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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
"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 RU-vid
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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
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.
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.
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
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.
@@Goldenwhatever Search RU-vid 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
@@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.
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
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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)
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!
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 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?
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.
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.
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. 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.
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
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.
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.
Always interesting when "respected" critics view a classic movie and can't see it. Biases are obvious and ultimately the review says more about them than the movie. John Carpenter you made one of the all time greats. Well done mate.
"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.
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.
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.
In his print review of "The Thing" Siskel gave it 2.5 out of 4 stars, the same rating Ebert gave it. That means he should have voted "No" on the show, as Ebert did. Siskel did this several times, to the point that Ebert called him out on it and reminded him that 2.5 out of 4 stars meant "No" or "thumbs-down".
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
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
Ebert says it would make far more sense for the base to be set up with a "buddy system", but that's EXACTLY what happens in the movie. However, it doesn't work because of several things: 1) Blair has already been confined to his shack and can't participate 2) Until they come up with the idea of the hot needle blood test, anyone who's a thing can simply act normal until they get an opportunity 3) The thing has already thought ahead to sow suspicion by making it look like MacReady has been taken over (discarded underwear)
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
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).
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?
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.
I know everyone has their likes and dislikes, but come on now, these guys don't understand that if the movies were to be made their way, then it wouldn't be entertaining and there wouldn't be a good story. Siskel and Ebert never really had the best of judgement in most cases. One of the only few times they were correct about a horror film was with the 1978 classic Halloween movie. Among other movies in different genres, but their opinions could only be counted on .2% of the time.
Agreed, like when Ebert complained that there weren't any three dimensional characters in "The Thing". What was he hoping the film would be like, "The Sound of Music" or "Kramer vs Kramer" with the alien being more like "My Favorite Martian"?? Let's get real. This is the same man who gave "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome" four stars of four and who thought is was the best of the Mad Max franchise when in actuality it was the weakest one. I'll admit that Thunderdome was good and entertaining even though it flat-lined with the 'cave kid sequence', but four stars of four?? I don't think so. If Ebert were still alive today, he would probably think "Mad Max: Fury road" was too 'over the top' for his taste buds and would have decided that it was nothing compared to Thunderdome which, of course, would have been a false review.
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!
