![]() |
the Transfiguration, pretty decent
![]() |
Quote:
AAAAAAA I WANT TO SEE! |
i was scrolling down the page, buzzed, and saw the name of ZEMECKIS
i fucking hate zemeckis! he's the spielberg disciple who made forrest gump yeah? you can keep him to yourself. i will have none. |
Quote:
Baaaahaha. Yeah Forrest Gump sucks. |
Goddammit! Will you people leave that film alone.
Feel like Sev when someone does a dig about Kanye. Well maybe not that far, but it's still annoying! |
Quote:
Haha. Ok. Ok, fair enough. Sorry. |
Quote:
IT'S STILL THERE WITH THAT ANNOYING VOICE "liiiife is like a box of chaaaaaclits..." :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: --- also it's not my fault that someone wrote "zemeckis". i just glazed over and started convulsing. |
Blame Severian :P He's the one that didn't realize the Frighteners wasn't directed by him.
|
You know what? You can all just blast off up your own asses!
"Blame Severian meh meh meehmehblah" Dicks! ;) |
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001765/
career of Harry Dean Stanton, goes all the way back to 1959! '54 actually! |
loved Harry Dean Stanton in the roles I saw him in. RIP
|
Quote:
Yeah. Very sad. He was probably the best character actor of all time. RIP. |
![]() The Blair Witch I love the 1st one but found myself zoning out about a 1/4 of the way into this. Some scenes are pretty creepy but I just couldn't get into any of the characters enough to really care what happened to them. The second half seems little more than people running around in the dark |
Quote:
There was something really special about the original. It was genuinely terrifying. Felt like it was happening, and could happen. Then they let MTV produce the terrible godawful sequel. Then the reboot or whatever. I heard it was awful. Have no interest in seeing it. |
Hate to say it but I'm getting close to writing off contemporary horror. If someone strongly recommends something I'll give it a try but I increasingly feel like I'm not just wasting money on new releases but time, when I could be seeking out older stuff I haven't seen before which, from experience, is almost guaranteed to be better.
|
Quote:
Yep. There seems to be maybe one horror movie every five years or so that's truly great. Like the most recent one I can think of was "The Witch," and it was very atypical for a horror film. So much so that it's not even really "horror" — still, it's the kind of film that seeps into your bones. Before that there was "Let the Right One In," which was fucking fantastic, but again very weird for a horror film. Almost more art-housey at times (like "The Witch.") there are probably a couple fun, worth-watching horror films that pop up on a semi-annual basis, like "It Follows" ... and I hear this new "IT" is pretty good. But are they great? Nah. Maybe two great ones per decade. Looking into older films is almost certainly a better bet. Though I have heard good things about "Transfiguration" and "Raw," neither of which I can substantiate as I've seen neither. My guess is that they both subvert the rules of the genre in some way. If they really are good, that is. |
![]() Nobody seen this yet? I saw it last weekend. Damn good adaptation of the novel. |
Quote:
Still mulling over seeing it tonight possibly. |
Symbols, watch this one though... seriously. It's really goddamn good.
