|
Needs More Goop posted:Et tu, Machete? I wouldn't worry about it I feel like Eating Raoul is gonna win by a pretty comfortable margin.
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 21:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:19 |
|
|
I’m going Eating Raoul and What We Do In The Shadows. Eating Raoul is charming, goofy, incredibly light and cartoonish despite the dark subject matter. It’s a wonderful 80s dark comedy, kinda like the Yuppie sibling to Repo Man, and the tone in the first half reminded me of Little Shop of Horrors.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 21:32
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I wouldn't worry about it I feel like Eating Raoul is gonna win by a pretty comfortable margin. Yeah thats what I expect. Had to go with the Gothic vampire exploitation though
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 21:37
|
|
|
Eating Raoul reminds me a bit of Slingapore Sling in the tone v content mismatch it goes for. It mostly works but not all of it imo. It's much more competently made than The Body Beneath so you'll get no arguments from me there. However if I had to pick between the two for a rewatch I'd go with the Vampire one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 21:46
|
|
|
I'm 3 down. What We Do In the Shadows beats Maniac Cop 3 easily. I have a lot of thoughts on the Maniac Cop series and Larry Cohen's writing politics which I will eventually turn into a rambling Letterboxd review but I also just have no interest in the Lustig 80s stunt and violence stuff that seems to be the big appeal for most to this series. So a charming and easy sitcom pilot wins out easily. I haven't seen Eating Raoul yet and I'm worried about it, but the Body Beneath bored me incredibly so its the problematic film's contest to lose. I will try to get to that tonight but if not I'll probably sneak it in tomorrow morning.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2022 22:22
|
|
|
Well… I really didn’t enjoy Eating Raoul. Comedy is subjective and all. I don’t think it amused me at all. Add in tons of rapes for laughs and a healthy dash of casual racism and I’m just gonna abstain on that one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2022 06:42
|
|
|
I have no problem voting The Body Beneath. It may look like a ramshackle community theatre production and it does kind of plod along especially toward the end, but I found it quite charming. It had moments of genuine emotion. That was lacking in Eating Raoul which I kind of think ought to take itself more seriously than it does. It probably landed a bit better when it was released, but I got nothing out of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2022 07:04
|
|
|
The Body Beneath Vampires in dainty dresses and sloppily applied blue makeup – yes! Last 10 minutes or so of vampire council filmed with a greased up lens – YES! Everything else about the movie – no. As far as low budget vampire movies go, we’ve seen a lot in past tournaments, and this one is one of the worse ones. The ending can’t really save it, it’s too little too late. Eating Raoul What a weird movie. Not in the usual bracketology weird even. What is the movie trying to say? Is it pro sex? It’s certainly horny in a weird way that I can’t pin down in any way or form, but it feels, performative? Is it anti-capitalism? This couple in a happy asexual marriage starts up a prostitution business to rob and murder their clients. The woman is repeatedly sexually assaulted in the process. Eventually they commit indiscriminate mass murder, killing even their friend. Once they have murdered enough people they finally achieve their dream of opening a restaurant. What. Straight up told like that this could absolutely read as satire, but throughout the movie it absolutely does not. It’s a comedy whose sense of humor is extremely peculiar, mostly consists of haha people are kinky, there is zero consequence to anything, nobody learns a thing or develops as a character. Again this sort of reads as satire written down like that. But the movie is just, not satire or anything. Definitely not horror. I’m deeply confused. I can’t say I didn’t enjoy the movie but I’m not voting for it I guess? But it’s so much better than what its up against. Oof. What We Do In The Shadows Just a stone cold contemporary comedy classic, nothing to say except it’s really funny and cute, there have been many knock-offs and none manage to come close to it. Maniac Cop III There is very little Maniac Cop in this movie. His kill count is pathetic. Most people die in vaguely related shootings. The squibs are good. The movie really starts when the cop is set on fire, which is perhaps in the last 15 minutes? There’s a flashback to Maniac Cop II and it is the best part of the movie by far. There is no ending rap. It is a movie I have watched. Voting for Shadows, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2022 16:16
|
|
|
