|
Lost Boys really gives you a taste of that Santa Cruz lifestyle.
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 18:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 00:47 |
|
|
Lost Boys: The Tribe is really just... fine. It's not good but it's nowhere near as bad as you'd expect a 2008 sequel to the Lost Boys to be. It also looks like the most 90s thing ever.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
I haven't seen any of the sequels (yet), but a still-teenage Frog Boys-centric spin-off set after the events of Lost Boys, where they try to sell themselves as vampire killing experts in the neighborhood and cause more harm than good, seems like such an obvious film fodder. I'm surprised no one's working on it right now, since Stranger Things and IT are so popular.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 21:23
|
|
|
alf_pogs posted:but yeah Ebert never "got" horror cinema, it just wasn't his bag at all. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 21:35
|
|
|
Looks like Simon Pegg's dipping into the horror comedy waters again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI7kBD6hoKw
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 21:43
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:He didn't categorically hate horror, but he hated anything gory, and it would prompt him to get wistful about the cowboy movies of his youth Ebert gave Reanimator 3 stars on release. He didn't necessarily hate gore. Like all of us, his tastes were complex.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 21:44
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:He didn't categorically hate horror, but he hated anything gory, and it would prompt him to get wistful about the cowboy movies of his youth From his review of David Lynch's Wild At Heart (which he gave 2.5 stars and repeatedly says he doesn't like it very much): Roger Ebert posted:Understand that it's not the violence I mind. It's the sneaky excuses. He gave high reviews to Jacob's Ladder and Evil Dead 2, for instance. His actual big issue with the horror genre was how it depicts violence against women and other misogynistic imagery / depictions of misogyny. Weirdly enough, he gave high marks to "Irreversible". And Alien. Franchescanado fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Aug 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 21:55
|
|
|
Well, okay, he hated slashers and rape-and-revenge films. I'm inclined to agree with him about the latter, though I admit I've never seen I Spit On Your Grave and don't really feel the need.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 21:56
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Well, okay, he hated slashers and rape-and-revenge films. I'm inclined to agree with him about the latter, though I admit I've never seen I Spit On Your Grave and don't really feel the need. Yeah. Not even all slashers. Dude loved Halloween. I don't agree with a lot of his opinions, though. Dude gave really low ratings to some of my Top 5 movies of all time, like Terry Gilliam's Brazil. I think his grudge against David Lynch was petty, which he even acknowledged. And of course, everyone laughs at his enthusiastic praise for Anaconda and Steak n Shake. edit: There is no real reason to watch I Spit On Your Grave. Watch Ms. 45 instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 22:07
|
|
|
He really liked the original Last House on the Left too. When he hated something, he always had a strong justification for it, even if I didn't always agree with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 22:14
|
|
|
I like the remake of Last House on the Left better than the original. 😉
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 22:29
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:Yeah. Not even all slashers. Dude loved Halloween. His review of Blue Velvet was just confusing. Even back when I wasn’t fully onboard with Lynch I liked Blue Velvet. Part of me wants to revisit I Spit on Your Grave because Carol Clover talks about how the rape scenes are all from the perspective of the woman, and that just doesn’t line up with my memory of it. I don’t recall feeling like I was meant to experience the victim’s perspective, I remember distinctly feeling like it was supposed to be titillating and that it made me angry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 22:33
|
|
|
Drunkboxer posted:His review of Blue Velvet was just confusing. Even back when I wasn’t fully onboard with Lynch I liked Blue Velvet. I dunno, with respect to Carol Clover's writings, I don't fully agree with her assessment for that particular film. It certainly shows the victim's suffering, but I remember it having a detached documentary-style view of the events. I think it's exploitative for the sake of titillation and the sheer amount of screen-time dedicated to the sexual assaults just doesn't justify any repeat viewings for me and is why I don't recommend watching it. It was a movie made with the idea of going as far as they could with shock value but to try and justify it with visceral revenge. It feels more like an experiment than a statement or anything. I have written about it, though. I think that the 2nd half of the film--the attacks and everything after--can be read as the story/novel she is writing while on vacation. The story she describes closely matches the rest of the events of the film, and the beginning of the events happens while she's writing the story.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 22:44
|
|
|
Ebert liked the Star Wars prequels, that should've ended his career right there.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 23:39
|
|
|
We Know Catheters posted:I like the remake of Last House on the Left better than the original. 😉 Wrong. and the microwave death was dumb
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Ebert liked the Star Wars prequels, that should've ended his career right there. Glad he’s gone so he doesn’t infect us with his opinions any more.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 00:23
|
|
|
Drunkboxer posted:
That's the correct read on the original. The remake throws that it but turns into a torture porn thing, which is also a misstep imo (and has really lovely box art that I'm pretty sure is supposed to be 'sexy'). Don't bother revisiting either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 00:24
|
|
|
I watched I Spit on your Grave recently and I didn't find the rape scenes (multiple, over about 30 minutes) titillating in the slightest. If anything, they were gross and violent as hell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
