Q: Why Did Amelia Earhart disappear in 1937?
A; To avoid being embarrassed by the movie about her 72 years later.
Q: Can three horrible fake accents equal one irredeemable movie?
A: You bet ya.
Q. What’s the difference between Amelia and two hours of uninterrupted sleep?
A. The latter is uninterrupted.
Q: What’s so funny about Amelia and Trannys 2’s DVD being released in the same week?
A: Trannys 2 is more entertaining.
An actual review to follow…
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
Yeeeaaaahhhh, I pretty much agree.
It’s a shame when a ’70s TV movie totally schools your ass in every way. Let’s get that one on DVD, stat.
You know, a lot of dudes aren’t down with The Swank, but I say fuck that.
SWANK POWER. I’ve been into her since 90210 days, she’s totally hot… just not when she does accent/mugging crap and acts all campy.
But Insomnia/Reaping Swank? Shit, I’ll give HER a reaping if you know what I mean. I WOULD CRUSH THAT ASS.
SWANK YEP YEP.
I get to see this next week. I am looking forward to it in the way you look forward to a disaster.
Love the Q and A format. Can’t wait for the real review. Could this be David’s least favorite ‘Oscar’ flick this year?
Ouch!
I guess it’s not an Oscar contender anymore.
David, its very thoughtful for this short review but there is only one thing we want to know : the AVATAR trailer.
Avatar trailer was had lush music and was touchy feely. More Titanic, less Aliens. Trying to broaden the demographic methinks.
Thanks Eli! Can you run a description of the trailer? Do we get to see some of the war between the humans and the navi? I wonder how they will solve the plot hole that if Sam Worthington is ‘inside’ a Navi fighting against the humans, why dont they just unplug him from his terminal and bring him to martial court for betrayal.
I love Hillary Swank. Amelia was (still is) one of my heroes.
So I’m devastated by all the bad reviews that AMELIA has been getting.
LYT: Glad to see someone else remembers that 3-hour 1976 TV movie with Susan Clark. Actually, Clark did a lot of fine TV and movie work in the 1970s — remember Night Moves? — but she sort of went off the radar after the 1983-89 Webster sitcom. I understand she’s done some outstanding theater work in L.A. in recent years — but, frankly, I think the last movie I saw her in was, no kidding, Porky’s.
I’m not as down on the film, but certainly am not “up” on it, either. Didn’t strike me a disaster, or even a laughable failure. Just … standard biopic, weighed down by a romance that makes the film worse, not better.
The biggest problem with AMELIA is that everything about her life that would have been really visually cool to see is breezed over with archival newsreel footage and newspaper headlines, rather than actual reenactments.
The movie is entirely about how she got along with her husband, to the near-exclusion of everything else. It’s like if you made a Mike Tyson movie that was all about Robin Givens and had only one or two boxing scenes.
That’s disappointing. I’ll probably still check it out. I tend to root for Swank – she’s a totally unique presence in film (which makes her difficult to cast sometimes).
Fox Searchlight Pictures and Mira Nair make such a lovely couple. As do Amelia and Gogol. Maybe they are just riding the success of THE NAMESAKE ($13.6M US gross)?. All about the horror/thrillers this weekend…we’ll see if Searchlight’s counter programming choice of release date and marketing can save this god awful biopic
Also a nice almost 10 year reunion for Swank & Searchlight. BOYS DONT CRY released on 10/8/99. Don’t think Hilary has to clear a spot on her mantle to keep Brandon Teena company with Oscar. Maybe Chloe Sevigny as George Putnam would have made for a more believable romance and better on screen chemistry.
Joe – I watched Night Moves for the first time a couple of months ago, and about halfway through it I recognized Susan Clark as Ma’am from “Webster”. Hackman’s character makes a pretty funny remark about Alex Karras’ gridiron brutality as well. Great movie. Arthur Penn had a helluva run there in the late sixties-early seventies.
SWANK POWER.
Also: NIGHT MOVES is a masterpiece.
“Amelia” is Oscar Bait through and through. Release pattern is semi-wide, emphasis upmarket/arthouse. Why else does the trailer refer to “Two-Time Academy Award Winner Hillary Swank”?
