|
Post by kingstownted on Jun 7, 2010 22:09:17 GMT -5
Fire up the GPS, load up the cooler and kick off your shoes - we're hitting the road for our illustrious 10th From the Hip episode. It was a sunny summer day, far too nice to be sitting indoors around the mic so we took ourselves a trip and chatted about some pretty random topics. Subjects include the Blair Witch Project (yes, again...but there's a reason), Ridley Scott's new take on Robin Hood, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, HBO's The Pacific, Festival of Fear 2010, The Last Exorcism and lots more. We get some more input from the listeners through the voicemail line who bring up great thoughts on the Nightmare on Elm Street remake, the disparity between online friends and flesh and blood friends when it comes to horror interests, the ineffectiveness of The Exorcist (!?) and more insight into Italian Horror. Speaking of Italian horror, this week's film pick is The Church (1989) by Michele Saovi. An eclectic and somber take on the demon possession tale aided by some truly jolting images. We are very aware that this week's episode is relatively light on horror content and heavy on the voicemails but the fact is this was the content we watched this week and the commentary sent in from misterd, Bill, Matt and Alan was too good to not share. Many thanks for listening to our unfocused From the Hip episodes, they are a lot of fun for us to do and we hope you have some fun with them too. We always welcome your comments: horroretc@gmail.com Voicemail (206) 337-5324
|
|
|
Post by therottoenone on Jun 8, 2010 7:07:22 GMT -5
Aw come on, I liked Robin hood. Especially the fight seen between the bald villain and the blind widowed father. "Come fight me if you dare." LOL. I personally think its better than gladiator. Bt don't worry its just my opinion. Now I am off to be just like that valiant blind man who fought 'til the death. YEAH!
|
|
|
Post by saltychuck on Jun 8, 2010 13:47:49 GMT -5
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo sounds quite interesting. And here I thought it would be a romantic comedy, based on the title. Although Anthony did enjoy Sex and The City, apparently. And props to misterd (who, until as recently as a week ago, read his name as "Miss-turd", all apologies, I'm an idiot) for playing Devil's Advocate in the Nightmare on Elm Street argument. I don't agree completely, but hey, I enjoyed the remake anyway. I rate it as better than 2,5, and 6, on par with 4 and New Nightmare, and not as good as the original, Dream Warriors, or Freddy vs. Jason.
|
|
misterd
Frightful Fiend
Posts: 1,220
|
Post by misterd on Jun 8, 2010 22:00:08 GMT -5
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo sounds quite interesting. And here I thought it would be a romantic comedy, based on the title. Although Anthony did enjoy Sex and The City, apparently. And props to misterd (who, until as recently as a week ago, read his name as "Miss-turd", all apologies, I'm an idiot) for playing Devil's Advocate in the Nightmare on Elm Street argument. I don't agree completely, but hey, I enjoyed the remake anyway. I rate it as better than 2,5, and 6, on par with 4 and New Nightmare, and not as good as the original, Dream Warriors, or Freddy vs. Jason. A lot of people make the name mistake. Not a big deal. I would put the remake in a similar category - mid tier. The point I was trying to make was simply that its easy to nitpick any film to death. Nightmare '84 is a good film, but one with lots of flaws that we tend to overlook. If we were as unforgiving of that film as we are the remake, it'd never have been embraced. And if Anthony's going to see Sex and the City with chicks... Sounds like a good idea, but when groups of chicks go see chick flicks with one guy, it usually means they think he's gay, which limits the potential benefits.
|
|
|
Post by therottoenone on Jun 9, 2010 0:21:09 GMT -5
hey misterd, u killed my son well than fight me if u dare. LOL what did u yourself think of robin hood?
|
|
|
Post by ashclark on Jun 9, 2010 10:35:37 GMT -5
I would put the remake in a similar category - mid tier. The point I was trying to make was simply that its easy to nitpick any film to death. Nightmare '84 is a good film, but one with lots of flaws that we tend to overlook. If we were as unforgiving of that film as we are the remake, it'd never have been embraced.. I would have to personally disagree with your comments on the NOES remake and original for that matter. I agree the original isn't perfect but it's leagues ahead the remake. It may not be a Top 10 Horror film but I also wouldn't put up much of an argument if someone listed it in the Top 25 and it's definitely one of the best slasher films of all time. If the remake came out in the place of the original in 1984, It would of been treated like your average forgettable slasher. The Original actors weren't the greatest but they were likable. I couldn't give a crap about any of the actors in the remake. Even Haley seemed surprisingly miscast. Comparing it to the Friday the 13th, TCM and Halloween remakes. this one would come in last IMO. Which is too bad since it had the most potential for an updating.
|
|
|
Post by wolfemann on Jun 9, 2010 17:32:23 GMT -5
While I'm going to have to come out in support of what Mister D had to say - I've defended the film myself, and I think that saying it's the least of the remakes of the 'big four' requires a LOT of leeway being given to the Halloween remake that I'm not willing to do (I can't honestly watch it, despite trying several times).
