|
How are genres not a way of categorizing movies? Maybe in CineD we can have fun dissecting our own personal definitions, but 99% of the world just uses genres as an easy reference to categorize movies. It helps you browse through the dvd shelves or pick out a movie on demand based on your mood at any given moment. I mean, theres a logical reason why you HAVE to put War of the Worlds in the Sci-Fi section. If you didn't, every rear end in a top hat in the place would be asking where it is. Genre's were created for the rest of the world, not CineD or people like SMG.
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2012 21:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 16:50 |
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Classifying something according to where you'd find it at in Blockbuster is not an interesting conversation unless you're in the stock room. Did you watch it, or are you looking for where to buy it? But why are we classifying these movies by genre's at all? If you take the Blockbuster shelf(or Netflix queue) out of it, whats the point of arguing what movie fits into what genre? Wouldn't it be better to just discuss each movie on its own terms? Like it or not, genres were defined for practical reasons, not so we could have fun debating what goes where. When it comes to genre, majority rules. Most of America considers a movie featuring an alien invasion to be sci-fi. In this case perception is reality.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2012 15:03
|
|
|
frozenpeas posted:So Dellamore Delamorte is just a horror film because it has zombies in it. I'm not one of "those" people, I'm just saying they are the people genre's were invented for. They are a quick and dirty way to classify movies for easy reference. Why try to force them into being more than they are?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2012 15:11
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Argumentum ad populum is the weakest tea ever, dude. "Most of America" thinks a tomato is a vegetable. But it is superficial, thats what I'm trying to say. Genre's were always superficial, and always meant to be superficial. You seem to want to give them meaning they were never meant to have. Why can't you just discuss what horror elements and sci-fi elements a movie has without ultimately deciding what "category" it falls into. Discuss a movie in its own context, on its own merits. Thats always been enough for me.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2012 15:17
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Because the original sentiment was that you couldn't describe War of the Worlds as a horror movie, and you certainly can. Well I agree that you can describe War of the Worlds as a horror movie, but I also go to Best Buy and it doesn't piss me off that War of the Worlds is in the Sci-Fi section. I get why its there.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2012 15:29
|
|
|
The consensus seemed to be that it is a well done movie, so if the twist you read in the spoilers sounds cool to you then you'll probably enjoy it. For some it was a turn off.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2012 21:11
|
|
|
Buzkashi posted:I saw somebody mention Mimic in this thread a little while back so I watched it again yesterday. Holy poo poo, I forgot how surprisingly good it was. The whole first half of the movie is creepy as hell. I love the reveal of Mira Sorvino fitting the bug's claws together so they make this weird vaguely human face. With how dark and full of shadows the subway scenes are, they succeeded in making a giant bug posing as human seem as realistic as possible. When the Judas slowly emerges from the shadows, it seriously does look like a man in a long trenchcoat to the point that I could see myself being fooled by it in real life.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2012 17:34
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:Yeah I mean people cite Darabont leaving as some tragedy but the truth is he had a lot of input into the lacklustre first season (Outside of the pilot, which is still great) and had mapped out the second season before he was scrapped. To me the difference is the characters in TWD are unlikeable because they are complete morons. And I dont even mean in a nerdy "they should be building barricades and hunting for ammo" way. I mean in their basic human to human interactions they act like total morons. They never seem to be feeling the appropriate emotion or having the appropriate reactions to what others say. Game of Thrones at least has unlikeable characters that are written well and they are supposed to be unlikeable.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2012 20:05
|
|
|
LightsGameraAction posted:
Not really sure to be honest but I thought it was more like you don't want to spend a week there, but the radiation levels aren't so crazy anymore that you can't walk around for a few hours. I thought most of the real heavy radiation was at the beginning right after the explosion when guys rushed in to clean up.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2012 21:13
|
|
|
Lil Mama Im Sorry posted:The trash bag/oil slick monster from Creepshow. I recently rewatched this movie, and does anyone know why the teenage boy decided to try and rape the girl while she was sleeping? They watch their friends get killed by a supernatural monster (who they also are still be stalked by) and the little gently caress just decides, "Holy poo poo, all of this death has made me totally forget my plan of molesting this chick while she sleeps! Titties!" It just so happens I watched this movie for the first time a few nights ago on Netflix instant. Its Creepshow 2 actually. I think the guy was basically supposed to be bitter about the fact that his friend the jock got all the girls. At the beginning he tries to casually throw out that he's pre-med to impress her. I think the two guys were basically assholes from the beginning, he's just not over the top to the point where its obvious like his friend. It didn't seem out of character to me that he would be a creep like that when nobody was looking.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
