Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.

I've never once understood why anyone would want to be any Ghostbuster besides Winston.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Basebf555
Feb 29, 2008

The greatest sensual pleasure there is is to know the desires of another!

Fun Shoe
When you're a kid it's a tougher decision because you don't(or at least I didn't) realize how much of an rear end in a top hat Venkman is. But he's the one who is always talking poo poo to the ghosts and he even tells Viggo to gently caress off so he seemed pretty awesome at the time. Like, he was the character that made Ghostbusters watchable for me when I was like 2 years old because without him it would've been too scary.

Tarnop
Nov 25, 2013

Pull me out

Venkman's an rear end in a top hat?

Debbie Does Dagon
Jul 8, 2005



Just a slight alteration to the stream schedule

Monday, February 1st

1900 Rabid (2019)
2050 Trouble Every Day

The Hausu Usher
Feb 9, 2010

:spooky:
Screaming is the only useful thing that we can do.

STAC Goat posted:

4. (Franchescanado’s Femme Fatale) Claire Denis’ Trouble Every Day vs. 13. (STAC Goat’s Team “More 👏 Women 👏 Directors”) The Soska Sisters’ Rabid


Oh God, another french film! Trouble Every Day has actually been on my watchlist for awhile but man, do I need a break from the misery. Rabid’s not super light either but the Soska Sisters definitely have a different approach and made a remake that is very much its own thing, Still, do thy have a chance against a critical darling? Am I a little disappointed that 2 of the 4 women’s teams drew each other first round? Yeah, I am. But in truth my team really was just one i threw together with women I had left so whatcha gonna do? I could easily vote against both my teams this week. Should be interesting to see what the ladies bring. Hopefully no horse slaughters.

Availability:
Trouble Every Day
Rabid

Did these two teams unluckily get drawn against one another or is it by design to have one female director team for the latter stages of Bracketology?

Tarnop
Nov 25, 2013

Pull me out

It was random, and STAC Goat expressed some frustration either earlier in the thread or in the discord that it had worked out that way

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.

Yeah. Everyone got ranked based on their vote totals and then I broke ties with a random number generator. Then I had to place the seeds in their matchups and I started doing it selectively to assure good matchups or no one's teams going against each other or something. But I was talked out of that and convinced that it was too heavy handed so I just used a random number generator to place them all. And unfortunately that happened.

Debbie Does Dagon
Jul 8, 2005



I have no idea who would argue for complete chaos, I hope that person never gets placed into a position of power and responsibility

married but discreet
May 7, 2005


Taco Defender

Debbie Does Dagon posted:

I have no idea who would argue for complete chaos, I hope that person never gets placed into a position of power and responsibility

That was definitely me and you're probably right about it.

M_Sinistrari
Sep 5, 2008

Do you like scary movies?



STAC Goat posted:

I've never once understood why anyone would want to be any Ghostbuster besides Winston.

When I was little, I did lean towards Ray. But as I've grown older, I've come to appreciate the wisdom of Winston. If there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe whatever you say.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.

For me even as a kid there was a fundamentally engaging simplicity to Winston. He's got a job, he does the job, he goes home. He's just a dude, and he's kind of funny.

5. (STAC Goat’s Team Grindhouse) Robert Rodriguez’s The Faculty vs. 12. (TrixRabbi’s Spoof Comedy) Ivan Reitman’s Ghostbusters II

Both rewatches and honestly relieved for a lighter double feature for once. Bracketology films been doing a number on me so far. Everyone’s all down on Ghostbusters II and I fundamentally get that its a less good version of the original, but I also don’t care. I love the original and I think the sequel has all the components back in play. I actually think a number of the classic Egon lines people remember come from here, the pink slime feels as much part of the Ghostbuster package as anything, and I’d put that court room scene up against anything besides the first movie finale. Now that’s the one part where I’d say II is really lacking. I don’t mind its ending at all but its definitely a little flat especially compared to the original. But there’s still so much I love from this from the Ramis/Murray humor to the great puppet effects to the really great way Reitman uses music in both films to Winston being Winston. There’s a couple of badly jokes and Venkman really dances with that creep line but it IS 30 years old so I’m honestly just relieved there’s nothing much worse.

I’ve never really enjoyed The Faculty, not fully at least. I dig the whole B movie thing Rodriguez so effectively does. He walks this line between homage and revival with a lot of his stuff that just works for whatever reason and creates a kind of hyper reality where I can overlook dumb stuff. Like he both takes himself seriously but doesn’t take himself TOO seriously and that works for me. But I just hate Kevin Williamson and this whole era of poo poo he wrote. He’s just proto Joss Whedon, except Whedon might have had more ideas. No one talks like a human being would and it creates this bizarre thing where his teen characters are both lazy stereotypes but also completely unnatural feeling misfits for the stereotype. Like Elijah Wood is the awkward nerd but he’s also able to effortless and cleverly flirt with Jordana Brewster and have a rapid fire film debate with Clea Duvall. And why are they even debating films? They both think there’s hosed up things going on and they’re debating whether Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a historical work? Who does this outside a Williamson or Whedon story? And don’t even get me started on Josh Hartnett’s absurd everything Mary Sue character who is somehow age appropriate to seduce both the teacher and the new high schooler with just a few words and a soldering look from under his bangs. He’s dumb and weird and Williamson has a really creepy teacher sex thing in his stuff.

