Films of 2013 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

RAMSEY CAMPBELL » Discussion » Films of 2013 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 31.54.11.58
Posted on Monday, January 21, 2013 - 01:39 am:   

Thought I might as well start one off.

This weekend I've seen Django Unchained - maybe a tad long but never boring, filled with everything you'd expect from Tarantino, cracking dialogue, extreme violence and a brilliant soundtrack. Go watch it.

Also just got back from Life of Pi - easily the most beautiful film to look at that I've seen in 3D. maybe not the most fun (that honour goes to either Piranha 3d or FD5) but certainly the most stunning use of the technique. Ang Lee hasn't been entirely faithful to the novel - the key scenes I remember from the book were missing (including the funniest lines in the book and the blackest humour in it too), but this is a fine adaptation in any case. Also highly recommended.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 31.54.11.58
Posted on Monday, January 21, 2013 - 01:41 am:   

Next weekend I'll be at stockport Plaza for a double bill of 2 new brit horrors - Tower Block and The Hollow - courtesy of Grimm up North.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Monday, January 21, 2013 - 11:04 am:   

I'm having reservations about 'Life Of Pi', Weber. Heard distinctly mixed reactions to the film.

I had no idea the new Tarantino was out yet! A must see if it's anything like as good as his last one.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.66.23.11
Posted on Monday, January 21, 2013 - 01:53 pm:   

You had reservations about the Bobbit for similar reasons. There's a lot of talk about spirituality in there which probably turns a lot of people off. Like I said though - I highly recommend it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.66.23.11
Posted on Monday, January 21, 2013 - 01:54 pm:   

*Hobbit

Bobbit is a much different film...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Monday, January 21, 2013 - 02:06 pm:   

I've heard good things about the director's cut.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Monday, January 21, 2013 - 04:46 pm:   

Ah, but nothing (bar castration with a chainsaw) would have stopped me going to see 'The Hobbit', being a fan of Peter Jackson and what he did with 'The Lord Of The Rings'.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 80.239.243.230
Posted on Monday, January 21, 2013 - 05:18 pm:   

Stevie, I know what you like in films and I think Life of Pi will score highly with you. I didn't know you laid so much stock in other people's opinions before going to the cinema...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Peterc (Peterc)
Username: Peterc

Registered: 12-2012
Posted From: 86.168.97.224
Posted on Monday, January 21, 2013 - 10:55 pm:   

'Sightseers' - highly recommended.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Tuesday, January 22, 2013 - 01:52 am:   

So here's one glowing review for Mama, mostly from a screenwriter/story perspective... has spoilers, makes me want to go see it though: contains some Stevie-ensian levels of enthusiasm (and this guy is known for not liking horror!). http://scriptshadow.net/movie-review-mama/
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Tuesday, January 22, 2013 - 12:22 pm:   

I've heard 'Life Of Pi' described as "worthy" by people whose opinion I trust and nothing gets my alarm bells ringing louder than "worthiness". Having said that I probably will go and see it. But not till I get paid again next week. Currently potless and relying on my own DVDs for entertainment these nights.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.144.35.96
Posted on Sunday, January 27, 2013 - 01:06 pm:   

Tower block - excellent, tense little thriller. I did wonder why there seemed to be no apartments on the other side of the building - something that would have saved all of them... but other than that, a great little thriller.

Hollow - pretty much describes the audience reaction to this atmosphereless found footage film. The end credits rolled to complete silence apart from a few stifled yawns (including my own). Not recommended.

On Thursday they're showing Mon Ami and Chop, two black comedies. Hopefully they'll be as good as they sound.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Friday, February 01, 2013 - 05:12 pm:   

Ha! My favorite here is Add Momma To The Train....

http://www.deadline.com/2013/02/why-the-pornmeisters-behind-xxx-50-shades-of-gre y-should-really-be-ashamed/
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mbfg (Mbfg)
Username: Mbfg

Registered: 09-2010
Posted From: 80.5.8.49
Posted on Saturday, February 02, 2013 - 11:30 am:   

Watched "The Berberian Sound Studio" last night. what a joyously odd film it is, with a marvellously restrained performance from Toby Jones.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.145.131.124
Posted on Saturday, February 02, 2013 - 07:28 pm:   

Mon Ami and Chop were a pair of good enjoyable black comedies.

Mon Ami was a fun tale of a pair of slackers working in a hardware store who decide to kidnap the boss's daughter and hold her for ransom. They prove to be rather inept to say the least and the situation gets more and more bloody and violent. between 6 and 7 out of 10. the clearly small budget was used wisely and most of the actual violence was kept off screen - which helped keep the situation comic rather than horror.

Chop is the story of a man who, in the opening few minutes is kidnapped by a madman with a grudge against him. He's tricked/forced into committing a horribly violent act against a family member and sent home. A few weeks later, the madman contacts him again to tell him he's broken the deal that allowed him to go home. From this point on things get more nasty as the madman starts cutting bits off him every time he sleeps. It's a funny picture but there are a few galring errors.

Firstly, this guy must have immense reserves of strength and huge tolerance for pain to not spend most of the film just screaming.

When his fingers are "cut off" we can clearly see their outlines under the bloodsoaked bandages. Some subtle digital tweaks would have benefitted proceeding immensely.

For a film that makes such a point about his already having a glass eye, they either needed less close ups on his face where we can see both eyes moving, or employed some more digital tweakery.

These faults aside though I'd give it a solid 7.5 out of 10.

Both are recommended viewing.

Thursday this week is the awesome Martyrs and teh director's follow up film The Tall man. Stockport Plaza 7pm Thursday £8 entry for the double bill.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 2.30.198.164
Posted on Sunday, February 03, 2013 - 12:41 am:   

Saw Les Miserables (the film) last night. Absolutely superb. Everything that musicals generally are not: serious, politically engaged, visually rich, emotionally complex. Against a harshly depicted backdrop of early 19th-century Paris, the characters play out a ferocious drama of violence, revolution, oppression, redemption, despair and survival. The decision to cast actors rather than singers in the main roles is vindicated in scene after scene where it's not just the songs you remember, it's the intensity of the character reactions. The romantic sub-plot lets it down slightly, but the political theme has real bite and lasting impact. Overall a tremendous film. Take a bottle of mineral water with you to the cinema to offset the dehydration caused by sobbing helplessly for the last hour or so.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.8.26.19
Posted on Sunday, February 03, 2013 - 08:57 am:   

Er - musicals are generally not visually rich? Donen? Minnelli? Demy? Mamoulian? I think I could make out a case for emotional complexity too, and seriousness in quite a few instances.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 86.24.62.55
Posted on Sunday, February 03, 2013 - 10:45 am:   

I'm not a great fan of musicals either as I gained an impression of them as a child of being insufferably twee, with a fantastical chirpy-cheery worldview that is the polar opposite of everything I get from the horror genre. But then I collected spiders and found butterflies boring at that age too.

My favourite musicals, that managed to break through the bias, are; 'The Wizard Of Oz', 'West Side Story', 'Oliver!', 'The Jungle Book', 'Chitty Chitty Bang Bang', 'Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory', 'Cabaret', 'The Rocky Horror Picture Show', 'Bugsy Malone', 'The Nightmare Before Christmas', 'Sweeney Todd : The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street' & last year's wonderful 'The Muppets'. Spot a pattern, anyone?

I must admit I have been tempted to take my good woman along to 'Les Miserables' as the story has always appealed to me.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.8.26.19
Posted on Sunday, February 03, 2013 - 11:09 am:   

My Damascene conversion came from Singing in the Rain, an unassailable masterpiece.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 89.19.84.48
Posted on Sunday, February 03, 2013 - 11:32 am:   

I loved Les Miserables! So many snooty critics have tried to review it intellectually, when it's primarily an emotional piece. Oddly, I felt that the weakest part of Les Mis is the part which gives it its recognisable symbols - the revolution didn't tie into the emotional spine of the main characters and felt like a detour.

Critics have also reacted with haughtiness to Ricky Gervais' DEREK, which is also primarily intended to speak to our emotions and I think, despite its wobbles, it does. It's like some critics are trying to listen to a painting. Many critics seem afraid to reveal themselves emotionally in print, perhaps even to themselves.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 2.30.199.70
Posted on Sunday, February 03, 2013 - 11:47 am:   

Proto, I felt the other way about it: the romance was a detour, the revolutionary struggle was the heart of the story.

Ramsey, I obviously haven't seen enough musicals – I tend not to like them – but what I was thinking of with that comment is the way scenery in filmed musicals often seems to be just flat background and the attention is on the songs, whereas in Les Mis the camera explores the height and depth of the city setting, showing you its perspectives, its locked doors, its hiding places: "Look down..." So 'visually rich' wasn't quite what I meant to say. Visually engaging at a cinematic, as opposed to theatrical, level. That's roughly it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 82.26.193.128
Posted on Sunday, February 03, 2013 - 02:08 pm:   

Shame it was filmed in Greenwich, eh? :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 213.233.148.22
Posted on Sunday, February 03, 2013 - 04:19 pm:   

Joel, I too thought the romance was superfluous - for me the central story was actually Jean Valjean and Javert, along with Cosette and everything she represented. That was the story for the first hour at least, then the revolution arrives and seemed to me to be only obliquely coupled with the emotional story that had come before.

[minor spoiler]

You're a storming the barricades person, Joel - but didn't you feel the revolution as portrayed was futile? I found it difficult to get behind something that, at least on screen, only resulted in dozens of deaths, including that of a child.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 2.30.199.77
Posted on Sunday, February 03, 2013 - 09:05 pm:   

It was a real event, Proto – not sure about the child but the doomed stand against overwhelming military force is what took place there in 1830. Whether it was wholly futile is debatable: the film (and presumably the book) is designed to make you ask that question.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 2.30.199.77
Posted on Sunday, February 03, 2013 - 09:15 pm:   

P.S. I'd love to say I'm a storming the barricades person but it wouldn't be true. At best I'm a giving out leaflets on the picket line, selling papers at the demo, improvising slogans on a Saturday morning stall person. Truth to tell, what might seem to one activist to be heroic direct action might seem to another to be an adventurist stunt. It wasn't the riots that defeated the poll tax, it was the massive organised campaign of non-payment that left the magistrates' courts unable to deal with the scale of non-compliance and thwarted by the volunteer legal experts supporting the non-payers... it was serious mass action, not individual heroics.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 2.30.198.214
Posted on Monday, February 04, 2013 - 12:20 am:   

Also, the decision of the revolutionaries to fight to the death rather than surrender was not merely a suicidal gesture. The brutal way in which the army executes prisoners after the final battle leaves us in little doubt that had they surrendered beforehand, they would all have been shot in cold blood.

Seeing that scene, it's hard not to think of later events: the massacre of the Communards, the vigorous support given to the Nazis by French authorities in hunting and deporting Jews, and the use of torture and execution to suppress the Algerian independence movement. France has always had a viciously counter-revolutionary political mainstream.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 213.233.148.18
Posted on Monday, February 04, 2013 - 02:05 am:   

I'll take your word for it that France's mainstream is particularly counter-revolutionary, but really, what country's mainstream isn't? One only has to look at the unfair opprobrium piled upon even benign groups such as peaceful environmental campaigners to see that the mainstream will oppose being dragged out of Plato's cave and into daylight. Irreversible global environmental catastrophe might be the largest example of this in history (however much of that is left).

But I digress. The revolution part of the film didn't work for me because I found it hard to get behind the cause. Had it been more strongly linked with fighting poverty and injustice, I might have been happier with drifting away from the simpler, more powerful Valjean/Javert story, a story of integrity, of someone trying to be good. We rarely see stories on this subject today told without irony. Despite my apocalyptic ramblings above, I do believe that integrity and authenticity are being rediscovered. What we most need need isn't more entrepreneurs or technology or even intelligence. Right now I think society is sensing that the Universe is vast and hostile and that the rarest commodity in it is kindness.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 86.24.62.55
Posted on Monday, February 04, 2013 - 02:47 am:   

I agree, Proto. Read Phlip K. Dick.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 2.30.204.88
Posted on Monday, February 04, 2013 - 08:57 am:   

Good point, Proto, but I think the implication was that the rule of aristocracy stood in the path of social reform. I'll read the novel when I have some time and see what Hugo says about these issues – he was a committed socialist.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mbfg (Mbfg)
Username: Mbfg

Registered: 09-2010
Posted From: 212.219.63.204
Posted on Monday, February 04, 2013 - 01:36 pm:   

Dear Proto

I gree. I have not seen the film but when I saw the stage version way back I struggeld to work out exactly what the revolution was about and to really care about it - reading the novel helped.

And has anyone else seen "The Berberian Sound Studio" I mentioned earlier, if so, what did you think? For me it worked well as a reality-fantasy-blurring story.

Cheers
Terry
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mick Curtis (Mick)
Username: Mick

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 195.59.115.60
Posted on Monday, February 04, 2013 - 01:48 pm:   

I bought the Blu Ray, Terry - watched it a couple of weeks back and really liked it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 147.252.230.148
Posted on Monday, February 04, 2013 - 03:32 pm:   

Which Dick to you mean, Stevie? I've read The Zap Gun, A Scanner Darkly and Androids... (many times).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert (Hubert)
Username: Hubert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 178.116.60.39
Posted on Monday, February 04, 2013 - 04:00 pm:   

Dick rubs off on one.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Monday, February 04, 2013 - 05:04 pm:   

Dick's belief was that the one thing which truly defines us as "human" is our penchant, not for evil, but for kindness (his word).

The short story "Human Is" (1950) reads like a manifesto in that regard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Monday, February 04, 2013 - 05:05 pm:   

Sorry... make that 1955.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Monday, February 04, 2013 - 06:39 pm:   

Hubert... oh, if only.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 213.233.148.7
Posted on Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 12:05 am:   

Ah, yes, Androids deals with that. Yes, we need compulsory Voight-Kampf tests on all politicians and CEOs.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 04:54 am:   

A film in development in 2013—figured I'd stick this in this thread. I'm just intrigued by the premise of this novel: anyone here read this book/author?... http://www.deadline.com/2013/02/black-swan-scribe-set-to-adapt-syndrome-e-for-in dian-paintbrush-and-paramount/
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 80.239.243.60
Posted on Thursday, February 07, 2013 - 02:35 pm:   

Counting down the hours now till Martyrs and The Tall Man!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Thursday, February 07, 2013 - 05:07 pm:   

I'm counting down the hours to this... : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSlNiSEWqwQ
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Giancarlo (Giancarlo)
Username: Giancarlo

Registered: 11-2008
Posted From: 217.200.39.178
Posted on Friday, February 08, 2013 - 08:20 am:   

Martyrs and the Tall Man! I've seen the former, extremely tough and...well, no spoilers about the greatly disturbing climax (to my taste, at least)! The Tall Man I have on DVD and yet to be seen. A little known ( I suppose) third film, and his first one, by Pascal Langier is Saint Ange, a ghost story whose power has been growing in my mind in time from my initial semi-indifference to it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.8.23.113
Posted on Friday, February 08, 2013 - 12:10 pm:   

I found the finale of Martyrs very nearly unwatchable. I was also struck by parallels with The Nameless.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 82.26.193.128
Posted on Friday, February 08, 2013 - 02:06 pm:   

I found all of MARTYRS damned near unwatchable. Harrowing isn't the word.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert (Hubert)
Username: Hubert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 178.116.60.39
Posted on Friday, February 08, 2013 - 04:51 pm:   

@Joel: I knew you would respond.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Giancarlo (Giancarlo)
Username: Giancarlo

Registered: 11-2008
Posted From: 109.52.40.86
Posted on Saturday, February 09, 2013 - 07:15 am:   

Well, "les extremes se touche"...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.8.20.196
Posted on Saturday, February 09, 2013 - 09:53 am:   

Haven't read the novel you cite, Craig, but the premise reminds me a little of Flicker.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert (Hubert)
Username: Hubert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 178.116.60.39
Posted on Saturday, February 09, 2013 - 11:09 am:   

How did The Nameless strike you, Ramsey? I thought it was well made, but never could establish where the action is supposed to take place. America? England? Spain? It didn't look like Spain to me. And everything appears to be inundated in some sort of shiny sheen. I think I prefer Second Name.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Giancarlo (Giancarlo)
Username: Giancarlo

Registered: 11-2008
Posted From: 2.199.37.31
Posted on Monday, February 11, 2013 - 10:56 am:   

My preference goes to "Second Name" too. Wasn't it directed by Paco Plaza? To my appreciation, "Nameless" was treated more like a detective story, however dark (it makes me think of "Seven"), though the finale has a disturbing twist more in a horror mood, a redeeming quality to me.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2013 - 08:00 pm:   

Saw an excellent film on the Sundance Channel, Weekend (2011); it won some awards a couple years back. This is a very low-budget indie drama about two 20-something gay British men, who form a relationship over the course of a single weekend… and that's pretty much the entire film. It's all talk, long long (but never dull) scenes of dialogue, with few intervening characters and most of the movie taking place in one man's 11th story government projects (I assume?) apartment in Nottingham, England. But the film's quite moving, and by the end you can't believe you haven't spent two hours watching—not actors, but actual people, who must still be living on somewhere out there in the world. The film's biggest moments are its most understated ones; the excellence in craft between the two lead actors (Tom Cullen, Chris New) and the director (Andrew Haigh) is subtle and huge (though I had a real problem understanding all the dialogue, often spoken low and in these very thick British accents, my only drawback). No sfx, no staggering reveals, no shocking revelations… just two people making a connection, over three lackluster days. Do catch it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.13.82.58
Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2013 - 10:04 pm:   

Hubert and Giancarlo - I preferred Los Sin Nombre - much the darker of the two. And yes, it's shot entirely in Spain (the environs of Barcelona).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.159.253.114
Posted on Friday, February 22, 2013 - 01:34 am:   

You need to check out the director's latest film - Sleep Tight. Just seen it tonight and it is really rather good. It treads that fine fine line between jet black humour and true horror better than anything I've seen for a long time. I didn't know whether to laugh or be completely creeped out for most of it.