hypersleep posted:Also, I'm surprised Cloverfield gets so much love in this thread. The monsters are ok, but the characters were so unlikable right from the start that I just wanted them to get killed. I probably would've liked the movie a lot more if it had been from the perspective of a news crew or something. I think I like it because its so unique in the genre for the scale of whats going on and the budget it had. It does a good job of conveying that the entire city is hosed because of this thing, and the effects are just way more convincing than anything with a similar premise that would be straight to DVD or on Sci-fi network. Its far from perfect obvsiously, but it fills a gap in a genre that is one of my favorites.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
schwenz posted:I actually liked the remake. I can't think of any of the NOES sequels that I enjoyed more that the 2010 reboot. I dunno, I think most people agree that Freddy vs. Jason is not the worst movie in either franchise. Its got some real positives and is really fun to watch. I don't think I've ever heard someone say they are a fan of Freddy and Jason, but didn't have fun watching that movie.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
So, to amend my earlier point, Freddy vs. Jason is probably regarded by most people as in the upper half of both franchises. People will argue all day about which are the worst, but you don't often hear Freddy vs. Jason thrown into that mix.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
weekly font posted:It's not that a fictional character is dying that makes it mean-spirited. I think when we're saying that it's in reference to the movie's tone towards the audience, at least I am. I'm okay with watching Jason plunge a party horn in a girl's eye (complete with squishy honk) but I think a movie is giving me a big middle finger when someone is senselessly tortured in a movie or a kill is drawn out to uncomfortable lengths that don't add anything (see; Rob Zombie's Hallow-bloody-girls-crawling-away-ween or imo when Jason slowly pushes the screwdriver into the Asian kid's neck in the remake). Now there's sometimes where a kill like this adds something to the movie (see: Tina's death in ANOES) but for the most part, and I can't speak for everyone here but that's what we're talking about - the tone of the kill, not the action of. Like you mentioned, I think thats the biggest thing most people point to when criticizing Zombie's Halloween. Scenes like Michael watching in fasination as a bloody nurse crawls along the floor before he stabs her 50 more times don't really have that Halloween feel because it is more mean spirited than Michael is supposed to really even be capable of. That stuff is more Freddy territory to me. Michael and Jason are more elemental, there shouldn't really be any particular "spirit" to their kills.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
weekly font posted:There's a thin thin line between gritty realism and mean-spirited rear end in a top hat horror. For evidence of someone failing miserable check out the new Silent Night Deadly Night. In general I'd say its a mistake to even try to inject "gritty realism" into a genre that was built on the exact opposite. I just can't really think of a gritty, realistic movie that I thought was good but also could be considered horror/slasher. Just my personal taste though, some people love that poo poo. I know for instance Zombie does a much better job with it in Devils Rejects, but the end result is a great movie that I would not even classify as horror. But then again people always lump Silence of the Lambs in with horror so who knows.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2013 22:34
|
|
|
I would say Devils Rejects is a road/chase movie. A very, very, violent one.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
H.P. Shivcraft posted:I've seen SotL and Black Swan described as horror movies plenty of times, though? And in fact prior to Return of the King SotL was often cited as the only "genre" flick to win the Oscar for Best Picture. I even teach it specifically as a horror film to my freshmen classes. Its interesting because the post of mine that he quoted was lamenting the fact that people DO categorize Silence of the Lambs as horror. I mean theres no denying that Silence of the Lambs is one of the best movies ever made at straddling that line, maybe its hard for me to consider it horror because it just seems too real. Looking at the overview though, its a movie with no supernatural elements, where the main perspective is that of an FBI agent investigating crimes. At the very least it should be understandable why some people don't think of it as horror.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
I just think Exorcist II is awesome in general. George C. Scott's presence really makes some of the scenes intense as hell. I really bought that he was losing it over the course of the movie. And Brad Dourif doing what he does, which is be creepy as poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
I'm of the age where I experienced the Nightmare of Elm Street series all at once in pretty random order through syndication and home video. They were all released by the time I was old enough to watch rated R movies. Its definetly weird to come at the series without any sense of progression(of the camp aspect) at all, I think the first movie was one of the last ones I got around to watching. Same with Friday the 13th. Jason and Freddy were already jokes to me by the time I got around to watching the earliest entries, so it was always going to be hard to take them seriously. Carpenter to me always just felt more like serious business. Even his more over the top supernatural films like The Fog and Prince of Darkness have such a heavy atmosphere to them that adds so much tension. I feel like his crazy action stuff like Escape from L.A. benefits from this because they come off as sincere and you end up really caring about the characters. Theres just a weight to his movies that I can't articulate and its there regardless of genre. Craven's stuff always seemed lighter to me, and not in a good way. It works in Scream because thats kind of the point of the movie, otherwise its a turnoff.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
I agree with the poster that said Scream 4 had a lot of natural tension because it seemed very likely one of the main three returning characters would buy it. With the movie being made so long after Scream 4, and the way Craven spoke about it in interviews, you just got the feeling like he wanted to revisit these characters one more time. But only one more time. It was one of those rare instances when I actually believed the movie was the last in a franchise, so I went in thinking all bets are off. Kind of like the series finale of a TV show.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
