| Author | Message | ||
     Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.249.146 |
Well, I liked it. Sure, the film has pacing problems, but the vampires are genuinely scary, the setting is wonderful, there's some neato head-chopping action and a nice sense of doom. And Josh Hartnett is surprisingly good. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.187.170 |
No, no, a thousand times NO! Sorry Zed, but I hated this. The vampires were terrible, leering and grinning and hissing and bulging their eyes every time they were onscreen, and they had that pseudo-goth look that has been over-used for so long. The fat bald one was the worst offender - honestly, that guy was about as scary as Stuart Little. I cringed every time he appeared. The one good scene was the long overhead shot of carnage being played out over the backdrop of the snow-blanketed town. I don't know, Zed... keep this up and I may have to ask you to hand in your "horror film buff with good taste" badge. ;-) | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.5.8.3 |
Yes, Zed. A flick that got unfairly reviewed here in the States. It had some genuinely scary moments, hard to achieve for a die-hard like me.... Well done, overall. Some whisper campaign to kill it, I guess, or people are just less capable of understanding what's good and what's not anymore... | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.187.170 |
Lord Probert, I could use some back-up over here! ;-) | ||
| John_l_probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 90.203.130.161 |
I am so shocked I can barely type, and I certainly can't dig out my review at the moment. 30 Days was awful. Uninvolving, disjointed, suspenseless. Dreadful. One of the few horror pictures of recent years I was disappointed enough by to consider hating. As Chas Balun used to say - 'Flush it'. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.249.146 |
It stuck very close to the original comic, and the animalistic vampires were much better than the terrible romantic poet types we've been seeing onscreen for decades now. These were more like some weird offshoot of the Russian mafia, or something. :-) Maybe it's because I'm not a fan of vampires that I enjoyed it? I also love anything set in a desolate snowy landscape. There were certainly pacing problems, and the the film did lack suspense, but it came across like a solid B Movie. By no means a classic, but a good, bloody romp. And Ben Foster is always great to watch (I wish he'd been in it more). | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.249.146 |
"and they had that pseudo-goth look that has been over-used for so long" See, I don't get that, Huw. The vampires I'm used to seeing onscreen are moody, gloomy, doom-laden lover types; the ones here were feral, barbaric blood drinkers, their sole aim to kill. I've rarely seen vampires portrayed this way on screen. Then again, I don't watch many vampire films. If the film had been directed better, we'd be looking at a cult classic. | ||
| John_l_probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.253.174.81 |
Oh God - because you liked it I MAY have to watch it again. I, too, prefer bastard vampires to frilly-shirted types but the pacing was so off that it didn't work for me. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.180.226 |
I thought there was nothing original about the vampires in this film, Gary. I can't believe you found them frightening. I thought they were laughable caricatures. I didn't think having them make silly faces and hiss and snarl literally every time they appeared on screen did them any favours. It takes a lot more than that to make something feel 'feral' or 'barbaric' to me. Aside from this, the biggest problem was that the film was devoid of any sense of fear or suspense. Maybe with a better director (i.e. someone with a better understanding of horror) it could have amounted to something more impressive. I love films set in a snowbound location too, and that made this all the more disappointing for me. Maybe I'm getting harder to impress - god knows I've seen way too many films like this one in recent years and precious few that are actually any good. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
But 99% of horror cinema is unoriginal. You have to take these things for what they are, IMHO: entertaining pap. :-) | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.23.233.246 |
'die-hard' Now there's a film that needed vampires. Oh, 30 Days of Night I hated, too. Lovely photography absolutely wasted. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.180.226 |
Gary, sorry to keep putting this film down, as you obviously genuinely liked it. I'm having a terrible bloody day and have been more negative in my posts today than I should have, perhaps (if that makes sense). My pain medicine is hardly making a dent today, and I feel my inner grumpy Hulk coming to the surface. Someone hit me over the head with a virtual saucepan, please. :-/ | ||
| John_l_probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.253.174.81 |
The Huwlk! | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
