| Author |
 Topic  |
|
R. Dittmar
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
420 Posts |
|
|
Victoria Silverwolf
Diocesan Ecclesiarch of the Sacred Order of Jabootu
USA
80 Posts |
 Posted - 12/29/2005 : 03:01:09 AM
|
Hmmm. I don't have a problem with these two reviews. One is saying "Here is an extremely violent film with no redeeming characteristics" and another saying "Here is an extremely violent film with style and wit." (I have no idea if these opinions are accurate, but they are certainly possible.)
I usually agree with a lot of what Ebert says. He seems like a reasonable fellow to me.
Reality is a crutch for people who can't face up to science fiction. |
 |
|
|
Neville
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Spain
1590 Posts |
Posted - 12/29/2005 : 04:10:01 AM
|
Of those two, I've only seen "The devil's rejects", and it's quite difficult to beat that one, so it doesn't surprise me that he liked it and at the same time didn't enjoy "Wolf Creek".
This said, Ebert seems to have issues with the more extreme type of slashers. Does anybody remember what he wrote about the remake of "The Texas Chainsaw Masacre"? He demolished that movie, and didn't provide a single reason for it otherwise he found the whole experience disgusting. |
|
|
|
R. Dittmar
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
420 Posts |
Posted - 12/29/2005 : 10:13:11 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Victoria Silverwolf
Hmmm. I don't have a problem with these two reviews. One is saying "Here is an extremely violent film with no redeeming characteristics" and another saying "Here is an extremely violent film with style and wit." (I have no idea if these opinions are accurate, but they are certainly possible.)
Here's the thing. Ebert's certainly entitled to like one film and hate the other. But re-read the first review linked above and note how Ebert explicitly says that anyone who likes the film (i.e., disagrees with his opinion of it) is (1) a misogynist, and (2) too moronic to even know the meaning of the word. Is it too much to ask that Ebert refrain from insulting people for liking a film when he was lavishly praising exactly the same kind of film just a few months ago? |
|
|
|
thepanteduffin
Diocesan Ecclesiarch of the Sacred Order of Jabootu
Canada
74 Posts |
Posted - 12/29/2005 : 11:13:23 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by R. Dittmar
[quote]Originally posted by Victoria Silverwolf
But re-read the first review linked above and note how Ebert explicitly says that anyone who likes the film (i.e., disagrees with his opinion of it) is (1) a misogynist, and (2) too moronic to even know the meaning of the word. Is it too much to ask that Ebert refrain from insulting people for liking a film when he was lavishly praising exactly the same kind of film just a few months ago?
Actually, Ebert doesn't say that people who like the movie are misogynists who don't even know the meaning of the word. He quotes another critic who says the movie has a misogynist undertones and then proceeds to explain what a misogynist is. And it's true that a misogynist probably doesn't consider himself a misogynist in the same way that nobody considers themselves drunk drivers or domestic abusers. As for wether they even understand the word, that's up for discussion, but I tend to agree that anyonewho hates an entire gender simply for its... well, gender, is probably not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
As for a seeming double standard, there's a crucial distinction. Sure, Ebert looked at two similarly-themed movies and gave two very different verdict on them. But, as he himself likes to point out, a movie is not about what it's about but rather how it goes about it. He found that The Devil's Rejects had " sidestepp[ed] its temptations and open[ed] up a mordantly funny approach to the material. There is actually some good writing and acting going on here, if you can step back from the material enough to see it." He didn't think that Wolf Creek had that. The same applies to Pulp Fiction vs films that try to be Pulp Fiction, or Alien wannabes vs the real thing, or Halloween wannabes vs Halloween. A lot of filmmakers see the most obvious elements of a good movie and mimic them, hoping that it'll somehow make their movie good, rather than understanding that violence and gore were not the reason the original movies were good in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Sandy Petersen
Archdeacon of Jabootu
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 12/29/2005 : 3:21:44 PM
|
The theme of a movie has little to do with its quality. Would it be fair for Victoria Silverwolf to ask that I refrain from insulting people for liking the film version of "The Wiz" when I lavishly praise "The Wizard of Oz" which has identical themes & features?
