Movies

[Veldrynus]

So Alien wasn't such a perfect "piece of art"

Interesting. You defend Uwe Boll's films but attack Alien.

Many people do not understand what real horror films are about. In most modern horror-filcks we can only see a bunch of teenagers butchered one by one in a bloody gorefest by some crazy monsteroid half-human, who does this out of pure pleasure. Apart from the gore, which is either just disgusting or utterly laughable, the only scary moments are those, in which suddenly something loud and "unexpected" happens. Those are some very cheap tricks. If someone would unexpectedly yell into my ears, while I write this, my reactions would be very similar to those generated by the film-scenes (well, also maybe a punch the aggressors face). A director should be ashamed of himself, if this is the only scare-tactic he can come up with.
A good horror creates an atmosphere of realism. It enables you to enter that world, or better, it persuades you, that world seen is the real one. This way, the horrors presented will be of an existentialist nature. The most scary things won't be the gore caused by the monster, but the very illusion, that this monster MAY EXIST. A good horror is inherently a mix of the real and the surreal. Films do not become horror films because there are monsters and blood in it. They do because they make you believe that horrible things are possible, and the world is a dangerous place. The rest are just action films, with monsters.

[Borsuc]

Vel, I already said I hate splatters or gorefests and they aren't horror at all, so what you suggested isn't high on my list either. Alien failed to create an atmosphere after the "get-out-of-stomach" scene. It felt cheap. The music didn't help either. It didn't even have a suspense atmosphere when they searched for it, even when he killed that dude (forgot his name) and everyone was shouting at him -- pure cheapness at its best (well at least not cheaper than teen-gorefests which I hate more).

Jeepers Creepers was an example of a horror movie. The Descent had a different effect, not stalking, but claustrophobia. The Ring was another good one. And they had proper music and atmosphere. Alien only had at the beginning or so.

Also I hate Friday the 13th or whatever it's called, and Nightmare on Elm's Street series... those are perfect example of what horror should NOT be.


As for defending Uwe Boll, yes I defend exaggerated accusations against him. I didn't say his movies are top 10, I just said they are too wrongfully accused. Some of them anyway.

[Jolly Joker]

Who do you want to convince, Borsuc?

Now, the main point is that Alien is not a good HORROR movie (it's kind of a hybrid, technically), but simply a good MOVIE. It has many angles from which to look at it, and it's a flawless effort, as much as something like that can be flawless at all. For the life of it I can't remember any music, only an absence of it, since the sound effects are more interesting by far - which is what I remember quite vividly - all the slurping and rattling and hissing sounds... a very important part of the movie, since there are so many scenes in darkness or semi-darkness.

[Angelspit]

Who do you want to convince, Borsuc?

Especially with repeated references to Jeepers Creepers and... Uwe Boll. *shivers*

[parcaleste]

Man, to put Jeepers and Alien in the same post, and with the insisting that Creepers is better... Sorry, but that's totally out of touch with the real world here. Not to mention Uwe. To mention, that ALIEN does not have atmosphere and that the soundtrack is "weak"... I guess a "good" soundtrack for you is :Queen of the Damned" soundtrack, eh? Geesh...

And yes, ALIEN is not horror, it's more Sci-Fi with some scary moments here and there.

[Borsuc]

@JollyJoker: I do not want to convince anyone but since Vel already said I would suggest splatters instead, I put the reference to him. It wasn't meant for those who read my previous posts

Man, to put Jeepers and Alien in the same post, and with the insisting that Creepers is better... Sorry, but that's totally out of touch with the real world here. Not to mention Uwe. To mention, that ALIEN does not have atmosphere and that the soundtrack is "weak"... I guess a "good" soundtrack for you is :Queen of the Damned" soundtrack, eh? Geesh...

I didn't even watch Queen of the Damned but I bet it's heavy metal junk right? That is out of my agenda

No, good soundtracks (at least for horrors) are those that freakingly give you a sense of despair when listening to them, or send some shivers down your spine just when listening. Even The Ring soundtrack (by Hans Zimmer) gives you a bit of sense of a nightmare, although not on that level. Alien soundtrack plainly sucks -- it's not just not having any effect, but also boring. JJ had probably got it better that it was more about the sound effects, which IMO were kinda crappy as well.

You need way more than just a dark atmosphere to portray the feeling of horror. You need to create an ambiance of that. Alien failed to deliver this after some time, especially when killings were especially obvious (well maybe for me because I watched other horrors first, but keep in mind, same could be said for you -- if you think other horrors are predictable, maybe it is because you watched Alien first... so that's very subjective and NOT an argument).

Good soundtracks for non-horrors, well, I have a restricted list of soundtracks that I listen to (in fact almost the only music I do listen to) and just a few Alien tracks which are overly boring


And what I'm trying to say is, there are so many (no trust me, I do know) examples of "good movie --> good everything (including soundtrack)" or "classic movie, good movie" hype among the fans, it's really really getting old. If anything it's only the damn expectation at work there.

I mean seriously, don't you see this in effect? Ever wondered why the classics will always be... well good, and never outdone (at least to completely oblivion that is)? We don't give enough credit to film makers. Critics always just say that they may not be aware of cliches, film trends, etc... but do we really take them as that stupid? (let's just keep Uwe Boll out of this, I'm tired of that).

Or maybe I suppose such marvelous artistic insight was lost in the process and is only available in 'classics'. Typical. Don't you actually realize that it's OUR problem here and not the movie's? Because of our expectations which are usually good for crappy classics (few exceptions)?

Critics aren't fair. They always have subjective bias on movies, especially considering what they name "ripoffs" and such. Sometimes they do not like something simply because they expect it to be that way. It's a psychological effect. Either that theory, or the "somehow, classics are done so better and today's people are idiots who can't film something properly", which I find highly... let's just say, unlikely.

Alien wasn't so good even at its time. The ONLY REASON it was so "good" is because BACK THEN there weren't many better movies, but COULD HAVE been. That's no excuse.

[darknessfood]

Guys, this is getting a flame war all over again. Nock it off...

[Angelspit]

It seems that you have never seen a flame war, sir.

[Asheera]

Flame war? Come on, Borsuc is just saying his opinions, I see absolutely no insults or offenses here...

Every big post for you equals a flame war?

[parcaleste]

... Ever wondered why the classics will always be... well good, and never outdone (at least to completely oblivion that is)? We don't give enough credit to film makers. Critics always just say...

First of all, 99% of your post is just blah-blah-blah (no offense). Why the classics are classics, you say... Well, I am watching "Saturn 3" (which comes from 1980!) and short after it something like "Event Horizon" or "Sunshine" or "Sphere" or whatever, and these are always LACK in something, something is rushed, and at the end you have a part where you wonder "How the hell did this happen/came to here?"
As for new films that can turn into classics, there are a lot of examples that on can give "the Mist" just came up to my mind, the "Green Mile" (haha, I m a Stephen King fan, I know), I am looking forward to "the Wrestler"... there is some really good stuff coming out every year (I remember "Crash" make a really good impression on me as well) you just have to extend your hand and touch it. But the oldies are oldies and the old school actors are way better than the most of the new ones. Sorry.
I don't give a damn about critics, I am a Bruce Campbell fan.

[darknessfood]

Flame war? Come on, Borsuc is just saying his opinions, I see absolutely no insults or offenses here...

Every big post for you equals a flame war?

No, not really, but they go head to head again...

[Veldrynus]

Critics aren't fair. They always have subjective bias on movies, especially considering what they name "ripoffs" and such. Sometimes they do not like something simply because they expect it to be that way. It's a psychological effect. Either that theory, or the "somehow, classics are done so better and today's people are idiots who can't film something properly", which I find highly... let's just say, unlikely.

Critics have seen much more movies therefore they are harder to be impressed. If you see your first couple of films, it's easy to become thrilled, but after a few hundred, you will begin to be bored by the same cliches over and over again. You might enjoy them, but you won't rate them highly because of their lack of originality.
Classics earn their title by having a big influence on the film history. These films are not made classics because critics have decided so, but because they represent a successful formula to be ripped-off by future films. This is where their artistic value comes from.
Not all classics can be fully enjoyed today, but their importance should be remembered, especially if you are trying to pass on value judgments, other than your personal emotional reactions to the film.

Alien wasn't so good even at its time. The ONLY REASON it was so "good" is because BACK THEN there weren't many better movies, but COULD HAVE been. That's no excuse.

Wonderful argument. You have the right to your opinion, but you are hardly qualified to see the film in its historical context. How many similar movies have you seen from that period?

[Jolly Joker]

I don't think that Borsuc is right or even has a point. But let's make an experiment.

Take Body Snatchers. We have 5 versions with time.

1) Invasion of the Body Snatchers, 1956, Don Siegel
2) Same title, remake, 1978, Philip Kaufman
3) Body Snatchers, 1993, Abel Ferreira
4) The Faculty, 1998, Robert Rodriguez
5) The invasion, 2007, Oliver Hirschbiegel

Note that 2) comes with actors Sutherland, Nimoy, Goldblum
4) is starring Elijah Wood, Piper Laurie, Famke Janssen and Selma Hayek)
5) Is starring Nicol Kidman and Daniel Craig

The story isn't the same everywhere. How would you rate those 5. Any classics potential? Good Movie potential? Both?

[Borsuc]

First of all, 99% of your post is just blah-blah-blah (no offense).

That's one of the reasons discussions like this are pointless, with all classics fans.

Event Horizon was decent. No, I tell you, what it LACKED was the fact that you watched it after classics or that you had different expectations for it.

Alien didn't even have a brilliant acting. Not bad, but not brilliant... just slightly average.

Critics have seen much more movies therefore they are harder to be impressed. If you see your first couple of films, it's easy to become thrilled, but after a few hundred, you will begin to be bored by the same cliches over and over again. You might enjoy them, but you won't rate them highly because of their lack of originality.