That was folllowed in the double bill by Snowtown. After watching Snowtown I need to watch a nice cheerful film, something less bleak like - erm Tyrannosaur, or maybe Tideland, or Requiem for a dream, or Martyrs
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mick Curtis (Mick)
Username: Mick

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.183.79.10
Posted on Friday, February 22, 2013 - 09:37 am:   

I saw SLEEP TIGHT last year, and thought it was really good. The realisation very early on that he wasn't that girl's boyfriend really creeped me out.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Simon Bestwick (Simon_b)
Username: Simon_b

Registered: 10-2008
Posted From: 213.106.77.123
Posted on Friday, February 22, 2013 - 11:32 am:   

Saw both films last night as well, and yes, as Weber says, they're both excellent in their different ways. I think SNOWTOWN, in particular, will be in my head for a long, long time to come.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.181.142.191
Posted on Thursday, March 07, 2013 - 05:27 pm:   

http://grimmfest.com/grimmupnorth/2013/01/maniac-247f/

Today's double bill - a hobbitual serial killer and some baked (poached) teens...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.212.230.203
Posted on Friday, March 08, 2013 - 12:45 pm:   

Maniac - the next logical step from the found footage movie - is a pov film. Everything is seen through the eyes of the eponymous character. This means that the hobbittal killer is only seen in mirrors and Elijah Wood is heard much more than seen. It's a narrative trick that might work better on a small screen where the atmosphere is more intimate rather than in a crowded cinema. The story is pretty basic, we see life through the eyes of a young killer as he stabs and scalps his way through his victims. It has some creepy moments and some intentional laughs but no real tension till near the end of the film. Still well worth watching and i give it a solid 7/10
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.212.230.203
Posted on Friday, March 08, 2013 - 12:59 pm:   

247 F - a bunch of teens who look to be nearer 30 are trapped in a sauna when the door is accidentally pinned shut. That's about it really. That's pretty much the entire plot. The characters are more likable than you get in some horror films but that's about as much good as I can think about for this one. It has zero tension, some really bad acting, a fridge that changes colour from pale pink in some shots to dark red in others. Even the fact that most of the young and good looking cast spend the majority of the film dressed in very little fails to save this film. I was going to say at least it's original but at the back of my mind I seem to recall a murder series back in the 80's where one week someone used a sauna as a murder weapon. At least that tv show was only an hour long including the adverts and had a killer on the loose. This film didn't even have the good grace to give us a villain. A paltry 3/10
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Sunday, March 10, 2013 - 09:38 pm:   

Well this review promises good things—the trailer, the same-old-same-old, albeit high-octaned same-old. Still, I love the new set-up... it would have been a great one for any movie, not just this remake (although some will inevitably get confused and think they went and made a sequel to The Cabin in the Woods). http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/evil-dead-sxsw-review-427103
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 2.30.198.243
Posted on Monday, March 18, 2013 - 12:28 am:   

Saw The Paperboy tonight – a well-made Southern Gothic thriller with a nicely structured narrative and fine performances by John Cusack, Nicole Kidman and others as troubled people drowning in a swamp of alcohol, lust, violence and toxic racial and sexual politics. With a little more restraint this could have been a great film – but even as some of the images and dialogue leave you reeling, there are medicinal doses of sardonic wit and tenderness, and some nuances that don't sink in until later. Macy Gray's final narrative voice-over will take your breath away.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Allybird (Allybird)
Username: Allybird

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 202.174.163.204
Posted on Tuesday, March 19, 2013 - 02:32 am:   

Put the television on and caught Snow Cake halfway through. I was quite bowled over by Sigourney Weaver's performance. And I think (even though I didn't see it all) that it will stay with me for quite some time. The Guardian gave it a very silly one star review.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mbfg (Mbfg)
Username: Mbfg

Registered: 09-2010
Posted From: 90.192.166.64
Posted on Sunday, March 31, 2013 - 09:29 pm:   

Saw "Side Effect" last night and wished I'd stayed at home. Promising set up, good first hour, then it turns into a ludicrous conspiracy (incomprehesible until info-dumped at the end - by which time it was too late because I was ready for my cocoa and hot water bottle). Jude Law plays Jude Law and Catherine Zeta Jones wears this strangely-applied lipstick which curls up at each end and makes her look a bit like The Joker. A waste of two fine actors. My advice, stay at home in the warm.

When I did get home, it was in time to watch "Anita and Me", a low profile British film which was, in total contrast, brilliant and very very funny.

Regards
Terry
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 2.30.203.25
Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 12:57 am:   

I didn't find Side Effects hard to follow (though my being a medical trade journalist probably helped), but I did find it shallow, misogynistic, manipulative, sensationalist, cheap, vicious, trite and so far up its own arse you could barely see its feet. A number of critics have called it a Hitchcock tribute and yes, it clearly is, it ticks all the Hitchcock boxes, from the interesting theme that turns out be a pure McGuffin to the laboured explanation at the end, the whole thing informed by a sour hatred of women. One of the most contemptibly derivative and self-satisfied films I've ever seen. And in the 21st century, who is still making films in which being a lesbian and being a twisted evil bitch are synonymous? Give me strength.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 80.239.243.166
Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 09:41 am:   

I've not seen the film yet. Are there several lesbian characters who are all twisted evil bitches or one twisted evil bitch who happens to be a lesbian? If the latter i'd have to argue that the writer isn't making it synonymous. The sexuality, gender or skin colour should have no bearing on whether a character is a good guy in your fiction or a bad guy. To say you can't have a lesbian evil scheming bitch is to suggest that all evil scheming bitches are automatically straight - which is a prejudiced statement in itself.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 01:24 pm:   

Weber, there are only two significant female characters in the film. Both are revealed to be scheming evil murderous bitches in the same segment where they are also revealed to be lovers. Their being lovers isn't necessary to the plot, it seems to be put in to make their evil and scheming more plausible.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 86.24.62.55
Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 02:47 pm:   

Based purely on technique, narrative drive and, for me, entertainment value I thought 'Side Effects' was a near perfect suspense thriller. It got a great reaction from the audience I saw it with. One guy let out an involuntary cry of "I knew it!" at the big reveal. I don't think he was a misogynist rather than thoroughly engaged with the story - as was I. I can't wait to hear your reaction to 'Sleep Tight' which features the single most cruel thing I have ever seen done to a woman on screen.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 2.27.145.139
Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 10:49 pm:   

Well, I certainly wouldn't say anyone who enjoyed the film has to be a misogynist – that's not how the arts work. I wish I could say I found it entertaining – I found it pompous, annoying, manipulative and shockingly unoriginal. Those factors don't make for entertainment. It would also have been predictable if my expectations hadn't been considerably higher than the faeces it dropped on my psychic doorstep.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 86.24.62.55
Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2013 - 11:51 pm:   

As I was watching the film a part of my brain was thinking "What would Joel think of this?" as I knew you were looking forward to seeing it from the medical point of view. I was able to realise how dissatisfying you would probably find the narrative twists and use of alternative sexuality from the perceived norm purely as a plot device, from that perspective, but still enjoy the film, on my own terms, as an excellent piece of escapist entertainment. Does that make sense?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 2.27.145.139
Posted on Friday, April 05, 2013 - 12:16 am:   

Sure, Stevie. What I escape into you might similarly find less than compelling. To work for me as escapist entertainment, something has to offer a more engaging world than this one.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 213.233.148.29
Posted on Friday, April 05, 2013 - 12:18 am:   

Roger Ebert has just died. I disagreed with much of his writing (He characterized THE THING was a "barf-bag movie") but respected his standard of writing. So strange that I read one of his reviews just a couple of weeks ago. He hated LES MISERABLES. So strange that he'd spend 3 1/2 hours of his last few remaining days watching a film he hated to the end. I'm torn: is it admirable or has he missed his own life?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Friday, April 05, 2013 - 01:46 am:   

I too was saddened by hearing the passing today of Roger Ebert, Proto. Not just because I respected him as a film critic (like you, I disagreed with much of what he wrote, though); but because I have fond memories growing up watching "At The Movies," the movie-review show he hosted with the late Gene Siskel (also missed) in the 80's/90's. Described somewhere as (forgetting my source; paraphrasing, too) "A sitcom about two guys viciously duking it out as they waste their lives away in a movie theater," nevertheless... I looked forward to it every week, my hearty, often ignorant disagreements and all. The opening credits are surprisingly nostalgic to me now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDdNVHoalJ0 Can you imagine a show like this even existing now?... nope. (People arguing over what's in a newspaper! How 1930's!)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.212.230.76
Posted on Friday, April 05, 2013 - 09:41 pm:   

Going to see Dark Skies in a bit. Report will be posted later, along with my thoughts on last night's Cronenburg double bill.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Huw (Huw)
Username: Huw

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 1.169.141.211
Posted on Saturday, April 06, 2013 - 05:50 am:   

Has anyone seen Cronenberg's Cosmopolis? The reviews have been rather lukewarm, but I'm curious as to how folk here felt about it. I was going to rent it the other night, but ended up with the second Silent Hill film instead (some nice visuals, but disappointing overall).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 212.183.128.178
Posted on Saturday, April 06, 2013 - 09:29 am:   

It was my "Disappointment of the Year" last year, Huw. You can read what I thought on the Films of 2012 thread. Tediously slow moving and pretentious in the worst possible definition of the word. I hated almost everything about it and after watching 'Videodrome' a couple of weeks ago I hate it even more. The last Cronenberg film that really impressed me was 'Spider', over a decade ago now.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 213.233.148.5
Posted on Saturday, April 06, 2013 - 11:44 am:   

You can check out the other end of Cronenberg's career with his films CRIMES OF THE FUTURE which seems so quintessentially Cronenbergian now that it seems like self-parody. His short, CAMERA, is good too. Both are online.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.150.143.184
Posted on Sunday, April 07, 2013 - 02:24 pm:   

Dark Skies was nicely atmospheric but fairly predictable.Having said that, the lad I went to see it with didn't see the ending coming. It could be I'm just too film savvy for these twists to work properly. It's still worth seeing, the central performances are good and the creatures are kept in the background and rarely seen on screen, adding to their menace rather than taking away from it. There are a few very good scares in there as well. 6.5/10.

The Cronenburg double bill - Scanners and the Brood.

Scanners - I hadn't watched this in many years and the chance to see it on the big screen even if partnered with The Brood which i never really liked when i saw it even longer ago was too good to miss.

The effects still hold up even by today's standards. The acting of our hero (played by stephen Lack) though, was even worse than I remember. As Mr Bestwick called him - Stephen lack of acting ability. This was particularly evident in his scenes with Michael Ironside who provided the sole very good performance in the entire film.

The story though, is good enough to carry the mediocre acting, and the camerawork and sfx help build the atmosphere that our hero's performance is incapable of producing.

This is one film I wish could be remade, but with a capable actor in the lead role. 7

Acting was always one of the problems in Cronenburg's early movies and I used to believe that the first of his films where the acting really hit a capable level across all the major players was Dead Ringers.

Until my rewatch of the Brood. I can't believe how badly I misjudged this film. This was so much more creepy and effective than I remember. And the image when Samantha Eggar dropped her robes is one that should have stuck with me. I have no idea why it didn't. Maybe my subconsious blanked it out.

This is one of his early masterpieces. The performances by the central 4 characters were uniformly good. There were some genuinely disturbing ideas at work here and the whole thing is psychologically twisted. I find myself forced to re-evaluate this and give it an easy 8/10
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 2.27.144.172
Posted on Sunday, April 07, 2013 - 09:24 pm:   

I liked The Brood a lot as well – I saw it thirty years ago and it was my first experience of a horror film that didn't regard its audience as idiots. The core idea is marvellous and the undramatic style provokes thought rather than the more easily programmed emotional reaction. It's remained a strong favourite for me. Scanners is OK but minor, I think. Dead Ringers is superb – if Jeremy Irons had half the dignity in real life that he has when acting, he'd command a lot more respect these days. At least we knew Oliver Reed was all right when sober. Irons is a natural born tosser. Nice actor though.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.140.7.124
Posted on Monday, April 08, 2013 - 02:35 am:   

The Grimm up North double bills really are excellent entertainment.

http://grimmfest.com/grimmupnorth/

I seem to have missed doing the write up on last week's films, Entity and I didn't come here to Die.

Entity

This is a mix between a found footage and standard horror film. It works in places but in others the film makers seem to confuse waving the camera about and shouting with being scary. I know Simon really liked this one but I thought it was pretty meh overall.

A group of documentary makers investigating the scene of am alleged massacre take a psychic along with them to talk to the dead. They find an old asylum and from then on the shit apparently hits the fan. There was little to no originalty and apart from one or two jump scares I wasn't particularly frightened or involved with the characters. For a film that was apparently striving to do something new (according to the director in his q&a) it was shockingly lacking in any originality. It looked nice, well shot and well acted. Dervla Kerwin as the psychic was rather good to look at.

Sadly I can't bring myself to give it more than 5/10.

The night was saved though by I Didn't Come Here to Die.

This is a brilliant little film. A definite throwback to the old 70s grindhouse movies that managed to capture the whole feel better than Tarantino did in Grindhouse (IMHO). In this one, a lack of originality didn't matter. It even managed to keep me guessing as to how the pre-credit sequence tied in with the rest of the film. The closing few minutes were filmic genius.

A group of volunteer workers head off into the woods to help build a new summer camp. unfortunately, an accident (a very opainful indeed looking accident) means the group leaders have to leave the rest to their own devices. From then on in chaos ensues. I won't say more to avoid spoilers, but the cast list starts shrinking rapidly in great style.

One of my favourite horrors of the year so far - 9/10.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Monday, April 08, 2013 - 08:07 am:   

Stevie, did you know they made a 5 HOUR version of The Dain Curse?! Back in 1978, made-for-TV miniseries (?!?—nowadays TV execs wouldn't even know who Hammett is!), starred James Coburn as the Continental Op—no, he doesn't look like he's described, but still.... Anyway, my brother found me a copy on DVD, I'll give it a look see and tell you how it fares, get you a copy if you want one, too. Fascinating!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Monday, April 08, 2013 - 11:14 am:   

Didn't know that, Craig. 'The Dain Curse' would suit itself to the mini-series format being three separate novellas strung together with a linking device. I wonder if they produced it in three episodes? Physically Coburn looks more like Sam Spade.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.8.21.165
Posted on Monday, April 08, 2013 - 12:18 pm:   

"I liked The Brood a lot as well – I saw it thirty years ago and it was my first experience of a horror film that didn't regard its audience as idiots."

Gosh! What had you previously seen?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Monday, April 08, 2013 - 12:32 pm:   

I love all of Cronenberg's early films and haven't seen 'The Brood' in some 20 odd years. It scared the crap out of me as a teenager. Watched 'Videodrome' in one of my triple bills the other week, after a similar length of time, and I now believe it is his masterpiece. I preferred when Cronenberg created his own visions of futuristic horror rather than interpreting the work of others. His later films are technically superior in many ways to his early stuff but nowhere near as groundbreakingly original or viscerally stimulating. 'Existenz' was the last excitingly Cronenbergian film he made, imo. 'Cosmopolis' is unintentionally farcical in its plodding treatment of what is pure melodrama. The ending had me wanting to shoot myself, nevermind the lead character. Compared to 'Videodrome' it's hard to believe 'Cosmopolis' was the work of the same director.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Monday, April 08, 2013 - 12:41 pm:   

I saw 'Crimes Of The Future' many years ago and found it an oddly hypnotic experience and very well done for a student film, as I believe it was. There was a similar lack of action to 'Cosmopolis' but the weirdly abstract Ballardian theme held my attention throughout. 'Cosmopolis' could have worked had he ditched the cornball plot and concentrated on the character study of an emotionally dead multi-millionaire looking out at the world from his hi-tech stretch limo. As it was the film fell flat for me.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Monday, April 08, 2013 - 12:44 pm:   

Saw 'Stereo' too and it was less focused than COTF but still had something weirdly compelling about it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Monday, April 08, 2013 - 01:57 pm:   

Ramsey – probably only Zoltan, Hound of Dracula and a few similar efforts on late-night TV, including a British rip-off of Les Yeux Sans Visage that even the hokum-tolerant Lord Probert said was awful. The Brood was the first 18 certificate film I went to see in the cinema, having recently turned 18.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mick Curtis (Mick)
Username: Mick

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 195.59.115.60
Posted on Monday, April 08, 2013 - 02:06 pm:   

I've only seen THE BROOD once, many years ago at the Scala in London, at a screening where Cronenberg was present for a long and interesting q&a afterwards. The film really stuck with me though and I ought to watch it again, but I'm also slightly concerned that that may diminish its effect for me somewhat. DEAD RINGERS is also a favourite; I saw that early, shortly after its release, and it had a real nightmarish quality to it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Monday, April 08, 2013 - 03:18 pm:   

'Dead Ringers' (1988) represents the crossover point when Cronenberg began to be taken seriously among the so-called cinematic cognoscenti but was still making intelligently subversive nightmares for the cult audience whose adulation made his name. I don't think he's ever been as cutting edge since. I mean, adaptations of unfilmable books like; 'The Naked Lunch' (1991), 'Crash' (1996) & 'Cosmopolis' (2012) are all well and good but they're enslaving Cronenberg's vision and revealing the limitations of his ambition, while remaining ultimately unsatisfying compared to the literary form, for all their impeccable credentials and good looks. Have more faith in yourself, man. 'Crimes Of The Future' is far from great cinema but at least it's original and your own vision. 'Videodrome' marks Cronenberg's true artistic peak, imho.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Monday, April 08, 2013 - 03:38 pm:   

As evidence I present 'Existenz' (1999) as the last film that can be called truly Cronenbergian and that boasts the credit; Written & Directed by David Cronenberg!