(insert sound of double-barrel shotgun)
Funnily enough, Night Moves got, at best, mixed reviews when first released. Flash forward ten years: Arthur Penn releases Target (also with the great Gene Hackman), and critics complain that it simply isn’t in the same league with the classic Night Moves…
Did Chucky just threaten to murder Hilary Swank with a shotgun?
Critics do that all the time, Joe. Countless critics who panned There’s Something About Mary than slammed Me, Myself, and Irene for not measuring up to the gold-standard set by There’s Something About Mary. Same thing with The Matrix and the first Rush Hour flick. Anytime something becomes a surprise smash, the critics who panned it completely forget that they did so when reviewing the director or star’s next picture. It’s like clockwork.
True enough, Scott. Mind you, I’ve never done that. But I have seen it happen, again and again.
Mel Brooks says his movies always become classics one picture later. They hated THE PRODUCERS; they hated TWELVE CHAIRS because it wasn’t THE PRODUCERS; they hated BLAZING SADDLES because it wasn’t TWELVE CHAIRS, etc., etc., etc.
So how many movies does he need to make before Dracula: Dead and Loving It becomes a classic?
I think Chucky was refering to the literal action of a double-barrel being cocked ala “two-time academy award winner.” What he means by any of it escapes me.
you better watch it, christian, or chucky will put a CAP IN YOUR ASS and bury you under his above-ground swimming pool out in copland
When jeffmcm isn’t beating off he’s putting words in other people’s mouths. Stuff like that can boomerang on you in a big way.
Sure it can. Chucky, you’re a lunatic.
I never intended to imply that you committed said sin, Joe, and I apologize if it read otherwise. It’s one of my two biggest pet peeves, along with certain critics just not doing their homework and printing falsehoods that fit with the chosen narrative (ie – King Kong was a flop, Titanic was a poorly reviewed movie that only broke records because of teenage girls, The Hulk didn’t open, etc).
Scott, your point is especially true when it comes to horror. People were saying the same kind of stuff about The Exorcist and Texas Chain Saw Massacre that they now say about Saw and Hostel. Except of course when they trash the current crop, they now hold up Exorcist and Texas Chain Saw as examples of “classics.”
I don’t know which is worse – the idea that Saw and Hostel will one day be referred to as classics, or that the horror genre could get so bad that it would be true.
It’s what I’ve always said… today’s Marilyn Manson is tomorrow’s Beatles.
That’s a fair point, but a terrible example.
“Scott, your point is especially true when it comes to horror. People were saying the same kind of stuff about The Exorcist and Texas Chain Saw Massacre that they now say about Saw and Hostel.”
actually, that just isn’t true. back in the day ‘the exorcist’ may have elicited mixed reviews but it was nominated for a shit-load of academy awards including ‘best pic’ and i think it won a few as well. it was considered a seriously well-made film with excellent production values and perfs, and has earned/deserves its ‘classic’ status today.
there is NO WAY the same thing can be said about ‘saw’ or ‘hostel’, which might get nominated for raspberry awards at best, and which will be remembered for their mediocrity
i had to look up hooper’s ‘chainsaw massacre’ but it was well-reviewed by critics at large and considered a classic of the genre in its day.
the theory that ‘saw’ and ‘hostel’ are today’s ‘exorcist’ and ‘chainsaw massacre’ and the classics of tomorrow doesn’t really hold water
that should read, ‘massacre’ was considered a PIONEER of the genre in its day
(it certainly blew me away when i saw it on VHS as a teenybopper. thank goodness i wasn’t allowed to see it in the cinema when i was 8)
The Saw franchise is more like the Amityville Horror franchise – not very good, insanely profitable, never-ending. Or the Friday the 13th series before New Line decided to reinvent them.
Let’s also remember that Hostel was two movies and done, so it’s barely a ‘franchise’.
What’s the over/under on Leahnz having NEVER SEEN a SAW or Hostel movie?
SAW is already fucking classic. Trust me, not like NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 3 was getting four-star reviews in 1987, but how many thirtysomething dudes revere THAT kind of thing as a “classic” now? Think there were any four-star Ken Turan/Len Maltin/Jeff Lyons reviews of Evil Dead back in 1983? 234,751 DVD incarnations later, THE PUBLIC HAS SPOKEN.
