| Author | Message | ||
     John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.137.108.144 |
We've just got back from watching this, probably the most post-modern horror-movie-savvy uber-giallo in existence. We had a ball with it, as did other vociferous members of the audience we saw it with, because it's the kind of movie that encourages a lot of shouting. As usual I can't say much that isn't in the way of spoiler, but this is a movie for everyone who has wanted to see a girl fight in an intensive care unit (I know I have), a speech deconstructing modern horror reboots, the prospect of Courtney Cox getting stabbed, a life-or-death quiz about serial killers' favourite weapons, the line ' the only way to survive a modern horror movie is to be gay', another life-or-death quiz about horror remakes, loads and loads and loads of murders, a really silly reason for the killer having committed all of them that's right up there with the daftest giallos, and a fun cameo from Shaun of the Dead. Kevin Williamson is back on script duties and delivers some snappy killer's dialogue and a lot of fun set ups. Recommended if you're us. Or if you're like us. Or if you like us. But most of all if you like silly well made fun horror sequels. | ||
| Kate (Kathleen) Username: Kathleen Registered: 09-2009 Posted From: 86.137.108.144 |
Seems we're on our own here, John.  I've read so much vitriol about these films and it really puzzles me. When the first Scream came out it was pitched (to me anyway) as a parody. More horror comedy than "self-referential meta-horror" that was actually intended to be scary. I loved it and thought of it in the same vein as Re-Animator. I thought Part 2 was great too, as it naturally got to play on all the spoof-able things to do with horror film sequels. It was necessary. 3 didn't work so well but then 4 works brilliantly and cleverly as it spoofs horror film reboots. Now critics and audiences are whining that it's "not scary" and I'm still scratching my head. I never thought these films were intended to be. I thought they were mostly meant to make you laugh and please horror fans with all the horror trope gags. Have I missed something? | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 109.145.128.20 |
I quite enjoyed it. Went to see it the other day. I completely agree that number 3 didn't work - but that was because the rules it was spouting for a horror trilogy didn't work - the only part 3 of a horror trilogy ever to follow those rules was Scream 3... Which kind of defeated the point of the movie. Anyway - number 4 was a massive improvement on that, but the deaths could have been a bit more inventive I thought (it was supposed to be following the path of modern horrors but the only thing used was that knife). Spoiler I did like the insinuation that this was in fact Stab 8 - the killers are making their own film... | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
Kate - all the reviews I read about it were glowing. I personally have no real interest in it, namely because of Craven, but I admit the reviews I read made me even consider it. Was this word of mouth reviewing so to speak, or through the genre, or mainstream sources? | ||
| Kate (Kathleen) Username: Kathleen Registered: 09-2009 Posted From: 86.137.108.144 |
Check out the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, Frank. Both from "top reviewers" (ie, actual professional reviewers) and everyone else (any guy with a blog). It's pretty half and half. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.4.19.77 |
You couldn't pay me to watch 'Scream 4'. The first one was entertaining and fresh at the time but the two sequels were just forgettable by-the-numbers crowd pleasers of very little merit. This looks like Craven trying to pull the same trick he did with 'Wes Craven's New Nightmare' years after a once lucrative franchise has run out of steam. I remember that film was ridiculously overrated by some critics at the time while I found it nothing but a cynical money-making con. I'm a fussy sod when it comes to horror lol. | ||
| Greg James (Greg_james) Username: Greg_james Registered: 04-2011 Posted From: 193.109.254.19 |
I caught this at the weekend. I thought it could have taken some more risks with the fates of the recurring characters and the metatextual elements became top heavy far too quickly for me. Also, I worked out who ghostface was about halfway through so the ending didn't have much impact for me, which I think is a killer for any film. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
Craven being clever and postmodern about his own 'legend' slightly lacks appeal for me. He always jumps on a cultural bandwagon so late that it's propped up on blocks (other directors having already snagged the wheels). I fondly remember MAD magazine's 'The Craven', a poetic overview of the great man's career that culminated with some observations on the Scream franchise: But the fans they were unlucky, for the sequel it was sucky, It was worse than Bride of Chucky... Why was Craven making films that mocked the films he'd made before? Because Craven was a whore! | ||
| Simon Bestwick (Simon_b) Username: Simon_b Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 86.24.209.217 |
To be fair, Craven did make 'The Serpent And The Rainbow', which is excellent. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.53 |
