|
I mean Twin Peaks is a riff on gaudy afternoon soaps where these kinds of plot lines ran riot with a pile of sugar on top so it's kinda the point. I'd content warning that poo poo on a recommedation though.
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2020 12:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 02:59 |
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Man, I know there's a lot of fans here and I don't wanna be all edgy or anything. But I just finished Twin Peaks S2 and I think that last 40 minutes might have been the stupidest thing I've watched in my entire life. Adults having sex with teens! Oh my!! Ignoring everything else that Twin Peaks is doing, it is clearly deconstructing the insidious nature that lives beneath every small town- often the sexuality contained within those that may make us uncomfortable to acknowledge (aka Laura Palmer) WeaponX fucked around with this message at 14:23 on Aug 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2020 14:00
|
|
|
Onibaba vs. The VVitch vs. A Nightmare on Elm Street 3 I really liked Onibaba and its bleak depiction that gives an interesting glimpse at the misery of peasant life in Feudal Japan. All the characters have an almost animalistic cruelty to them, but it’s hard to begrudge them. There’s a sense that their situation necessitates it (“I’ve never seen anything really beautiful since the day I was born”). But while everyone is enmeshed in violence, they also seem to deeply crave closeness. It feels like the film encapsulates that the Hobbesian quote of life being nasty, brutish and short. I also love that the two main characters are women who don’t chiefly exist to titillate the audience. They’re allowed to be flawed, abrasive and unkempt. All in all, it was a beautifully shot, tragic movie. But while people do horrifying things in this movie, I don’t know that it feels like a “horror” movie to me. I just loves me some witches, so anything going up against The VVitch was going to have a hard battle to fight. Even so, I rarely enjoy most of the witch movies I watch. But this one hit differently. Witches are often depicted as over the top cackling buffoons (which can be fun!), but this witch seemed more menacing, even though she barely has screen time (or maybe precisely because of this). The film as a whole is really well crafted and beautiful to look at, particularly the chiaroscuro nighttime scenes. The story unravels at a pace that draws the audience into its eerie atmosphere and holds their attention as the situation descends into heartbreaking horror. I found the ending to be weirdly uplifting, which is probably concerning. I guess a part of me delighted in the fact that the whole family was basically damned by the patriarch's hubris. Also, living in the woods with creepy naked women is basically my life's goal, so how I could I not be happy for Thomasin? Seriously, whose anus do I have to kiss to live deliciously with Black Philip, too? A Nightmare on Elm Street 3 was the only one I hadn't seen before. Although I knew I loved both of the other selections, I was open to being swayed into voting for it since I've tended to vote for the more "fun" movies over more profound or better-crafted ones throughout the tournament. I'd seen the first two a few years back, and while I wasn't particularly enamoured with either, I was genuinely scared to fall asleep that night (I know, I know. Horror is my favourite genre, but I'm also a scared baby who's still afraid of the dark despite being in my 30s). The Nightmare on Elm Street series has a premise that's more horrifying to me than the movies themselves. I didn't have that problem with this one for some reason. Slept like a baby with nary a thought of Freddy. I didn't dislike it, and I might have voted for it in another context, but I just liked the other two selections much more. This felt a little like a Saturday morning cartoon special to me, albeit with more tits and blood. A lot of the deaths felt rushed and uninspired. Scenes felt like kind of just happen one after the other, and I never felt much of anything beyond mild amusement. I didn't ever become over-the-top enough or gross enough to be memorable for me. Maybe I was in a bad mood. It was merely fine, and I was able to watch it in one sitting, which is more than I can saw for some of the previous titles. Yesterdays Piss fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Aug 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2020 17:03
|
|
|
BisonDollah posted:I mean Twin Peaks is a riff on gaudy afternoon soaps where these kinds of plot lines ran riot with a pile of sugar on top so it's kinda the point. I'd content warning that poo poo on a recommedation though. All the adult/teen relationships are generally depicted as symptoms of societal rot and horror so I don't really have any issue with how it's handled. And yeah, Fire Walk with Me gets way more into that part of the story (it is Laura's perspective after all) and it's even seedier and scarier. edit: I'm pulling for Lynch to go to the finals but it will be the cruelest of all ironies that STAC suffered through a series he hated if Lynch ends up going down on, say, Inland Empire without ever drawing FWWM. TrixRabbi fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Aug 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2020 18:34
|
|
|
Yesterdays Piss posted:Also, living in the woods with creepy naked women is basically my life's goal, so how I could I not be happy for Thomasin? Seriously, who's anus do I have to kiss to live deliciously with Black Philip, too?  Excellent post btw!
