PDA

View Full Version : Craven - what happened?


Dave
01-12-2001, 02:03 PM
I watched Last House on the Left from beginning to end yesterday. Image quality wasn't quite as good as I first thought, but it's acceptable. The movie is disturbing for sure, though not quite as much I first suspected. It's a good movie for a variety of reasons. I mostly liked it because it gets you thinking about society and all the sickos that are out there. You go through a lot of emotions watching the movie; Craven makes it hard to stay with just one.

Today I watched a chunk of Nightmare on Elm Street while I was taking some screenshots for Deadites.net. Great movie with a terrifying villan and a creepy score. Definitely need to watch this from start to end soon. It's been years since I've watched it.

What I'm getting at it, after all the Scream crap (I've explained my feelings about this trilogy in the past) and all of this "West Craven Presents" nonsense, I just realize how turned off I've become to anything Craven related. As a result, I've failed to watch many of the Craven movies I do love - Swamp Thing, NOES 1, 3, etc.

Has this happened to anyone else? My NOES box set had a huge layer of dust on top of it when I pulled it out today. http://www.horrordvds.com/forum/smile.gif It's a shame. I wonder what happened to Craven. Did he sell out after the success of Scream? It seems so.

------------------
David W. Anderson - dave@horrordvds.com
Webmaster - www.horrordvds.com (http://www.horrordvds.com)





[This message has been edited by Dave (edited 01-12-2001).]

Jasondog
01-12-2001, 02:25 PM
Personally, I will never see what people see in Last House on the Left. It was decent to be sure but i hardly consider it a horror classic, or even a horror movie for that fact. What especially ruined it for me are the retarded Keystone Cops that ran around like bumbling idiots with a honky-tonk score acompanying them whenever they are on screen. I just cant take a movie seriously with acting like that.

Personally I feel that EVERYTHING Wes Craven has touched is superior to LHOL, that includes NOES, the Scream series, Invitation to Hell, and yes even DEADLY FRIEND (R-rated cut)

Mark Relford
01-12-2001, 03:04 PM
Wes Craven has lost his touch over the years. His best movies are Last House (Hess made that movie with his nutso performance!), The Hills Have Eyes, A Nightmare on Elm Street, New Nightmare, and Scream. (For better or worse, it has influenced today's horror scene.) His other movies range from passable to utter shit.
He might as well check himself into a retirement home for horror directors, get a room next to Tobe Hooper. http://www.horrordvds.com/forum/wink.gif

------------------
"Have you ever had an Egyptian feast?"

"They're back from the grave and ready to party!"


[This message has been edited by Mark Relford (edited 01-12-2001).]

Jaco
01-12-2001, 03:26 PM
I think The Serpent And The Rainbow deserves a quote as one of Wes Craven's better movies, alongside NOES and THHE.

n1ghtmare
01-12-2001, 04:43 PM
Well you'll notice that all the classic films that Craven directed are written by him as well. He hasn't wrote his own script for one of his films in years (New Nightmare being the last), and that's probably the reason his more recent stuff is a little... tepid. He's an amazing writer and he could definitely benefit from doing it again.

Zombie Keeper
01-12-2001, 06:07 PM
I recently watched "The Last House on the Left" and while it has its moments, I feel the movie stinks over-all. The music really ruined it for me.

However, it's a good story and I think would make for a good so-called remake, given the right director of course.

NMOE is by far one of my favs, and one of Craven best. I have't seen it in a while but I just bought the newly released DVD and will watch it this weekend.

Originally posted by Dave:
I watched Last House on the Left from beginning to end yesterday. Image quality wasn't quite as good as I first thought, but it's acceptable. The movie is disturbing for sure, though not quite as much I first suspected. It's a good movie for a variety of reasons. I mostly liked it because it gets you thinking about society and all the sickos that are out there. You go through a lot of emotions watching the movie; Craven makes it hard to stay with just one.

Today I watched a chunk of Nightmare on Elm Street while I was taking some screenshots for Deadites.net. Great movie with a terrifying villan and a creepy score. Definitely need to watch this from start to end soon. It's been years since I've watched it.

What I'm getting at it, after all the Scream crap (I've explained my feelings about this trilogy in the past) and all of this "West Craven Presents" nonsense, I just realize how turned off I've become to anything Craven related. As a result, I've failed to watch many of the Craven movies I do love - Swamp Thing, NOES 1, 3, etc.

Has this happened to anyone else? My NOES box set had a huge layer of dust on top of it when I pulled it out today. http://www.horrordvds.com/forum/smile.gif It's a shame. I wonder what happened to Craven. Did he sell out after the success of Scream? It seems so.





------------------
Zombie Keeper
Zombie Keepers Crypt (http://www.geocities.com/zombie_keeper/)
Horror Movie Reviews

TobalRox
01-12-2001, 06:59 PM
The IMDB says something about him wanting to leave horror to work on other cinema, and that Music of the Heart (1999) was the start of that, or something like that. Maybe this isn't too true since I hear about Dark Wonderland coming out this year.

------------------
"It's a spadoinkle day" -Cannibal: The Musical

AIM: TobalRox
ICQ: 348909

napalm68
01-13-2001, 02:32 AM
Yeah, I liked Shocker, too. That dude who plays Skinner on the XFiles was the baddie, and I'm quite fond of his acting.

The Hills Have Eyes is a fav of mine. I haven't actually seen LHotL. ANOES - A long time since I've seen it - I keep on holding off buying the R1 set as I'm waiting for the local set to be released.

Serpent and the Rainbow was quite good too.

Let's not forget The People Under the Stairs, complete with two actors from Twin Peaks (a nice touch I thought). A fun film.

And I do like Scream 1 (sorry Dave). Any film that has Drew Barrymore getting gutted in the first 5 minutes will get my seal of approval http://www.horrordvds.com/forum/smile.gif. I just wish they'd properly release the uncut version.

I have read that Craven has said that he is not doing any more horror films, and concentrating on (well, I can't think of a more fitting term) unmitigated CRAP.
------------------
Oh no, mother! Blood!

[This message has been edited by napalm68 (edited 01-13-2001).]

joltaddict
01-13-2001, 08:10 PM
I hope the pattern holds! If you notice in every decade Craven has unleashed a new spin on the horror theme. Last house on the Left spawned a slew of reality based horror movies in the 70s, easing us from the standard "Frankenstein" type fantasy-gothic horror. In the 80's NOES placed the slasher-flick in a fantasy setting, opening the genre up from your standard Holloween rip offs and paving the way for a movie like Hellraiser to get a decent budget.
And everyone here knows the impact Scream had on horror movies in the 90s. You can argue that the rip offs and sequels sucked, but it showed hollywood that horror movies could still make money.
I think it's a good thing that Craven says he won't make more horror movies. This means no more Scream sequels. I feel he will come back to us when he is inspired by a new way to scare us. I don't think that his statement means he is leaving us, I take it as a promise not to continue try to squeeze out another Scream style horror movie.

David666
01-13-2001, 08:39 PM
I make no apologies for considering Scream one of the very best horror films to come along in quite a while (asuridly the number one best slasher film). This is of course only my opinion, but to completely disregard the film is just lame. It is every bit as violent as other so called 'classic' slasher films, every bit as scary, every bit as unnerving (and in my opinion even more so). I believe it to be better written, most deffinatly better acted and an over all more excitting presentation then most others. For the life of me, I can not understand the concept of considering Scream a bad film and yet over praising such fare as The Burning, 2000 Maniacs or Last House on the Left. Scream is without a doubt one of the most supirior genre films to hit the scene, and it just does not make any sense to consider it otherwise. Without Scream we would never have seen this kind of studio interest in the genre

Granted, I have an eccentric taste in movies. I loved such controversial films as Lord of Illusions, The Prophecy trilogy, the Scream trilogy, Naked Lunch, Crash, eXistenZ, UL, IKWYDLS, and many others. Controversial in that they have their overt and loud detracters; but equal in numbers are their fans. And that is something that I think many people are forgetting.