FACT: People will be buying SAW DVDs and rewatching it on the regular for the next 40 years, while shit like MICHAEL CLAYTON and CAPOTE will be reduced to the same 4.99 bin that currently houses milquetoast shit like “Trip to Bountiful” and “Terms of Endearment” and “Silkwood” that NO ONE EVER REWATCHES despite their initial claim.
BOO-YAH.
Oh, and has anybody seen Exorcist II lately? That movie’s bonkers. Great Boorman visuals, an Ennio Morricone score, a pretty good cast, and a script that makes absolutely no sense. It doesn’t even try to make sense.
Luke, leahnz skooled you so I don’t have to. EXORCIST received 14 academy nominations, was a huge hit and well-reviewed. TCM was acquired by the Museum of Modern Art within months of its release. Even Rex Reed raved about it — they quoted Rex Reed in the trailer! The SAW franchise is not part of the canon yet.
Holy fucking ballsack:
Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and even Jeff McDouche makes a good post twice a week (the last was that funny line about the DOOOOOUCHEBAG boyfriend in P.A. being the scariest thing about it, or something…)
EXORCIST II is EXCELLENT; One of Morricone’s best scores, if not my all-time favorite; Burton is so hilariously hammered for all 117 minutes. It’s so trippy and discoed out and AWESOME.
It’s up there with ZARDOZ as one of Boorman’s great, rich, opulent pieces of extreme goofiness.
Yeah, it doesn’t really “work” in the conventional way, but it is a work of genuine maniacal inspiration.
“The SAW franchise is not part of the canon yet.”
It belongs IN a cannon.
BOOM
GOOD ENDING
Lota, let’s make out.
Hit me up.
You know you’d dig it.
Go die quickly and quietly somewhere Lex.
That was rude. Why the hate? I think you protest too much.
Lex, since my earlier post wasn’t completely clear: Exorcist II sucks. It has redeeming facets (Boorman’s locust-cam, some of the weirder telepathy stuff, Linda Blair and Max Von Sydow) but Richard Burton looks more bored and tired and in need of a paycheck than anything else, the box with flashing lights that lets people read each other’s minds is a failure, and the biggest sin of all…it’s an Exorcist movie and it’s not scary.
“That was rude. Why the hate?”
And SCENE!
The flashing box light makes the coolest sound ever! The tap dance number that ends in fail is comic gold. Burton is phoning it in in that awesome, drunk, paycheck kinda way that O’Toole phoned in Caligula. In short: awesome.
Also don’t forget James Earl Jones rambling about “the GOOD locust” in that Fishburne-in-Higher Learning-level BOGUS accent and dressing in a bee costume.
It’s the kind of movie that all the squares want LaBute’s excellent and misunderstood Wicker Man to be, or The Happening.
For years after seeing Exorcist II — on the night of opening day in Shreveport, La., with an audience that started laughing out loud about midway through the film — my wife and I shared a private joke which either of us could use to crack up the other. Remember the melodramatic scene on the bus, which ended with Richard Burton snapping at the driver? Well, whenever we were running late for something, Anne or I would simply lapse into a Richard Burton-style voice, and rasp: “It’s getting late! The girl has to get home!”
Lex I am starting to think you are genuinely a) low class or b) devoid of common sense and it isn’t a put on.
Rude? Hate? YOU CAN’T TAKE THE HEAT YOU WIMP. If you can;t take it, don’t dish your endless Nonsense out about women, age, etc and you dish it out plenty on others who don;t fawn over you–on JBD, Jeff, Cadavra, Christian etc
Have a good time at the Craiglist gang bang. Honestly is that all you are good for? When you talk decently about movies it makes sense, but 90% you are little more than a ageing creepy internet pervert who needs meds.
Lex, now I’m confused…if The Wicker Man is excellent and misunderstood, why do ‘the squares’ want it to be like the similarly ridiculous Exorcist II? They’re all awful films that can only be enjoyed as camp…you aren’t making rational sense (no surprise).
Oh, Lota! You’re just playing hard to get! Like Jodie Foster when she got the phone calls from John Hinckley!
Lota, stop sexting me already.
Since you have a scorecard, for the record: I like you (a lot) and JBD; I’m indifferent to Cadavra; I hate Jeff McDouche… but I fucking DESPISE Christian.