acephalousuniverse posted:To be fair that list is his "guilty pleasures" and not a list of his actual favorite movies. I can't think of even one thing about Hitman that would make me want to sit down and watch it again, guilty pleasure or otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
schwenz posted:In other horror news. I accidentally threw out my rented copy of Sinister last night while dumping trash out of my car. I know Blockbuster changed their policy on this a long time ago, not that there are many still around. They just charged you late fees until it added up to the cost of the dvd, and then you owned it. So you never had to pay more than you would if you just went out and bought it. Much better than $48 worth of late fees for one dvd.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
Dissapointed Owl posted:I have to see it again to give a detailed response, but it had some really terrifying scenes somehow made more effective by its meta "This is actors acting out what happened. But this is real." The scene where the guy she puts under hypnosis gets paralyzed is pretty loving scary. Especially if you have the sound up, the scene goes from quiet to deafening real quick. And the distortion on the "actual footage" patient's face is really really creepy, as is the voice they use for what posesses him.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
H.P. Shivcraft posted:I know I've said this in the thread before, but I'd like to see more straight-up evil ghost movies. I really don't like this whole "Well, there's a demon or demonic influence that's making them do this" or "The ghost is actually a demon" because that's a friggin' cop-out. Say what you will about The Woman in Black but it was nice to get a ghost who was just a stone-cold hateful former human being who wanted to wreck poo poo and couldn't be placated. This kind of reminds me of a question I have about The Ring. I don't think the answer will be different in the American versus Japanese version, but if it is I guess I'll take both answers. I understand that Samara was born with some sort of telepathy/psychic ability, but was she evil to the extent that she became once she was dead? I know her mother feared her, but I can't remember if she actually did anything to justify that fear. The American version I remember focused pretty heavily on her being so angry because of how she died, but I don't know if in the flashback it makes it clear that she was always that way. I bring it up because The Ring is the first movie ghost where I remember the twist being "she's just lashing out because of the horrible thing that was done to her, its not her fault!"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
priznat posted:I thought the twist on the twist was "nope she actually was just loving evil" hence the whole "why did you do that??" from the kid when the mom says they set her free. Thats what my first instinct was too, but then when I thought about it I feel like the twist was more "you thought you had figured out a way to end this, but there's no way to get around the fact that someone is going to die." I see it as more turning an old trope on its head. Usually in ghost stories when you find the body and give it a decent burial they go away.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
I really like both Collector movies, The Collection is one of those rare sequels that gets what can be good and worthwhile about sequels. It takes some of the established elements of the first one and expands on them, it doesn't just feel like a remake with a different group of characters. Like how Aliens wasn't just another spaceship crew being taken out one by one by the Xeno, Cameron understood that there was no point in making that movie again. On that subject I should go look up who directed The Collection and see if they've done anything else.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2013 15:44
|
|
|
Mazzagatti2Hotty posted:After so many films with Myers as a silent, emotionless killing machine, having him slamming his victims to the ground and beating them to death while snarling with guttural rage in the remake really added to my enjoyment. I think more people would have appreciated the change if Zombie had made the movie in the early to mid-90s when the slasher genre was really stale, before Scream came out. By the time Zombie did it the whole "gritty and raw" thing seemed like a tired cliche already. The original Michael was something people may have seen as a change of pace from the horror being released at the time, but Zombie has a very specific style and I doubt he will ever stray from it all that much.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
StickySweater posted:His publicist trying to get him playing adult roles. See 1st decade of Leonardo DiCaprio after Titanic. He still looks like a child to me. I still have this problem with DiCaprio. He's got a babyface and can't grow decent facial hair so I don't think it will ever change. It was hard to see him as a grizzled veteran in Blood Diamond no matter how great his acting was in that movie. It works in his favor in movies like the Departed where they have flashbacks and he has to look years younger just by shaving. Daniel Radcliff will never be able to get away from Harry Potter, I think we all understand that. Its like if DiCaprio had made 8 Titanic movies, it would have been over for him at that point. Although I get that you can't really compare the two talent-wise, Radcliff will never be the actor that DiCaprio is.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
Twee as gently caress posted:I kind of wish that Friday the 13th had in fact gone along and named Jason 'Josh Voorhees' as it did in the original script I feel like if they had gone with Josh for the first Friday the 13th, eventually they would have changed it to Joshua for a biblical, more ominous sounding name. Still shittier than Jason though. And I quoted that last part because its a weird complaint about Prometheus. I've heard all kinds of complaints, and have a few myself, but the design is not one of them. What movies have you seen in the last year or two that look better than Prometheus?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2013 16:23
|
|
. In this alternate reality, that series probably never had more than a couple of really cheap sequels, and never was a horror powerhouse and arguably the most recognizable horror villain in cinema history after Micheal Myers. I mean, Freddy vs Josh?