I realize that many people think that the current crop of horror films are too commercial. And yet, these same people go ga-ga over truely commercial films like Star Wars episode one. I mean really, you can not get anymore commercial then Phantom Menace.

Another reason often given for the dislike of Scream is its use of TV star teens. Who cares? This is treuly a lame excuse if ever there was one. Friday the 13th did the same damn thing in case none of you recall. Nightmare on Elm Street is another one. Stop, think and then pass judgement. When you stop and think, you may just realize that this entire debate about the validity of Scream is boarderline pathetic. Its a horror film, it worked, it was widely successful and it was just damn good.

This backlash bandwagon against the Scream films just doesn't make any sense at all.

------------------
-David

"Didn't they tell you Kirsty, the rules of the fairy tale have changed. Not only am I the wicked stepmother, but I'm also the evil queen. So come on! Take your best shot, Snow White!"
- Julia (Claire Higgings)
Hellbound: Hellraiser 2

"If I go crazy then will you still call me Superman?"
... who knows, its on the radio all the time.

mutleyhyde
01-13-2001, 10:08 PM
Umm... what T.V. star teens were in Friday the 13th or NOES? Okay, so Bacon was on a soap for a while, but everyone else pretty much ended up on T.V. AFTER starring in these movies. That's not quite what's happening these days. And, just for the record, I hated Phantom Menace; if I want to see the chariot race, I'll watch the original in Ben Hur. And sadly, PM didn't have much else going for it. Shame on anybody who compares PM to A New Hope. As for Scream, I've never even sat through it. What I've seen, I actually liked pretty much. What I don't like is when something gets so popular so fast, takes on a life of its own and the creative process takes a backseat to crafty marketing strategy. It's a kneejerk reaction, I know. Hell, you know how long it took for me to actually see Pulp Fiction or Braveheart? Years. I just don't trust mass acceptance. I guess I just have to give the hype a while to die down before I give anything a chance.
By the way JasonDog, Deadly Friend WAS great!

------------------
"When I go to confession, I don't offer God small sins - petty squables, jealousies - I offer him sins worth forgiving!"

May the Hammer eternally bleed!
M. Hyde

Dave
01-14-2001, 02:53 AM
It is every bit as violent as other so called 'classic' slasher films, every bit as scary, every bit as unnerving (and in my opinion even more so).


I didn't find Scream scary at all, whereas I found classics like Last House on the Left and Nightmare on Elm Street both scary and unnerving. Scream reminds you WAY TOO much that you're watching a horror movie. Not sure on violence and gore, but I'm sure there are numerous Friday the 13th sequels that easily outdo Scream in those categories.


I believe it to be better written

90210+HORROR=SCREAM. Plus, as I said before, all too often the movie is remining you that you're watching a horror movie. Total ruines the atmosphere.


most deffinatly better acted and an over all more excitting presentation then most others.


Acting was fine. Presentation + excitement level sucked (see above reasons).

Without Scream we would never have seen this kind of studio interest in the genre


Studio's "interest" in the genre has given us Teaching Mrs. Tingle, I Know What You Did Last Summer, I Still Know What You Did Last Summer, Scream 2, Scream 3, The Faculty, etc etc.

You're saying it's a good thing we got these movies? ACK!@#!@#

Hey, to each his own. Scream just didn't do anything for me. The main problem is how it contiously reminds you that you're watching a horror movie. How anyone can find that environment to be scarying or exciting is beyond me.

------------------
David W. Anderson - dave@horrordvds.com
Webmaster - www.horrordvds.com (http://www.horrordvds.com)

Se7en
01-14-2001, 03:40 AM
Originally posted by Dave:
Scream The main problem is how it contiously reminds you that you're watching a horror movie. How anyone can find that environment to be scarying or exciting is beyond me.
[/B]


Well I didn't find Last House On The Left scary at all. "How anyone can find that environment to be scarying or exciting is beyond me." http://www.horrordvds.com/forum/smile.gif

Scream is not about a movie that's trying to scare the poop out of you. It's one of those pop up and startle you movies. And it does a good job of that in Scream 1 and Scream 2. Although the sequels were a little weak Scream is up there in my "elite" list of horror movies.

Since we are on this subject... A lot of people say that A Nightmare On Elm Street is one of the scariest movies ever... Well when I saw the movie it did nothing for me except cheer Freddy killing all the kids. For me it wasn't scary but I loved to see what Freddy would do next and not only do I have the DVD Collection Set but I also watched and taped the episodes on tv. For me it was a great character and they actually killed him off unlike other horror movies... Namely Friday the 13th!

Everybody has a different reason to like a horror movie and even though you said that you also added that "how can anybody blah, blah, blah... Scream" Well I think I just explained why. Not only that but to add to all that, Scream had a great killer/killers. It was more of trying to figure out who the bad guy was while trying to survive. Plus that costume was great. http://www.horrordvds.com/forum/smile.gif

joltaddict
01-14-2001, 03:46 AM
Originally posted by Dave:
Studio's "interest" in the genre has given us Teaching Mrs. Tingle, I Know What You Did Last Summer, I Still Know What You Did Last Summer, Scream 2, Scream 3, The Faculty, etc etc.
You're saying it's a good thing we got these movies? ACK!

Come on Dave! At least they were made. Scream gave decent budgets to the genre. At least throw us that bone. Maybe directors haven't made the best use of it, but Scream gave them the chance.

I personally liked the 1st Scream. I thought it was the best opening to a horror movie in a damn long time. Admit it the first 5 minutes got to you at least, right?

AceRimRat
01-15-2001, 08:56 PM
I haven't seen any of the early Craven stuff like LHOTL or THHE etc., but I think his 80s and 90s stuff (most of which I like) shows him as someone who is always trying to push the envelope, as it were - and I assume from the controversy that his 70s stuff was the same way.

So here's my argument: NOES was a different kind of slasher from F13 - it focused on the dream world - while still sticking to the horror formula of the time (teens, sex, blood, revenge). Movies like Lord of Illusions and Shocker continued to put a twist on the familiar, making them different from any number of homage/ripoff films (LOI with the magic/cult angle, Shocker with the villain going through TV). Scream (I like the first one, thought the second was iffy and didn't see the third) changed the formula again - to that self-aware sort of film - whether you like it and the sequels/ripoffs or not.

So I would say the thing that has stayed the same about Craven is that he's always trying to put a new angle on the formula - and that's where his scares come from. Does it work? Well, that depends. Did you like Scream? Yes - then it worked, No - then it didn't.

But unlike some films that are praised here (sometimes by me) despite being "formula" pieces (even good ones), Craven tries to twist the formula with his films. (And it's not his fault that, in this mimicking time, everybody wanted to make a Scream ripoff.)

So has he changed? I don't think so, exactly - the basic approach he brings to horror seems to have stayed the same - get the scares by doing something familiar, yet different. Maybe his ideas have gotten worse, or maybe they haven't - that's a matter of taste.

My five or six cents.

Paff
01-16-2001, 05:50 AM
Well, I'll go on record as saying that Craven has never really impressed me as a horror "visionary".

Yes, he has some good movies, competently directed, but nothing he's done has ever really been groundbreaking. Last House on the Left is just Bergman's The Virgin Spring minus all the symbolism. Elm Street is good but reminds me too much of Phantasm and Carnival of Souls. And of course Scream is just a cookie-cutter slasher film, except for some reason POINTING OUT the neverending cliches is supposed to make it fresh. As if horror fans had never noticed those cliches before....