McDouche, since you again lack BASIC COMPREHENSION SKILLS, E2 is both hilarious AND a great movie; So is Wicker Man. But the faux-hipsters want Wicker Man to be some “camp” bullshit, when it’s really THE most accurate cinematic depiction of the female gender since “In the Company of Men” or at least “He Got Game.”
Okay, I’m going to wrap up the night (before the inevitable dozen posts about sex addiction and suicide) by saying that I don’t hate you, Lex, but I hate your various illnesses and addictions and (above all) your stubborn and cowardly refusal to do anything about them.
Joe: I enjoyed your story.
‘Night.
more important things:
I saw the Amelia Earhart TV movie in the 80s sometime (I think Joe L brought it up earlier) and I remember it being quite good (well I was a youngster) so I am REALLY disappointed that this sounds like a poor rendition and not even an exciting rendition of her life…which was exciting indeed.
I never liked biopics but after Ray, the howard Hughes thing, walk the line-the Cashes, and Edif Piaf I am getting tired of biopic Oscars and the mimicry of famous people, even though many are worthwile in real life…I just don;t like this kind of subject as a movie.
I much more enjoyed THE ROSE since it was Bette Midler being wild destructive Bette and a fictionalized account of a story (Janis Joplin).
Oh, the other thing I hate – the dishonesty. Mostly I think Lex is lying to himself and doing it in a loud manner so as to convince himself of his own bullshit. Either way, it’s still bullshit.
The Wicker Man? Oh, dear…
http://movingpictureblog.blogspot.com/2006/09/wicker-causes-snickers.html
What am I lying to myself about, Dr. Douche?
What are you even TALKING about?
In MY OPINION, psychiatry is a PSEUDO-SCIENCE, and I don’t believe in medication or therapy. So fuck right on off with your attempted zombification of creative and unique people.
YEP YEP.
And the only drinking problem I have is that I don’t get to drink ENOUGH. I wish I could start from fucking sunrise.
There isn’t a moment on this planet that wouldn’t be happier drunk or high.
Anyway, Lota, I’m free Sunday. Call me.
“What’s the over/under on Leahnz having NEVER SEEN a SAW or Hostel movie?”
huh? i’m not sure what exactly possessed lex to write that but two things (and ftr i’ve seen ‘saw’ and ‘hostel’, both of which i have no feelings for whatsoever except mild contempt but mostly just lukewarm mediocre nothingness, and i rather loathe ‘hostel II’ but it’s not like it keeps me up at night):
1. carey elwes performance in ‘saw’ is absolutely hilarious – pure comedy. it’s that absurdly bad
2. eli roth, who fancies himself god’s gift to women, is in fact a smarmy fuckwit
” eli roth, who fancies himself god’s gift to women, is in fact a smarmy fuckwit”
ELI ROTH IS A FUCKING GOD who has dated (and thus I would assume, BANGED) ROSARIO DAWSON, one of the HOTTEST WOMEN OF ALL FUCKING TIME.
You can mock Eli Roth all you want, but I GUARANTEE you he’s laughing all the way to the bank.
The VAG BANK.
i can and will mock eli roth to my heart’s content
And at the end of the day, HE HAS HAD SEX WITH A FAMOUS, BEAUTIFUL WOMAN. AN ACTRESS.
That is THE highest plane of HUMAN ACHIEVEMENT.
What have you done that matches being with ROSARIO DAWSON?
Nothing even CLOSE. Once a guy has dated Rosario Dawson, there is NO DOUBT, he is a GOD. He is INHERENTLY SUPERIOR to anyone who has not. In the Nietsczhean, Darwinistic scale of things, he is SUPERIOR to me, and to you, and to anyone who can’t match that.
Unmockable.
i’ve sucked a noodle up my nose. that about ranks with dating rosario dawson in my book
re: the noodle, i inhaled it by accident while laughing really hard and i wouldn’t care do it again
Leah, Rosario Dawson is THE WELLSPRING FROM WHICH YOU FLOW. You should get on your knees and pray to her and thank for allowing you to be of the same gender.
DAWSON POWER. SUPERIOR TO ALL OF YOU.
ew. i’ll leave the grovelling on one’s knees before celebs to you, lex
“but I fucking DESPISE Christian.”
Aw, you’re just jealous of my hair. Typical socialist.