Also, I thought I'd write in in reply to Bill's voicemail about mine about the Exorcist. I've thought about it some more, and I don't think the issue is that I've seen the ripoffs and spoofs. Granted, I did come to the film late in life - just a few years ago - but I think the issue is more that... well, to be honest, I think the film tries too hard.
Let me make this clear - the Exorcist is a good film, I'm not arguing that. I just argue that, for me, it's not at all scary. Occasionally shocking, but not frightening. And the reason is because I think it works too hard to try and convince everybody that, yes, something really supernatural is happening.
A little background - as some of you may remember, back when the guys did the "what was your earliest horror experience?" contest, I wrote in about my experiences with Clash of the Titans - "monster die in the movie in the water." When I was two, my parents drove into my skull that what happens in a movie is fake, what happens in the real world isn't. Very few films effectively manage to blur that line for me - and when they do, it's always on the strength of characterization and acting, not effects.
In the process of trying to methodically strip away every rational explanation (as I heard one reviewer say The Exorcist does skillfully), they fail to show what works best for me in an exorcism story - the emotional and spiritual oppression and degradation of the victim. We see Regan tearing herself apart, yes, but we don't really get any sense of what it's like for her beyond the physical. This is why Paranormal Activity works better for me - the focus in that movie is what happens to the characters, and particularly Katie's gradual falling apart and eventually succumbing.
It may also be partially because I already believe in supernatural elements and forces, and so don't need to be convinced. Just a thought there.
Oddly, movies that are *more* out there tend to work better for me than The Exorcist did; In the Mouth of Madness was, I thought, fairly effective. Trick 'r Treat was certainly fun. Though few of them are really frightening - who knows, maybe my brain's just not wired right. But for my fear factor, give me a movie like Spiral, Halloween, or Paranormal Activity over one like The Exorcist any day of the week.
|
|
misterd
Frightful Fiend
Posts: 1,220
|
Post by misterd on Jun 9, 2010 21:34:05 GMT -5
hey misterd, u killed my son well than fight me if u dare. LOL what did u yourself think of robin hood? Had no interest in seeing it at all. Seen enough versions of it, good andbad, and thisjust looked bland. Didn't see any point.
|
|
misterd
Frightful Fiend
Posts: 1,220
|
Post by misterd on Jun 9, 2010 21:41:19 GMT -5
I would put the remake in a similar category - mid tier. The point I was trying to make was simply that its easy to nitpick any film to death. Nightmare '84 is a good film, but one with lots of flaws that we tend to overlook. If we were as unforgiving of that film as we are the remake, it'd never have been embraced.. I would have to personally disagree with your comments on the NOES remake and original for that matter. I agree the original isn't perfect but it's leagues ahead the remake. It may not be a Top 10 Horror film but I also wouldn't put up much of an argument if someone listed it in the Top 25 and it's definitely one of the best slasher films of all time. Well, I don't disagree that the original is better. My point was only that many of the criticisms aimed at the remake (such as bad and too old actors) apply to both films. And the fact that you are putting it in top horror film lists only serves my point - it is a classic horror film but not a great film, period. And I'd dispute classifying it as a slasher film, but that's sort of pointless. Likability is purely a subjective thing, though, and as I said many of my students loved the film, and that's the generation they are aiming at. I'm not sure where I'd rate it among those, because I have mixed feelings about most of them. This is compounded by the fact that, hard as I try, the quality of the original is inevitably held agains the remake, and in that regard F13 has a much lower barrier than Halloween or TCM (with Nightmare in the middle). As for potential for updating, I went on abit of a rant about exactly that in the review thread (see Movies and TV forum), because of all these films it is the one that most could benefit from the update. I think they did some of what they needed to, but not nearly enough.
|
|
|
Post by Vampcat on Jun 11, 2010 12:11:43 GMT -5
Misterd.....
Just listened to Episode 140 - From the Hip, and I caught the reference about characters in horror movies that are no longer recognized to further generations when they aren't kept fresh in the public mind. I'm screaming, "Peter Vincent! Yeah!" while I'm doing the dishes and thinking that I'm so dating myself because my college students probably don't even know Fright Night nor do they probably even recognize the actor who portrayed Peter Vincent [Roddy McDowall]. *sigh*
|
|
|
Post by necronomics on Jun 11, 2010 21:49:17 GMT -5
I've tried hard, really hard not to do this. You see, I am that guy. That guy that sees the magnitude of remakes of films that I have grown up loving, that mean something to me, to be whored out by Platinum Dunes and its pimp Michael Bey and I rage.
To keep it in context to this weeks show and the Elm st review show, when Elm street first came out what was it about the film that on its on weight turned New Line into and actual production company? That spawned its many sequels, spin off episodes and yes piece of shit remake? That allowed us to only now talk about its flaws in an attempt to defend that remake? Its story and execution was brilliant, and done with and honest passion for the story and dare I say for the genre. And that's the thing that will always separate the originals from the PD cash grab.
