|
Post by Jen on Aug 30, 2010 13:58:43 GMT -5
Maybe, I don't know, I do know that I am usually easier on movies than a lot of folks are. I like a lot of modern horror, even remakes and low budget offerings that others don't. To me, if I have fun, and I am entertained, I usually consider that a good thing and I don't look too much deeper into it. I like a lot of movies that quality wise are just okay. But my expectations are different going in for different movies, and different filmmakers.
I admit that I expect MORE from a filmmaker like Romero that was such a part of my early experiences as a horror fan then I might otherwise, because I remember that emotional reaction I had to Night of the Living Dead, it scared me and it MOVED me. I think of that and it just makes me sad that all I can get from this one, and Diary, is a chuckle here and there (especially after watching a film like [rec] and finding it so effective). But I honestly don't think this is all that good of movie. In fact, if anyone else had made it, I have a feeling I wouldn't have liked it even as much as I did. I respect him so much that it always pains me when I don't like one of his movies. But there is still that expectation there. Give me characters I can care about even just a little, make the zombies scary, make me feel something other than amusement. Then I can overlook bad CGI, and the limitations of a low budget. I have before.
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Aug 30, 2010 14:34:23 GMT -5
inferior low budget Universal ripoffs.? Roger Cormen Vincent Price Gothic horror ripoffs more accurately I don't think so, its not hard to judge whether a film is made good or is good or not. It really doesn't have anything to do with older films, perhaps if we were film makers we could judge it from that perspective, but we are not. In the end it all comes down to personal taste
|
|
|
Post by GL on Aug 31, 2010 9:56:56 GMT -5
Whatever the case, I think we can all agree that I'm the least judgmental on these films than anyone. And Abraxas is right, they're ripping off the Corman/Poe films starring Vincent Price which Hammer adapted later in the decade when they revived the Dracula/Frankenstein films.
As for HNT, I believe he has something here. There is a sense of everyone just simply ripping on these films for no reason other than they're remakes of a favorite film from their youth or some other rather arbitrary excuse (lousy production values, cheesy CGI, low-budget, etc) that, yes, those are factors to the film yet there's a lot more to them that are simply glossed over because of those issues. I'll be the first to admit that all the Sci-Fi Channel original films I watch aren't high art (I get ticked off so easily at the CGI I used to just copy-and-paste that part into my reviews when I was still writing them because they never got better) but I think people have forgotten how to have fun with a film. Everyone is, either subconsciously or willingly, comparing them to the greats of the past and measuring them against those standards due to misguided fan-boy logic that we've come a long way since and we should be making films even better than they're beloved classics, and then turning up their noses when they realize it's not. I see that so often around the internet that it's hard to even take most of the review sites I used to love seriously anymore since it seems all they do is simply complain about everything, yet when I finally see what they have, I come away from it thinking it was a rather enjoyable experience. Either that has to do with my continued belief that most of the classics are overrated and held up on a pedestal simply because most feel they're supposed to, or because I've somehow managed to do what was intended with these films all along: judge them on their own merits, never compare them against something that came before, and just have fun with a film I'm watching for the first time. Sure, I may come into some clunkers every now and then, but who hasn't, and I still don't know which one is more accurate.
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Aug 31, 2010 10:21:46 GMT -5
I really don't think there is a way to answer that as people have vastly different opinions as to what is good and what is bad in film.
|
|
|
Post by Jen on Aug 31, 2010 11:58:51 GMT -5
We all have our own ways of judging why a film works for us. A remake for me is pointless if nothing new is going to be brought forth, while at the same time showing some respect to the original. If they can't do that, most of the time I would rather revisit the original film. That's just more enjoyable to me.