On top of that, I really can't think of a STYLE in Craven's direction OR writing. Whether it's a visual style, or subtext, or social commentary (something all the "great" horror directors seem to have), I really don't see much there. About the only thing I've noticed, and is probably the one thing I like about Craven's films, is his "booby-trapped house" motif. That's big in Last House, Elm Street, slightly in Scream, and is the entire premise of People Under the Stairs. But it's just a diversion, hardly something to consider him a great director over.

I won't go too much into Scream, since that debate has been done to death (and Dave has pointed out my beef with the movie, how the constant commenting "this is just like a movie" only takes you out of the movie rather than drawing you in). But does anyone else feel that Craven was laughing AT us rather than laughing WITH us? We all have stacks of favorite horror movies, and many of them are laden with cliches. When we sit down to watch one, disbelief is suspended big-time, as we try to let ourselves be scared by some guy in a rubber mask. When someone on screen says "I'll be right back..." we all know he's done for, but we try to let the suspense get to us anyway. Imagine if you were watching a movie at a theater, and everytime someone on screen does something real dumb, a guy gets up in front of the screen and says "This character is about to die, and you're all idiots if you are scared by this". Well, that's what I felt Scream did to me. As always though, that's only my opinion.

Dave
01-16-2001, 11:56 AM
Come on Dave! At least they were made. Scream gave decent budgets to the genre. At least throw us that bone. Maybe directors haven't made the best use of it, but Scream gave them the chance.


Chances that were wasted, IMO. Who cares if the budget is big or not? Aren't most of the classics made on tiny budgets? Examples: Night of the Living Dead, Evil Dead, Evil Dead 2, Carnival of Souls, etc, etc. No doubt it's eaiser to name more good low budget horror movies then it is to name good big budget horror movies.

------------------
David W. Anderson - dave@horrordvds.com
Webmaster - www.horrordvds.com (http://www.horrordvds.com)

David666
01-18-2001, 01:14 AM
Ok, now I have seen it all. Do you honestly think Carnival of Souls is a 'good' movie? Ok, sure it had an interesting premise... but thats all it had. It was badly written, very badly acted, badly lensed, poorly directed and of course the list of whats bad about it can go on and on. I have never understood the fascination with this film, even after having seen the Criterian director's cut I was still unimpressed with the film. Just as I am still unimpressed with many films that many of you guys call 'classics of the genre'.

To say that horror films made on lower budgets are inately superior to bigger budget fare is kind of goofy, don't you think? I would have to highly disagree with the statement that there are 'more' badly done big budget films then badly done low-budgeters. In fact, the vice versa should go without saying.

Sure, horror films work well on low budgets, unlike action or sci-fi... but Urban Legend on a lower budget would be nothing more then My Bloody Valentine (a film that is considered a 'classic' by many.) I Still Know What You Did Last Summer on a low budget is Friday the 13th. And Scream 3 on a low budget is Halloween.

I think many of you have high expectations for bigger budget fare, and so when it doesn't live up to whatever you wanted it to be... its labeled as 'shitty'. Your expectations of low budget fare is low to begin with, so that when it suddenly surprises you for whatever reason... you love it. Sure, my expectations for Full Moon's Sideshow were especially low, but just because it turned out to be slightly better then I has assumed doesn't mean its any good. The truth of the matter is Friday the 13th is not any better then Scream.

Actually, it occured to me that the only difference between the current slasher films and that of the 80s is female nudity. Are you Sorority House Massacre and Friday the 13th fans going through tit-shot withdraw or what? Personally, I get enough sex in real life so I don't have to get my kicks and thrills from some no-talent actress showing off her tits. It may have been some kind of adolecent draw, but now I find it absurd and nothing more then a cheap distraction from the fact that your watching a shitty film.

That may seem like some generalization, but why else would horror fans dish out their money for softcore tit fests like the Sorority House Massacre films? Or call Scream bad, but love the Friday films?

I am really trying to understand this ridiculous backlash against modern slasher films. It doesn't make any sense to me when someone likes something as sophomoric as Sorority House Massacre or Friday the 13th, but doesn't like Scream.

Oh and FYI, Neve Campbell was in horror films long before she was on TV (The Dark). Courtney Cox also did genre fare. Jamie Kennedy and David Arquette have not had sitcoms or WB shows. So I'd check into these things before such statments as 'all the new horror films are using WB kids' is made. For the most part, these actors resumes go back much further then TV shows.

------------------
-David

"Didn't they tell you Kirsty, the rules of the fairy tale have changed. Not only am I the wicked stepmother, but I'm also the evil queen. So come on! Take your best shot, Snow White!"
- Julia (Claire Higgings)
Hellbound: Hellraiser 2

"If I go crazy then will you still call me Superman?"
... who knows, its on the radio all the time.

AceRimRat
01-18-2001, 02:59 AM
Wow. I feel the love.

I've never presumed to speak for anyone else on this forum, but I always kind of thought the folks who like the better films of the old slasher-fare liked it because it was, while often bad in terms of acting, budget, etc., somewhat more genuine than the newer 90s stuff.

I don't like a ripoff of Halloween or F13 any more than I like a ripoff of Scream, personally. Unless it's well-done (at least relatively speaking) or it's just laughably funny (which is why I enjoy the F13 series).

And it seems like one of things people who like "traditional" slashers hold against the new generation is their regrettable self-awareness and snobbishness that comes out at times. I like Scream, I like IKWYDLS and I sort of like Urban Legend. But I found Scream 2 and ISKWYDLS to be too contemptuous of their audience for my taste. Just my opinion.

My personal distaste for these films isn't backlash against the lack of gratuitous sex or over-the-top gore because of some innate perversion. Well, usually. I think it's more of a backlash against being talked down to by these films that say we don't think you can handle violence, we don't think you deserve to see us naked, or whatever. It's the attitude.

The older 70s-80s slashers I like are the ones that lay it all out there - they say "we're doing the best we can, enjoy!" It's fun. The newer movies I don't like as much feel like they're holding something back. And I don't just mean the boobs.

Sorry if I'm answering venom with venom here. Wrath seems to be my sin lately.

hojimoji
01-18-2001, 03:37 AM
Craven is now and always has been a Literature professor. What Craven has brought to the screen is conscious knowledge of the structure and concepts of Western (and sometimes Eastern) Literature. It can be generalized that most casual horror fans don't have degrees in English, so these archetypes etc. are new to them, especially in a horror setting.

When you examine NOES, it is evident that there is major literary/psychological undercurrent. Sure Freddy is a character, but he is also a symbol. Nancy's banishing him is proof-positive that Freddy is first and foremost a symbol, and as a symbol he is only usefull when he represents something, so he therefore draws his power from people. No people, no power. This concept is as old as recored history. Craven just brought it to the horror world.

And Scream is another attempt to bring a literary conciet to the horror world. The self-referential novel is an old concept as well, and Craven was just bringing it to horror fans.

So in the end I think we should judge Craven for what he is, a literary mind bringing old ideas to a new format, horror.

G.

P.S. I feel it necessary to add:

As he mentioned in his commentary to New Nightmare, the movie held certian monetary benefits, which first attracted him to the idea. I think in his old age Craven is more willing to compromise his artistic integrity to make some money. Nothing wrong with that, it just tends to lead to lesser product.

DeepDownTraumaHound
01-18-2001, 04:07 AM
Originally posted by David666:
Ok, now I have seen it all. Do you honestly think Carnival of Souls is a 'good' movie? Ok, sure it had an interesting premise... but thats all it had. It was badly written, very badly acted, badly lensed, poorly directed and of course the list of whats bad about it can go on and on. I have never understood the fascination with this film, even after having seen the Criterian director's cut I was still unimpressed with the film. Just as I am still unimpressed with many films that many of you guys call 'classics of the genre'.


