Movies

[Jolly Joker]

But I have to say the first "Salem's Lot" is a pathetic attempt of a movie (I mean actors play, script and everything), but the "remake" (not sure if it has to be called like, after it's been based on Stephen King's book) from 2004 is a kick ass. It really fits perfectly with the books atmosphere. Great one to watch. However, you have to have in mind that the first one is called one of the worst horror movies of it's time as well.

I don't know whether we are on the same wave length here. I don't know a Salem's Lot movie, but there was a mini series with James Mason I did see on German television a long time ago. I seem to remember that it was good, though.
Edit: checked at wiki. It was a two-part series of about 3 hours that was heavily edited to a "movie" later on, cutting out 72 minutes of the original material - if you watched that movie I can imagine that it may have been "full of holes".
I haven't seen the remake, yet.

Would be an interesting topic to debate: best and worst movie (or episode) after an original King story or novel. Sure, for best one many wouldn't probably look no further than Kubrick's Shining, but King himself wasn't all THAT pleased with the movie (as an adaption of his book), and his statements about it are pretty interesting.

[parcaleste]

Well, I don't know, from what I remember I don't want to try this one (1979) again. The 2004 did catch up really good with the book, for except the last 10 minutes, which, if you have read "the Dark Tower" are a complete joke. Now, if you didn't, than you might really like it, I don't know, but for me, this ruined the very good movie. The bad thing starts after the destroying of the main vampire (Barlow), so, if you want, you can stop watch it afterwards.

"The Shining" actually I didn't like as well. I mean the ending did ruined it all for me. It was... kinda stupid... As for now, I really praise Darabont's work - "the Shawshank Redemption", "The Green Mile" and "the Mist" are masterpieces, and esp. the last two turned out with "heavier" endings than the book/the novel. The final words in "the Green Mile", I remember, did hit me like a brick wall. A great ending for a great movie/adaptation.
"The Mist" is like that as well. I was like just staring in the monitor and could not move. Paralyzed like, huh. Of course, two weeks after that the assholes here did started to play it in the theaters, which sucked, cause I've already watched it. I saw it on the big screen as well with my (now ) girlfriend and she was like "Errrr..." as well and she is not a horror movies fan.* So, at the end everybody was "happy", hehe.



* Even though "the Mist" is definitely not exactly about the horror stuff (the visual effects is not it's strongest side ), but the psychological aspect of the masses (or group of people) in extraordinary situation. I think Darabont did GREAT work in this direction of the movie, just amazing with the "unbelievers" and religious fanatics. Fantastic work, gotta watch it again these days, hehe.

[Angelspit]

King himself wasn't all THAT pleased with the movie (as an adaption of his book), and his statements about it are pretty interesting.

But they lost much of their credibility after King produced his own TV series based on The Shining, about 12 years ago. The series brought back a couple of elements the book that Kubrick had ignored (from what I heard, I haven't read the book myself), but other than that it was bad acting combined with a weak direction and cheesy effects.

[Borsuc]

Speaking of effects and stuff, I was watching the first "Howling" few weeks ago, and when was that werewolf transformation in the second part of the movie (which lasted like, two minutes or something), I was in a total shock. The effect were WAY better than the computorised now showing stuff. It is amazing, if somebody missed that, you definitly have to go see it (aaah here it is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMl1qGkf ... re=related ). + the atmosphere of the oldies is cool to watch. You can see like the state of mind of the actors and even the whole generation there. It's just different and you can't miss it. I love it.

That transformation looks more like an alien transformation

+ the atmosphere sucks (mostly because of the SOUND), and the music as well. The "oldies" music always had a sucky style, with few exceptions. No, you don't have to believe me for that. Listening to that oldies "horror" music doesn't give me any shivers down my spine, unlike the better soundtracks after 1990 for example, which indeed convey the atmosphere of fear, despair or horror. This isn't a technical difficulty, just a bad "oldie" style btw, no excuses. (again, it's not the QUALITY of the music, it's the STYLE which sucks in oldies).

Mind you, there are still bad "modern" splatter movies with crappy sound just like oldies that I absolutely hate even more because of that

The design of the monster is awesome, the design of the whole series is awesome, it has it's own atmosphere, so when you go watch the movie, just the view of a room from it you can say "Yup, it's ALIEN".
ALIEN is classic and one of the biggest in the Sc-Fi movies (like someone else pointed).