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2020 18:42
|
|
|
To be honest the longer Twin Peaks went on the more I became convinced that they just regretted making half the cast high school students. Its not like they ever went to school or anything. In S2 they seem to make a particular effort to stylish the teens as adults and only ever even mention their ages for that weird rear end Nadine storyline.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2020 21:03
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:To be honest the longer Twin Peaks went on the more I became convinced that they just regretted making half the cast high school students. Its not like they ever went to school or anything. In S2 they seem to make a particular effort to stylish the teens as adults and only ever even mention their ages for that weird rear end Nadine storyline. I mean this is the nicest way possible, you really misunderstood Twin Peaks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2020 21:07
|
|
|
I completely and fully acknowledge that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2020 21:11
|
|
|
Okay. Let's get into it then. Burk's big complicated feelings about Carpenter VS Scott, ALIEN vs Christine loving Hell this one. On the face of it the answer is obvious. ALIEN has had a far greater impact, it reaches deeper and wider and changed what we think of sci-fi horror forever. Christine is an excellent horror film that is underrated and undeservedly forgotten with time, while ALIEN stands out all the more with all of its twists and turns and franchising. True, one could argue that Christine is 'just' an adaptation of the King book, but there's so much more to it. The way Carpenter twists the narrative, the changes he adds and streamlining of the story. He transforms it from another Stephen King book to Something Amazing. No one is going to stand for Mangler the way they would Christine. Shifting it from a convoluted ghost story to what it is, the idea that somethings are just born malicious, is a stroke of genius and ties well with the car's true nature resonating with the worst natures of others. Some things don't need explaining. Cue tangent about the greater ALIEN franchise and all that and we're just going to skip that okay? We're not talking about them. Even if Ridley himself is responsible for the worst of that exploration. Regardless of your feelings about the films themselves, revealing more about the Xenomorphs and their origins only dilutes what was there. Less is more in horror. but we're not there yet. We're still at a point where the Engineers are weird elephant people and the Xenomorphs are these inexplicable, near mystical entities that could do drat near anything. Before they are even Xenomorphs, before they are They, and instead the only name they have is the Son of Cain. Something evocative in that. Here's where I lay my cards on the table and show where I fall on the matter. Of the two films, ALIEN is probably better than Christine, devoid of content or context. I definitely have a bias towards it over Christine, monster fan that I am. Christine is the best possible horror car movie you could have and is done expertly, superior to even its own source material. It even manages the rarest of all things, a GOOD ENDING to a Stephen King story. Something only Carrie would follow doing. ALIEN is remarkable, stark, visionary- and would not exist without Carpenter. Some talk has happened about the screen writer in this thread, talking about how ALIEN is built from so many 1950s and 1960s sci-fi ideas cobbled together. And nothing is wrong with that. You can make a direct connection to the film ALIEN most notably draws from, the 1958 IT! The Terror From Beyond Space! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZHrCkEmgFo Where the broad, broad outline of the ALIEN plot can be seen near fully formed, just not yet realized. But that's nothing. That's the monster plot. ALIEN isn't the first ALIEN, instead that honor goes to what amounts to its blue prints, Dark Starr 1974. Born as a parody of sorts of 2001, Dark Star informs so much of what became ALIEN that its beyond ridiculous. The visual style, the tone of the cast, the space trucker vibes- all of that comes from Dark Star. Its to a point where I've never really wondered what a Carpenter ALIEN would be like, because the answer is Dark Star. Maybe make things a bit more straight faced, but that's where you end up. Ridley Scott definitely adds his own flourishes, but he's by no means breaking new ground. He is building on *very* fresh foundation, refining what is already a proven success, and in any other context this wouldn't matter. But this is Ridley Scott VS John Carpenter, and in this case, ALIEN owes drat near all of what it is to Carpenter. When considering director VS director, when you're pitting a very good movie against a perfect movie that was near top to bottom INSPIRED by the other director? There's only one real choice if you're being at all honest with yourself. Also ALIEN is owned by Disney now and gently caress voting for Disney.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2020 21:37