Bride of Chucky's good!!! | ||
| Kate (Kathleen) Username: Kathleen Registered: 09-2009 Posted From: 86.137.108.144 |
Seed of Chucky is even more fun - and it does the meta thing too. I love the bit where the Jennifer Tilly-voiced Tiffany doll says (of the unconscious body of the "real" Jennifer Tilly she's kidnapped): "My God, she's fat!"  | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
The 'Child's Play' films are actually clever and entertaining guilty pleasures that knock the 'Scream' franchise into a cocked hat. I'm also a secret fan of the 'Critters' & 'Leprechaun' series. Bugger, did I say that out loud?! | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.55 |
They should have brought in Brad Dourif as himself as well in Seed of Chucky... I thought Billy Boyd was great as the voice of Glen/Glenda | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.57 |
Is Leprechaun 4 also known as One Wedding and Lots of Funerals? The Critters films are not a guilty pleasure. You should come out and be proud man. Be proud of your liking for Critters! | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
'Leprechaun 4 : In Space' is the ultimate spoof of the 'Alien' franchise imo. I suppose 'Critters' was a poor man's 'Gremlins' while 'Ghoulies' (one of my favourite titles) plumbed the depths beneath, and still managed to be great fun. Ah, for the days before CGI ruined bad movies... | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.150.135.208 |
Is one of the leprechaun films also known as One Wedding and Lots of funerals? | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 178.116.56.53 |
Never could tell the difference between Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer anyway. These films suck something awful. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 109.158.60.197 |
Scream has a killer in a ghostface mask (which actually worked well before the outright spoofs robbed it of any power) and IKWYDLS has a guy with a big fishhook. That's the difference. Not really fair that. Scream did make it possible for the studios to invest in horror films again and was an effective little film. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
As much as I can't stand Craven, I think Weber is fair to say that Scream had a major hand in reigniting interest in horror. Not saying it's fair, just making an observation. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
Scream was quite brilliant when it first came out - people tend to forget this, but there'd never really been anything like it before. Scary, witty, clever, and entertaining. Scream 2 much less so; Scream 3 was just rubbish. The main difference between Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer is that Scream was knowing and self-referential, and played around with genre tropes. I Know What You Did Last Summer was stupid, self unaware, and came on like an 80s slasher with no sense of irony. The two films were poles apart. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
I can never understand the hatred of Craven a lot of genre fans have. The Hills Have Eyes Last House on the Left The People Under the Stairs The Serpent and the Rainbow A Nightmare on Elm Street Scream I'll forgive him all the crap films he made for these gems. Hell, even some of his weaker films have a lot going for them... Shocker Deadly Blessing Wes Craven's New Nightmare | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 178.116.56.53 |
I think I must have started off with the wrong one - Scream 3. Wasn't They by Craven? Now that one I liked. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
Craven produced They...and yep, that was a little belter. Loved it. Unfortunately, the wit and originality of the orginal Scream has been diluted by the countless copies and rip-offs it spawned. But, man, it blew me away that first time at the cinema. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
Zed, this is just how I see it, so don't bite my head off: The Hills Have Eyes, inane, dire, badly produced, and most of all, boring. Last House on the Left - ugly, badly acted, badly directed, badly produced, and not a subtle, misunderstood film that people keep claiming it is. The People Under the Stairs - this I do like, for many reasons. BUT, I do feel like I'm watching Craven trying to reproduce a commercial Lynch film. Christ, he even borrows two of the actors from Twin Peaks. The Serpent and the Rainbow - for me, until the ending, probably his most mature work, and actually made me believe the man was capable of turning out intelligent work. Until the ending, and the pyrotechnics. A Nightmare on Elm Street - does what it was supposed to do, scare the crap out of people. A brilliant horror for the 80's teenage generation, but as dated as Zabriskie Point - not that that's a bad thing. Scream - I do also think this a great piece of film-making, but for all of the talk of its cleverness, I think it's quite a brutal film, one that doesn't fortunately make the mistake of becoming a slasher film. I do feel echoes of Halloween in this, or more interestingly, how Carpenter might have approached the material. I'll forgive him all the crap films he made for these gems. Hell, even some of his weaker films have a lot going for them... Shocker - shocking would be more appropriate. Hey look, I'm Wes Craven, and I'm going to kick-start another horror film franchise by having a dead serial killer...("Can I have fries with that, please?") Wes Craven's New Nightmare - one of the most over-rated films I've ever had the misfortune to see. This is what long running TV shows do when they run out of ideas, the old, 'hey, what if get the actors to play themselves...' I agree with Stevie on this. Sorry, pal, as you say, it's just a matter of taste...I think (; | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Wrote this some time ago but it still stands... The films of Wes Craven imo: '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. 'Scream IV' (2011) - haven't seen it and don't particularly want to. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 2.24.1.248 |
