What I mean by this is, once Mac said he tries to see as many movies as possible, and would never leave even a bad one, because there is something to be learned from each and every film.
Running parallel to this, is an old bit of advice I still have sitting in my head from a film school note sheet. Most of the advice we got was terrible, but some made sense. This particular sheet was tips for writers. That being the one thing I had experience in, I found it to be actually quite sensible and helpful. Y'know, the old "write at least ___ hours every day" stuff, and all that. At the bottom of the sheet, it said "writers/directors should stay away from watching porno". Now, I had to think about it, and it makes sense because the dialogue and acting is so bad in porn, and the shots are so terrible, the more the you watch, the more you get a diluted sense of what is acceptable to put on tape/film. Of course, I didn't follow that good advice, and kept watching porn. And I realized (during my heavy porn watching days), a lot of my dialogue was getting worse and worse. So now, I just skip all the talking parts and just watch the sex, all in the name of my art, you know. :wink:
But in all seriousness, d'ya think it could be detrimental to watch tons of crap movies all the time? Imagine you watched as many made-for-tv and studio assembly line romantic comedies as you did the "critically respected" works -- would your search for quality be diluted, hurting your creative work?
It's kinda for this same reason I won't take a job as a local tv editing assistant or make wedding videos with my camera equipment. I'm scared to death of learning the habits of bad public tv and/or industrial video craft, and having it affect the way I wanna write/direct/edit features. Am I being paranoid, or do others share this feeling?
p.s. - as a disclaimer, by bad movies I don't mean the really popular commercial stuff we all disagree on, I mean the BAD movies we all recognize as bad.
Quote from: SoNowThen
p.s. - as a disclaimer, by bad movies I don't mean the really popular commercial stuff we all disagree on, I mean the BAD movies we all recognize as bad.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.rottentomatoes.com%2Fimages%2Fmovie%2Fcoverv%2F68%2F201468.jpg&hash=86239f6ac0e8e905d1fa2b50aa4b41264c8efcd1)
well, that depends if you consider QT to be a bad filmmaker.
Good god, no.
Quote from: SoNowThenBut in all seriousness, d'ya think it could be detrimental to watch tons of crap movies all the time?
How do you know they are crap movies unless you watch them? You have to see for yourself. Then think, 'Why didn't I like it?' That's how you learn from their mistakes. It could be the script/story, the characters, the acting, the direction, etc. What would you have done different?
Or it could totally surprise you into thinking, 'I wasn't expecting it to be that good' then ask what was fresh or captured you about it.
Quote from: SHAFTR(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.rottentomatoes.com%2Fimages%2Fmovie%2Fcoverv%2F68%2F201468.jpg&hash=86239f6ac0e8e905d1fa2b50aa4b41264c8efcd1)
*Cough*
I'm in that film.
'kay, but that wasn't really my point. Go on the porn and wedding video examples: cinema that will form bad habits, I like to call it.
Is that clear? Am I making any sense? I mean, I don't want this to turn into a movie taste war, and I'm not trying to get down on certain types of films. But sometimes you can watch movies where you go "I didn't like this and this", yet the more of them you watch, the less you notice that you don't like it, it becomes acceptable, and that's the dangerous part...
Influence/inspiration habits, I guess...
yeah but just as you accept all the flaws of a terrible movie, you also take all the good stuff in a good movie for granted. for example, in the "this your lot" thread there was a quote by Mamet about how after the Godfather came out, people took that murdering to classical music device for granted. Then, good becomes bad. I think having good taste, or even a keen sense of cinema, is still very different from being a good filmmaker. It can help sure, good taste in music, film, acting, and art in general helps a filmmaker make better decisions when it comes to issues of sensibility--how much is too much...etc. But being a good artististic filmmaker (if we consider filmmakers artists and whatnot) ultimately relies on being original, and the ability to transform thoughts/ feelings into something tangible. Like Christopher Doyle, with no previous training in film, who just picks up the camera at age 30 and starts filmming.