This movie paved the way for ALL horror films to follow. And all good genre films that are made on a low budget have an independent spirit which adds to the heart and soul that goes into scaring us.
Silly is not the word. most likely is more like it.

Mark Relford
01-18-2001, 05:00 AM
Originally posted by David666: It was badly written, very badly acted, badly lensed, poorly directed and of course the list of whats bad about it can go on and on.

The same can be said for the lame remake, which had an unnecessary sex scene http://www.horrordvds.com/forum/wink.gif
I liked Carnival of Souls. It had a nice dreamlike atmosphere going on. (Makes a good companion piece with "The Hitchhiker" episode from the TZ series.)


Just as I am still unimpressed with many films that many of you guys call 'classics of the genre.'


To each his own. I also liked Scream. Hated the sequels and ripoffs. BWP, From Dusk Till
Dawn, and Blade are some of my recent favorites and most horror fans bash them.


Actually, it occured to me that the only difference between the current slasher films and that of the 80s is female nudity. Are you Sorority House Massacre and Friday the 13th fans going through tit-shot withdraw or what?


There's nothing wrong with celluloid boobies! http://www.horrordvds.com/forum/biggrin.gif
T&A isn't a necessary element in horror movies, but it can be very memorable! (examples: ROTLD and Re-Animator.)


I am really trying to understand this ridiculous backlash against modern slasher films. It doesn't make any sense to me when someone likes something as sophomoric as Sorority House Massacre or Friday the 13th, but doesn't like Scream.


I grew up on the Friday the 13th series and make no apologies for my fondness of that series.
Dare I say it, but the old school slashers were fun and had a certain charm to them. Of course, that's just my opinion. http://www.horrordvds.com/forum/smile.gif

------------------
"Have you ever had an Egyptian feast?"

"They're back from the grave and ready to party!"


[This message has been edited by Mark Relford (edited 01-18-2001).]

joltaddict
01-18-2001, 05:08 AM
Originally posted by David666:
And Scream 3 on a low budget is Halloween.


Arrrggggg!!!!! You made blood pour out of my ears!!!! You hurt Jolt brain!!! Jolt rolling on floor in agonizing pain. Arrrggggg!!!!

Dave
01-18-2001, 05:22 AM
WOW! Who would've thought that Scream 3 would ever be compared to Halloween? Only one word can describe that - BLASPHEMY!!!

As for Carnival of Souls, it's a classic ghost movie with a very creepy feel to it. That mysterious ghoul following Mary, the pavilion on the outskirts of Salt Lake, the ghoul dance sequence - creepy stuff to me. Effective scares, unlike anything Scream has ever done. Plus the ending - Twilight Zone style, baby!

Who gives a rats ass about tits and ass in a slasher? I don't care one way or the other. Friday the 13th and all of the other 80's slashers are straight HORROR movies! Scream is a spoof trying to be a horror movie. At least Scary Movie got it right!

------------------
David W. Anderson - dave@horrordvds.com
Webmaster - www.horrordvds.com (http://www.horrordvds.com)

Dave
01-18-2001, 05:26 AM
I should add something. Some of you may know that I've driven across the country several times. Always Highway 80/90 straight across, which happens to go right through Salt Lake. I tell you, when I was driving through Sale Lake late at night one time I was pretty creeped out when I began thinking about Carnival of Souls. Pretty silly, I know. But a lasting impression like that is one of the many reasons I enjoy Carnival of Souls - just thinking about it in that particular environment creeped me out. Something Scream could never do.

------------------
David W. Anderson - dave@horrordvds.com
Webmaster - www.horrordvds.com (http://www.horrordvds.com)

jeffschmidt
01-18-2001, 05:40 AM
Scream 1 was cool. A fun slasher that, IMO, had both mass-market appeal and *cared* about satisfying the horror audience. They screwed up the sequels BAD, however. Parts 2 & 3 were made strictly for the Britney Spears/N*Sync/GAP teeny-bopper crowd and were successful because of that demographic. The same applies to IKWYDLS.

These movies are to film what the Backstreet Boys are to music: Good looking guys/girls & savvy marketing = millions brought in by the Tiger Beat age group. Who cares if the movie's good if it's making a buttload of money?

The 80's slashers aren't better liked because they have T&A (never hurts, though http://www.horrordvds.com/forum/smile.gif ). It's because they were actually intended to appeal to the horror audience. Whoever's writing these new films simply isn't thinking about satisfying the hardcore oldschool NOES/F13/etc fans. Still, the new movies are touted as horror & inevitably disappoint those of us who've seen better.

Right now, horror is popular in the mainstream; & the mainstream inevitably waters everything down into it's most accessible, non-offensive state. It's both good and bad; good because you can go to the theater and see a big budget horror flick, bad because it's probably gonna suck http://www.horrordvds.com/forum/frown.gif

------------------
"I like that satellite TV, Pa!" -Ellie May, Redneck Zombies

[This message has been edited by jeffschmidt (edited 01-18-2001).]

Dave
01-18-2001, 05:53 AM
I think this quote may have been posted before, but I just noticed it on IMDB. Argento hit the nail on the head


We had many good directors - John Carpenter, DePalma - but things have become polluted by business, money and bad relationships. The success of the horror genre has lead to its downfall.


------------------
David W. Anderson - dave@horrordvds.com
Webmaster - www.horrordvds.com (http://www.horrordvds.com)

Se7en
01-18-2001, 06:40 AM
WOW! I can't believe somebody actually likes Scary Movie over Scream... Or any other movie for that matter! Scary Movie is not original and has some of the everyday jokes you hear on tv or from a friend. Atleast Scream was original and added to the genre for better or worse. American Pie got it right but Scary Movie tried copying that with horror and failed. Sure it made money in the boxoffice but people just saw the previews and said cool! The Scream dude is getting high! This is funny let's go see it! I betcha the sequel will suck more and make less money at the boxoffice.

I sat threw Scary Movie without laughing once, instead I was thinking to myself how could they let this crap be released with an "R" rating and when was it gonna end. I've seen a lot of crappy movies in my lifetime but this one tops it all.

napalm68
01-18-2001, 09:49 AM
David666 - them's fighting words... Saying Halloween is a low budget Scream 3? What a stupid statement.

------------------
Oh no, mother! Blood!

[This message has been edited by napalm68 (edited 01-18-2001).]

Dave
01-18-2001, 11:55 AM
I can't believe somebody actually likes Scary Movie over Scream... Or any other movie for that matter! Scary Movie is not original and has some of the everyday jokes you hear on tv or from a friend


I sure do like it more than Scream.

It may have some everyday jokes, but used in a context that makes fun of Scream (and various other stupid horror movies) makes it priceless. Yes, I realize it makes fun of GOOD horror movies too, but I can still enjoy that as well.

------------------
David W. Anderson - dave@horrordvds.com
Webmaster - www.horrordvds.com (http://www.horrordvds.com)

Se7en
01-18-2001, 12:29 PM
I thought that the movie was disgusting and can't believe it got an "R" rating. They showed many times male's genitals and was disturbed that this movie is geared to the "teen" audience with this kind of crap in it. That's what porn movies are for, not movies made for this kind of audience. Everybody knows that teens will go and see this movie because of T&A alone but that's fine and dandy as long as you leave everything to the imagination and not actually show your privates. Just like Hollywood has been doing for decades. Never in an "R" rated movie have you ever seen a woman's ovaries or a guy's penis. And I certainly don't like the fact that they are planning a sequel... Can you imagine what they will show on this one?