That time. Or a bit past it. The rules clearly state “until I get to the computer” even if that’s just be sleeping in and being too lazy to get out of bed. Eating Raoul was not as problematic for most as it for me it seems, which really isn’t a huge surprise given our past. Milligan’s Body Beneath does pick up 4 votes which could account for its mood or style or people who just didn’t gel with the comedy of the Criterion choice. But in the end Blarton’s film cruises to a 9-4 victory. For Andy Milligan that’s a tough end to a weird journey. Not actually nominated, given a bye into the tournament, and then getting a really rough draw film. An odd debut but there’s always next year. For Deb’s Team Quite Good Directors That I Enjoy it means an advancement into the second round and at least one more week of me trying to acronym that mouthful.  Whoops, I forgot to change that question. My bad. Either way its an even more decisive victory for What We Do In The Shadows, losing only two votes to Maniac Cop 3. Its actually maybe a testament to Waititi’s film that its quirky humor didn’t lose more votes to the generic but passable 80s action slasher. Those do tend to do well around here. But the Kiwi had no trouble and jumpstarts Tarnop’s Predation’s second tournament run with a bang and into the second round. For “Alan Smithee” its out of the tournament and for William Lustig its his second loss in two tries (I’m leaning towards counting it in the stats but I’m still not sure). Its also 0-2 for Maniac Cop sequels. Maybe next year Lustig can draw the OG and either nail that 0-3 or break the streak? We’ll see. Onward to decide who they match up against next round. 4. (Deb’s Horror Comedies) James Gunn’s Slither vs. 13. (Darth’s Team Double Bubble aka Kids & Creations) Stephen Susco’s Unfriended: The Dark Web  I did the rare 4 quotes because goons sure have a common opinion about Slither. If there was a word bubble I think we’d know what word would be at the center of it. Slither is a crowd favorite and honestly seems like a tough film to beat. James Gunn’s having a moment with a internet hit tv series just wrapping up so can he pick up a win in his first Bracketology appearance as well? Darth’s confusingly themed team puts up a film that does have its share of positive reviews and seems like a bit of a low key surprise hit for many. But does it have enough to knock off a potential heavyweight? Or is Gunn’s infamous edgelordiness from nearly 20 years ago going to turn out to age this one a little worse than we remember or make it a niche thing? Only one way to find out. Sequel Alert: Unfriended: Dark Web is the sequel to Unfriended, although as I recall there are almost entirely unconnected. The first film is about a teenage ghost and the second is about a dark web cult or something. I dunno. They share a similar gimmicked format but beyond that they might make some kind of passing reference or something but I think you’re safe just watching the second film on its own. Its not quite a sequel alert but it is worth noting that there’s some confusion as to whether this movie has two endings or not. The rumor is that two endings were sent to theaters to be played at random, ala Clue, but the filmmakers deny this and say they simply sent a first copy out, changed the ending, and then sent a second copy out. Either way there might be two endings out there? I’m not sure. Unfriended is on Netflix Unfriended: The Dark Web Slither is on Starz, DirecTV, and Spectrum. 6. (Fran’s Team Auteur) Francis Ford Coppola’s Dementia 13 vs. 11. William Friedkin’s Rampage  Its a pair of major names matching up even if its not exactly what they’re most known for. Honestly Coppola vs Friedkin might be a little too high brow for us. Its a matchup you could probably sell to anyone on paper. But this also isn’t their best stuff. For Coppola’s its his very first film (produced by Roger Corman no less) and while there’s plenty of people who talk about it showing hints of his talent and being elevated by that most also seem to agree its a rough production both due to his inexperience and the budget. On the other hand Friedkin did Rampage well into his career but production budget issues left it in limbo for 5 years, many fans consider it a confused and unenthusiastic film, and Friedkin himself is critical of it and even changed the ending years later. On the other hand Roger Ebert and others seemed to love it so who knows? Maybe pushing the boundaries of horror again although it seems to explore the horrors of our legal system even if accidently. Its gonna be an interesting matchup for sure as one legendary non-horror director is gonna go over another legendary non-horror director with two of their less representative films. Dementia 13 is on Epix, Paramount+, Screambox, Directv, hoopla, Kanopy, Tubi, Pluto, Plex, and a bunch of other services. Rampage That’s our week. I mailed it in a little this week. Again. Sorry about that. I’m trying to get back into the groove but stuff has been busy and stressed and sick. Maybe this week. A couple of the films aren’t available on the usual streaming services but they are out there. If you need them say something. There will also probably be streams from our wonderful streamer. Vote or change your vote until 12 noon EST Feb 26th (or when I get to the computer) Next Week! 3. Roy Ward Baker vs. 14. Tarnop’s The Brutal Brits 5. Basebf’sTales From the Necronomicon vs. 12. Goat’s GdT's Creature Features Spreadsheet Letterboxd List
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2022 18:17
|
|
|
 Stream Time!!! Saturday 7pm EST (Deb’s Horror Comedies) James Gunn’s Slither vs. (Darth’s Team Double Bubble aka Kids & Creations) Stephen Susco’s Unfriended: The Dark Web Sunday 7pm EST (Fran’s Team Auteur) Francis Ford Coppola’s Dementia 13 vs. William Friedkin’s Rampage
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2022 18:26
|
|
|
That first one is a slam dunk
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2022 18:29
|
|
|