'Last House on the Left' is a crude, artless, sadistic rip-off of Bergman's 'The Virgin Spring'. Essentially the same story, but with Bergman's artistry and bleak passion turned into cheap drive-in voyeurism. Craven said he didn't think anyone had seen 'The Virgin Spring'. Of course not, Wes. Bergman is only one of cinema's greatest directors, whereas you are a sleazy posturing fake. Of course your films are more important. And why should anyone care about plagiarism in a postmodern world where everything is up for grabs? Then Craven spent a decade telling anyone who would listen that 'LHotL' was 'guerrilla cinema' and a brave Vietnam allegory. Thereby displaying a talent for self-aggrandisement that has remained his only real talent. What a prize wanker he is. A writer behaving like that would be condemned on this board as a plagiarist and a sad fake. But because he makes horror films we have to pretend he's important. Because the standards of quality and integrity in horror cinema are so pathetically low that if you can point a camera, fandom declares you are a visionary. Not in a good mood. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 2.24.7.182 |
The way to impress most horror film fans is to make them feel clever. So if you can convince people that by watching a film that details the rape and torture of teenage girls, they have displayed exceptional courage and political awareness, you will be acclaimed as a great horror film-maker. Thirty years down the line, if you can make a slasher film that reminds the audience how many other slasher films they have seen through clever visual and textual references to those films, you will gain equal acclaim. In neither case do you have to do anything original or do any thing well. Nice work if you can get it. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 2.24.18.248 |
I should note, before quitting my desk for today, that I'm not trying to disparage anyone here whose enthusiasm for horror cinema is greater than my own. My issue is with horror cinema in general. As a lifetime horror fan I feel cheated by horror cinema, because quality and originality do not seem to be part of the game. In the world of horror fiction there are quality standards, it's not that easy to get a serious reputation without being good. But in horror cinema it seems that, frankly, any shit will do – and quite minimal talent is enough to earn you 'classic' status. This is not true of any other film genre, with the possible exception of pornography. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
not a subtle, misunderstood film that people keep claiming it is What kind of moron would claim that? It's absurd. 'Last House on the Left' is a crude, artless, sadistic rip-off of Bergman's 'The Virgin Spring'. Essentially the same story, but with Bergman's artistry and bleak passion turned into cheap drive-in voyeurism. That about sums it up, Joel. Yes, bang-on. I couldn't agree more. And it's why I like the film. It's unashamedly cheap, crude, crap, artless and vile. Almost a pure exploitation film. Joel, Craven isn't an important filmmaker - he's a hack. But that doesn't stop me from really liking a handful of his films. To be fair, if I'm looking for serious, intelligent, original cinema the last place I'd go is the horror genre. But sometime, you just want to eat the cheapest, fattest burger the grotty little kebab van on the corner has to offer...that's horror cinema: the kebab van on the corner in the shitty part of town. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
In neither case do you have to do anything original or do any thing well. Nice work if you can get it. Welcome to Pop Culture. The water's shallow as fuck, but there are pennies at the bottom of the pond.  | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
None of the above films can be described as Art in any way, shape or form, Joel, but a few of them are well put together thrillers and rather entertaining. Ingmar Bergman is probably the greatest director of motion pictures as Art of the 20th Century or, if not, one of the few visionaries who have the right to vie for that title. I understand and can empathise with your extreme reaction to works like TLHOTL but I find myself able to stand back and examine these kind of films dispassionately as cultural artefacts that say as much about their times and the audiences who appreciated them, and who they were marketed for, as any old news footage or history books. It is my lot to find horror cinema the most fascinating genre of them all. I was just wired that way and see no point in denying my instincts and painstakingly honest reactions to any work of cinema. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.24.131 |
