|
|
Post by janntosh on Aug 1, 2020 17:59:46 GMT
where they spend pretty much the whole review acting like this film is the downfall of cinema and society
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Aug 1, 2020 22:08:07 GMT
No cheerfulness, no hope, and no trust in human nature? ME?!
This is actually the Friday where the final girl and killer are most developed. You'd think Ginny, who was pretty progressive for a final girl at the time, might get some points. But these guys just saw what they wanted (or didn't want) to see.
In fairness(?), the slasher craze must have been pretty shocking at the time. I try to see it from their perspective and had similar thoughts on the torture craze of the 2000s, although I wasn't this dramatic and condescending about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dramatic Look Gopher on Aug 2, 2020 2:04:16 GMT
If there any people who were more anti-slasher, it was these two guys. They sure went on a major crusade against the genre, and pretty much lost the battle.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 2, 2020 2:12:25 GMT
I highly dislike the movie too, but not for the same reasons.
It is just a very boring slasher movie imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 2, 2020 2:14:04 GMT
If there any people who were more anti-slasher, it was these two guys. They sure went on a major crusade against the genre, and pretty much lost the battle. The both loved Halloween, so I guarantee there are people who are more anti-slasher than they were. Most slasher movies are disliked and written off as cinema garbage. There are exceptions, but mainstream critics have always hated the genre. |
|
|
|
Post by Dramatic Look Gopher on Aug 2, 2020 2:22:52 GMT
If there any people who were more anti-slasher, it was these two guys. They sure went on a major crusade against the genre, and pretty much lost the battle. The both loved Halloween, so I guarantee there are people who are more anti-slasher than they were. The fact that none of the Friday the 13th movies have good ratings on any major broad movie website is telling. True, they did like Halloween, I'll give them that. But they had complete disdain and hatred for all the rest of the slashers. You ought to look up Ebert's review of The Hitcher; he absolutely loathed it. |
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Aug 2, 2020 2:49:19 GMT
I never liked the slasher genre.
I do watch giallos and some of them are very sadistic in their violence (Black Belly of the Tarantula) but they are more artistic.
The tv ad for it was well done though!
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 2, 2020 3:02:26 GMT
The both loved Halloween, so I guarantee there are people who are more anti-slasher than they were. The fact that none of the Friday the 13th movies have good ratings on any major broad movie website is telling. True, they did like Halloween, I'll give them that. But they had complete disdain and hatred for all the rest of the slashers. You ought to look up Ebert's review of The Hitcher; he absolutely loathed it. I am a big fan of Roger Ebert, so I know about his review for The Hitcher. He had a misplaced moral problem with the entire genre. Halloween is a bit different as a movie compared to most slasher movies in that it is about suspense more than gore and killing and is one of the few in the genre to do it well imo. I generally dislike the slasher genre too, but not for the same reasons that Roger Ebert did. |
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Aug 2, 2020 3:53:22 GMT
So, thumbs up?
|
|
|
|
Post by janntosh on Aug 2, 2020 4:16:56 GMT
They didn’t just dislike the slasher genre, they despised it. They genuinely thought it was an example of moral and societal failure
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Aug 2, 2020 4:31:58 GMT
Maybe they could have told us how they really feel about the movie.  |
|
|
|
Post by janntosh on Aug 2, 2020 5:11:44 GMT
if you thought that review was funny check out their review for Friday the 13th Part 4. Ebert's moral outrage is a sight to behold
and their review of Silent Night, Deadly Night where they name and shame the filmmakers and call the profits they will make from the movie "blood money"
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Aug 2, 2020 5:59:35 GMT
They were staunch opponents of the gory horror movies that were popularised in the early 80s. Which is ironic when one considers that Ebert was (as mentioned above) a fan of John Carpenter's Halloween - arguably the movie that launched the genre into mainstream success. I don't agree with them, but I'd say it was a generation thing as much as anything else. Those two reviewers were of a different vintage. Slashers were designed for a younger, relatively niche audience at the time. And graphic on-screen violence had only been commonplace for a couple of years at that stage. We've been so inundated by extreme violence on film for so many decades now that the impact just isn't the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 2, 2020 13:43:33 GMT
They were staunch opponents of the gory horror movies that were popularised in the early 80s. Which is ironic when one considers that Ebert was (as mentioned above) a fan of John Carpenter's Halloween - arguably the movie that launched the genre into mainstream success. I don't agree with them, but I'd say it was a generation thing as much as anything else. Those two reviewers were of a different vintage. Slashers were designed for a younger, relatively niche audience at the time. And graphic on-screen violence had only been commonplace for a couple of years at that stage. We've been so inundated by extreme violence on film for so many decades now that the impact just isn't the same. Halloween is a brilliantly crafted and well written slasher movie that isn't gory at all. Michael Myers kills 4 people in the entire movie and there is almost no blood. This was intentional on John Carpenter's part, because he is more interested in suspense and ideas than in violence. Halloween H20 is also more about ideas and characters than about violence. The main focus of the movie is Laurie Strode's post traumatic stress and coming face to face with her past again. Most slasher movies by comparison are silly, poorly written movies that are violence for fun. They are exploitation movies that are just made for money and to draw people that just want to see teenagers being murdered. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 2, 2020 14:42:43 GMT
I agree on certain points and I think the reason they were acting as if it was the downfall of cinema at the time is because of how many of these movies were being released during that time period. In between 1980 and 1983 there were already a ton of slasher movies.
The TV trailer that they show is a bit disconcerting in that it is just showing how many people the audience will see be brutally murdered. I find that preview appalling personally, so I definitely agree with them on that point.