Personally it scares me some of the content in movies these days and Scary Movie is one on the top of my list. I know for a fact that I would not want my daughter seeing this movie! Pretty much everything in this movie had to do with homosexual/something related to the penis jokes.

I know some of the stuff I said is borderline but it's the truth. And I was outraged with this "movie".

Se7en
01-18-2001, 06:39 PM
The reason people get into an outrage is because the movie is directed towards the "teen" audience and trust me you wouldn't like having your daughter see multiple penises in a single movie. When you go see a horror movie you expect to be scared, might see some blood, and might see some deaths. But that's what you expect to see! Just like in porn movies where you see male/female's privates and they have sex. That's all fine and dandy like I said because it's geared toward the adult audience. But in my opinion Scary Movie was very offensive and got off an "R" rating by luck. I would have had them cut that material then add it as an UNRATED version on a DVD or something but not showing it in theater's where kids are exposed to it. And nobody can tell me different because we all know to what kind of audience Scary Movie is geared towards to and it's sad they got away with it.

Jasondog
01-18-2001, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by Se7en:
The reason people get into an outrage is because the movie is directed towards the "teen" audience and trust me you wouldn't like having your daughter see multiple penises in a single movie. When you go see a horror movie you expect to be scared, might see some blood, and might see some deaths. But that's what you expect to see! Just like in porn movies where you see male/female's privates and they have sex. That's all fine and dandy like I said because it's geared toward the adult audience. But in my opinion Scary Movie was very offensive and got off an "R" rating by luck. I would have had them cut that material then add it as an UNRATED version on a DVD or something but not showing it in theater's where kids are exposed to it. And nobody can tell me different because we all know to what kind of audience Scary Movie is geared towards to and it's sad they got away with it.

Actually I agree with most of your points. Yes it was geared towards a teenaged audience. Yes it was rated incorrectly and should have been NC-17. However, I dont understand your philosophy about the penis. I mean it's a penis. I got one, I assume you do too (unless your a chick, sorry, i don't know you personally) The penis is not scary, it's not freaky and its not shocking. It is kinda funky looking when you think about it though, and it got me into more trouble then i would care to admit to. But its part of life. Do you get offended when you see a pair of boobs on the screen? I have seen them in PG rated movies believe it or not. What is the difference. I saw Se7en the night before Christmas when I was wrapping presents. That movie shocked me a helluva lot more then Scary Movie did. I own both movies but I can go days without thinking about SM while Se7en's ending is something that will stick with me forever. Both movies are rated "R" and yes, Se7en has no penis in it, but I guess it was the first movie that shocked me in a long time. Penises come and go, Scary Movie wasn't the first movie to have one. Ever see Wild Things? Hollow Man? (Kevin Bacon showing his bacon) or Color of Night? (Bruce Willis showing Little Brucey) or Fight Club? (subliminal penis) or Any Given Sunday? (black penis) Its nothing new my friend. Matter of fact, I saw my first on-screen penis when i was 13. And i dont think it effected me at all. I am almost 20 and engaged to be married, and if my cat hadnt died monday i'ld probably be the happiest guy in the world right now. No offence but if you have a daughter who is old enough to go to the movies by herself she has probably already seen a penis, either on screen, in real life, or in Playgirl or a porno (not saying your daughter does this stuff but my first experiance with a Playboy was before I was even interested in girls, one of my friends on the playground had one, so I'm sure most normal middle-income kids are the same) Myself, I wouldnt mind what my kids saw on the screen, as long as they were mature enough to handle what they saw.

By the way, the senseless male nudity was part of the joke. ALl the useless T&A from the 80s that Scary Movie was parodying...get it? Instead of female nudity we got male nudity.

------------------
<i>"You are all my children now!"</i>

Jasondog
01-18-2001, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by Rock:

The last decent SCARY adult horror movie was THE EXORCIST III (okay guys, go ahead and rip me apart on this one)...



While I don't agree about what you said about Craven's old-school movies not being fun cause i think they Rock, as well as Scream. But i agree LHOTL sucked. I will back you up on The Exorcist III the movie just rockes rom start to finish and I am proud to own this on DVD. Superb acting and direction, a HIGHLY underrated movie

Rock
01-18-2001, 08:47 PM
Thanks for backing me up on EXORCIST III Jasondog, but let me just clarify that I never thought LHOTL "sucked"...while I found it a depressing and ugly experience, it does possess a powerful, documentary-like intensity that keeps it above a LOT of today's crap...I'd gladly sit through it again before I'll ever watch another "horror" movie w/Jennifer Love-Hewitt or David Arquette in it again...

joltaddict
01-18-2001, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by Jasondog:
However, I dont understand your philosophy about the penis.


STATEMENT YANKED BY ADMIN - whether you're joking or not, that statement is uncalled for. Lets not start flame wars, guys.




[Note: This message has been edited by Admin]

napalm68
01-18-2001, 09:35 PM
Exorcist III - now that was a good horror film. I fell asleep twice watching the Exorcist (and it was an evening viewing), but EIII really grabbed me. Brad Dourif was excellent. Blatty's direction was excellent. Acting in general was excellent. That stationary camera shot scene in the corridor with the nurse about to meet her fate was so well done.

I've been a big fan of this film since I first saw it. In fact, I can see why Blatty wanted all that culled footage but back in EI - the removed ending for EI actually follows in to EIII, with the start of the relationship with Kinderman and Father Dyer. I bet if Exorcist had been released in the form the Author wanted it (ie, the story that was not full of plot faults like the theatrical release), EIII would have gotten more positive attention. I have seen comments on EIII from idiot fans of EI like "Exorcist rocks, but Exorcist III sucks. Like, I mean, EIII makes out Dwyer and Kinderman out to be best friends, but in the first film, they never hardly spoke. And there were no little girls masturbating with crucifixes neither".

Of course, Exorcist III stands above on it's own merits, IMHO...

------------------
Oh no, mother! Blood!

Jasondog
01-18-2001, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by joltaddict:
STATEMENT YANKED BY ADMIN - whether you're joking or not, that statement is uncalled for. Lets not start flame wars, guys.



ummmm, i dont get it? Im not starting a flame war and i wasn't really joking i was posting a question within a statement. I have seen far worse posted on this board with downright vulgar words. What is wrong with my statement? I wont post it again, but i would like to know why it is "uncalled for?"

Jasondog
01-18-2001, 10:54 PM
Wait never mind, you pulled someone elses statement, I misread that. But if someone wants to flame me I recommend it done to my e-mail address, notoriousaurus@aol.com instead of wasting serer space.

joltaddict
01-19-2001, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by ADMIN :
STATEMENT YANKED BY ADMIN - whether you're joking or not, that statement is uncalled for.

My apologies, I crossed the line with that one. It won't happen again.

joltaddict
01-19-2001, 01:05 AM
Originally posted by Jasondog:
if someone wants to flame me I recommend it done to my e-mail address...

It wasn't directed at you it was a very lame attempt at humor that I didn't realize would end up sounding like it did.

mutleyhyde
01-19-2001, 01:27 AM
You see? That's the kind of community worth coming back to time and time again. C'mon, hugs, everyone!

------------------
"When I go to confession, I don't offer God small sins - petty squables, jealousies - I offer him sins worth forgiving!"

May the Hammer eternally bleed!
M. Hyde

[This message has been edited by mutleyhyde (edited 01-18-2001).]

Mark Relford
01-19-2001, 01:50 AM
Originally posted by Jasondog:
Se7en has no penis in it.


Actually it does. The gluttony victim in the morgue.


------------------
"Have you ever had an Egyptian feast?"

"They're back from the grave and ready to party!"

hojimoji
01-19-2001, 02:04 AM
And, the penis in Se7en is needlessly large as a tribute to the guy who played the victim. Fincher said they gave him a larger penis to make up for all the make-up prep he had to do. That's some funny stuff.