I don't understand how people seem to forgive them for the horrible "re-imagining" of our horror cultural heritage (bit far? ok maybe) and celebrate mediocrity. And the thing is for every ticket sold it gets them ever so closer to doing it again. A passionless sell out of yet another horror icon
If they cared about their audience or the material they worked with it would be a whole other matter. Remakes and sequels are as much a part of horror as boobs and blood. But not Platinum Dunes. If I thought even for a moment they had any care for the genre they are strip mining maybe I wouldn't hate them and their work so much. But I just cannot see it.
I'll stop now before I have to TL:DR the post.
Stoopid Michael Bey and his.....grumble, grumble, grumble......back in my day......
|
|
misterd
Frightful Fiend
Posts: 1,220
|
Post by misterd on Jun 12, 2010 0:12:27 GMT -5
Misterd..... Just listened to Episode 140 - From the Hip, and I caught the reference about characters in horror movies that are no longer recognized to further generations when they aren't kept fresh in the public mind. I'm screaming, "Peter Vincent! Yeah!" while I'm doing the dishes and thinking that I'm so dating myself because my college students probably don't even know Fright Night nor do they probably even recognize the actor who portrayed Peter Vincent [Roddy McDowall]. *sigh* Just remember at some point our parents or grandparents likely felt the same way about us.
|
|
misterd
Frightful Fiend
Posts: 1,220
|
Post by misterd on Jun 12, 2010 0:23:34 GMT -5
I've tried hard, really hard not to do this. You see, I am that guy. That guy that sees the magnitude of remakes of films that I have grown up loving, that mean something to me, to be whored out by Platinum Dunes and its pimp Michael Bey and I rage. To keep it in context to this weeks show and the Elm st review show, when Elm street first came out what was it about the film that on its on weight turned New Line into and actual production company? That spawned its many sequels, spin off episodes and yes piece of shit remake? That allowed us to only now talk about its flaws in an attempt to defend that remake? Its story and execution was brilliant, and done with and honest passion for the story and dare I say for the genre. And that's the thing that will always separate the originals from the PD cash grab. I don't understand how people seem to forgive them for the horrible "re-imagining" of our horror cultural heritage (bit far? ok maybe) and celebrate mediocrity. And the thing is for every ticket sold it gets them ever so closer to doing it again. A passionless sell out of yet another horror icon Hold your horses. You say "passionless sell out" like its a new thing. Have you seen Freddy's Dead? Do you remember the very R-rated character being gradually neutered and made child friendly in the late 80s? This is nothing new. And I don't really see anyone "celebrating" the new Nightmare. The best responses (by older fans, at any rate) have been, at best, lukewarm (my own included). If anything the scales have tipped towards "rabid criticism". I hate second guessing people's motives or devotion to a project. Look, we all know these people are in the business for the money, or they'd be doing independent films with cameras from Best Buy. But that doesn't mean they don't love the property they are dealing with, and from all accounts, this is the franchise the PD people were most excited about relaunching. We have this sadly ingrained belief in our culture that motivation is what will lead to success. Fail? You just didn't try hard enough. The other guy wanted it more than you did. We can't seem to acknowlege (with few exceptions - see Uwe Boll) that no matter how much you love something, you just may not be able to get it done. Hell, I'll point to Bryan Singer. He had little or no investment in the X-Men, but his two films are considered the catalysts of the modern super-hero film genre, and X2 as one of its best entries. OTOH, he LOVED Superman, it was his passion project, and most feel he screwed that up. Same goes for Zombie's Halloween and Jackson's Kong. In the end, I don't see any reason point, or basis really, for attacking the filmmakers beyond the actual quality of the film.
|
|
|
Post by necronomics on Jun 12, 2010 2:17:05 GMT -5
Film makers, perhaps not. Studio, absolutely. Even the people who defend the new nightmare speak about how heavy the studio's hand was across the production which in the end left an inconsistent Freddy and mixed story line. Now I ask at what point did they stop to think about the franchises history and ask what they could bring to it?
Now I personally think everything after dream warriors went kinda down hill with the exception of new nightmare, in fact i cannot think of a single horror franchise that has managed top maintain its momentum. But is it to much to ask if these works must be remade that they actually do something with them. I would rather watch a laughable movie about an abandoned town that Freddy caused, then a poor retelling of a movie that didn't need to be remade.
In an ideal world Platinum Dunes would look towards Dawn of the Dead or the Thing to see how its done. But they don't. They take things we love under the guise of giving them to a new generation and the response to their films is "meh". So I don't see why they should get anything but our contempt.
|
|
|
Post by therottoenone on Jun 12, 2010 14:01:09 GMT -5
The trick is to remember these are only movies and have no real place society. Micheal Bay is not perfect but he is really decent at what he does and I love his style of film. I thought shutter island was overrated and was happy that i only paid a dollar and a half to see it. but thats just my opinion. But I must agree that the remake of a nightmare on elm street deserves our contempt. on a lighter note, who saw the season finale of fringe?
|
|