Stop faffing around, Dave.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Monday, April 08, 2013 - 04:25 pm:   

'The Brood' (1979) is one of the greatest and most original horror movies of the 1970s and belongs in a mini sub-genre that made kids' shiny plastic macs a symbol of terror for quite a few years. Compare with 'Don't Look Now' (1973) & 'Communion' (1976), among others...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Monday, April 08, 2013 - 04:30 pm:   

Joel, mine was Hammer's 'To The Devil A Daughter' (1976) - don't ask how I got in - and it terrified the living wits out of me. To this day when I think of the film and Christopher Lee's leering face I get involuntary shivers. Needless to say I loved every fecking second of it!! I believe that was also the first time I saw a naked woman... and the nubile Nastassja Kinski still haunts my dreams. Happy days!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert (Hubert)
Username: Hubert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 178.116.60.39
Posted on Monday, April 08, 2013 - 05:09 pm:   

The Brood has to be my favourite Cronenberg. That shunned shed where the woman gives birth to her problematic offspring always reminds me of "The Dunwich Horror" (the story, not the film). Oliver Reed is always a treat, but here he's just fabulous.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.13.95.160
Posted on Monday, April 08, 2013 - 05:21 pm:   

Gosh again, Joel, for waiting until you were actually eighteen!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Monday, April 08, 2013 - 06:59 pm:   

It had less to do with being law-abiding than with being chronically short of money, rather keen to acquire lots of horror fiction, and not convinced that horror films would ever be worth my time.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.8.29.40
Posted on Tuesday, April 09, 2013 - 11:53 am:   

Ah!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.23.101.237
Posted on Tuesday, April 09, 2013 - 02:56 pm:   

There were plenty of 18+ films around when I was a kid (the days of VHS), but I avoided them until I was about 15. Too scared.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Tuesday, April 09, 2013 - 04:00 pm:   

There was a local makeshift cinema in West Belfast, called St Gall's (seriously), that I, and my mates, were dodging our way into from the age of 12 to see all manner of "forbidden" X-rated movies. The two most memorable that spring to mind were 'The Enforcer' (1976) - my first X-rated movie of any kind, with Dirty Harry taking on a murderous gang of neo-Nazi terrorists - and 'To The Devil A Daughter' (1976) - my first X-rated cinema horror movie that scared the living hell out of me... especially as we had to walk home through Milltown Cemetery after the show. The cinema was hidden from the authorities (i.e. The SS RUC) up a wee lane at the back of the cemetery. I'm not making this up. Ask Sean, who posts on here as well!

I remember trying not to look at the silhouettes of stone angels against the moonlit sky as we crept home and trying to act cheerful and unaffected by the film - with its subversion of Catholic iconography and terrifyingly evil priest baddie (unheard of in Ireland in those days) - while inside I was petrified to the very core of my being... and loving every damn moment!!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Tuesday, April 09, 2013 - 04:13 pm:   

I always remember the fantastically well acted scene in which Denholm Elliott has locked himself in a room with a chalk circle around him while he clutches a huge crucifix and tries to pray for salvation while shaking uncontrollably, the sweat pouring out of him, as something unspeakable begins to materialise in the corner of the room.

That and the demonic birth scene, in which Christopher Lee (who has never been more menacing) ties the poor woman's legs together so the thing has to claw its way out through her swollen belly, while she chants its name in unholy adoration, her eyes glazed in a mixture of agony and ecstasy, until the thing comes bursting through her innards in a blood showered orgasm of pure terror! Ridley Scott nicked this visceral moment of cinematic horror 3 years later to equally terrifying effect.

Now think of little 12 year old me, sat huddled at the back, eyes and mouth agape while every bastion of Catholicism I'd been brought up with was torn down before my eyes, and realise why I love horror cinema so much!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.134.108.83
Posted on Thursday, April 18, 2013 - 12:07 am:   

Well tomorrow night me will be going to see Society (the classic 80's horror) and The Ressurection - a new Norwegian zombie flick which apparently opens at a family funeral when the dear departed makes a comeback...

The Norwegians do excellent zombie so I'm really looking forward to this one.

In rather exciting news that i think Stevie may have a little sex-wee when he hears it - Alex Cox is set to direct a film version of Bill the Galactic Hero...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.134.105.249
Posted on Friday, April 26, 2013 - 12:27 am:   

This week's Grimm up north films were Lords of Salem (the new Rob Zombie) on Saturday - paired up with a short film called Run - which was rather good.

Lords of salem is easily the best film of Rob Zombie's I've seen to date but that's not saying much. It has some nice moents. Some trippy psychadelic stuff, but basically looks like Rob zombie's watched rosemary's Baby and a few giallos and decided to mix them in with each other.

5/10 and that's being generous. To be honest the only reason I went to see it was because I was sitting bored at home on Saturday and it was better than sitting in by myself.

On wednesday there was a double bill I've been really looking forward to. The ABC's of Death and Shaadow people.

Shadow people - a decent effort at a fake documentary about shadow creatures that sit on your chest and suffocate you in your sleep. atmospheric at times and a nice conceit with a clever filming style. 7/10

The ABC's of death - 26 short films about death from all round the world. This has been getting mixed reviews apparently, but I found it was excellent. Every story looked great and there were (for me) only 3 real misses in the entire thing.

The stories in sequence were

Apocalypse by Nacho Vigalondo (TimeCrimes), Spain - a lovely opener - gruesome and funny.

Bigfoot by Adrían Garcia Bogliano (Cold Sweat), Mexico - stylish, well acted - predicatble but what do you expect in a 5 minute short?

Cycle by Ernesto Díaz Espinoza (Mirageman; Mandrill), Chile - good looking again and cleverly told

Dogfight by Marcel Sarmiento (Deadgirl), USA - possibly the highlight of the entire piece - this one is worth the price of admission by itself. It's about a dogfight with a bit of a difference... Some stunning images thata) I have no idea how they could film it - it didn't seem CGI'd and b) I can't erase from my head.

Exterminate by Angela Bettis (Roman), USA - the first truly comic segment - very nicely done tale of a man and his running battle with a spider in his house.

Fart by Noburu Iguchi, (Robo Geisha), Japan - as the lad sitting next to me said midway through this spectacularly juvenile and surreal offering "Why japan? Why?" insane, silly but rather funny (hopefully deliberately)

Gravity by Andrew Traucki (The Reef), Australia - the first miss of the show. nothing to it, no style, story or really exciting visuals.

Hydro-Electric Diffusion by Thomas Malling (Norwegian Ninja), Norway - brilliant! A Tex avery cartoon brought to life.

Ingrown by Jorge Michel Grau (We Are What We Are), Mexico - Nice looking but left me thinking was that it? Still not a miss as it did keep the interest throughout its short length.

Jidai-Geki by Yudai Yamaguchi (Yakuza Weapon), Japan - another piece of Japanese weirdness - this time featuring 2 samurai apparently attempting hari-kiri but with a serious fit of giggles.

Klutz by Anders Morgenthaler (Princess), Denmark - the first fully animated segment, a very funny and sick effort. Toilet humour ruled the day in this segement. Not that that's a a bad thing - if done well, as it is here, toilet humour can be very funny.

Libido by Timo Tjahjanto (Macabre), Indonesia - This one contained some of the most disturbing imagery of the entire film.

Miscarriage by Ti West (House of the Devil; The Innkeepers), USA - possibly the shortest section but one of the bits that made me go "eurgh, you can't do that". Left a nasty taste in my mouth - but in a sort of a good way - I think

Nuptials by Banjong Pisathanakun (Shutter), Thailand - This is a quite a funny sequence but is basically a very old joke with a murder thrown in at the end.

Orgasm by Bruno Forzani & Héléne Cattet (Amer), Belgium - the second Miss (IMHO although I know others who really loved this bit). It did indeed look stunning, gorgeous visuals - but no discernable storyline of anything really to hook those visuals onto. It's possible to be too arty fior your own good and this was. I want to watch a horror film not an artists's installation.

Pressure by Simon Rumley (Red, White & Blue), UK - another miss. In less than 5 minutes this one had me looking at my watch wondering when the filmmaker was going to get to teh point.

Quack by Adam Wingard (A Horrible Way to Die), USA - THis one went a bit meta in its humour - the story of the filmmakers trying to decide what to make their segment about...

Removed by Srdjan Spasojevic (A Serbian Film), Serbia - Another highlight. Visually stunning again and though the narrative didn't make too much sense, there was a clear narrative and rather disturbing it was too.

Speed by Jake West (Doghouse), UK -I wasn't sure about this one till the last few seconds when i decided that it was actually reasonably cleverly done. On a second viewing I might change my mind but that's my perogative.

Toilet by Lee Hardcastle (T is For Toilet), UK - the funniest animation in the film. I always love a bit of gory claymation and this delivers big style.

Unearthed by Ben Wheatley (Kill List), UK - possibly filmed while they were making kill list as it uses teh same location and actors, this is a pov story of a foul denizen of the night on a rampage, being hunted by villagers. rather nicely done.

Vagitus by Kaare Andrews (Altitude), USA - a future setting and interesting concept lifted this one above the standards of the acting involved and the decidedly dicey dialogue. A not quite failure but not massive success - possibly neeeded more time to develop the story fully.

WTF! by Jon Schnepp (Metalocalypse; The Venture Bros.), USA - teh title says it all - another meta tale but a lot more weird than the previous one

XXL by Xavier Gens (Frontiers; Hitman), France - This was gross, vile and disgusting as well as disturbing and nasty and horrific. I loved it.

Youngbuck by Jason Eisener (Hobo With A Shotgun), Canada - This was another good one, about as subtle as a brick in the face, but when dealing with stuff this short, you can't really deal with the big subjects as dealt with here in any other way

Zetsumetsu by Yoshihiro Nishimura (Tokyo Gore Police), Japan - By the director of Tokyo Gore Police - if that doesn't tell you it's going to be big, weird with gallons of spraying blood and lots of unnecessary nudity (is there such a thing? discuss) then I'll tell you with this run down. A memorable closer to proceedings.

All in all I'd have to give the whole ABC's of death experience an easy 9/10
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Friday, April 26, 2013 - 03:18 pm:   

'Bill, The Galactic Hero' is the finest comedy sci-fi novel ever written and works as a pitch perfect spoof of Heinlein's 'Starship Troopers'. It was favourably compared to 'Catch 22' at the time, which is rather stretching a point, but it is one of the defining science fiction novels of the latter half of the 20th Century, imho.

By weird coincidence I was juggling Harry Harrison's 'Deathworld 1' with 'The Third Man' the other morning before I decided on the Graham Greene.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Giancarlo (Giancarlo)
Username: Giancarlo

Registered: 11-2008
Posted From: 109.54.97.220
Posted on Sunday, April 28, 2013 - 07:25 am:   

Does anyone have any information about a recent movie, "The Butterfly Room", casting Barbara Steele as a batty old woman, Bette-Davis style?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.134.105.231
Posted on Tuesday, May 07, 2013 - 12:52 am:   

I just watched a pirated movie. It had a score of 3.14 stars...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mick Curtis (Mick)
Username: Mick

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.160.12.235
Posted on Tuesday, May 07, 2013 - 09:59 am:   

Arf arf!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.66.23.11
Posted on Tuesday, May 07, 2013 - 06:13 pm:   

Don't encourage me...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 2.30.194.107
Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2013 - 12:46 am:   

Best Weber joke ever.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.134.106.37
Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2013 - 01:05 am:   

don't know whether to be offended or praised...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 2.30.194.107
Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2013 - 01:09 am:   

Just seen the new Almodavar film, I'm So Excited! That's the title of the film, not my comment on it, but it is veritably a lot of fun. The original title translates as Passengers in Love, which they probably judged too innocent for a film about oral sex, hallucinogenic drugs and disco dancing aboard a flight from Spain to Mexico. This film looks like Pedro A. and his mates drank way too much tequila at a party and stayed up all night scripting the daftest comedy they could think of. What's the campest film you've ever seen? Bet it's Die Hard in comparison to this. I used to be quite camp but this is out of my league. It's out of Graham Norton's league. But even amidst the frenetic, tequila-crazed somnamorous excesses of this film, there are moments of clarity. Like when an unimpressed female passenger breaks into the cockpit to make a complaint about lousy service and the flight attendants feebly try to stop her, and she snaps: "Don't try and argue with me, you useless faggots," and one of them calmly replies: "Yes, we're faggots." Like a night in a drag bar, this film makes up in sheer attitude what it lacks in subtlety.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 2.30.205.180
Posted on Saturday, June 15, 2013 - 10:58 am:   

And quite by chance, the next new film I've seen is Soderbergh's Behind the Candelabra, a fictionalised portrait of Liberace's last years from the viewpoint of his most serious lover, Scott Thorson. This was apparently made for TV (via the cable company HBO) but has gained a cinema release – which it well deserves. The sheer quality of the main performances, with an excellent script to work from, makes this a beautiful and intelligent film – funny without straining for comedy, moving without straining for pathos. The slow decline of the two men's relationship, triggered in equal measure by Liberace's neurotic control freakery and Thorson's escalating drug problems, is painful to watch, but the thread of human feeling never breaks. Michael Douglas brings a nervous, brittle warmth to the role of Liberace – one of the best screen performances of an effeminate gay role that I've seen. Matt Damon is equally compelling as the wired, insecure Thorson. And there's a disturbingly realistic take on cosmetic surgery. Uncomfortable but never unsympathetic, this film is a richly engaging and provocative work.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Thursday, July 11, 2013 - 05:57 pm:   

This one's for Stevie—what a film this would have made!

http://www.deadline.com/2013/07/jodorowskys-dune-movie-sony-pictures-classics-ac quires/
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 93.97.250.111
Posted on Thursday, July 11, 2013 - 07:07 pm:   

The greatest "might have been" movie that never was, Craig. I've read Frank Herbert's own views on the experience and his frustration with the eventual David Lynch adaptation - Lynch's one self-admitted misfire to date, although, apparently, the four hour odd long original version still exists and has yet to see release. Maybe now, after what's been done with 'The Lord Of The Rings', the time is ripe for another stab at it. David Fincher, maybe?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Friday, July 12, 2013 - 07:40 am:   

I agree! And it will get made again someday, I predict—this doc will only help those prospects.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 - 09:41 am:   

Just saw, in this year, a movie from two years back: We Need To Talk About Kevin. I was expecting depressing and unrelentingly dark, and yes, it's that... but only peripherally. What a brilliant film! And wow, gorgeous to behold! Every scene is a work of art. And Tilda Swinton's finest acting to date, imho. Have you seen this yet, Stevie? I don't remember you commenting on it... and I know, know, it'd have made the top ten of whatever year you did see it (anyway, I'd rather read your review, than my own). The Salon reviewer called it "the movie Michael Haneke and Lars von Trier would make together, if they started out with a whole bunch of Quaaludes and cough syrup"; I'm not so sure about that, but I see what he meant. It can be taken as a horror movie, or not; I did, and didn't. Not a wasted scene, and meticulously structured. Will certainly reward rewatching—if I can handle that again....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.134.105.222
Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 - 11:24 am:   

Stevie did see it... He hated it.

From what Stevie said at the time it captures the book completely, pompous, overbearing, pretentious twaddle, at heart nothing but a very bad horror story with the most cliched twist ever.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.13.94.61
Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 - 11:33 am:   

I thought the film of Kevin was a vast improvement of the book in all sorts of ways, and certainly worth seeing. (In fact, I have twice, and my Video Watchdog review is imminent.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 - 04:28 pm:   

I never read the book, and still have no desire to, having heard from many it's not great. But I look forward to that review, Ramsey!

And I'm shocked Stevie you didn't like this! I thought I was always pretty sensitive to "pompous, overbearing, pretentious twaddle," in fact more so than others (some random examples of same: Crazy, Stupid, Love, and Lars and the Real Girl, and Drive—wait, is it just any movie with Ryan Gosling that's that?)

The movie's surreality is reflected by Lynne Ramsay's surreal direction, and even the casting: it's a movie of grotesques—Tilda Swinton is a wholly alien-seeming actress as it is; John C. Reilly, too, seems bizarrely abnormal, like a furry, bemused gargoyle throughout; the China doll daughter is exaggeratedly, "stupidly" innocent. Of course, Kevin, is more demon than child.

The extras and supporting actors are all exaggerated as well—they're sort of extensions of that opening scene at the, what was it, a tomato festival somewhere in Europe? (Visually, the film really is stunning: as another critic aptly put it, "an essay in red.") Crowds swarming and screaming and throwing tomatoes at each other in a totally unreal fantasy, we wonder; this theme is repeated throughout, and too, no one individual is ever quite beyond the crazed psyche of the stirred-up crowd, at least in their dealings with Tilda's character.

This is all by way of saying: Kevin immediately signals to the viewer, this is a world of grotesques, comic exaggerations, and extremes. Tilda's over-the-top mini-hell of the film's present, is just such a grotesquely comic exaggeration—it's one of the film's devices, used well, and to a purpose. Knowing me, I like to think I'd have been savagely merciless to this film, had I detected otherwise.

One could go on and on, I won't. But there's a lot of depth to this film, and subtlety. It has a solid structure and a satisfying arc and pays off the mysteries it sets up, and well. It might just be the best movie of 2011... what were the others again?...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 86.24.62.55
Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 - 05:24 pm:   

Check out my thoughts on the 'Films Of 2011' thread, Craig. It was only beaten in the insufferable pomposity stakes by 'Black Swan' that year. I really didn't like it but admired Tilda Swinton's committed performance.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 - 05:49 pm:   

Stevie, I cannot find your comments in that thread—am I blind, or did you perhaps write about this film elsewhere?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 86.24.62.55
Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 - 06:00 pm:   

It's here, Craig.

http://www.knibbworld.com/campbelldiscuss/messages/1/4463.html?1354298694

Search on that page for Kevin.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 - 06:29 pm:   

Ah! I see I was blind, and quite.

But not about the film itself, as I respectfully disagree with your assessment. You know, as an analogy: I went a few weeks back to the premiere of my brother's (he produced it) film, Some Girl(s) (directed by Daisy von Scherler Mayer), based on the Neil LaBute play. I fidgeted a long way through that film, and until about the very end, I realized what had happened: I had the wrong template (the term returns!) in mind, in that I had taken Adam Brody's character as being true, honest, and sympathetic—as such, the film wasn't making any sense, and I was hating it more and more. Only after I finally got it, that his character is nothing of the sort, did I reassess; it's not a great film, but it did suddenly have a resonance that I missed, and I wonder what I would have thought—going in blind as I did: impossible a second time—with the correct perspective.

I think, from your comments, you may have been looking at a different film altogether, Stevie: this isn't docudrama; it's not horror, either, though it borrows element and tropes. It's drama, yes... but it's grotesquely comic, too. Whatever it is, and I can't say this strongly enough—it is not realistic. This is closer to fantasy, than reality.

***SPOILERS***

Why is everyone around Tilda's character blaming her for the massacre, when her own husband and daughter were part of it? Why does she choose to live through this highly-exaggerated, masochistic, private daily hell of hers? From macro to micro: How it is that Tilda is allowed to drive home to a quiet house with no police present, and find her dead husband and daughter? Long, long before that, the authorities would have been there combing through the place, etc. Absolutely absurd for the film to foist this off on us as anything like realistic... except, the film isn't trying to—it's set up from the beginning, we're not going to get a real-world examination. This is surreality.

And the movie's not about a massacre of school children, or a wicked son's descent into murderousness. One of the film's main "Central Question"s is: What is going to be the climax of Tilda's relationship with her son? How it it going to be resolved? "We need to talk about Kevin"—we always know that's Tilda's thought; but only later on do we realize, the "We" includes Kevin, and that it's the crucial point to which the film's been leading. It patiently works to that grand moment... and it's a surprising moment, that doesn't dissatisfy.