G>

Jasondog
01-19-2001, 03:03 AM
Well i guess i am not the peni-phile I thought I was, I guess Se7en does have penis. http://www.horrordvds.com/forum/biggrin.gif

Glad to see, everything was all a misunderstanding about the joke though...although i do wish i was here to read it.

jeffschmidt
01-19-2001, 04:08 AM
To those concerned about teens seing multiple peni in Scary Movie; you should be upset with the theater/rental store allowing your children to see the movie, not the movie itself. I know I got carded both when I went to SM at the theater and when I bought the DVD; I even got carded at Wal-Mart the other night when I bought -get this- TANGO & CASH! (side note: I went to the same Wal-Mart the next night & bought $45.00 worth of alcohol without being carded and it was THE SAME DAMN CASHIER!)

------------------
"I like that satellite TV, Pa!" -Ellie May, Redneck Zombies

[This message has been edited by jeffschmidt (edited 01-18-2001).]

mutleyhyde
01-19-2001, 04:45 AM
Right on Jeff! It actually used to be hard for a youth to see an r-rated movie. Things are just so accesible today. Blame the lax atmosphere, and not the film itself.

------------------
"When I go to confession, I don't offer God small sins - petty squables, jealousies - I offer him sins worth forgiving!"

May the Hammer eternally bleed!
M. Hyde

Jasondog
01-19-2001, 05:21 AM
I find it humerous that here we are in a horror forum, one of the most looked-down upon genres in film where we cheer on murderous lunatics so that they can stab women in the eye, gut guys, and if they have sex, god-damned if we dont kill them both in the most gruesome way imaginable.

But if a pair of tits or JESUS CHRIST! not a PENIS! gets screen time people go into an outrage.

Now im not against gore, and im not against nudity either, and Good horror movies have done without both. But, does anyone else see the opposite reaction in that breasts and penises are all NATURAL things and that in a NORMAL course of life people use these and dont USUALLY go around killing people in violent gruesome ways? Yet less people bitch about the violence.

I always love watching Lair of the White Worm on the sci-fi channel. It shows the scene where a character's head gets impaled by a piece of farm equipment and it goes through his eye socket, leaving the eye dangling on the end of a metal spike. Yet the titular character is topless through the whole movie with a very phoney looking grey cloud following her tits around everywhere.

They edit out boobies, but not the graphic death. I just dont get america sometimes, I really really dont. But if I was 4 and watching LOTWW Id be more freaked out about the death then a pair of boobs

**end of rant**

DopeChamberX
01-19-2001, 05:32 AM
Are you kidding?? I worked a seven hour shift just standing in front of two of the theaters Scary Movie was showing in, just carding people and checking their ticket stubs. Had to the same damn thing with Road Trip, jezze that sucked.

Trust me nowadays its a bitch to see a r-rated film. Parents just can't buy the tickets and send their kids on their penis watching ways, oh no, not anymore.


Oh....to stay at the topic at hand. I enjoy most of Craven's work, past and present. I don't think he's changed for the worst he's just changed with the times. Scream 3 was a bit of a dissapointment, not because of Craven, but because of a lackluster script, IMO. Oh, and I love Scream 2, enjoy it just a little bit more than Scream.

------------------
"It's not who you come with, it's who you take home." - Prom Night 4

"...find something you love doing and do it for the rest of your life..." - Rushmore

My Collection (http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Rasmith)

Rock
01-19-2001, 05:59 AM
I just have to jump in on this topic w/my two cents worth:

Craven's LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT was more depressing and ugly than scary...the only horror film I've seen once and am afraid to see again, mainly because it was no fun at all watching the humiliation, torture, and murders of two truly sweet young girls...

Except for a few brief moments in NOES and PEOPLE UNDER THE STAIRS, Craven has done nothing fun or scary since THE HILLS HAVE EYES...whether its mellowing w/old age or big-studio interference, he has long since joined Hooper, Carpenter, and even Romero in the "What-have-you-done-for-me-lately? NOTHING!" group of has-been horror directors...

Much of NOES was OK, but negated by its stupid & unnecessary last-minute "shock" (like a lot of horror movies)...

The ONLY thing good about SCREAM (and its ensuing sequels & ripoffs) was the opening murder of Drew Barrymore and even that was just OK...not scary at all, just mean & nasty, perfect for today's young people...

SCARY MOVIE made me laugh out loud a few times but only because it was so embarassingly audacious & offensive...you know damn well the horror genre is dead and buried when this is what its come to...

The last decent "monster movie" was THE RELIC...

The last decent SCARY adult horror movie was THE EXORCIST III (okay guys, go ahead and rip me apart on this one)...

Se7en
01-19-2001, 07:19 AM
While I still don't agree on the Scary Movie issue all the movies you mentioned Jasondog are rated "R" but are geared towards the adult audience like Color Of Night, Any Given Sunday, Hollow Man, and even Se7en. I just want you to know where I'm coming from because I know I wouldn't want my daughter seeing this kind of movie. And sure you know if kids want to see something they'll try and try till they get their way. I was one of them. http://www.horrordvds.com/forum/smile.gif But that's what bother's me if the ratings board let them get away with this stuff this time imagine how the sequel will be. And it's not about breasts, Pretty much everybody has seen breasts in movies "which in my opinion is equally disturbing" but this is the part of the body which is more delicate and in my opinion should not be shown in theater's. Just like showing ovaries in a movie, Has anybody seen Dr.T and the women? I would rather have my daughter/son see those parts from the person they love rather than in a theater.

Again, I just want for you to know where I'm coming from... When you have kids it will change your life forever. It will have you thinking in other ways and evaluating everything. I was never a censor this and this is wrong kind of guy. For me it was always show everything, give us the truth, ect... But of course that has changed nowadays. And in my opinion they are getting away with too much in Hollywood.

Oh and BTW, I agree on the Exorcist 3 it's a great movie. I have always loved the Exorcist movies and they remain my favorite kind of horror movies. To me I doubt that anybody will make a better horror movie than the original Exorcist. Also to note... I'm a guy and I didn't pick the name "Se7en" because of the movie. I had a friend that was a hacker and that was his screen name and since I couldn't come up with anything better I've stayed with "Se7en" pretty much on everything I do on the net. Sad but true. http://www.horrordvds.com/forum/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Se7en (edited 01-19-2001).]

Lindane
01-19-2001, 07:50 AM
Oh man Im hurt, Rock. How could you dis on Romero like that. Hes about to bless us with Bruiser!! Looks like a pretty interesting movie too. Theres a good interview with him in this months Fangoria. I didn't know he was originally supposed to do The Mummy!! God he would of done much better! That movie blew ass. Its just great to know the mans unwilling to comprimise his art for some fat pockets like someone else we know.

hojimoji
01-19-2001, 08:41 PM
The pathetic thing about movie theaters and ticket sales is the adults that have problems. Being that both my date and I were 18, one time I still wasn't allowed to buy her ticket to an a R-rated feature because the theater's policy was that no one under the age of 21 could buy multiple tickets to an R-rated film. Either that or the cashier was an idiot and couldn't read my liscence. Either way they shouldn't have that kind of power to abuse.

The real problem is that everybody is trying to be a parent. Se7en, I respect your right as a parent not to want your daughter to see SM, but the problem comes in when the gov't, the MPAA, and the theaters want to be everybody's parent's too. If my parents decide that I can see an R-rated movie, why should the theater care as long as I pay my 8 bucks?

On an interesting side note, the one R-rated ticket I bought without help before I was old enough was to see Eyes Wide Shut. I've been a big Kubrick fan since my dad had shown me Full Metal Jacket when I was 13. So, needless to say I was worried about getting carded after I bought my ticket due to the furor surrounding the nudity in the movie. There was nary an employee in sight. But I did notice the place they were carding people: Lake Placid. How's that for a strange twist?


