| Author | Message | ||
     Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
hmmmmmmmmmm...http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=70893 | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
I grudgingly admired the first 'Scream' as a well put together and entertaining horror comedy, but as for the sequels... S-H-I-T-E I also hear Wes Craven's new film 'My Soul To Take' is meant to be incomprehensible rubbish, on a par with 'Cursed' - for me the worst big name horror film of last decade.  | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
It wouldn't surprise me, Steve. And yes, Cursed was one of the most awful horror movies of recent years. I still don't understand why Craven manages to attract such big names, such good actors. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
Because he is a big name himself, and has the knack of turning out a genuinely good genre picture, every few years, and usually just when you'd written him off for good. The guy seems to have no understanding of quality control though... | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
Hmm, Steve, I seriously don't rate him. I think some of his films are banal, childish and downright terrible. I don't buy into the low-budget ethos into which the early part of his career is sometimes pigeon-holed. He was not ever in the same league of many of his contemporaries. He never made a Texas Chainsaw Massacre for instance. Last House On The Left is morally dubious, and a piss-poor film. NOES is good, but has dated badly, and is not to be championed in the same canon as The Exorcist, or any other true genre masterwork. I have said it before, he's the McDonald's of horror films. No offense intended. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
None taken... this is how I'd rank his, decidedly dodgy, filmography: 'The Last House On The Left' (1972) - perhaps the most notorious debut in horror cinema history and still packs a gut-churning punch. The very essence of extreme ordeal horror, and definitely not for the easily disturbed, it's also a pretty good suspense thriller in its own right and marked a new talent to be watched. 5th best imo. 'The Hills Have Eyes' (1977) - equally infamous and hardly any less disturbing ordeal horror but showing an increased confidence and professionalism behind the camera and in the handling of cast and suspense sequences. 4th best imo. 'Summer Of Fear' (1978) - haven't seen it. 'Deadly Blessing' (1981) - this move into subtler supernatural horror doesn't quite come off, and highlights many of Craven's directorial limitations, but is still a superior horror flick of its era. 7th best imo. 'Swamp Thing' (1982) - a dreadful load of complete bollocks and one of the worst comicbook adaptations ever made, so bad it's not even unintentionally funny. 'A Nightmare On Elm Street' (1984) - his first and so far only masterpiece this has to be the most original and entertaining ultra-black comedy horror film of the 1980s with one of the most memorable (sadly, all too memorable) movie monsters of all time. A madcap and genuinely scary joy from start to finish! 'Invitation To Hell' (1984) - haven't seen it. 'The Hills Have Eyes Part II' (1984) - what is he playing at, this is an incoherent mess that almost manages to outdo 'Swamp Thing' for indefensible dross! 'Chiller' (1985) - weak and plodding sci-fi/horror teledrama that does his reputation no good at all, talk about going through the motions. 'Deadly Friend' (1986) - dreadfully misguided sci-fi/horror farrago with a painful premise that never should have made it past the draft script stage. 'The Serpent And The Rainbow' (1987) - this is more like it, a seriously good and frightening voodoo horror film that gains immensely from being shot on location in Haiti. Second only to ANOES imo & Bill Pullman has never been better. Various episodes of 'Freddie's Nightmares' (1988-90) - none of which I've seen. 'Shocker' (1989) - oh dear, a decent idea and some effective scenes but this attempt to create another Freddie type villain ends up in the incoherent mess category. Has this man no understanding of quality control at all?! 'Night Visions' (1990) - haven't seen it. 'The People Under The Stairs' (1991) - another success, against all the odds, this is his third best horror film for me that works, again, as pure black comedy and fizzes with energy and imagination throughout. The inspired casting of Everett McGill and Wendy Robie (of 'Twin Peaks' fame), as the barking mad killers, is what makes the movie for me. 'Wes Craven's New Nightmare' (1994) - I may be alone in considering this supposed "return to form" his most overrated movie, to me it's nothing more than an overly self-reverential, cheap cash-in on his biggest moneyspinner and not nearly as clever, or as funny, as it thinks it is. 'Vampire In Brooklyn' (1995) - another misguided, tired and dismal failure that never should have been green-lighted imo. This proves that Craven is better at directing horror that happens to be blackly funny rather than straight comedy. 'Scream' (1996) - now this WAS a return to form and again works as an entertaining, tongue-in-cheek, and scary thrill-ride with almost perfect casting. His sixth best but a film that has become hard to love given what it was responsible for... 'Scream II' (1997) - sniffing blood, Craven goes for the easy option and turns in a competently watchable but perfunctory sequel that is only for the easily pleased. 'Music Of The Heart' (1999) - haven't seen it. 'Scream III' (2000) - ho hum, here we go again. Just about watchable and utterly forgettable film-making by numbers, it may not be incoherent dross but it sure isn't art. 'Cursed' (2005) - total CGI-overkill bollocks and hands down the worst werewolf movie I have ever seen, a patch-work load of old crap devoid of any sign of talent. 'Red Eye' (2005) - surprisingly effective airborne suspense thriller that just falls short of being one of his best due to losing the plot and momentum in the final stages. Better but frustrating. 'Paris, Je T'Aime' (2006) - directed one segment, haven't seen it, and can’t understand for the life of me why he was asked to do it – he’s really not that talented compared to the rest of them! 'My Soul To Take’ (2010) – you pays your money, you takes your chances. I'd describe Craven as a sometimes inspired (his one masterpiece was most likely due to the coming together of a talented team, rather than to him alone) jobbing film director, all too often distracted by the lure of filthy lucre and with a history of disastrous errors of judgement in his career, but also with an uncanny knack for bouncing back, just when you least expected it. I just hope it isn't with 'Scream IV', scheduled for release next year... | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