This film is to motherly love/relationships, what Alan Cumming's The Anniversary Party (2001) is to matrimonial love/relationships. Both films take their characters to Hell... and rescue them, from the brink. Give it another shot with a different template, Stevie—you may have a different experience.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 - 08:10 pm:   

Hee-hee. Ryan Gosling notwithstanding, doesn't this review make you actually want to see this film?...

http://observer.com/2013/07/unforgivable-only-god-forgives-is-one-of-the-worst-m ovies-ever-made/
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.13.48.212
Posted on Sunday, July 21, 2013 - 10:54 pm:   

I'll read the review when I've seen the film, Craig.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David_lees (David_lees)
Username: David_lees

Registered: 12-2011
Posted From: 92.22.21.59
Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 - 12:46 pm:   

I couldn't resist looking at that review, and it does contain some massive spoilers :-(
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 - 01:25 pm:   

You mean in the sense that people watching the film will want to enjoy the suspenseful plot and not know in advance who gets tortured and killed, who eats their remains, and what recipe is used for the severed genitals? Well, maybe.

What worries me is that a thriller is now categorised as 'horror' if it passes a certain sadism threshold, while valid (and sometimes excellent) supernatural horror films are categorised as 'thrillers' because they don't make with the entrails. So 'horror' in cinema has nothing to do with the supernatural, it's purely an indicator of torture and mutilation. No wonder the genre's critical reputation is so wretched.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 - 03:51 pm:   

Cinema creates a visual illusion that reflects and comments upon all the aspects of real life, Joel. The humour, the heartache, the love, the hate, the kindness, the cruelty, the beautiful, the horrific, the whimsical, the barbaric and the good and the bad. True art is defined by its bravery, its honesty and intelligence, not by its shying away from the vicious and the ugly, while true crap is self-evident by its appealing to the lowest common denominator tittilating of all that links us to our animal origins.

Having said that... I was singularly underwhelmed by 'Drive' (all surface style and no substance) and think this latest offering by the "actor/director duo of the moment" sounds particularly unappatising.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 - 04:07 pm:   

My abiding memory of 'We Need To Talk About Kevin' (I haven't read the book) was one of soul-sapping tedium and smug self-congratulation. This was a film that purported to comment upon an important (or trendy) modern day phenomenon with ever so earnest self-importance and had nothing whatsoever meaningful to say about it.

I'd far rather see someone like Ken Loach tackle the subject matter with his typically fearsome gusto and honesty rather than this arty farty nonsense. Sorry, Craig, but that's my take on the film.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 - 04:16 pm:   

I don't intend to drag out this debate, but just one point you mention, Stevie...

This was a film that purported to comment upon an important (or trendy) modern day phenomenon with ever so earnest self-importance and had nothing whatsoever meaningful to say about it.

... I completely disagree: the film I saw, had no intention of commenting whatsoever on—I'm assuming you mean mass/mass school shootings; but you could also apply this to contemporary parenting/mothering. Kevin isn't about social events or trends at all—it's as much a filmed "novel" as any other fictional outing, and its story centers around the relationship between one created character and another created character. That's the core and meat and substance of this film: the mass murder and other elements are just tools used in telling that story. This is what I mean by saying that, perhaps, we both saw two different movies; and had I seen the film you saw?... I'd have hated it, too.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.212.230.239
Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 - 05:21 pm:   

The book, by the author's own admission, was an attempt to comment on those themes. And an almost entirely unsuccessful one at that. The unreality you speak of is all there in the book but we as the readers are supposed to accept it. I couldn't accept it in the book and made no attempt to view the film.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 66.87.66.12
Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 - 05:31 pm:   

Films and books are not the same. Even adaptations. I don't care if the author was intending to shed light on hamster abuse: it is irrelevant to the final product.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 212.183.140.48
Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 - 07:06 pm:   

But why create a story about teenage disenfranchisement that leads to mass murder - an all too common phenomenon in the States - without trying to provide some kind of explanation or comment upon it? Kevin was portrayed as melodramatically demonic right from babyhood - a veritable Damien, indeed - and in no way came across as a real troubled teenager. The exploration of the culpability of the non-maternal mother was the only interesting element and even that was negated by the improbability of the child's exaggerated reaction. This was one narrative that tried to have its cake and eat it and ended up falling between two stools - that of formula horror and serious social commentary, imo.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 - 08:04 pm:   

Stevie, to me, it was about a character's descent into Hell. And how she escapes, or at least, finds a kind of redemption.

What is the worst possible thing that could happen to a mother? Her son hates her, ends up killing other mothers' children, her own husband and daughter, and (here, among the worst things to happen to anyone) becomes a literal pariah, a complete outcast in society. It's almost absurdly bad.

THAT, is what the movie's (partially) about: one mother's hell. And the mystery is, how is this complete hell she's been placed in, going to affect the relationship she has with her own flesh and blood son that put her there?

The mass murder, thus, is just a tool in the telling of this story. You're getting hung up on a detail—even the movie didn't, because it didn't dwell on the mass murder: it's an offscreen event that we're heavily telegraphed concerning, from the beginning. The movie is trying to signal to the viewer, that that's not the vital point—the relationship and Tilda's character is.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 212.183.140.48
Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 - 08:29 pm:   

I get what you're saying, Craig, but the same story could have been told without recourse to sensationalism for sensationalism's sake. The very thing Joel was talking about above.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.8.31.218
Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 - 11:01 pm:   

"You mean in the sense that people watching the film will want to enjoy the suspenseful plot and not know in advance who gets tortured and killed, who eats their remains, and what recipe is used for the severed genitals? Well, maybe."

If those elements are actually in the film, Joel, thank you for pre-empting my experience. Or are you talking about Shakespeare? Jacobean tragedy? De Sade? Greek tragedy? Bataille? Or just a film that, not having seen it, you want to put other people off?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.8.31.218
Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 - 11:05 pm:   

Here's a shorter review (I assume it's shorter, since as I said, I wanted to avoid knowing about Refn's film in advance and still haven't read the review.)

"“The only really satisfactory way to dispose of the film would be to shovel it up and flush it swiftly down the nearest sewer. Even then the stench would remain.”
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 - 11:45 pm:   

But Stevie—my goodness—sensationalism's a plot point! Kevin wants to commit a highly sensational killing, and so he bow-and-arrows his classmates... we assume, the film never goes into any details about this mass murder, which counters your sensationalism accusation: we don't know the number, age, sex, etc. Much of the film leaves the worst images in our own heads (which is actually the head of Tilda's character: she never sees more than we see, except maybe the hamster).

I'm just scratching my head here, wondering how you saw the movie you did, Stevie—it's more one of those odd things, that you saw yours, I saw mine, and yet we're both astute movie-goers who detest, abhor, hate, despise "pompous twaddle." I'd actually say I hate such films ten times more than you do, I have no tolerance for such crap!

But this, and Skyfall, sigh....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 - 12:20 pm:   

'Skyfall' was a great Bond, Craig, but by no means "the best" as all the ridiculous hype would have us believe. I think everyone was just so relieved to see Daniel Craig's tenure put back on track that they went overboard in praising it.

'We Need To Talk About Kevin' is just one of those films people either seem to love or hate. The tone of the film indicated worthy psycho-social commentary while the actual plot was pure pulp horror. The "deliberate" crying of the baby, the trashing of the mother's room, the killing of the hamster, the blinding of the sister, the patricide and sororicide and climactic school slaughter. This was no misunderstood youth finally exploding but a melodramatically demonic monster in human form... right from birth. The tone of the film didn't suit the subject matter, imho.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David_lees (David_lees)
Username: David_lees

Registered: 12-2011
Posted From: 92.22.35.223
Posted on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 - 02:09 pm:   

I finally got round to seeing Skyfall the other week. Though I enjoyed it, it almost felt like another reboot. Casino Royal introduced this new Bond who had just been awarded a 00 rank, while Skyfall seemed to be all about the old Bond being reborn in the modern era. There were gags about Q gadgets and ejector seats, but none of that was ever part of the Craig era anyway. It was all a bit jarring.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 - 03:15 pm:   

Good point, David. I still think 'Casino Royale' (2006) stands alone as the only truly classic film of the modern Bond era. The last one before that was 'Live And Let Die' (1973), imho.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 - 03:19 pm:   

'Skyfall' is hugely enjoyable but so were most of the competently handled post-'Live And Let Die' films. I ranked them all on here somewhere. Will try to find the link and insert 'Skyfall accordingly.

With apologies to Alan Partridge...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 - 03:29 pm:   

Here's the link:

http://www.knibbworld.com/campbelldiscuss/messages/1/4844.html
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 - 03:47 pm:   

Live and Let Die has its own kind of surreality to it, and it stands out as such. Me, I have a special love for the two Bond reboots—no, I mean the ones rebooted now 30+ years ago, For Your Eyes Only and Octpussy; which just as much as the Craigs did, revived the series. They go up and down, from better to worse... Skyfall I found much better than you two did—though I guess again I got you confused, Stevie, with others who didn't like it.

I see your point on Kevin, but I can't help it, I am compelled to respond to one point: "The tone of the film indicated worthy psycho-social commentary...." See, I just didn't get that, and if I had detected that, I think I'd be where you are: as I keep thinking about it, the tone was—well, I like to call it "indie," but that's not terribly helpful. But it's something like grotesquely comic.

Right at the opening, Tilda's character's going to work in her crappy car, and has to wipe the red paint vandalizing her windshield with newspaper: it just smears it worse, and renders her drive to work a surreal landscape. This scene isn't harrowing analysis of social commentary, but weirdly comical: it's funny in a gallows kind of way. Her whole situation is so absurd, how can one take it seriously? As in, real-life real-world seriously?

And the director wisely signals the audience the same (**SPOILERS**) We never know what happened to her husband and daughter, until the very end, it's one of the film's mysteries; the pure pariah she's become, and a couple other red herrings, lead us to wonder if perhaps John C. Reilly's character took their daughter away from her in the aftermath of the terrible event. The director understood, the audience would have a hard time suspending the unimaginable horror and pity that would erupt, and damage the telling of the story—it'd be like an MC telling the audience the actor on stage's mother just died, now please enjoy our rendition of The Importance Of Being Ernest.

The more you break it down, the less realistic, more fantastic, the movie is—but the movie's telling us the same thing, it's not hiding this fact. There's that great scene where Kevin's mom is driving home from work, and it's Halloween, and we're not sure if she's hallucinating or not: are the little monsters and their parents just having another standard Halloween night out trick-r-treating... or are they really all haunting and taunting her, all the way home?... It's so ludicrous, it can only be—intentional.

You know, I just recently saw Men In Black III, as well. Fucking stupid ass shit pile of fuck. Critics apparently loved it, so did audiences. A total embarrassment: I wish I could go back in time, and slap the old me who DVR-ed it. To paraphrase Lear: That MIB3 can have life, and Kevin none at all.... Well, maybe not none, but only a fraction of the numbers who saw and liked MIB3 will ever see Kevin. Thank God for artists like Lynne Ramsay and Tilda Swinton, though; thank God for movies like Kevin in a world of blockbuster crapola, that's all I can say....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 - 03:58 pm:   

You're right, Craig.

'We Need To Talk About Kevin' is a brave movie that tried to film an, apparently, unfilmable book and for that the makers of it can only be praised. But that doesn't mean we have to like it. I admire Constable as a technically proficient painter but I wouldn't have any of his pictures in my house. Give me Hogarth any day!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.13.93.191
Posted on Wednesday, July 24, 2013 - 10:04 am:   

I certainly agree that Kevin is pulp horror, Stevie.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David_lees (David_lees)
Username: David_lees

Registered: 12-2011
Posted From: 92.22.35.223
Posted on Wednesday, July 24, 2013 - 01:05 pm:   

I just read this pretty interesting article on why Hollywood movies are so formulaic these days:

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2013/07/hollywood_and_blake_snyder _s_screenwriting_book_save_the_cat.single.html

"It’s not déjà vu. Summer movies are often described as formulaic. But what few people know is that there is actually a formula—one that lays out, on a page-by-page basis, exactly what should happen when in a screenplay."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Wednesday, July 24, 2013 - 03:44 pm:   

Interesting mention of "pulp" regarding Kevin, since there is a lot of images of pulp in the film: the tomato festival, all the close-ups of strawberry jerry sandwiches, the scene where Kevin's eating the... I think it's a taro? I recognized it, but can't remember the name. Hey, throw in the pulped hamster.

Save the Cat has become a lauded or notorious "template," depending, in Hollywood. And despite those formulas, David, and millions of dollars thrown into projects, they still make so much crap no one wants to see. This is the summer of blockbusters, where the number of blockbusters released seem without end (used to be a defined period from May to June); and so, audiences are suffering blockbuster fatigue, and you're getting huge busts—The Lone Ranger, Pacific Rim, R.I.P.D., White House Down.... Ah, sweet schadenfreude.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David_lees (David_lees)
Username: David_lees

Registered: 12-2011
Posted From: 92.22.35.223
Posted on Wednesday, July 24, 2013 - 08:53 pm:   

I've heard very good things about Pacific Rim, though, particularly from William Gibson on his Twitter feed, mainly about how it has real heart and avoids so many obnoxious cliches that other blockbuster effects movies fall into.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 86.24.62.55
Posted on Wednesday, July 24, 2013 - 10:30 pm:   

Dear God! I hate to say it but that's complete nonsense... unless he was being sarcastic?

I saw 'Pacific Rim' last week and it was one of the most horribly cliched films I've seen since 'Pearl Harbour'. Pure by-the-numbers Hollywood sell-out and the only one of Del Toro's films I actually disliked. It's so monstrously corny it isn't even funny! A major disappointment I'm afraid. Haven't had a chance to write it up yet.

Also saw 'The World's End' at the weekend and, thankfully, it was marvellous! Better than 'Hot Fuzz' but not quite as perfect a horror spoof as 'Shaun Of The Dead'. Proper thoughts anon...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David_lees (David_lees)
Username: David_lees

Registered: 12-2011
Posted From: 92.22.35.223
Posted on Wednesday, July 24, 2013 - 11:40 pm:   

Nope, no sarcasm, he genuinely loved it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 2.30.204.32
Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 01:24 am:   

Apologies for offence caused by my impatience and cynicism. Just generally had enough of shitty, sleazy drivel calling itself horror cinema. Can't comment on it any more.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chris_morris (Chris_morris)
Username: Chris_morris

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 98.220.186.143
Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 07:03 am:   

I agree with Joel that the state of horror cinema is currently appalling.

And I saw Pacific Rim. And Skyfall. And We Need to Talk About Kevin. What did I think of those films?

Well, I don't want to say. I can't imagine why anyone would care. I'm going through this weird phase (I guess) in which I feel that Internet discussion is killing my interest in everything.

Take We Need to Talk About Kevin, for example. Craig loves it, is willing to defend it against its enemies. Stevie dislikes it, and can articulate why. Discussions like this happen a million times on the net, and can sometimes get hostile. But the truth is, this is a subjective discussion, one that boils down to taste. We might as well be arguing over whose favorite color is best.

Moreover, Craig isn't defending We Need to Talk About Kevin: He's defending his own experience of watching the film. His experience was positive; Stevie's was negative. My point here is that if Craig had seen the film another day, or in another mood, or during a bout of stomach flu, he may well have had an entirely different experience of it, and may have wound up on Stevie's side of the argument.

So here we have a discussion about one's ephemeral feelings about insignificant matters, a discussion that involved real self-analysis and even a degree of passion, and it amounts to what? To I like red and you like blue? What's the purpose of having this discussion? What's the purpose of my reading it?

(Please note I mean no hostility toward Craig, or Stevie, or Weber, or Joel, or anyone else who still enjoys such conversation. I'm only describing my own thoughts, my own limitations, you might say. Currently these thoughts do indeed feel limiting. This is my problem, not yours.)

Once I arrived at this conclusion it began to seem that all Internet conversation amounted to this sort of thing: red vs. blue, I'm right and you're wrong, here's my supporting evidence that I found on a sympathetic web site, no here's my evidence that trumps yours. It's a dance. There are no winners, no losers, and no conclusions drawn. Why bother?

Is the point to win the debate? Is it to persuade others to your point of view? Why would anyone want to do this?

I'm reminded of a Martin Gardner book I read as a teenager in which Gardner recounts the true story of a wandering monklike man who (in the early 1900s) would travel from university to university challenging anyone to a public debate on astronomy: The monk would argue that the sun rotated around the earth, not the other way round, and he would win the debate every time. He had facts, numbers, formulas. He anticipated all opposing arguments. He never lost. And yet he was entirely wrong.

Here was a man so devoted to a cause he became a nomad, traveling the country, spreading his gospel, taking on all comers. And he'd win, every time. This, you could say, was his life's work. All in the service of a lie, a falsehood. How sad is that -- and how much time do we Internet users spend doing the same thing? How much would many of us give to be that monk? To have a perfect record, all victories, no losses.

And if all this is true, then what's the value of one's opinion on any subject? It's a wisp, a flash of light, there and then gone. Today it's one thing, tomorrow it'll be different. Why share it with people? Why defend it? Why elevate it to permanence on the web? Why (and here's what really gets me) why have a point of view in the first place?

Feel free to ignore me. It's late, I'm in a weird mood. Maybe I'm just depressed ...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 88.107.138.252
Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 07:39 am:   

>>>And if all this is true, then what's the value of one's opinion on any subject? It's a wisp, a flash of light, there and then gone. Today it's one thing, tomorrow it'll be different. Why share it with people? Why defend it? Why elevate it to permanence on the web? Why (and here's what really gets me) why have a point of view in the first place?

Hi Chris. Hope you're well.

In answer to your comment: But what's the alternative? Remaining silent? That's not very Hegelian.

I agree that when debates become fractious - and yes, the Internet certainly facilitates that - it's all rather tiresome, but otherwise, rival opinions about stuff in the world are what animates our lives, define us as individuals, and I see this as much a characteristic of face-to-face engagements as virtual relationships. The worth of anything particular thing is thrashed out in discussion, with critics (both lay and professional) seeking to establish its value and survival potential. What does survive is a result of this process, a canonical range of important materials that enrich our lives - our culture, if you like. That process predates the Net by about 250,000 years. Hegel had a lot to say about it.

Why have an opinion? I guess because not having one means that everything is as valuable as anything else, that Beethoven's ninth is no better than some pop piece of drivel that gets on your nerves in supermarkets. In short, it leads to absolute relativism, and we can't have that, can we? Good God, no.