Ah, now I see your point -- like all the Tarantino wanna-be's, right?
Yeah, that's brutal, too. But I think copying really talented people is still better than copying shit.
Plus, I don't so much mean copying, as I do Unconscious Habit.
But yeah, and Godfather also started that "period piece must have sepia tinge" thing too, didn't it? That's getting annoying.
EDIT - also, I was just thinking, the really great filmmakers can take stuff that was done as a fix-it before, and make it great. Point in case, the shit stack called Dueces Wild had tons of post slo-mo, which of course looked terrible. I used to hate this effect until I saw Wong Kar Wai use it. Under his control, it becomes a beautiful thing. Same with dissolves, I tried to always get around dissolving when I planned things out, but I was blown away by Scorsese's use of them in Age Of Innocence and Kundun.
Quote from: SNTWhat I mean by this is, once Mac said he tries to see as many movies as possible, and would never leave even a bad one, because there is something to be learned from each and every film.
learn from other people's mistakes
or woody allen with the romantic comedy genre and the french new wave dudes with various other genres. I still think it's the people, not the movies they watch. meaning wong karwai without the overtly exaggerated pixelization post effect will still be badass.
I don't know if this has to do exactly with your post but, I remember Kubrick once said that the thing made him want to be a filmmaker was watching bad films, he thought he couldn't make any worse than those; so he at some point you could say was influenced by bad movies in a good way.
Another SK story, when he was planning on making 2001, (IIRC) it has been claimed that he saw every film ever made that has to do with space or sci-fi in order to see what he could or couldn't use, rights and wrongs, then he came up with his own idea of the film, and rest is history.
:( No, my point ain't coming across here. I guess I'm the only one to feel this way.
It's like golf, if someone teaches you a bad stance and a shit swing, and you practice all the time, you can still become decent. But it would be to your benefit in the long run to start off with a proper stance and swing. Of course the natural geniuses and natural athletes are just born with something, but the rest of us gotta work at it...
Quote from: SoNowThenIt's like golf, if someone teaches you a bad stance and a shit swing, and you practice all the time, you can still become decent. But it would be to your benefit in the long run to start off with a proper stance and swing. Of course the natural geniuses and natural athletes are just born with something, but the rest of us gotta work at it...
But how would you know it's a bad swing and stance if you're just learning? It wouldn't be until someone else comes along and tells you what you're doing is wrong and/or after many attempts and not succeeding, you would have to question that your technique is wrong. Once again, learn from the mistakes of others (and from your naivete) and you'll know what not to do. You don't have to get it right the first time.
One last time, put differently:
Imagine the worst movie you've ever seen. Not a movie that disappointed you, but one that you were actually pissed off that it got made. Incompetent everything, I mean not just subjectively bad in terms of content, but technically bad as well.
Now imagine having to watch it every day for a month.
Would it affect you in any way? Would you now not hate it as much? Would it be (in a Pavlovian kinda way) ingrained in your mind to the point that you may be unconsciously copying it in work you are doing?
I git what you're saying man. but then what is the question?
R U Hi
I think I understand what SoNowThen is getting at.
There is an expression -- "Bad company corrupts good character." If one is not careful to limit his intake of Vin Diesel and Adam Sandler movies, along with bad TV shows, one could have his brain fried.
It is instructive to watch bad movies, just to know what NOT to do, but seeing too many bad movies can rewire your brain in a bad way. It is like being exposed to nuclear waste for a prolonged period.
I have a strict rule -- no TV, under any circumstances. The few times I'm exposed to TV shows, I realize how cheesy and "on the nose" they are, and they can rot your brain. I also strictly limit how many bad mainstream movies I watch -- for example, I have completely boycotted Ron Howard movies after Backdraft, and I don't feel like I've missed out on anything.