The monster is awesome but isn't more awesome than other monsters. The atmosphere is sometimes good, sometimes boring (I admit the first half was kinda good but then became predictable). And if it's a SciFi you need good effects which it lacks on the most part (unlike say, Terminator 2).

According to you, Borsuc, the 1998 version would have to be better, wouldn't it?

Yes I would watch it anytime instead of the original, and everyone who wouldn't be biased would do the same. Can you be honest and say which one would be more entertaining for someone to watch? I doubt, all you can say is "it was a great achievement at the time". Ok, thanks for the history lesson, I do appreciate that (no sarcasm). But I want to watch a movie, not do technical history research sometimes

Didn't I already said that "negative reviews" suck and are unreliable because most critics rate wrong? They don't rate "how much a newbie would enjoy the movie", but they rate like **** as if they had been through it and didn't like that it was similar or had other personal bias.

Should I rate a movie bad just because, let's say, I had a bad day and didn't enjoy it? Or maybe, if I watch a movie about a drama where it reminds me of my real life and I become annoyed, does that mean I'll have to rate it poorly? That's just stupid personal bias. Same as if you had watched something else before and base your rating on that -- still bias.

Even though, subconsciously (without expectations), they would actually enjoy it more. But you know, it takes a lot for people to actually be honest about something or admit it.

[Angelspit]

Yes I would watch it anytime instead of the original, and everyone who wouldn't be biased would do the same. Can you be honest and say which one would be more entertaining for someone to watch? I doubt, all you can say is "it was a great achievement at the time".

You can't be serious. Go watch that remake, take a close look at Vince Vaughn while he masturbates, and come back and tell us you had a good time.

[Veldrynus]

The monster is awesome but isn't more awesome than other monsters.

This is just lame...

Can you give me any example of better monsters?

[Borsuc]

You can't be serious. Go watch that remake, take a close look at Vince Vaughn while he masturbates, and come back and tell us you had a good time.

Wait I didn't watch Psycho at all, I was just speaking in general (and about shot-by-shot).

@Vel: The Predator? Of course that's a matter of opinion. Even the monster in Alien Lockdown looked better and more detailed.

By the way, I hope you don't mean that good movie = awesome monster, or bad movie = crappy monster, cause that's getting old and I try to be objective when judging the monster. Just like an actor with a poor script, he is still good though.

But all of them revolve around humanoid features, large heads, multiple mouths (so to speak), and stuff like that. Nothing that sets the Alien so apart other than the fact that its skin was smooth and unnatural. (not really a bonus if you ask me)

[Jolly Joker]

Nice little contradiction we have here:

Didn't I already said that "negative reviews" suck and are unreliable because most critics rate wrong? They don't rate "how much a newbie would enjoy the movie", but they rate like **** as if they had been through it and didn't like that it was similar or had other personal bias.

The monster is awesome but isn't more awesome than other monsters. The atmosphere is sometimes good, sometimes boring (I admit the first half was kinda good but then became predictable). And if it's a SciFi you need good effects which it lacks on the most part.

Compare the two bold prints. It wouldn't be predictable for a newbie.

And Sci Fi doesn't mean you need good effects - if that was true Star Wars never had ceome a hit because there are no good effects there. Not to mention Blade Runner.

Now, I don't care whether you LIKE Alien or not - I, for example, don't like Star Wars and I don't like LotR either; I'd say that the Indiana Jones trilogy is way better than Star Wars -, but that's just taste. A movie isn't crappy, just bcause you or me don't like it. And as a matter of fact Alien is NOT crappy.
For Terminator, number 2 is of course bigger and more spectacular - but 1 is the better movie. 1 is a horror movie; 2 is an action movie for the whole familiy. Of course 2 is great - basically because of the trick to change evil into good and finding a completely different evil, a great move that worked extremely well. Still, it's two different movies, and 1 is a lot more frightening: you might say that the bad Terminator Arnie against normal people is a lot more frightening than a technically stunning monster against Good OLe Arnie.

[Borsuc]

How's that a contradiction? I said that it is sometimes good (the beginning) but THEN it becomes predictable. A newbie will be like "wow this movie is good like they say" (well I was), but then it became predictable and boring later on.

A movie isn't crappy, just bcause you or me don't like it. And as a matter of fact Alien is NOT crappy.

I like how you say that first, our opinions can't say whether a movie is crappy or not, and then you say that it is not crappy.