Still Faculty’s fun despite Williamson, I think because Rodriguez’s hyper reality makes all that absurdity more palpable. Same way Wes Craven styles Williamson’s writing into a classic. But this isn’t Scream. Its got some fun action and enjoyably goofy b horror shoutouts, and I really like that finale as well as the scene of Jon Stewart examining the alien early on. And I like the way the teachers are like a whole cast with their own horror movie in and of themselves. There’s just a disconnect for me with this film and it can all be drawn back to that character writing.

So even though the Faculty is on my team and even though Ghostbusters II seems like a very unpopular film I don’t think its even a question for me. Ghostbusters II is a fun watch for me I thoroughly enjoy that only fails when I put it next to one of my single favorite films of all time. Faculty is… ok. So I vote Ghostbusters.

Basebf555
Feb 29, 2008

The greatest sensual pleasure there is is to know the desires of another!

Fun Shoe
I'd love to say that it's a tough decision but I was probably always going to vote Ghostbusters. The Faculty is really an enjoyable movie, especially so if you grew up in the 90s but the GB nostalgia is just too much to overcome.

The stream really breathed some new life into GB2, not every movie lends itself to chatting and that sort of thing but GB2 worked really well as a communal experience.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.

I have a team eligibility issue I want the thread to decide on. If its split I'll let the council of 8 vote on it.

My Team Rustic had 5 films with 3 sets of directors and 6 films when the bracket was made. Since then Synchronic has finally been released. That would raise the team to 7 movies and make it ineligible.

Similar situation in my Ladies Night Team. 5 directors, 6 movies. Ana Lily Amirpour is on it with A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night. I'm 90% sure The Bad Batch was not listed as horror at the time so I skipped it. It now is listed as horror on Letterboxd. I don't know if its been changed or I screwed up but works out the same way.

So I have 3 options.

1) Add the films. Teams break the 6 movie rule but we allow it since it happened after.
2) Don't add the films. Breaks the cherry picking rule but we allow it since it happened after.
3) Add the films and remove someone to make the team eligible.

What do you say? And should we consider adding films we might have missed or that get released this year? Your call thread/council.

STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 10:25 on Feb 2, 2021

Tarnop
Nov 25, 2013

Pull me out

I'm happy to throw in new releases as long as they're on VOD

Option 1 for me

married but discreet
May 7, 2005


Taco Defender
Yeah I'm fine with option 1 too, it's not like we're actually competing in any real sense.

MacheteZombie
Feb 4, 2007
1

Basebf555
Feb 29, 2008

The greatest sensual pleasure there is is to know the desires of another!

Fun Shoe
Yea I don't think it gives anyone an advantage one way or the other so just throw them in.

Debbie Does Dagon
Jul 8, 2005



I vote option 2. Teams were constructed to a deadline which has now past. No fiddling.

Kangra
May 7, 2012

I'd go for option 2, since we voted for teams based on their composition at that time. Especially for new releases. I can see reasons for dis/qualifying already chosen films after the tournament starts, but I'd say err on the side of keeping teams as they were, and doing that in this case as well.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.

Since there's some split opinions I'm leaning towards just throwing it up for a vote on Friday's ballot. A simple "Should we add new releases to lists even if they break team rules?" question. I happened to notice the issue on my teams because I was reading Synchronic reviews one sleepless nights but there's probably other new releases out there and coming that apply. So might as well just set a blanket rule of "work with what we got" or "keep adding" for the rest of the road. I can see either argument.

Sound fair?

Debbie Does Dagon
Jul 8, 2005



It seems a bit suspect playing with the composition of the teams after they were decided and voted on, but I'm fine with putting it up for a vote if there's interest.

Basebf555
Feb 29, 2008

The greatest sensual pleasure there is is to know the desires of another!

Fun Shoe
I really don't have a strong opinion either way so if including them will annoy some people then probably better to just leave them out.

MacheteZombie
Feb 4, 2007

Basebf555 posted:

I really don't have a strong opinion either way so if including them will annoy some people then probably better to just leave them out.

:same:

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.

I am also totally fine with that solution.

Debbie Does Dagon
Jul 8, 2005



I found a real disparity between my lack of enjoyment for Trouble Every Day and the Letterboxd consensus, or at least the consensus amongst those I follow. I thought that it was a terrible film, full of poor acting choices, clunky dialogue, and largely uninspiring camera direction with moments hinting at something more. I enjoyed every scene with Béatrice Dalle, and I wish so much that it was her movie. Instead, we follow Vincent Gallo as he crawls over his lines, and vacillates between being remarkably dull and his usual creepy self. Perhaps there's an interesting short film in there exploring his relationship with sexual violence, but I didn't find it within the text of the film.