I hear what you're saying, Huw. Don't worry; it's cool. Quite frankly, the way I feel at the minute, anything that can make me not feel depressed for 113 minutes is worth liking. For the duration of this film, I wasn't feeling like shit, and that's worth something. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.180.226 |
You too, eh? Sorry to hear it. The way I feel now, I'm seriously considering getting C.H.U.D. down off the shelf and watching it again. And then again with the audiocommentary. I find John Carpenter's good to watch when I'm depressed (well, maybe not so much The Thing). Big Trouble in Little China, They Live, Escape From New York... | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.23.233.246 |
Star Wars movies - even the recent ones. That last one in particular really shakes up my snow globe. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.29.101 |
You have email Zed. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.250.229 |
Here's my scale, using some random films: THE ORPHANAGE - great 30 DAYS OF NIGHT - good THE MIST - wretched Now measure your films accordingly....  | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 83.98.9.4 |
"Some whisper campaign to kill it, I guess, or people are just less capable of understanding what's good and what's not anymore" This from someone who hates the masterpiece that is Donnie Darko. | ||
| John_l_probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 90.203.130.130 |
CHUD! I haven't seen that for years. Directed by someone called Douglas Cheek, I think. Not that you'd know it from the posters that had producer Andrew Bonime's name all over them. Anyway, how someone can prefer 30 DAYS over THE MIST mystifys me. | ||
| Griff (Griff) Username: Griff Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
I see your CHUD and raise you CHOPPING MALL. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.16.77.101 |
...psssssst... Weber... DONNIE DARKO sucked... pass it on.... | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.180.226 |
So... The Mist and Donnie Darko both suck, but you liked 30 Days of Night, consider Transformers a 'great' film, and think that Michael Bay is a guy who 'understands horror'? I, too, am mystified. Mistified, even... ;-) | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.180.226 |
In fact, I haven't the foggiest. Sorry. I've been watching Garth Marenghi again. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.29.101 |
You bugger....I spotted that - DONNIE DARKO did not - I repeat - did not suck! | ||
| Karim Ghahwagi (Karim) Username: Karim Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 83.93.30.31 |
I agree Ally, Donnie Darko does not suck. I really loved the 30 Days of Night comics, especially the first two runs, both the writing was good and Ben Templesmith's art a breath of fresh air. But I'm afraid the movie version really didn't do it for me, but it had some good set pieces for sure,it just fell a little apart towards the end for me. A shame, it was done with a lot of heart. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.5.7.172 |
So... The Mist and Donnie Darko both suck, but you liked 30 Days of Night, consider Transformers a 'great' film, and think that Michael Bay is a guy who 'understands horror'? Um... yeah, HUW, that's about the score. Though calling TRANSFORMERS a "great" film is perhaps stretching the term greatly. But watch the first half of TRANSFORMERS... and look at Michael Bay's professional career, what he's produced, puts his time into... and you can see, that indeed, Michael Bay understands horror, when it comes to film. TRANSFORMERS reveals more his understanding of apocalyptic/disaster horror, like WAR OF THE WORLDS, but it's there. TRANSFORMERS (1st half) is easily as gripping and scary as Spielberg's remake; it blows THE MIST away (note the clever metaphor). | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.24.122.40 |
He's right. Pearl Harbour was horrifying. | ||
| John_l_probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 90.208.214.32 |
The best thing about Pearl Harbor is the song in 'Team America' that it inspired | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 83.98.9.4 |
I can't wait for Michael bay's remake of the Birds. Let's forget about characterisation or subtlety. Let's just throw lots of special effects and obvious CGI birds at the camera - probably mutated, and then, going by his previous canon, give it a shitty happy ending. Michael bay Sucks like a granny with no teeth. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.24.122.40 |
...on a liquid-only diet. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.190.155 |