Dark Web is so fuckin' good it's not even close for me. Combined with James Gunn becoming increasingly insufferable with every film and I gotta give it to the Unfriended series, one of the most inventive and fun twists on the slasher formula we've seen since Final Destination and still the best mainstream film to do the Desktop format right. Funny enough, Dementia 13 is the second Coppola film in the tournament so far this year, given he was one of six(?) directors to work on The Terror. Ironically I just started going through Coppola's filmography as much of his work is a blindspot for me (besides his 70s output obviously, plus Dracula and The Outsiders). To be a nerd, Dementia 13 is actually not Coppola's first film although it's often been cited as such. His earliest work was shooting some new footage and re-editing a Soviet sci-fi film, resulting in Battle Beyond the Sun. His first full feature was a nudie cutie in 1962 called Tonight for Sure. He also did a substantial portion of new footage for another nudie cutie, The Bellboy and the Playgirls, which is technically a re-edit of a West German feature with Coppola contributing anaglyph 3D softcore scenes but about half the film roughly is his work. TrixRabbi fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Feb 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 22:50
|
|
|
married but discreet posted:Eating Raoul I know I'm super late on this, but I think the key to unlocking the film is to temporarily remove the murders. What we find is a couple at the tail end of the sexual revolution, who live outside of that emergent sexual dynamism, and find themselves having to engage with that movement and the anxieties that come from that engagement. More plainly, it's about a non-sexual couple engaging in sex work in order to realise their dreams, and in that sense, yes, it is about how capitalism commodifies everything and makes us exploit every area of our lives. More to the point, it's about how those factors engage with us as couples. How does a couple navigate the jealousy and temptations of this world they're confronted with? The love triangle between Paul, Mary, and Raoul is emblematic of the struggles of an America that was attempting to define itself. The fiction of Paul as he attempts to racistly manipulate Raoul, or the reality of Raoul, that this entire system is a con that turns us all into dogfood. Ultimately Paul is the victor as we move into the Reagan era, and move toward Chez Bland, a cozy country kitchen built upon a mass grave. E: And Rampage sucks on toast
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 04:59
|
|
|
Needs More Goop posted:I know I'm super late on this, but I think the key to unlocking the film is to temporarily remove the murders. What we find is a couple at the tail end of the sexual revolution, who live outside of that emergent sexual dynamism, and find themselves having to engage with that movement and the anxieties that come from that engagement. More plainly, it's about a non-sexual couple engaging in sex work in order to realise their dreams, and in that sense, yes, it is about how capitalism commodifies everything and makes us exploit every area of our lives. More to the point, it's about how those factors engage with us as couples. How does a couple navigate the jealousy and temptations of this world they're confronted with? The love triangle between Paul, Mary, and Raoul is emblematic of the struggles of an America that was attempting to define itself. The fiction of Paul as he attempts to racistly manipulate Raoul, or the reality of Raoul, that this entire system is a con that turns us all into dogfood. Ultimately Paul is the victor as we move into the Reagan era, and move toward Chez Bland, a cozy country kitchen built upon a mass grave. This is right on the money and it's why the bad taste is not only acceptable but the explicit point. There's a very elevated absurdity in the acting styles as well, they play like John Waters scenes (or for that matter, Andy Warhol -- Mary Woronov was a Factory girl) with exaggerated pronunciation and cartoonish stereotypes for characters, and that connects the film back to its 60s and 70s counterculture roots as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 18:50
|
|
|
It would've been easy to just vote for Slither without even giving Unfriended a chance. And in the end my vote is what I expected it to be, Slither is a great time and I've always had a soft spot for creature features. It's probably not necessary for much discussion of Slither because we all know why it's good and what it's flaws are at this point. Unfriended: The Dark Web gets major points for uniqueness, even if what makes it unique isn't really my thing. I got frustrated at the beginning because right away you start to understand what's gonna be required to watch this movie. It's windows being opened and closed every two seconds, and people typing stuff constantly. And you have to at least somewhat keep up with what they're typing, because that's a big part of how the story is delivered. It's just a different way of consuming a story and it's not easy to adjust to. The "gimmick"(that sounds negative but I can't think of another word to use) does get a bit strained at a certain point when things really get intense and these people are still just sitting there talking to each other on the computer, and then when they finally do leave the house they're still video calling each other when they probably should be staying aware of potential danger. For me it was an experience like getting into a pool when the water is a bit cold. Very uncomfortable at first, but then you slide all the way in and you get used to it and start to enjoy it. So with this experience under my belt, I could definitely see myself watching another Unfriended type movie and engaging with it even more because I kinda know the rules of the road now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 15:29