Actually, Steve, I stand corrected. The Serpent and the Rainbow is very good. And The People Under The Stairs is also good, but reminds me too much of Craven trying to direct a Lynch movie. And yes, Scream does show some talent. I watch his films always with the thought that I missed something, that maybe I will see why so many think he's a good genre director, but usually I come away disappointed. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
He's not a good genre director, he's just frequently lucky in the people he chooses to work with imo. My theory is that when he is the main creative spark, and has money to burn, his projects tend to fall apart into nonsensical rubbish. As with; Swamp Thing, Hills Have Eyes II, Deadly Friend, Shocker, Cursed, My Soul To Take... His early films were only successful because of their low budgets, youthful energy and historically important shock value imo. I don't rank him as a great talent either, Frank. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
I have seen Red Eye, Steve. I saw it recently. Ewa liked it for what it was, and as you described. It did indeed fall down in the latter half, ludicrously so, which is a shame, because I thought up till then it had been an excellent little film. Maybe I'm too critical, taking him too seriously. | ||
| Paul_finch (Paul_finch) Username: Paul_finch Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 92.2.67.184 |
I'm starting to think that I'm the only person who finds LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT a pile of self-indulgent, nihilistic trash. Everywhere I go these days, I see reviews of this tacky, poorly made crapfest which, if they're not completely reverential, are, at the very least, impressed by its rawness and grittiness. Why? In what way does horror cinema benefit from this sort of amateurish torture-porn? For me, LHOL embodies everything that's wrong with cheapjack 'video nasty' horror - exactly the sort of thing that put so many mainstreamers off this genre in the 70s and 80s. Please people, tell me I'm not the only film fan who thinks this. As for Craven, THE SERPENT AND THE RAINBOW and THE PEOPLE UNDER THE STAIRS were excellent outings. NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET was a quite amusing, but is still massively overrated in my opinion. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.194.128 |
Do you like Hills Have Eyes, Paul? Cos your review above of LHoL (which I've never seen) described my feelings about that.  | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
Paul - I totally agree with you on LHOTL. I hate that film. Joel summed it up before when he said it was Craven ripping of Wild Strawberries. I think there are lots of intelligent, cerebral and terrifying low-budget horror movies out there, but some are touted as 'gritty, authentic' etc, and when quite clearly they aren't. LHOTL is a good example of this. It's shite. Gary - I also find The Hills Have Eyes to be a waste of time. Poorly made, poorly executed, another film masquerading as something it's not. I'm sick of being told I don't get it. But this usually comes from die-hard Fangoria fans. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
Both films are effective and involving thrillers, that successfully pushed the envelope in the anything-goes 1970s, and were massively influential on all that followed. They still pack a visceral punch and show an understanding of how to play with an audience that is still impressive imo, given the limitations of their budgets and the raw talent involved. Craven went on to make much better films, with much better resources and collaborators, but he has never been as revolutionary or important since (even if only accidentally so). | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
Steve - I think he was simply cashing in on the then attempts by the genre to move on from other areas of genre development. I think both films are ineptly directed. But again, no offense intended. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
Maybe that is Craven's talent, Frank. He's a master manipulator of the public with a modicum of directorial talent. His two early classics - and I still insist that they are - were inevitable products of their time. If he hadn't been canny and confrontational enough to grab the opportunity then someone else, with his nous, would have. I contend that the films work as shocking horror thrillers and their place in the history of the genre is assured, and deserved. | ||
| Paul_finch (Paul_finch) Username: Paul_finch Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 92.2.67.184 |
Everyone is entitled to their view of course and there is no offence or disrespect intended here, but sorry Steve, I completely disagree with everything you say regarding those two movies. It'll be interesting to see if Gatiss gives them any credit in part 3 on Monday (though it's all subjective of course, so it won't prove anything if he does or doesn't). But to me, a classic - while it doesn't have to be a 'worthy film' - at least has to be well made, where as LHOL in particular was sub-student film standard. And I don't buy the lack of resources argument. TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE was made on a shoestring, and that one really is a classic, and had far more impact on the genre than LHOL, in my opinion. Neither do I accept the product of their time thing. The early 70s was a period when shocking movie audiences was in vogue, but shit is still shit as far as I can see. LHOL was far too crap to even be shocking. I liked THE HILLS HAVE EYES a little bit more, because I thought it was very watchable, though again - look back on it now, and it's very crudely made. When the hillbilly family get together, you struggle not to laugh at how pantomimish they are. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
I love The Hills Have Eyes - mostly for reasons of nostalgia. I like the film for the reasons other people seem to dislike it: it's crude, lewd, clumsy and nihilistic. I've also long been obsessed with The Last House on the Left. The latter film is a product of its times, and there's a lot of rage in there that I responded to when I first saw it...although these days I can barely watch the film because its so badly executed. |