Or maybe you're just expressing a preference for red, while I'm responding with my fondness for blue. In which case, wanna fight? :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 11:43 am:   

The main drawback of online debate is the lack of face-to-face or even voice-to-voice contact that can lead to all kinds of misconceptions and perceived fractiousness where none exists. Thank heavens for emoticons! Like them or loathe them they are the punctuation marks of a new form of communication.

I respect Craig's views as a discerning critic of cinema and literature and I know that he respects mine. If we were to agree on every single detail then I wouldn't get a kick out of our light-hearted interaction.

William Gibson loved 'Pacific Rim'... I find that baffling from my perspective but it doesn't make his opinion any less valid.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.13.56.21
Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 12:02 pm:   

I'd say the business with the travelling monk is quite a different issue, Chris - proof that you can find evidence for something invented. (I was fascinated to find this while writing The Hungry Moon.) But the notion of never debating - doesn't that lead to never questioning one's own beliefs or anyone else's? I'd call that potentially very dangerous.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 12:11 pm:   

Expressing one's opinion on any topic (high or low) is the ultimate expression of one's unique personality and the worldview one has acquired through life's experiences as well as being a good gauge of intelligence. I see it as a form of self-awareness. Only the ignorant and the arrogant (i.e. those lacking self-awareness and the requisite level of intelligence) try to force their opinions on others and lose the rag, descending into idiocy, when disagreed with. Informed intelligent debate can often be a passionate affair but pointless? Never!

Also it's good fun to talk about the things we love with like-minded souls.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.8.29.140
Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 01:12 pm:   

Just looking back on the thread - I thought Craig and Stevie were having a perfectly civilised discussion.

"Is the point to win the debate? Is it to persuade others to your point of view? Why would anyone want to do this?"

A random example - I've written in detail about Lovecraft in the hope of demonstrating his considerable worth as a writer. Why wouldn't I want to do this, for heaven's sake?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 04:29 pm:   

I think I've unfortunately been the "ugly American" before in debates, I confess. But I never saw this particular example Chris raises as an argument or debate, as such—increasingly it became to me an interesting item, of two thoughtfully opposing reactions/views to a given work of "art." It's fascinating to me, that two similarly-minded people can react so disparately, to the same film.

Though I don't think, Chris, all reactions/views be boiled down to merely listing in the wind according to "another mood, a bout of stomach flu," or you get soon enough Gary's relativism. You might be confusing the nihilistic comments sections that seem to append every last article on the net, with more thoughtful debate. I think it's good to expose the mind to other POVs, like Ramsey says—but I agree with you, most of those red/blue things going on on the internet are people swinging hammers wildly at others.

Is the point to win the debate? Is it to persuade others to your point of view? Why would anyone want to do this?

I wanted to express my positive reactions to a film I saw, and provide some details why I so liked it. Subsequently, points Stevie made inspired rebuttals, but not to quash him or his views or render them invalid, but more to provide (selfishly, perhaps?) me further forum to talk about something I liked.

I do admit, I enjoy many of the average viewer comments sections to films on imdb—what do you think of those, Chris? They aren't there trying to win over anyone: they're expressing opinions, positive or negative, and most of them are quite thoughtful and well-expressed. They're almost always passionate; there, the sin is inauthenticity—you can tell the plants, praising a film hollowly: one of the filmmakers' flunkies.

If it were so easy to simply change minds like a light switch with a few good arguments, well—the world would still be Roman Catholic. Like Ramsey says, debate challenges our own views; I'm not going to just blindly stand by my own subjective reactions on Kevin, for example—if Stevie (and others) felt so opposed, I might be self-deluding myself, a constant obstacle to determining true artistic merit. There's debates, and there's debates. Especially on the internets.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chris_morris (Chris_morris)
Username: Chris_morris

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 12.165.240.116
Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 05:40 pm:   

Thanks, everyone. Your posts are very thoughtful, very well stated. I realize my original post wasn't entirely clear. Let me take some of your points and respond to them, and maybe that will clear things up.

>> But what's the alternative? Remaining silent? That’s not very Hegelian (Gary)
I guess so. When the choices are either to remain silent or to shout in a thunderstorm, I don't think Hegel much enters the equation. Lately I've chosen silence -- but it's more than that, because lately I've chosen silence in my head, too. I don't trust my own opinions; they are too transient, too subject to environment and circumstance. No matter how hard-set they may seem, they are subject to whim and can be overthrown in an instant. My opinions are like my infrequent bouts of indigestion: uncomfortable, disruptive, but ultimately meaningless ... and then gone tomorrow.

>> rival opinions about stuff in the world are what animates our lives, define us as individuals (Gary)
I used to believe this. I no longer do -- or, rather, I no longer see that a person is defined by his opinions. Instead, I see that people wear opinions like costumes; they think the wings glued to their backs make them birds. Or I see that people’s opinions only serve to pigeonhole them. For example, consider one’s own opinion about Star Trek: If you hate the series, or the phenomenon of the series, you belong to one camp, the Star-Trek-hating camp, dour balloon-poppers, one and all; and if you love it, you're one of /those/ guys, the Trekkies, the weird convention-goers, the ones who dress up like Klingons or write fan fiction about Kirk and Spock getting it on. Who wants to be a member of either group? To have an opinion about Star Trek doesn't define you as a person, it defines you as stereotype, a demographic, a cartoon.

The vast proliferation of opinion on the Internet has only made more topics subject to this kind of polar divide. To have an opinion about Trayvon Martin is to join a demographic. To have an opinion about Obama is to join a demographic. To have an opinion about cats, breast-feeding, the causes of American obesity, train travel, the West Memphis 3, economics, gun restrictions -- about anything at all, really, is to join a demographic. And when you join a demographic, people are free to make all sorts of inferences about your character, your tastes and preferences: "People who buy Apple products are all A/B/C, so you must be like that, too." Your online opinion doesn't define you as an individual, it only subjects you to inferences and prejudices, things you can't control. Spend all day typing, and you still won't reverse these assumptions.

>>and I see this as much a characteristic of face-to-face engagements as virtual relationships (Gary)
I agree. The Internet has shown me this in a way that I might never have seen if I'd spent my life engaging only in one-to-one discussions: That people's assumptions, inferences, and agendas trump everything; that one's own opinion is transient and hardly worth fighting for; and that ultimately sharing it makes no difference anyway. So now, in the real world, I find myself avoiding opinion-based discussions, all such discussions, on any subject. Like a character out of Orwell, I find myself even trying not to form the opinions in the first place.

>> Why have an opinion? I guess because not having one means that everything is as valuable as anything else, that Beethoven's ninth is no better than some pop piece of drivel that gets on your nerves in supermarkets. In short, it leads to absolute relativism, and we can't have that, can we? Good God, no. (Gary)
Maybe I do believe this. Time, of course, is the ultimate arbiter; it is, as they say, the only test that matters. Beethoven has certainly passed this test, and thus Beethoven's success is Hegelian, and to the extent I agree with Hegel I have to say his work is "better." (I’m not sure, however, that I agree with Hegel.) Subjectively, though, I can’t say that his work is better than anyone else’s, any more than I can say blue is better than red. Lately I don't have an opinion about such matters anyway, perhaps because I don't want to form one, but I'd prefer not to listen either to Beethoven or pop. To listen is to vote, and I don’t want to vote. Who wants to join the snooty Beethoven demographic? Or the pedestrian contemporary pop demographic? Not me. So I don't listen, I don't read, I don't watch, unless it’s something obscure. And even then, I try not to form an opinion.

Opinions on the Internet are subject to a weird kind of Darwinism. The fittest don’t always survive, but the best-defended ones do. Turns out there are quite a few wandering monks in the world, and many of them have created websites. Anyone can stumble by and be persuaded, learn to anticipate arguments and demonstrate good attacks and good defenses. The end result: armies of wandering monks, who on any given subject can employ a number of convincing strategies to outwit and disarm opponents, and spread erroneous beliefs.

>> But the notion of never debating - doesn't that lead to never questioning one's own beliefs or anyone else's? I'd call that potentially very dangerous. (Ramsey)
I question my beliefs constantly. This is why, in fact, so many of my beliefs transform before my very eyes. Is staying silent dangerous? Dunno. Would you say it’s more dangerous than losing a public debate to a well-armed wandering monk? Who was it that said, “"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt"?

>> Just looking back on the thread - I thought Craig and Stevie were having a perfectly civilised discussion. (Ramsey)
They were. I didn’t mean to imply that their discussion was anything but civilized and intelligent. It very much was – and yet it was exemplary to me, in that it was intellect wasted in the service of a subjective argument, and that such discussions served no purpose. Or, more accurately, it was exemplary to me in that I’m finding my own responses to even intelligent discussions increasingly disturbing.

>> You might be confusing the nihilistic comments sections that seem to append every last article on the net, with more thoughtful debate. (Craig)
You might be right, Craig. Although I’m not sure the distinction matters much.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 06:03 pm:   

(Judging by the length and depth of that response, methinks Chris doth protest too much.... )

Chris, perhaps the very internet itself, is hobbling you? Your thoughtful response here seems to gift the internet with immense status and stature; as if (find a fainting couch for Joel!) the internet is synonymous with real life, truth, and reality itself.

To me, the best art, speaks to the individual soul. Sublimity isn't fully quantifiable, nor always applicable. Beethoven's 9th may not be a great soundtrack for a broken relationship—Johnny Cash, then, might just trump all of Beethoven's creations. Maybe Kevin did speak to me in a singular moment, and later, I will discover it to be empty, vapid, and pretentious. I might...

... but debates on the internet aren't the deciding factor. Nor the real reality of any conclusion, rendering my own feelings, no more than dangling appendages to those debates.

The internet isn't the world, or reality. Thank God.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 212.183.128.2
Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 06:38 pm:   

You sound depressed to me, Chris. Anything we can do to help just say.

Life is all about engaging with the sensory input that perpetually bombards us and reacting to it truthfully and with confidence in our own worth... and that of every other individual we interact with. Even the idiots (human or otherwise).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 212.183.128.2
Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 06:53 pm:   

The denial of one's opinions is the denial of one's loves and oneself. Never, ever let anyone think you less than worthy of your opinions, even, and this point is crucial, when you realise you have been proved "wrong", for that moment of admission and adaptation of one's consciousness to a new viewpoint or "reality" is essential to the evolution of the psyche and the soul and is one of the most transcendently liberating experiences in life.

Isn't that right, Craig?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.31.187.235
Posted on Friday, July 26, 2013 - 08:44 am:   

Lots of interesting points here. The only thing I have to add is that I have no patience at all with the view that the value of artistic output is all a question of opinion, that, say, Beethoven (it doesn't have to be Beethoven, but I use him as a useful example) is not superior as music to, say, a piece of cynical pop drivel in the charts. If anyone point out that lots of people prefer the pop drivel, I'd say they know no better. If that makes me a snob, that makes me a snob. If anyone thinks that makes me hegemonic and dangerous, I'd say do me a favour, for Gawd's sake.

The alternative to relativism doesn't have to be determinism. It often just means making a very sensible judgement about things that very obviously differ in value. We've got ourselves into a right muddle over this issue.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.13.90.58
Posted on Friday, July 26, 2013 - 01:13 pm:   

Hear decidedly hear, Gary!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chris_morris (Chris_morris)
Username: Chris_morris

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 12.165.240.116
Posted on Friday, July 26, 2013 - 04:59 pm:   

>> If anyone point out that lots of people prefer the pop drivel, I'd say they know no better.

This interests me. Years ago when I worked at a record store, I asked a customer how he liked the new Mariah Carey record he'd just purchased two days before, and he surprised me by his enthusiasm. He described every song. He spoke of lyrics, of Mariah's conviction. He actually wept. I was stunned. For him, I guess, pop pablum could be moving and sublime.

It's easy to say that he didn't know better, or that he had terrible taste, but a moving artistic experience is a moving artistic experience, no? How could you tell him Beethoven is better? Especially if he had no feeling for that kind of music?

Of course Beethoven has a pedigree that Mariah Carey doesn't have. I suppose you could try to "prove" Beethoven's worth simply by pointing to his place in history, his reputation. But surely there are musical artists or composers, Gary, whose work has a similar place in history, that you do not yourself appreciate? How do you respond when someone tells you that you "know no better"?

Tolstoy famously hated Shakespeare; Nabokov hated Dostoevsky; Martin Amis hates Beckett. Do these men "know no better"?

>> We've got ourselves into a right muddle over this issue.

What's the muddle, Gary? I'm not sure what you're referring to here?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 212.183.128.2
Posted on Friday, July 26, 2013 - 05:47 pm:   

There's certainly something sublime about Mariah Carey but it isn't her singing!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Friday, July 26, 2013 - 06:35 pm:   

But Chris, then we are forced to agree that—just as one example—a kindergartener's kitchen drawing is no less fine than the Sistine Chapel. Leaving aside historical and/or property value, artistically, conceptually, they are absolutely equal.

Once a criterion of any kind is introduced to weight one over the other, values are in play. And so on through the vast world of what define to be "art"; just as the "value" of something (1) and nothing (0) is a basic building block upon which all mathematics relies. Relativize that, you might have some fun; but you can't have anything like mathematics.

It is just... silly, to live in a world, where a piss design in snow, is as valid as any Rembrandt. Surely.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chris_morris (Chris_morris)
Username: Chris_morris

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 12.165.240.116
Posted on Friday, July 26, 2013 - 08:36 pm:   

Hi, Craig. You lost me with your math analogy, I'm afraid. To address your point, though: yes, I guess that's all true. For one thing, I'm sure that many mothers prefer their kindergartener's drawing to the Sistine Chapel.

As for the piss in the snow, well ... I've never met anyone artistically moved by piss in the snow, but I concede it's possible. Several artists, including Andy Warhol (and, famously, Serrano's "Piss Christ") have used urine as a medium. If the art world concedes that piss is a viable artistic medium, who are we to argue?

>> Once a criterion of any kind is introduced to weight one over the other, values are in play.

I agree, but all values are subjective. What appeals to me might not appeal to you. What appeals to blue-staters might not appeal to red-staters. What appeals to Westerners might not appeal to tribesmen in New Guinea. Whose values should we prefer?

I have certainly known people who were unmoved by Rembrandt. No doubt you yourself have been unaffected by a so-called great work of art -- in film, literature, etc. Are you wrong?

You're reaching for these "poles" -- Rembrandt and the imagined piss-artist -- to suggest that an unbiased observer could see that there are clear, objective differences between the two. It's not that easy, however. You can't just say a work of art is worthless simply because it was made out of something as grotesque as piss, right? (For one thing, recall that Dutch masters like Rembrandt made their own paints, as you probably know, and that urine was sometimes a part of the composition of certain colors.) You have to judge it on its artistic merits, if you judge it at all. My point is that all such judgments are subjective and relative. One person looks at Rembrandt and sees beauty, another looks and sees posturing, pretension. No one can say who is right, because no objective evaluative yardstick exists. In fact, the concept of "right" goes out the window here. You see what you see, and you feel what you feel. Not only will your opinion of a work be different from other people's, your opinion will change, and a few weeks later, when you view the work again, you may well have an entirely different experience.

No one is "right." Or: better to say, everyone is.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.31.187.235
Posted on Friday, July 26, 2013 - 09:06 pm:   

>>>>My point is that all such judgments are subjective and relative. One person looks at Rembrandt and sees beauty, another looks and sees posturing, pretension. No one can say who is right, because no objective evaluative yardstick exists.

Human experience is the yardstick, the ultimate court of appeal.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chris_morris (Chris_morris)
Username: Chris_morris

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 12.165.240.116
Posted on Friday, July 26, 2013 - 09:11 pm:   

>> Human experience is the yardstick, the ultimate court of appeal.

That sounds good, but I'm not sure what it means. Whose experience? Mine? Yours? Tolstoy's? Tell me more.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.31.187.235
Posted on Friday, July 26, 2013 - 09:45 pm:   

All of us. The Carey fan may or may not ever advance to Beethoven, but the point is that he can. But I'm absolutely convinced that someone who truly appreciates Beethoven would never switch to Carey, except as a playful diversion. I mean, I enjoy Lloyd Webber's musicals, but remain acutely aware of the difference in value between those and Beethoven. Alternatively, I just don't get on with Schumann, but would never dismiss his work as playful in the same way I do Lloyd Webber's. I can appreciate its quality objectively while failing to respond to it subjectively.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Friday, July 26, 2013 - 09:46 pm:   

Demonstrably false, Chris.

Okay, I'm going to write a short story right now. It's called, "Poop Monsters."

Poop monsters attacked the peoples. Jim fought them with his gun. He shot them dead. The last poop monster though glim-glam. The end.

Now, why is this not on a par with anything and everything Ramsey's ever written? You'd have to say it's equally as fine, Chris, in the relativistic universe you're painting. Once you introduce any value judgment whatsoever, you are making a statement about the value of "art," and so are exiting the relativistic universe where my story here is on a par with, say, Ramsey's The Influence. Bad grammar makes mine worse? Then change "peoples" to "people," and "glim-glam" to "killed him." Now is it better?... Let's say by some incredible stretch, you did think they were of equal value, but didn't want to hurt Ramsey's feelings, or appear stupid in front of everyone else. Well, the feelings of certain authors is now a value judgment in the world of "art" you've created; or, appearing stupid or not before your friends and peers, is another value judgment. There has to be a yard stick of value. Or that stupid story I just wrote, is just as good as The Parasite. Or, this new story here....

"P," by Craig Schwartz
P.
The End

... is every bit as good as The Grin of the Dark.

Is it, Chris?

If it is not, then why not?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Friday, July 26, 2013 - 11:48 pm:   

And while I'm piling on, here is a further flaw, in the "everything's subjective in art" argument.

It's not—that's just it. To bend Mill to my own uses, you have to be able to apply the criterion universally. And so...

For one thing, I'm sure that many mothers prefer their kindergartener's drawing to the Sistine Chapel.

I'm sure they do. But do many mothers prefer the kindergarten drawings of their neighbors' children? Of complete strangers? How do you now create a judgment value for art with this?

(Not to mention the crazy syllogisms you could spin off this:
-- Most wives believe having sexual relations is one of the best ways to maintain intimacy in a relationship.
-- Most wives prefer having sexual relations with their husbands.
--Ergo: Most wives believe having sexual relations with their husbands is one of the best ways to maintain intimacy in a relationship.)