|
|
|
I appreciate Goop and TrixRabbi's insights - I can see what you're getting out of the movie, but I just can't see it myself. Rampage Rampage brings me to an interesting conundrum – I’m cheering for the brutal murderer to rampage some more, based on my boredom with the movie, and I boo/hiss the justice system trying to murder him, based on my personal convictions. None of it is of course real, but both the murderer and the justice system are based on reality. The old horror problem – real murder is bad, fictional murder is fun, but is the fictional death penalty fun too? I suppose horror, or real life, has no general pro-murder agenda, whereas there is definitely a real pro death penalty (it is murder) agenda. And that does real harm. Of course all the arguments brought up both for and against the penalty in the movie sound really dumb, and it ends with a cop out anyways, so I don’t know if there’s much harm done. Either way the movie sucks rear end, it’s boring as hell and politically objectionable, not voting for that. Dementia 13 It’s fine, and just the right draw to beat a movie like Rampage. Starts out strong and confidently directed but absolutely loses steam after its clear centerpiece scene (a very good one by the way). I really did like the soundtrack, and actually felt it to be much better than Morricone’s, which I barely even noticed in Rampage. Overall, it’s not a complete slam dunk of a first movie for Coppola, but it’s also much better than for example Spielberg’s first. Dementia easy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2022 16:13
|
|
|
Thursday. 46 hours to vote. Get your movies in. Close contests or not? Sorry, I'm busy. Vote or change your vote until 12 noon EST Feb 26th (or when I get to the computer)
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2022 19:59
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Close contests or not? I don't think so. As much as people seem to respect what Unfriended was doing, Slither is still a goopy creature feature and you know how popular that sort of thing is around here. And Rampage was just garbage all around, sad to say but it does kinda lower my respect of Friedkin a notch. Like, this isn't Something Evil where all Spielberg had done up to that point was Duel and an episode of Columbo. This is a Friedkin who of course had made The Exorcist more than a decade before, but he made To Live and Die in L.A. in 1985 only a few years before Rampage so it's like, what the hell happened here? Deb pointed it out during the stream but it seems like Friedkin is sort of a chameleon like director who doesn't have his own style. And that can obviously be a tremendous asset because you can do a wide range of different things. But with Rampage I think what happened is that the material itself is very similar to a docudrama or something like a Law and Order episode, it's very rote and most of it is devoid of any real visual style. So when you pair Friedkin with that kind of material, he's not going to bring his own style to the party so you end up with something that feels empty and boring.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2022 20:11
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I don't think so. As much as people seem to respect what Unfriended was doing, Slither is still a goopy creature feature and you know how popular that sort of thing is around here. Friedkin is a notorious push-over to studio execs (his wife is one), and has a mix of internal low self-esteem, external blow-hard pomposity, and I believe an issue juggling alcoholism, and just straight up bad instincts as a director. So while he's the director that managed The Exorcist, Sorcerer, French Connection, you start to see him slip with Cruising and then he's completely lost his directorial backbone after To Live and Die in LA. By the time he's making The Guardian and Jade, he's lost the respect of his peers, he's lost the respect of his collaborators, he's lost respect from execs, and he's basically a washed out fool who's managed to stay in the game because of his wife. I don't know how he managed to get Bug to actually be a perfect movie. He somehow promised Tracy Letts and co that he wouldn't change the source material at all, because he loved the play, and he somehow kept that promise (which he failed to do with Jade, and it bit him on the rear end), and made a fantastic movie. Probably because the budget was so small. The Lionsgate post-SAW marketing is what really ruined that movie's release. I keep meaning to listen to his memoir, which is supposed to be awesome, but every other Hollywood/filmmaking memoir that mentions him basically paints his sloppy fall from grace as embarrassing for everyone around him, and it's a miracle he had a career after Jade. (Or a combination of his wife, plus throwing Joe Ezsterhas under the bus, which worked because this was also when Showgirls was bombing.) edit: This is the same guy who, in his own memoir, has said "If I had to make the Exorcist now (2013), I would have used as much CGI as possible!" Franchescanado fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Feb 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2022 20:21