And here’s the greatest scene in EXORCIST 2 with something extra:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4h1UgFHjaLM&feature=player_embedded
Lex, your last batch of posts – and the post saying ‘What are you talking about’ – are all pretty strong evidence for my ‘you’re incredibly dishonest’ theory. Mind you, I don’t think you’re being actively duplicitious, but that people who are suffering from mental illnesses like depression and addiction are self-destructive and choose to say things they know to be untrue – and you’ve demonstrated those characteristics pretty constantly to the point redundancy.
Point being: You’re sick, Lex, you know it, and you refuse to do anything proactive about it because you’re lazy and comfortable. And I’m fine with you being sick and lazy and comfortable, as long as you SHUT UP about it all.
“In MY OPINION, psychiatry is a PSEUDO-SCIENCE, and I don’t believe in medication or therapy. So fuck right on off with your attempted zombification of creative and unique people.”
Lex is a Scientologist? Finally, answers, indeed!
BC, no I’m not a Scientologist, but it’s an interesting philosophy; You’ll never hear me say a bad word about it, and if nothing else, it’s no more absurd than ANYONE ELSE’S “RELIGION.” It’s actually kind of tiresome and obnoxious that it’s so blithely mocked by a bunch of smugsters who haven’t done any research on it. It’s certainly NO LESS VALID than listening to some CON MAN PSYCHIATRIST OR PSYCHOLOGIST make DISGUSTING leaps in logic based on FREUDIAN BULLSHIT and actively work towards taking away what makes an INDIVIDUAL into a UNIQUE PERSON.
PSYCHIATRY is like going to a FUCKING PSYCHIC for life advice and coaching; If it works for you or anyone else, more power to you, but I like to think any quirks I have are what make me ME, and I’m not gonna go on fucking Zoloft and Prozac and whatever to make me into a robo-person, mundaning my way through life.
VIVA LA CRUISE.
Hmm, I got schooled, eh christian?
Vincent Canby, New York Times, back in the day, complained about the Exorcist’s
One bad review does not equal THE EXORCIST being slighted on its release. John Simon didn’t like it either. But among genre fans as well as the public, THE EXORCIST was hailed as a classic. Sure there was some debate but it ain’t near SAW. Come on.
What does SOTL have to do with THE EXORCIST or your point? SOTL does have gore. So did THE EXORCIST. Both made bank and over a dozen Oscar noms. And?
SAW and HOSTEL are better put together than TCM?
Luke my friend, can you hear me? That shark you’re on is practically soaring!
As for Lex: “NO LESS VALID than listening to some CON MAN PSYCHIATRIST OR PSYCHOLOGIST make DISGUSTING leaps in logic based on FREUDIAN BULLSHIT and actively work towards taking away what makes an INDIVIDUAL into a UNIQUE PERSON.”
Like Leykis 101?
Holy shit LYT. That is some strong stuff you are smoking. I hope you ain’t selling it to kids.
YOUR WORLD IS A LIE.
GET FUCKING ANGRY.
DO SOMETHING AWESOME.
BE MORE LIKE TYLER DURDEN. AKA… GOD.
And Luke, I generally agree with your article that future generations will look back on SAW as their era’s TCM but that doesn’t put it in the same league. I also love TCM 2 but because it’s a bugfuck crazy horror comedy. The opening attack on the yuppies in the car is funny, fantastic, scary and unsettling. But not at all the level of TCM.
“Also SAW > TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE as a movie. TCM was more ground-breaking, but Saw is just better put-together all around. So are both HOSTEL movies.”
LYT, you are entitled to your opinion and i appreciate that you are an enthusiastic fan of horror, but just because you think it doesn’t make it ‘true’. your opinion re: ‘saw’ and ‘hostel’ as better flicks than hooper’s ‘TCM’ is certainly not the critical consensus, not even close really (and given these reviews are cinema vs. video – and given the greater impact in general of seeing a film in the big cave – the consensus is even more glaring):
metacritic / RT:
saw (cinema reviews): 46 / 46
hostel (cinema reviews): 55 /58
TCM (video reviews): 75 / 90
exorcist (video reviews): 82 (inferior long cut) / 85 (theatrical cut)
‘saw’ is a poorly reviewed film, any way you stack it. so is ‘hostel’, tho a fraction less reviled. ‘saw’ is an appallingly acted, mediocre film. will it be this generation’s ‘chainsaw massacre’? maybe, but that has absolutely NOTHING to do with excellence and EVERYTHING to do with what is on offer at the moment, which is not much. and spawning sequels in this day and age is nothing to crow about.