When it comes down to it, I either like something or not. I know it depends on my mood more often than not (I don't know how many times I have revisited a film, only to realize that I liked it hell of a lot more than I remember liking it). Reviews or other people's opinions don't really enter into it at all. But I do have to admit that a lot CGI in horror films leaves me cold (I would rather see okay practical effects then bad CGI). I am starting to get used to it, still don't like it much though. And it looked REALLY bad in this movie. But again, if I have someone to root for, then the CGI doesn't matter as much. I think that is what Diary and Survival was missing for me, I didn't connect with any of the characters at all. I think even in the bad movies I like, I usually find one of the characters sympathetic, or likable in some way, and that makes me care what happens to them. That's always been important to me.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Sept 1, 2010 9:50:29 GMT -5
When it comes down to it, I either like something or not. I know it depends on my mood more often than not (I don't know how many times I have revisited a film, only to realize that I liked it hell of a lot more than I remember liking it). Reviews or other people's opinions don't really enter into it at all. But I do have to admit that a lot CGI in horror films leaves me cold (I would rather see okay practical effects then bad CGI). I am starting to get used to it, still don't like it much though. Each of these two sayings is right on the money with how I feel as well. Stated perfectly.
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Sept 1, 2010 11:04:01 GMT -5
A remake for me is pointless if nothing new is going to be brought forth, while at the same time showing some respect to the original. If they can't do that, most of the time I would rather revisit the original film. That's just more enjoyable to me. CGI in horror films leaves me cold (I would rather see okay practical effects then bad CGI). Great post Jen I feel the same way about remakes, I don't watch remakes, except for a select few, as you said remakes that add something new to the film. To me John Carpenter's The Thing is a legitimate remake as they put things in the film that were not in the original film, but were in the story upon which the original was based. CGI should only be used for those things that cannot be done with practical effects, Id put the work that Tom Savini did in Day of the Dead up against any CGI horror film, any day.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Sept 1, 2010 11:41:55 GMT -5
[ I feel the same way about remakes, I don't watch remakes, except for a select few, as you said remakes that add something new to the film. To me John Carpenter's The Thing is a legitimate remake as they put things in the film that were not in the original film, but were in the story upon which the original was based. CGI should only be used for those things that cannot be done with practical effects, Id put the work that Tom Savini did in Day of the Dead up against any CGI horror film, any day. I agree that most remakes are terrible, but considering the number of remakes that I can think of (Hammer Dracula films, The Fly, The Thing...) which I love, I can't have a complete disinterest in them. Personally, I agree with you about what is necessary for a good remake. I apply the same logic to sequels, though. Personally, I don't think that the 10th rehash of F13 or Halloween is any more inventive or worthwhile than a remake. It is all laziness and rehashing old stories in place of providing new ones. Your CGI point is completely correct. There are some times, though, where the ability to do a CGI effect that otherwise could not have been done at all is worthwhile (as you have pointed out already). Also, like anything else, their quality is determined largely by budget. Cheap practical effects from low budget movies never looked as good as hugh quality effects. Likewise, I just saw Inception the other day, and that CGI was flawless. By the same token, however, there are plenty of cheaper films that can't pull it off. Budgetary constraints have always impacted the quality of special effects in films. CGI is just the latest trend to have the same issues.
