|
Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 19, 2021 17:11:03 GMT
Just saw 'The Batman' trailer starring Harry Potter while I was watching Chiefs/Washington There's another one of these coming out? How many times can you tell the same story? (to each their own)It's like Fincher does Batman. Not sure why every iteration of the character seems to get darker. I think the next Batman movie will be Batman: The Purge. It could have gone the other way instead; whatever today's equivalent of going from Burton to Schumacher is. I guess i'd rather have it this way.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 19, 2021 17:25:32 GMT
masterofallgoons klawrencio79 Just posted this on the Film General board, but I thought I'd run it past my sports board crew as well. (Apologies to any horror fans I didn't tag, goons and klaw are the first two guys that came to mind. Obviously I'm interested in everyone's input on the topic.) Spoilers for Halloween Kills (2021) ahead: This movie reaffirmed my dislike of horror movies. The old school slasher flicks were fun because they were ridiculous. The story, the bad acting, it was all goofy mindless fun. Even if they took themselves semi-seriously, there wasn't a ton of depth to any of the characters; they were all just archetypes at best, stock characters at worst. The fact that they attempt to give depth to the central characters in these newer films only to have the people behave just as stupidly, makes the entire endeavor pointless.
What I actually enjoyed about the previous installment was that the people took the fight to the killer. Instead of running like idiots and getting picked off one by one, they stood up to him and won. It was a refreshing take on the genre. This movie advertises itself as more of the same, but is really just a lazy commentary on mob mentality, seemingly turning Michael into almost an anti-hero by the end. And of course one of the main characters from the previous film is inexplicably killed by Michael at the end, after he teleports two blocks into the room to get her. Why she went back up into the room is anyone's guess. So the movie is not only a shit show of its own, it also ruins the previous film while it's at it.
I just don't understand what you're supposed to take away from this film. Who do you relate to, the mindless killing machine or the clueless imbeciles? Is it supposed to be dark comedy, like many of the old slasher flicks? If so, why put in scenes like the mother seeing her dead child in the hospital? What kind of emotion is that supposed to evoke, because it doesn't feel like it belongs in a movie like this.
And it isn't simply about the bad guy winning. I love plenty of movies where the bad guy wins. Chinatown, The Shining (the Overlook was the villain, folks), Fallen (1998), The Dark Knight (if you don't think the Joker won, you weren't paying attention), to name just a few. The stories are well written, the characters have depth and the stakes are clearly defined. Halloween Kills is just watching people who were clever in the previous film act like absolute morons and march to their deaths.
I don't get it. I don't understand the appeal. I have a theory that horror flicks are viewed as a type of social commentary by much (not all, obviously) of the audience; kids, minorities, working class seem to make up much of the demographic. So my theory is that horror movies reaffirm a message of hopelessness, and a system that's out to get you and will crush you no matter what. Even if I'm right, how is that escapism? You'd think they'd rather watch a movie where people stand up to the monster? If my theory is correct, it's sad that the audience is supposed to relate to victimhood and simply accept it; but it explains that scene of the mother finding her dead child in the hospital. Sorry to bring it up again, but that scene just doesn't belong in the same movie as the scenes with that couple who bought Michael's house. They were too funny and the hospital scene was too grimly realistic. It wasn't even gory or a jump scare, just bleak. A dead kid on a gurney as his mother screams and cries.
Going by my theory, the final battle with Michael and the crowd (just before he teleports to kill Karen) has disturbing implications. Either the very idea of rising up against your oppressor is being presented as pointless; or, going by the hospital mob scene (and the death of the other inmate that we're supposed to see as a tragedy), it was wrong of them to rise up in the first place. They took things too far and a date with Michael is their comeuppance. Again, I just don't understand the appeal, I don't understand what they were going for here, and honestly, I don't think they quite knew, either. End spoilers. As a palate cleanser I watched Freaky (2020) on Saturday night and thoroughly enjoyed it. It was stupid, it was fun. At no point did it take itself seriously, which made the ridiculousness much easier to stomach. Embrace the insanity and go whole hog with it. Don't try to inject drama into this kind of story unless you plan on writing a better script. To me, Freaky understands what it wants to be and hits it out of the park. A movie like Halloween Kills is less scary than it is depressing and downright frustrating to watch. Thoughts on this, guys? This is a pretty broad question. If the questions is 'why would anyone like horror movies?' there's a lot to say about the various types, how ever since movies were made, novels were written, theater was performed, or even stories were told, horror stories were always part of the equation.... but i'll spare all that rambling nonsense.since you've cited horror movies that you acknowledge are good it doesn't seem that the entirety of the genre holds zero appeal for you. It seems mostly that this particular movie is an issue for you. For the record, there's are a lot of people that agree that this movie went too far in one direction or the other. I'd agree that it has an uneven tone. On one hand it's wildly violent and has a couple of set pieces that really work and are very entertaining.. on the other the scene of the mother that you reference, and the scene of the mob doing something truly awful seem out of place in that context (I'm trying to avoid specifics so as not to be too spoilers). I had some issues with it too, but I also found that it was technically well made and the sequences that held a great deal of entertainment value were enough to distract from the other elements that felt wrong. Style and artistic flourishes can go a long way to making something that could be horrific and off-putting really fun and engaging (like Sleepy Hollow or, I'm guessing, Brotherhood of the Wolf...). There are a lot of inherent social implications in horror at large, but I don't think it inherently means that you go to a movie to have your worst thoughts confirmed so you can leave the theater as cynical and depressed as you went in. At least not always... or even usually. Certainly, for some people the more unpleasant and upsetting a horror movie is the better it is at doing its job. That's never bene my main goal, and I don't think it really holds true for most audiences. Many of the best horror stories that resonate the most have a character that stands up to the monster, whatever form that may take, and is better for it. And even in an upsetting story