|
|
|
drat it Burkion you're just going to single handedly decide the outcome of this tournament, are you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2020 22:21
|
|
|
He's on the right side of history so far, as long as he doesn't go to bat for the Babadook I'm good with it. edit: I mean he threw in for it, but no impassioned speech so far. Too lost a cause even for the champion of Half Human.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2020 22:45
|
|
|
Irony.or.Death posted:He's on the right side of history so far, as long as he doesn't go to bat for the Babadook I'm good with it. I adore Babadook but there is no speech in the world to make for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2020 22:49
|
|
|
This is honestly just revealing the farce of expecting movies to be a reflection of their directors. Movies are the result of a storm of influences, many hands, and many minds, not just one person, and certainly not just the director. This is our imperfect tournament though, and these are the imperfect shackles we've made for ourselves. If Alien is the better film, we must vote for Alien. Even if it was ghost directed by Carpenter himsel. Even if it's owned by a shadowy cabal of Epstein clones. If Alien is the better film, the vote must go to Alien.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2020 23:28
|
|
|
I'd buy the argument more if Alien had been the singular shining star in Ridley Scott's filmography, but the man gave us absolute masterpiece after masterpiece in all kinds of genres, think
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2020 23:36
|
|
|
Debbie Does Dagon posted:If Alien is the better film, we must vote for Alien. Even if it was ghost directed by Carpenter himsel. Even if it's owned by a shadowy cabal of Epstein clones. If Alien is the better film, the vote must go to Alien. Not true. We all have our own specific voting criteria, as you yourself have demonstrated.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2020 23:49
|
|
|
I honestly don't see the connection. I absolutely concede that it's not for me to dictate the voting criteria of others. I think there's a difference though between voting based on content (animal cruelty) and voting despite content (circumstances of filming). E; I'm not saying that Burkion's voting methodology is wrong, I just disagree with it and wouldn't use it personally.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 00:16
|
|
|
Burkion posted:ALIEN is remarkable, stark, visionary- and would not exist without Carpenter. Some talk has happened about the screen writer in this thread, talking about how ALIEN is built from so many 1950s and 1960s sci-fi ideas cobbled together. And nothing is wrong with that. Much though I'm rooting both for Carpenter and against Scott, there are three crucial points that you've missed here. First: if you're going to take the tack that the credit for a perfect movie inspired by another director should go to that other director, then you're going to have to take credit away from Carpenter for The Thing. Although Christian Nyby's movie is very different, it's still the case that without it Carpenter doesn't adapt Campbell's Who Goes There? Second: if you're going to argue from a position that Dark Star is Carpenter's Alien then for this to be evidence that Carpenter is the better director, you have to be saying that Dark Star is better than Alien. I can make the case for Christine over Alien, and have, but to say that a student flick extended to feature length is superior to a movie of Alien's quality is a stretch too far. Third: the common link between Alien and Dark Star isn't John Carpenter - it's Dan O'Bannon. And in both cases, few of the ideas were original to him. This is actually a justification to vote for Christine, but for the exact opposite reason to the one you thought you were giving; Christine is better because it is a staging of a story, whereas Alien is cobbled together out of scenes from other people's stories.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 01:25
|
|
|
In most any other situation I wouldn't use this like this either. But Christine is so close to ALIEN in subjective quality that I have to come back to what an effect Dark Star has on ALIEN. This isn't a normal situation of one film inspiring another- you can see exactly how ALIEN builds off of Dark Star, and the two are extremely close together in production history. Beyond even the beach all alien sequence, the look and feel of Dark Star acts as a proto ALIEN in ways not normally seen. If this was a weaker Carpenter film- and this is not- that wouldn't matter as much. For me? Its enough to sway my vote.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 01:57
|
|
|