The remake is bad, but the sequels are even worse. Just awful, badly written misery porn.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 00:48
|
|
|
The thing that makes the original I Spit worse for me is the setup where she lets one of the guys have sex with her again in order to trap him. That's some bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 00:59
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I watched I Spit on your Grave recently and I didn't find the rape scenes (multiple, over about 30 minutes) titillating in the slightest. If anything, they were gross and violent as hell. Yeah, I watched it last October during my Ironman, and the whole thing feels more on tone with like, how gore is often presented, as like, shock value and disgust, rather than as something hot and sexy. And of course I realize that just opens the whole worm can about how gore is presented in films...
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 01:13
|
|
|
Choco1980 posted:Yeah, I watched it last October during my Ironman, and the whole thing feels more on tone with like, how gore is often presented, as like, shock value and disgust, rather than as something hot and sexy. The castration murder is one of the most agonizing to watch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 01:25
|
|
|
flashy_mcflash posted:The remake throws that it but turns into a torture porn thing, which is also a misstep imo (and has really lovely box art that I'm pretty sure is supposed to be 'sexy'). It's an intentional copy of the poster+box art for the equally lovely original. Franchescanado posted:edit: There is no real reason to watch I Spit On Your Grave. Watch Ms. 45 instead. This.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 02:35
|
|
|
M_Sinistrari posted:Looks like Simon Pegg's dipping into the horror comedy waters again. This looks like a bad Edgar Wright ripoff :/
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 02:56
|
|
|
M_Sinistrari posted:Looks like Simon Pegg's dipping into the horror comedy waters again. Peeps hate darkwave cover songs in trailers, but for the love of Christ it's better than whatever they're doing to the Hives here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 03:01
|
|
|
married but discreet posted:This looks like a bad Edgar Wright ripoff :/ I mean it's using 95% of his usual cast
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 03:09
|
|
|
Watched Basket Case tonight, first time. That ending - Jesus Christ
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 03:39
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:edit: There is no real reason to watch I Spit On Your Grave. Watch Ms. 45 instead. My man. Tart Kitty fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Aug 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 04:02
|
|
|
flashy_mcflash posted:Ebert was a real piece of poo poo. I remember attending a screening of The Brown Bunny here in Toronto and that fuckboy was talking loudly and catcalling the movie like an idiot. I don't care how bad the movie is, no one wants to see that. Ebert had a bad critical lens and while I wasn't aware that he was kind of an rear end in person as well, I'm not entirely surprised. I'm also glad people are coming around on this, I remember a time on these forums you basically couldn't speak ill of the guy without people jumping on you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 04:04
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Ebert had a bad critical lens and while I wasn't aware that he was kind of an rear end in person as well, I'm not entirely surprised. For my part, I miss there being a popular critic who had a critical lens instead of a broken pair of glasses they picked up in a dumpster. The critical lens in question doesn't need to be the They Live glasses or anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 04:11
|
|
|
Blast Fantasto posted:Watched Basket Case tonight, first time. That ending - Jesus Christ Same, but It's Alive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 04:13
|
|
|
Roger Ebert posted:I don't have any confidence I'm right, I just assume that I am. Partially out of conviction, and partially as a pose.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 04:15
|
|
|
okay i guess nobody's ALL bad
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 04:16
|
|
|
The one thing I kinda respect about Ebert is that even if he often had dumb opinions, if you had a well thought out, civil and reasonable rebuttal, he'd usually listen and give your take a chance, sometimes even rewatching the films in question from that perspective.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 04:18
|
|
|
I like how, in his review of Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey, he cops to having been too snooty to bother with the first one, and then also regretting it since Bogus Journey was so good.roger ebert posted:I missed the enormously popular movie that introduced these characters, "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure," and felt myself blessed at the time. But now I'm not so sure. Their "Bogus Journey" is a riot of visual invention and weird humor that works on its chosen sub-moronic level, and on several others as well, including some fairly sophisticated ones. It's the kind of movie where you start out snickering in spite of yourself, and end up actually admiring the originality that went into creating this hallucinatory slapstick.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 04:23
|
|
|
Roger Ebert wrote Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, one of the greatest movies of all time, I disagree with either the conclusions or terms of 95% of his criticism, but he was nothing if not a populist critic who probably did a better job of citing actually well-crafted examples of exploitation cinema than anyone else of his contemporaries. One of his most fascinating reviews is of Grindhouse, where he kind of epically flexes about how exploitation film nostalgia is completely irrelevant because the content of contemporary action and horror cinema had already caught up with their seemingly 'degenerate' standards. Like, the coded point of his critique about the Friday the 13th movies being sporting events about killing women, where the sole recurring character is literally wearing a hokey mask, is that he's saying that despite his usual "I judge it by the completely unfathomable "what were they trying to do" standard," he really does think that even among trashy films there's better ideas than that. He'd be saying, like, "It's not Death Race 2000."