In sum, Chris: There is no GOD above, no universal quotient, or scientific test, to determine what makes one form of art superior to another. But, humans, over many centuries, have agreed to formulas and measurements by which art can be graded. If you are standing there and saying, "But all those aren't scientifically measurable or TRUE," yes, you're right. And so, debates and so on, etc.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 2.30.205.174
Posted on Saturday, July 27, 2013 - 01:16 am:   

These are not issues that only internet forums have allowed to be discussed. Hans-Georg Gadamer's Truth and Method is a classic modern study of the social dimensions of aesthetics that I recommend to you, but these are old, old issues.

S.T. Joshi has argued that judged by 'absolute aesthetic criteria', Stephen King is a very bad writer indeed. There are, however, no such actual entities as absolute aesthetic criteria. There is no clear consensus even among genre experts about which writers are excellent and which are not. Karl Edward Wagner strongly disliked the work of Clark Ashton Smith, whom Lovecraft considered a master. Thomas Ligotti, perhaps surprisingly, dislikes the work of Robert Aickman – who Wagner also was not keen on, but who S.T. Joshi and John Clute strongly praise. And so on.

The issue of how we assess merit in the arts is hugely complex and has to do with cultural traditions, the appeal of the familiar, the appeal of the unfamiliar, the existence of different strands of 'taste' and so on. Gadamer argues that taste is rooted in background and upbringing as well as personal experience. Taste is a complex outcome of cultural history and geography. The fact that there is no absolute, 'objective' formula for aesthetic merit does not mean that all is chaos and random subjectivity. Culture is about sharing, shaping and developing subjectivity – and then sometimes breaking it and reshaping it. People have argued over these issues since the ancient Greeks, we're not going to resolve them on an internet forum in 2013.

And while it's possible to say, in a broad sense, that Beethoven has more to offer as a cultural experience than 'pop trash', that doesn't actually mean that anyone moved or inspired by pop music is stupid and ignorant. 'Trash' is a convenient term for pop music we don't like. For example, there's a painful irony in the way that rock enthusiasts routinely sneer at dance music, as if headbanging proved a superior intellect compared to dancing. It simply isn't helpful to insist that jazz, soul, rock, blues, dance music and/or folk music appeal only to those too stupid to appreciate symphonies and operas.

Solving complex algebraic problems is a more intellectual activity than fucking. Does that mean that only stupid people enjoy sex? Should we try harder to reserve the bedroom for algebra?

When you make an aesthetic judgement about a book or film or whatever, you are not just applying inscrutable (and chaotic) subjective criteria: you are applying standards and tastes that are part of your culture, your background, the life you have led, and those have a certain weight depending on your experience, knowledge and articulacy. However, the universe is not structured in a way that makes you inevitably 'right' and someone else inevitably 'wrong'. It's not that simple. Nor is everyone's opinion of equal validity because they exist, regardless of their experience and knowledge. It's not that simple either. Sorry folks, but these issues are not simple at all.

I'm reminded of watching Cat People as a teenager – an example of the kind of subtle horror film now largely disdained by horror fans for its lack of entrails – and being interrupted by an adult (sort of a family member, it was complicated) who wanted to know why I was wasting time watching "some fucking shitty horror film" when we should be talking to each other instead of destroying our brains with "crappy films". Cultural snobbery can be a pernicious form of bullying. And so, of course, can inverted cultural snobbery.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.31.187.235
Posted on Saturday, July 27, 2013 - 08:33 am:   

>>>It's not that simple either. Sorry folks, but these issues are not simple at all.

I'm sorry, Joel, but who said they were?


>>>that doesn't actually mean that anyone moved or inspired by pop music is stupid and ignorant

I'm sorry, Joel, but who said that?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.31.187.235
Posted on Saturday, July 27, 2013 - 08:45 am:   

>>>Cultural snobbery can be a pernicious form of bullying.

Yes, it certainly can be. But it doesn't have to be. And anyway, what you term "cultural snobbery" is a pejorative description. One might also call it "informed appreciation".

All the writers you cite above are objectively good writers (including King), over whom a number of critics have subjective differences of opinion. None of them is making a case for Hutson.

Really, you say it's not simple, but in one sense it is: relativism leads human logic to claim that, say, a Wimpey no-fines construction house is as fine a building as St Paul's Cathedral. That is what I say is bollocks.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.8.27.171
Posted on Saturday, July 27, 2013 - 11:25 am:   

' I'm reminded of watching Cat People as a teenager – an example of the kind of subtle horror film now largely disdained by horror fans for its lack of entrails – and being interrupted by an adult (sort of a family member, it was complicated) who wanted to know why I was wasting time watching "some fucking shitty horror film" when we should be talking to each other instead of destroying our brains with "crappy films". Cultural snobbery can be a pernicious form of bullying. And so, of course, can inverted cultural snobbery.'

Well, I'd say the family member's behaviour was a form of bullying. But please let's not extend that term (not that I'm saying you are, Joel) to attempts to uphold critical standards. One point that seems to lead back to the start of the argument: criticism is a continuing debate, not a series of monolithic statements. Surely that makes it a kind of science - that it is continually tested by those who care about it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert (Hubert)
Username: Hubert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 178.116.50.185
Posted on Saturday, July 27, 2013 - 12:12 pm:   

It's all a matter of education, isn't it? I like to think that individuals who have studied music theory are better placed to criticise a piece of music (if not necessarily better musicians). One doesn't have to understand the inner workings of the sun to appreciate its warmth, of course, but how are you going to put any kind of feeling under words if you haven't been properly trained?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 212.183.128.35
Posted on Saturday, July 27, 2013 - 12:52 pm:   

I don't think so, Hubert. It's all a matter of communicating from the heart via the brain. I believe in self-education and honest responses to pleasing stimuli. We are informed and made to question our own perceptions by being open to the viewpoints of others and ready to adapt them to our own if one agrees but to blindly accept what our teachers or parents feel fit to drum into us is to surrender one's individuality and worth as a sentient being.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 86.24.62.55
Posted on Saturday, July 27, 2013 - 01:05 pm:   

It's all about finding out what gives us innocent pleasure in life and unashamedly revelling in it. By "innocent pleasure" I mean any actions or stimuli that bring us joy without being at the expense of any other sentient being... whether it be sex, good food, mind altering drugs, intellectual debate or the appreciation of Art or Sport or Science or Work in their many and wondrous forms. But that brings us to questions of "morality" and a whole different ball game.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chris_morris (Chris_morris)
Username: Chris_morris

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 98.220.186.143
Posted on Saturday, July 27, 2013 - 03:59 pm:   

Gary, when I asked whose experience you were referring to, you said "all of us," but you don't mean it. This is an imaginary thing. (Certainly I wasn't polled.) I think what you mean is that educated white people somehow created a canon, and you're honor bound to defend it. Canons are useful things, don't get me wrong, but you can't just defend them blindly. We all have unique, individual responses to each work in the canon. No one likes a work simply because it's been canonized, or at least no one should. Decide for yourself, old sport.

And your idea that art lovers can "progress" to classical music is equally imaginary. One may progress to liking more sophisticated music as one ages, but to assume the end result of that is Western classical music is too much a leap. Do all film lovers "progress" to liking DW Griffiths? Do all food lovers "progress" to liking pheasant? It's silly to assume so.

Craig, you're talking about absolutes: I'm not. To answer your question, well, no your story is terrible -- to me. That last bit is important: to me. All I'm saying is that if you could find two people, one who preferred your story and one who preferred Ramsey's, there's no objective way to say either one of them is "right."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chris_morris (Chris_morris)
Username: Chris_morris

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 98.220.186.143
Posted on Saturday, July 27, 2013 - 04:06 pm:   

Hi, Joel:

>> Hans-Georg Gadamer's Truth and Method is a classic modern study of the social dimensions of aesthetics that I recommend to you

I'll have to check that out. Thanks for that.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chris_morris (Chris_morris)
Username: Chris_morris

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 98.220.186.143
Posted on Saturday, July 27, 2013 - 04:17 pm:   

>> One point that seems to lead back to the start of the argument: criticism is a continuing debate, not a series of monolithic statements. Surely that makes it a kind of science - that it is continually tested by those who care about it.

I'd like to think that's true, but it simply isn't. Science requires the scientific method (hypothesis, testing, analysis) and continual testing is a means of narrowing down the analysis. You conduct an experiment to test a hypothesis, and you get strange results. Discussion with the scientific community ensues, which leads to further hypotheses and further testing. Eventually (in ideal circumstances) an mutually satisfying solution is achieved. (Does this make the solution true? Not necessarily, but it does have the support of laboratory testing, and that helps.)

Criticism merely has analysis: Argue and then argue some more. There is no testing. People can be "bullied" into reaching a conclusion in 1920 and the re-bullied into reaching it in 1980. This doesn't make that conclusion objectively true.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Saturday, July 27, 2013 - 05:17 pm:   

All I'm saying is that if you could find two people, one who preferred your story and one who preferred Ramsey's, there's no objective way to say either one of them is "right."

But that's why none of us care about that here. Who claims that? Of course, without any standards, my shit story was no better or worse than Ramsey's—so what? It seems you're the only person who's hung up on this "objectivity in art." For seeking the ultimate arbiter of "right." Who else here is doing that?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chris_morris (Chris_morris)
Username: Chris_morris

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 98.220.186.143
Posted on Saturday, July 27, 2013 - 06:09 pm:   

>> It seems you're the only person who's hung up on this "objectivity in art."

I never said I wasn't. Quite the contrary, actually. Recall that this discussion arose out of my July 25th post, in which I used the relative merits of art as a supporting column in my argument about the overall worthlessness of subjective Internet arguments. I said then that this was my problem, not yours.

>> Of course, without any standards, my shit story was no better or worse than Ramsey's—so what?

Well, that's what I was saying the whole time, Craig. I apologize if my writing was so opaque it took you that long to figure it out.

The "so what" part, though, for me anyway, is the logical implications of this thought: If one person's opinion of a work of art is of no greater value than anyone else's, and if no objective criteria apply, then logically it follows that an argument about that opinion can achieve nothing. It's talking in circles, spitting in the wind. It may pass the time, but that's about it. From my perspective, this is not enough. It is, as I say, like watching people argue about red versus blue. What difference does it make? Why bother?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert (Hubert)
Username: Hubert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 178.116.50.185
Posted on Saturday, July 27, 2013 - 07:15 pm:   

Of course, without any standards, my shit story was no better or worse than Ramsey's—so what?

This was an ongoing debate between S.T. Joshi (and his acolytes) and others who thought that Derleth's pastiches were as great as Lovecraft's original stories. We simply couldn't get it through some people's heads that next to "The Shadow out of Time" something like "The Trail of Cthulhu" is utter and complete drivel and badly written at that.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 66.87.64.16
Posted on Saturday, July 27, 2013 - 07:16 pm:   

One person's opinion being no different than another's IS A VALUE SYSTEM, Chris. One that you're choosing to adhere to. That's all you, buddy. I don't live in that world, so it's of absolutely no concern to me.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 66.87.64.16
Posted on Saturday, July 27, 2013 - 07:32 pm:   

How, for example, is say someone who actively despises horror's opinion objective? But one opinion vs. another's is the sole criterion you've provided. So it IS equally valid in the universe you've created. Once you say, say, someone who detests horror is *not* qualified to judge horror?... Your model blows up.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chris_morris (Chris_morris)
Username: Chris_morris

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 98.220.186.143
Posted on Saturday, July 27, 2013 - 09:24 pm:   

Hi, Craig. I'm afraid after your last few posts, I can't tell if you agree with me or not. First what I say is obvious; next it "blows up."

>> Once you say, say, someone who detests horror is *not* qualified to judge horror?

I'm saying everyone is qualified to judge a work of art for himself. And that no one is qualified to judge it for other people.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.13.58.131
Posted on Saturday, July 27, 2013 - 11:24 pm:   

"It is, as I say, like watching people argue about red versus blue. What difference does it make? Why bother?"

Perhaps it might make some of the audience (me included) look again at things we've taken for granted? Perhaps it can convey qualities we've overlooked? To me that matters.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Saturday, July 27, 2013 - 11:26 pm:   

What I think I'm saying, is that what you are in essence claiming, Chris, is itself subjective—and therefore, according to your formula, of no objective value. None beyond yourself, if what you claim is what you stand by.

Does "art" exist? You are not being completely nihilistic, you claim there is something called art—subjective? Yes. It requires a boundary, to separate it from something else. Otherwise, you are only allowed the only objective stance possible: being, and nothingness.

I don't like disgusting roadkill. My disgust for roadkill, is no different than Gary's love for Ramsey's The Influence.

What do they have to do with each other? If there are no boundaries to what defines "art," everything. My opinion on chick peas, a bumped toe, nausea, and a trip to see my parents, is all the same as what Stevie feels about Robert Heinlein's oeuvre: in fact, because I hate roadkill, Heinlein's work therefore has no greater value.

Once you boundary off what it is that defines art, you are introducing a hierarchy of values. And wherever you, or anyone else, decides to stop drawing boundary lines—is subjective, and arbitrary, yes. But it's subjective.

Of absolutely no more or less value than you saying: All art is subjective. A non-objective statement, according to your own set boundary lines... and hence, of no value, beyond yourself and yourself alone, Chris Morris of the RCMB.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chris_morris (Chris_morris)
Username: Chris_morris

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 98.220.186.143
Posted on Sunday, July 28, 2013 - 02:52 am:   

>> What I think I'm saying, is that what you are in essence claiming, Chris, is itself subjective—and therefore, according to your formula, of no objective value. None beyond yourself, if what you claim is what you stand by.

Well, Craig, I'm not sure what you're getting at. But if you're saying that my earlier statements on the relative validity of opinion are themselves relative, I guess that means you believe otherwise, that subjective opinions can be evaluated objectively. Okay. Fine by me. I'm all for relative opinions. But just to be sure I have this straight, answer this for me, woudja? If Person A thinks Casablanca is the best movie of all time and Person B prefers Citizen Kane, which one is objectively right? Please be sure to spell out the criteria by which you arrived at this judgment: We need to make sure they apply in all cases (that is, that they are objective, as you say you prefer).

As for the what-is-art stuff, well, I don't think I want to bring all that into this discussion, which is complex enough as it is.

I confess I found the rest of your post unclear, to say the least. I think you're trying to say that if my view is that all opinions about art are equal, then that means that all opinions about anything are equal. About which I would say, sure they are. However, it's pretty unusual for an argument to break out that compares two divergent opinions in the way you describe:

Gary: I like Ramsey's The Influence. How bout you?

Craig: Well, I hate roadkill.

Gary: Uh-huh. Good point. You been smoking anything lately, Craig?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chris_morris (Chris_morris)
Username: Chris_morris

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 98.220.186.143
Posted on Sunday, July 28, 2013 - 02:54 am:   

Hi, Ramsey:

>>Perhaps it might make some of the audience (me included) look again at things we've taken for granted? Perhaps it can convey qualities we've overlooked? To me that matters.

This is a very good point. I wish more Internet discussions were framed with this in mind.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Sunday, July 28, 2013 - 03:20 am:   

Easy, peasy.

Neither one is "right," objectively, because there is no objective right or wrong, better or worse, when it comes to art.

But you keep returning to the "one man's opinion," as if THAT determines some kind of objectivity, or even, that it is a finality on the matter. I'm saying, stopping at the boundary of "one man's opinion is no better than another's" is an arbitrary and purely subjective borderline you've placed upon the matter, having itself no objective value whatsoever.

One man's opinion is no better than another's opinion in passing judgment on the matter, IF AND ONLY IF that is the boundary you have set—arbitrarily set, mind—for what determines judgments upon art. I don't set that boundary. For example, I need to know something about person A and B—if person A is deaf and dumb, his opinion has no relevance upon the matter to me, and the boundaries I have set for what constitutes art.

My example is spot on. Without boundaries, everything is relative to everything else.

Gary: I like that Jackson Pollock painting I saw the other day. I think it's an example of great art.
Craig: Well, I dislike bushes overgrowing my patio. So the painting sucks.
Gary: Um... complete non-sequiter Craig.
Craig: No. Pollock paintings look like wild bursts of color to me, and are to me like the wild bursts of color that these annoying bushes produce. "Wild bursts of color" to me, in anything, are what constitutes art. I hate "wild bursts of color." Therefore, that Pollock is terrible, and since my opinion is no worse than anyone else's, who are you to say I'm wrong?

I would be right—in Insaneville. Definitions are put upon everything, telling us what they are—and, accordingly, the value therein. A table is less valuable if it's missing a leg and leans over. But Joe Shmoe there, he makes do with it... he's fine with it... so who are you to say any other table is better? Again, Insaneville.

But wherever that boundary is laid, isn't objective.

And you've said nothing about the objective value of art's presence or absence, either. You've only posited one more of "one man's" opinions—and as such, according to your own definition, you've said nothing about the subjectivity of art, objectively!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Sunday, July 28, 2013 - 04:43 am:   

Being anal. Just to clarify an ill-stated point:

Person A and B in the example you provided, Chris, concerning Casablanca. And "dumb" isn't relevant to opining upon that movie—let's say, person A was deaf and half-blind. Then, person A's opinion upon the value of Casablanca would be less valuable an opinion, than person B's if he was not deaf and blind.

In sum....

When people say, "X movie's a piece of shit," they mean: Most people are going to find X movie a piece of shit. They don't mean, X movie is by its very nature a piece of shit ("piece of shit" itself a figure of speech). It is valueless without an opinion; if it were on the moon, say, or shown to fish.

We all agree. So why even say a situation is otherwise, when it never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever is?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.29.249.153
Posted on Sunday, July 28, 2013 - 08:42 am:   

>>>but to assume the end result of that is Western classical music

Since words are being put in my mouth continually, I think I'll drop out of this debate. I never said Western classical music is the "end result" and it's quite offensive to assume that I believe the educated white person's canon is all there is.

All I'll add is this:

>>>>If Person A thinks Casablanca is the best movie of all time and Person B prefers Citizen Kane, which one is objectively right?

You keep comparing objectively good pieces of material, and of course only a fool would claim that Casablanca is better than Kane, or vice versa. The comparison is pointless. That was never the issue here. Or at any rate, never MY issue. I was suggesting that the difference in quality between, say, the novels of Guy N Smith and those of Peter Straub is so OBVIOUS that only someone being very obtuse or who can no longer see the wood for the trees would deny it.

