Meatwadsprite's Slow Review Thread

Scream (1 view)



This half serious slasher, mocks others of the same genre while unfolding it's own story. Even though it doesn't treat the material dead serious like Halloween, Friday the 13th, and Nightmare on Elm Street, it doesn't joke about it's great camera work and blows each of the films I just named - out of the water.

The movie starts with a guy in a scary mask killing people and then eventually he starts stalking the main character. This is the only slasher that works for me - it actually has good camera work and action scenes while proving that this genre of film is about as dumb as they come. Of all people it's Wes Craven who directs this and you can see little hints here and there of his other movies.

Just because it's funny though - does not mean it's not scary as well. If you're watching this and don't pick up on the comedy , you might be really frightened at times. I guess this movie really appeals to anyone who thinks all these Chucky and Jason movies are all equally horrible.

__________________

Nice little review, mate. Scream is outstanding horror/comedy. I think 90% of people detected the comedy within, though.

If The Usual Suspects didn't have the line up scene no one would even talk about it. Obviously that wasn't the whole movie, but if you remove that scene its a totally below average "thriller" which probably wouldn't thrill at all.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

The line-up scene, really? Why?

Because it was a great scene. Dig? It really tied the room together.

Yeah, but don't more people remember that movie for the big reveal at the end with the coffee mug breaking and whatnot? And I don't really think it's a below average movie, it is very slick, just way overrated.

I see your point, but if you take that scene out of the flick do most people even get to the end? I don't think of the big reveal that much because to me it wasn't a big reveal. I knew it was him. I'm not everyone though. I probably watch to much TV and movies.

Mark mentioned Se7en earlier. Now that was a big reveal was it not? And we didn't even get to see anything. But we sure as shootin' knew what was in that box didn't we?

The Thing (2 views)



John Carpenter has been a hit and miss director with me - on one hand you have Big Trouble in Little China and Escape from New York and on the other you have Halloween and The Thing. Unlike Halloween however this weaker project doesn't lack in premise or visuals - but moves at a crawl and attempts to put me to sleep.

This is such a great idea for a movie - a monster that can turn into other people and things , attacks this small group of people in the middle of nowhere. As fun as this may sound , The Thing is anything but. It takes half the movie for the crew to discover this creature and it takes longer still for the actual idea to take shape.

None of the characters amount to something you care about - they aren't introduced before the killing starts to go down : which is the major fault here. It usually helps if there is some interesting dialogue between the characters - relationships and what not. The movie seems bent on just using it's great sets and special effects to do everything. Even if it looks great , there's no reason for me to watch this when I care so little about the characters.

It's clear why a lot of people like the isolated atmosphere of this movie , but for me it's close to being as mindless as Carpenter's Halloween.

Sigh...

Sorry if there isn't a rage-infected zombie clawing its way through the windows every thirty seconds.

It's all about building tension. Lovecraft remarked that man's greatest fear is the fear of the unknown and what we don't understand. It's scary because you don't know exactly what the deal is with the Thing itself. It's scary right from the start where the Norwegians come out of nowhere with rifles and grenades, shooting at a dog - but why? And why is there such a focus on the dog for much of the screentime? You know it's all building up to the reveal of the Thing, and that's what tension and suspense are all about - the more left to the imagination, the better.

Yes, the characters are introduced and even further developed throughout the story. They spend their time introducing them during the first act of the film while you were too busy waiting for the Thing to show up. There is interesting dialogue between the characters - the ways that they antagonise each other repeatedly throughout the whole movie shows that even though they're supposed to stick together against the Thing, their own issues of trusting one another are no stronger. If anything, the bonds between them are strained even further than before. You want relationships? The distinct lack of relationships makes the film. Everyone is isolated, not just from the world, but from each other, and that's what plays into the paranoia that fuels much of the thrills and suspense in the movie.

As for caring about the characters - didn't you say the same thing about the characters in Sunshine? These are the people standing between the safety of the world and the apocalyptic threat that comes as a result of the Thing taking over more and more humans until the entire world is covered with Things. I think I'd care whether about whether they survived or succeeded.

Mindless? The Thing is one of the smarter horror movies to have ever been made. It may have a few cheap scares and bloody deaths like many other horrors, but it doesn't rely on them solely for entertainment value. The Thing is about more than mere shock value - it's all about the mood that gets built up. To liken it to a movie you like - Battle Royale - it's about a handful of people already dealing with their own emotional issues and those of others. When a horribly extreme situation rises in their face (the arrival of the Thing or being forced to kill each other respectively), it's not about the extremity of the situation itself, but how the people react in the face of it. It's like shining a light on the shadows to reveal what's been there all along.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Dawn of the Dead (1 view)



George Romero's masterpiece comes to life in an amazing collaboration of huge mall scenes, claustrophobic corridor scenes, and the right amount of horror, action, and humor. This movie strikes a balance in everything from politics and government to the importance of different kinds of life.

By Dawn the zombies have taken over substantial amounts of the world over now and only the smartest most well equipped humans are still trying to survive. After setting up the theme of what's going on in the world, the story follows four people who leave their town in a helicopter. Eventually they come across a mall and decide it's a good place to hang out for awhile, so they start to fight the zombies for control of it.

The action scenes are brilliant and incredibly detailed. Making this whole movie take place in a mall allows so much fun stuff to happen. Visuals in this film are most of the time gigantic and take full advantage of being shot in a real mall. There are usually tons of zombies walking around everywhere and a lot of them do get killed in a variety of crazy ways, but even as the survivors appear to be doing well inside the mall – you start to think about the zombies outside the mall.

