Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 18, 2009 18:16:12 GMT
I re-watched half of Wolf Creek on TV over Christmas. Still goooood.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Feb 19, 2009 2:50:56 GMT
So two remakes, one from 8 years ago, and WOLF CREEK which I haven't seen.
That's it for Hollywood horror?
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Feb 19, 2009 3:42:39 GMT
I remember liking Grudge 2 in theaters couple of years ago. I also liked Descent. I don't know if either of these is hollywood.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Feb 19, 2009 5:57:38 GMT
I remember liking Grudge 2 in theaters couple of years ago. I also liked Descent. I don't know if either of these is hollywood. I think DESCENT is more UK than Hollywood, but that's up for debate. I still need to see that fully in the Director's Cut, aka the International Version. Apparently that American edit retards it up, to fit with the norm of most Hollywood horror these days. You know, the GODDAMN Jump Scare Ending, which hasn't worked since FRIDAY THE 13TH.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 19, 2009 16:13:50 GMT
Wolf Creek is Australian. Still good, though.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Feb 19, 2009 18:13:45 GMT
Wolf Creek is Australian. Still good, though. That doesn't surprise me. I mean I know kids today may not understand this, but there was a time when America was like, you know, a consistent breeding ground of horror cinema....and not necessarily remakes! Is a problem that most American productions that do try are helmed by nerds without a lick of talent or creative originality of inspiration to their bones? Yeah I'm looking at you, Eli Roth.
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Feb 19, 2009 22:33:34 GMT
WOLF CREEK is a far better movie then most critics would like you to believe it. And despiste playing it a bit to convention, in it's execution is quite different. Hell for half of the movie, you wouldn't even dream it's an horror movie, just a road trip movie about this two girls and a guy.
And the ending is quite unhollywood. Really, Wolf Creek is quality.
As for THE DESCENT, there is only one version of that movie, one true version. That thing you got in the USA, call it whatever you like, but don't call it THE DESCENT, because it isn't.
Eli Roth, let me tell you this, CABIN FEVER is misunderstood, and so far i liked his two HOSTEL movies. There are far, far worst guys them him. Inm fac,t i say he has not only talent but the enthusism for the horror genre. And in every movie he makes, you cna see the love and respect for the genre. Hate him for who he is, he might be a jerk in real life, and an unbearable human being, but as a director he really is a guy who loves what he does, and does what he loves, and it shows. I rather have him then those souless hacks who work for Michael "Piece Of Shit" Bay's horror classic remakes.
You know what i think about ehat is the problem about american horror? the probkem is, everythig is seen as hard-sale, and those horror movies are done with that in mind. It's not that there aren't people that want to make good horror, nor that there is not a market for that. The problem is, this studios who make them have in their staff too many people who were trained as shoes salesmen. They always think of broader audience. They don't trus the talent they hire, nor the product they make. So, this shoe salesmen "teach" the filmmakers how to make a movie, instead of just worriying about accountaint.
Basically, in USA they shorchange the filmmakers and they misunderstadn their own movies and they do not care much about the public. They are not fans doing the kind of movies they would like to watch in a theater. And it shows.
Really, notice the resurgence of horror in Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Spain, France, UK, even in Sweden and Norway. What does this tell us? Simply, that people are there making the kind of movies they want to make, and they trust their product enough they don't worry about niche markets or broad markets or whatever to the point of cripling the movies proper. They think of them as movies, not just a product, if you know what i mean.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Feb 19, 2009 22:40:52 GMT
I didn't bring them up because I haven't seen them in over a decade. I mean I gotta be fucking fair or try at least, right? Besides, I think my pissyness is with a pointless/creatively-blank remake* of the original FRIDAY THE 13TH, which not creative in the first place, but was a satisfyingly very good genre thriller exercise. As already noted, if indeed this film is a 'remake', it is a 'remake' of Part 2 (or Parts 2 & 3), not the original. And yes, I think you should probably try to be fair. And I think that would entail refraining from illogical evaluations of films you haven't seen that are based solely on their association with Michael Bay, and would also involve treating with equal indignation ALL "creatively blank" so-called 'remakes', if that's the full substance of your objection to them.
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Feb 20, 2009 13:10:25 GMT
All Michael "Shit" Bay's movies are shit, be they directer of only produced by him. There's no two ways about it. The only fairness to a review of his "movies" is if you drink the kool-aid and put soem lame arse appologistic shit like "it's giant robots fighting, it's not shakespeare" type of retarded coments to excuse not pissing upon a movie which should be pissed upon.