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Sept 1, 2010 11:55:55 GMT -5
I would add to that by saying that, for example, they are doing a remake of Mother's Day, movies like that, or films that failed due to budgetary reasons, or lack of the proper effects, and of course films that just didn't work, yet at least had an original concept, those films should be remade. Why waste time remaking a perfectly good film, it makes no sense to me. The only thing I can think of is that its the easy way out, you don't have to make up something yourself, and of course to cash in on someone else's success. Then there are those films that are cult classics and should be left alone, I can just see them doing a remake of Eraserhead
|
|
|
Post by Jen on Sept 1, 2010 13:42:49 GMT -5
I agree that most remakes are terrible, but considering the number of remakes that I can think of (Hammer Dracula films, The Fly, The Thing...) which I love, I can't have a complete disinterest in them. Personally, I agree with you about what is necessary for a good remake. I apply the same logic to sequels, though. Personally, I don't think that the 10th rehash of F13 or Halloween is any more inventive or worthwhile than a remake. It is all laziness and rehashing old stories in place of providing new ones. Your CGI point is completely correct. There are some times, though, where the ability to do a CGI effect that otherwise could not have been done at all is worthwhile (as you have pointed out already). Also, like anything else, their quality is determined largely by budget. Cheap practical effects from low budget movies never looked as good as hugh quality effects. Likewise, I just saw Inception the other day, and that CGI was flawless. By the same token, however, there are plenty of cheaper films that can't pull it off. Budgetary constraints have always impacted the quality of special effects in films. CGI is just the latest trend to have the same issues. There are several remakes I love as well, and in fact, I like a couple that many others weren't that crazy about (I enjoyed both My Bloody Valentine and Friday the 13th, I think they are both a lot of fun). That's why I always give them a chance. I give any film a chance. And I agree with you about sequels. I often find them fun, but forgettable, or downright terrible. You're right, its still lazy filmmaking, where they can bank on an established name, its not much different than a remake. Except I know what I am getting with a sequel, I expect them to be inferior (its when they aren't that is the surprise), remakes are trickier....lol. And I also agree about CGI, there are some things that just can't be done without it. I respect that. But I also think that the people involved in making the film have to step back and try to figure out what the best use of their budget is. It feels like a lot of them are trying to keep up with the times at the expense of the film. Decisions have to be made, and every decision impacts how viewers are going to feel about your movie (practical effects vs CGI vs a mixture of both, casting, story, dialogue, play up the humor or the scares, what works best for the story you are trying to tell). I don't need special effects to blow me away, or even be particularly good, but bad CGI distracts me from what is important. And when it comes down to it, why not use your budget in a more creative way? Its one of the reasons I so often love low budget horror, when it works, they HAVE to be creative to make it work unlike in cases where they can just keep throwing money at it to make it work.
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Sept 1, 2010 14:16:35 GMT -5
Well I cant really agree with you two on the sequel thing, I love my franchises..... Friday the 13th (except Jason X), Hellraiser (with the exception of everything after the 4th film).
And obviously I never saw the remakes of Friday, Halloween, Hills have eyes, TCSM etc.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Sept 1, 2010 15:00:51 GMT -5
Well I cant really agree with you two on the sequel thing, I love my franchises..... Friday the 13th (except Jason X), Hellraiser (with the exception of everything after the 4th film). And obviously I never saw the remakes of Friday, Halloween, Hills have eyes, TCSM etc. I hear ya, but for what its worth, the Friday sequels might as well have been remakes. It isn't like there was a genuinely fresh idea in the bunch. And, for my money, I would easily watch the remake over Parts 2,3,5,8, and Jason Goes to Hell. But, that is just my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by Jen on Sept 1, 2010 15:19:32 GMT -5
Well I cant really agree with you two on the sequel thing, I love my franchises..... Friday the 13th (except Jason X), Hellraiser (with the exception of everything after the 4th film). And obviously I never saw the remakes of Friday, Halloween, Hills have eyes, TCSM etc. I hear ya, but for what its worth, the Friday sequels might as well have been remakes. It isn't like there was a genuinely fresh idea in the bunch. And, for my money, I would easily watch the remake over Parts 2,3,5,8, and Jason Goes to Hell. But, that is just my two cents. I completely agree about the Friday the 13th remake. I would choose to watch it over most of the series. In fact, after part 7 (which has always been my personal favorite) and possibly 4, its now my favorite of the Friday movies. I've never been a huge fan of the series anyway, I've always thought they were fun, but mostly nothing special. I actually really like a few of the Hellraiser films, a few of the Halloween films and most of the A Nightmare On Elm Street series. So I definitely enjoy many sequels also. But as much as fun as they are for me I don't think any of the sequels really compare with the original films, or really add anything (with the exception of ANOES part 3, and New Nightmare, which I think are actually good horror movies in their own way). Hell I even own all of the Friday the 13th series because I like to throw them in as well every once in awhile. I love my marathons...lol.
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Sept 2, 2010 9:14:30 GMT -5
Well your both crazy
|
|
|
Post by GL on Sept 2, 2010 9:55:12 GMT -5
No, I think you're just stubborn.
|
|