Man, before I actually watched Christine, I didn't think it had a chance in hell against Alien. Alien is just amazing and iconic. Each frame is a masterclass in craftsmanship; you can just tell that a lot of thought and skill went into every detail we see on screen (although I did learn from DDD that they apparently never made sure the xenomorph suit could actually fit any of the crew members...). And while a lot of science fiction films tend to look dated pretty quickly, Alien's aesthetic somehow mostly stands the test of time. The whole film is also dripping with atmosphere and "hold-your-breath" tension. It's just the quintessential science-fiction thriller. Plus, it has a cat in it, and I want to marry stud-fem Sigourney Weaver. Christine, on the other hand, is schlocky fun. I didn't think it was possible to make a movie about a killer car without it being ridiculous. I was right, but Christine is ridiculous in the best of ways. I'm also really impressed that they managed to impart so much personality into a car. The soundtrack was pretty dope, too. I felt like it had a few pacing issues here and there, but it’s a charming and unique film that I’m glad to have watched. This is definitely a tough choice that's compounded by the fact that they’re such different movies. But I can't help but think that the fact that I'd never seen Christine before was to its advantage. So was the fact that it's a “crowd” movie in a way that Alien is not. Your quips definitely added to my enjoyment (y'all are an entertaining bunch). However, I can't help but think that I probably wouldn't have liked it as much if I had watched it on my own. And while I might watch it again if it were playing on TV or something, I don’t think I’d actively seek it out. Or maybe I'm just trying to intellectualize the fact that, ultimately, Alien just makes my chest burst (WOMP WOMP).
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 05:56
|
|
|
Seriously though has anyone voting this round seen Jodorowsky's Dune?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 10:44
|
|
|
I already have almost 19 hours of films to watch this week, don't give me any extracurricular work  Even my write-ups are suffering. Speaking of which...I will be voting for Christine, despite my gnashing of teeth so far in the thread. It has too much personality woven into every scene, and while Alien has that cool used-universe aesthetic, it just comes across as a bit more muted. There's nothing that really slaps me in the face and grabs me quite in the same way as say, the cranky old man who runs the garage in Christine. As a choice, it's a bit like an intricate palette of greys, versus bursts of neon colour.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 12:11
|
|
|
BisonDollah posted:Seriously though has anyone voting this round seen Jodorowsky's Dune?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 14:10
|
|
|
Yeah, Jodo's Dune is great fun. Speaking of madness, it's absolute madness how y'all are voting for Christine over Alien just because everyone has seen Alien 10,000 times on account of being a huge nerd, and also the movie being just so good. If this was a first watch everyone would be making GBS threads their pants and laughing the (very good) Christine out of the tournament.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 14:27
|
|
|
The unspoken truth of Jodorowsky's Dune is that the movie very well might have sucked -- too big for it's own good, something that exists as a phantasmagoria inside our minds that may very well have utterly failed to translate to the big screen (it's not like Jodo has a 100% track record). There's this overwhelming sense through the doc that the director had gone off the rails, high both literally and figuratively off his acclaim and conceiving images that at the time would have been impossible to properly translate. Maybe this is cynical, perhaps he could have at the least turned out something better than Lynch's shake at the material, but who's to say. The other great irony is that without Dune we don't have the legacy that Dune created, including and especially Alien (which we learn resulted from Dan O'Bannon having a nervous breakdown and institutionalizing himself after Dune's collapse, which is where he conceived the first notions of Alien. It was a film born of insanity). But at the same time, that legacy helped pave the way for the Blockbuster era of Hollywood via Star Wars, via Alien that ultimately helped destroy the free-spirited era that could have allowed Dune to be made in the first place -- though this is a crass oversimplification of what happened and the direction Hollywood was heading in the 70s. But at the same time, I'm not sure exactly what this has to do with the matchup at hand. If we're talking sheer influence then Alien wins hands down. And I do feel like there's some haranguing here to paint Ridley Scott as less of a vital force to Alien than he was -- bear in mind he's the one who took the history of extraterrestrial sci fi films made to date and wanted to make something truly terrifying. He's the one whose insistence and dedication to ensuring the monster never looked like a man in a suit (along with the costuming and design team of course) helped rewrite the book in what horror films were capable of achieving. He's the man with that eye for lighting and money shots and action (feels like we rarely talk about Scott as a consummate