I also agree that most of the slasher movies during that time period (and in general) are boring, poorly written, poorly directed garbage. Ironically, the Friday the 13th series are slasher movies from the time that I don't find particularly depressing or cynical, I just think they are dumb and redundant.
Coincidentally I watched Pieces (1982) last week, which is a crappy Giallo imitation. The crappiness has a lot more to do with the directing and acting than the story though. This movie focuses on the police much more than the killer.
|
|
|
|
Post by avocadojoe on Aug 3, 2020 0:37:45 GMT
I liked Roger Ebert okay. But I thought Gene Siskel was smug and superior acting. Didn't like him at all.
One thing that almost all critics do not do is allow for the qualities of a certain genre that they are pre-disposed to dislike. I don't know of any critic that actually likes the slasher genre. None. (And the first "Halloween" does not count here.) To most of these critics, they're all rotten movies. Leonard Maltin is more sensitive and fair-minded than most, with his ** ratings for F13th, part 3; Terror Train and Prom Night.
I am pretty much the same way with big budget action, super hero pictures and the Merchant-Ivory stuff. But at least i can say that this is because I just don't like this kind of movie and I could give some explanation as to why. Siskel and Ebert (and others) should at least have made an effort to critique the movie on its own terms. At least I know I would have enjoyed it if they had. It could have been very interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by janntosh on Aug 3, 2020 0:51:11 GMT
I don’t care that they don’t like the movies. I mean let’s be honest the Friday the 13th movies aren’t very good. I just thought it was interesting that they didn’t just dislike it, but seemed flat out angry ad appalled at these films
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 3, 2020 2:18:44 GMT
I highly dislike the movie too, but not for the same reasons. It is just a very boring slasher movie imo. I love the atmosphere of it, but there is just not much payoff in the violence and gore department. It was cut to ribbons, as was the better My Bloody Valentine - 81' by the MPAA, due to concern that slasher movie violence was contributing to the breakdown of society as John Lennon had recently been shot. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 3, 2020 2:23:06 GMT
I liked Roger Ebert okay. But I thought Gene Siskel was smug and superior acting. Didn't like him at all. One thing that almost all critics do not do is allow for the qualities of a certain genre that they are pre-disposed to dislike. I don't know of any critic that actually likes the slasher genre. None. (And the first "Halloween" does not count here.) To most of these critics, they're all rotten movies. Leonard Maltin is more sensitive and fair-minded than most, with his ** ratings for F13th, part 3; Terror Train and Prom Night. I am pretty much the same way with big budget action, super hero pictures and the Merchant-Ivory stuff. But at least i can say that this is because I just don't like this kind of movie and I could give some explanation as to why. Siskel and Ebert (and others) should at least have made an effort to critique the movie on its own terms. At least I know I would have enjoyed it if they had. It could have been very interesting. These high profile critics had a lot of pull in this era and could easily make or break a film. FT13th series though are really critic proof. It wouldn't have mattered what they said, because the demographic target audience, teens, many wanted to see it regardless of what self-absorbed and self-important critics think.
It was a smash hit, made a lot of money for Paramount and S&E just ended up acting as childishly as the audience that flocked to see it. Their bulls<>t walked in this instance. Ya can't keep a good genre down!!! |
|
|
|
Post by avocadojoe on Aug 3, 2020 2:51:37 GMT
I liked Roger Ebert okay. But I thought Gene Siskel was smug and superior acting. Didn't like him at all. One thing that almost all critics do not do is allow for the qualities of a certain genre that they are pre-disposed to dislike. I don't know of any critic that actually likes the slasher genre. None. (And the first "Halloween" does not count here.) To most of these critics, they're all rotten movies. Leonard Maltin is more sensitive and fair-minded than most, with his ** ratings for F13th, part 3; Terror Train and Prom Night. I am pretty much the same way with big budget action, super hero pictures and the Merchant-Ivory stuff. But at least i can say that this is because I just don't like this kind of movie and I could give some explanation as to why. Siskel and Ebert (and others) should at least have made an effort to critique the movie on its own terms. At least I know I would have enjoyed it if they had. It could have been very interesting. These high profile critics had a lot of pull in this era and could easily make or break a film. FT13th series though are really critic proof. It wouldn't have mattered what they said, because the demographic target audience, teens, many wanted to see it regardless of what self-absorbed and self-important critics think.
It was a smash hit, made a lot of money for Paramount and S&E just ended up acting as childishly as the audience that flocked to see it. Their bulls<>t walked in this instance. Ya can't keep a good genre down!!! Yeah, I really do enjoy the early 80s slasher pic. I just think they're fun. I just got done watching a Siskel and Ebert special episode on "women in danger" (wish I could post it here, but I'm not able to do that from my phone). And really they just get so much stuff so wrong. Oh, to make a list! First, they are always saying how these slasher pics almost always feature young, sexy, half naked women getting killed in gruesome ways. And that the killer is usually some sexually frustrated man who is angered by these women. I'd say this is partially true. They heavily cited the first "Friday the 13th", even using the whole scene where Annie gets picked up by the driver of the jeep. Ummm... hello! That's no sexually frustrated man there, fellas! Then they fail to mention that in many of these movies (and all of the Fridays and Halloweens), there are just as many male victims as there are female victims. Not to mention that the final survivor is I think always without exception a woman. And these two pompous, clueless critics really step up the ignorance and they start citing films like "The Howling", "When a Stranger Calls" and "Motel Hell", none of which belong on this list whatsoever. "Motel Hell" was a black comedy, for Pete's sake! And Roger Ebert actually gave it ***, so I wish he would have said something to his more arrogant partner. |
|