![]() |
Quote:
Thinking about it. I hear it only adapts the first half of the book... which, y'know... thank God. I have a theory that you could lop off 50% of all Stephen King stories and have a pretty decent set of entertaining, if never even approaching brilliant, books with only a few horrendous duds left over. But that's not how things are, and so we have what we have. |
Quote:
The Witch is very much horror. Why it when a good horror movie comes out, people suddenly want to rebrand it something else? People need to be proud of being a horror movie. Non horror websites like to say if a movie is good it transcends the horror genre and doesn't need to be called a horror movie. Movies like The Exorcist, or Se7en get called psychological dramas. Fuck that, they are horror movies. IT is not written by Stephen King "the master of coming of age drama with scary elements" he's the "master of horror". I just hate this rebranding of successful horror movies as a way to sell it to audiences who don't want to see a horror movie. |
Quote:
Uh. Ok. Stephen King is no master of horror though. That's Lovecraft. Period. Stephen King is the master of fast book-writing. Like John Grisham and James Patterson but with more rape and monsters and, actually, veritable FUCK TONS of coming-of-age stories. Like, it's a bit baffling that you would choose the phrase "coming-of-age" to describe what Stephen King is not... He's almost as well-known for that very thing as he is for "horror." Anyway, I think you know what I meant. There's a massive difference between a film like The Witch, or Antichrist, and the average slasher flick. A fucking world of difference. I guess I could say "high horror" and "low horror," but that sounds pretentious and stupid and fuck it I'm not doing it. You know what I'm talking about. Genres are only useful to a certain point. It's possible for something to be terrifying and not be traditional horror. It's possible for genres to blend and merge and evolve. If "horror" is the tag we're using to describe everything from The Birds to Freddy V. Jason to the Witch, and there's no room to alter or modify the term, then it's an invalid label that is virtually meaningless. |
That's what sub-genres are for, and frankly I have little use for sub genre titles. Is "Alien" any less of a horror movie cause the killer is non human? Most horror fans would say "Alien" is a horror movie every bit as much as it is a sci-fi movie. I also don't like this distinction of high brow horror and low brow/grindhouse horror. I enjoy Psycho just as much as I do The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but because one movie is deemed more gross or violent people regulate TCM as a grind house movie. The Exorcist was a movie that blended both the high brow with the low brow. So you get all that creepy, thoughtful stuff, and you get a girl stabbing her vagina with a crucifix. I just don't feel the need for horror fans to justify any movie to the mainstream audience.
|
Quote:
there's a lot packaged here so i'll try to unwrap it i didn't know road to perdition was a sam mendes thing. i'll try to watch it on that basis. i avoided it at the time because i couldn't stand tom hanks back then. now i do. but trying to tout its merits by shitting on american beauty is kinda... it's not the most effective thing. AB was a very good movie about midlife crisis. it wasn't really "about" teenagers, although teenagers are both characters in it and plot devices. annette benning was great in it, the marine dude chris something what's his name he was great in it. c.j. cregg as the braindead wife was great in it. everyone was great in it. but anyway i don't know about this "no teenage ever" claim. maybe you never talked that way but... their dialogue wasn't an issue with me at all. i'd have to go look at old reviews and interviews and see who said what but i think it's the first time ever i hear this criticism (not saying it's false by virtue of that, just that i'd have to think about if this is true for me) one could also say though "i've never heard a dead person tell their story." well sure. but that would be besides the point. oh! lunchtime. gtg. will continue later |
I agree that the 1st Blair Witch was a good movie. And I didn't see the dang thing until a couple of years ago, and it still creeped me out.
Also yes the rebooted Blair Witch just didn't have the same punch. It's the kind of thing that makes me realize what worked so well for the 1st one: it was more about the stuff you didn't see. I think I felt it more viscerally in the first. It was almost like I was there with them. In the forest, hearing strange stuff. Anyway. I also want to see the new IT. I loved the novel, and am a huge Stephen King fan. :) |
The Stephen King books I like I really like, and I'm willing to forgive his periodic dips in form just because when he does hit, he really does. Revival, his most recent horror novel, is one of the best horror stories I've read in a long time and absolutely not the work of someone cynically just churning it out, a la Patterson.