Speaking of Béatrice Dalle, I found the few scenes she graced told the Rabid storyline far more interestingly than Rabid did, and in a mere fraction of the time. Do I vote for a film that I really didn't care for simply for her 10 minutes of screentime? I'm at a complete loss.

Tarnop
Nov 25, 2013

Pull me out

Ghostbusters 2

I'm old enough to have been disappointed by this the first time around, so my viewing was definitely coloured by some form of weird inverse nostalgia. This just feels like a fairly formulaic retread of the first film but with the addition of slime and slime guns so they could make some new toys. The lack of any sense that the Ghostbusters are the underdogs, which was really the core of why the first film was a compelling story, strips away any sense of tension. This film for me is summed up by one scene from the montage. A bored Venkman sitting on a park bench effortlessly catching a ghost that was just going for a jog. No threat, no possibility of failure, and a character going the motions

The Faculty

In a lot of ways this feels like a film that absolutely stacks the deck and then does its best to lose anyway. The cast is absolutely loaded, and while many of these actors didn't do a great deal after the early noughties, people like Robert Patrick, Famke Janssen and Salma Hayek were still at the peak of their fame here. The premise is not exactly innovative but is a combo of influences that make total sense: one part Body Snatchers, reflecting the overwhelming force of high school conformity, one part The Thing for the sense of paranoia that your friends might turn on you at any moment. Kevin Williamson is doing the thing he does, love him or hate him (I was a total mark for Dawson's Creek and don't really care if self-aware teens have "realistic" dialogue) and just like many of the cast, was at his peak in the late 90s. Robert Rodriguez keeps things moving at a good pace and has great action and horror chops. Oh and the whole third act rules.

It's not all good though. Kevin Williamson has a real loving creepy obsession with school kids getting into relationships with their teachers. I can cope with the Hartnett/Janssen stuff for most of the film. He's an edgelord boundary pusher who uses the fact that she's repressed to get one over on teacher, and when she does go all femme fatale seductress it's because she's alien-controlled. However the epilogue has her coyly waving at him at football practice which absolutely casts everything before it in a creepy light, and was a serious misstep. Debbie mentioned, while we were watching, that all the female teachers express their alien metamorphosis by getting a makeover. Being generous to the film-makers, I think they were trying to suggest that it makes people more secure and confident, but it also speaks to their limited imagination that "sexy outfit and make-up" was the best they could come up with for this, and it's very noticeable that all it does to the male teachers is change their personalities. Then there's treating the realisation that Stokely isn't actually a lesbian like some sort of triumphant moment. Ugh. Both GB2 and this film have frankly awful sexual politics, but The Faculty is worse in my book.

I was genuinely bored through most of Ghostbusters 2, except for when I was being annoyed at the misogyny and ableism. The Faculty has worse offenses, but when it's not being gross it's actually a well constructed film, so it gets my vote.

Tarnop
Nov 25, 2013

Pull me out

Trouble Every Day

This is a difficult film to watch and an even harder one to review. I watched this for the second time for Bracketology, and I liked it more the second time around. I think Claire Denis is a talented director, so I'm going to try to look at the odd decisions in this film as intentional rather than mistakes.

This is a film that feels intended to come together at the very end, and in retrospect. Much of the first hour is meandering and lacking context for the things that we see. A man buries bodies while his wife huddles nearby, caked in blood. Two young men hang out in a squat and case a large but run down house. A married couple have the crappiest honeymoon, and leave the audience wondering why they got married in the first place. Things slowly start to come into focus as we see Gallo's character, Shane, trying to track down a doctor who, through flashbacks is revealed to be the corpse-burying man. The two thieves break into the house in an encounter that ends in blood-soaked violence.

There's the sense that all these people are living hollow, desperate, purposeless lives and the initial lack of context and connection serves to highlight this. Shane is the only one who seems driven towards any sort of end goal but for most of the film we have no sense of why. I remember all of this being frustrating and causing me to disengage on my first watch, so I can understand people reacting negatively.

I agree with Debbie's assessment of Gallo's performance. His line-reads are awkward, he's creepy and off-putting and dead-eyed. But I've seen him in other films and, for all that he's a poo poo in real life, the man can act. So if his performance here is not incompetent but intentional then what is it trying to convey? At the film's conclusion, I think we have our answer: Shane is deeply disturbed, possibly a sociopath. He's a pathological liar, he's incapable of forming real connections with people, treating them only as stepping stones for his predatory goals. It does raise the question of how and why his wife chose to marry him, but we see flashes of his manipulation (he buys her a puppy immediately after he rapes a woman) , and her capacity for self deception (she sees, but chooses to ignore the blood running down the shower curtain)

I think there are some clever things going on with the camera work here too. For much of the film, the camera is static, dispassionate and distanced. This changes dramatically during scenes of sex and of violence. The lens is so close that it can be difficult to tell what body part we are seeing. An occasional nipple or navel orients us in space only for the camera to veer off searching hungrily for more flesh. This is the human body both as alluring geometry and as hot meat, intoxicating and all-encompassing. Sex and violence are inextricably linked in language and in art, and this is a film that dives head first into that space while showing us how dead the world feels without it to both Shane and Core.

