วีดีโอ

I remember when I died this morning it hurt so bad I can't wait to do it again

I loved that you knew who Charlen Heston was, and your friend was wrong, he didn't play in Lawrence of Arabia

I was disappointed and could not finish watching. You missed many of the points being made. Boring.

Hopefully this is the last reaction these two fools ever do. Totally disrespecting a classic movie with inane chatter over the dialogue, totally missing the incredibly profound nature of the film which was made right in the midst of the civil rights movement. It caused uproar in cinemas when Sidney Poitier slapped that entitled racist man - both cheers and outrage. One of the greatest movies ever made, an acting masterclass by Pointier and Steiger, see also The Defiant Ones in which Sidney plays opposite Tony Curtis who's a racist fellow prisoner he's handcuffed to while on the run. See Poitier also in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner which addressed racism below the surface of a seemingly liberal couple. Steiger also starred opposite Marlon Brando in the classic On The Waterfront, the two them appearing in one of cinema's most famous scenes, the back of the taxi. Look it up. But please, please, don't do a reaction to any of these pieces of great art. You really don't deserve to.

I don't think any of you channel hosters in this online TH-cam arena know how OFF PUTTING it is to learn: someone in the reaction has ALREADY SEEN THE MOVIE.... DEFEATS THE PURPOSE!! Instant click off... The one who's already has seen it is continually consciously or subconsciously regarded as some kind of upper tier 'teacher'. It's just f**king annoying. Whether u like it or not they become a kind of 'know-it-all' Either way it f**ks up the first time reaction vibe... It ruins it

I must say your reactions are some of the least informed I've seen regarding this film. You seem to think that history began with you. Please learn a little perspective,and perhaps you'll enjoy older films more.

He stayed and helped because in his mind the best way to get back at people that are prejudice or racist to him is to not only show them that you are smarter than them but to help them and solve their problems they can't figure out for them. Basically making them eats tons of crow.

I highly suggest reading the book. They did a great job of taking the book to movie. Current movie producers should take note. This is how you make a movie from a book, they didnt take any liberties with the story or leave a lot of atuff out. I would say they barely left anything out, they are almost exactly the same.

This is an amazing movie with super amazing actors. Love reactors are starting to see it. And yes the series was a favorite of mine as well.

I think your reaction days are a bit numbered judging by the comments? 😶

You guys are left I can tell from how you critique this film.

Hunter is beautiful!! i see why she got a ring on it.

I know I'm late, but I have studied the old west for years. Maddie was a Dodge City prostitute who followed Wyatt to Tombstone, she told everyone she was his common law wife and Wyatt allowed it. The shootout at the creek actually happened with tbe "No!" except it was a dry sand bed with no water. No one really knows who killed Johnny Ringo. He was found under a tree but Doc was several miles away at the time. While it looked like Doc died soon after the events, Doc actually died in 1887, six years after the events of Tombstone. Kurt's son was born a few years before the film. Kevin Costner's "Wyatt Earp" was a snoozefest. Costner threw out the first script as he thought Wyatt should be the main focus throughout. Dennis Quaid's Doc Holliday is practically an afterthought. While the gunfight in Wyatt Earp is actually the 15 seconds the fight actually took at the OK Corral.

I assume that the State police would investigate a murder in a small town that didn't have detectives.

You guys are way too negative - too many f bombs. Had to give it up.

Miss, your recognition of Charlton Heston does you credit as I've seen many Tombstone reactions over the years yet you are the first to spot him; none so far notice who he is playing-Henry Hooker, the biggest rancher and pimp in the territory at that time: very well known for his protectiveness, providing rites of hospitality to his guests and took such good care of the girls that prostitutes moved from New York to the Wild West just to enjoy the great pay, security, and pampering treament that came with working as one of "Hooker's girls/gals" which in turn evolved into being a "Hooker". Many of the girls treated him as the father they never had and all children born of them were raised well on the Ranch; learning to ride, rope, fence, herd, and shoot from the elite cowboys he employed.