where awful things happen, that doesn't necessarily mean that the whole thing takes an overall hateful view of humanity. I'm not sure if you have any interest, but Mike Flannagan's Midnight Mass series for Netflix is a really challenging and in some ways grim story, but he's a real humanist and always seems to use horror as a way to sort of celebrate the humanity are extremely flawed, and real, people. This series is that idea in probably the purest and most pointed form he's done yet. But tone and balance are obviously the isseue you're taking with Halloween Kills, and while overall I had kind of a good time watching this movie go way over the top but still be somewhat grounded, I totally see how off putting that could be for some. I thought the last movie did it a little bit better, and the sort of confused messaging here does hinder it a bit (it was made almost 2 years ago and was delayed from last October, and the whole idea of what the mob mentality and rioting means plays very differently now... although it may never have been fully though out). But I also think it's worth noting what Klaw said; that this is part 2 of a new 'trilogy' and this is act 2. The last movie did feel more complete, but if you think of the 2nd act of a slasher or horror movie, all the terrible stuff has to happen in the middle before the 3rd act can show how the good can triumph in the face of the threat. It's fair to say that this movie suffers for it, certainly, but I think it's also fair to look at it as simply part of the story before the part that you may be more comfortable with... or maybe the next one is just as distasteful... We'll see. The last movie was very much Laurie's movie, and a real showcase for Jamie Lee Curtis... This movie was Michael Meyers' movie (or this more Jason Voorhees version of Michael Meyers), and that can be pretty uncomfortable at times. They've already said that the last one will be more about character and tying things up... but who knows? I also just recently watched a movie called The Voices with Ryan Reynolds. It had some of the same issues in a totally different way. On the surface it's a comedy about a pyschopath who imagines his pets talk to him and ends up killing people. He doesn't think of himself as a bad guy and really wants to be nice, but when he starts taking his meds you see how his life really is, just as he sees it for the first time, and it's truly unsettling. When he's on his meds it's a darkly comedic, sunny tone where his dog, cat, and some severed heads have pleasant conversations with him. And that's pretty funny and entertaining. When you see the reality of what's happening it's genuinely unnerving in a way that this movie is not prepared to handle deftly enough to make both things work. As I said, similar problem in a different way. I too, enjoyed Freaky, but that's a straight up comedy. It uses the framework of a comedy and applies it to the framework of a slasher movie, but as much as I don't really care for this parsing out of genre and these endless discussions of what is and is not a horror movie... I think it's pretty safe to say that Freaky is a comedy before it's anything else. But you're right that that's a case where the tone was balanced very well, and it never included anything that was actually too dark to detract from the idea that it was just a goofy comedy. Thanks for the well though out response, I knew I could count on you, goons. And it's also possible that I'm overthinking it, and in the case of slasher flicks it's as simple as 'people just want to see an animal tear shit up,' not unlike a kaiju flick but on a smaller scale. But to me if we're investing in characters the way we seem to be in this sequel trilogy, I'd expect the characters and story to have more substance. My wife actually brought up an interesting point, that we both like revenge thrillers but hated Halloween Kills. The difference to me again is characterization. As an audience we understand why the protagonist in a revenge thriller is doing terrible things. Even if you don't agree with everything they're doing, there's a purpose to the moral ambiguity. The mindless nature of the villain in slasher flicks (if we're supposed to view them as the protagonist) as opposed to their dopey victims seems like you're rooting for the bully in a school fight, it's never really worked for me. One thought I had, I'd love to see a Michael/Jason (or you choose the two horror icons) showdown flick where one of them is the hero (or at least anti-hero), trying to stop the other's reign of chaos-- or they're competing for the same target. Like Jason comes to Haddonfield because Laurie was a camp counsellor at Crystal Lake. How about Michael watches the video in the Ring? Something crazy like that could be incredible if they wrote a decent script. I never saw Freddy vs. Jason but I heard it was terrible. Maybe they could take another crack at it. Thanks for the recommendations, I might check that Ryan Reynolds flick out. Having discussed it now I'm actually more interested in seeing the final chapter of Halloween than I was on my way out of the theater, though I will say you can make a trilogy where the middle installment still has an arc and isn't 100% filler (or doesn't erase everything that made the first chapter interesting).
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Oct 19, 2021 17:53:01 GMT
I won't be in attendance, but the main feature at my local indie cinema tonight: The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) Not quite as shocking as it once was, but it remains a visceral experience. Few horror endings are as affecting as the final girl's escape. I need to watch this one again; it's been a few years.
|
|
|
Post by Rufus-T on Oct 19, 2021 18:13:55 GMT
I won't be in attendance, but the main feature at my local indie cinema tonight: The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) Not quite as shocking as it once was, but it remains a visceral experience. Few horror endings are as affecting as the final girl's escape. I need to watch this one again; it's been a few years. It took me a 2nd watch to really appreciate this movie. I saw it at least a couple more times after. I love how well this movie did with invoking the imagination of gore when hardly any blood was shown. The story was simple, but nothing too strikingly silly like many horrors. The score was minimal but very chilling too. Love that setting sun with the gong sound. That moment when Leatherface went nuts on the open road was iconic. The scene that always gave me the chill is when the girl got out the door but the arm from behind wrapped her and pulled her back. For what ever low budget this movie was on, this movie is an exceptional piece of film making. Now you brought it up, I may revisit it again sometime this or next week.
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Oct 19, 2021 21:24:27 GMT
Free Horror via Showtime - Benny Loves You (2021) - 'A plush animal named Benny embarks on a murderous rampage after its owner throws it in the trash.' 79% Rotten Tomato Score Let's Give It A Whirl!
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Oct 21, 2021 10:44:36 GMT
Squid Game kinda blows Most watched Netflix series ever? Back to horror movies - Open Water - very tense underrated shark flick with an ending that's haunted me for years Let's Do It!