Sorry, Craig, we'll never see eye to eye on this one. I thought Transformers was a mildly enjoyable popcorn flick, nothing more. I went back and watched the first half again, and I still didn't see any great scenes of 'cosmic horror'. All I saw was a series of typical big summer action movie scenes: robots coming down from space and fighting it out with the usual unbelievable, stereotyped American soldiers who don't behave like real soldiers, another robot that hides on a plane and prances about making cute ET-like noises, another robot that turns itself into a car and comes to the rescue of the teenaged hero (another stereotype). Nothing remotely horrific or awe-inspiring in any of that, as far as I'm concerned: not on any level. Nor did I detect anything to suggest that Michael Bay has any understanding of horror (aside from the horror of the kind of braindead movies he makes). If I want to see intelligent horror made by people with a genuine understanding and feel for the genre, I'll go and watch something like Dark Water, or Session 9, or A Tale of Two Sisters, or The Orphanage, or Kairo, or even The Mist, which, despite its flaws, shows more understanding of horror than Armageddon, The Rock, Pearl Harbour and Transformers combined. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.247.38 |
Ugh... first, THE ROCK, PEARL HARBOUR, and ARMAGEDDON are all not horror films: you're using faulty logic, like saying ROSEMARY'S BABY shows more understanding of horror than MARNIE, and therefore Hitchcock has no understanding of horror. Most of the examples you gave from TRANSFORMERS come from the second half, when the Transformers come into their own, and are the cute, annoying toys they are. "Stereotypes American soldiers who don't behave like real soldiers..." has nothing to do with an understanding of horror, however valid a point you may have. Is TRANSFORMERS the best horror movie to come along in years? Is it even A horror movie?... Mmmm. Not really, but the first half - if isolated - surely has at least one foot in the horror genre. And me too, I can't wait for his remake of THE BIRDS - only, I'm not being sarcastic....  | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.188.33 |
It's not faulty logic at all (in fact, it's your logic that seems faulty here - what does Hitchcock have to do with Rosemary's Baby?). It can easily be demonstrated that Hitch had an that understanding of horror because anyone who knows anything about him or his work knows that he created some of the most successful scenes of horror ever. Psycho alone would support that claim. You said that Michael Bay 'understands' horror, therefore it seems only reasonable to cite films that Bay himself made in order to refute that claim. Would you prefer I use Bad Boys 2 or The Island as examples of his understanding of horror instead? Can you name some films he's made that display this great aptitude for horror? As far as I'm aware, aside from the afore-mentioned films that he directed, he produced the remake of The Hitcher, one of the absolute worst remakes of a horror film ever, as well as the lacklustre Amityville Horror remake and the awful Texas Chain Saw Massacre prequel. What I'm saying is, you claimed in your post above that Bay has an understanding of horror based on what he's worked on professionally, so the least you could do is name those films he's made that support this view. The only ones I can find (named above) seem to contradict the idea that he knows anything about what goes into making good horror. The scenes I used as examples from Transformers all take place within the first thrity-forty minutes, by the way. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.5.3.246 |
Read your last paragraph 3 posts above, HUW: you're comparing horror films from other directors, to Michael Bay's non-horror films, and making a summary judgment against him. Again, that's like comparing Polanski's ROSMARY'S BABY to Hitchcock's MARNIE and concluding he knows nothing about horror, so forget PSYCHO. Which brings up another good point: on that one film alone, Hitchcock shows he knows horror, even in the face of an overwhelming amount of films that are not horror. It's not about quantity, but quality. Let's name some other "one shots," for all intents and purposes, horror films by directors who clearly know horror, that only did it once: the aforementioned PSYCHO, and ROSEMARY'S BABY (FEARLESS VAMPIRE KILLERS is a comedy); ALIEN; THE SHINING; IMAGES; POSSESSION; THE EXORCIST... Jesus, it's becoming evident, that the greatest horror films are all one shots! If Ramsey Campbell wrote only "The Companion," or THE PARASITE, and spent the rest of his time writing nothing but "Sex in the City"-ish chick lit, he'd still have displayed, for all time, a profound understanding of horror.... | ||
| Griff (Griff) Username: Griff Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
SEX IN THE CITY *Shudders* | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.197.133 |
Sorry, that is just nonsense. I am using examples of films by people who really understand horror and comparing them to Bay's films because you made the claim that Bay 'understands horror'. If I'm to argue against this notion of yours, then obviously I'm going to cite Bay's films: Bay is who we are talking about after all, and you said there is evidence of him understanding horror in his work. It's hardly my fault if the man hasn't directed any actual horror films, is it? If he had made any decent horror films, maybe you'd have something with your notion of him understanding horror. The fact is that his whole career is based on big, action-packed blockbusters, and the few horror films he has been involved with (not as director) are crap. I mean, really - THE HITCHER remake?!! Craig, can you just tell me in plain and simple terms what exactly it is that Bay has done in his career that makes you claim that he understands horror so well? | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.197.133 |