>>>the kebab van on the corner in the shitty part of town. Yeah, but when you get older, your stomach can no longer digest such stuff. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
Some of us still can. We with gullets of iron and stomach linings of asbestos. It's all about balance; a mixed diet. Salad and red meat. Bergman and Coffin Joe. Balance. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
What kind of moron would claim that? It's absurd. C'mon, now, Zed, you know what I mean. Joel's right to feel like that, I don't blame him. Though Stevie makes a good point about distance, retrospectively. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.24.131 |
I really dislike exploitation films. They always feel to me as if they're made by people who hate, rather than by folk who are angry. Just an opinion. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
I suppose it depends on what you term exploitation, the term varies quite a bit, but the exploitation you are talking about, Gary, I also dislike. LHOTL, I hate. I find nothing about it redeeming. It's trash, and offensive trash at that, BUT, I have problem with other people having an opinion about it. I've heard too many arguments for this film, and I'm sorry, Zed, this is not aimed at you, but I have met people, absurd as it might seem, who have argued in favour of its deeper undercurrents. See Joel's argument for Craven claiming it was Bergman like in essence, and it's allegorical meaning towards being about the Vietnam War. If that isn't a hint at it's underlying subtlety, then I'm a baboon. (: I suppose it is a fear that too many people regard many horror fans, etc, as people who sit around watching this kind of torture porn, for want of a better word. I never could bring myself to watch Hostel II, and recently had to turn off the similarly themed Train. There's a New Model Army line about slasher films and the folk you revel in the Fangoria like slavish attention to exploding body parts. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
Meant to say, "I DON'T have a problem with other people..." | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 61.216.45.94 |
"... if I'm looking for serious, intelligent, original cinema the last place I'd go is the horror genre" I think that plenty of horror films fit that description. Works of any genre can be serious, intelligent and original. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
E.G. The Exorcist, Rosemary's Baby, The Shining, Don't Look Now, Possession, Seven, The Wicker Man, etc, etc, etc... | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
I've got to be honest, and say, those are indeed excellent examples, but in comparison into what's put out, they are few and far between. Just an opinion, too (: | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 109.79.38.47 |
Good points made by everyone on this thread, I think. I enjoyed THE HILLS HAVE EYES, WES CRAVEN'S NEW NIGHTMARE, RED EYE and (with decreasing enthusiasm) the SCREAM films. But I think Craven is most entertaining as a raconteur. (In a Mark Kermode documentary he was asked what moral lesson was to be learned from the urban legend of "The Hook": "Don't stick the hook into the car door until you're sure the car's not going anywhere.") | ||
| Thomasb (Thomasb) Username: Thomasb Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.25.141.120 |
I've lost interest in Craven over the years. I've met him a couple of time--a very erudite gentleman and classical music buff. He actually directed a film with Meryl Streep called, I think, "Places in the Heart" about an inner-city school orchestra. Well-meant, but not terribly good. I think "Red Eye" is the last film of his I liked. No interest on my part in "Scream 4" at all. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
Horses for courses again, innit? Personally, I think Ingmar Bergman is the single greatest film director of all time, but I love a bit of Coffin Joe or Teaxas Chainsaw or Last House. It's possible to like both, and realise that when you're watching crap it's for different reasons than when you watch true cinematic art. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
I really dislike exploitation films. They always feel to me as if they're made by people who hate, rather than by folk who are angry. I do see your point, mate, but I think that's a generalisation. I'm not sure how far you've delved into the giddy world of exploitation, but there are many different kinds of exploitation film out there, and they cover a lot of genres. Some are good, some are terrible. Some hateful, some witty and playful. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
I meant to say the folk who revel in....not YOU (: | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 61.216.45.94 |
"Personally, I think Ingmar Bergman is the single greatest film director of all time, but I love a bit of Coffin Joe or Teaxas Chainsaw... " Me too, Zed. It depends on mood, for me. I love Bergman and Kurosawa, but there are times when all I want to watch is one of the Blind Dead films. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