Back in the 80's, I saw every movie that came out, and seeing too many slasher movies and teen sex movies can be bad for your mental health. Now, I try to limit my intake to indie films and mainstream films that have some sort of artistic merit. Too much junk food can be harmful to your health.
I love you soixante.
Nail - on - head!!!!
Good TV shows do exist. They are hard to spot though, but highly stylized and usually cancelled in a year or two (The Critic, Family Guy, Sports Night) unless they do find their niche audiences in time. Mass appeal shows that actually have good writing are few and far between. Recently, the prime example would be 24.
Quote from: FernandoI don't know if this has to do exactly with your post but, I remember Kubrick once said that the thing made him want to be a filmmaker was watching bad films, he thought he couldn't make any worse than those; so he at some point you could say was influenced by bad movies in a good way.
Another SK story, when he was planning on making 2001, (IIRC) it has been claimed that he saw every film ever made that has to do with space or sci-fi in order to see what he could or couldn't use, rights and wrongs, then he came up with his own idea of the film, and rest is history.
he wasn't the only one, many artists do that, not only filmmakers
This topic is terrific. Best one in weeks. It pretty much sums up what I've always wondered ....Do I need to see every film made to acquire a good taste in film itself? Not that I intend becoming a filmmaker, I wouldn't dare, but I know that some films are skip-able. For example, Horror is my least favorite genre, I've never understood it.
If there are Horror fans that can defend the genre, please do so, for I have always found it the most generic genre. If you want to insult my short-mindedness , also do so. I want to learn how does one gets to like the Horror genre.
Quote from: soixanteI think I understand what SoNowThen is getting at.
There is an expression -- "Bad company corrupts good character." If one is not careful to limit his intake of Vin Diesel and Adam Sandler movies, along with bad TV shows, one could have his brain fried.
It is instructive to watch bad movies, just to know what NOT to do, but seeing too many bad movies can rewire your brain in a bad way. It is like being exposed to nuclear waste for a prolonged period.
I have a strict rule -- no TV, under any circumstances. The few times I'm exposed to TV shows, I realize how cheesy and "on the nose" they are, and they can rot your brain. I also strictly limit how many bad mainstream movies I watch -- for example, I have completely boycotted Ron Howard movies after Backdraft, and I don't feel like I've missed out on anything.
Back in the 80's, I saw every movie that came out, and seeing too many slasher movies and teen sex movies can be bad for your mental health. Now, I try to limit my intake to indie films and mainstream films that have some sort of artistic merit. Too much junk food can be harmful to your health.
Very true. But I think too much of anything can be harmful in a way. For example, a few months ago I was on this HUGE Wong Kar-Wai kick. I watched every movie of his I could get my hands on (which sadly, were only Chungking Express, Happy Together, Fallen Angels, and In the Mood For Love... and the BMW Films thing he did). In turn, everything I was writing at the time was full of pregnant pauses and lots of voiceover, which just didn't fit in with what I was trying to do (and yes, I know that Wong improvises his scripts, which made it even more difficult to emulate him). I had to clear my mind and watched some less idiosyncratic films in order to do that.
So watching too much of anything can be a problem, especially when trying to find your own voice.
I think I catch your drift SNT, and I think I agree with you. I never see that many romantic comedies/slasher flicks, such as I'll never see TCM (the remake, that is), and I have a good feeling I'll never see something like oh say...Win a Date with Tad Hamilton, for example. Not very any detailed reason as soixante provided, but simply because they don't appear to be the kind of movie I'd like to see, and generally I'm correct in this. Back when I was interested in writing (not screenplays, mind you), I would absorb whatever I had most recently enjoyed and then my writing/story would suddenly come out mimicking that work. I have this idea for a movie that I plan on making after I grow up some, and the style that flits through my head keeps constantly changing to become more like whatever I hapen to be into at the time. For a while it was Tarantinian, and then it suddenly switched to Noeish after seeing Irreversible. I hope I'll grow out of this habit, but either way, I'm only citing this to show that yes, I do think what's been watched has influence on the writing, etc.
Quote from: SHAFTR
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.rottentomatoes.com%2Fimages%2Fmovie%2Fcoverv%2F68%2F201468.jpg&hash=86239f6ac0e8e905d1fa2b50aa4b41264c8efcd1)[/quote
hahaahahaha!!!!! good choice....
but..... i got that one beat.....
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2F1573628174.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=7cb479f4711b7225804fd589deaa9aebaf466d4e)
....and as far as the thread goes.........as long as you realize your watching a bad film(see above examples) then it can't hurt ya......
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2F1578483050.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=e0150e943284e23d8efc6fa8f5afc303629c1a81)
I wrote and directed this.
Watching a bad movie now and then is good for learning what not to do. I don't set out to see bad movies for this purpose, but sometimes a movie I see will suck and I usually can pinpoint why.
Quote from: cronopioFor example, Horror is my least favorite genre, I've never understood it.
what dont you understand about it? a good horror movie is as good as a movie of any other genre, as a bad one is as bad. if they're just not your taste, i guess thats okay. all types of films arent for everybody. have you seen....
- alien
- an american werewolf in london
- bram stoker's dracula
- the evil dead
- the exorcist
- halloween
- a nightmare on elm street
- night of the living dead
- the shining
- the texas chainsaw massacreif you watch all those you will see a little range of what the genre has to offer.
You need to expose yourself to bad movies. If you don't, and just see the good stuff, you'll come to appreciate the good stuff less.
You can't have steak every night. Sometimes you have to have a Big Mac. Or a Whopper.
You aren't MrBurgerKing. There can only be one.
And all horror flicks I've seen pretty much sucked, except for The Shining. And Mulholland Drive, if you consider it horror, which I've sort of taken a slight shine to after hating it for so long.
I really try to avoid bad movies, because they're depressing and hurt my brain. Why would I waste my time when there really are so many good movies I've yet to see.
Quote from: Onomatopoeiaafter hating it for so long.
WHAA???
Quote from: Chest RockwellQuote from: Onomatopoeiaafter hating it for so long.
WHAA???
Do a search. We've been through it a lot, and some of my problems with it remain. Let's just say it's not as bad as I once thought, and Naomi Watts pretty makes the whole damn film with one of the best performances ever. Not gonna get into it here, though.
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaI really try to avoid bad movies, because they're depressing and hurt my brain. Why would I waste my time when there really are so many good movies I've yet to see.
How do you know they're bad with having seen them? It's not a waste of time if you learn something from them.
Good point, but how do you know what bad movies are ones you can watch and actually take something away from?
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaAnd all horror flicks I've seen pretty much sucked, except for The Shining. And Mulholland Drive, if you consider it horror, which I've sort of taken a slight shine to after hating it for so long.
mulholland isnt horror. horror is great. i dont understand how so many people here dont 'get it'.
Quote from: themodernage02mulholland isnt horror. horror is great. i dont understand how so many people here dont 'get it'.
I sure beg to differ. It isn't conventional horror, but it definitely has those elements, and that feel.
no offense, but because mullholland has some creepy shit, its not a horror film. and thats not to say a horror film cant be arty or thoughtful or interesting, its just that the genre has certain rules/parameters that a movie either is or isnt to belong to it. (it seems like the only people who want to put lynchs films in the horror genre are people who dont really know anything about it. elephant man? eraserhead? mulholland drive? who are you people!?)
i just dont understand how horror is any less of a worthy genre than anything else. there are horror movies that take advantage of cinematic techniques and push the medium forward. there are horror movies that have something to say, as much as any other film. and there are horror movies that succeed on a very basic level of engaging the audience by making them afraid. sure there are craploads of bad horror movies, just like there are craploads of bad action movies or bad romantic comedies or bad art films. that doesnt mean that the genre sucks, it just means that the people working in it dont have any idea of what to do with it.