Zulawski, Polanski, Hitchcock and Friedkin all made more than one horror film. It could be argued that Ridley Scott did as well, if you count G.I. Jane... ;-) | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.197.133 |
Regarding the last part of your last post, Craig: yes, but Ramsey did write those horror tales. Michael Bay hasn't done anything comparable, in the horror field. What is it about the first half of Transformers that you find so steeped in horror? I watched the first 45 minutes again today twice, and still don't see anything more than a sci-fi action flick. I'm genuinely perplexed. I do agree with you that Spielberg's War of the Worlds has moments of apocalyptic horror, though. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.16.77.113 |
Perhaps my memory is mis-serving me, HUW, it's possible... I saw TRANSFORMERS some 8 months back, and on a *GIGANTIC* wide-screen TV (at a friend's house), not at the theatre. I found the first half not to BE a horror film, but to contain within it, elements that denoted a particular kind of horror understanding, of the mostly apocalyptic variety; I found it to be in sync with the Spielberg flavor of big-bad horror. Perhaps if I watched it again, okay... maybe with too fine an eye, I'd be turned away. I'm basing my theory he "understands" horror purely on this film, though as a producer, you will see, he's almost totally gone over to the "dark side": he's produced many horror films, and is producing more, and he doesn't have to - this is a guy who can do whatever he wants in Hollywood. So he loves horror, and no he doesn't write horror, but neither did Hitchock write PYSCHO, but it is writ large with Hitchock. Is Bay at Hitchcock's level? Let's not wax absurd now. But what *I* got from TRANSFORMERS, told me, that Bay could, if he chose, do a pretty good horror film on apocalyptic dimensions... so if he is indeed doing THE BIRDS, I can't wait... but I've forgotten now - is that truth, or a joke? If it's a joke, thanks a lot, because I'm gonna be pissed! | ||
| Grant (Grant) Username: Grant Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 67.176.207.225 |
I enjoyed 30 days of night for whats its worth and I also enjoyed the comic. | ||
| Karim Ghahwagi (Karim) Username: Karim Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 83.92.216.182 |
My grandmother can make a better horror film than Bay. A remake of the Birds is just about the most terrible remake I can imagine and a new low in the mostly terrible phenominon of the remake. The world is filled with so many new amazing stories, why keep hashing out remakes: Advertisers and branding people are now making the creative decisions. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.17.30.229 |
How about just a sequel then, Karim?... THE PARAKEETS?... | ||
| Albie (Albie) Username: Albie Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.195.236.131 |
>>My grandmother can make a better horror film than Bay. BASH! | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 83.98.9.4 |
>>My grandmother can make a better horror film than Bay. So can mine, and I'm talking about the one who's been dead for the last 25 years, not the one I've still got. | ||
| Karim Ghahwagi (Karim) Username: Karim Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 83.92.216.182 |
The parakeets :-) | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.195.253 |
Here you go, Joel. I sense a Joel/Zed versus Lord P/Huw RCMB tag-team fight coming on... ;-) | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.240.106 |
'die-hard' Now there's a film that needed vampires. That's the most sensible thing on this thread. :-) | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
Great idea, great cast, great setting and atmosphere, great photography, restrained use of gore, no sentimentalisation of the vampires, no prisoners. What's not to love? | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.240.106 |
And it's currently 4.99 on play.com. I've just ordered it. :-) I also preordered the Last House on the Left remake... :-/ | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.195.253 |
I'm off to watch CHUD... | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 213.158.199.77 |
Thank god for common sense. I was very disappointed about the overall response from a lot of genre fans over this film. I thought it was excellent. Joel summed it up nicely. I sat down with a couple of friends who aren't necessarily genre fans, expecting it to be rubbish after what I'd read. Instead I was searching for reasons why it received so much criticism. So were my friends. They asked was there a lot of snobbery in the horror genre amongst fans. I told them that usually we agree more or less, give or take a few exceptions. I think sometimes we bemoan the state of horror movies, and yet when something quite decent comes along we pull it apart for quite spurious reasons. Shame. Good on Joel and Zed, and anyone else who liked this movie. Hey, the hero dies. If that ain't sticking to the old school of great horror, I don't know what is??? | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.195.253 |