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 21, 2021 13:04:04 GMT
Thanks for the well though out response, I knew I could count on you, goons. And it's also possible that I'm overthinking it, and in the case of slasher flicks it's as simple as 'people just want to see an animal tear shit up,' not unlike a kaiju flick but on a smaller scale. But to me if we're investing in characters the way we seem to be in this sequel trilogy, I'd expect the characters and story to have more substance. My wife actually brought up an interesting point, that we both like revenge thrillers but hated Halloween Kills. The difference to me again is characterization. As an audience we understand why the protagonist in a revenge thriller is doing terrible things. Even if you don't agree with everything they're doing, there's a purpose to the moral ambiguity. The mindless nature of the villain in slasher flicks (if we're supposed to view them as the protagonist) as opposed to their dopey victims seems like you're rooting for the bully in a school fight, it's never really worked for me. One thought I had, I'd love to see a Michael/Jason (or you choose the two horror icons) showdown flick where one of them is the hero (or at least anti-hero), trying to stop the other's reign of chaos-- or they're competing for the same target. Like Jason comes to Haddonfield because Laurie was a camp counsellor at Crystal Lake. How about Michael watches the video in the Ring? Something crazy like that could be incredible if they wrote a decent script. I never saw Freddy vs. Jason but I heard it was terrible. Maybe they could take another crack at it. Thanks for the recommendations, I might check that Ryan Reynolds flick out. Having discussed it now I'm actually more interested in seeing the final chapter of Halloween than I was on my way out of the theater, though I will say you can make a trilogy where the middle installment still has an arc and isn't 100% filler (or doesn't erase everything that made the first chapter interesting). Always happy to have these discussions as long as the question is asked in earnest and it's not just a dismissive 'how can you watch that crap?' kinda thing. I think the first point is relevant, in that this is a movie that established real characters in its predecessor, but now treats a lot of the proceedings as rote and many of its characters as murder fodder. It's not fully in keeping with the last movie (to some degree), and it definitely lessens the earnestness of the tone of that one. This, again, is all act 2. There's not much focus on character or plot, and the murder and gore quotient being upped to this degree is a fair critique. I'm not defending this movie fully, I understand and agree with a lot of the criticisms I've heard.. but I was willing to go with it and embrace that this was just an exercise in style and violent setpieces, while I also acknowledge that it's disappointing filler and not all middle sections of a 3 act trilogy are as minor, and especially when the last one was a it's own satisfactory (mostly) self contained 3 act story with a real ending of its own. But I'd also point out that not all horror is slasher, and not all slashers are throwaway with disposable characters. The original Halloween is about slow building tension (and not this deep dive into lore and the whole population of the town), but also is an earnest movie with characters that, while not necessarily extremely developed, feel like real people and are not there for the audience to wish death upon them. The original Nightmare on Elm Street is about the concept, but that first time out we aren't meant to side with Freddy Krueger, we are meant to sympathize with Nancy and even her friends. Wes Craven's New Nightmare for all of its special effects and it's wildly 'meta' or self referential, self aware, and cerebral concept is also relying on that its lead actress, who is playing herself in a version of her real life, is a likeable character with a real life, and when we get to scenes in a morgue and at a funeral of a loved one, those garish effects are genuinely upsetting because she's a worthwhile person and not just an archetype to throw awful things at, and the reinvention of Freddy Krueger in that movie is to make him less of the draw and less of the rooting interest. Even though there are some really gruesome images, and even if you don't come away liking it, I don't think the intent is to feel like life is cheap and violence is fun, I think it tries to earn its dramatic moments. In Scream Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson are playing with all the tropes so there is something to the idea of wanting to watch the bodies rack up, or to not care, but that's part of the point and the satire of it all, even to the characters themselves... and yet he tries to still show you likeable characters. Etc. Etc etc. etc. I wouldn't deny that in many cases the audience is meant to enjoy the killer's exploits in a slasher movie, and I think you could certainly make that argument about Halloween Kills, but I don't think that's exclusively the case. The idea of when and why we tolerate or even enjoy violence is a long, ongoing discussion, but tone certainly has to be a large part of it. What separates revenge movies from horror movies? I don't think it's just motivation, because so many of the revenge movies often fall into horror. So what separates them? Who the fuck knows? I've certainly heard compelling arguments that The Terminator or No Country for Old Men are essentially slasher movies, and I don't really have a good counter argument to that (especially Terminator... the tone is there). It's similar to the idea that people are so much more upset when they see an animal get killed in a movie than a person. Or that people think showing sexual violence on screen is going too far, but we all watch and often enjoy murders and killings play out, and even allow killing people to serve as slapstick comedy. I'm rambling now (as I often do) but one thing we didn't mention were the scenes set in 1978 just after the first film. I thought that was easily some of the best stuff in the movie, and that tone shows the difference between these two. That part was relatively tame with blood and violence and was more about building tension, and even treated its characters as sympathetic figures in their brief moments. It was much more in-line with the original movie. I always liked Freddy vs Jason. It's dumb fun, and there aren't gonna be any points where you find the legitimate drama of it to be too upsetting and ruin your time watching it. I know some people didn't like it, but I find it to be very enjoyable for the reason we are discussing here; it nails the tone. It's so fun and it's all about the style and fun of it all. The setup of it is pretty much what you're suggesting you'd wanna see, with Freddy Krueger needing to use Jason to remind people of his murders so they're afraid of him again (which he explains in a not-so-Shakespearean soliloquy), and then he gets made when Jason's killing rampage goes too far and takes victims away from him... and then still they try to set up Jason as a somewhat sympathetic character, even though he murders the fuck out of everybody. It's certainly not a great film by any stretch, but it is fun and entertaining, it has just barely enough characterization, and it has a slick and heightened style that makes the absurdity of the story make sense in its world. Between the two, I'd much prefer to watch Freddy vs Jason again than Godzilla vs Kong.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 21, 2021 14:57:53 GMT