By your reasoning, this:

http://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/cheap_house_450x300.jpg

...is (potentially) as valuable as this:

http://www.destination360.com/europe/italy/images/s/milan-cathedral.jpg

Now, I've answered your question about Casablanca / Kane. Perhaps you'd be good enough to justify how, according to your reasoning, these two buildings have potentially the same value?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.29.249.153
Posted on Sunday, July 28, 2013 - 08:47 am:   

>>>Craig, you're talking about absolutes: I'm not. To answer your question, well, no your story is terrible -- to me. That last bit is important: to me. All I'm saying is that if you could find two people, one who preferred your story and one who preferred Ramsey's, there's no objective way to say either one of them is "right."

I think this is nonsense. Let's cite as comparative poles: command of craft, storytelling power, emotional impact, the degree to which it illuminates one's life, how it lingers in memory, the way it expands one range of perceptual possibilities, the way it articulates our cultural times, etc etc etc. For starters.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.29.249.153
Posted on Sunday, July 28, 2013 - 10:12 am:   

Also [puts on devil's advocate hat], it's well-documented that relativists have a serious problem concerning their assertions: if all claims to truth are equal, why are you even bothering to persuade others that they may be wrong? According to your perspective, their perspective is as valid as yours. Your arguing otherwise undermines your fundamental point of view, no?

Now I'm off out to read in the sun. It's hot, you know. That isn't just a matter of opinion. :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.8.19.55
Posted on Sunday, July 28, 2013 - 11:28 am:   

"No doubt you yourself have been unaffected by a so-called great work of art -- in film, literature, etc. Are you wrong?"

To ask myself that question - yes, I think so. And sometimes later on I've proved myself wrong. Some great works require effort from some of the audience.

">>Perhaps it might make some of the audience (me included) look again at things we've taken for granted? Perhaps it can convey qualities we've overlooked? To me that matters.

This is a very good point. I wish more Internet discussions were framed with this in mind."

Well, the insights will be there in any case if they are, not dependent on how the discussion is framed.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Sunday, July 28, 2013 - 05:07 pm:   

Yes, Gary, indeed. Those who hold that all art is purely relative and subjective, are held captive to the lowest common denominators. And they're 100% not right, either—because, there is no right in that construct.

And to revisit a minor point earlier on... nagging me....

I think what you mean is that educated white people somehow created a canon, and you're honor bound to defend it. Canons are useful things, don't get me wrong, but you can't just defend them blindly. We all have unique, individual responses to each work in the canon. No one likes a work simply because it's been canonized, or at least no one should.

Who said anyone should like something simply because it's "canonized"? By the same token, you don't remove something from the "canon" simply because you don't. The "canon" isn't even a real thing anyway—there is no set & absolute canon, and there are no Popes or judges to maintain one even if there were. You can remove anyone from your own canon, any time you want—no one's going to stop you. You're not going to get a whole lot of agreement if you remove Shakespeare, but hey... if absolute agreement were determinative of value, there wouldn't be any value. Or canons.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert (Hubert)
Username: Hubert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 213.118.89.149
Posted on Sunday, July 28, 2013 - 08:06 pm:   

Some great works require effort from some of the audience.

Indeed. And the reward is tantamount. People who wallow in rubbish should be allowed to do so, of course. But let's not drag everything down to their level simply because they don't notice the difference. And I'm sure they don't, so in that respect they're honest.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chris_morris (Chris_morris)
Username: Chris_morris

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 98.220.186.143
Posted on Sunday, July 28, 2013 - 08:58 pm:   

>> Since words are being put in my mouth continually, I think I'll drop out of this debate. I never said Western classical music is the "end result" and it's quite offensive to assume that I believe the educated white person's canon is all there is.

I agree. I apologize, Dr F. In my defense, however, "All of us" -- that is, the statement I expounded upon in your absence -- is undeniably vague. Care to steer me in the right direction? What did you mean by that?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chris_morris (Chris_morris)
Username: Chris_morris

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 98.220.186.143
Posted on Sunday, July 28, 2013 - 09:20 pm:   

Now that I've made everyone mad, I don't know that I should continue this debate, engrossing as it's been. As Gary said, I have no interest in changing anyone else's perfectly valid opinions -- In fact, if anything, I was sort of interested in seeing if anyone else would change mine.

Imagine a city whose skyscrapers loom into the sky and disappear into the clouds. The people standing on the ground look up at them and wonder: Which is the tallest? One person says he thinks it's the stone building, the one to the left. Another thinks it's the mirrored building on the right. But since they all disappear into the mist, there's no way of knowing. It doesn't seem controversial for me to say that all of those people's opinions on the subject are equally valid, since no means exists to measure the height of the buildings. That is, this seems more to me like fact than opinion.

Note that I have said nothing about the actual height of any building. This is because, for this argument, that issue doesn't matter. But let's turn our attention to that issue now. (Although I'll drop my metaphor.)

The real sticking point seems to be: Are there objective means of measuring the worth of movies or works of literature? Personally, I think there is not, that any criterion could be shown to fail in an undeniably great work of art. But I admit this is merely my opinion. Others surely disagree, although I'd love to know what they think those criteria are.

I'll leave you with one last thought: Why is it that we are so interested in creating superlatives in the fields of film and literature and music, when we don't care to in other endeavors? We all know, for instance, what the best films ever made are supposed to be, but what is the best cheese ever made? What is the best sentence ever written? What's the best word? What's the best meal you could serve to four guests for dinner? What's the best color?

We make distinctions for these items -- the best color for what? The best meal for whom? -- and contextualize them, but we don't for film, say, even though the contextual aims of a film like Pacific Rim are quite obviously different than the aims of L'Avventura. And yet we so easily say that L'Avventura is a better film, no matter the context.

I'm not comfortable saying that. Or rather, I'm comfortable saying that L'Avventura is a better film to me. But if someone else liked Pacific Rim better -- as no doubt, many people do -- I have no interest in persuading them otherwise. Either they'll come to agree with me, or they won't. It doesn't make any difference to me.

I'll shut up now, go back to my hidey-hole. Thanks for your discussion, everyone. (I have something else I need to be writing right now ... )
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Sunday, July 28, 2013 - 11:24 pm:   

I think the reason why, Chris, we don't talk about superlatives in areas like cheese and dinners, is because they cannot be exactly replicated—but everyone can see the same exact Casablanca. As for sentences and words, the question is illogical—because it leaves out crucial data to even make sense of your question. I mean, do you mean "sentence" as in what this post is made up of? Or the "sentence" for a convicted murderer? Without any context, no meaning can be derived. "Best" and "worst" always require contexts, and can't exist in vacuums.

No, there are no objective means of measuring the "worth" of movies or works of literature—again, you've swerved into illogicality, and created a meaningless string of words even asking this question. "Worth" denotes value, which is always relative, and subjective. "Objective" means outside the subjective experience altogether—forget movies or literature, life itself, has no objectivity. Is there "value" in breathing? It cannot be objectively determined: that very question is without meaning unless one denotes the "value" in question. It is valuable to live, it is not valuable to die. Yes, then there is "value" in breathing. Is there always "value" to breathing? No. Under water, while swimming, there is no value in breathing—water would be drawn into the lungs, and, if living is valuable, then breathing under water wouldn't be advised.

There's no sticking point, Chris. You keep returning alone to this fabulous imaginary made-up unicorn El Dorado last-digit-of-Pi "objective" value of art/literature as your straw man. No one buys into it. Not even you. You're hung up on it for some odd reason... let it go!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.134.109.8
Posted on Sunday, July 28, 2013 - 11:24 pm:   

"but what is the best cheese ever made? What is the best sentence ever written? What's the best word? What's the best meal you could serve to four guests for dinner? What's the best color?"

Cheese - Blue stilton.
Sentence - But perhaps that's what happiness is: a suspension of disbelief or a willed ignorance, which, like held breath, cannot be sustained beyond a certain point.
Word - Blype
Meal - the best thing I can cook is a chilli with proper chunks of beef rather than boring mince - slow cooked and lovely - and as the question was phrased "the best meal you could serve" - excluding the option of buying food in, it would have to be the chilli.
Colour - Green
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Sunday, July 28, 2013 - 11:38 pm:   

Using only objective criteria, explain why green is better than blue?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.212.231.6
Posted on Sunday, July 28, 2013 - 11:57 pm:   

Because it tells up what's up and what's down when very very drunk. You can walk on green but if you try walking on blue you fall over because blue tends to be up.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Monday, July 29, 2013 - 06:01 am:   

What are you doing walking around very very drunk when blue is up? (i.e., in the daytime, I presume.) That's the real problem, Weber....

Speaking of, changing subjects, but not back to the theme of this thread either, oh well: I've finally delved into the American version of "Shameless," starting with the Season 1. Love it! The writing is some of the best on television, I do believe—almost on a par with "Breaking Bad" (can August 11 get here any sooner?!) I've never seen the Brit series it's based upon, looks like it ran for a long time, wonder how that one is, or compares?...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 80.239.242.225
Posted on Monday, July 29, 2013 - 10:21 am:   

The first series is close to word for word identical but with americanised references.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Monday, July 29, 2013 - 03:55 pm:   

Really... kind of makes me like it less.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.29.249.153
Posted on Monday, July 29, 2013 - 08:12 pm:   

Chris, it's not easy to articulate, but by "all of us", I guess I meant what existentialists mean when they talk about the "givens" of experience, such things as embodied interaction in everyday life, intersubjectivity, orientation in time and space, social and cultural engagement, etc. The experience of being. Now, I'm not reducing all of art to such things, but it strikes me that the "best" of it seeks to elucidate these aspects of experience, resulting in, among other things, the "thrill of recognition", cognitive illumination, enriched perception and orientation to the lived world. Less able art merely strokes the surface of these matters. But all of us, from the genuine culture vulture to the Amazon reviewer (ho ho), is embedded in these profound dimensions simply by virtue of being alive. And some folk respond to art that goes deep, while others prefer those "shallower" moments, which entertain in a solid way but scarcely dig further. Nowt wrong with either approach; I'm a composite of both myself. But ultimately, I strongly feel that the former work - the stuff that complexly focuses on experience itself, in all its ineffable variousness - is demonstrably superior to the other gear.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.29.249.153
Posted on Monday, July 29, 2013 - 08:16 pm:   

In other words, life itself is the yardstick of artistic worth. Someone once said that the voice of the world is always in the background. That.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.134.105.21
Posted on Wednesday, July 31, 2013 - 01:35 am:   

Well i went to see The World's End last night and it was pretty damned good to say the least. I've managed to completely miss Hot Fuzz so far so I can't say how it compares to that, but it's tons better than the last Edgar Wright film I tried to watch (Scott Pilgrim - it was just irritating - and I normally like michael cera) but not quite on a par with Shaun of the Dead.

As a side note - IMHO Cockney's vs Zombies and Juan of the dead are both better zom-coms tahn Shaun though. But they pale to insignificance compared to the best zom-com of all time (so far) Brain Dead (aka Dead Alive) by Peter Jackson.

Oh - and I caught the opening episode of Shameless USA series 2 and the pre-credit catch up showed that things deviate quite a lot from the UK show after tthe first 3 or 4 eopisodes which is all i watched of season 1 before deciding it was all just a copy and not to bother. There's a lot more nudity in the US version as well.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Wednesday, July 31, 2013 - 12:23 pm:   

'Hot Fuzz' is a great spoof of buddy cop movies and the giallo horror genre and those "small town with a dark secret" horrors. It's a bit more episodic and zany with less of a coherent structure than 'Shaun Of The Dead' or 'The World's End' but is still a great laugh-out-loud showcase for a welter of current British comedy talent. Spotting all the cameos is one of the joys of these films.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Friday, August 02, 2013 - 03:59 pm:   

I've been mulling over all this water muddying nonsense people talk about relativism and determinism and whether red is a cooler colour than blue and why have an opinion anyway, blah-de-blah, and all I really have to say is that I don't actively engage in online debates but rather have online conversations, in which my opinion invariably comes up, and, on which, I am not afraid or ashamed to expound to the best of my self-educated ability.

We live, we grow, we die, we are subsumed, we become other, ad infinitum, and the key is to learn to love the process and go where the flow takes us using personal morality as the tiller by which we avoid obstacles in the stream. It actually does make sense.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Sunday, August 04, 2013 - 10:13 pm:   

Most of you won't be able to read this review, because it gives away oh so much of the movie, more than even I would have liked.

But it did confirm, judging by this reviewer's take—and she seems to be someone who shares my tastes and thoughts—that this will be worth catching. I admit to looking forward to this film (loved the trailer!), and they're giving it a bigger push than I'd have imagined, out here at least (e.g., I've seen two big billboards for it in the San Fernando Valley so far, many weeks from its release in the States):

http://cinema-scope.com/web-only/web-extra-youre-next-adam-wingard-us-by-kiva-re ardon/
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.8.26.248
Posted on Sunday, August 04, 2013 - 11:21 pm:   

Well, I did think A Horrible Way to Die was impressive, despite the visual shakes.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Wednesday, August 07, 2013 - 04:53 am:   

So I've taken to watching almost one a day, these old television MOWs ("Movie Of the Week") from the 1970's, in the suspense/thriller/horror genres. Lots of famous names appear in them, and scripting them (I mentioned earlier one by Richard Matheson, The Strange Possession of Mrs. Oliver [1977]—and what a fine little horror piece that one was, too!). They're all on youtube for the picking, and they average only about 72 minutes each (lots of commercials in those days, breaking them up).

I wanted to specially single out one I saw, it was just a knock-out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKSjo5gAVLk Crowhaven Farm (1970), scripted by a John McGreevey, a name I'm totally unfamiliar with, but who seems to have done tons and tons of American TV; all styles and genres, and right from television's start in the 40's, a real veteran. It shows in this incredibly dark and paranoid out-and-out horror story, that shows influences yes of the then-recent Rosemary's Baby, but is much more than mere homage. All the while watching this, I thought… wow, this is about the closest experience you could get to watching a filmed Oxrun Station story—it has that same quiet, then familiar this-horror-won't-be-so-bad-will-it? build, that spirals out into a full-blown nightmare. I forget TV could be so daring back then! Forgiving the low production values, I assure you, this one's well worth the little over an hour investment.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Thursday, August 08, 2013 - 08:56 am:   

I only watched this one since it was the first giallo I was able to find translated into English on youtube (there's many there, in the original language only), but wow, I'm glad I did! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwZ2TDyfbF4 The Perfume of the Lady in Black (1974), terrible title for a real gem. It's not really giallo at all, though it looks it; in fact, the look of the film all through, direction and cinematography and set decoration and etc., is just stunning, high above norm (this print here is gorgeous!). The whole is psychological horror, definitely influenced most by Polanski, but presaging Lynch, too. Mimsey Farmer plays a perfumer in Italy, who seems to be sensing something is wrong with her life…. It builds gradually, slowly, in atmosphere and paranoia; sometimes it seems a bit confused or non-linear—but it's that Campbell-ian climax that cinches everything. Worth watching!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.8.18.17
Posted on Tuesday, August 13, 2013 - 10:10 pm:   

"You mean in the sense that people watching the film will want to enjoy the suspenseful plot and not know in advance who gets tortured and killed, who eats their remains, and what recipe is used for the severed genitals? Well, maybe."

And maybe not. Having seen the film, I now know that your comment has virtually nothing to do with it, Joel. And both Jenny and I liked the film. Rex Reed, on the other hand, I haven't wasted my time reading for quite a while. I expect better of you, though.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Wednesday, August 14, 2013 - 11:07 am:   

"and what recipe is used for the severed genitals?"

Funny thing, Joel, but I actually saw a man eating his own penis the other night and it looked very well prepared.

Watch Jan Švankmajer's "Food" (1992) if you want to see a real recipe for horror!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 2.103.103.182
Posted on Wednesday, August 14, 2013 - 06:31 pm:   

One too many vertebrae.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 212.183.128.213
Posted on Wednesday, August 14, 2013 - 07:16 pm:   

That's evolution for ya, Gary.

sigh...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - 02:54 am:   

(putting this here in this thread, since I saw this in this year: )

So two film rating books I have that I almost always agree with, both of them gave not even one star, but rather a "BOMB" rating to a film they simply couldn't have been more wrong about! Incubus (1982), starring John Cassavetes, directed by John Hough from a script by Ray Russell. Wow, what a lost jewel! It watches like an American giallo (and right from the period) in tone and structure, heavily atmospheric, with an absolutely chilling soundtrack all the way through. All the actors I found pitch-perfect: Cassavetes especially, but everyone else as well, is sort of half-dazed and seemingly hypnotized, all the way through; I don't know if that was intentional or not, but it nicely fits (thematically) the storyline, further creating this strong sense of a town gripped by a horrible unseen menace (you know, that must have been intentional: there's a scene in a movie theater where a bunch of teens are watching some crazy rock film [the singer was Iron Maiden's lead vocalist!], and they're all frozen, zombified, mesmerized...). Is it the best film ever? No, but it's a hell of a fine one indeed, with a gut-punch of a horror climax. "BOMB"? Really?!? Not!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 86.24.62.55
Posted on Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - 07:42 am:   

Thanks, Craig! That's one film had completely left my memory and I now remember longing to see at the time - horror cinema's golden era of the late 60s to early 80s. I might just order it on DVD next pay day. Along with 'The Legacy', 'The Entity', 'The Sentinel', 'Parasite' and 'Xtro', etc...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mbfg (Mbfg)
Username: Mbfg

Registered: 09-2010
Posted From: 212.219.63.206
Posted on Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - 12:24 pm:   

Rewinding slightly. Saw "Alpha Papa" on Saturday night. Loved it. Pitch perfect. Even my wife and stepdaughter, who know nothing about the Alan Partridge character, laughed the whole way through.

Also, John Cassavetes, great, underrated, almost forgotten actor, a real actor, not a film star.

Cheers
Terry
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - 12:39 pm:   

And a great director as well, Terry. In fact, his directorial achievements even outstrip his acting career.

I'll always love him for 'Rosemary's Baby'.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mbfg (Mbfg)
Username: Mbfg

Registered: 09-2010
Posted From: 212.219.63.206
Posted on Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - 04:37 pm:   

I was always impressed by his performance in the 1960s remake of "The Killers" along with Ronald Reagan and Lee Marvin.

But yes, "Rosemary's Baby" is a highpoint all round.

Cheers
Terry
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Wednesday, August 21, 2013 - 05:49 am:   

And another!