action director because he uses it more sparingly) that define the film. I don't like that we've reduced the tournament down to Film vs. Film when this is about judging directors. So in some sense, I think we also have to consider the role of the director in each film we vote for, otherwise we're just pitting random movies against each other with the branding of their directors attached. For that reason I see plenty of reason to legitimately vote for Carpenter, whether it's just that you respond to his lower budget, innovative approach or his themes connect more or just truly that you think of him as the director more immediately thinking about horror than Ridley Scott. But I don't think you can just overrule Scott's contributions to Alien when a more nuanced analysis of Carpenter's work will reveal how reliant he was on his collaborators as well. You only need to watch other Ridley Scott films to recognize how much of his vision and style is consistent throughout Alien. I still haven't made my final decision on this round. I don't think a vote for Christine is necessarily kneejerk or contrarian to try to save the more beloved director, I do believe there's real legitimate reasons to say it's the better, or more preferable, film. But I don't think Scott is getting a fair shake here, and there's an attempt to spin him as immaterial to Alien which is patently untrue. TrixRabbi fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Aug 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 16:03
|
|
|
It was the first proper watch of Alien for two people in the stream last night, and they're both voting Christine
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 16:04
|
|
|
Also of note that Christine definitely benefits from watching it in a group, and while there are plenty of striking shots, watching it on a small screen you can still get an approximation of the full experience. Alien, see that on a big screen without people who have seen it a million times before. It oozes atmosphere, and the bigger the screen the more of it you get. What I'm really saying here, someone is putting mad witchcraft spells on people to make them vote for JC. I pray for Ridley/Ripley.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 16:20
|
|
|
Brian Yuzna’s Society vs. Tobe Hooper’s Salem’s Lot aka "I Forgot This Gimmick and Have Nothing." Society’s just… I get it, I do. That ending is something. Its certainly impressive as a sfx reel. And I get how that would really make it worthwhile for people really into body horror or gore or dumb gross out humor. Its just not really my thing. Still, its a big enough ending that I think I would have enjoyed it if it didn’t take 80 dull minutes to get to the 20 minutes of interesting. The bulk of the film just really doesn’t have a lot going for it. Mediocre lead, mediocre satire, mediocre messaging. Its weird. A tighter packaging with a few less twists and turns probably would deliver better but for the most part it feels like a loooong wait for a big finish. I like Salem’s Lot. Its not great, but I like it. Its a bit long and overstuffed with town people and their side stories, and yeah, that’s a King thing, but I think its very effective in this case because the story is really about (a) this small town that’s already kind of decaying and used to keeping secrets and (b) how Barlow is able to use that to quickly eat it alive and spread his disease so fast that by the time people figure out what’s going on its already too late to do much except run away. To that end a lot fo the quality is really in the second act where we see people turn and come after more people. I love the lifeless, glowing eyes, drone like vampires just motivated to feed and spread. I like Straker’s low key evil familiar because every good vampire needs a great familiar. I like Barlow’s monstrous Nosferatu look even if he’s a tad purple and doesn’t do a hell of a lot besides look scary. The finale is a bit anticlimactic even though I think they do a good job building up all the way to the stake. And I actually enjoy that its hard to drive a stake through a vampire’s heart. Still, like a lot of King it doesn’t really stick the landing. And the ride’s a little long. But I enjoy it. I expect Society to win this. Lot of body horror fans and a big finish is more of a crowd pleaser than a long ride. But Salem’s Lot is definitely more my thing and I feel very comfortable giving it and Tobe Hooper at least one vote. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 08:39 on Aug 31, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 05:02
|
|
|