Also, you two seem to think that the late 1800s and early 1900s in the Wild West was at all comparable to today’s society. It wasn’t. Why do you keep suggesting things that people today would be able to do, but people of that time had no ability to do?

You kept saying “they should move”….move where, exactly? And how would they get there? Most of the people in the town are poor. Traveling back then was extremely dangerous (animals and evil men). So what exactly would be the options when there isn’t another town for a huge distance?

mildly irritating reaction to a seminal movie, but I suppose if you have no feel for the time in which this movie is set, then you can be forgiven to some extent for your lack of appreciation.

13:38 This parallels the line "You, sir, should unmask," from the insanity-inducing play 'The King in Yellow' referenced in Chambers' book 'The King in Yellow'.

Once a witness is sworn in, their testimony becomes evidence.

My mum caught me drinking cough medicine that had 13% alcohol when I was 15. Fun times.

This is the first reaction of yours that I'm watching so I'll definitely be coming back for more but yeah If you guys haven't seen it yet another good movie that fits within this whole universe is (a place beyond the pines) it also has Ryan gosling in it as the lead and it's soooo good I honestly think the both of you would love it honestly it really goes amazingly well with this one and in my opinion it seems like an unofficial prequel to this even tho it's not because that's how well the stories mesh together if you watch them back to back

I think i was in my mid 20s when I first saw this movie. I saw the TV show as a teenager, but I was well aware of the original movie.This a very, great and classic movie. I have to respectfully disagree with many of your observations. The plot twist at the end. Plot twists seems to be an issue younger generations have with older movies. If the plot was just about Endicott having Colbert killed, then the movie would've played out a lot differently. Considering that this was the 1960s South, Endicott being the killer or having a part in the killing would totally obvious. Plot twists are make movies and TV shows interesting because they come out of nowhere. Ralph is just that unassuming guy. I guess in a way, with him always snapping that rubber band he had, that was a bit of foreshadowing to show that Ralph had some kind of physical side to him. Nuance. That seems to be another problem younger generations have with older movies. Because some of the characters were developed more, you couldn't catch the nuance in how they are. To say that Rod Steiger's role as the Chief wasn't good as well does the movie justice. It's puzzling to me that you both don't see the gradual change in the Chief. The change started when he was receptive to Virgil working on the case after talking to Virgil's chief. Even with Virgil going to the Chief's house, it shows the continual self-reflection. I think you both took the scene wrong when the Chief "No thank you black boy". The Chief acknowledged that while there were things wrong in his life and he was lonely, recognized that part of it was his own doing, as why he didn't want any pity. Virgil isn't Mr. Clean himself. Virgil was projecting as well with the "I'm better than any white man" trope, which the Chief used to convince Virgil to stay. If Virgil didn't have that mindset, he wouldn't have been able to slap Endicott and smirk afterwards. But it came back at him in that next seen when he and the Chief are talking outside. The Chief realized that deep down, Virgil is basically the same as the Chief and everyone else there. And what does Virgil do? He pauses, because he is self-reflecting. If the Chief had not been self-reflecting, he would've seen it. That needed to happen before Virgil could start to change. This is why I can't agree with you two about how the ending should've been. All that self-reflection for the Chief and Virgil would've gone down the drain if neither one smiled at each other. The plot change from the obvious Endicott and everything leading up to Ralph, would've gone down the drain. The fight scene...if you want to call it that😄 It was the 1960s...that is what you are to expect. Did you think you were going to see a Denzel Washington reboot The Equalizer fight scene? Nope. And it wouldn't have been realistic as far as police training. The way the angels were shot were for emphasize each person for the suspense. So, it's no big deal to focus so much on the fight scene. But...I do agree that those guys were sorry as hell. A gang of thugs who can't thug 😅. It doesn't need to be remade. From the way you two want it to be remade, then you are asking for a Rated R movie, which this movie is Rated PG. And even if it was made PG today, which it would be PG-13, much of the meaning, context and nuance would be lost in order for it to be "more gritty" as you said. I see that as a reflection of how life is today. I'm not so sure that the plot twist in the original would go over well in modern times and I'm not so sure that the changes in the Chief would be as accepted, much less be believable to a modern audience. In The Heat of The Night had many future TV and film stars other than Sidney Poitier and Rod Steiger. The actor that played Sam Wood had a very good career before and after. 2 of the future movies he's know for in the 1980s is the comedy Stripes and the police movie Blue Thunder (this is a movie you definitely need to review). In Blue Thunder, he plays a LAPD police captain. He died in 1981. Blue Thunder and another movie that he starred in that were made in 1981 were released until 1983. The actor that played Harvey, he's well-known for being the Demi Moore movie G.I. Jane and in The Walking Dead.

