN. By the way, I grew up watching these films and because of the experience where I learned what NOT to do, I saved myself from being victimized by a predator who had invaded my parents' property to do me harm.

@Dane_Youssef

5 жыл бұрын

You tell 'em, honey.

What they don't mention is that woman they are talking about? Yeah, she survives. The man never does (except WOlf Creek). So instead of hating the woman in danger movies why not recognize that they survive?!

Where's the rest of it?

By the way, this is true even for movies which are well filmed. I can appreciate D.W. Griffith or Leni Riefenstahl's innovations in cinematography. However I would be suspect of anyone who genuinely enjoyed (rather than merely appreciated) "The Birth of a Nation" or "Triumph of the Will."

When did this happen? As far as I know, he never reviewed "Hostel".

PSYCHO AND HALLOWEEN MUST HAVE HATED WOMEN TOO THOUGH NO MATTER IF THEY WERE CLASSIER OR NOT BECAUSE WERE WOMEN WERE MURDERED AND THEIR LIVES WERE IN DANGER IN THOSE MOVIES TOO

They're just trying to scare the audience--primarily the FEMALE audience. A "Damsel in Distress" is a time-honored effective ploy in films. But hopefully... women watching these would know what to do in such a situation---and what NOT TO DO!

@Dane_Youssef

7 жыл бұрын

Well, there are theories all around. You've heard THEIRS. These movies, in their defense (but not entirely to defend them).... they do show the independent liberated female as the leads and the heroes--excuse me, "she-roes"... So there. We've always seemed the damsel in distress, especially in these such films... especially helpless. These women are the protagonists, but they're also especially the victims. One thing that helped to make some of these films worthwhile and even endorsing of the "Women's Movement" is the fact that these victimized women struck back.

That... was FRIDAY THE 13th there. The Killer was a woman!!!

@dirkstrider657

6 жыл бұрын

That's a relevant argument, but I feel the main point is that even when it's a WOMAN attacking another WOMAN...it's still violence against WOMEN. Even though the killer is female, we see through her eyes. Which, as the dudes state, make us sympathize with them rather than the victim.

sure you used a couple of examples but yes the genre as a whole they thumbed their nose at. just watch many of their reviews on the early 80s slasher movies and unless it was from a brilliant ( in their mind ) director like Carpenter or Craven they might give a little leave way on their opinion but overall they never GOT the movies and only seen them as being unnecessary violence against women or just in general but their have been alot of great horror films .

Siskel must have assumed werewolves were backwoods types.

@NovaFeedback1979

6 жыл бұрын

Will C The film hadn't come out yet and they pre-judged based on the film poster art it looks like!

@blondwiththewind

5 жыл бұрын

@@NovaFeedback1979 Are you sure about that??? Very often Big-Name Movie Reviewers are given opportunities to preview movies prior to the movie opening at public movie theaters. Reviewers are also frequently in the habit of attending movies IN the theaters after they are "realeased"....to observe the audience reactions.

@NovaFeedback1979

5 жыл бұрын

blondwiththewind In this case they hadn’t seen it yet because they later reviewed it on the show and Siskel gave it thumbs up!

@blondwiththewind

5 жыл бұрын

@@NovaFeedback1979 .... I ALREADY saw your PREVIOUS comment that said the EXACT SAME THING. I responded to it more than a WEEK ago!!!! FURTHERMORE: At THAT TIME; I gave you reasonable and credible information regarding standard practice, and that these TWO PROFESSIONAL MOVIE REVIEWERS likely had participated in a CLOSED/EARLY VIEWING of the MOVIE....possibly even BEFORE THE MOVIE WAS EVEN RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC. THAT SAID: it is therefore OBVIOUS that I highly doubt your contention. I ALSO find it annoying that you have once again posted the SAME COMMENT......and addressed it AGAIN to me. SINCE YOU HAVE NOW POSTED YOUR COMMENT AGAIN, I AM CONSIDERING THAT THIS IS SPAM!!!! "CEASE AND DESIST".....or you'll get reported.

@NovaFeedback1979

5 жыл бұрын

blondwiththewind Don’t know what you’re going on about in regards to a previous comment in this section. I’ve only replied once to the original commenter and now you. Report me? Jump in a lake. It seems like you have way too much time on your hands.

It's funny how they never see their ire is fuel to the fire for exploitation film makers to sell their movies... the very fact that I Spit On Your Grave is a retitle because the original 'Day Of The Woman" tanked at the box office tells you lots about the nature of the way these films sell vs any real mainstream expectations ... still it's an amazing time capsule at the start of the slasher movement that couldn't have predicted 10 sequels and reboots of Friday 13th and Jason dolls for sale in comic stores

I remember watching this when it originally aired in 1980. I like many of these horror films, but at the same time I do agree with Siskel and Ebert. There was really an influx of these movies around this time. The opposite of uplifting cinema.