Thanks for the well though out response, I knew I could count on you, goons. And it's also possible that I'm overthinking it, and in the case of slasher flicks it's as simple as 'people just want to see an animal tear shit up,' not unlike a kaiju flick but on a smaller scale. But to me if we're investing in characters the way we seem to be in this sequel trilogy, I'd expect the characters and story to have more substance. My wife actually brought up an interesting point, that we both like revenge thrillers but hated Halloween Kills. The difference to me again is characterization. As an audience we understand why the protagonist in a revenge thriller is doing terrible things. Even if you don't agree with everything they're doing, there's a purpose to the moral ambiguity. The mindless nature of the villain in slasher flicks (if we're supposed to view them as the protagonist) as opposed to their dopey victims seems like you're rooting for the bully in a school fight, it's never really worked for me. One thought I had, I'd love to see a Michael/Jason (or you choose the two horror icons) showdown flick where one of them is the hero (or at least anti-hero), trying to stop the other's reign of chaos-- or they're competing for the same target. Like Jason comes to Haddonfield because Laurie was a camp counsellor at Crystal Lake. How about Michael watches the video in the Ring? Something crazy like that could be incredible if they wrote a decent script. I never saw Freddy vs. Jason but I heard it was terrible. Maybe they could take another crack at it. Thanks for the recommendations, I might check that Ryan Reynolds flick out. Having discussed it now I'm actually more interested in seeing the final chapter of Halloween than I was on my way out of the theater, though I will say you can make a trilogy where the middle installment still has an arc and isn't 100% filler (or doesn't erase everything that made the first chapter interesting). Always happy to have these discussions as long as the question is asked in earnest and it's not just a dismissive 'how can you watch that crap?' kinda thing. I think the first point is relevant, in that this is a movie that established real characters in its predecessor, but now treats a lot of the proceedings as rote and many of its characters as murder fodder. It's not fully in keeping with the last movie (to some degree), and it definitely lessens the earnestness of the tone of that one. This, again, is all act 2. There's not much focus on character or plot, and the murder and gore quotient being upped to this degree is a fair critique. I'm not defending this movie fully, I understand and agree with a lot of the criticisms I've heard.. but I was willing to go with it and embrace that this was just an exercise in style and violent setpieces, while I also acknowledge that it's disappointing filler and not all middle sections of a 3 act trilogy are as minor, and especially when the last one was a it's own satisfactory (mostly) self contained 3 act story with a real ending of its own. But I'd also point out that not all horror is slasher, and not all slashers are throwaway with disposable characters. The original Halloween is about slow building tension (and not this deep dive into lore and the whole population of the town), but also is an earnest movie with characters that, while not necessarily extremely developed, feel like real people and are not there for the audience to wish death upon them. The original Nightmare on Elm Street is about the concept, but that first time out we aren't meant to side with Freddy Krueger, we are meant to sympathize with Nancy and even her friends. Wes Craven's New Nightmare for all of its special effects and it's wildly 'meta' or self referential, self aware, and cerebral concept is also relying on that its lead actress, who is playing herself in a version of her real life, is a likeable character with a real life, and when we get to scenes in a morgue and at a funeral of a loved one, those garish effects are genuinely upsetting because she's a worthwhile person and not just an archetype to throw awful things at, and the reinvention of Freddy Krueger in that movie is to make him less of the draw and less of the rooting interest. Even though there are some really gruesome images, and even if you don't come away liking it, I don't think the intent is to feel like life is cheap and violence is fun, I think it tries to earn its dramatic moments. In Scream Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson are playing with all the tropes so there is something to the idea of wanting to watch the bodies rack up, or to not care, but that's part of the point and the satire of it all, even to the characters themselves... and yet he tries to still show you likeable characters. Etc. Etc etc. etc. I wouldn't deny that in many cases the audience is meant to enjoy the killer's exploits in a slasher movie, and I think you could certainly make that argument about Halloween Kills, but I don't think that's exclusively the case. The idea of when and why we tolerate or even enjoy violence is a long, ongoing discussion, but tone certainly has to be a large part of it. What separates revenge movies from horror movies? I don't think it's just motivation, because so many of the revenge movies often fall into horror. So what separates them? Who the fuck knows? I've certainly heard compelling arguments that The Terminator or No Country for Old Men are essentially slasher movies, and I don't really have a good counter argument to that (especially Terminator... the tone is there). It's similar to the idea that people are so much more upset when they see an animal get killed in a movie than a person. Or that people think showing sexual violence on screen is going too far, but we all watch and often enjoy murders and killings play out, and even allow killing people to serve as slapstick comedy. I'm rambling now (as I often do) but one thing we didn't mention were the scenes set in 1978 just after the first film. I thought that was easily some of the best stuff in the movie, and that tone shows the difference between these two. That part was relatively tame with blood and violence and was more about building tension, and even treated its characters as sympathetic figures in their brief moments. It was much more in-line with the original movie. I always liked Freddy vs Jason. It's dumb fun, and there aren't gonna be any points where you find the legitimate drama of it to be too upsetting and ruin your time watching it. I know some people didn't like it, but I find it to be very enjoyable for the reason we are discussing here; it nails the tone. It's so fun and it's all about the style and fun of it all. The setup of it is pretty much what you're suggesting you'd wanna see, with Freddy Krueger needing to use Jason to remind people of his murders so they're afraid of him again (which he explains in a not-so-Shakespearean soliloquy), and then he gets made when Jason's killing rampage goes too far and takes victims away from him... and then still they try to set up Jason as a somewhat sympathetic character, even though he murders the fuck out of everybody. It's certainly not a great film by any stretch, but it is fun and entertaining, it has just barely enough characterization, and it has a slick and heightened style that makes the absurdity of the story make sense in its world. Between the two, I'd much prefer to watch Freddy vs Jason again than Godzilla vs Kong. To state the obvious, it all comes down to personal preference. I think a lot of modern horror is over reliant on CGI and jump scares, which don't do anything for me. I've always been partial to more cerebral horror. Don't get me wrong, I'll watch Sleepy Hollow all day but that's more about ambiance than anything else to me; and it's more of an action/horror kind of mashup, which I think I delved into the last time we talked about it. And yeah we don't need to get into a treatise on why violence is so appealing in film, but again I guess the difference, for my personal taste, is motivation. I'm all for a righteous kill (not the movie, don't get me started) by a vigilante or someone who was wronged out for revenge, but less interested in slasher flicks where the villain 