I do think there's a quite reasonable question to be asked about all of this, though. How much do we need another film about a dead-eyed violent man with no interior life, preying on the people around him? How does this film compare to what I consider the best of that genre: Angst and Henry? I think this is where the film falls down. I think the story would be better if it didn't focus so heavily on Shane, and I think those other films tell the story of this kind of character in a more compelling fashion.

Rabid

This is a complete mess of a film. I'll give the Soskas credit where it's due: I think they have a great eye for a striking shot, and I think their use of lighting is often excellent.

Unfortunately almost everything else about this is bad. The acting is terrible across the board with perhaps the exception of Gunther, actor Mackenzie Gray taking his fake psychic from Grave Encounters and splicing it with something from Zoolander. He gives the film its only genuinely funny moments.

The pacing is a mess. We spend way too long establishing characterisation that just doesn't pay off once we get to the chaos and violence of the third act. There's absolutely no good reason for this film to be longer than 90 minutes, and it feels like it goes on forever.

The effects are pretty mediocre. Body horror should be a chance for imaginative and boundary-pushing effects work but this is all unconvincing prosthetics, cheap tentacles, and buckets of fake-looking blood.

Worst of all is the script. My god the dialogue is absolutely atrocious. Overwrought, inhuman, laughable.

My vote goes to Trouble Every Day, a flawed and perhaps unnecessary film that still easily beats a completely unneeded car-crash of a remake.

Debbie Does Dagon
Jul 8, 2005



Excellent write-ups, Tarnop! :swoon:

I can't really argue against any of your points there for Trouble Every Day. You definitely acknowledged the potential flaws, whilst also highlighting what the film tries to accomplish. Perhaps I'll give it a second one in private and see if it's a little more successful this time.

Franchescanado
Feb 23, 2013

If it wasn't for disappointment
I wouldn't have any appointment

Grimey Drawer
My take-away from my first time watching Trouble Every Day, which may or may not change on my rewatch, is that Shane and Coré represent something closer to Incubus and Succubus, respectively. Their interactions with normal people are supernatural. The climactic sexual assault that Shane commits against Cristelle, she seems hypnotized until he starts eating her. Coré seems to hypnotize her victims as well. There is an unspoken control their gazes carry.

Shane's such a weird character because he's repressing this shark-like predatory nature of his. To compare the two characters, Coré seems to fully accept her urges and does not care for the destruction. Shane seems to be more like a struggling addict. He's going to assault and kill, but he does seem reticent to it, and his marrying June seems like an attempt at combating his urges and to be "normal". This is no ways justifies him or his actions--he is truly reprehensible and evil--but I do appreciate the haunting awareness he has of his own actions. Like he watches himself do these things, but can no way stop them. That's why he's trying to find the doctor. He wants to know if he can be "cured" or if he will always be what he is. And he seems to be losing more and more control. The film is covering the last few days/weeks of his life before he probably becomes what Coré is.

I think that's an interesting take on an emotionally destructive, manipulative, crumbling relationship.

I agree that the movie could be so much better without Gallo. But I don't think it's a bad movie. It's methodical to the point of being slow, for sure, and I don't think it's a very good social movie at all. The end goal is detachment, and melancholic disgust.

For me, it's kinda like if the alien from Into The Skin was in a lovely relationship that it was trying to convince itself is healthy. Or maybe like if Romero's Martin actually concentrated on his relationship with his neighbor. And for a lot of reasons it succeeds, in other reasons it fails, but it's a fascinating movie nonetheless.

This post is based on thoughts from when I watched it two years ago. I plan to rewatch it tonight or tomorrow, and hope to add more thoughts to it.

Really great write-up Tarnop. I agree with your feelings on GB2 and Trouble Every Day.

Tarnop posted:

I think there are some clever things going on with the camera work here too. For much of the film, the camera is static, dispassionate and distanced. This changes dramatically during scenes of sex and of violence. The lens is so close that it can be difficult to tell what body part we are seeing. An occasional nipple or navel orients us in space only for the camera to veer off searching hungrily for more flesh. This is the human body both as alluring geometry and as hot meat, intoxicating and all-encompassing.

I think this is one of the most interesting things the film does. It films human bodies in such a foreign way. It's disorienting, it's beautiful, it's gross, it's engrossing.

edit: I originally watched Trouble Every Day because it was on Slant's Top 100 Horror Films, at #75, beating out a lot of amazing films. There's a good review they wrote about the film and it's themes. It probably won't retroactively make anyone give the movie 5 stars, but maybe it'll inspire the possibility of a rewatch, or soften their distaste for it?

edit 2: Unrelated, but this is a pretty cool cover:

Franchescanado fucked around with this message at 14:18 on Feb 3, 2021

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.

4. (Franchescanado’s Femme Fatale) Claire Denis’ Trouble Every Day vs. 13. (STAC Goat’s Team “More 👏 Women 👏 Directors”) The Soska Sisters’ Rabid

So I don’t hate Rabid like the stream did but it definitely isn’t good. I think the Soskas do some interesting stuff. I like that they made the remake their own. I like that they tipped their hats to Cronenberg with references and sly little jokes about remakes and the like. I like that they attempted to change Cronenberg’s lead who is treated as barely a character except for lust and actually make Rose a full character we can invest in. I like some of the dry humor. I like a lot of the visuals and use of color. When poo poo happens its pretty cool. But the fundamental problem is that its paced terribly. They devote the first half of the film to Rose’s story and while I appreciate that in theory and think its a big improvement on Cronenberg’s, it also just doesn’t work. Its generic at times and clumsy in others. Why did Rose have to be “ugly” before the accident? She had a horribly disfiguring accident. That’s enough without acne and frumpy hair. Clumsy. There’s a lot of that and unfortunately I don’t think the Soskas get us to invest in Rose, just to disinvest in the film. And while the last act is really backloaded with stuff I like its hard to come back on a film like that. I think the stream was in a bad place for it, in that rhythm of mocking the film and its drat hard to come back from that. But truthfully, the film just doesn’t nail the comeback. And the fact that it needed a comeback is a problem. I think the Soskas have good stuff and I’d love to see them develop, but making WWE Films isn’t gonna do that. Whether by choice or circumstance I’m not sure they’re ever gonna get beyond “interesting but clumsy and flawed trash.”

I couldn’t get into Trouble Every Day in the stream so bowed out, and I’ve been weary of it after the string of french misery films we’ve had. It wasn’t the difficult watch I was expecting to be bad based on those other films we’ve had but it was difficult just because its so meandering and feels so pointless. Like I get it. The lady’s a vampire or some kind of people eating monster. I guess this guy is looking for her? Who knows? Who cares? I wasn’t confused, I was just bored. Oh sex and violence mixed. That’s new and deep. I watched Ganja & Hess before this and it was another very vague story vampire metaphor art film. I watched Joe Swanberg’s Drinking Buddies the other day and it was meandering and without an explicit story. But both of those were more engaging and simple enough to follow broadly. Trouble Every Day feels deliberately vague and I’m starting to suspect that all french directors just hate their audiences and are tricking them. But at least the puppy made it out alive.

So vote? I want to endorse Trouble Every Day. Rabid’s just not a good film and my team isn’t very good. I know we’re not supposed to look forward and vote based on teams, but Fran’s team is better. Its got better films I would have loved to put on my teams and its got a real chance at this thing. If one team of women has to drop now mine is the one that should. And Rabid didn’t put up much of a fight. But man, Trouble Every Day bored me. Rabid wasn’t good but it didn’t bore me or make me hate it the way it did to other people. Ultimately I guess it was the more watchable film to me. So I guess I’m begrudgingly voting for my own team.

Everyone should watch Ganja & Hess. If it was still January I’d post about it in the Essentials thread. I might still.

STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Feb 3, 2021

Debbie Does Dagon
Jul 8, 2005



Franchescanado posted:

edit 2: Unrelated, but this is a pretty cool cover:



Even the poster knows who the real star is :smug:

MacheteZombie
Feb 4, 2007
I voted for The Faculty, as previously stated. Still super enjoyable to me, very silly, great monster design and taps that 90s nostalgia my brain is hard wired to drool over.


I went with Rabid on the other vote. I found it to be a fun remake, good sense of humor, and I thought the effects were pretty solid. Trouble Every Day wasn't bad, but I just didn't click with it and has almost no impressions on it afterwards. I think its interesting in what it's doing with its spin on people eaters and relationships, but I didn't like the way it was filmed and it's minimalism ended up detracting from my experience more than enhancing the film. I think I could rewatch eventually and have more appreciation of it, but not in enough time for this tourny.

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.

Its that time again. Just about 32 hours or so before this round is over. Vote locks 3 AM EST Feb 5th, or when I wake up. So just enough time to sneak in those films you've been putting off all week if you wanna.

Vote

Basebf555
Feb 29, 2008

The greatest sensual pleasure there is is to know the desires of another!

Fun Shoe
Both matchups ended up being tougher than I thought, I just voted a few minutes ago. Neither Ghostbusters 2 or The Faculty are original, so there's no advantage either way there. But The Faculty feels like a movie that the people involved had a lot of fun making, versus Ghostbusters 2 where it's hard to get out of my head that half the cast didn't want to be there. I don't think there's any denying that GB2 is a lazy sequel on some level, even if I have a knee-jerk nostalgia reaction to it.

That said, I still voted Ghostbusters 2, after going back and forth for a few days. Six year old me would've kicked my rear end if I didn't vote for Ghostbusters.

The other matchup was just as hard because neither film is really my thing at all. Trouble Every Day just never impressed me that much so I figured Rabid had a good shot. But Rabid was never one of my favorite Cronenberg films and this one didn't wow me either. I ended up up going with Trouble Every Day just because it's not a remake and it's more memorable, but that was more of a tie-breaker than anything else.

married but discreet
May 7, 2005


Taco Defender
I don't think I'll be able to watch Troube/Rabid in time. Still have to decide between GB2 and Faculty.

Debbie Does Dagon
Jul 8, 2005



Right now I'm voting for Ghostbusters 2 and Trouble Every Day. I can't in good conscience vote for Faculty given its uncritical presentation of teacher/student romantic relationships, and while not exactly world-shattering, there are fun moments in GB2. I also have to give the nod to Trouble Every Day after Tarnop and Fran's wonderful posts. There's clearly depth there that justifies further investigation, something I can't say at all about Rabid (2019).

Franchescanado
Feb 23, 2013

If it wasn't for disappointment
I wouldn't have any appointment

Grimey Drawer
I voted Trouble Every Day and The Faculty.

The Faculty's gender politics and sexual politics have aged poorly. Some of it I can forgive, others are just blatantly problematic. I'm a little softer on the Stokes lesbian/straight switch. In high school, I knew girls who were bullied for being gay, when they were actually straight, or not yet openly bisexual, and just more tomboy-ish or masculine or didn't dress well. Her kissing Stan, while played as a triumphant moment that does imply homosexual erasure, or superiority, felt like a riff on The Breakfast Club, with how Allison and Andrew (the "basketcase" and "jock") are romantically paired at the end. Clea DuVall's an actual lesbian actress, so I'd like to think that she understood what this moment meant, but it was her break-out role, so it makes the whole thing muddier.

The women getting hotter while the men just become more aggressive. There is a female teacher / male student angle that is fulfilling the male Hot For Teacher fantasy. These three issues are all distinctly Male Gaze issues with the script.

To fuel and contradict this, though, there are feminist examinations of the film! Film scholars Katherine Farrimond and Sharon Packer MD & Jody Pennington have written and edited books that explore The Faculty in a greater context.

Excerpts:

The image on the screen is dual: we see the beautiful, young, naked Marybeth strolling around looking for Casey, and the shadow of the monstrous form in the walls. Marybeth delivers a speech which ties the elements of the movie together. It is about the "world" she came from and its promises of "paradise" for lost and lonely humans, trapped in high-school "hell". [...] Her role as a threatening, castrating agent is underlined by the sharp teeth of her species, which evoke a vagina dentata, and their association to water, the archaic, womb-like female element. As the monstrous mother of her race, she offers the heroes a symbolic return to the womb.[...] The character of Miss Burke precedes Marybeth in the same line, revealing her hidden sexuality only after being infected and turned into a monster. The scene of her detached, tentacled head in particular echoes the Freudian Medusa head. The monstrous feminine is therefore used in the film to reflect the teenage characters entering adult world, where they are forced to "come to terms with female sexuality and overcome their fear of its 'monstrous' aspects in order to become fully functioning adults.

- From "A History of Evil in Popular Culture: Chapter 15: The Monstrous Feminine: Reimaging Aliens In American Horror Films" edited by Sharon Packer (MD) & Jody Pennington and "The Contemporary Femme Fatale: Gender, Genre and American Cinema" by Katherine Farrimond

Both of which are textbooks I wasn't able to get access to to read further. Farrimond's sounds especially interesting, because it devotes a whole section just to Bisexuality through Women in Film, although Packer & Pennington's book is the more approachable text.

The casting is great. The 90's look and soundtrack felt more like a cultural time-capsule than an embarrassment. I think the themes of alienation, being stuck in societal roles that you can't control, the fear of conformity and selling-out, the paranoia of adults, all of that feels like high school and what was going on in 90's America. It's also an interesting riff by Rodriguez on Carpenter's The Thing and They Live. While it doesn't exactly meet those two's evergreen qualities, it at least puts them in the universal understanding that high school is emotional and psychological hell for a lot of people. The pacing is great. I think it's balancing of it's large cast is masterful. There is never an issue with switching from the teachers and principal to Zeke, to Stan, to Marybeth, to Casey, to Stokes. It never feels uneven.

I can appreciate a big swing that is only hampered by the half-life of it's cultural age.

What I can't appreciate is a lazy unnecessary dour sequel.

Ghostbusters 2 follows-up a story where blue collar underdogs have defeated both bureaucracy and transdimensional demonic gods with intelligence, bravery, friendship and hard-headed stupidity and fulfilled the American dream, with a story where the blue collar underdogs have been defeated by bureaucracy and lawsuits, aren't really friends anymore, and exist in a world without ghosts. The Ghostbusters reputation is now reserved for birthday parties where they dance to a diegetic Ghostbusters theme on a boombox. Venkman has learned nothing from the first movie's experiences and is now a television fraud profiting off of psychics (ignoring actual examples of psychic phenomenon). Egon's still doing Egon, which I guess is the best the movie manages to do, but it reminded me of the response to the next Ghostbusters movie with Finn Wolfhard, "Who are these Ghostbusters fans that love Egon?" He's the most alienating, inhuman of the gang. He has found funding to do sociopathic experiments to get negative emotional responses from torturing arguing couples and giving/taking away puppies from children. This, uh, relates directly to the rest of the movie, where a pink ooze responds to emotional stimuli and allows ghosts to manifest into corporeal forms to wreak havoc on the world. "The world's getting angrier, more cynical," the movie posits. "They need hope."

The most depressing aspect in the whole film is Dana, played by a returning Sigourney Weaver. Do you remember Dana in GB1? She's a cellist for a NYC orchestra, showing she's talented, intelligent and a hard-worker. She is independent, doesn't need a man. She confidently turns down flirtations from neighbors and co-workers. She only turns to help when demons are in her fridge. When she does so, one of the experts inappropriately and aggressively tries to go out with her. His dogged attempts and weird charm eventually get her to give him a chance (ladies, you know I don't have to tell you, but don't do this), but this also makes him act more earnest and sincere? At the end of the film, he's relented some on his assholery, in the wake of surviving and defeating an apocalypse, and Dana seems to be happy with him!

Now, years later, she's left that unhealthy relationship. She met someone else, whom she loved and had a child with. She's a single mom, because her and her partner split amicably over career opportunities he had. She's got a great job working in the restoration department of an NYC art museum, and she has an offer to return to the orchestra in the very near future, once she works out a babysitting situation for her son, Oscar, who is seemingly the best baby in the world.

Then enters Venkman, ready to gently caress up her life yet again.

All of the backstory for Dana is good. I like that she met someone new and had a life and family way from Venkman. That all makes sense and works.

What I don't like is how she is treated like a commodity and has a lot of this story undermined by her choices. Her boss, Janosz Poha, oversteps his boundary as her supervisor and employer to try and date her a lot. Eventually the major focus of the plot is two things: Vigo wants to enslave her as a mother figure by possessing her son Oscar, and Janosz is to be rewarded for his servitude by Dana being enslaved as his wife and lover. The strong independent (now single mom) woman is half of the MacGuffen, and her punishment is roles women have been stuck in for years.

Not the worst, but definitely a downgrade from "wrong place, wrong time" victim that performs a sexual rite to summon a demonic god because she has a good apartment.

What makes it worse is that, outside of this, Dana backslides into a romance with Peter, again, a man who has not grown from the first film. It is revealed that she wanted to marry Peter and have a family with him, but he selfishly couldn't commit. She was willing to stand by him despite the legal issues and losing his career, but he decided to pursue a career in televising supernatural pseudoscience. She moved on, but didn't actually move on. Ugh. Sigourney, you are known for your no-bullshit approach to characters. Why did you think this was a good arc for Dana? To just willingly take back a lovely selfish ex who wasn't great to begin with?

(I know Bill Murray is charming and funny as hell. Not really in this movie, but in general. Nonetheless, you wouldn't want to be around Peter Venkman for longer than 5 minutes if you had to.)

In the end, the two characters that have stayed true enough to their characters is Winston and Egon. And Winston's original deal was "I'm here to work, but I'm working for a paycheck." I don't know why his character decided that doing birthday parties for kids was worth his time and money. Loyalty seems a bit strange, but Winston seems like a good guy, so *shrug*.


I think all of the physical effects are good except for the ghosts. The actual ghost puppets seem to be an improvement, and the design work on a few of them, like the two electric chair ghost brothers (Scoleri bros) in the courtroom scene, is good, but the actual ghostification--transparency and glow--look worse.











There's just a lot more care taken with the color, the design, and the framing. GB2 is closer to "Halloweentown" territory. That's kinda shameful! Even Slimer looks better in the original.


Also this:



is a downgrade from this:




And this:



is a downgrade from this:




Oh, and the absurdity of this:



is a better idea than the NYC iconographic masturbation of this:



I like the Statue of Liberty puppet gag, but it's clearly just a re-tread of the original's structure, and that's still a frustrating experience. "Remember the first movie? Well here's that again, sorta!" is such a fine line to walk, and GB2 just doesn't do enough to justify it or win me over.


I will say, I love the river of slime, the idea of an evil ooze that brings about ghosts, and all the special effects that go into those segments. I actually don't think you need any of the Vigo plot! I would be happy with the movie just being about the ooze. Original Ghostbusters cleverly mentions Zuul in the first act, but Gozer isn't even mentioned until near the end of the 2nd act or beginning of the 3rd act. We build to Gozer. So much of GB1 is the journey of the Ghostbusters formation and growing into a recognizable brand and then legitimate heroes, that when it's revealed this has all been a culmination of a god rising, it's a legitimately awesome reveal. We still quote the Twinkie line! And Twinkies are extinct! In GB2, Vigo's mentioned and shown with everyone else being introduced in the first act. You know he's gonna be our bad-guy. Hopefully he does something cool!


I'd be remiss if I didn't mention my last gripe. All of previous points are problems, but they don't instill anger or anything with me. It just feels lazy, lackluster, and pointless. "Meh," is about all they're worth. However, I got genuinely frustrated by Louis Tully blasting the ooze at the end. It just seems unnecessary, and kind of a cruel joke on a character I like? "I'm a ghostbuster! I defeated the ooze!" No you didn't Louis. You just wasted time and kinda pissed me off. I don't know why this moment is so frustrating to me, but I got genuinely agitated by it. Just spend time with Janine, who's looking cute as hell in her new Edith Head look.


I'm glad I revisited Ghostbusters 2. It made me wanna buy Ghostbusters in 4k. Its depressing knowing that GB1 is a fluke, than Ivan Reitman isn't a good director; it's like finding out Santa isn't real. You're disappointed, it kills a lot of magic, but it also makes you kind of appreciate the work that went into the magic in the first place. GB1 is a classic, despite many reasons why it shouldn't be. GB2 is kind of a waste of time, waste of potential, and a waste of a good cast being lazy.

edit: Oh! Ghostbusters is supposed to be funny. This is for the "Funny" team. Ghosbusters 2 is not funny. I like the joke where Egon hosed the slime. I've laughed more at Hubie's Halloween than I did GB2. They forgot the humor.



edit 2: Another realization I had. If you care about the Bechdel test, The Faculty passes and GB2 fails.

Franchescanado fucked around with this message at 15:26 on Feb 4, 2021

married but discreet
May 7, 2005


Taco Defender
The Faculty
I really liked the Faculty back when it came out, but rewatching it, there’s some glaring issues that pretty much everyone in the thread/discord pointed out. As for me, the nowadays questionable message is one thing, I try not to judge a movie for being a mainstream product of its time. The biggest crime of the movie is the wasted potential – sure, it’s a perfectly good and fun teenage horror movie with a good main cast, but of course all the “adult” side characters are just stellar, just absolutely killing it. I really don’t care much about Jock with a Heart of Gold #1235 and Secretly Smart Cheerleader #634, I want to see more of the druggie nurse and the drunk history teacher. Despite (because of?) the obnoxious teen writing, a very solid, a fun window into the 90s, and it really picks up in the last 3rd of the movie (up until the final few shots, which are, uh, questionable)

Ghostbusters II
Here’s a movie that played it completely safe, a comfortable feelgood comedy for the family to watch, or nowadays to have running on the TV while you’re doing something else. No ambition whatsoever, it really just feels like toys from Ghostbusters I being pushed around, acting based on previous character building and arcs, because there’s no development whatsoever in this one. I wasn’t thrilled, I chuckled occasionally, I checked my phone, I didn’t miss anything important, I liked the texture of the movie, I had a good time. SFX are fantastic and done in a style that doesn’t really age, whereas you can certainly see the cobwebs on some of Faculty’s effects (although kudos for the practical ones in that one too).

Who am I voting for? Gut feeling, Ghostbusters. There's more things that bother me with The Faculty, so a movie that's designed to not bother anyone beats that.

Shrecknet
Jan 2, 2005


married but discreet posted:

Who am I voting for? Gut feeling, Ghostbusters. There's more things that bother me with The Faculty, so a movie that's designed to not bother anyone beats that.
I'm gonna ask you to consider voting for The Faculty for the same reason you're giving for leaning towards GB2: A movie that is utterly terrified of taking chances (and maybe stumbling!) is worse than a movie that swings and misses. It's white noise. It's the fish tank channel on your Roku. Why did they waste Weaver and Ackroyd and Murray's creative time on something that, were it a shirt, would be size "Extra Medium"

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

married but discreet
May 7, 2005


Taco Defender
I know I could vote Faculty too using my exact same criteria. 9 out of 10 times I'd go for the movie that swings and misses versus the safety option. But Faculty doesn't do anything particularly daring! What chances is it taking? If it did I'd vote for it in a heartbeat. What bothers me are its actual faults, and it just continuously teases you with what it could have been vs what it is. It's worse than all the movies it pays homage to in every way, and it wastes the supporting cast in an almost criminal way.

Of course you have the same annoyance of what it is vs what it could have been with Ghostbusters II, but it is far less frustrating there for me. I have everything I want in the first movie already, this is just extra. Where's my Adventures of Coach and Jon Stewart?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply