Phantasm (1979) movie review - Sneak Previews with Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel

This is the original review of Phantasm by Siskel & Ebert on "Sneak Previews" in 1979. All of the segments pertaining to the movie have been included.

[thejasonlundgren]

Phantasm is an absolute horror classic!

[ringer]

Except for HALLOWEEN, a critics’ darling, Siskel and Ebert didn’t like or really “get” most horror films. They really shouldn’t have critiqued them at all

[MrBoyYankee]

Phantasm an underrated gem waaay ahead of its time. They miss the mark.

[fusionspace]

Hip horror fans in on the indie scene would have been proud this was snubbed by mainstream critics. This was the best review Don could have hoped for. Confuse the squares, leave the art for the cult to find. That's what makes a cult classic.

[Danimal]

Roger claimed the movie was full of horror cliches. No it wasn't. It was NEW and refreshing and very ahead of it's time for 1979. The fact of the matter is that neither of them liked horror movies and would regularly bash them at every opportunity they had.

[KillerOrangeCat]

It's interesting because Don wanted to make a movie that utterly confused people when they watched it. The reaction from Roger and Gene show that he did get the point he wanted across. As much as I love them, they didn't catch that it was the point.

[Blaqjaqshellaq]

"If this movie doesn't scare you, you're already dead!"--ad line

[genejordan]

as usual ... they get it wrong when it came to horror

[chriscornelius]

I don't know what Phantasm was but I watched it again recently and I love it. It's like a campy soap opera horror movie.

[flmbyz]

That’s the genius of this movie is that it’s more of a lucid stream of consciousness rather than a straightforward narrative. There’s elements of an overall arc, but it’s primarily a film that’s meant to plunge the viewer into a dreamlike sense, like a nightmare one can’t escape.

[sarloscantana]

I say this as a huge Phantasm fan but...they're technically right, lol. The movie is an absolute MESS, was made by the seat of their pants as basically an art house production. Coscarelli intentionally wanted to both shock and confuse audiences and he succeeded in that. The film is a cult classic all the struggle was obviously worth it. I think if Ebert revisited the film now, he'd change his mind. Siskel not so much, lol.

[joeblow]

Phantasm is an exceptionally creative and unique horror film, especially considering the shoestring budget. Siskel and Ebert blew this review. They completely missed an essential element of what this film is "about, " which is the relationship between the two brothers. They lost their parents in a car wreck (seemingly) and Mike, the younger brother, is intensely fearful that his much admired older brother will abandon him. You could take the horror elements at face value and consider the tall man and his munchkin slaves as something supernatural yet "real." Another interpretation, suggested at the end of the film where you think that it might all be a dream, was that Mike conjured this horrific scenario in his mind so that he could be a local hero and prove his worthiness to his brother. Of course, the very very end shatters the dream concept (unless you allow the possibility that it was also a dream) as do the vastly inferior sequels. Regardless of those high falutin' interpretations, the atmosphere of the film is cold, creepy, and consistent the whole way through. Siskel and Ebert were idiots to suggest that this film had no plot and was just a bunch of unrelated scenes strung together. Completely wrong. Although the dream logic introduced at the end confuses things, the tall man's plot was not confusing in the slightest, even if incredibly weird (a plus!).

[silversnail]

I'm surprised more people didn't appreciate Phantasm when it came out. There are so many interesting ideas that set it apart from the run of the mill slasher films of the period and Coscarelli's flair for effects and cinematography despite working on a very low budget is extraordinary. And the sequels are great too because the characters truly evolve and Coscarelli made a genuine effort to expand the universe and concepts instead of just giving you the same thing over and over like some other horror franchises do. It's a shame Phantasm never truly got the appreciation it deserved because I can only imagine what they could have accomplished with a larger budget and more creative freedom from the studios.

[loiscalftail]

My favorite movie of all time like mike hes so smart

[teejaye]

Love S&E...but they simply never understood horror. Their disdain for horror and their constant criticism of the genre helped create genre specific critics who understood horror and loved it and gave fair, insightful reviews rather blanket negativity such as S&E provided.

[mrnocal]

Only going on the clip they showed because I've never seen the movie, but how does the kid shoot the tire of the hearse from inside the hearse?

[kevinbirge]

I always felt like a scolded child when I loved a film Gene and Roger panned.

[twikirobot]

One of the best horror films ever made.

These guys could be real dumb sometimes.

[joshmorgan]

I’m 100 percent convinced that neither S or E watched this movie or gave it their full attention. If there is one thing this movie is not short on its, story and plot. The origins of the Tall Man is amongst the best in modern horror. If they actually gave a damn and watched it instead of having the pre-conceived notion that It’s a “geek show” I bet they would’ve really enjoyed it.

[MAMoreno]

The movie is about a boy who is trying to cope with the death of his older brother, and we see his trauma manifested as a nightmare. It's all in his imagination. Hence the title of the film.