'is just evil.' In that regard I might be part of the problem with bad remakes, because as I understand it, part of the issue with the Rob Zombie Halloween remakes were that they tried to humanize Michael. (These next few paragraphs are going to be a bit of a digression, so bear with me). Ultimately it's a personality trait for me. I'm very objective oriented, I like a story that's about something specific. A story arc with a resolution; or with the lack of a resolution, an understanding of why that resolution did not occur. I mentioned a few films earlier that didn't have resolutions, and I love the shit out of those. Some of the best Law & Order episodes are the ones where they lose the case. Sometimes stuff goes sideways and there's nothing you can do. I just need to be able to relate to the ongoing situation in some way. Most horror movies leave me lost as to why anyone is doing anything; which isn't necessarily the point. The buildup of tension itself is probably the draw to the audience, as you pointed out. The occasional lack of resolution is intentional, leaving you feeling raw, on edge. That's a horror movie's job. In the past you and I have discussed my dislike for movies about asshole characters. Upon further analysis (based on our discussion here, this is why I love this board), I realized I don't avoid those movies simply because the people are unlikeable; plenty of movies feature unlikeable characters who are fantastic to watch. It's again about plot. I see the trailer for Wolf of Wall Street and I say to myself, what is this movie about? "Come watch an asshole be an asshole." But what's it about? And clearly it's nuanced and Marty is making a commentary on guys like Belfort, or presenting them in a light where the audience can decide how they feel about them, but my mind is already made up. There's no journey to go on, no objective to attempt to reach. It's a hollow exercise for me. That doesn't make the film hollow, it simply doesn't resonate with me. For that same reason, my least favorite film genre by far are romantic comedies. And I've tried to talk to women about this, and they always immediately turn it into a Mars vs Venus thing and say they hate action movies, but that isn't the point I'm making. We're guys and thus not the target audience for those, for the most part. Anyway the dumbest and most ridiculous of action movies, to me, still have a basic central theme: there are bad guys out there, and somebody should stop them. Even if you want to break it down to its purest form of wish fulfillment, some guys watch those movies and think, "Yeah, wish that was me kicking ass and putting everyone in line," or whatever. So the wish fulfillment is a desire to do something interesting. Romantic comedies, to me, are insulting to women. It seems like they're always some bumbling woman falling through life until she meets Mr. Right. As opposed to the male wish fulfilment where he wants to accomplish something, the message of these films is apparently, "I hope he likes me." What a shitty message. For the life of me I'll never understand why these movies appeal to women. Digression over. Circling back to horror. As I stated in my initial post on Halloween Kills, I always try to understand what the message is for a film or genre of films. And I can be way off, because I'm branding it with my own assumed message and could very well be missing the point entirely. All films aren't meant to accomplish the same thing; there doesn't have to be a specific theme beyond tension, shock, uneasiness. Sometime people just want to be disturbed by something. The violence in itself is a perfect representation of that. It's the almost cartoonish nature of the kills in a slasher flick that probably entertains hardcore fans, but horror encompasses much more than slasher flicks. Sometimes people just want to be thrown off their guard a little. It isn't the violence, it isn't Michael's motivation; it's the unknown. We don't know Michael's motivation because that isn't the point. As Carpenter himself told the guy playing Michael in the first Halloween, when he asked what his motivation in the scene was, "His motivation is to get to the next mark." Horror is about the unknown. My social/political analysis may be partially true in some cases, but it isn't nearly the entire story. It's life, it's death, it's the bump in the dark, it's uncertainty about your job, your future, your family. Anxiety. Fear. It's a way to confront your fears, and maybe in the case of slasher flicks make a mockery of them. In a way, maybe that's my issue with not being able to relate to them. It isn't their fault. Like I've mentioned about most modern comedies, they don't do anything for me. Action movies provide me with plenty of comedy on their own. Maybe horror movies have also been overshadowed by my appreciation for the ridiculousness of action movies. I watch horror movies and say, "Why doesn't somebody just shoot this motherfucker and be done with it?" Or, "The house is haunted? Just burn it down and call it a day." I don't like uncertainty, and it's my problem solver brain taking over when I'm supposed to be letting my subconscious embrace the uncertainty. Anyway I'm sure I'll be checking out the next Halloween installment when it comes out, but I'm on my own. My wife is out, she informed me when I brought it up last night. I don't think she likes the violence and gore. That was never my issue, and that may say more about me than her...
|
|
|
Post by bluerisk on Oct 21, 2021 19:56:16 GMT
The fast forward laughs of Tom got me. 4:33
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on Oct 21, 2021 20:38:41 GMT
Dark Encounter, a film on Amazon Prime. Dreadfully dreary pish. AVOID.
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Oct 21, 2021 21:45:24 GMT
Dune premieres on HBO Max in 15 minutes I'm going to keep an open mind and try to expand my horizons - I never saw the original but heard horrible things I disdain fantasy/sci-fi/action hero movies I'll let you know my review shortly - unless this is like 6 hours long
** Edit - just checked the run time. 2 hours and 35 minutes of staring at sand? Didn't they try this with water and Kevin Costner and Waterworld? Welp - I may be in for a lonnggg night
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Oct 22, 2021 7:53:55 GMT
I gave Dune an honest shot
About a half hour - then lost interest and just had it on in the background and turned it off after about an hour
Universal War over oregano. Kid was dressed up like the Star Trek that was about Darth Vader's upbringing. Could see the plot/outcome coming from a mile away. Kid gets upset his people are being controlled and struggles with joining the dark side in his quest to get control the oregano industry for his people.
Had a dark tone to it - I did enjoy the background music and seeing Dave Batista and guy from Game of Thrones that was married to that hot blonde
That's about it. Give it a shot if you like fantasy/fairy tales - you'll probably love it
Back to some horror movies
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Oct 22, 2021 10:55:56 GMT
New Horror Show via Netflix - Appears to be about a serial killer 'The Chestnut Man' (2021) - 'A figurine made of chestnuts is found at the scene of a grisly murder; from this creepy clue, two detectives hunt for a killer...' 7.9 IMDB Score Let's Do It!
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 22, 2021 11:02:02 GMT
I gave Dune an honest shot No you didn't.
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Oct 22, 2021 14:30:45 GMT
I won't be in attendance, but the main feature at my local indie cinema tonight: The Evil Dead (1981) Special showing for its anniversary. Hard to believe that these 80s classics are all celebrating or approaching their 40th birthday. It's been a while since I've seen The Evil Dead - I rewatched its sequel more recently, and the remake before that when it premiered in 2013.