Prom Night is a really strange pick. It's not a slasher film it's a revenge film. He doesn't just target women he only targeted the people that killed his sister.

This whole thing Ebert & Siskel did is just bunk.I mean seriously, they are TRYING to make excuses to pick on something.They tend to make things up about these "Sleezy" movies hating women, and yet, movies like Halloween, which they liked, had more of that.And really, more guys actually died in these movies, particulary Friday the 13th, and none of them did "heroic" things.It was a girl who always did heroic things.Seriously, these two hypocritical nitpickers need a life(Especially Gene, lol).

Some of the stupidest remarks from Siskel & Ebert, not only with the ludicrous references to women's lib, but also the suggestion that _Psycho_ was different somehow and less offensive in its portrayal of violence to women. If anything, it was more graphic than some of the films mentioned here (even if it is mostly implied). And ten years after this review, they gave glowing praise to the "serious" movie, "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer", which makes these films seem tame by comparison in its realistic, nonstop, beginning-to-end brutality, and where most of the victims are women, including a teen who isn't a stranger, but the sister of his friend. Henry kills her after she expresses her love for him

I can play devils advocate. siskel and ebert could get a little preachy. these horror movies are geared towards a specific demographic, not the general public. at the same time most of these horror movies in question lack the craftsmanship of Carpenter's Halloween.

@notpetra I know exactly what you mean, watching those scenes are extremely unpleasant and the poster doesn't help my point of view. But there are some things that do. I think that the rape scenes are so repellant so that the revenge scenes are genuine and understandable. If they had only beaten her or attacked her, her crimes would seem completely overstated. But because they were so extreme and we as an audience are witness to all of it, her actions towards the antagonists seem

I wonder how they felt about the 3 Sleepaway Camp movies. There you had a female character (better played by Bruce Springtsteen's little sister in the 2d and 3rd) killing boys, as well as girls.

holy shit, a fit Ebert!

@sha11235

8 жыл бұрын

+SlipperySlope This was from 1980, long before his jaw cancer.

12:08. Annie said she hates when people call kids goats. IN the previous scene she tells Enos she is going to be working with kids.

@geupelboi

4 жыл бұрын

Hey, that's right! I've seen the movie countless times and I never noticed it before. Good call.

@queenrocks21 One would think so, but the rape scene in I Spit On Your Grave (I've only seen the original) are very prolonged and graphic and in my opinion quite exploitative. I think a lot of the film highlights the main character's sexuality, with the cover of the film being a shot of her bottom and the aforementioned prolonged rape scene as well as a fair bit of nudity. I found it to be quite a sexualization of the main character and especially her submission during the rape I found demeaning

"Motel Hell" is one of my all-time favorite movies. And besides that, I'm pretty sure Roger Ebert liked it and gave it ***. MH is not part of the genre they think they are talking about. And besides that, in "Motel Hell" there were more male victims than there were female!

While I do agree with Siskel and Ebert on some of these movies being anti-feminist, I tend to forgive Friday the 13th. At least the killer in that movie was a crazed woman. And she didn't just kill women like all the other movies.

@damianlatimer5753

5 жыл бұрын

right

I wouldn't lump The Howling in with a lot of these other movies, a good (if not great) WEREWOLF movie by Joe Dante. That movie has a great ending that actually lifts up the power of the woman when she has that scene in front of the TV cameras.

@sophieluvsummer If they want to say they didn't like the movie because it wasn't made artfully or skillfully, that's a valid criticism. Halloween is a much more polished, better-produced film. I just think it's unfair to attribute motives to the filmmakers that clearly aren't there. It's probably a moot point anyway. I think Ebert has grown over the years as a critic; he gave the 2009 reboot of Friday the 13th 2 stars, meaning he didn't hate it (but couldn't recommend it).

But the killer in Friday the 13th was not even a man Siskel.

Siskel and Ebert are taking these movies way too seriously and that's exactly what the slasher fans don't do is take any of it seriously. These guys just need to lighten up. Of course they're ridiculous movies. These guys are just no fun, as far as I'm concerned.

fucking youtube arguments make my flesh crawl

@jbdalova I concur.

No. No it will not.

no its not just listen to them ... how many HORROR movies have they actually gave a thumbs up ? most of them are frowned upon because they wanna point to the violence as an excuse to put down women ... and the ONLY horror movie they did give an actuall thumbs up too ( Silence Of The Lambs ) they don't even acknowledge that its a horror movie. They treat it as if its an epic foreign movie .... go back and watch their review of the Silence of the Lambs... and then watch them review a slasher film

They didn't mention Maniac (1980)

@jessecoffey4737

4 жыл бұрын

That film did not play in Chicago-Siskel & Ebert's home base-until less than a year after the special was first broadcast.

One of the most infamous episodes. And for good reason, it’s not very well researched.

this was made just after ALIEN came out, where the woman was the last survivor

"Get back in your place woman" I bet Siskel and Ebert said that to their women.