Kaneto Shindō’s Onibaba vs. Robert Eggers’s The VVitch vs. Chuck Russell’s A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors aka “I Really Don’t Know Which Of The Kids Have It Worse.” I like Onibaba. Its really beautifully shot and made. Like it looks and sounds gorgeous. All I wanted to do after it was go outside in the cool summer night and roll around in some grass or something. Its a very good and simple if melodramatic little story between the three characters too. Just showing everyone’s little human problems of fear, loneliness, jealousy, anger, etc. The demon mask is amazing. Its so great and I still can’t tell if those eyes move or not and its great. Like one of those old paintings that follows you around the room. And seriously, it looks amazing. I think this copy on HBOMax I watched was better than the one I saw the first time and it just looks amazing. Its so rare to see a film that is so dark look so drat good and clear but its a real testament to the skill involved in lighting and shooting. But if there’s one thing this movie really left me with its how drat hungry it made me feel. Those people were chowing down. I think its funny, but I have a very different interpretation of The VVitch as the whole “great she’s ditching the patriarchy to dance naked with child killing witches” thing. You know, besides the whole thing where her whole family got wiped out I didn’t think her dad came off like a bad guy. I get why everyone goes “oh, puritanical misogynistic patriarch” but I thought he actually seemed decent. He comforts his kid when he thinks he’s going to hell, he objects to his wife’s really hardcore assertions, and he tries to protect his daughter from stuff. He’s not perfect but there is a witch murdering his family while they all starve in the woods. But I thought Eggers very deliberately avoided telling us why he was being banished/leaving Plymouth and I think that’s to leave it open to you. I see a bunch of Puritans kick a guy out and I go “yeah, that’s what they did. They’re Puritans.” Was he somehow TOO much of a dick for the guys who were such dicks they got kicked across an ocean? Or was he not dick enough? Eggers doesn’t really answer that and after seeing Lighthouse I think that’s intentional. Both films have a lot you can unpack and rewatch and get whole new interpretations of with a different viewing lens. Its a great film, beautiful, great performance from a growing favorite in Anya Taylor Joy, really strong pace that is deceptively quick. Like it starts feeling slow but speeds up at such a solid pace that next thing you know you’re at the ending. Just a really, really good film. I also think Dream Warriors is a really, really hood film. I think people don’t give it enough. Its weird because its the 3rd film of a franchise that has some bad entries. People seem to just sort of remember the sequels all smushed together as a bunch of crazy kills and one liners. This is certainly where that begins and where Freddy really does seem to start becoming less the monster Wes Craven created and more the heavily commercialized one people were fans of. But I think he’s still evil as gently caress and mean here in large part because the kills are really personal and cruel. There’s a whole theme of kids who need some love and compassion here and who are being failed by their parents, a hosed up hospital, and society at large. And Freddy becomes that evil thing trying to kill them whether its the loneliness of a neglectful mother, that razor blade that feels like an escape, the wheelchair that traps you, or the drugs that tempt you. That Taryn needle death is one of those iconic Freddy kills but I genuinely teared up when it happened because I cared about that kid and what she was going through. I teared up when Kincaid busted through the wall and was greeted with hugs and kisses. Dream Warriors is really dark and emotional and I think I deserves more credit than it gets from the other Freddy sequels. Its not as good as the original but I stand by the idea that the 3 Heather Lagenkamp movies make a hell of a trilogy of 3 different interpretations of Freddy all as an evil with a strong heroine in Nancy/Heather. So, how am I voting? I enjoyed all three really and I’m not sure one was clearly over the other for me. What I want to see next means nothing because they’re all Duo entries so no matter what next round is a repeat I might skip. If I went for personal favorites that would probably me Elm Street. Just a long time childhood favorite. If I went for just simple directorial I might go Onibaba. That film was really mostly style over substance and I really enjoyed the style. But I think probably The VVitch and Eggers is my middle ground. But does that make it just the compromise choice? With them so close for me this triple threat is very hard. I can’t just lena one way or another slightly. But I think I’m going with Eggers. I might change my mind by Thursday.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 10:34
|
|
|