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Oct 22, 2021 14:36:23 GMT
I won't be in attendance, but the main feature at my local indie cinema tonight: The Evil Dead (1981) Special showing for its anniversary. Hard to believe that these 80s classics are all celebrating or approaching their 40th birthday. It's been a while since I've seen The Evil Dead - I rewatched its sequel more recently, and the remake before that when it premiered in 2013. I had always been partial to Evil Dead II: Dead by Dawn (which is amazing) and I really enjoyed the remake that came out a few years ago. Having not seen it for many years, my opinion was always that the original was just too low budget and kinda cheesy, but then I gave it a re-watch right at the beginning of the pandemic and holy shit was it great. Honestly man, go to this if you can. You won't be disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 22, 2021 14:56:50 GMT
To state the obvious, it all comes down to personal preference. I think a lot of modern horror is over reliant on CGI and jump scares, which don't do anything for me. I've always been partial to more cerebral horror. Don't get me wrong, I'll watch Sleepy Hollow all day but that's more about ambiance than anything else to me; and it's more of an action/horror kind of mashup, which I think I delved into the last time we talked about it. And yeah we don't need to get into a treatise on why violence is so appealing in film, but again I guess the difference, for my personal taste, is motivation. I'm all for a righteous kill (not the movie, don't get me started) by a vigilante or someone who was wronged out for revenge, but less interested in slasher flicks where the villain 'is just evil.' In that regard I might be part of the problem with bad remakes, because as I understand it, part of the issue with the Rob Zombie Halloween remakes were that they tried to humanize Michael. (These next few paragraphs are going to be a bit of a digression, so bear with me). Ultimately it's a personality trait for me. I'm very objective oriented, I like a story that's about something specific. A story arc with a resolution; or with the lack of a resolution, an understanding of why that resolution did not occur. I mentioned a few films earlier that didn't have resolutions, and I love the shit out of those. Some of the best Law & Order episodes are the ones where they lose the case. Sometimes stuff goes sideways and there's nothing you can do. I just need to be able to relate to the ongoing situation in some way. Most horror movies leave me lost as to why anyone is doing anything; which isn't necessarily the point. The buildup of tension itself is probably the draw to the audience, as you pointed out. The occasional lack of resolution is intentional, leaving you feeling raw, on edge. That's a horror movie's job. In the past you and I have discussed my dislike for movies about asshole characters. Upon further analysis (based on our discussion here, this is why I love this board), I realized I don't avoid those movies simply because the people are unlikeable; plenty of movies feature unlikeable characters who are fantastic to watch. It's again about plot. I see the trailer for Wolf of Wall Street and I say to myself, what is this movie about? "Come watch an asshole be an asshole." But what's it about? And clearly it's nuanced and Marty is making a commentary on guys like Belfort, or presenting them in a light where the audience can decide how they feel about them, but my mind is already made up. There's no journey to go on, no objective to attempt to reach. It's a hollow exercise for me. That doesn't make the film hollow, it simply doesn't resonate with me. For that same reason, my least favorite film genre by far are romantic comedies. And I've tried to talk to women about this, and they always immediately turn it into a Mars vs Venus thing and say they hate action movies, but that isn't the point I'm making. We're guys and thus not the target audience for those, for the most part. Anyway the dumbest and most ridiculous of action movies, to me, still have a basic central theme: there are bad guys out there, and somebody should stop them. Even if you want to break it down to its purest form of wish fulfillment, some guys watch those movies and think, "Yeah, wish that was me kicking ass and putting everyone in line," or whatever. So the wish fulfillment is a desire to do something interesting. Romantic comedies, to me, are insulting to women. It seems like they're always some bumbling woman falling through life until she meets Mr. Right. As opposed to the male wish fulfilment where he wants to accomplish something, the message of these films is apparently, "I hope he likes me." What a shitty message. For the life of me I'll never understand why these movies appeal to women. Digression over. Circling back to horror. As I stated in my initial post on Halloween Kills, I always try to understand what the message is for a film or genre of films. And I can be way off, because I'm branding it with my own assumed message and could very well be missing the point entirely. All films aren't meant to accomplish the same thing; there doesn't have to be a specific theme beyond tension, shock, uneasiness. Sometime people just want to be disturbed by something. The violence in itself is a perfect representation of that. It's the almost cartoonish nature of the kills in a slasher flick that probably entertains hardcore fans, but horror encompasses much more than slasher flicks. Sometimes people just want to be thrown off their guard a little. It isn't the violence, it isn't Michael's motivation; it's the unknown. We don't know Michael's motivation because that isn't the point. As Carpenter himself told the guy playing Michael in the first Halloween, when he asked what his motivation in the scene was, "His motivation is to get to the next mark." Horror is about the unknown. My social/political analysis may be partially true in some cases, but it isn't nearly the entire story. It's life, it's death, it's the bump in the dark, it's uncertainty about your job, your future, your family. Anxiety. Fear. It's a way to confront your fears, and maybe in the case of slasher flicks make a mockery of them. In a way, maybe that's my issue with not being able to relate to them. It isn't their fault. Like I've mentioned about most modern comedies, they don't do anything for me. Action movies provide me with plenty of comedy on their own. Maybe horror movies have also been overshadowed by my appreciation for the ridiculousness of action movies. I watch horror movies and say, "Why doesn't somebody just shoot this motherfucker and be done with it?" Or, "The house is haunted? Just burn it down and call it a day." I don't like uncertainty, and it's my problem solver brain taking over when I'm supposed to be letting my subconscious embrace the uncertainty. Anyway I'm sure I'll be checking out the next Halloween installment when it comes out, but I'm on my own. My wife is out, she informed me when I brought it up last night. I don't think she likes the violence and gore. That was never my issue, and that may say more about me than her... You and I could discuss this stuff at great length, and have, and I'm sure will continue to do so... But i'll try to keep this response relatively brief this time, for me at least. I think violence in movies being palatable certainly has a lot to do with individual taste, and motivation of the circumstances, but I don't think the way in which it's presented can be discounted either. As an example I'll cite Django Unchained, in which there are