|
StickySweater posted:
I love Fire in the Sky. There's very little horror but what is there is pretty loving horrific. I would say the scene people always remember starting when he wakes up after his abduction is probably the the scariest and overall best version of that scene in any movie.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:
Having not watched Candyman in about ten years, what about it exactly gives it that general creep factor, that feeling of dread that I remember it having pretty much from start to finish. Like, I remember being scared during scenes where the main character is just walking down an alley and looking at some graffiti on the walls, how did they do that? Probably the music, I do remember the music being very very unsettling.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2013 14:15
|
|
|
Well Candyman is a ghost/evil spirit and the Cenobites come from a dimension that seems a lot like Hell, so maybe a situation similar to Freddy vs. Jason where the Cenobites try to use the Candyman for their own purposes but of course he rebels and they have to fight at the end.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2013 16:11
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:I've got tickets to see a free advanced screening of it on Thursday night and I've read no spoilers. I only know that IGN gave it a 9/10. I feel like Sam Raimi has a style so unique that its almost its own sub-genre of horror. So yea, youre missing out on a whole genre of (4)great movies! But seriously, Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness are two of the best "horror" movies ever, its a shame you only watched the weakest of the three, although I'm sure that is a whole other debate.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
Diogenes Ex posted:How is Hellraiser a "mediocre vampire movie"? Frank has a lot of traits that we would normally attribute to a vampire if we weren't distracted by all the insane special-effects and S&M gear. The whole thing where he starts off as a barely human, then regains more and more of his body by eating people is standard vampire/undead stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Soon you'll all be at the altar of The Fourth Kind. I don't even enjoy it because of all the complicated thematic stuff going on, I just think its creepy as hell and one of the the 2 or 3 scariest UFO movies out there.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 15:31
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I've already forgotten the Saw franchise. The first Saw was unique enough at the time that it kicked off a mini-horror resurgence. Kind of like Scream, but to a lesser degree. Saw also had HUGE word-of-mouth hype going on, similar to The Blair Witch Project. No matter how lovely the rest of the franchise became, the original has to be on any list of most influential horror movies of its decade. I think in 20 years its the main thing Wan will be remembered for, yea.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2013 15:34
|
|
|
Death Sentence is pretty solid, but the best part about it is that there is horror in it. Its kind of a revenge movie filmed as if its a horror movie, I dunno its hard to explain without knowing more about film techniques and cinematography.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
Zyklon B Zombie posted:I'm a little amazed people are saying they wouldn't read from the book. Like, if you found a creepy book like that laying around outside your house saying don't read this aloud, you wouldn't be tempted to read it aloud at all? As an athiest who would love to find out that I've been so very wrong, I'd read the poo poo out of that book. If there really was supernatural stuff in the universe like ghosts and demons, I'll risk some deadite exposure to find out.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
Its a good point about the effects in movies like The Thing or Return of the Living Dead, or something like The Blob. If you grew up during that time theres just something about those techniques that its hard to let go of, I think to us they just feel more real because for such a long time its all we knew. No matter how good CGI gets its always the "classics" from my 80's childhood that I go back to again and again. Definitely a very personal and subjective thing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 16:50 |
|
|
Volume posted:I really hated the second half of Insidious. It just dropped the atmosphere of the first half for balls to the wall crazy. That said, the first half is so drat strong that it makes up for the second half. I am going to watch Insidious tonight. But anyway, I actually like movies with this kind of pacing and I think a lot of people do, but its definitely not for everyone. I love a slow-burner that, at a certain point, just goes off the rails and way way further than you were expecting. You could argue that Alien is like that, its like two separate 45 minute movies that are both awesome.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2013 21:03
|
|