|
re: teenagers in american beauty
http://ew.com/article/1999/09/28/sur...-american-pie/ there's more links but super-tired at the moment eta: here's a revisit at 15 that puts things into context http://ew.com/article/2014/09/15/ame...h-anniversary/ funny thing she talks about the 10,000 babies because alan ball got that phrase from an actual teenage girl anyway i agree with some things and disagree with others in that conversation, but would support the conclusion that it's "a classic, not a masterpiece". details aside, or who likes what/approves of what, seems about right. intersubjectivity is a difficult business. |
Quote:
Ok, well... fair enough and I'm on board with that for sure, but can we please agree that Stephen King is not the master of horror, and the H.P. Lovecraft, indesputably, is? Please? |
Quote:
You're right. Probably not the best way to recommend a movie by crapping on another movie. I saw AB in the theater and was very impressed by it initially, as most of us probably were, and moved by it as well. Kevin Spacey is brilliant. Annette Benning is brilliant. It stuck with me. But on repeats viewings later on, the teenagers didn't really ring true for me. Like, any of them. Not saying it's right, because I went to school with some seriously posh kids who had similar stories to tell and did similar things, but something about the way these kids were characterized made the movie feel hamfisted to me later on. That's all. I just really liked Road to Perdition and kind of resented the fact that it didn't get the same attention. But maybe I'd watch that now and have qualms too. Who knows? I'm just giving you my most recent opinion. I'm probably due to rewatch both films. |
Quote:
Ok. Sure. I still think the teenage dialogue is flat and just plain "off" and trying too hard to be "on" even if it had the right direction. But it's definitely way better than freaking American Pie. Yeah, classic, non-masterpiece. |
Quote:
My favorite is "The Shining" and the first Dark Tower book. Also enjoyed "the Green Mile." Others, like the second Dark Tower book, or "Christine," are just so goddamn trashy. He is entertaining, and a deft enough writer (non-fiction wise, I think he's aces, really), but his overall style is simply not my cup of tea. I've heard a lot of Gaiman/King comparisons over the years, and I guess if those two are comparable, then I'm a Gaiman guy. More of a flowery approach, sure, but more my speed. Also, sufficiently terrifying when he needs to be. |
alan ball went on to write six feet under which is another non-masterpiece classic of tv's golden age. very good, just not sopranos/the wire/breaking bad level
from then it was true blood. which started over-the-top great then turned into a preposterous cartoon. okay, maybe it was always a preposterous cartoon, i still enjoyed the earlier seasons. hm, i wonder how the wire looks in retrospective. i'd like to rewatch it soon. classic? or masterpiece? (my money is on masterpiece) eta: ricky's plastic bag was alan ball's plastic bag: http://aaspeechesdb.oscars.org/link/072-23/ last: i also reeeeeeally love the first 3-4 seasons of the west wing, when sorkin was still involved. a tv show that ages well is a rare thing, but i'll willing to take refuge in it again regardless. |
So I bit the bullet and will see IT in a few hours.
|
Quote:
West Wing was GREAT. Definitely aged well. As close to masterpiece-level as network tv got back then. West Wing and LOST were the last truly great network shows before the prestige tv and streaming boom started. I don't actually think there are any GREAT network (by which I mean "basic cable": NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox) shows anymore. I loved True Blood season one but never watched season two. I should get back to that. |
Quote:
Quote:
we should take this to the TV thread but HANNIBAL was an NBC show and it was *great*. looked and felt more like an HBO show but then it got cancelled. too smart for mainstream audiences? i dont know--american ninja is cheaper to produce i suppose, or whatever it is people watch. you haven't still gotten into buffy/angel, eh? ha ha ha. man. |
Quote:
I tried really hard with Buffy. I watched several episodes... most of the first season. But when given the choice between that and other stuff, other stuff wins. Didn't we go over this already? I feel like we left it at I'll watch the rest of Buffy when you read the rest of "The Sparrow." Er something. Which is actually a much better deal for you, because the sparrow can be read in a day, easily. |
Quote:
I haven't seen it yet but I'm sure I will. I don't understand, though, why studios are still trying to squeeze an 800 page novel into a feature-length movie when surely its natural domain is now TV serialisation. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
no i wasnt trading ha ha. just asking if you did since for many people buffy is one of those shows that changed tv. a day! who has a day to waste? i could die any minute. anyway just here on a quick break. i don't know what's happening w/ the threads lately. we're totally changing topics in every one of them ha ha ha probably a good thing! |
Quote:
Yeah, I noticed that too. Probs my fault. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:48 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All content ©2006 Sonic Youth