Another forgotten little artifact of horror, in fact, this one going back to 1973, a made-for-TV movie called A Cold Night's Death. There's really only two actors in this: Robert Culp (best known for "I Spy"), and Eli Wallach (still kicking and acting!); directed by Jerrold Freedman, written by Christopher Knopf, veteran TV guys both. It's a short-and-sweet 74 minutes, and immediately sets up a somewhat familiar scene: Culp and Wallach are sent to a remote arctic station—continuing government research on live animals (monkeys) for the burgeoning U. S. space program—following the disappearance of the previous researcher; who we hear, in the very opening scene, sending out a frantic distress signal that sounds born of either craziness, or terror. The whole moves fast, as Culp and Wallach swiftly descend into askance-eyed paranoia; but are they just catching cabin fever from the extreme cold and isolation... or is there really someone else in there, with them? It's got a great little mystery to it, that wraps up with a wonderful closing scene—an exquisite closing shot, in fact. The production quality is TV-low, of course, and the print here is not the best (there's an annoying buzz)… but if you're a fan of this kind of psychological horror/suspense, oh yes, it is well worth the hour's investment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQYzhflRs38
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Friday, September 06, 2013 - 03:41 am:   

James Cameron is quoted as saying he's just seen this, and in his opinion, it's "the best space movie ever done." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiTiKOy59o4 I admit, it looks pretty intense, but... "best ever done?" Hmm....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Friday, September 06, 2013 - 05:00 pm:   

I haven't bothered to look at the clip, Craig. Nothing will ever beat '2001 : A Space Odyssey' as "the best space movie ever done."

Not just because of the stunning cinematography, special effects and use of music - along with all its other myriad strengths - but because of the time in which it was made and what it did to the human psyche - then and ever afterward.

Kubrick gave us the dream of reaching for the stars - and beyond - as a flawlessly tangible reality in the form of the greatest sci-fi fairytale ever told. No other "space movie", before or since, comes close to it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Friday, September 06, 2013 - 05:18 pm:   

To me Robert Culp is best known for his appearances in three of the finest episodes of 'The Outer Limits':

"The Architects Of Fear" - that famously inspired Alan Moore's masterpiece, 'Watchmen'.

"Demon With A Glass Hand" - written by Harlan Ellison and possibly the show's, as well as his, finest hour.

"Corpus Earthling" - one of the scarier episodes that featured horribly cadaverous alien-controlled zombies years before 'Night Of The Living Dead'.

Culp was the very personification of the early 60s grantite jawed man of action - looking like he'd just stepped out of a Steve Ditko comicbook (still my fav popular comic artist).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.134.106.47
Posted on Friday, September 06, 2013 - 06:10 pm:   

That does actually look pretty damned good.

I've never managed to get ast the monkeys in 2001 before I'm asleep. The single most tedious movie ever made.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 212.183.128.239
Posted on Friday, September 06, 2013 - 06:44 pm:   

Looks a bit OTT to my eyes.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Friday, September 06, 2013 - 08:26 pm:   

OMG, Stevie, I don't think I've seen not one of those "Outer Limits"! I must rectify that.

But let's give a hand, too, for Eli Wallach. Who did one of the all time great movie roles, and should have been at least nominated for an Oscar that year (1969) if there was any justice in the world, for playing the irascible & inimitable Tuco in The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly.

Btw... what's OTT? A term I don't know!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert (Hubert)
Username: Hubert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 178.116.60.153
Posted on Friday, September 06, 2013 - 08:37 pm:   

Agreed, 2001 cannot be outdone. After several viewings I'm beginning to really like Boyle's Sunshine, too. A pity it deteriorates into a monster movie in the second half. And where does the gravity in the crew's quarters come from? Great photography and music, however.

"The Architects of Fear" is full of inconsistencies, but by golly I liked the monster! It struck a chord with other viewers as well.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.134.106.47
Posted on Friday, September 06, 2013 - 09:13 pm:   

OTT = Over the top

We shall have to agree to disagree on the merits of 2001.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mick Curtis (Mick)
Username: Mick

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.168.136.30
Posted on Friday, September 06, 2013 - 09:20 pm:   

I agree with the positive comments regarding 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY above. For me it's one of the very few sf films that actually has the type of big ideas you read in the best sf books, and isn't simply a different genre with spaceships - ie ALIEN was a haunted house film despite its sf cladding. There are very few sf films that are truly sf - SOLARIS is another...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.134.106.47
Posted on Saturday, September 07, 2013 - 12:02 am:   

But it's pure boredom in cinematic form...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mick Curtis (Mick)
Username: Mick

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.135.3.171
Posted on Saturday, September 07, 2013 - 01:02 am:   

Not for me it isn't. It's a cinematic masterpiece.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 212.183.128.239
Posted on Saturday, September 07, 2013 - 02:51 am:   

For me 'The Outer Limits' is possibly the greatest genre TV show ever made. I have both series on DVD and watch them all in random order every few years with ever increasing enjoyment. It even tops 'The Twilight Zone' in terms of consistency, originality and cinematic production values.

Likewise '2001' is a film I could never grow tired of immersing myself in every few years - preferably on the big screen.

I saw the complete Dollars Trilogy back to back in the cinema one glorious day a couple of years ago and it was the most thrilling big screen experience I'd had since seeing 'Jaws' the first time as a nipper! Those films are perfection! But TGTBATU was made in 1966, Craig, and, yes, it should have won every film award going, imho.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert (Hubert)
Username: Hubert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 178.116.60.153
Posted on Saturday, September 07, 2013 - 06:11 pm:   

I'd just turned 12 when I saw 2001 for the first time in all its glory, i.e. in a proper cinema. Even at that time there were zealous youngsters in the audience with translations of Clarke's book in hand, something I'd never seen before and have never seen since. Also a lot of people who liked the 'NASA show' of the first half, but didn't understand one iota of the second half, much less the ending.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mick Curtis (Mick)
Username: Mick

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.135.3.171
Posted on Saturday, September 07, 2013 - 06:24 pm:   

I saw it in the cinema at the time of release - I recall Clarke being on a documentary on tv explaining it!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Saturday, September 07, 2013 - 07:19 pm:   

Whoops. TGTBATU was indeed made in 1966. Though in point of fact, Stevie, it was released here in the States on December 29th, 1967—which is essentially saying, it was released here in 1968. Not that all of this matters terribly this way or that....

However, we now have an interesting joining of these two, Leone's and Kubrick's, since (again, see above) both were released roughly the same time. There's really no other reason, or fairness, in comparing them; but I will. And I'd have to say, for that year, TGTBATU is a better film than 2001. The former speaks more to the human experience, in mythic form, than does the latter: TGTBATU is truly a film novel, a sprawling epic, that addresses universal ideals (war, friendship, etc.), yet creates a satisfying, fully-arced and exciting story of individuals. The artistry on display in the former—cinematography, direction, casting, costumes, sets, etc.—is surely as equal as anything in 2001, if not better (and I daresay far less "stagey"). 2001 mystifies, and often one suspects self-indulgently; TGTBATU appears at first blush to be all surface, but there's depths upon depths in it to be unearthed. All audiences will love TGTBATU; 2001 will not get near as many return-viewers. Both are magnificent, but I think Leone beat Kubrick in this particular match-up.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 212.183.128.70
Posted on Saturday, September 07, 2013 - 08:31 pm:   

And yet... Leone (my third favourite director of all time) had yet to make his two crowning masterpieces - both of which start with the same five words.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Sunday, September 08, 2013 - 12:44 am:   

I have to revisit Once Upon A Time In The West to assess that statement, it's been far too long since I've seen it (though I'm leaning, from what I remember, towards it not being as good). But I don't think I have to revisit the other one—even though it's been about as long—to know I respectfully disagree.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 86.24.62.55
Posted on Sunday, September 08, 2013 - 12:55 am:   

You have no idea how wrong you are, Craig, but when the realisation hits you I promise I won't gloat. I'll just be very happy that you connected at last with two of the greatest cinematic masterpieces that ever have been made or ever will be made or ever could be made. Watch them and wallow in the detail and operatic high emotion and sheer splendour of Leone's vision and then dare to tell me that I am wrong.

'The Good, The Bad And The Ugly' was Leone's great popular masterpiece and the finest crowd pleaser ever made but what followed blew even it out of the water!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mbfg (Mbfg)
Username: Mbfg

Registered: 09-2010
Posted From: 212.219.63.206
Posted on Saturday, September 14, 2013 - 12:12 pm:   

Saw "Hitchcock" last night. Excellent. Hopkins was superb.

Also watched "United 93" and was impressed by the skillful avoidance of slushy Hollywood sentimentality and genuine ever-tightening tension, even though you know the tragic outcome. A truly moving, devestating experience.

Cheers
Terry
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 2.30.198.241
Posted on Sunday, September 15, 2013 - 01:38 am:   

Just seen the new Swedish film 'Call Girl', which seems to be angling for a reputation as an incisive dramatisation of the realities of political corruption, vice and exploitation in the Oslo of the 1970s. Sadly it isn't. It's a sleazy, voyeuristic, crude, predictable and generally shoddy bit of late-night cable TV fodder. It's got to be possible to make a serious film about sexual abuse without having about 25 scenes involving sex with underage girls. It's not crediting the audience with any intelligence to assume they can't understand what sex is unless they see it happen in the same way over and over again. The surrounding political corruption is dealt with in a crude and obvious way, and the only character with any intelligence is a scheming and vicious 'madam'. All it lacked was Dennis Waterman yelling "Shut it, you slaaag!" for it to be an extended slice of really bad '70s TV. It's not pornography, but it's not quality cinema either: it's tacky, unambitious and painfully dull.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Sunday, September 15, 2013 - 05:35 pm:   

I just read this tiny little review of Insidious 2 (which I've not seen yet) in the Guardian - http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/sep/15/insidious-chapter-2-review.

Now, I'm sure I'd agree with the author, mostly. But his main complaint seems to be that the film is derivative of all sorts of other horror films... and is that fair? For example, in his list of films this one's like, he puts down The Changeling, the 1980 horror film starring George C. Scott. Now, leaving aside the fact that movie's not exactly a stellar example of the genre: how many of current audience-goers have even seen that film?! And is it fair to drag out one over 30 years old, and say, "Sorry! All done! No more like this"? The audience Insidious 2 and other like current horror films are going for, are audiences that—sorry, Mr. Reviewer—are relatively new to planet Earth, who haven't glutted themselves into cynicism on all sorts of (to them, surely) dusty old films from the past.

I think this level of criticism now, is mostly irrelevant: many other factors have to be taken into account. And I'm only mentioning this at all concerning this film, because it's proved in the States this weekend to be a very surprise monster hit—despite its swath of bad reviews, Insidious 2 made a ton of money. And surely now, if ever (coming off The Conjuring a few months back; not to mention the entire Saw franchise), the name James Wan is going to be ever after classed with Roger Corman and John Carpenter and others, when they talk about horror films....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 2.27.145.186
Posted on Monday, September 16, 2013 - 12:07 am:   

Trouble is, Craig, that not only are horror film makers and fans saturated with genre material, they won't accept anything as viable unless it reminds them of lots of other stuff. Critics have a duty to remind us just how tediously derivative 99% of genre fare really is.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.134.106.78
Posted on Monday, September 16, 2013 - 03:24 am:   

Not just genre fare though to be honest... Nearly any film you choose to watch, genre or not is clearly derivative and stale.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Monday, September 16, 2013 - 01:21 pm:   

I've seen some very fine new films in the last few years, most notably The Wall this year, The Hunt last year and Incendies the year before. But none of those were mass-market blockbusters, or even English-language films. This is actually quite a good time for independent cinema. Even the relatively commercial US independent cinema has its moments – this year's The Place Beyond the Pines is outstanding, though some other films with similar budgets and 'arthouse' credibility have proved to be shit. Commercial cinema, including genre cinema, is very boring, but if you avoid it then contemporary cinema overall is pretty good. I have to say, though, that of every five good new films I've seen in the last decade, no more than one was in English.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Monday, September 16, 2013 - 01:30 pm:   

Not that all recent genre cinema has been poor, though I've not seen anything very good that was made in English. [Rec], The Eyes and The Orphanage were all pretty impressive. But when genre film fans are arguing over which are the top three superhero comic adaptations of the week, you know the rut has got pretty deep.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 212.183.128.135
Posted on Monday, September 16, 2013 - 01:58 pm:   

Cinema has always been a juggling act between the popular and the arthouse, the big studio Hollywood mentality and the independents, Joel. That was as true in the silent era as it is today and, now like then, only the cream floats to the top and is noticed and remembered.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 212.183.128.135
Posted on Monday, September 16, 2013 - 01:59 pm:   

And that is as true of superhero movies as it is of any other genre.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Monday, September 16, 2013 - 05:37 pm:   

Like I've been saying, Joel—and last night surely proved this to me more than ever (see that other thread)—TV is experiencing a real renaissance, whereas film is in a big pothole.

Not such a big mystery: TV now is actively taking chances, being creative and innovative, cutting edge. All levels, all forms, all genres. Film is still locked in the flighty paranoid far-too-many-cooks-meddling template-obsessed (yes, I said it) mentality. Indie films can soar, but studio productions?... Something's gotta give. Something will, eventually, surely. I hope.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Tuesday, September 17, 2013 - 12:23 pm:   

Television is undeniably going through something of a second golden era but things aren't quite as bad on the cinematic front as some doomsayers would have us believe. In fact very little has really changed.

Last year was the poorest year for cinema since the bad old 1990s but so far this year things have much improved (apart from the poor summer, as usual).

I have seen 10 absolute ***** big screen masterpieces of their respective genres this year!

1. 'Stoker' by Park Chan-Wook - ***** horror/suspense thriller : A macabre Hitchcockian masterpiece that is the equal of any of the great man's finest achievements!!

2. 'Les Misérables' by Tom Hooper - ***** musical/historical epic : The greatest and most emotionally devastating, as well as impossibly entertaining, musical film ever made - end of story!!

3. 'Sleep Tight' by Jaume Balagueró - ***** horror/suspense thriller : One of the very best and creepiest psychological horror films of all time. In my opinion it is on a par with 'Peeping Tom'!!

4. 'Star Trek XII : Into Darkness' by J.J. Abrams - ***** science fiction : Dear God, but with this incredible masterpiece of popular sci-fi spectacle and sheer fun (the best of its kind since the original 'Star Wars') Abrams achieved the impossible by making the best (yes BEST!!) 'Star Trek' movie yet (and to win me over it had to be mega-orgasmic) as well as the greatest sci-fi movie of its decade, so far!!

5. 'Byzantium' by Neil Jordan - ***** horror : Who said vampire movies were dead and the horror genre in an unimaginative rut? I did!! And I was so fucking wrong, people!! With a single stroke of artistic rejuvanation Jordan has produced the first truly Lovecraftian and original bloodsucker masterpiece since Del Toro's 'Cronos'!!

6. 'Alan Partridge : Alpha Papa' by Declan Lowney - ***** comedy : Simply the most laugh out loud pant-wettingly hilarious big screen comedy since the glory days of Monty Python or the Airplane/Naked Gun movies but with a character that was 20 years in TV gestation. Is it the greatest comedy film of the modern era? It gets my vote, folks!!

7. 'Good Vibrations' by Lisa Barros D'Sa & Glenn Leyburn - ***** musical biopic/character drama : At last the Irish Film Industry has come of age (after the promise of 'The Guard') by producing the first truly honest feelgood movie about the years of bloody troubles in the 70s & 80s ever made. This is a stone cold classic old-fashioned biopic that uses the glory of music and the lifestory of a typical Irish eccentric to prove to that world that there is more to this great city and country than merely sectarian hatred and blowing each other to pieces!!

8. 'Beyond The Hills' by Cristian Mungiu - ***** horror/character drama/love story : Who thought it would be possible to make a lesbian love/horror story featuring demonic possession that concentrates on the two doomed individuals involved and completely espouses any hint of extremist tittilation? An impossibly effective exploration of superstitious religous intolerance and love devoid of sex that is a million miles away from the Hammer lesbian vampire stories of the 70s and is proof positive that genre cinema really has come of age!!

9. 'The Spirit Of '45' by Ken Loach - ***** documentary feature : The most emotionally powerful and righteously manipulative big screen documentary since Leni Riefenstahl's 'Triumph Of The Will' only this time all that cinematic genius was on the side of the Angels!! Only a passionate humanitarian genius like Ken Loach could have pulled it off and I now consider it one of his great masterpieces!!

10. 'Oz The Great And Powerful' by Sam Raimi - ***** fantasy epic : Peter Jackson eat your heart out! This is quite simply the masterpiece Sam Raimi's career has been building up to all along. At last he has equalled, if not surpassed, the freewheeling visionary genius of 'The Evil Dead' by giving us what is quite possibly the most awesomely beautiful and emotionally affecting big screen fantasy since 'The Thief Of Baghdad'. One to wallow in as pure old-fashioned cinematic spectacle with acres of heart and oodles of timeless entertainment value!! Yeah, it probably is his masterpiece!!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Tuesday, September 17, 2013 - 12:56 pm:   

Could television have achieved any of the above with anything like as much instant emotional impact? I think not.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Tuesday, September 17, 2013 - 04:45 pm:   

No, television is—to simplify it—for a different kind of story than the kind of story movies tell. A movie, any genre, is a chronicle of a life-changing event; a given TV episode, any genre, is the chronicle of a day-changing event. Oddly (and imho) TV is closer in form to the novel; film, to short stories & novellas.

Can you believe I've not yet seen ONE film on that list, Stevie?!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mbfg (Mbfg)
Username: Mbfg

Registered: 09-2010
Posted From: 212.219.63.206
Posted on Tuesday, September 17, 2013 - 06:24 pm:   

the money will always had for a safe port.

Referring back to "Hitchcock"...The impression given was that the studio wanted another "North By Northwest". To make the innovative and daring film he wanted make ("Psycho"), Hitchcock was forced to finance it himself. So, little has changed.

On the other hand, I think television has suddenly taken a lead in binging dramatic power and originality into the mainstream but there are also some cracking films out there.

Cheers
Tel
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 2.30.205.239
Posted on Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - 08:58 am:   

Stevie, there's very good stuff on your list but do try and get to see 'The Wall' (German) and 'Therese Desqueyroux' (French), which are both amazing – one low-key allegorical SF, the other a claustrophobic nightmare of the oppressiveness of rural family life. The latter film was actually made in 2012 but it took months to cross the channel, partly because its director passed away just after completing it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 2.30.205.239
Posted on Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - 09:01 am:   

'The Wall' may remind you of 'The Road', though the novel on which the former is based was written in the sixties and so any influence would be (in literary terms) the other way round.

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration