Sangre, cuchillos, y tetas --- Horror Film Discussion

[Grouchy]

I had to report someone to RT because I got an IM saying that the person was going to find me and kill me for my negative review of Silent Hill.

Hahahah can you share your reviewer page? I didn't know you had one.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I like Silent Hill but I'm not homicidal about it.

Yet.

[D_Davis]

Hahahah can you share your reviewer page? I didn't know you had one.

I wasn't even part of the Tomato meter. My site hadn't even been approved at the that time, and once it had we had pretty much called it quits.

The review was posted in the forums.

That's the craziest thing. My negative review wasn't even part of the rotten meter.

[D_Davis]

I tracked down my review.

Maybe I should have received death threats. LOL!

Man...going back and reading some of my old reviews is like being slapped in the face with a harsh reality.

I really hated writing bad reviews. I always preferred writing about movies I loved. Whenever I wrote about bad movies, I always fell into the trap of trying to hard, and for what?

Embarrassing! The movie really pissed me off. Now I kind of want to watch it again to see if it still does.

[

Show Spoiler

There are many great words in the English language. Words that when combined together, form sentences that convey meaning and emotion, and create concrete descriptive images. When these sentences are combined and placed in sequential order, they in turn conjure an author's imagination and birth narrative and character. Since Roger Avery chose not to use any such skill in choosing his words and sentences for his script, or crafting a narrative worth the paper it's printed on, I will chose the only word I know capable of describing this movie: Crap. "It's gonna' be okay, it's gonna be okay," a phrase spoken forty-seven or so times throughout the two hours of hell this film puts its audience through, must have been the filmmaker's mantra - too bad for them, for in the words written by Tarantino, for a story co-written by Avery, “[it’s] pretty f****n’ far from okay.”

I cannot fathom the notion that there are people out there who really believe that it was Roger Avery who was the talent behind Pulp Fiction and not Tarantino. If those people still believe this after seeing this tragically written narrative, I know some good doctors, they work in Silent Hill, and are bit demonic, but they should do the trick. The narrative structure is broken while at the same time, Avery writes some of the worst dialog I have ever heard, I mean, it is bad. The narrative is really just a series of loosely connected bad ideas on part of the characters and the filmmakers, one of the biggest offenders being when Sean Bean’s character “googles” Silent Hill. I began to wonder if Avery really even wrote anything down; perhaps he just had the script in mind, but never got around to actually writing it. I like to imagine Christopher Gans, the director, telling the actors to “Just kind of run from here to there, and we’ll put in some monsters every once in a while – don’t worry, it’s gonna be okay.”

And then the actors ask Gans, “What should we say here?”

Gans turns to Avery, “Any ideas?”

Roger Avery answers, “Well, it looks like there might have been a fire at some point, so say this: Looks like a fire happened here, don’t’ worry baby, it’s gonna be okay.”

Oh really captain obvious, what gave it away? Was it all the freaking ashes falling from the sky and all the charred wood, furniture and debris scattered about?

It’s gonna be okay. It’s gonna be okay. It’s gonna be okay.

It’s too bad that Avery’s script is not the only thing about this film that crawled out of the depths of hell, for Christopher Gans' directing followed closely behind. A competent director can, and often will, turn a poorly written script into a cohesive narrative and entertaining film. Too bad Gans is not a competent director. A competent director would have also known that a horror film, should at some point, be a tad bit scary, or terrifying. Again, it’s too bad for Gans. I am not a huge fan of his Brotherhood of the Wolf, and I feel that Gans needs to become number-one-best-friends with an editor, you know, someone who can slap Gans around, keep him on track, and tell him, “it’s gonna be okay.” Silent Hill, like Brotherhood, goes nowhere, and takes its sweet time getting there. Although unlike Brotherhood, Silent Hill doesn’t have anything about it that even comes close to being entertaining. However, the poor directing is not The Hill’s (as I like to call it now, although the WB may want to use that moniker for it’s television series) biggest problem.

The biggest problem about The Hill is its complete lack of anything even remotely resembling fright. There is not a single ounce of terror, horror, or anything that could pass for tension during the entire two-hour running time. There weren’t even any cheep thrills, like a cat, jumping out from an old locker or something – anything! This poses a problem for a horror film. Horror films need tension, they need atmosphere, and they need for the audience to believe at some point that the characters might be in peril, or that something matters. There is never a moment like this in The Hill. Everything is so vapid and insipid, the acting is so wooden, the script is so heinous, and the directing so lackluster, that the film never achieves to even register on the scale of horror. As far as lightweight horror goes, The Hill is less significant than a feather caught in a hurricane.

On the plus side, it looked really nice, and the music, while mostly from the game, set the proper mood.

The saddest thing for me is this: I believe The Hill will be moderately successful because of the built in fan base for the game. However, I beg of you - do not waste your money on this crap - go and see a good film instead, a film like Slither. If you've seen Slither already, see it again. It's really freaking sad that this crap infested garbage bag called Silent Hill will probably make more money than Gunn's masterpiece of gore, goo and space-zombie mayhem. Gunn deserves more fan support, where as the filmmakers on The Hill deserve only to be locked in a room for all of eternity while the non-MST3K version of Manos the Hands of Fate plays over and over again at a volume loud enough to cause serious ear damage. If there are horror fans out there who go to see Silent Hill, but failed to support Slither in the theatre, just remember this: in the future, when horror films suck so bad you can no longer muster the enthusiasm to see them anymore, you got what you paid for – support the crap, and you will get it.

]

[Skitch]

I feel that way about the majority of my posting on RT. It was my first online forum. It takes time to learn how interact with people in this fashion. (Not saying this about your review, that barely deserved a postcard saying "You suck" let alone a death threat.)

[D_Davis]

That might have been the last negative review I wrote for the site.

I realized that all I was trying to do in negative reviews is out snark the other negative reviews, and it wasn't fun.

I think it was after that that I realized that it was more fruitful to champion more deserving films, and write more positively about films I actually liked.

It'd be an interesting experiment to rewatch all of the films I reviewed to see how much my opinions have changed.

[D_Davis]

I feel that way about the majority of my posting on RT. It was my first online forum. It takes time to learn how interact with people in this fashion. (Not saying this about your review, that barely deserved a postcard saying "You suck" let alone a death threat.)

Yeah. totally. We were really trying to MAKE IT with the site at that time, and that definitely had an impact on the way we wrote during those first couple of years. After we realized that we weren't going to MAKE IT, we changed our focus and things were better for it.

[Skitch]

I realized that all I was trying to do in negative reviews is out snark the other negative reviews, and it wasn't fun.

That's exactly what we all did in the beginning, and I came to hate it too. Maybe just getting older lol. I often now say "This film is just not meant for me" rather than "I hate this piece of shit". Unless it genuinely is a piece of rubbish, that is.

[D_Davis]

Return of the Living Dead (1985) - Dir. Dan O'Bannon
[

Show Spoiler

“I know you're in there. I can smell your brain!”

“Send more cops.”

“Braaaaiiiinnnnssss.”

“Are you saying we're....dead?”

“It makes the pain go away!”

Say the words, “Return of the Living Dead” to me, and instantly dozens of quotable lines pop into my head. I love this film, and in terms of pure entertainment, in terms of a rocking damn-good time, and in terms of pure, genre, punk-rock, bad-assness, Return of the Living Dead is a masterpiece. It is also hilarious, a tad bit scary, kind of gory, and totally inventive. It also helped to expand the zombie sub-genre, and by adding to some of the rules it also modifyed the mythos by degrees.

I know this was not the first zombie comedy (perhaps that milestone belongs to Bob Clark's Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things, or perhaps it goes back, further still) but I do think it is one of the best, and most notable. It is also self-referential and aware of the conventions it is working with. The characters in this film know of what happened in Romero's and Russo's original classic, and they definitely know what in the hell a zombie is. These are characters who possess knowledge similar to the audience of the time. What they don't know is that they are in a really messed up comedy. The tragic, sometimes disgusting, totally crazy situations they find themselves in are played straight as an arrow, which makes the absurd events even more hilarious.

One example of this humorous tragedy occurs when the band of survivors captures a zombie-half-torso, and interrogates it (her) about her condition. The female zombie-thing gets strapped to an embalming table and screams out in gut-wrenching pain - the pain of being dead. It is here that we learn being dead hurts, really farking bad. Who knew? And the only cure for this pain? Brains of course! In RotLD, it is established that zombies really want to eat brains, and only brains. All that munching on other stuff, the intestines, and the arms, and the legs, and the blubber, is only for shits and giggles. Maybe its all the endorphins in our twisted gray-matter that suppresses the pain, or maybe the still firing synapses do something to ease death's cold clutches. Who really knows what does it, but it obviously helps the poor zombie saps feel a little better. And who would want to stand in the way of a little feel-goodery?

While this sequence is tremendously funny, it's also kind of sad, and a bit disturbing. I mean, seeing a zombie cry out in agony, suffering from the pain of being dead, isn't something I am normally affected by. However, Dan O'Bannon, the film's director and co-writer, does such an amazing job of delivering on this absurd notion that it totally works. I actually feel empathy for the stubby, naked, half-torso, zombie chick! While there are definitely gags involved, sights and sounds that are played simply to elicit a chuckle or wince, much of the film is played straight and fast. O'Bannon keeps the pace tense, and delivers each new reveal at precisely the right time.