I know, Frank - I'm just playing Devil's Advocate. It's what I do.  Huw: right on, brother. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
Zed - I know, mate, just want to make it clear I respect your view, even understand it, just we tread the same path, but in different ways sometimes (now, wipe on, wipe off). (: | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
Frank, I've long made peace with the fact that I have rather eccentric, contradictory and eclectic cinematic tastes, and quite often the reasons other people hate a certain film are the very same reasons I like said film. I rather like treading this lonely path.  | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
No harm there, mate. A lot of people who know me think the same thing about me. But among other genre fans, I'm somewhat bland (: | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.137.108.144 |
I rather like treading this lonely path. Zed - I've just shown Kate The New Barbarians  | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
Often, Lord Probert and I walk that path hand in hand, pointing out the strange sights to one another.  | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.137.108.144 |
 | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.68 |
Joel (and anyone else who's interested): I recommend Robin Wood's very thorough defence of Craven's Last House on the Left in Hollywood from Vietnam to Reagan. Interestingly, I gather that he described Craven's film elsewhere as the film Funny Games wanted to be. | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.137.108.144 |
I may read that then, as I only watched Craven's Last House on the Left for the first time recently and for the record I thought it was quite awful (and everyone here knows how forgiving I tend to be!). The only Craven film I really like is Nightmare On Elm Street and at a pinch, New Nightmare, but his others have left me cold (the Screams included when I first saw them). I'm hoping one day that Zed will reveal to me why people think People Under The Stairs is any good. Hills Have Eyes is ok, but oh dear all that rubbish he's made - Chiller, Shocker, Swamp Thing, Hills Have Eyes 2, Invitation to Hell, Deadly Friend, Vampire in Brooklyn, My Soul To Take...even I can't really defend any of that lot. The friends I took to see Deadly Friend with me at the cinema were ready to kill me by the time we came out. And yes I have watched all the others as well but that's because I have to see everything. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 2.24.29.133 |
Ramsey, I don't understand how plagiarism can be defended, thoroughly or otherwise. We wouldn't extend the same consideration to a writer who rehashed another writer's published novel in another country and then continued to defend it when found out. In the world of non-fiction, however, there is a parallel case: Maurice Maeterlinck won a Nobel Prize for his study of insect behaviour The Life of the White Ant, which was plagiarised from The Soul of the White Ant by Eugene Marais (which at that time had not been published in Europe). Marais was never able to get redress in his lifetime, and the crime probably contributed to his morphine addiction and suicide. And let's not even think about James Watson and his exploitation of unpublished findings by Rosalind Franklyn. Her years of painstaking work to reveal the structure of DNA were hi-jacked by Watson, who then openly disparaged Franklyn's achievement. Watson and Crick won a Nobel Prize for exploiting someone else's intellectual property. The scientific community eventually forced Watson to publish an apology for his distortion of what had taken place, but by then Franklyn had died from cancer. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.68 |
"Ramsey, I don't understand how plagiarism can be defended, thoroughly or otherwise. We wouldn't extend the same consideration to a writer who rehashed another writer's published novel in another country and then continued to defend it when found out." Wood answers that pretty thoroughly, pointing out that Bergman's film itself "rips off" a mediaeval ballad and citing many significant changes Craven made. By the same token, I believe A Tale of Two Sisters is based on a folk tale, "Janghwa Hongryeon jeon", which has already been filmed several times, but surely that doesn't make the film a plagiarism of the others. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
I was about to cite the mediaeval ballad, too. I think it's harsh to accuse Craven of plagiarism, really, even if you do hate him. Let's not forget that film is a medium that's forever recycling ideas - even to the point of director's ripping themselves off. That's a million miles away from an academic ripping off another's discoveries. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 109.145.129.77 |
All fiction rips off ideas. Any sad romantic story is ripping ideas off from Romeo and Juliet, any rom com from the Taming of the shrew or twelfth night. And Shakespeare worked on themes that were already well worn when he wrote them anyway. It's not what you use, it's what you do with it. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.68 |
The ballad is reproduced in full as a preface to Ulla Isaksson's script for The Virgin Spring. I'd say she and Bergman made about as many significant changes as Craven did (different ones). | ||
