What's your favorite John Carpenter Flick?

Tools    





"Vampire is Pants"...what does that mean?

His other films are "streets ahead."



Trouble with a capital "T"
I have nothing to say... I'm not a big fan of John Carpenter's films but they're OK as popcorn flicks. Oh, I guess I did have something to say.



I have nothing to say... I'm not a big fan of John Carpenter's films but they're OK as popcorn flicks. Oh, I guess I did have something to say.

Objectively, most of his films are B-movies. But if you dig his style, you forgive a lot... ...and occasionally he knocks it out of the park (e.g., Halloween, The Thing).



Trouble with a capital "T"
Objectively, most of his films are B-movies. But if you dig his style, you forgive a lot... ...and occasionally he knocks it out of the park (e.g., Halloween, The Thing).
Yeah very true, knowing that his films are meant to be B movies makes them all the funner to watch. I was thinking of checking out Ghost of Mars again. I don't think I've seen Halloween since I seen it first run way back in the day.



I was thinking of checking out Ghost of Mars again.

I don't know that I would recommend that one.






I think my favorite is Big Trouble in Little China



  1. The Thing
  2. Christine
  3. Starman
  4. Assault on Precinct 13
  5. They Live
  6. Halloween
  7. Vampires

Ranked. I think they're all great apart from Vampires which was okay.
__________________



If anyone is curious what John Carpenter considers the ten best films of all time, this is the list he submitted to the most recent Sight & Sound poll...

1. Only Angels Have Wings (1939)
2. Chimes at Midnight (1966)
3. Rio Bravo (1958)
4. The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (1972)
5. Chinatown (1974)
6. Bringing Up Baby (1938)
7. The Searchers (1956)
8. The Exterminating Angel (1962)
9. Scarface (1932)
10. Vertigo (1958)

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra



^ Much less horror and sci-fi than one would expect.


1. Halloween
2. The Thing
3. In the Mouth of Madness
4. Big Trouble in Little China
5. Escape from New York



I forgot the opening line.
I love The Thing and it easily slots into my favourite 25 movies of all time - even without the incredible effects, production design and pure imagination - it's simply a very well-made movie and I'd still love it without all of those things. Atmospheric, well shot and with a terrific score from Ennio Morricone. Wonderful movie.

__________________
Remember - everything has an ending except hope, and sausages - they have two.

Latest Review : The Big Clock (1948)



Oh, that's right. John Carpenter is a 'b-movie' director

For the most part, yeah.



Is Psycho a B movie? Is Jaws? If you just consider their premises and remove everything else from consideration, you could maybe make that claim. But it would be a claim that doesn't actually mean anything.


B movies are actually a specific thing. Basically cheapo features they could put alongside a feature attraction. They were usually obviously cheap, exploitative, frequently not made with any care towards the craft. Not sure how Carpenter, outside of Dark Star (which also wasn't a b movie, it was a student film, but at least contains some of the qualities of a b movie) is a b movie director. His movies were lower budget, but not cheap. Even though they were frequently horror films, they weren't technically exploitative. And he showed enormous care over his craft. And his films were never meant to supplement the feature film.Hes objectively not a b movie director.




Unless we are going to go the route of claiming we are using the more colloquial use of the term. Which is essentially used to say a movie isn't worth any serious consideration, but it's fun as a goofy diversion. And this also wouldn't apply. Just like it wouldn't apply to Psycho. It wouldn't apply to Jaws.



Is Psycho a B movie? Is Jaws?
No.

Is Assault on Precinct 13? It is the epitome of a B-movie (albeit a fantastic one).

Is Big Trouble in Littler China? Yes. It's big fun, big cheese.

Is They Live? LOL, yes. It's Rowdy Roddy Piper.

Is Ghosts of Mars? No, that's a D-movie.

Is Dark Star? Yes.

The Fog? Yes.

Christine? Yes.

Into the Mouth of Madness? Yes.

Escape from L.A.? Yep.

Village of the Damned? Yes.

Halloween was low-budget horror, but it set the standard for slasher films, so let's give this one a pass.

Really, Carpenter's magnum opus is The Thing. It is well written, well-acted, high-budget, and fires on all cylinders. This is an A-movie, but the rest of his stuff isn't on this level (Halloween excepted).
B movies are actually a specific thing. Basically cheapo features they could put alongside a feature attraction. They were usually obviously cheap, exploitative, frequently not made with any care towards the craft.
It seems you don't like B-movies as much as I do. Cheap exploitative schlock can be great fun. And a B-movie can be well done. I stand by Grindhouse as one of the best times I've had at the theater. How would you classify Grindhouse? Technically, it's not a B-movie double-feature, but it has the spirit of such fare and so do most of Carpenter's films. Until I think of a polite way of describing Carpenter's wonderful schlock "B-movie" will have to do.