Horror is less worthy a genre because, quite frankly, the genre sucks, and the films that come out of it are just weak. And I'm not the only one who thinks Mulholland Drive is a horror film. It's a more psychological one, yes, but the elements are there. It's no slasher flick, but that horror element can't be discredited. I have yet to see a good horror flick (besides The Shining, and only because of Kubrick's touch, and I may as well give credit to Psycho, too, because I didn't hate it), and doubt I ever will.
obviously one shouldn't descriminiate and whatever, but a lot of people don't really respect horror as a genre the same way they don't respect "Romantic Comedies": because a majority of their fans will be the first ones to point out how cheesy and predictable the materials are and how they're fully aware of that.
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaHorror is less worthy a genre because, quite frankly, the genre sucks, and the films that come out of it are just weak. And I'm not the only one who thinks Mulholland Drive is a horror film. It's a more psychological one, yes, but the elements are there. It's no slasher flick, but that horror element can't be discredited. I have yet to see a good horror flick (besides The Shining, and only because of Kubrick's touch), and doubt I ever will.
no, it doesnt. what is less worthy about it? weak by what standard? how do they fail? grapes of wrath may have a few light moments, but that doesnt mean its a comedy.
Horror films have a low batting average, as far as quality goes. I dislike the genre for the most part, because the characters in horror films are usually cardboard cutouts. Horror films are usually just constructed to provide cheap jolts. Nothing wrong with that, but let's not mistake that for art.
Why is that my favorite directors, like Altman, Scorsese, and Anderson never go anywhere near the horror genre? Why is it when I go to the video store, I don't even bother looking in the horror/sci-fi section?
Another problem I have with the horror genre is its over-reliance on special effects and cheap shocks. The biggest problem I have is that horror films are rarely horrifying.
True, there are bad art films, but in the past ten years, such art films as Pulp Fiction, Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Gummo, and Buffalo 66 have helped to reshape and redefine cinema. Which horror films have had a similar impact? I can't think of any, although Seven comes close.
When I look back on my favorite films of the past ten or twenty years, I don't think any are horror films.
kubrick's best movie, and therefore the best movie of all time, is horror.
end of argument.
Quote from: soixanteHorror films are usually just constructed to provide cheap jolts. Nothing wrong with that, but let's not mistake that for art.
It is an art form to put an audience in suspense or to shock or scare them. Those emotions are just as important as moving an audience to laugh or cry with the story the filmmaker tells.
Quote from: soixanteWhy is that my favorite directors, like Altman, Scorsese, and Anderson never go anywhere near the horror genre?
You don't consider "Cape Fear" to be a horror film of sorts? Granted it's not horror of the slash and gore kind, but it is suspense, thriller and has a killer villian that preys on a family.
Quote from: soixanteAnother problem I have with the horror genre is its over-reliance on special effects and cheap shocks.
Could say the same about the action genre, and don't forget films like Lord Of The Rings and it's special effect budget.
Quote from: soixanteThe biggest problem I have is that horror films are rarely horrifying.
Doesn't have to be always be "horrifying". The genre is broad enough that mystery, suspense and surprise fall into the catagory.
Quote from: soixanteTrue, there are bad art films, but in the past ten years, such art films as Pulp Fiction, Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Gummo, and Buffalo 66 have helped to reshape and redefine cinema. Which horror films have had a similar impact? I can't think of any, although Seven comes close.
Seven
Silence Of The Lambs
Scream
Blair Witch Project
Sixth Sense
Jurassic Park
I wouldn't place Mulholland Drive under horror. David Lynch actually said of it as "A romance set in the City of Dreams" or something like that. And some horror movies aren't too bad. I liked The Ring, and let's not forget such classics as Silence of the Lambs, The Exorcist, Scream, etc.
And isn't PDL considered a romantic comedy?