Don't mind me, just triple posting because I didn't group my films together this week so finished a bunch of matchups in a row. Ridley Scott’s Alien vs. John Carpenter’s Christine aka “Two Haunted House Movies… Zero Houses” What can I say about Alien? I’ve seen it a million times. I’ve seen it so many times its almost difficult not to get a little distracted because I just know everything happening without even looking at the screen. I remember some review I read recently… maybe it was here, maybe on Letterboxd… that described it as back when the Engineers were just weird elephant giants and the Xenomorphs were just scary monsters. I think that really stood out to me after watching Prometheus and Covenant twice in recent memory. This is the first rewatch of Alien since then, since I saw Covenant and the Xenomorph “origin” and man… I love the simplicity of Alien. I’ve always described it to people as a “haunted house film in a spaceship” and I stand by that. Find something weird and spooky, stupidly get to close and open it, unleash something monstrous or evil on everyone, trapped in the place with and no choice but to find a way to stop it. Its why Alien always spoke to me as a horror fan more than the more sci fi recent movies do or more than the action Aliens does to many. I just love my haunted spaceship movie. Well hot drat I loved Christine. Why would I be surprised? Love Carpenter. Love King. Love Kelly Preston giving that look in the background. Love rock n roll. No idea how I haven’t seen this before. Just one that fell through the cracks somehow but drat I really enjoyed it. Carpenter mostly makes the “killer car” thing work. Like you have to get past the inherent goofiness of it and accept its victims are going to have to turn into deer sometimes and stare at the headlights. But there’s great scenes with it and I loved the use of the radio as Christine’s voice. It was eery without being goofy and gave her a personality. But the real strength is that she’s only one of two monsters. Christine’s killing a few douchebags and being jealous but Arnie? Arnie’s scaring the hell out of his loved ones as he becomes this scary monster on his own. And that makes Christine her real threat. Not as a killer car, but as a corrupting evil spirit unlike any haunted house or talisman or whatever. So I’m genuinely torn. I love that both films are basically “haunted house without a house.” Alien unleashes something evil in the house that kills them all, Christine unleashes something evil that possesses Arnie. I love Alien and I never really love anything the same way on a first watch, but man I really, really enjoyed Christine. It was such a fun time even without the crowd watch everyone said was big. I wish I had made it to that. But I also don’t because I think I just loved this all on its own with 100% of my focus on it. And its probably true that its kind of unfair to be holding Christine up more for being something new vs Aliens for being a greatness I’m so used to that I kind of zone out at times. But still its kind of how it played out. And if we’re going directors its John freaking Carpenter. And I still don’t really think Scott is a horror director. And toss in some Stephen King? I was really prepared to vote against the guy I picked as my #1 Council seed because freaking Alien. But now I’m really, really comfortable saying that one of the few John Carpenter films I had never gotten around to seeing is great and I am happy voting it over Alien in this case.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 11:10
|
|
|
I call shenanigans on this Christine love-in. A d-rate Stephen King story adapted as basically and safely as possible with John Carpenter at his most muted. There's a whole lotta people lying to themselves in order to keep JC in this competition.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 12:52
|
|
|
Whether you think Christine is as good as Alien is a separate discussion, but Christine is absolutely one of Carpenter's best films and we've been saying that in the horror thread for years. So it's not some new idea we're coming up with just to justify voting for him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 13:55
|
|
|
Salem's Lot vs Society Salem's Lot, it's painfully limited by what I assume were TV conventions at the time, because we all know Tobe Hooper can do much better even with the lowest budget. The freeze frame zoom ins are just painful, what were people thinking?? The few standout scenes that everyone talks about are great- the vampires are genuinely creepy in a way few, if any, of their cinematic renditions are. The shotgun scene is tense. That's about it? I love the book, it's perhaps the only SK book that I've read twice, it gave me nightmares as a kid. The movie I had to watch in three 1h batches, and even that was hard to pay attention to. The only time there is actually some steam is when things finally start to spiral out of control, but the first two hours failed at making me care about anyone - which is part of why the King book is so great, it actually builds up this sad little town before tearing it down. Society is insane and goes by like a breeze, especially compared to Salem's Lot. Yes it does feel completely artificial and shallow but that's the point, a monstrous, rotten version of 80s soap opera/comedy, and it just ends in such an unbelievable orgy of madness, how can you not love it? I don't blame Hooper for the failures of Salem's Lot, I really don't. He's much better than Yuzna ever was, but this is movie vs movie. It's a disgrace that I will have to vote for Yuzna here because he made the much better movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 14:06
|
|
|