Frank, what on earth does common sense have to do with it?! Surely it's down to taste in the end. And what do you mean by 'spurious reasons'? If you liked it, fine - I personally thought it was crap and explained why. I don't see how that is being 'spurious' or snobbish. I can name dozens of films that both Zed and I love dearly, but I can also think of a handful that we will always disagree on. I'm not going to pretend to like something just because I know my friends like it. Is it really so hard to believe that quite a few people thought this film was crap? | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
That ole devil called taste again... :-) I can understand why others don't like it. Taste is purely subjective - there are all inds of reasons for liking a film, and some of them have nothing to do with quality. :-) | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 213.158.199.77 |
Huw - calm down. What's up with you? Did you see me single you out? Christ, if I want to use 'common sense' to exaggerate or underline my opinion, I will. If you can find anything in what I read addressed to you personally, then please feel free to point it out. I think you need to have a lie down in a dark room or something less strenuous that doesn't involve reading a harmless message on a thread on a message board that doesn't mean diddly squat in the real world. Relax, will you? | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
To defend Huw, he wasn't identifying a personal comment: he was just objecting to the condemnation of a particular view as having 'spurious' grounds. Which is fair enough. I may disagree with what Huw says but I won't challenge his right to be taken seriously. Hey, sectarian conflict among 30 DAYS OF NIGHT fans! We'll have splinter groups called 'The Real 30 Days Fans' (slogan: '30 days is forever') and 'The True Fans of 30 Days' (slogan: 'Never in a month of midnights') with rival websites next. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.195.253 |
Frank, I am calm (I'm on Rivotril, for heaven's sake!). I was just puzzled by what you wrote. I don't know why you'd think those who criticised the film may have 'quite spurious reasons' for doing so. No, you didn't single me out, but when say stuff like the above about people who don't like the film, and then go on to congratulate everyone who did like it, it's a bit difficult not to feel included with the spurious snob people! It's all a matter of taste, surely? Sorry if my last post pissed you off. I was just a bit surprised by what you wrote. No hard feelings? | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.225.167 |
I stand on the side of people that liked 30 DAYS OF NIGHT - yes, I really liked this one! I remember expecting very little from it, and being thoroughly, overwhelmingly surprised. It wasn't a perfect film, a bit clunky in spots, and something about the ending I didn't like... though my mind's not spitting back up what it was... but it was much, much better than the reviews - much! | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.225.167 |
Here's something I've learned: everyone else's faulty tastes in life, is just a horror that those with the correct opinions must live with.  (No, Weber, I see you scratching your head wondering - that's not you) (Don't worry: I've just inserted a happy thought in your mind, to last you the whole day - you can color it in with your Crayolas) | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.195.253 |
Craig, I went into the theatre not sure what to expect, but I had read a good review of it and as I love anything with a snowbound setting, I think subconsciously I may have been expecting to like it more than I did. I did like some of the camerawork as it glided over the carnage against the snow-blanketed town. The vampires (especially the bald one) and the (to me) hackneyed scare scenes were what disappointed me the most, I think. Joel, thanks. How about 'The People's Front of 30 Days of Night'?  | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.47 |
Where's the "Popular people's front of 30 days of night"? | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
All dead. Until sunset at any rate. That's a week on Tuesday. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 213.158.199.77 |