|
|
|
I mean Bug is essentially a straight forward stage play with two talented actors giving it their all. Not to take away from Friedkin's contribution to it because certainly its also a very well directed film. But I think the stuff that elevates it is probably stuff outside of Friedkin's sphere. That's probably one of the key problems with auteur theory. I do believe there are auteurs but that doesn't make every director one or every movie the director's baby. Friedkin strikes me as a perfectly good director who kind of just plays to the level of his collaborators. But I'm far from an expert on the guy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2022 20:47
|
|
|
Maybe the lack of style is in itself a style. Like, that straight forwardness you mention is something I think you can see in a lot of Friedkin's films, for better or worse. Killer Joe is the same way, and the movie benefits from it because the characters are absurd and so there's a natural contrast there that elevates the movie. The Exorcist as well, you often hear it praised as a film that feels incredibly real despite all the crazy happenings in it. And Friedkin's matter-of-fact way of directing probably is a big contributor to that feeling. But the other side of that is he can't really bring his own flair to material that may need it to become something more than what it is on the page. But yea it's definitely gonna effect the final product if you're directing actors like Max Von Sydow, Ellen Burstyn, Gene Hackman, Michael Shannon etc. etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2022 20:57
|
|
|
So he's a more skilled Kevin Smith
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2022 21:01
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:I mean Bug is essentially a straight forward stage play with two talented actors giving it their all. Not to take away from Friedkin's contribution to it because certainly its also a very well directed film. But I think the stuff that elevates it is probably stuff outside of Friedkin's sphere. There's a really good 40 minute Q&A with Tracy Letts and Michael Shannon at a screening of Bug where they discuss this in detail, and there were discussions about changing the story to incorporate more story outside of the main motel room set, to make the paranoid delusions more concrete instead of ambiguous, and even getting Michael Shannon, who is the definitive version of the character (he's played him the most, and the role was heavily written/rewritten for him), to play the main character. So there was a lot of outside push to change the story into something more dynamic and cinematic, and Letts was congratulatory to Friedkin (who was not at the Q&A) for sticking to his guns and fighting to keep the story as close to the play as possible. The main caveat they changed for the film, I think, was adding a scene at a bar to introduce Shannon's character, instead of keeping it all at the motel. I can't say for sure how they did that in the play (because I only read a few scenes from it so far). Shannon has a really good story about Friedkin asking him for a canonical explanation for his character, and whether or not he's delusional or if it's real, or if he somehow knows he's delusional, and it's a pretty funny story, but also interesting how Friedkin and Shannon (and to a lesser extent, Letts) have opposing views on the character's reality, but Friedkin set aside his own views and instead made the movie more focused on the views/reality of the others. Like I said in the earlier post, I guess maybe humility from age let him become a better collaborator again. I haven't watched Rampage or Dementia 13 yet. It's been a helluva week, and I've been relaxing with Bloodborne instead of movies. So hopefully I can work in those views tonight and tomorrow and maybe add some thoughts about Rampage. But as it's been going, I don't have the creativity or the hot takes for a lot of these lesser movies this tourney. Basebf555 posted:Maybe the lack of style is in itself a style. Like, that straight forwardness you mention is something I think you can see in a lot of Friedkin's films, for better or worse. Killer Joe is the same way, and the movie benefits from it because the characters are absurd and so there's a natural contrast there that elevates the movie. The Exorcist as well, you often hear it praised as a film that feels incredibly real despite all the crazy happenings in it. And Friedkin's matter-of-fact way of directing probably is a big contributor to that feeling. But the other side of that is he can't really bring his own flair to material that may need it to become something more than what it is on the page. I do know Friedkin got started in film through documentaries, video journalism and a love for cinéma vérité, and he's never really cared to stray from that because he loves the grounding authenticity to his stories. He's purposefully not a flashy director, because, like you mention, he rather the characters, setting and story pop rather than the camera movement. (He talked about this in an interview for Unspooled.) Franchescanado fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Feb 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2022 21:04
|
|
|