I see no disgrace in this match. Brian Yuzna is just a really underrated director and now we're all recognizing it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 14:11
|
|
|
STAC Goat, I had never considered Alien as a haunted house/ghost movie. Interesting analogy to draw. My original Big Brain 'Splosion moment was when someone described Alien as a slasher pretending to be a sci-fi movie, and that's how I've always approached it.TrixRabbi posted:I see no disgrace in this match. Brian Yuzna is just a really underrated director and now we're all recognizing it. The interviews with him on Arrow's Re-animator release gave me a whole new appreciation of him. The dude loves the horror genre. Even when he's trying something new, he understands that they need to be fun and weird and gross. It may not always work, but the dude is good at what he does in general. BisonDollah posted:I call shenanigans on this Christine love-in. A d-rate Stephen King story adapted as basically and safely as possible with John Carpenter at his most muted. There's a whole lotta people lying to themselves in order to keep JC in this competition. I respectfully disagree, my friend. Christine is an A-tier Stephen King adaptation that's been relegated as a B-tier movie only because Carpenter's filmography is overwhelmingly important and influential to American cinema of the 80's. I think it's interesting that you say it's Carpenter at his most muted, cuz I see it as one of his most confident films. It's so much more thoughtful and well-crafted than you're giving him credit. The pacing and structure alone are better than some Carpenter favorites, which I will leave unnamed so as to avoid Carpenter slapfights. edit: I also would like to mention, for no real reason, that Christine was the first movie I bought on 4k UHD, and that was an accidental stroke of genius on my part. Gorgeous film. Franchescanado fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Sep 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 14:32
|
|
|
TrixRabbi posted:I see no disgrace in this match. Brian Yuzna is just a really underrated director and now we're all recognizing it. I've been steering this bandwagon since I first saw Return of Living Dead 3 and Bride of Reanimator like a decade ago.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 14:40
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:I've been steering this bandwagon since I first saw Return of Living Dead 3 and Bride of Reanimator like a decade ago. Is Return of the Living Dead 3 objectively good? No comment. Do I love it? Yes. It's GorePunk aesthetic did irreversible damage to my brain, and I thank Yuzna for that every time it comes up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 14:42
|
|
|
Every film I've written an effort post for has been unceremoniously dumped from the competition so here is 1000 words on why Christine is better than Alien. Now, I'm not a big-city lawyer... *crowd gasps*
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 15:11
|
|
|
The only real case I see for Christine in this round is that Alien has gotten a bit tired over the years. It's no mark against the film itself, but I understand how over-familiarity makes it seem less exciting. There's been endless sequels and spinoffs, some of us here have spent countless hours steeped in that universe. And then here comes Christine, a totally different type of horror film that is incredibly underrated even within Carpenter's own filmography, it's vibrant and fun and something a lot of people here haven't seen. Like right now if I had to decide between watching Alien for the umpteenth time or giving Christine a revisit I'm probably going Christine. I think Alien is merely a victim of its own success here. We expect Alien to be great, so much to the point that it's greatness has become boring. Inversely, a lot of people expect Christine to be middling, and are surprised by how fun it is and so it gets elevated. Plus, saying the quiet part out loud, I do think a lot of folks just want to keep Carpenter around and know that Scott's upcoming movies aren't exactly the best this bracket has to offer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 15:35
|
|
|
On a meta level, if Carpenter wins he's just going to effortlessly walk through the rest of the tournament. Might as well call it a day, whoever doesn't come up against him in the next round will surely lose against him eventually. Boring. If Scott wins, it's loving ON. No idea who would claim the vacant throne, excitement in every matchup, a new dawn of spook a doodles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 15:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 02:59 |
|
|
married but discreet posted:On a meta level, if Carpenter wins he's just going to effortlessly walk through the rest of the tournament. Might as well call it a day, whoever doesn't come up against him in the next round will surely lose against him eventually. Boring. Now who's pushing an agenda? "I don't want the best director to win, I want this to be interesting!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 15:41
|
|