FRIDAY 13TH remake has to double whammy of having both Marcus "Fired Fom End Of Days" Niespiel and Mickey "Ass" Bayass responsible for it. Which means it's shit. Each on their own decises are shit, together they are still shit.
FRIDAY THE 13TH remake is a crap movie? WELL, I NEVER!!!!!! WILL WONDERS EVER CEASE?
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Feb 22, 2009 5:05:15 GMT
As already noted, if indeed this film is a 'remake', it is a 'remake' of Part 2 (or Parts 2 & 3), not the original. Yeah it only takes the title of the FIRST movie. Shit I haven't been this damn confused since RAMBO, or is it RAMBO IV, since you know there was RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART II followed by RAMBO III, and then just RAMBO... Fuck I'm confused again! ;D And yes, I think you should probably try to be fair. And I think that would entail refraining from illogical evaluations of films you haven't seen that are based solely on their association with Michael Bay, and would also involve treating with equal indignation ALL "creatively blank" so-called 'remakes', if that's the full substance of your objection to them. You don't know me that well, do ya? Go read up my review of 30 DAYS OF NIGHT. Go ahead, look it up, and that explains in effect my pissyness with current Hollywood Horror, why I can't give a fart to check out supposed "good" works that Capo and Arkady (two good tastes that sometimes correspond with mine) recommend. Better yet, how about the fact that I saw Bay's produced TCM remake, and hated it. Also saw the prequel/sequel, didn't like it either. The same goes with his AMITYVILLE HORROR* and THE HITCHER remakes. So exxxxcuuuuse me if I'm not exactly shaking my boots to check out his latest blandly-shot/duller-than-dishwater/creative-as-Chef-Boyardee produced remake. *=Though that one I dont care about, since the original was meh.
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Feb 22, 2009 12:49:13 GMT
Don't talk to me about THE HITCHER remake, man!!! Talk about a difference in quality form original to remake. Let me say this, 10 years from now, nobody will remember the remake exists. It's like the 3rd original run TEXAS CHAINSAW MASACRE movie, only the most extrme horror fans saw it, and only those who are not that dedicatedto the genre but saw the first movie DVD know it exists. Same thing.
Platinium Dunes, that outfit just exists to extract money from gullible moviegoers by making brand name remakes. In this business of "money is what only matters", my greatest consolation is that Nolan made far more money by making one truly great movie then a certain hack has in all his carrer by making the most dumbed down movies in american cinema history. There's a certain wicked consolation knowing that.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Feb 22, 2009 15:18:16 GMT
All Michael "Shit" Bay's movies are shit, be they directer of only produced by him. There's no two ways about it. The only fairness to a review of his "movies" is if you drink the kool-aid and put soem lame arse appologistic shit like "it's giant robots fighting, it's not shakespeare" type of retarded coments to excuse not pissing upon a movie which should be pissed upon. FRIDAY 13TH remake has to double whammy of having both Marcus "Fired Fom End Of Days" Niespiel and Mickey "Ass" Bayass responsible for it. Which means it's shit. Each on their own decises are shit, together they are still shit. FRIDAY THE 13TH remake is a crap movie? WELL, I NEVER!!!!!! WILL WONDERS EVER CEASE? In fact, you don't yet know whether this movie is good or not. Michael Bay's films are not bad simply because Michael Bay directed them. If it was revealed that Transformers had actually been directed by Martin Scorsese, it wouldn't make the film any better. Likewise, if it was revealed that Bay had actually secretly directed The Dark Knight, it would have no bearing on the quality of the film (whatever you take it to be). This is an irrational cult of personality.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Feb 22, 2009 15:45:26 GMT
You don't know me that well, do ya? Go read up my review of 30 DAYS OF NIGHT. Go ahead, look it up, and that explains in effect my pissyness with current Hollywood Horror, why I can't give a fart to check out supposed "good" works that Capo and Arkady (two good tastes that sometimes correspond with mine) recommend. Better yet, how about the fact that I saw Bay's produced TCM remake, and hated it. Also saw the prequel/sequel, didn't like it either. The same goes with his AMITYVILLE HORROR* and THE HITCHER remakes. So exxxxcuuuuse me if I'm not exactly shaking my boots to check out his latest blandly-shot/duller-than-dishwater/creative-as-Chef-Boyardee produced remake. I don't need to know you to see that you illogically evaluated a film you haven't seen based on nothing more than its association with a filmmaker whose prior work you dislike and its highly dubious status as a 'remake'. I don't care about your pissyness with current Hollywood Horror. The fact remains that this film has provoked far greater outrage in you that other 'remakes' that Michael Bay wasn't associated with. And I didn't suggest that you should see this film, or that you should want to see this film. I said, in order to be fair, you must not judge the film without having seen it.