I haven't seem Rampage yet. I was tentatively planning to watch both versions but its probably getting too late in the week for that. But I actually really liked Dementia 13. Its not a great movie but it looks great and has a lot of great mood, and I really find the story of how Coppola worked behind Roger Corman's back to turn one of his cheap and trashy "second features" into a real opportunity to make a good movie very compelling. So it sounds unlikely Rampage is gonna get my vote. I also should rewatch Slither but I've seen it tons of times and it can only really lose my vote if it ages badly or something. I liked Unfriended 2 but I've loved Slither a bunch of times. So I'll probably pop it on sometime in the next 40+ hours. MacheteZombie posted:So he's a more skilled Kevin Smith I mean Smith for better or worse definitely has a "style" and could be called an auteur. Not every film he's done is 100% in that style but when someone says "Kevin Smith film" we all have an idea of what kind of movie we expect that to be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2022 21:12
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:when someone says "Kevin Smith film" we all have an idea of what kind of movie we expect that to be. lovely?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2022 21:16
|
|
|
Tough to compare them because Kevin Smith's style, if that's the term we want to use, is about his writing. Friedkin only wrote a few of his films, although Rampage is one of them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2022 21:16
|
|
|
I mentioned KS because he has self described his directorial style as "having no style"
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2022 21:17
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:I mentioned KS because he has self described his directorial style as "having no style" Well Kevin Smith, if I remember correctly, also has very limited knowledge of the technical side of filmmaking. Like, he can't discuss different lenses with the cinematographer, he doesn't know that stuff. Maybe I'm thinking of someone else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2022 21:19
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Well Kevin Smith, if I remember correctly, also has very limited knowledge of the technical side of filmmaking. Like, he can't discuss different lenses with the cinematographer, he doesn't know that stuff. Maybe I'm thinking of someone else. No that's him. This is an anecdote from Cop Out, because Bruce Willis has a habit of quizzing every director he works with about lenses. If they fail the test, he will be a piece of poo poo to work with for them because they don't know about technical stuff. (Multiple directors and actors have brought this up.) Which is why he happily collaborates with Wes Anderson, who is a huge nerd about lenses and other technical aspects of filmmaking. (It's okay for a director to not know every lens they will use, that's why they have directors of cinematography.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2022 21:21
|
|
|
Yea I don't bring that up as a criticism, but it does explain why Smith would think of himself as a director without a style. His visual style is dependent on which cinematographer he's working with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2022 21:23
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Well Kevin Smith, if I remember correctly, also has very limited knowledge of the technical side of filmmaking. Like, he can't discuss different lenses with the cinematographer, he doesn't know that stuff. Maybe I'm thinking of someone else. So he's a more educated KS
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2022 21:24
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Tough to compare them because Kevin Smith's style, if that's the term we want to use, is about his writing. Friedkin only wrote a few of his films, although Rampage is one of them. I think that's a big part of what makes a director an "auteur" though. Smith wrote his own films, casted them with his familiar people, linked them all in stylistic ways. I think that's what I tend to think of as an auteur and while its probably true that Smith lacks the directorial technical knowledge to shape a "style" out of his directing he's got all that other influence that does. Friedkin seems more like a simple director. He moved from different jobs with different collaborators and the style and quality changed with each one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2022 21:29
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:I think that's a big part of what makes a director an "auteur" though. Smith wrote his own films, casted them with his familiar people, linked them all in stylistic ways. I think that's what I tend to think of as an auteur and while its probably true that Smith lacks the directorial technical knowledge to shape a "style" out of his directing he's got all that other influence that does. I can't speak about Rampage or Live and Die in LA (haven't seen it), but I can definitely see the auteur connection between The Exorcist, Cruising, Sorcerer and French Connection. I feel like Kevin Smith's "auteur" personality is because his characters mostly have voices like a Kevin Smith character, just like how all of Sorkin's characters sound like Sorkin characters, and Whedon characters all sound like Whedon characters. For Smith, there's distinctions between Dante and Randall, but Dante sounds like Zach sounds like T.S. sounds