Carpenter's movies tend to be under-produced, cast with workaday actors more likely to show up on an episode of The Love Boat than to ever be called onto stage at the Oscars. His films are cheaply scored (it's Carpenter on the synths most of the time). The dialogue in his movies tends to be a bit rough/wooden (pick a scene from They Live). Carpenter is not above exploitation and winking schlock. There is a lot of low quality stuff on Carpenter films that is often elevated by the whole somehow being greater than the sum of its parts, because he has a certain signature touch and doesn't take himself to seriously.
Unless we are going to go the route of claiming we are using the more colloquial use of the term.
I could just as easily object that your usage is narrow and pedantic. Wikidpedia indicates that the wider sense of the term is the one which is operative today.
The term "B movie" continues to be used in its broader sense to this day. In post-Golden Age usage, B movies can range from lurid exploitation films to independent arthouse films.
Sure, independent arthouse films are often made with a care for the overall quality of the work?
Which is essentially used to say a movie isn't worth any serious consideration, but it's fun as a goofy diversion. And this also wouldn't apply. Just like it wouldn't apply to Psycho. It wouldn't apply to Jaws.
And with respect to Mr. Carpenter, he only has a film or two that come are in the same discussion with Jaws and Psycho. Most of his films are goofy diversions.



I'm not being pedantic about the definition. I'm offering the two possibilities of the terms usage. You're wrong on both.


None of your defenses of using this term to describe Carpenter stand. I can make defenses against his scores, his casting, the performances he gets from his actors, the stories he gravitates to, how there is a difference between being influenced BY b movies and MAKING b movies etc etc, but seriously, what is the point. You'll just say nuh huh and start doubling down about how you appreciate b movies more because it's all about the cheesy diversions, which is exactly the kind of comment that makes it clear this can't be a remotely fruitful conversation from my end.


And, please, go ahead Mr Wiki and tell me what arthouse fare is generally considered a b movie. Because I have zero idea what that would be referring to. My assumption is that it has been edited by someone like me who, at the very least, doesn't want to typecast b films as nothing but artless shit. Because as I've made abundantly clear the last twenty years, I don't consider things that have been relegated to b movie status as being worthless, artless or second tier. It's why I reject the term. But I at least know what it generally means and how it is used to undermine the worth of these films that you'd be too busy looking for cheesy goodness to notice.


Regardless John Carpenter is not a b movie director. And as for Grindhouse, it is great, but I think it is what is called a homage. You can wikipedia that one too if you like.



I'm not being pedantic about the definition. I'm offering the two possibilities of the terms usage. You're wrong on both.
"I am not being pedantic. I am asserting definitions and telling you you're wrong for not following mine." With respect, your preferred definitions don't exhaust the possibilities of usage. I have cited that the modern usage of the term, per Wikipedia, includes the sort of usage I am including here.
None of your defenses of using this term to describe Carpenter stand.
And this is why disputants are typically barred from also serving as judges; we will almost invariably adjudicate that we have triumphed in the dispute.
I can make defenses against his scores, his casting, the performances he gets from his actors, the stories he gravitates to,
Don't you mean that you can make defenses FOR these things?
how there is a difference between being influenced BY b movies and MAKING b movies etc etc, but seriously, what is the point.
Indeed.
You'll just say nuh huh
Nuh huh!
and start doubling down
On the contrary, I shall triple-dog dare you.
And, please, go ahead Mr Wiki and tell me what arthouse fare is generally considered a b movie.
I dunno. Pick a particular Parker Posie picture. How about... ...The Daytrippers?
Because I have zero idea what that would be referring to. My assumption is that it has been edited by someone like me who, at the very least, doesn't want to typecast b films as nothing but artless shit.
B-movies are not "artless," but are a category of art. There is high art and low art, but low art is art nonetheless. Beware the valorific definition or we will lose Vaudeville as "art" for a scruple about its low-ambitions.
Because as I've made abundantly clear the last twenty years, I don't consider things that have been relegated to b movie status as being worthless, artless or second tier. It's why I reject the term.
That's fine, but you're trying to regulate my use of the term, no? Don't we need a more objective source that your anecdotal reports of your idiosyncratic takes on the definition of the term?
But I at least know what it generally means and how it is used to undermine the worth of these films that you'd be too busy looking for cheesy goodness to notice.
What's wrong with cheesy goodness?
Regardless John Carpenter is not a b movie director.
Until I find a better word for it, I shall continue to use it.
And as for Grindhouse, it is great, but I think it is what is called a homage. You can wikipedia that one too if you like.
It is, and an homage participates in the very forms in which it honors by the reference. It is not of one essence with it, but the circles overlap. And to the extent that they succeeded, they did create not just an approximation, but an example (albeit a partial one) exhibiting what we love about B-movies. Carpenter is very much in the same camp, IMO. Even his more high-budget movies have that low-budget feeling (e.g., for all those reasons you won't refute, because why bother).