As a long-time gourmand of horror movies, I am perfectly willing to admit that most are terrible. But at least a bad horror film is often entertaining in a way that something like, say, the first two hours of "Pearl Harbor" is not. Nonetheless, though the plots of, say, "Deep Red" and "Friday the 12th" may sound similar when retold in a review simply as a body count, they are very different experiences (the former being Good, and the latter being Bad). |
|
|
|
RVHorror
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 12/29/2005 : 3:32:54 PM
|
| I usually find that Ebert is a genius when he agrees with me, and an idiot when he doesn't. Isn't it interesting how that works out? It happens 100% of the time! |
|
|
|
Pip
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2005 : 3:01:56 PM
|
Here, I'll provide all the gore fans with the perfect finger-wagging, judgmental naysaying that "edgy" types love to contrast themselves with. (You're welcome.) Here goes: I think these movies are horrible. I think enjoying them reflects badly on those who do. When did being "cool" become the same as being terribly cold? Frankly, I can't imagine why *anybody* likes movies like Wolf Creek or stuff like that. (Zero Star Alert! btw) Count me OUT, thank you. I don't get it and I don't want to. Going to see a movie with no other reason to exist other than a morbid stage upon which people are killed, neverminding the fact they're all women, is depraved.
The money line in Ebert Wolf Creek review, to me, anyway, is: "There is a role for violence in film, but what the hell is the purpose of this sadistic celebration of pain and cruelty?"
There. Chum in the water whatever
You can let snobwoman have it now.
Eva Vandergeld
P.S. Why he gave three stars to that other piece of garbage is his own business. I don't get too wrapped up in gimmicks like stars (unless it's a Zero Star Alert!) but rather by the words of the review. Did the reviewer tell me what kind of movie it is without giving away any twists?
|
|
|
|
R. Dittmar
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
420 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2006 : 10:27:51 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pip
Here, I'll provide all the gore fans with the perfect finger-wagging, judgmental naysaying that "edgy" types love to contrast themselves with. (You're welcome.) Here goes: I think these movies are horrible. I think enjoying them reflects badly on those who do. When did being "cool" become the same as being terribly cold? Frankly, I can't imagine why *anybody* likes movies like Wolf Creek or stuff like that. (Zero Star Alert! btw) Count me OUT, thank you. I don't get it and I don't want to. Going to see a movie with no other reason to exist other than a morbid stage upon which people are killed, neverminding the fact they're all women, is depraved.
Pip,
I have to agree with your depiction for the most part here. Ebert's self-contradiction leapt out at me in the first place because - while I've not seen Wolf Creek - I have had the misfortune of seeing The Devil's Rejects and it is some very vile, hateful stuff.
[But Monkey]But[/But Monkey] I think there is something about the genre that strikes a chord with movie fans that transcends all of Ebert's pointy-headed 80's boilerplate about misogyny. I've always argued that the proto-type slasher pic surely has to be And Then There Were None based off of Agatha Christie's book of the same name. A bunch of people are stranded on an island and killed off one by one in sometimes quite gruesome ways. Even Christie's play The Mousetrap falls into the same category with a bunch of characters stranded in a snowbound lodge meeting their demise at the hand's of a mystery killer. And The Mousetrap is one of the longest running plays in history.
How about Vincent Price's The Abominable Dr. Phibes? A disfigured madman kills his wife's doctors in a bunch of gruesomely inventive ways. I think Price's Theatre of Blood is even better with Price as a Shakespearean ham actor killing his critics in a variety of shocking ways. These are certainly slasher pictures in conception.