And by what standards is Terminator 1 "better" (whatever, on average of course)? It is different, I give you that, and worth watching obviously. But how do you say it's "better" when opinions don't count? Some standard to measure it must be set in place, right? (I mean if opinions don't matter).

[Anonymous]

HAN SHOT FIRST!

Yes, he did, dammit. I absolutely hate how they've edited the "new" releases of the old movies. The biggest thing is that they've removed Shaw from the spectre scene at the very end of Return of the Jedi and replaced him with Hayden Christensen. Had I known this before I bought the set, I wouldn't have done.

[parcaleste]

Yeah, the extended Star Wars versions sucked monkey balls, indeed. And the parenthetical computorised moments are so... computorised. You can actually see the pixels, lol. I could not dig and the "first" three new series. It's OK Sci-Fi, but something lacks in the entire atmosphere. But I watched this Cartoon Network animation some years ago and it was really good. Now there are new series (3D, why should everything turn into 3D?).
BDW the 4-th Indiana movie was much more like a comedy.

Anyways, I am re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-rewatching Friday the 13-th from 1 to X these days. Aaaah, the good old days...

[Angelspit]

Anyways, I am re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-rewatching Friday the 13-th from 1 to X these days. Aaaah, the good old days...[/i]

Better skips part 5, 7, 8, 9, X...

[parcaleste]

Yeah, today was watching "the impostor" 5. Gotta say that the guy that played the Jason impostor did great job in not playing Jason, huh. However, I like all of the series, so I won't take your advice on the account.
Going to watch "Jason Lives!" now, first part with Kane Hodder - YEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAA!!!

[Angelspit]

Yes, part 6 was a nice surprise after the piece of crap that was part 5. The humor negates all the scariness of the main character, but then again who was still scared of Jason after part 3 or 4?

[parcaleste]

I'll tell you who was not* - Chuck Norris.





* Meaning since pt. 1.

[Jolly Joker]

How's that a contradiction? I said that it is sometimes good (the beginning) but THEN it becomes predictable. A newbie will be like "wow this movie is good like they say" (well I was), but then it became predictable and boring later on.

It cannot be predictable for a newbie. And that's ho you want everyone to rate. So you contradict yourself.

A movie isn't crappy, just bcause you or me don't like it. And as a matter of fact Alien is NOT crappy.

I like how you say that first, our opinions can't say whether a movie is crappy or not, and then you say that it is not crappy.

What I mean is that that you cannot say something IS crappy when everyone else seem to think otherwise. Because no matter of whethe something would be crappy or not, if enough people think that it is good that it gets a value on its own because of it. That is not true the other way round: If enough people find a movie crappy it doesn't change anythng bout it. An example for this would be "Peeping Tom".

And by what standards is Terminator 1 "better" (whatever, on average of course)? It is different, I give you that, and worth watching obviously. But how do you say it's "better" when opinions don't count? Some standard to measure it must be set in place, right? (I mean if opinions don't matter).

By mine, and I don't intend to discuss that, since it's irrelevant for the whole issue. So let me correct it to: I think that 1 is better than 2. And if you want to know, T2 is too polished, too slick, too expensive. It's great enterteinment, of course, but the original Terminator movie is a beast compared to that slick polish. T2 is popcorn cinema, family friendly; couple good laughs with old Arnie and some sentimental lines in the right moments. Terminator is pure heart-throbbing; raw power. Arnie is just terrifying. He wouldn't play roles like that after it since he was too convincing, and he had political ambitions even then, which is telling.

[Veldrynus]

Borsuc cannot understand, that someone who had seen 2-3 thousand films, rates them differently as someone who had only seen like 50.

[Kalah]

No, what he is talking about is the difference in taste. That's a problem when it comes to movies; you can like one without it being a very good movie. Honestly, I wasn't entertained by neither Casablanca nor Citizen Kane, but they're among the very best pieces of film art ever created. Not all movies are made to be entertaining.

[Borsuc]

It cannot be predictable for a newbie. And that's ho you want everyone to rate. So you contradict yourself.

I was a newbie when I watched it. I had watched only 2-3 horrors before. No big deal (I mean real horrors, not splatters ).

What I mean is that that you cannot say something IS crappy when everyone else seem to think otherwise. Because no matter of whethe something would be crappy or not, if enough people think that it is good that it gets a value on its own because of it. That is not true the other way round: If enough people find a movie crappy it doesn't change anythng bout it. An example for this would be "Peeping Tom".

