Gene Siskel

one.

If people aren't familiar, can you remind them who Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert were?

They were the film critics at the Chicago Sun-Times.

I'm obviously Team Ebert.

Katie is going to be Team Siskel, I assume.

Sure.

The Tribune's folks.

Grossed $2,898,574 on an estimated budget of $350,000, according to IMDb.

Couldn't find a written Roger Ebert review, but both he and Gene Siskel were negative about the film, both giving it a thumbs down on an episode about the movies, although Roger Ebert did praise the film's effects work.

I was unable to find a Barry Norman review.

I know he has reviewed it, as you do, because you can remember a part of the review, so I'm going to pass it over to you.

Dealing with slashers.

Gene Siskel, you know, hated them all and everything.

He even spoiled the ending of Friday the 13th.

He published the mailing address of the head of Paramount Pictures, which may have been Barry Diller.

And apologies if you've heard us discuss this already, but I will behave as if we haven't talked about this this morning.

Jacob Fowler, two thumbs, two very enthusiastic thumbs up to give you a Siskel and Ebert reference from when I was a kid.

It wasn't just two thumbs up.

It was two very enthusiastic thumbs up.

It's all of those things.

But yeah, Janet Maslin, Kenneth Turan, Gene Siskel savaged it.

But there's been critics over the years since who have just sort of enjoyed the B movie, Bugs Bunny style beauty of it.

Like, mark kermode is a big fan of this film kim newman who's like the horror critic is incredible richard brody they're all arguing that hudson hawk was judged too harshly like it was harsh it was harshly judged on the fact that it was bruce willis being self-indulgent not on the film that was delivered so i personally i'm very much in the latter camp with with mark kermode and kim newman on this one i think it was harshly judged it was enjoyable It is not faultless, though, by any stretch of the imagination.

And I think that's like what he thinks is what sells the movie.

Anyway, Gene Siskel called the film an attractive minor comedy, the kind of film best described as cute.

Yes.

Women being stalked, terrorized and kidnapped.

And finally, Guru.

Chicago is planning a bronze sculpture honoring Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, the television critics whose arguments helped generations decide what to watch.

Expected in early 2028, the sculpture will stand at Prudential Plaza, with both men giving a thumbs up and theater seats where visitors can pose for pictures.

Tommy, finally, two people you can sit beside at the movies who definitely won't be checking their phones.

Siskel and Ebert notoriously gave this, or notorious to us, no one cares, gave it two thumbs down because they complained that the ending got too...

Gene Siskel in particular was like, the ending gets so ridiculous.

The whole movie's working on a certain vibe where it's grounded in a way, but it's still a movie, but then in the last 30 minutes it becomes this ridiculous thing i disagree with that a little bit i feel the whole movie's working on a thriller level so things a little heightened i don't think it gets too ridiculous it becomes like a proper climax where there's obstacles and things to deal with but i think that the ending is too neat it kind of happens and ties up too quickly where it's like you have this these roadblocks of like oh he's trying to watch her in the bar to protect her while she's kind of baiting this guy And there's a beer truck that goes in a way.

He's got to get around the beer truck.