Great reaction.Ike was awful.I know some of this in the movie wasn’t true but he was very abusive in real life and that just breaks my heart.

Fun fact that's kind of surprising: Poitier and Steiger were basically the same age (born 1927 vs. '25).

a remake???? why?... you can't reproduce that moment in time. the environment, the setting. .the great acting... the civil rights era of the 60's was one of the MAIN characters of the film. how the heck do you re=create that in today's world?? you don't. this film captures a moment in time.

and trying to make every scene funny somehow so you two could chuckle was also very annoying to watch. if you are that awkward watching a film together, then perhaps don't..

history is certainly NOT a strength of either of you. every hear of the civil rights movement. perhaps you should look into it. you spent this entire reaction trying to view this film by today's standards. which is completely ridiculous. and speaking over the entire film and missing VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE DIALOGUE absolutely robbed you of seeing seeing brilliant acting at the highest level. as someone mentioned earlier....perhaps you should simply avoid watching films before the 2000's. they are simply going to go RIGHT OVER YOUR HEAD. maybe stick to marvel movies and the like. the simpler the better... high drama is clearly NOT your cup of tea...

I love how this film, or indeed any film reaction, reveals far more about the reactors than the characters depicted in the film. You guys display precisely the same emotionally driven prejudices & bigotries towards the characters as the characters themselves, - by not listening, & engaging with your preset judgements of certain demographics in order to project, - rather than to listen, observe, & engage with the character's where they are, & the environment in which they grew up. That's how the seeds of racism & bigotry begin. It's easy to succumb if we're not careful, isn't it? Especially if we are surrounded by others of the same mindset, who never pull us up about it to help self reflection. Virgil occasionally succumbed to the same prejudices until he blocked his emotional investment by engaging his reason & logic. Any one of us can & will occasionally submit to prejudice. & whenever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth, & the ability to listen, relate, & understand other people. Gillespie, by the end of the film was able to lay down some of the innate prejudices of his environment by listening, respecting, & relating. 'People are born ignorant. Not stupid. We only become stupid by education & indoctrination' Bertrand Russell. 1872-1970.

You guys are idiots....one of the best movies ever.

I think you guys missed the point of the film. The mystery of who killed Colbert is secondary. The primary point of the story is the development of the relationship between Tibbs and the Sheriff. This is one of the all-time great films. It has tremendous re-watchability thanks to great acting. The fight scene was perfectly fine. I'm not sure what you were expecting. It's not a Kung Fu movie. It is however the winner of five Academy Awards including "Best Picture of 1968."

Gillespie had some redeeming qualities. He was trapped by culture, and situation. His was the highest regard for Virgil near the end. Note the final sendoff - that is the ONLY time in the film, that you see Rod Steiger smile! This film gets better with every viewing. RIP Sidney Poitier and Rod Steiger, and thank you! This film took the Oscars.

The film is 55 years old you looking at a 2024 perspective things have changed so much you have to put your mind set in 1967

14:46 Did you notice the colour of Tuttle's tie?

Great movie ... horrible seeing this reaction.