While these movies are certainly not everyone's cup of tea, I don't know if I could call them depraved and they are certainly not misogynistic given the majority gender of the victims. I think that the generic notion of a slasher plot has existed in mystery and thriller fiction for decades, and its only because it has fallen into the hands of talentless hacks that it has regressed so far into the realm of sick-making trash. The mystery/thriller aspects of the genre still create interest in these films even though there isn't enough talent involved in the production to make a good movie. |
|
|
|
UnknownSubject
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Australia
212 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2006 : 01:08:48 AM
|
***SPOILERS***
As someone who will never see "Wolf Creek" (I've had my fill of explotation films after "Cannibal Holocaust", thanks) but has read a lot about it, it's a low-budget nasty piece of work that has women being graphically tortured for the back half of the film. The director has openly admitted going out of his way to put some bad, bad stuff up on screen, and the point of the movie is that there isn't one.
Having not seen "The Devil's Rejects", at least there appears to be some kind of storyline involved in that movie. "Wolf Creek", on the other hand, really doesn't have a plot. It's about having a bad guy show up, torture and kill two women (while possessing the requisite movie Slasher powers while the girls have the requisite loss of IQ that occurs in slasher movies) and then disappear, perhaps for the sequel.
Oh, and it isn't really "Based on a true story" rather than "Based on lots of cobbled together urban legends, real court cases and maybe a liar's account of where his friends went".
Spandex Cinema
http://sc.thebeholder.org
Latest Review - December is Bibleman-o-rama Month thanks to Heckler King! |
|
|
|
Sandy Petersen
Archdeacon of Jabootu
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2006 : 1:28:23 PM
|
I'll pick up Eva's gauntlet. I must say in advance that I'm disposed to like her, because my granddaughter is named Eva, too. It's not totally clear whether she is condemning (A) horror films in general (B) slasher films in general or (C) bad slasher films. Working under the favorable-to-my-argument supposition that it is (A), I'll state:
1) The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear.
2) Against it are discharged all the shafts of a materialistic sophistication which clings to frequently felt emotions and external events, and of a naļvely insipid idealism which deprecates the ęsthetic motive and calls for a didactic literature to "uplift" the reader toward a suitable degree of smirking optimism.
3) ... who shall declare the dark theme a positive handicap? Radiant with beauty, the Cup of the Ptolemies was carven of onyx.
(Note: the above words are not my own, but are completely stolen from H. P. Lovecraft's "Supernatural Horror in Literature" which I confess would have short shrift for slasher films.
Nonetheless, I accept the dark theme, which includes the slasher film, and I am accepting of of bad movies in general, I perforce must accept bad slasher films just as much as bad musicals or, frankly, more so.
I mean, what do we watch bad movies for, anyway? If it's to mock the conventions of their genre, bad slashers follow the most iron-clad formula than anything else this side of porn. If it's to laugh at filmatic blunders or illogic, again bad slashers are replete with such. Bad acting? Yep. Cheap tricks? Yep.
I have yet to be bored by a cheapo slasher film, though I admit to often being outraged by its idiocy. But a bad comedy just makes me squirm.
|
Edited by - Sandy Petersen on 01/03/2006 1:29:40 PM |
|
|
|
CobraCmdr
Diocesan Ecclesiarch of the Sacred Order of Jabootu
70 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2006 : 3:12:57 PM
|
I have some pretty strong thoughts about this topic too. I can understand one or two graphic horror films being cool, or important, for example, I have mentioned I like the Carpenter version of The Thing.
I agree that they can be powerful films, that tap into a raw emotion and definately effect the viewer.
That being said, I cannot understand people who are rabid fans of the horror genre, particularly the "Psychopath torturing and murdering young women" kind. They just seem cruel and depraved to me. Seeing another human being tortured and mutilated and knowing that they will not be rescued or avenged doesn't give me a thrill, it makes me depressed. I think it is definately worthwhile to check out one or two horror movies every one in a while, but to be really into this stuff is disturbing.