G.

napalm68
01-19-2001, 09:37 PM
Hell, I'm over 18 and I wish all movies were R Rated and above, so theatres wouldn't be full of pesky, noisy children... http://www.horrordvds.com/forum/smile.gif

------------------
Oh no, mother! Blood!

DopeChamberX
01-20-2001, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by hojimoji:
The pathetic thing about movie theaters and ticket sales is the adults that have problems. Being that both my date and I were 18, one time I still wasn't allowed to buy her ticket to an a R-rated feature because the theater's policy was that no one under the age of 21 could buy multiple tickets to an R-rated film. Either that or the cashier was an idiot and couldn't read my liscence. Either way they shouldn't have that kind of power to abuse.

The real problem is that everybody is trying to be a parent. Se7en, I respect your right as a parent not to want your daughter to see SM, but the problem comes in when the gov't, the MPAA, and the theaters want to be everybody's parent's too. If my parents decide that I can see an R-rated movie, why should the theater care as long as I pay my 8 bucks?

On an interesting side note, the one R-rated ticket I bought without help before I was old enough was to see Eyes Wide Shut. I've been a big Kubrick fan since my dad had shown me Full Metal Jacket when I was 13. So, needless to say I was worried about getting carded after I bought my ticket due to the furor surrounding the nudity in the movie. There was nary an employee in sight. But I did notice the place they were carding people: Lake Placid. How's that for a strange twist?


G.

It's all true, you have to be 21 to buy more than one R-rated ticket. trust me I've refused enough to know. Don't go thinking I'm some prick who does it for fun. I had the same problem before I turned 17, and I hated the theater workers for being so uptight, until I worked at one. I work for (let's just say a very big theater chain) where if you were got letting underage people into an R-Rated film, you could be written up and at worst, fired. I think it's the stupidest goddamn rule. Parents should seriously be given the right to let their children see wahtever they damn well please. Me and my cousins tried to see Disturibing Behavior, they woulodn't let us past the ticket taker, so we had to go searching throughout the whole mall looking for our parents to have one ocme with us. It's not worth it nowadys to be under 17 and be a horror fan, unless you've got some kick ass parents to take you to those kids of movies (like my dad eventually did).

Oh and hojimoji, the reason they didn't sell you both tickets was because you didn't provide your girlfriend's driver's license (at least from your post, that's what I gathered).

Personally I found it easier just to wait til it was at the dollar theater to see something, because they can care less about how old you are. Anyways, I guess I'm done. Oh and if anyone wants to know more about shitty theater policy, feel free to ask. http://www.horrordvds.com/forum/biggrin.gif

------------------
"It's not who you come with, it's who you take home." - Prom Night 4

"...find something you love doing and do it for the rest of your life..." - Rushmore

My Collection (http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Rasmith)

fishhead
01-20-2001, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by Se7en:
Just like showing ovaries in a movie, Has anybody seen Dr.T and the women? I would rather have my daughter/son see those parts from the person they love rather than in a theater.



So, you think it's ok for a guy to see his loved one's ovaries?!? I guess that means we'll eventually be seeing a slasher/gore flick based on your life. I wonder what extras the DVD will have http://www.horrordvds.com/forum/wink.gif

Seriously dude, check out an anatomy book. I'm not sure exactly which of the various naughty bits are troubling you on the the big screen, but I can safely say it's not ovaries.


------------------
"You know the rules, when we work undercover we have to remain faceless."
"Oh, I get it, just in case we kill lots of innocent people."
Frank and Ozzy, Bad Taste

[This message has been edited by fishhead (edited 01-19-2001).]

fishhead
01-20-2001, 02:25 AM
Sorry Se7ev, it may seem like I'm picking on you but I've been thinking about something else you wrote.

Originally posted by Se7en:

Again, I just want for you to know where I'm coming from... When you have kids it will change your life forever. It will have you thinking in other ways and evaluating everything. I was never a censor this and this is wrong kind of guy. For me it was always show everything, give us the truth, ect... But of course that has changed nowadays. And in my opinion they are getting away with too much in Hollywood.



I don't have kids and I'm not going to have any. (Yes, never) Therefore, I tend to get not a little bit upset when someone tries to limit what I see or enjoy "for the children". You don't want your kids to see things like Scary Movie. Well, I agree, they shouldn't see that. However, I do want to see things like Scary Movie.

The solution is, of course, is that you censor what you and your kids see. Do not, ever, attempt to censor those who make the film because that will then limit my choices.

There are very clear areas in society that are adult-oriented and where the presence of children is not appropriate. I find it most distressing that these areas (movies/theatre/restuarants/whatever) are currently being viewed as wrong. Somehow, the trend seems to be, the whole world should be made safe for a child. This is just wrong, IMO.

------------------
"You know the rules, when we work undercover we have to remain faceless."
"Oh, I get it, just in case we kill lots of innocent people."
Frank and Ozzy, Bad Taste

AceRimRat
01-20-2001, 03:01 AM
I don't have any kids, and I don't know if I ever will (I'd kinda like to, maybe) but I always kind of figured it's a parent's responsibility to try to keep an eye on what their kids are doing.

(By the way, I'm not knocking you, Se7en, or however you want to raise your kids, that's none of my business as long as they don't try to kill me or something.)

But I think fishhead has a certain point about censorship being bad as a general rule, vice a parental-inflicted sort of thing.

My parents were pretty particular about what they let me see when they could control it, and they tried to keep my best interests in mind - but I still got to see R-rated movies at parties, friends' houses, etc. And some of them scared the crap out of me (Jaws, for instance), so maybe my folks had it right. I dunno. I was mad I couldn't go see "Aliens" with my friend and his dad (I was 11), but on the other hand, I think they had a good point about not letting me see "Platoon" the same year (I'm adopted, from Vietnam). They eventually let me see both films on video, before I was 18, when they thought I could handle it. So that's my model.

My 3 or 4 cents.

hojimoji
01-20-2001, 04:32 AM
Originally posted by DopeChamberX:

The reason they didn't sell you both tickets was because you didn't provide your girlfriend's driver's license (at least from your post, that's what I gathered).



That was truly the kicker, I had both our driver's licenses, and the cashier still wouldn't sell me the tickets. But since so far that particular event has been an isolated incident I'm hoping it was just and error and not company policy.

And on the subject of kids, I think that kids know more and can deal with more than adults give them credit for. That doesn't mean they should be inundated with peni like SM, but if they should see an errant genital or two it won't warp them if they aren't unbalanced already.

G.

Afro_Ryan
01-21-2001, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by Dave:
Scream is a spoof trying to be a horror movie. At least Scary Movie got it right!

[/B]

I personally believe that Scream IS first and foremost a satire; A spoof on the horror genre. However, it accomplishes this not by crude, sophomoric visual gags in the Abrahams-Zucker fashion ( As In Scary Movie ) but rather by means of clever dialogue and subtle references. I think Scream gives the audience a little more credit...

Scream is to Scary Movie as Simpsons is to Beavis And Butthead.

-AR

napalm68
01-21-2001, 01:04 AM
Yeah, I agree parents should take responsibility. I will NEVER have any children, so I don't really care about ratings on films.

What I do care strongly about is Distributors CUTTING a film to get a lower rating to make it accessable to children, and hence make them more money. That is, greed. That is so wrong it makes me mad. Scream is a perfect example of this. The distributors in the US cut it to get a lower rating, and this cut print was then perpetrated on the rest of the planet. The uncut version would have easily passed with the same rating in Australia, but in Aus, we ended up with the same butchered US version.