Uh yes I can and I do say it's crappy (not Alien mind you but I'm sure I can find some crappy classic). Why not? In fact, if I do say it's crappy, others may follow. The reason many don't is because they think "hey everyone in my group thinks it's good, if I say it's crappy I'm gonna be a weirdo". This is a chain reaction btw.

In short, 70%+ of the fans/critics are NOT EVEN HONEST.

By mine, and I don't intend to discuss that, since it's irrelevant for the whole issue. So let me correct it to: I think that 1 is better than 2. And if you want to know, T2 is too polished, too slick, too expensive. It's great enterteinment, of course, but the original Terminator movie is a beast compared to that slick polish. T2 is popcorn cinema, family friendly; couple good laughs with old Arnie and some sentimental lines in the right moments. Terminator is pure heart-throbbing; raw power. Arnie is just terrifying. He wouldn't play roles like that after it since he was too convincing, and he had political ambitions even then, which is telling.

Yes well actually you just say it's better because it's a genre you like more.
Of course I don't argue, I don't like comedies myself for example
but I disagree with "too expensive". Money never hurts a movie. Or you meant it metaphorically?

Borsuc cannot understand, that someone who had seen 2-3 thousand films, rates them differently as someone who had only seen like 50.

The question is, in what order.

[Jolly Joker]

It cannot be predictable for a newbie. And that's ho you want everyone to rate. So you contradict yourself.

I was a newbie when I watched it. I had watched only 2-3 horrors before. No big deal (I mean real horrors, not splatters ).

If you had only watched 2 or 3 movies, how can something be PREDICTABLE then? Apart from the fact that when you take your seat in front of your TV you know what you are watching - there will be victims, and probably they all are going to die except one or two. Of course THAT is predictable. And of course it's predictable that people ARE dying WHEN they are dying - that's part of the thrill. They HAVE to do something (can't just go back sleeping, can they?) and they SHOULD do something as long as it is small. Not to mention Ash and the interest of the Corp to get their hands on the specimen. I mean, if you watch a vampire movie there will be some blood-sucking, right?
So what do you MEAN with "predictable"?

Uh yes I can and I do say it's crappy (not Alien mind you but I'm sure I can find some crappy classic).

But you SHOULDN'T. Look to Kalah's post. You may not like a movie or even FIND it crappy, but that doesn't mean it IS crappy, just because YOU happen to think so. Look at Kalah's two examples.

Yes well actually you just say it's better because it's a genre you like more.

No, it hasn't got anything to do with genres. T2 is a popcorn-eater; Terminator is a nail-biter, it's as simple as that. T2 has a couple of really "cool" scenes - it's Arnie entertaining mom, dad and the whole family, fathering and protecting mom and child - actually every 12-year-old would like something like a Terminator-doggie: imagine what the classmates would say! It's a 100 million dollar family action spectacle where part of that 100 million bucks would leave you watching with eyes and mouth wide open, losing popcorn (20 years ago, of course; now it's not that spectacular anymore). It's Hollywood - at its best, of course, but it's done with softener. It IS probably the best sequel for a brillant original movie, but that's because of the "trick" to switch sides. Note that the T-800 is something like #48 or so in the list of best heroes of all times, but like #22 or so in the villain list! (the only one ranking in both).

Compared to that Terminator just grabs you by the balls and hits you in the gut. Brutally. There is not much money used to get that effect. Everything is pure sweat, fear, nail-biting, anxiousness. There is not much of a pause. It has terrifyingly real, directly under the skin. Even the mask of the Terminator is a masterpiece because it is done exactly right. The "repair" scenes are great. It's all done very simple, very convincing, very low-profile - it's not showing-off of tricks and technique and dollars spent for effect. But everything is done RIGHT. It's nothing short of brillant.

Another example for a nail-biter is Duel, Spielbergs first full-length movie. I don't know how much dialogue there is in the movie, but it cannot be more than 50 lines or so. Great.

So, yes, too much money CAN hurt a movie, definitely, and you are wrong, I do like a good comedy. MASH, for example, is a great movie. Some of the old screwball comedies are cool, most Monty Pythons are hilarious, I even found dumb and dumber pretty amusing. Or even The Mask. A comedy wants you to laugh; there's nothing wrong with a good laugh.