I realize that I'm a total hypocrite because I loved violent gangster movies and action films, but somehow that violence is less disturbing and you get the feeling that the people who commit the acts of violence will eventually pay in some fashion. |
|
|
|
Flangepart
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
2329 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2006 : 5:44:49 PM
|
That being said, I cannot understand people who are rabid fans of the horror genre, particularly the "Psychopath torturing and murdering young women" kind. They just seem cruel and depraved to me. Seeing another human being tortured and mutilated and knowing that they will not be rescued or avenged doesn't give me a thrill, it makes me depressed. I think it is definately worthwhile to check out one or two horror movies every one in a while, but to be really into this stuff is disturbing.
I realize that I'm a total hypocrite because I loved violent gangster movies and action films, but somehow that violence is less disturbing and you get the feeling that the people who commit the acts of violence will eventually pay in some fashion.
[/quote]
Actualy, this sums up my feeling towards such films.
A film where a cruel, hatefull person does not get whats comming to them...such films don't scare me, they make me mad.
Corse...thats kinda like real life, now ain't it?
So....I won't be watching WOLF CREEK.
Ever.
"Cole, stop handing Dr. Doom the Keys to the Baxter building." Brent Sienna/PvP.
"I speak 34 different languages. But gibberish is not one of them."- Danger Mouse.
|
|
|
|
Pip
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2006 : 6:26:51 PM
|
Sandy,
My complaint and revulsion is with those movies that exist for no other reason than show graphic scenes of bloodshed, rape and torture. Thrillers and chillers are welcome to me. Violence--even graphic violence--that is part of the story is acceptable. But when the entire focus of a film, particularly one that is made to be as realistic as possible, is simply to show gore, rape and cruelty, I see no point in that at all. I saw a banner for Hostel earlier today. It had, in great big red letters, the following to say:
Graphic Violence and Sadistic Torture!!!
I don't want to see that if it's the only point of the story. It'd be sickening AND boring.
And that's my point about Wolf Creek and Salo and their ilk. They're "snuff" films.
I *like* ooky stuff like Angel Heart and Frailty and even Scream. Gore happens, but it's not the whole point of the show.
I realize everybody likes different things and I'm trying not to be judgmental about those differences. In some cases, things I like that others may find boring are based on my nurture and nature. I love watching Maryland bastketball, (having spent three years trying not to get trampled on by guys twice my weight flying out of bounds under the net.) I like Absolutely Fabulous re-runs, probably in part due to gender.
But cheering on a movie whose only reason to exist is to show, as realistically as possible, graphic scenes of rape, torture and murder? I think that's depraved.
I feel the same about profanity in modern music. If the song is good and a swear word comes out to emphasize a point in the lyrics or just because it happens to, that's fine with me. When the entire object of the song is to posture for the audience by throwing out a f--- every other word, then it's revolting and makes the singer look fake and her fans foolish.
You mention Lovecraft. I like Lovecraft as well, particularly enjoying his dream stories. If you read a bunch, you'll find they're relatively gore free, and yet quite good, imho. I think there's a lesson there somewhere.
Eva
Buy the book. You won't be (too) sorry. http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11457.phtml |
|
|
|
Max Torque
Diocesan Ecclesiarch of the Sacred Order of Jabootu
USA
61 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2006 : 10:19:36 AM
|
Hm. Well, rabid fan of the horror genre checking in. Not sure how y'all will take my comments after the above, but here's a thought or two:
Yeah, I like horror movies a lot, even the very gory ones. My most recent DVD acquisition is the recent limited edition release of Cannibal Holocaust, which only the very hardiest of horror fans should view; it includes scenes of actual animal killings, including a very graphic butchering of a live turtle (evidently Italian filmmaking was mighty irresponsible in the late 1970s). I suppose that, having been raised on a farm and having been involved with many a butchering myself, I'm slightly more inured to such things than city-folk. However, I want to make it clear that I don't revel in on-screen gore, and that sitting through CH is basically an endurance test.