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Feb 23, 2009 12:32:53 GMT
You don't know me, RNL. If Scorsese had directed BAYFORMERS, i would call it a huge pile of shit.
Get this: i love Scorsese, he's a cinema god to me. And yet, guess what, i really don't like THE DAPARTED. In fact, i call that movie THE DEFARTED. Scorsese directed it? Fart ass, should i give it a side look and pretend it's beter then it actually is? Fuck no, i don't. Scorsese directed it and it's still fart.
And that's the point, mate. Mickey Bayass's case is that he has made nothing but crap, and he has a 15 years long/7 movie carrer and every single oneof his movies ar pure stupid crap. I think it's pretty easy by now to made an EXTREMELY ACCURATE PREDICTION of how his next movie will be like. It's bloody scientific!
Get this: my favorite director is Ridley Scottt (son to be dethroned by Christopher Nolan, but that's anotehr matter). and yet, i positively fucking hate GI JANE and WHITE SQUALL. By your logic, i should love them because my opinion of a movie is just rduced to what a think of a given director. Not at all. Movies came first, director second. But when there is consistency of results, then it's absolutly legit you can tell what kind of a director and movies he makes. There's no magic in that, only common sense.
Anyway, everything starts with the movies, right? Before you know what a Scorsese, a Scott or a Bayass were like, you had his movies. You saw his movies firs,t and then you recognized the name of the filmmaker, and then you made your opinion of him with each and sucessive movie. That's how it works.
Another example: i used to dig Zack Snyder. I was actually fairly impressed with his work on his first movie, DAWN OF THE DEAD remake. The faults i found more in it was mre story then the filmmaking proper. i though he was a promissing new talent. Then he made that horrid pile of shit called 300, and now all i say fuck Snyder the fucking Hack. When i learend that WATCHMEN was to be directed by him, all i though was "from Terry Gilliam and Paul Greengrass to this? Fucking hell, we're fucked!!!"
Now, you understand it, mate? Yeah, dude, i'm a bit complex, unpredictable and not exactly easy to get first time around. Aint that nice?
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Feb 23, 2009 15:02:37 GMT
No it's not.
And you overlook the difference between predicting how good a film will be based on the director's prior work and actually evaluating the film without having seen it based solely on the directorial credit, which is what you're doing, and which is irrational and indefensible.
The irrational:
"It's directed by Michael Bay, therefore it is shit, because it is directed by Michael Bay."
The rational:
"It's directed by Michael Bay, therefore it will probably be shit, because all of his prior films have been shit."
This is my problem. Not that you're taking into account the artists involved in the film when deciding whether to watch it (everyone does that), but that you're acting as though you're still in a position to evaluate it. When you decide to never watch a film you obviously relinquish all right to ever evaluate it.
And, importantly, since you're forgetting: Michael Bay did not direct this fucking film. So it's not even the directorial credit you're basing your completely uninformed prejudiced evaluation on, it's one of the several production credits. And the underlying logic--that a director who's never directed a good film will necessarily never produce a good film if he becomes a producer--is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Feb 23, 2009 17:32:45 GMT
It will not probaqbly be shit, it will be shit. It's certaintly. It's like gravity. And gravity is also scientific. Got it?
And doesn't matter if Bayass didn't directed the Friday 13th remake, his imprint is EVERYWHERE, as it was in all his previous produced remakes. He's like Jerry Bruckheimer, he's the Sauron who hoardes this bunch of nazgul hack MTV directors who do his exact biding. They are his slave boys.