| Simon Bestwick (Simon_b) Username: Simon_b Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 86.24.209.217 |
With reference to Shakespeare- and most of his contemporaries- using a pre-existing play, ballad or prose narrative was the exception rather than the rule. Every story, novel or film has source material in one form or another; the important thing is what you do with it. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.156.233.116 |
It's like convergent evolution - I don't think it's possible for anyone to have an idea all to themselves. We share too many things. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.24.131 |
Well, only part of Joel's observation concerned plagiarism. On the basis of The Hills Have Eyes, I'd say his other points are legitimate. Just my view. I really hate this kind of film. | ||
| Simon Bestwick (Simon_b) Username: Simon_b Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 86.24.209.217 |
Oh aye. It's been over a decade since I saw LHOTL, and in my defence I was a tad stoned at the time, so it's hard for me to judge its quality. Might have to give it another chance and watch it again. (Mind you, I said that about 'Wolf Creek', which I REALLY hated, and so far I haven't rewatched that either.) But the plagiarism point was a valid one to debate. I'll say it again: the source material is unimportant in comparison to the use the artist makes of it. On those grounds, there's probably plenty to discuss re LHOTL. And don't even get me started on 'The House At The Edge Of The Park'... | ||
| Kate (Kathleen) Username: Kathleen Registered: 09-2009 Posted From: 86.137.108.144 |
Ooh, that's a REALLY sleazy one, Simon! It tries to redeem itself with a tacked-on "twist" ending which only makes it sleazier. Good old David Hess - the go-to man for trashy rape scenes! | ||
| Simon Bestwick (Simon_b) Username: Simon_b Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 86.24.209.217 |
It's worse than that, Kate- he also wrote 'Speedy Gonazles'(the Pat Boone song, not the cartoon.) Such depravity! Cover the children's ears! | ||
| Seanmcd (Seanmcd) Username: Seanmcd Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 86.174.203.215 |
"There's a New Model Army line about slasher films" New Model Army - Archway Towers: 'Joining the queue at the Video library To watch ninety five minutes Of simulated torture' | ||
| Simon Bestwick (Simon_b) Username: Simon_b Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 86.24.209.217 |
A New Model Army reference, and I missed it! Must be getting old. Always thought Archway Towers a very underrated song- it's actually genuinely menacing and unsettling. Not the best track on the album, but then Thunder And Consolation is just one seriously stonking album.} | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
Sean - cheers, mate. That must be the one. | ||
| Seanmcd (Seanmcd) Username: Seanmcd Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 86.174.203.215 |
'Thunder and Consolation' was always one of their best albums for me too Simon. 'Menacing', that's the word alright. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 2.24.19.2 |
"Wood answers that pretty thoroughly, pointing out that Bergman's film itself "rips off" a mediaeval ballad." Sorry, Ramsey, but that alone would make me consign Wood's article to the shredder. Of course films – and books – draw on traditional folklore sources. That's wholly legitimate, especially in the fantasy or horror genre. But to regard that as equivalent to the wholesale plagiarism of a contemporary work is not tenable. If someone plagiarised Rilke's famous poem 'Orpheus, Eurydice, Hermes' they could not claim as a justification that Rilke had himself drawn on Greek mythology, and therefore was equally guilty. Or did Craven use the same mediaeval ballad as his primary source? I'd be surprised, to put it mildly. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.152.198.50 |
I think you could re-shoot The Virgin Spring's entire script and still make a legitimate new piece of art from it. (I'm not saying Craven has done though, as I haven't seen either film.) | ||
| Simon Bestwick (Simon_b) Username: Simon_b Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 86.24.209.217 |
Gus Van Sant tried that with Psycho '98 as I recall... not sure if anyone was particularly impressed. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.152.198.50 |
His was a shot-for-shot remake, as I recall, which isn't what I was talking about. | ||
| Simon Bestwick (Simon_b) Username: Simon_b Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 86.24.209.217 |
Fair point, Proto. And, any snarking on my part aside, you're absolutely right. In the theatre, plays are revived all the time, and different productions tend to reflect the time and place they're set in. No-one considers it to even be an issue. Olivier and McKellen have both put their versions of Richard III on film, and each is so different from the other that you have to remind yourself they are in fact the same play... | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.152.198.50 |
Sure. Look at Peter Brook's work. I want to see Wes Craven's Newsround. | ||
| Simon Bestwick (Simon_b) Username: Simon_b Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 86.24.209.217 |
 |