Huw - fair enough. No hard feelings. Perhaps I should have worded my part of the thread better. Joel is right. I know my thread generalised. The spurious grounds I talk of is that sometimes along comes a film that I feel is quite good, or even sometimes excellent. That doesn't mean I qualify this film as an outstanding achievement in the genre, far from it, but I get peeved at the backlash sometimes because I remember what I would call hardcore genre films receiving copious amounts of critical gushing. What do I mean by that? That sometimes obscure, low budget horror films receive too much adulation on the grounds that they are just that. Whilst sometimes, more commercial films, more mainstream films are lambasted for minor faults, and not appreciated as genuine attempts to contribute to the genre. And yes, I know there are thousands of obscure gems with low budgets that are worth much more in terms of contribution than most big-budgeted movies. I wouldn't be a horror fan if I was aware of this fact. Many a time I have argued this. So, I apologize if my opinion generalized. And I apologize if I seem to have reduced a person's right to be taken seriously. That wasn't intended. And my theory, just mine, about low budget and high budget horror isn't aimed at anybody. Hell, come on, I've argued with Zed about Craven. For me that man's the epitome of everything that's wrong with commercial horror in general. And here I am generalizing. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
There's nothing general about Craven. He is uniquely shit. He is like the kind of 24-hour grocery shop luncheon meat that tries to pass for spam. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.186.178 |
Frank, thanks for clarifying - I can see what you meant now. I agree about the way more unashamedly commercial horror films are sometimes bashed by fans of more obscure fare simply by virtue of that commercial status. I don't think mainstream/cult or big budget/small budget should be factors in judging a film's success. If it works, it works! Peace. I am off to lie down now - anti-epileptics are making me tired. ;-) | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 213.158.199.77 |
Huw - yes, I should have clarified, and I didn't. Joel was right to state his defense of you, because you were clear, and I was not. Sorry. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 213.158.199.77 |
Joel - I almost agree, well, no, I do agree, but I have a soft spot for 'The People Under The Stairs', which to me is Craven trying to add logic to a Lynchesque story, and the first Nightmare On Elm Street. But he is as has been said before, the McDonald's of horror movies. | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.47 |
Gary, can you edit Joel's reply to me to "He's dead" instead of "All dead". Then Joel will look like a comedy genius. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 213.158.199.77 |
 | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
Weber, you can be the Joe Orton to my Ken Halliwell. Or better, you can be the Beth Orton to my Geri Halliwell. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 213.158.199.77 |
Frightening possibilities abound. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.240.106 |
Craven used to be great when he was angry - The Hills have Eyes, Last House on the Left, People Under The Stairs, the original Nightmare on Elm Street and New Nightmare...he turned shit after Scream, IMHO. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.189.68 |
I like some of Craven's early stuff. The Serpent and the Rainbow had some terrific scenes and could have been a great horror film if some of the silliness had been cut out. I liked A Nightmare on Elm Street and parts of his other earlier films too. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.240.106 |
Huw, have you read the book The Serpent and the Rainbow? It's fascinating. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.252.48 |
Huw, have you read the book The Serpent and the Rainbow? It's fascinating. Making this the totally unexpected segue to a complete tangent, Zed, look at this: http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2009/09/unread-books.html | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.240.106 |
Weird. Sometimes I like to depress myself by admitting that I won't even get to read all the books I own before I die.  | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.231.31 |
I know how you feel, Zed. There are more books I want to read, than I know I'll ever be able to read in my life. Biographies alone: so many thick heavy weighted ponderous life-stories, fascinating figures throughout history... probably a few hundred... life-stories alone, would take up all my time, until I - ironically? or just, pathetically? - died.... | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 213.158.199.87 |
You'll die ironically, Craig, probably something to do with you winning a posthumous Oscar for screenplay and director...but never pathetically. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.189.68 |
Zed, I've read Wade Davis's book, yes. The follow-up Passage to Darkness (I think that was the title) is fascinating too, if not quite as readable as The Serpent and the Rainbow. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 92.251.168.179 |
"Sometimes I like to depress myself by admitting that I won't even get to read all the books I own before I die." Ever work it out? (average number of books read per year) x (number of years left). I'm a slow reader, so it ended up being just a couple of hundred before I die. Interesting factoid from Derren Brown's show -- a middle aged man has more chance of dying in any given hour than winning the lottery. The rest of the show was boring tosh. "Deep maths". Chortle. |