Maybe we could just compromise by calling Mulholland Drive a Lynchian thriller. Or just thriller, really. I've always found a difference between Thrillers (they seem to be the more intelligent, more psycological, and not as 'horrifying' films) and Horror flicks (they seem to be the slasher/Omen flicks, using cheap gore and such to really terrify the audience moreso than thrillers).
David Lynch's best movie, and therefore the second best movie of all time, is horror.*
*Lost Highway
second end of argument.
future ends of argument: Evil Dead 2, Wes Craven's New Nightmare, Carnival of Souls, Psycho, Rosemary's Baby, Child's Play (underrated), Nosferatu, Dawn of the Dead, Invasion of the Body Snatchers (kaufman), Suspiria.
the reason for any anti-horror argument: marketing/brainwashing.
Quote from: PDavid Lynch's best movie, and therefore the second best movie of all time, is horror.*
*Lost Highway
Without a doubt the scariest film I've ever seen. I would certainly classify it as a horror.
Quote from: soixanteHorror films have a low batting average, as far as quality goes.
i dont think so. if i go into the romantic comedy section, or the drama section, or the foriegn section ill bet ill have about the same luck coming up with something worthwhile in any section as i do in horror.
Quote from: soixanteWhy is it when I go to the video store, I don't even bother looking in the horror/sci-fi section?
because you're a snob? or because you're too close-minded?
Quote from: soixanteWhy is that my favorite directors, like Altman, Scorsese, and Anderson never go anywhere near the horror genre?
what the hell do i know why? why is it that directors like Alfred Hitchcock, Francis Ford Coppola, Ridley Scott, Stanley Kubrick, William Friedkin, Brian DePalma, David Cronenberg, etc. etc. etc. have?
Quote from: soixanteI dislike the genre for the most part, because the characters in horror films are usually cardboard cutouts
well, i might agree with you if you're talking about a lot of slasher movies, like a Friday the 13th film, but for the most part i think thats a REALLY naive statement. sometimes they're not 3 dimensional, but a lot of times they are. horror movies are capable of having complex interesting characters as well. (plus, if godard makes a movie with 2D characters its genius, but if Sean Cunningham does its crap.) why cant you see outside the box? you cant judge a genre by the WORST in that genre and think you're being fair.
Quote from: MacGuffinQuote from: soixanteHorror films are usually just constructed to provide cheap jolts. Nothing wrong with that, but let's not mistake that for art.
It is an art form to put an audience in suspense or to shock or scare them. Those emotions are just as important as moving an audience to laugh or cry with the story the filmmaker tells.
exactly.
Quote from: Pthe reason for any anti-horror argument: marketing/brainwashing.
i agree. i think its really naive of people to dismiss the whole genre, and its a really easy group mentality to jump onto because there so many notable stinkers can come to mind, but thats unfortunate.
23 Words and 1 letter:..: cronenbergh's dead ringers and eXistenZ are reasons why the sci fi/horror genre is underrated.and everything that mod-age, P, and Mac said is correct.....
Quote from: Chest RockwellAnd isn't PDL considered a romantic comedy?
no, DUH! its science fiction, (those arent any good either!)
http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=2116 (6 posts down)
I think it comes down to personal preference. I haven't been brainwashed into not liking horror films -- I have seen plenty of horror films, and I simply don't care for them.
I don't consider Cape Fear a horror film, it is more of a thriller -- and by the way, it's Scorsese's weakest film. I also think Silence of the Lambs is Demme's weakest film.
There are some horror films I like -- Exorcist, Rosemary's Baby, Carrie, Night of the Living Dead, Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
If I bypass the horror section in the video store, it is not out of close-mindedness -- it is because I have seen so many bad horror films that I don't care to suffer needlessly anymore. And if it is true there are some bad films in the drama section, there are a lot more great dramas than great horror films. Please, don't put Exorcist and Blair Witch and Sixth Sense alongside Citizen Kane and Streetcar Named Desire and Godfather and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.