like Holden, and there's always a Randall character, and then there's the constant Jay and Silent Bob in most of them. Red State and Tusk absolutely stray out of this comfort zone, but the issue with those is everyone else is bland outside of Michael Parks, who's always stealing the whole drat movie, and an insanely bad Johnny Depp performance. Also, the reason why Dogma stands out is because Bethany is a unique main character for Smith, and while Chris Rock is kind of doing the Randall thing, that's also kind of just being heavily taken over by Jay, and they are part of an ensemble with good, distinct actors elevating the material (which is also really thoughtful and interesting and ambitious for Smith). The flip side to this is Smith's buddy Tarantino, who manages that balance of having characters sound like Tarantino characters, but also sound like a unique new character. It could be very easy for SLJ to sound like SLJ in every Tarantino movie, but in the performances, Jules is unique from Ordell, Stephen, and Major Warren. Smith's movies all have a similar "look" and "feel", too, but that feeling is "empty and lifeless". His movies are always devoid of life outside of the central characters, like they're in a bubble. Mallrats does sorta feel like being in a mall, but an empty mall. Mooby's in Clerks 2 gets, what?, four customers in a single day? Red State's big church is empty of congregation outside of the family, Dogma seems to take place in a world where the rapture has alread occurred, cuz even the massacre at the end feels like maybe six people were executed by the angels. Zach and Miri feels devoid of life outside of it's two main characters despite being an ensemble of Smith regulars. Sometimes it makes sense, like Tusk and the original Clerks, but usually it feels uncanny to me. Franchescanado fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Feb 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2022 21:42
|
|
|
Well I think its worth noting that I don't consider "auteur" to be a positive or negative label. I just think its identifier for a kind of director who has a large enough sized control or influence over his films that they become his films in a signature way. So yeah... in Smith's case its that all his favorite actors are all playing characters who sound the same and could be each other and sorta kinda are in a way that could easily be called lazy or derivative. He did seem to steer away from the View Askew thing in the second half of his career but of course that's also the period where everyone kind of got over him and realized he's just not that good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2022 21:49
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Well I think its worth noting that I don't consider "auteur" to be a positive or negative label. I just think its identifier for a kind of director who has a large enough sized control or influence over his films that they become his films in a signature way. I know that. I'm not saying you were. We're just defining it, because it means different things for different directors, which is in spirit of what you're saying. Friedkin's auteurship is still definable, just not as apparent as Smith, in a way, because Smith's style is based on egregious mistakes, choices, half-rear end attempts, and the inability to self-edit, as well as tone, character voices, and repeated actors. (Like Bergman, for instance!) For Friedkin I'd say: -Modest camera movement, giving it a cinéma vérité feel, based off of his origins in documentary and journalism (A lot of his 70' and early 80's films are made of "stolen" footage made without licenses and certs) -Dense stories that are nuanced in their approach. The audience isn't spoon-fed the narrative, they are given chunks to put together themselves -Ambiguous characters with unclear motivations and hidden inner worlds -Emphasis on actors and setting over plot beats -Emphasis on space, geometry and character movement within a setting (French Connection foot chases and car chases; Cruising foot chases and bar stake-outs; Sorcerer's jungles, vehicle size, and the route they take; The Guardian's house, forest locations; Bug's motel room; the Exorcist house) -He likes characters dealing with corruption (Reagen's possession; the four men in Sorcerer living in exile over crimes; Jade's proper woman being sexually promiscuous in a hidden life; The Guardian's nanny seducing men with evil sex magick; Cruising dealing with homophobic men investigating homosexual culture because of homosexual crimes becoming confused and insecure about their own sexuality and becoming the oppressed; Bug's Agnes adopting Peter's delusional paranoia, the possibility of government testing on human beings, parasites taking over hosts) -He's more interested in grounded, "real" action over exaggerated cinematic action -An emphasis on Hitchcockian suspense, giving the audience all of the knowledge of how the situation could go wrong and then making them watch a character walk that tight-rope over the laid out dangers -Editing tends to be more subtle, where you don't always know when you've shifted location, characters or time. There's probably more I could dig into, and who knows what Rampage has going on in it. Franchescanado fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Feb 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2022 22:04