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 04:39
|
|
|
The whole "Ebert hates horror" thing always seemed like it was based almost entirely on his bone to pick with Friday the 13th and the slasher wave. Personally I never got the impression he hated horror movies or was being unfair to them, and while I think him trying to start a letter-writing campaign was a bit much, I find the pearl-clutching about him "doxxing" the filmmakers amusing: these were not anonymous internet people, they're Hollywood producers and actors who put their names on the film. If they hadn't anticipated that getting hate mail came with the territory, they should have.Choco1980 posted:The one thing I kinda respect about Ebert is that even if he often had dumb opinions, if you had a well thought out, civil and reasonable rebuttal, he'd usually listen and give your take a chance, sometimes even rewatching the films in question from that perspective. Something Ebert was always adamant about was how much it didn't matter whether he liked the same movies you did or not - he had his own tastes and biases and in the end he's just some jerk with an opinion like anyone else. Much closer to the point of his reviews was that he explained his reasoning well enough that you could understand why he felt the way he did, and that in doing so you would have enough of an impression of the film that you could fairly make up your mind about whether it was something you were interested in or not. Like, if you read a review that says, "I hated this movie because it was nothing but a mindless parade of gratuitous action set pieces starring a talentless lead actress who was surely cast only for her sex appeal," and you think, "What a pretentious snot, a non-stop action thrillride with plenty of eye candy sounds awesome! Hell, I think I'll check it out," then the reviewer has done their job.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 06:37
|
|
|
lizardman posted:I find the pearl-clutching about him "doxxing" the filmmakers amusing: these were not anonymous internet people, they're Hollywood producers and actors who put their names on the film. If they hadn't anticipated that getting hate mail came with the territory, they should have. It's one thing to have hate mail come through the usual avenues of the studio or agency, it's another thing to publish where someone lives to invite that to possibly involve their personal lives and families.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 07:26
|
|
|
I respect Ebert as both a populist who was informed about the craft of filmmaking and championed it's unsung and underlooked works. He may not have been right, but he usually wasn't when it came to what he thought was worth watching. There aren't that many who make large swaths of people stop to listen, letting them explain why they should care about something they never heard about. For most people, Ebert was replaced by Rotten Tomatoes. And you certainly lose a lot of nuance and intelligence in a fairly binary aggregate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 07:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 00:47 |
|
|
lizardman posted:The whole "Ebert hates horror" thing always seemed like it was based almost entirely on his bone to pick with Friday the 13th and the slasher wave. Personally I never got the impression he hated horror movies or was being unfair to them, and while I think him trying to start a letter-writing campaign was a bit much, I find the pearl-clutching about him "doxxing" the filmmakers amusing: these were not anonymous internet people, they're Hollywood producers and actors who put their names on the film. If they hadn't anticipated that getting hate mail came with the territory, they should have. Yeah the lady who played Pamela Voorhees really deserved a bunch of hate mail/concern trolling from upset conservatives mad about the violence and it was really responsible and cool for Ebert to encourage that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 07:55
|
|