.you could argue w/ exorcist in the same leagues but not 6 sense or blair witch
Quote from: soixanteAnd if it is true there are some bad films in the drama section, there are a lot more great dramas than great horror films. Please, don't put Exorcist alongside Citizen Kane and Streetcar Named Desire and Godfather and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.
no, there arent. thats the same sort of narrow-mindedness that would say that the only important movies are ones with apparent 'important' themes. (have you seen Sullivans Travels?) are things so black and white that a comedy cant be an important movie because its
only 'trying to make people laugh'? why isnt the exorcist as good/important as cuckoos nest? i think there are people who would argue that it is, and your dismissive attitude seems very close-minded to me. i tried to bring this question up in another thread, but what makes a film great? and why cant a horror film fit that definition?
Quote from: soixanteI don't consider Cape Fear a horror film, it is more of a thriller
Two sides of the same coin.
Quote from: soixanteand by the way, it's Scorsese's weakest film. I also think Silence of the Lambs is Demme's weakest film.
I'd say "New York, New York" and "Truth About Charlie."
Quote from: soixantePlease, don't put Exorcist and Blair Witch and Sixth Sense alongside Citizen Kane and Streetcar Named Desire and Godfather and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.
I'd definitely put "Exorcist" alongside those dramas you listed, along with "Jaws," "Alien" and "Psycho".
OK, Psycho is one of the greatest films ever made, and Rosemary's Baby is not too far behind. Before I completely condemn an entire genre, I will acknowledge a few great horror/thrillers.
However, I don't think it's snobbish to say that drama films have a higher batting average for excellence than any other genre. If you look at all of the films that have been nominated for Best Picture in the past ten years, there have been hardly any horror films. Same with the Palme d'Or, same with most critics top ten lists. Why is that? Is the Academy, and the jury at Cannes, and the critical establishment, completely narrow-minded in their contempt for horror?
Quote from: Pkubrick's best movie, and therefore the best movie of all time, is horror.
end of argument.
Clockwork Orange isn't a horror movie.
Oh, and Soixante is right again, Cape Fear is by FAR FAR FAR Marty's worst movie.
But, uh, why all the horror hate? You can't say it's any worse than romantic comedy, sports, coming-of-age, or really any of the other stock-in-trade "genre" films...
Now if this is an anti-genre thing, then that's a whole 'nother argument.
Quote from: SoNowThenClockwork Orange isn't a horror movie.
barry lyndon is.
AH!! Fuck, you got me... I was gonna put Clockwork/Barry Lyndon... and at the last second I changed my mind.
Damn it...
Quote from: SoNowThenQuote from: Pkubrick's best movie, and therefore the best movie of all time, is horror.
end of argument.
Oh, and Soixante is right again, Cape Fear is by FAR FAR FAR Marty's worst movie.
.
That's always been the conventional wisdom, but I disagree with it. I've always like Scorsese's
Cape Fear. I'd erase
Bringing Out the Dead from his ouevre before I'd erase
Cape Fear, despite my love of John Goodman, because that seems to me to be his most blah film in many ways.
Oh, also, I think watching bad movies can
improve your work as a filmmaker as long as they help you hone what you feel is "right" in a film and what doesn't work. And I don't have too many genre hangups, though there are some that I feel draw a disproportionate number of bad scripts/actors/directors, which you can't really judge a "kind" of movie by.
Quote from: godardianI'd erase Bringing Out the Dead from his ouevre before I'd erase Cape Fear, despite my love of John Goodman, because that seems to me to be his most blah film in many ways.
For that comment, I wish a mild head cold upon you...
Quote from: SoNowThenQuote from: Pkubrick's best movie, and therefore the best movie of all time, is horror.
end of argument.
Clockwork Orange isn't a horror movie.
I'd say it's a real horrorshow.
Just one more thing: P is right again.