Whoa wait, please take some time to understand what I said...

That is exactly the problem. For me it looks like a paradox, to be honest. I mean, why would someone say "better watch Alien than some other ripoff which has better stuff, but is well rated poor because it is very similar to Alien". WHY WOULD I WATCH ALIEN?

It still suffers from cliches because I already saw them? What if you saw some other movie first? Like me, for example. Alien wasn't my first monster-movie (that is, not cheap teen splatters). But when I watched it, it felt predictable. Maybe because it wasn't my first? Then how and WHY would I recommend people to watch it instead? Why not watch some other horror first? Which one will be more entertaining as first-hand experience for people who haven't seen them?

This is the problem I have. Why do classic-lovers keep on claiming "You gotta watch that" when it has just as many cliches as a copy-cat (admittedly the copy-cat copied the cliches but THIS doesn't matter for the "end user" who just wants to enjoy a show/movie; especially if he didn't saw Alien). If I make an exact copy of Alien, but with better effects and soundtrack, will my movie be bad? Will it be less worth to watch than Alien? WHY? After all, even if you watched Alien, it is still better than watching Alien again. So why doesn't Alien get into oblivion? Why do people recommend to watch it instead of my "better" movie (obviously) for those who haven't? Because critics just rate without logic.

By that logic, you should go and play some Doom. Wonderful game, especially if you "consider it for its time" right? I mean, most FPSs are ripoffs of that.

Besides, I'm not even talking about technical difficulties (as above with Doom) but about art department -- soundtrack being one example (where Alien sucked). Sounds being the second, most oldies have crappy sounds. Not quality, just the sounds used.

Wonderful argument. You have the right to your opinion, but you are hardly qualified to see the film in its historical context. How many similar movies have you seen from that period?

I haven't seen many, especially not horrors. But I do know technical skills and requirements put in historical context. Plus it's not like music composition requires such an excuse anyway (that is one example where it sucked).

I don't think that Borsuc is right or even has a point. But let's make an experiment.

What do you mean I don't have a point? I just explained the logic and the fallacy in my opinion. Why doesn't anyone comment on that, ever, and just keeps saying "you have no point at all" as if he/she didn't even read my post?

As for your list, sorry that I can't comment, I only saw The Faculty out of them. Wasn't that great.

[Veldrynus]

To simplify it: the critics rate the artistic performance of the movie-maker, the originality of both the concept and the execution of a film. Obviously, a ripoff won't score much on the originality side, even if it's well made.
The difference between the critic and the casual viewer, is that the later is unable to put the film into a historical context, therefore he/she is not qualified to judge it from an artistic perspective.
A casual viewer might enjoy the ripoff much more than the classic, if he sees that one first. That's perfectly normal. But when he starts to bash on the very classic that "inspired" the film he likes, and the critics for rating it higher, then he will look at least slightly ridiculous.

[Jonas]

Do we have any examples of a bad classic, I mean historical bad , turned in to a good rip-off.

I can't figure out any by myself right now , but it would be a good angle.

[Veldrynus]

If it's bad, no one would want to rip it off.

[Jonas]

It could have been a good script and just lousy actors.

[Borsuc]

A casual viewer might enjoy the ripoff much more than the classic, if he sees that one first. That's perfectly normal. But when he starts to bash on the very classic that "inspired" the film he likes, and the critics for rating it higher, then he will look at least slightly ridiculous.

Why? That kind of rating just doesn't make any sense (mind you, I understand what you mean). Here's why:

Some casual viewer called Bob sees Alienz, which is a ripoff off Alien. Then he sees Alien, and says "Alien was so bad, because it was very similar to Alienz, but had even worse soundtrack and effects".

If it were the other way around, at least as boring as it may be, it would still have been better than re-watching, let's say, Alien. Not great, since it's very similar, but better than the other scenario.

And ratings are supposed to inform people "watch this" or "stay away from this", and with the high scores on classics you'd figure it would be more entertaining to watch them than some better-made ripoff (even if, again, it is a ripoff, you don't care do you? you haven't watched the original anyway).


Now why do you think it is always that most sequels (few exceptions, such as Terminator 2) "ruin" the classics? Including the famous Alien franchise? Again, because of expectations. Or probably it's because James Cameron was an idiot to direct Aliens compared to Ridley Scott directing Alien. And even further with the next in line, David Fincher, another idiot to make it bad (Alien 3 I mean)... (just look at the damn imdb score for goodness' sake!)

Somehow i prefer the theory "viewers are biased" or "critics have insensible expectations" or "expectations are teh ev1l"

Also I didn't mean to bash the original, just accept that it's not as good. Of course not saying "it's a piece of crap" because after all, it's the very foundation of the ripoff

[Kalah]

The thing is, Borsuc, you have to take into account the technology which was available at the time a movie was made. Just because a newer version is more sophisticated re the graphics, that doesn't mean the original is bad.