Bay always made crap movies, he made a new crap movie, and he will keep continuing making crap movies until the day he dies. That's as certain as gravity. Anybody that cares for cinema knows this for a fact.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Feb 23, 2009 19:17:30 GMT
Oh fuck off.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Feb 24, 2009 7:24:18 GMT
I don't need to know you to see that you illogically evaluated a film you haven't seen based on nothing more than its association with a filmmaker whose prior work you dislike and its highly dubious status as a 'remake'. If someone crashes your car more than once, isn't it logical to NOT let that person drive your wheels again? And really, you're stuck too much on your terminology. As a remake/prequel/sequel/sidequel/retcon/whatever, shit still looks like shit. But just to please you, I have no real urge to check out Bay's produced Remake/Sequel.[/quote] I don't care about your pissyness with current Hollywood Horror. The fact remains that this film has provoked far greater outrage in you that other 'remakes' that Michael Bay wasn't associated with. Check my output at FCM all the years I've been here, and notice that at times I'm here all the time, and others....I'm not. If there is a lack of debate or anything that intrigued me, I bullshit myself at other joints. It happens. But since you won't bother to do that (or ev)I don't care about your defense for a movie that, unless it surprises the shit out of me, isn't worth it. For a guy who demands such a fair trial for his client, you contradict yourself when you totally without merit dismiss my qualms with Hollywood Horror. I mean shit even jrod made a point that I was correct to have highlighted my ignorance of Bollywood cinema in my SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE review, when I thought it was unnecessary. I mean the next action shit hits theatres, I usually review it. But horror? I'm MIA. Why? To dismiss this question is a sign I fear of no intellectual curiosity within you. I hope that's not the case. Better yet, where the fuck were you when I gave good write-ups to (enjoyable) trash cinema like CLASS OF 1999 and SHOWDOWN IN LITTLE TOKYO? I mean if I supposedly failed my job of being equal-opportunity-bitchy, so were you mate. You could have written how both movies (rightly) sound stupid and retarded, but you didn't. You're better than that nonsense. And I didn't suggest that you should see this film, or that you should want to see this film. I said, in order to be fair, you must not judge the film without having seen it. Fair enough. I'll schedule my appointment with Proctologist Bay on DVD.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Feb 24, 2009 7:33:08 GMT
It will not probaqbly be shit, it will be shit. It's certaintly. It's like gravity. And gravity is also scientific. Got it? And doesn't matter if Bayass didn't directed the Friday 13th remake, his imprint is EVERYWHERE, as it was in all his previous produced remakes. He's like Jerry Bruckheimer, he's the Sauron who hoardes this bunch of nazgul hack MTV directors who do his exact biding. They are his slave boys. Now what the fuck did I just warn you the other day? Arguing in just of your judgment and verdict in circles doesn't change minds. Make your opinion, try to back it up, and counter-debate if necessary, but don't get personal. Ever heard of respectful intellectual disagreement. really Arkady for a supposed smart intellectual European who routinely looks down on the Republican Party and Evangelicals in America... You're acting as dumb as they are. I think you spend too much time at IMDB, mate. Bay always made crap movies, he made a new crap movie, and he will keep continuing making crap movies until the day he dies. That's as certain as gravity. Anybody that cares for cinema knows this for a fact. That's assuming anyone actually knows cinema, especially FCM. Considering my TOXIC AVENGER review, I doubt I'm eligible. I mean mother fuckin Akira Kurosawa when he got his special Oscar said that he was still learning movies....and this dude had shot like how many classics? Do I like to think I know movies? Sure. Do I actually? The first step in gaining wisdom is admitting: I know nothing. Anyway, RNL likes movies and he has his opinions. Certainly I still don't buy into his arguments against IRON MAN, or Capo not liking RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK or DePalma's SCARFACE at all, or my continuing disbelief at Blibble/Svsg still confusing any RRA-fan as RRA in another disguiuse, but what can one do? (Note to those two: Check IPs!)So Arkady, pretty please with sugar and cherry on top, quit fucking acting like those retarded IMDB posters you fight weekly. FCM was created for us film buffs who got tired with dealing such fucking bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Feb 24, 2009 10:44:32 GMT
Akira Kurosawa said he was still learning how to make movies, even after he made such later recent classics as RAN and KAGEMUSHA. And that's why he was a master. The hacks, like some of the people i aformentioned, stuck to a stlye and don't that... that's when they even got a style.
Speaking of former masters, and though he was no league of Kurosawa, i just finished watching THE SAND PEEBLES, by Robert Wise. I'm starting to think that this might be Wise's best movie he ever made. Certainly he made it with passion. Funny how in the audio comentary,. he just treats THE SOUND OF MUSIC as something not too terribly important he made in his career. In fact, and despiste it being THE DARK KNIGHT killer of the box office of it's day, MUSIC was the movie that Wise did while he waited for the pre-production of THE SAND PEBBLES, it was his "side-project" until he could get to make the one he really wanted to make. Can't help find that funny.
Oh, and by the way, i liked FRIDAY THE 13TH... the original, that is.
|
|