different styles of violence as determined by what reaction Tarantino is trying to get. Most of it is that almost comical over the top crazy blood spraying that's presented in almost a fun and cathartic tone. Yes, the motivation is clear, but it's shown that way to reinforce that idea. Then there's a scene where a poor slave who just wants the violence to end is attacked by dogs. This is a genuinely upsetting and emotionally distressing moment, both because of the context and evil motivation for attacking this guy, but also the stark and brutal way it's depicted. If that guy's scene was handled in the same way that one of the bad guy's death scenes was handled it would feel completely out of place. Yeah, I kinda feel like motivation can kill tension.. sometimes. Like the final scene in Psycho with the doctor explaining everything we could already have assumed from the movie preceding it... or Rob Zombie's Halloween where we see the abusive home life and school life of a young Michael Meyer's and how he develops into a killer. That's mostly because Rob Zombie is not a good writer and wasn't suited to that material, but the notion in the original that Michael was a regular kid who just snapped one day was always more compelling to me, and the sequels trying to bring in cults and curses and stuff felt increasingly dumb and out of place. Then again Jason and Freddy have clear motivations, but they also got pretty dumb... so there's no one way to make it work. Something like the Wolf of Wall Street is an interesting study, because structurally it's a tragedy, and yet it's completely presented like a comedy to make it palatable. It's similar in a way, but a different approach to A Clockwork Orange, which I discussed with someone recently, and is sort of on this topic. Somebody said they found it weird that Alex was likable, and that never occurred to me really. I find Malcolm McDowell very charismatic, but he's one of the most deplorable protagonists in the history of cinema, or literature for that matter. Much of the violence in that movie is completely without any real sense of motivation, and the presentation of it makes it especially disturbing because its presented so callously and in such a light tone. But he has to be a horrible monster in order for the central question and theme to resonate. I'm not sure how you feel about that movie, but it's sort of on topic here and yet outside of both the camps we are discussing. There's no question that Halloween Kills muddled a lot of its messaging. It's not a great script by any stretch, and I'd agree it's not inline with the last movie, and definitely not inline with the original. But as I said before I think The Terminator is a pretty similar villain... even the robotic movements seem influenced by Nick Castle as Myers... But the new movie isn't really about much other than the bloodbath and its style, which I can understand being off putting, but was just completely hollow entertainment value to me. A lot of those new haunted house or ghost or killer movies that overly rely on jump scares or CGI are lame to me too, and the question of 'why don't you just leave' or something like that is valid, but horror also affords filmmakers to make great leaps in style and artistry that other genres often don't; and a movie like Midsommar that's completely ABOUT the question of why people make bad decisions that they know won't turn out well can reach deeply into the psyche in a way that a movie about the same themes couldn't never get to. And the horror of the unknown is also why the genre so closely relates to mystery. Many slashers are simply whodunits with more blood, and many whodunits are just slashers without much blood. On the other hand, some are just comforting in their rigid adherence to formula. Dumb horror movies are just dumb fun in the way that I also understand the dumb fun of a romantic comedy. I get it, they're not good, but the idea of a the slight variation on what you've already seen makes for just easy viewing. You don't have to think. I'm mostly certainly gonna be watching about a dozen of Hallmark's Christmas movies this year. They'll all be absolutely terrible, but i'll have fun watching them, or keeping them on in the background Frogs-style. But I'm also just a sucker for ridiculing bad movies. By the same token I can enjoy dumb action movies sometimes. Even the good ones usually don't give much thought to the motivation. Sure John Wick has a quick and convenient reason for killing literally everybody, but it's not deep characterization or anything. It's just an excuse to get to the mayhem. I'm sure there is dialogue in the Mission Impossible movies, but the ones I've seen I couldn't recall a single line spoken by an actor. I just remember the stunts. That's all they are about. And I can enjoy them on that level sometimes. On the other hand, I can't fucking tolerate a Michael Bay movie for a minute. I suppose I'm much more aesthetically driven. Aesthetics are often dismissed as 'style over substance' when in fact many films are style as substance.. but we can be drawn by different things. Anyway, I probably rambled far longer and digressed for more than anyone would care to read, yet again, even after I said I wouldn't ... but I guess that's in my nature. But I think I found Brotherhood of the Wolf on my cable's on-demand thing. I might do a double feature with that (finally) and Sleepy Hollow sometime before Halloween, since I haven't watched it yet this year or headed over to some of the Sleepy Hollow events yet this season.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 22, 2021 14:59:17 GMT
I won't be in attendance, but the main feature at my local indie cinema tonight: The Evil Dead (1981) Special showing for its anniversary. Hard to believe that these 80s classics are all celebrating or approaching their 40th birthday. It's been a while since I've seen The Evil Dead - I rewatched its sequel more recently, and the remake before that when it premiered in 2013. I had always been partial to Evil Dead II: Dead by Dawn (which is amazing) and I really enjoyed the remake that came out a few years ago. My opinion was always that the original was just too low budget and kinda cheesy. I gave it a re-watch right at the beginning of the pandemic and holy shit was it great. Honestly man, go to this if you can. You won't be disappointed. I still feel like it's kinda cheesey because it's meant to be earnest. It could have something to do with it being tainted since I'm more familiar with the sequel, which is fucking hilarious and endlessly entertaining. But there is a lot to admire about the ingenuity of the first movie and how they made so much out of so little. Army of Darkness is great too, and I also loved the series, and I enjoyed the remake as well. I also saw Evil Dead: The Musical at The New World Stages when it was still in an off-broadway run. It was fucking blast.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 22, 2021 15:18:50 GMT