The moment where the on-screen images start to contradict Rust and Marty's narrative is a great rug-pull. After all the build-up that the 'shoot-out' has had over the course of the preceding episodes, the actual event could have wound up an anticlimax, but starting out by bringing the audience to the realisation that everything they think they know about this key incident is a lie neatly sidesteps that risk.

You realize if they did everything you suggested there would be no movie.

I kind of enjoy your reaction, but you talk too much over the actors. It would be better if you just commented once in awhile. and not talking over the actors.

The acting of Sidney Poitier and Rod Steiger is off the wall. I saw this movie when it first came out, it never gets old.

Excellent reaction Can you guys react to (BlackBoard Jungle) or Guess Who's Coming to Dinner ? Two films starring Sidney Poitier. Thank you for posting.

Once i heard i'm already pissed off at this movie, i 'd had enough. A classic movie and one of the best films ever made ruined..

doc said that is funny because he always assumed he would die standing up with his boots on, he was brash and reckless...but to die in a bed with his feet like tht was funny to him considering his lifestyle and the kind of enemies he made...he went to the aok tree expecting as much, that is why he said you are ano daisy you aint not no daisy as all to johnny ringo becaue ringo wanst the that guy to put him out on his feet (make no mistake his intention was to go out with ringo for wytts sake)

I think part of the problem is that you guys are expecting this to be more like it is today (not that today is perfect in any way shape or form). While the mid 60s was before my time, I learned about it from the movies my parents watched (both of them born in 1929). Two of my Mom's favorite movies were Guess Who's Coming to Dinner & In the Heat of the Night, both starring Sydney Poitier. I remember seeing her face break into a hige grin when he'd say back authoritatively "They call me Mr Tibbs!" Anyways, this movie doesn't show things how they should be, it shows them how they were, and that's what makes it more powerful. To see a person like Gillespie change from beginning to the end shows that change does come, but never as fast as we'd like it. It takes time, but the really important things usually do. And honestly we're still not there yet, in fact I think we took a few hundred steps back starting in 2016, but it just means we have to work that much harder to get there.

Now next should be "Stabd By Me"

Hunter Boyle is breathtaking!! Such deep bright eyes 😍😍😍😍 Good for people of color to react to this movie....not too many reactions to it on TH-cam. 😀 This is a really good movie with a good anti-racist message. 😀Remember, these guys are just acting...the guy who plays the sheriff isn't racist at all IRL, and he's not from the south. 😀 The TV show was also very good, I watched it religiously in high school (I graduated 1996). The TV show was not as good when the guy playing Mr. Tibbs had to leave....apparently he had a drug problem. But the lady who played his wife -- Ann-Marie Johnson, who was also on In Living Color, Melrose Place and many other things -- said that the racist town where they recorded the show made her feel very uncomfortable...she grew up in Los Angeles, and she said there were a lot of racists in that small town. 😮 There's a reason why those of us in the "blue states" -- the anti-Trump states -- as well as the major cities within the red states, avoid areas like that! Ignorant racists. 😮 I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area, and still live here, and I wouldn't go to a state like that unless I'm visiting a national park! 😮 btw -- there was a sequel to this movie called They Call Me Mr. Tibbs, where he goes to San Francisco, my area! 🙂I haven't seen the sequel yet, though! 🙂 He was also in a movie called Look Who's Coming to Dinner, where he is marrying a white woman, and has to deal with some racism from the woman's father, and his own father wants him to marry a black woman. 🙂

I hated the racism in the story, but it did a good job of putting us in the lens of that place and in the time. But it I think this feature was progress, as to bring to light, how things actually were, in the small towns in America. I am half Japanese, I lived in Kentucky and Indiana, I experienced that in the 1970s till we moved to California.

Did you note the year methods and tech was not known then.

You two are absolutely insufferable.

The Miranda ruling occurred in June 1966. Screenwriting and early production on the film started in 1965 and it was released in 67. Considering writing, filming, and post production like editing, scoring, marketing and distribution, etc., reading rights was not a common concept yet.