Another example of the dark comedy involves two of the main characters, Frank and Freddy. Now Frank and Freddy are well-meaning, and some what dim headed. They work in an old medical supply warehouse. It is here, on Freddy's first night of work, that the two stumble bums inadvertently let loose the apocalypse. After releasing the toxic, military, weapons-grade gas that brings the dead back to life, Frank and Freddy start to feel like total crap. Throughout the rest of the film, we get to see them slowly, and quite painfully, turn into the brain-hungry undead. The agony these two characters go through is extraordinary, and the actors portray their pain and torment in a convincing manner. They start to get all sweaty, their skin starts to turn yellow, their muscles atrophy, they develop Rigamortis, and they wallow and writhe around in hellish throes of intense suffering. Everything they go to is both extremely funny, and really messed up, and perfectly encapsulates the balance of the film.

Return of the Living Dead is a genre masterpiece. It is a master mash-up of a film that gets almost everything right. If I have one complaint about the film, it is the lack of a ton of gore. Truth be told, the film is a bit lacking when it comes to the old red stuff and the buckets of guts. Had the fountains of free flowing crimson been more extreme, I would even hold this film in even higher regard. However, as it stands, the lack of gore really doesn't take much away from this marvelous little flick. It is a film I can turn to at almost any time, and have a total blast for the 90-or-so minutes it's on. Oh yeah, it also has one of the best endings ever, and even though it is totally absurd, it seems more and more plausible in today's modern world.

]

A slightly better review. Not as embarrassing.

[D_Davis]

It's pretty crazy to think about how much time and energy I devoted to cinema between the years of 1999 and 2010.

[Devlin]

The Night remake sorta infuriates me. It's just loud and busy and never nearly as interesting as the original. Ugh. And Return I've never really been able to embrace. It's riotous and inventive and fun for about half of its runtime, but it always runs out of gas. I tried watching it many times and even owned it for a while, but watching it always felt obligatory instead of something I anticipated.

I can understand your point of view on both these films.
The Night remake is a major step down from the original, but for an eighties remake I think it's pretty effective and makes some interesting changes. However, it's nothing special.
I love Return, but there are some real missteps in the film. The most obvious is the one you mentioned; it can't sustain it's manic momentum, and the ending feels tacked on. Still, I really enjoy what does work and will watch it every couple of years.

Shaun - ****

I agree

[Devlin]

Land, Diary and Survival - range from * to couldn't finish. Land is one of the worst movies I've ever finished.

Land really disappointed me the first time I saw it. It's grown on me, but I still think it's a ridiculous concept. It has it's moments, but overall is kind of bland.
I did like Diary though. It certainly wasn't great, but had a neat execution. I've only seen it once (about ten years ago), so it's possible I could have a different opinion if I viewed it now.
With Survival I couldn't believe what I was seeing. A complete waste of time.

[Devlin]

Where did you land on Silent Hill? Hated it?

Oh god yes.

I hated it too.

[D_Davis]

I love Return, but there are some real missteps in the film. The most obvious is the one you mentioned; it can't sustain it's manic momentum, and the ending feels tacked on. Still, I really enjoy what does work and will watch it every couple of years.

I slightly agree with both you and DAMU that Return can't quite keep up its creative momentum for the entire run-time. It would probably be an even better film with 7 or so minutes cut. But it has so much charm and character that I can easily overlook that.

[Peng]

Night of the Living Dead is one of my favorite films of all time. Dawn is ok but effective in more of a "ohhhh nice subtext" than being an actual film (horror or otherwise) for me. I like both Snyder's remake, Day, and Land better. Probably need to rewatch all of them though.

I actually wrote some short capsules for Night remake and Return four years back (non-spoiler but put in one just not to make this post too long):

Night of the Living Dead (1990) -

[

Show Spoiler

Overall, it's kinda fun and very respectable remake. The heroine's personality change is a positive modern retelling, even though I don't mind the original's. Ben (the black guy) also fared well. Unfortunately, Romero (who wrote the screenplay) should have updated all the other characters for the modern time too. Mr. Cooper is almost unbearably annoying in this version, even though it's basically the same character. The thing is, that character works well within that time period and the original film's aesthetics, but he stands out jarringly in the remake, especially alongside new Barbara. Same goes with the other girl's banshee screaming for minutes.