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:I think that's a big part of what makes a director an "auteur" though. Smith wrote his own films, casted them with his familiar people, linked them all in stylistic ways. I think that's what I tend to think of as an auteur and while its probably true that Smith lacks the directorial technical knowledge to shape a "style" out of his directing he's got all that other influence that does. There's one reviewer (Tyler Smith of Battleship Pretension) who calls this a 'journeyman director', with no real slight intended. As has been hashed out here, it doesn't really mean they have no 'style', just that they don't strongly impress it into the films they make. It can indicate someone who is in fact very versatile, and probably works well with producers, as opposed to a director who only makes the film they want to make and doesn't listen to others. He brings up Robert Wise as kind of a canonical example, demonstrating that such a director can be highly-regarded. I went camping over last weekend and likely won't be able to catch the films to vote this week, but I might get it in today.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 19:50
|
|
|
Yeah I’d say Tobe Hooper is another really well regarded and successful example of it. He has so many great films and most of them feel entirely different from each other. Being able to do that many different things well is honestly more impressive to me than doing one type of movie very well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 20:01
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Yeah I’d say Tobe Hooper is another really well regarded and successful example of it. He has so many great films and most of them feel entirely different from each other. Being able to do that many different things well is honestly more impressive to me than doing one type of movie very well. I see it as a continuum where the ideal place to be is in the middle where you are versatile enough to do a wide range of different films but also be able to put your stamp on each one of them. Hooper for sure fits that description, as does John Carpenter in my opinion. But if you're going to be one of those director's who is on the extreme end, I definitely prefer someone who has a very strong, identifiable style over the other extreme where you're just making by-the-numbers, unmemorable stuff because you're not doing anything unique or different. Like, even if you hate Wes Anderson's style you have to on some level respect the effort he puts into the design and overall look of his films. Having an identifiable style takes effort, so I think it's always preferable when someone puts effort into something as opposed to watching something that feels lazy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2022 20:11
|
|
|
Ok, I got Rampage in. It sucks. Dull, bad, Law and Order episode. Really bad handling of all the characters and case details and story changes. It felt really poorly and hastily constructed and I had no real investment at all. Despite this being ostensibly a Directors tournament I often feel like its not really about that, at least not solely. But this feels like a poorly directed film. I even watched the revised version. Or at least I watched the ending of the revised version. I don't know if more of the movie changes but the main change I picked up on is that in the revised version the prosecutor no longer regrets the death penalty and its implied the killer is gonna get out and do something bad to the surviving father and son. So I guess Friedkin went back and changed his movie because he thought it was too soft on the death penalty and wanted to show the bleeding hearts getting more people killed or something? Gross, dude. Gross. You and Blatty probably got along well. Its an easy vote for Coppola for me. Dementia 13 isn't great. Its got plenty of flaws. But Coppola does a lot with a little and I genuinely enjoy it. I also snuck a Slither rewatch in this afternoon and I do think my fears that maybe it had aged rough for me were founded. I loved this and Dawn of the Dead when I was younger and watched them both a ton but a year or two ago I watched Dawn again and just found it way too mean for me. Just me growing soft in my old age I guess. So I was worried this would do the same and it kinda did. It definitely felt meaner than I remember and I didn't have as much fun as I remember. That being said it didn't feel TOO mean. There's definitely ton of bad fates and all but its a horror movie and while some of the comedy is in the dark stuff and some of it is in the goop/gore/body horror stuff I think a lot of it also a little more light hearted. Maybe that's just Nathan Fillion's charm and Elizabeth Banks? Maybe its those Gunn music montages? I dunno. But even thought it felt like it took a bit of a hit for me it wasn't enough to knock it down. Unfriended: Dark Web was perfectly good fun but I still prefer Slither. So that gets my vote.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2022 08:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:19 |
|
|
STAC Goat posted:I loved this and Dawn of the Dead when I was younger and watched them both a ton but a year or two ago I watched Dawn again and just found it way too mean for me. Since this is the first time I've heard Dawn described as mean, I'm really curious on how and where. You've already got me putting it on rewatch, so I'd love to hear your perspective before going in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2022 16:12
|
|