Another idiotic example is Men In Black in Australia, where the distributors cut some petty bits from it to get the rating down to PG... Not that I like the film...

------------------
Oh no, mother! Blood!

DVD Connoisseur
01-21-2001, 08:38 PM
MIB had a word changed in the UK dub! Unbelievable.

With regards ratings, etc, it's always a shame when movies are cut to achieve a lower rating and pull in the younger crowds. Over here, The Mummy was trimmed to get a 12 certificate (thankfully, the DVD restored the footage and was a 15). Yes, I like the Mummy! Other films that have been trimmed for the UK cinema include Lethal Weapon 2, Die Hard 2, GoldenEye, License to Kill and The Matrix. Hardly films that would warp a normal individual!

CasEjonz
07-12-2006, 06:23 AM
Well, I decided to revive this old thread because I have just about had it with Wes Craven. Without quoting several people who make several excellent points within this thread, I am simply going to get on my soapbox and rant away.
I liked Craven's "Last House on the Left" and or course "HIlls Have Eyes" is a tremendous movie. However, thats about as far as it goes. Pretty much everything, (Okay, I'll exclude Serpant & the Rainbow", but the rest are fair game/) I mean he has not done a good film since, NOES was pretty boring in my opinion, and I cant believe it managed as many sequels, SCRAM, don't get me started on "the beautiful people"horror movies, I loathe the series, but "They" was one of the weakest things I recall. I recently purchased "Wes Craven's Carnival of Souls" on VHS for $1, just to see what he did with a great classic and was left with my jaw slack as again he proved to be a bad film maker (IMO) The guys is resting off early laurels and does not deserve all the accolades he is afforded. Wes is just beyond his days for this genre, and should move on to do another remake of "Alfie" or "Ghighli 2" but retire the horror film maker moniker ol Wessie!

_pi_
07-12-2006, 10:03 AM
Well, he didn't really make Them or Carnival of Souls himself ... Just produced them. Otherwise, I completely disagere with you. Love NOES and the Scream films, which were so much better than the other teenage-aimed horror films of the late 90s.

soxfan666
07-12-2006, 06:51 PM
even if you dont like scream i think it deserves appreciation and credit because it helped to revive the horror genre.

onebyone
07-12-2006, 07:00 PM
When Craven is good, he is very very good, but when he is bad... he is horrid.

That said, I give him props for finding ways to stay relevant throughout the years. Any time it seems like he needs to be carted away to the Tobe Hopper Memorial Horror Retirement Home, he'll find a way to make a hit movie. He may not be the most consistent or best of the current living "masters" of horror, but he is certainly one of the most scrappy. I would never count him out.

Myron Breck
07-12-2006, 07:13 PM
I agree with onebyone that he never stops trying...and occassionally makes something marginally entertaining. But when I look at his filmography I am stunned at how much mediocre-to-crappy stuff he's made. THIS guy is a horror legend??? Seems odd to me, that he should be a legend and Tobe Hooper is considered a joke by most people (not me, :)).

That said, I'm chomping at the fucking bit to get a DEADLY FRIEND SE DVD release!!!! OMG!!! :banana: And a HILLS HAVE EYES, PART 2 commentary track would be choice.

CasEjonz
07-13-2006, 12:50 AM
even if you dont like scream i think it deserves appreciation and credit because it helped to revive the horror genre.
Even if he didn't do it, someone would have "harkened" the return of the Horror genre. The genre is pretty cyclical so it would only be a matter of time before it returned to the forefront.
Regarding what _pi_ stated that Scream was the best of a bad run of horror films, I feel Scream is included in that batch of bad run of horror films, and if it is the reason for so many of them, then shame on Craven for making such a poor film and inspiring the follow up type movies.
It just seems as far as a "horror legend," Craven's portfolio of films that he has had his hand in making has left a poor taste in my mouth. To quote Mike Brady: "Greg, We expected a lot better from you." So like scolding a Brady kid, I have to say, I wanted Wes to do something worth viewing, and of course it is on;y my opinion, but he has done jack shit to impress me since tHHE.

Ash J. Williams
07-13-2006, 04:03 AM
I've always found Wes to be an effective director in the mood sense. He knows when to use what type of shot to get the best effect - Something some directors are not so talented at. Example, Red Eye: You've got a movie that takes place in two seats on an airplane. The same tired shots of Cillian Murphy and Rose McGowan back and forth would have gotten old REAL fast in the hands of an incompetent director. But Wes kept it moving, at a perfect, fluid pace.

The direction is what counts in horror. No other genre puts so little power on the script and so much power on the directorial style. Raimi proved this with The Evil Dead. And to an extent, Tobe did with TCM, but in that instance I still have major problems with the film. Some say it's the best horror movie ever made, but Tobe went far too far with his "Raw" feeling. If you want to make a movie that looks like it was made on home video and put against industrial creaks, that's cool. Don't shoot your actors directly against the sun. Keep them in frame. And don't tell me that "That was the point," because I got the point. It was a good experimental film, but from a film and camera analyst's standpoint it's a piece of trash. And to date, nothing Tobe Hooper has done in his career has impressed me. TCM 2 was a fun outing, but an overall pointless and less effective film. He is, in fact, a joke, in my opinion.

Craven, on the other hand, makes it work. And while I don't always appreciate his source material (Last House on the Left is the only film to ever truly offend me, and the direction is so rookie it makes my head hurt), he is a clever filmmaker and an even more clever writer. The best film, by far, that he has ever made, was New Nightmare. A twisted, brilliant blend of wit and ingenuity.

_pi_
07-13-2006, 09:06 AM
And to date, nothing Tobe Hooper has done in his career has impressed me.

Not even Poltergeist? No, wait. That was Steven Spielberg ... :p

I do agree with you, though, on Tobe Hooper. I can't for the love of god understand why people still follow his work. After seeing the truly atrocious Lifeforce a while back I became convinced that the man is a talentless hack. And as much as I love TCM - and even Poltergeist - the vast majority of his work has been way below avarage.

Craven, at the very least, has made a number of bona fide classics and well received films. Sure, he's made a few bad ones, but maybe that's because he's keen on trying new things. Sometimes his experiments work, sometimes they don't. But he keeps it interesting for himself and his fans and, regarding the films he choses to make, he's never predictable.

Criswell
07-13-2006, 02:09 PM
Personally, I will never see what people see in Last House on the Left. It was decent to be sure but i hardly consider it a horror classic, or even a horror movie for that fact. What especially ruined it for me are the retarded Keystone Cops that ran around like bumbling idiots with a honky-tonk score acompanying them whenever they are on screen. I just cant take a movie seriously with acting like that.

Personally I feel that EVERYTHING Wes Craven has touched is superior to LHOL, that includes NOES, the Scream series, Invitation to Hell, and yes even DEADLY FRIEND (R-rated cut)

You need to put away any thoughts of films like Saw etc.........and remember when this film was made. The 70's was all about cults, drugs and friggin paranoia.

In this way the film is strong. Much more than say, i drink your blood which covered similar greound but is much more comical and hysterical - almost tabloid.

The Chaostar
07-13-2006, 02:24 PM
Damn it Pi! Hooper is talentless today but LIFEFORCE is a great great movie!

I agree with onebyone on Craven, he seems to pull it of when you think least of him.

In general, it ain't so smart to write off directors. Look at Cigarrete Burns or - an even bigger example - William Frietkin's last film...

Ash J. Williams
07-13-2006, 06:29 PM
Pi, I agree with you completely. Poltergeist happens to be one of my favorite movies, but everytime I hear "Poltergeist! From the director of the Texas Chain Saw Massacre, and Lifeforce!" I have to wince. Spielberg should have his name on his most impressive straight-horror piece.