However, I'm kind of taken with the ending. I've been hearing about how it doesn't compare favorably to the original's. It's true that it lacks the pitch-black starkness and power of that one, but I think this is also clever in its own right, without abandoning some darkness and irony that marks the original. A very good example of how to deviate without downgrade, imo. 6.5-7/10

]

Return of the Living Dead (1985) -

[

Show Spoiler

Well that was a blast. Not really scary, except for a few jumps and some chase scenes, but great comedy. What I really like about it is that although the material is (kind of) not serious, the craft totally is, and that both makes film highly watchable and doesn't diminish the camp, characters or story. The moment I knew I'm going to love this: when a "split dog" turned living and they tried hitting it repeatedly. 7.5/10

]

[Peng]

As for what I actually watched for Halloween this year, only a recent horror film (will post in its own thread) and this:

The Masque of the Red Death (1964)

Vincent Price moderates his villainy to delicious perfection, but everyone else is too one-note, which works well for the grotesque court scenes, but becomes a slog everywhere else. Still, the foggy outdoor, the color-coded multi-rooms (or just those gorgeous colors in general, courtesy of Nicolas Roeg), and the grand finale that lives up to the splashy film title though... worth the price of admission for them alone. 6.5/10

[Dead & Messed Up]

Rabid

First time viewing.

...ehh.

There's one holy moment where the lead hero drives through a rabies-ridden street, a rabid man jumps his car, a sniper takes out the rabid man, two men in hazmat suits pop out and scrub down the hero's car, and then slap the hood and motion him along. That almost makes the whole film worth it. But the film plays like a pretty loose grab-bag of Social Issue Horror, and the moments with scares never quite function. Interesting stuff conceptually - especially how Marilyn Chambers' flip on Dracula (with the rabids as her Renfields) never requires real seduction. Most men fling themselves at her big eyes and perfect blond hair. (And many act amazed when she reciprocates, a funny touch.)

In general, I haven't responded strongly to any of the early Cronenberg I've seen: The Brood was okay, this was unembarrassing, Scanners was just too damn goofy. (I even thought Videodrome was just okay, which basically makes me a pariah.)

[Devlin]

I did like Diary though. It certainly wasn't great, but had a neat execution. I've only seen it once (about ten years ago), so it's possible I could have a different opinion if I viewed it now.

I decided to revisit this last night as my final Halloween movie for the month. After watching it this time I believe I must have been drunk or delirious during my first viewing because I was not impressed. The best parts of this film have to do with Romero's commentary on the internet age and the inundation of video availability. Most of this commentary, however, comes outside the narrative of the basic story and undermines the first person point of view concept. There are some good gore effects, but the characters are typically annoying and illogical most of the time. It seems as if when he made Land and then Diary Romero was pandering to the young audience that was embracing the contemporary zombie films of the day (like 28 Days Later and the Dawn remake) while attempting to bring his own brand of social commentary, but unfortunately he failed.
I originally gave this film three stars, but based on this recent viewing I'm reducing it to two stars. Not a total loss, but certainly disappointing and a further indication that after Day of the Dead Romero really had nothing fresh to bring to the zombie table.

[D_Davis]

Rabid

First time viewing.

...ehh.

There's one holy moment where the lead hero drives through a rabies-ridden street, a rabid man jumps his car, a sniper takes out the rabid man, two men in hazmat suits pop out and scrub down the hero's car, and then slap the hood and motion him along. That almost makes the whole film worth it. But the film plays like a pretty loose grab-bag of Social Issue Horror, and the moments with scares never quite function. Interesting stuff conceptually - especially how Marilyn Chambers' flip on Dracula (with the rabids as her Renfields) never requires real seduction. Most men fling themselves at her big eyes and perfect blond hair. (And many act amazed when she reciprocates, a funny touch.)

In general, I haven't responded strongly to any of the early Cronenberg I've seen: The Brood was okay, this was unembarrassing, Scanners was just too damn goofy. (I even thought Videodrome was just okay, which basically makes me a pariah.)

Early David Cronenberg movies are usually better remembered than watched. They're great on paper, and in the intellectual ways they can be analyzed, but more often than not they're not very good movies.

[Skitch]

I wrapped up with The Witch, and it was an absolutely delightful time.

[Devlin]

I wrapped up with The Witch, and it was an absolutely delightful time.

Really liked this. One of the best horror films in recent years.

[Dukefrukem]

Delightful wouldn't be the word I choose to describe that movie.

[Dead & Messed Up]

It's decent. [/controversy]

[Ezee E]

I prefer the Snyder version and probably wouldn't give any Romero movie higher than ** 1/2.

Talk to y'all later.

[megladon8]

MatchCut gets weirder every year.