You and I could discuss this stuff at great length, and have, and I'm sure will continue to do so... But i'll try to keep this response relatively brief this time, for me at least. I think violence in movies being palatable certainly has a lot to do with individual taste, and motivation of the circumstances, but I don't think the way in which it's presented can be discounted either. As an example I'll cite Django Unchained, in which there are different styles of violence as determined by what reaction Tarantino is trying to get. Most of it is that almost comical over the top crazy blood spraying that's presented in almost a fun and cathartic tone. Yes, the motivation is clear, but it's shown that way to reinforce that idea. Then there's a scene where a poor slave who just wants the violence to end is attacked by dogs. This is a genuinely upsetting and emotionally distressing moment, both because of the context and evil motivation for attacking this guy, but also the stark and brutal way it's depicted. If that guy's scene was handled in the same way that one of the bad guy's death scenes was handled it would feel completely out of place. Yeah, I kinda feel like motivation can kill tension.. sometimes. Like the final scene in Psycho with the doctor explaining everything we could already have assumed from the movie preceding it... or Rob Zombie's Halloween where we see the abusive home life and school life of a young Michael Meyer's and how he develops into a killer. That's mostly because Rob Zombie is not a good writer and wasn't suited to that material, but the notion in the original that Michael was a regular kid who just snapped one day was always more compelling to me, and the sequels trying to bring in cults and curses and stuff felt increasingly dumb and out of place. Then again Jason and Freddy have clear motivations, but they also got pretty dumb... so there's no one way to make it work. Something like the Wolf of Wall Street is an interesting study, because structurally it's a tragedy, and yet it's completely presented like a comedy to make it palatable. It's similar in a way, but a different approach to A Clockwork Orange, which I discussed with someone recently, and is sort of on this topic. Somebody said they found it weird that Alex was likable, and that never occurred to me really. I find Malcolm McDowell very charismatic, but he's one of the most deplorable protagonists in the history of cinema, or literature for that matter. Much of the violence in that movie is completely without any real sense of motivation, and the presentation of it makes it especially disturbing because its presented so callously and in such a light tone. But he has to be a horrible monster in order for the central question and theme to resonate. I'm not sure how you feel about that movie, but it's sort of on topic here and yet outside of both the camps we are discussing. There's no question that Halloween Kills muddled a lot of its messaging. It's not a great script by any stretch, and I'd agree it's not inline with the last movie, and definitely not inline with the original. But as I said before I think The Terminator is a pretty similar villain... even the robotic movements seem influenced by Nick Castle as Myers... But the new movie isn't really about much other than the bloodbath and its style, which I can understand being off putting, but was just completely hollow entertainment value to me. A lot of those new haunted house or ghost or killer movies that overly rely on jump scares or CGI are lame to me too, and the question of 'why don't you just leave' or something like that is valid, but horror also affords filmmakers to make great leaps in style and artistry that other genres often don't; and a movie like Midsommar that's completely ABOUT the question of why people make bad decisions that they know won't turn out well can reach deeply into the psyche in a way that a movie about the same themes couldn't never get to. And the horror of the unknown is also why the genre so closely relates to mystery. Many slashers are simply whodunits with more blood, and many whodunits are just slashers without much blood. On the other hand, some are just comforting in their rigid adherence to formula. Dumb horror movies are just dumb fun in the way that I also understand the dumb fun of a romantic comedy. I get it, they're not good, but the idea of a the slight variation on what you've already seen makes for just easy viewing. You don't have to think. I'm mostly certainly gonna be watching about a dozen of Hallmark's Christmas movies this year. They'll all be absolutely terrible, but i'll have fun watching them, or keeping them on in the background Frogs-style. But I'm also just a sucker for ridiculing bad movies. By the same token I can enjoy dumb action movies sometimes. Even the good ones usually don't give much thought to the motivation. Sure John Wick has a quick and convenient reason for killing literally everybody, but it's not deep characterization or anything. It's just an excuse to get to the mayhem. I'm sure there is dialogue in the Mission Impossible movies, but the ones I've seen I couldn't recall a single line spoken by an actor. I just remember the stunts. That's all they are about. And I can enjoy them on that level sometimes. On the other hand, I can't fucking tolerate a Michael Bay movie for a minute. I suppose I'm much more aesthetically driven. Aesthetics are often dismissed as 'style over substance' when in fact many films are style as substance.. but we can be drawn by different things. Anyway, I probably rambled far longer and digressed for more than anyone would care to read, yet again, even after I said I wouldn't ... but I guess that's in my nature. But I think I found Brotherhood of the Wolf on my cable's on-demand thing. I might do a double feature with that (finally) and Sleepy Hollow sometime before Halloween, since I haven't watched it yet this year or headed over to some of the Sleepy Hollow events yet this season. Do it! We have to talk about BOTW, dude. They just released another 'collector's edition' or whatever on blu ray which might explain why it appeared on a service. Overall I understand the mindless entertainment value of most genres, even romantic comedies. (Even if I think the messaging is shitty.) In the end, all genres have the same pitfalls. Any movie can be poorly written, poorly acted, the pieces don't come together, whatever. The issues are only magnified in my mind when I'm not particularly interested in the material in the first place. A bad action movie is just as unwatchable as much of the horror genre to me, especially as I get older. When I was a kid, I could watch trash for days on end. Once you have kids and your free time is limited, you just don't have patience for stuff that doesn't appeal to you I guess. Ironic that you bring up John Wick, because I actually think the franchise has gotten worse with each installment. On the surface it appears to be world building, but none of it makes any sense at all, so it comes across as cinematic gibberish. I've also never been a fan of the MI films beyond the De Palma one. I think they try to be style and substance but accomplish neither. Thanks for the great conversation, and watch BOTW asap. It's the perfect time of year for it (I usually wait until November, but this is just as well). I can't wait for your commentary, even if you don't like it. There's so much to discuss.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Oct 22, 2021 16:26:00 GMT
I watched "The Last Duel" on the big screen yesterday. Ridley Scott directs Matt Damon, Adam Driver, Jodie Comer and Ben Affleck in a retelling of the true story of the last legally-sanctioned trial-by-combat in France, way back in 1386. Epic historical movies are my cup of tea, so it was practically a given that I would enjoy it – and I did. That in spite of two (IMHO) questionable casting choices: Ben Affleck, who doesn’t have the gravitas for the role he played (which fortunately wasn’t too big), and Adam Driver, who is a good enough actor but who is just too weird looking (and whose character is supposed to be noticeably handsome – I am no expert in male beauty but I don’t see how any woman could describe him as “handsome”).
|
|