(and quoting one review of ‘the exorcist’ does not equate to ‘what was being said back in the day’. and i happen to know because i was there to hear what was being said on the day. simply because ‘exorcist’ didn’t win the big oscars it was nominated for as opposed to ‘lambs’, which did, is a rather silly reason to disrespect friedkin’s flick. both ‘exorcist’ and ‘lambs’ are top shelf)
i suppose i could have stuck a few more ill-advised ‘and’s in there, i must have an unusually bad case of conjunctionitis today
LYT, if you’re going to say that The Excorist was slighted on release, then you’re objectively wrong. It’s not a matter of taste, it’s a matter of simple research. My friend hasn’t seen The Godfather, that doesn’t somehow make it a bomb that made no money.
Of course Saw played Sundance. For a large part, their taste in horror is shit.
“Also SAW > TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE as a movie. TCM was more ground-breaking, but Saw is just better put-together all around. So are both HOSTEL movies.”
Just head-shakingly wrong. Come on, LYT.
And no, Silence of the Lambs doesn’t ‘revel in gore’ How much gore is there in that movie? The severed head in the jar (too quick and shocking to be ‘reveling’, the autopsy scene with the dead girl (gross and sad), Lecter’s attack on the guards (again, too quick and actiony), the guard with his guts all splayed out (lit and shot in a way that’s more atmospheric than anything else) and I think that’s about it. No closeups of arms locked into machinery slowly and gruesomely snapping like timber. No chainsaw chases. No penis severings.
McDouche,
you’re a fucking snide, talentless, charmless, Eddie Deezen looking tool.
EAT A FUCKING DICK. Nobody here likes you. If you think I’m hated, HOLY SHIT, you should hear what people say about you behind your back. I could tell some stories.
You’re widely regarded as a fucking wormy creep. And a massive fucking douche. DOUCHE. Christ, what does it tell you that all the main players OF THE BLOGS YOU FREQUENT either ban or insult you at every turn?
DOUCHE. DOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCHE.
And come out of the closet already. You’re so obviously BEYOND GAY. Why don’t you just admit that?
“The severed head in the jar (too quick and shocking to be ‘reveling’, the autopsy scene with the dead girl (gross and sad), Lecter’s attack on the guards (again, too quick and actiony), the guard with his guts all splayed out (lit and shot in a way that’s more atmospheric than anything else) and I think that’s about it.”
You just kinda left out the entire subplot about a guy wearing flayed skin the entire movie, but even what you’ve described is more graphic than anything in Saw the First. Also, the girl in the pit is more descriptive of “torture porn.” She actually is being tortured for pornographic reasons, like NOBODY in ANY of the Saw movies.
By your own standards, how much actual gore do you see in SAW? Less than you think. You don’t even see the infamous foot getting cut off. All the killer traps are “quick and actiony.” The dead guy with his brains blown out turns out to be a fake.
Not that I’m opposed to gore, but I took a friend to Silence of the Lambs back in the day and he made me walk out because he couldn’t take the autopsy scene.
Oh, and “lit and shot in a way that’s more atmospheric than anything else” — defines the SAW series. You don’t like the atmosphere, fine. But it’s a good 50% of the overall effect.
I’d say “try harder,” while knowing that in a month or so you’ll be back to saying Jigsaw is a rip-off of John Doe from Seven, and we can “all agree” on that.
Lex:
“I could tell some stories.”
Please do. Either here, or we all know that you have my email address, although I might have blocked you from it.
LYT, you’re right that I don’t have a good picture in my head as to how gory the first Saw was, since I only saw it once, 5 years ago. Fair enough. But sequels 2-4 are pointlessly wallowing in gore for no reason, and there’s a big difference between being ‘gory’ and ‘revelling in gore’. Silence of the Lambs has a story and characters as its primary points of interest. There’s a suit made up of dead skin which the character never actually puts on and if you blink, you could miss it when Starling finds it. The gore is in support of them. Saw (especially the sequels) has gore as its primary drawing card and the lame characters and bad cinematography are there to provide excuses for each gore scene.
And since Jigsaw _is_ a ripoff of John Doe from Seven, I don’t get why you wouldn’t agree on that.