One thing Dawn of the Dead does much better than any other zombie movie I’ve seen, is that it cares about it’s characters. There are only four main characters and none of them feel disposable like most other horror movies where the majority of the people die early on. The soundtrack is brilliant and is responsible for the major genre bending that goes on in the movie. It’s really suspenseful and intense one moment, then it’s fast and upbeat, or it’s somewhere in between.

Gigantic mall scenes make this one of the best looking movies, but it’s great character use and smart social commentary will suck you into this one again and again. Dawn of the Dead is scary, exciting, and unexpectedly funny.

Iroquois , I won't deny that you and many others can really enjoy the movie - but I will summarize my argument about The Thing to just "There's little to none excitement or energy at all".

Eh, fair enough. At the very least, you reckon Dawn of the Dead is five-star.

I'll say. That is one flaw I will admit to The Thing (and countless other horror films having, include Romero's Night) - the characters are always disposable to some extent. I think by the time the first of the leads in Dawn dies (about an hour and a half in, if I remember correctly) is the point at which most of the cast have been killed off in any other movie. That's certainly a point in Romero's favour.

Also, I wonder about the whole "ultimate horror" designation. As much as I like it, it never really seemed especially horrific to me. Then again, I've watched it about 4 or 5 times now (roughly the same for The Thing). I'll continue this thought later - I'm tired.

Thanks Meatface

I am a big fan of The Thing

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

This is meaty's thread. I certainly don't see things the same way as he does, but I do enjoy the fact that's he's still here, and he's increasing his rep greenie, or whatever you call it. I also do actually agree with him much more than I used to, but I fear I will never still don't understand his two basic concepts for what makes movies great (and correct me if I'm wrong here, sprite).

It seems to me that you need two (maybe three) major things to love a movie.

1. Visuals which you love. I get this, but some movies which are great for other reasons (acting, dialogue, plot, theme) may not be so expressively visual, and then even if they are, you don't like them. Prime example: 2001: A Space Odyssey, which has awesome visuals for every single second of its running time.

2. Characters (maybe "Careacters") which you relate to. I'm a little confused about how you pick which characters you care about. I mean, I'm not specifically addressing you because everybody does the same thing, but I sometimes wonder why certain filmwatchers love crooks, killers, thieves, serial killers, etc. more than others. Now, meaty, you say that you love the characters in the original Dawn of the Dead because they have to band together to fight off "the bad guys". That kinda sounds like Jaws to me. OK, shutting up now.

3. If you were to include a third criteria which makes a movie great to you, I suppose it would be that it doesn't bore you, but honestly, meaty, this one is basically impossible for a consensus to agree upon. What thrills you, bores others, and vice versa.

I applaud you for sharing your thoughts with us, and I really enjoy the way you allow us a peek into your mind's eye. I really think you've grown up in the last year. I'm looking forward to you growing up even more when you expose yourself to even more older and foreign films.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Glad to see you gave Dawn of the Dead five stars.

Thanks for the support Mark.

Cape Fear (1 view)



This thriller looks like a Scorsese movie , but on the inside is hilariously dumb. If you want to hear Robert DeNiro's southern accent - you need look no further , but don't expect a good movie.

At first the story tries to convince you there is something deeper going on and it works for awhile - until you keep watching and you realize there isn't anything beneath the surface. The further you watch it falls apart and you can see how flat the story really is. Max Cady's character is as smart as you're average horror slasher and it's a shame because DeNiro is very genuine and scary in many scenes , even while the script is working against him.

The music in this is awful as well. This way over the top score plays pretty much the entire time , it's not saved for the most dramatic moments - it's just used for anything. *Nick Nolte buys a gum-ball : DUN DUN DUN DUNNNNNNN !* It tires you after hearing it over and over again. It's pretty much the only song in the entire thing.

Along with DeNiro's performance , the visuals are the only thing working on all cylinders. The movie will surprise you with some really great looking scenes , even from Scorsese - who you automatically assume is going to make the film look polished. As good as the camera work and cinematography is , it's not enough to watch a terrible story unfold.

Have you seen the original?

I enjoyed the film for what is was and it seems that simply because it was Scorsese you automatically wanted it to be some kind of masterpiece. When you saw that is was a run of the mill thriller/comedy you automatically hated it.

At least that's what I got from it.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Well, I've never been a humongous fan of the original. I think it's a decent film which has gone into cult status because of the Robert Mitchum cult and also the Bernard Herrmann cult. I actually liked Scorsese's remake better than the original, although I thought the two leads were better in the original. The thing I find almost humorous is that most people who love Scorsese and hate Spielberg still love Cape Fear, even if Spielberg was an uncredited "Executive Producer" and was actually initially assigned to direct. At least until the 2000s, this film was by far the closest Scorsese ever came to making a Spielberg flick, but, as I said, most people seem completely oblivious even though it was obvious to me during the opening credits. Even so, I think it's a good film. It may be ridiculous, but it's a good movie-movie, and it's at least as realistic as Dawn of the Dead!

However, let's give credit where credit's due. "The Simpsons" and Sideshow Bob have probably ruined this movie forever, or at least, passed it into some realm of hyper-reality.

aw. Cape Fear, 1 star? just aint right.

__________________
letterboxd