Having said that, why watch horror? To that, I respond: why ride a roller coaster? The reasons are similar. On a roller coaster, you get the illusion of great danger from a position of actual safety. Similarly, watching a horror movie gives you the opportunity to experience fear, and the resultant endorphin rush, from a position of security. The best movies can produce that fear without resorting to gore, but frankly, it's a lot easier to smack someone in the head with an axe than to write a great script. And the fact is that in today's jaded society, we're a lot more afraid of the psycho down the block than we are of goblins and demons. And so, the bulk of horror movies today are about human serial killers (though the trend is reversing thanks to well-written supernatural plots being stolen from Japanese horror films).
Pip mentions Lovecraft, and you have to admit that he was a masterful writer, because he could scare you without ever showing you the monster. That takes a lot of talent. Damn few people today have that kind of talent. Audiences today expect to be shown what they need to fear. And once you show the audience the monster, you set limits on it. It has a shape, it's understandable, it's comprehendible, it's less menacing. "Oh, the Boogeyman is a guy with a hat and trenchcoat. Huh."
So in the age of "show everything", gore rules. People are afraid of pain, and of being killed. The more horrible it looks, the more the audience squirms. Now, I'll agree with you all that, in order to be successful, a slasher-horror movie needs to have a solid context for the graphic violence, which means at the least competent writing, which is sadly lacking in many movies. I think Ebert's problem with Wolf Creek is twofold: less-than-competent writing (violence without context is just crudity), and the fact that it's based on recent true events. That last one nags at me, too; even as an aficionado of horror films, I recognize that the families of people killed in a horrible fashion don't need their pain enhanced by some shmuck putting their graphic murder on the screen and ramping up the gore quotient. The victims were killed in, what, 1999? That's way too fresh for this kind of treatment. And so, it crosses the boundary of good taste, not wholly for what it shows, but for insensitivity to those still living.
Phew. Sorry for rambling. You may now cut me to ribbons if you like. |
|
|
|
Sandy Petersen
Archdeacon of Jabootu
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2006 : 12:01:14 PM
|
What the hell? Gangster violence is "acceptable" because the gangsters get killed? Horror movies are FAR more careful about showing their villains get punished in horrendous ways, particularly in slasher movies. It's so much a part of the genre that it proves a major problem in slasher series (how to bring back the villain THIS time?).
Furthermore, a horror film killing is invariably (well, depending on the limits of the director & actor) portrayed as Something Bad, something special. Chow Yun Fat runs through a nightclub gunning down dozens of bad guys. Who cares? What's the body count for Bruce Willis in Die Hard? No one minds. But when a madman in a slasher film manages to off a half-dozen folks, each of which is portrayed as an individual, then the fans are psychopaths? Cut me some hypocritical slack here people. Horror at least portrays death and pain as something to be avoided, not embraced.
Horror even has a significant sub-genre (best exemplified in The Hills Have Eyes) in which when the Good Guys start killing the Bad Guys it's portrayed as harmful - a desensitivation of the good guys. But the heroes in Tombstone or Untouchables have absolutely no qualms about shooting down dozens of their enemies in cold blood.
Yep, horror shows the details of the killings in a way that few action films manage. Take Spielberg's War of the Worlds - there's a scene where Cruise attacks and kills a man who has been his benefactor ere now. It's portrayed as bad-but-necessary (which would also be the case in a horror film), and in the horror film the scene would have been reinforced by showing the actual violence involved, instead of taking place behind a closed door. Would that have been better? Who knows? I'm sure the major reason it wasn't was to maintain a more kid-friendly rating. Personally I disapprove of ALL movie decisions that are made to satisfy censors. (No this doesn't mean I dislike the rating system, nor that I disapprove of kid-friendly movies. I just wish the movie-makers would make the damn movies, then let the rating fall where it pleases. It bugs me even more when an otherwise likable film sticks in a pair of boobs to earn an R rating.)
|
Edited by - Sandy Petersen on 01/06/2006 12:12:20 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked