Hitch Rolls in His Grave

Post Reply
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Post by rolotomasi99 »

flipp525 wrote:
rolotomasi99 wrote:torture porn

"You're obsessed with that phrase, Martha."

i emphasize the word porn because i truly believe it to be an accurate description. i have always believed the violence in a movie should be directly proportionate to the intelligence of the film. i know determining the intelligence of a film is a very subjective process, but i use the supreme court's defininition of porn as a model. in the case roth v united states, a decision about the constitutional protections of obscenity defined porn as speech which "to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest [and is] utterly without redeeming social importance."

this has been taken to mean porn is anything sexual which aims to titilate without any artistically redeeming qualities. i do not believe there is anything wrong with porn, but i feel this definition is fair. so movies like HENRY & JUNE, MIDNIGHT COWBOY, DON'T LOOK NOW, etc. are films with sex while DEEP THROAT, etc. are sex films (aka porn). again, no judgement, just a definition to differentiate the two.

coming back to movie violence, i do think there is a difference between a movie like GOODFELLAS where the violence helps tell the story, and HOSTEL where the story (much like the flimsy plots found in porn) only exist for an excuse to show people having their eyeballs cut out. to me it truly is just pornographic violence. it does not service the story. it is the only reason for the movie to exist. i know oscarguy you say the first two SAW movies and the first HOSTEL actually try to tell a story, but to me the intelligence of those films and the stories they are telling do not justify the extreme violence they titilate their audience with.

that is why i love the original TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE. that movie is scary as hell, but there is very little actual violence. the violence depicted is more implied since they did not have the budget to show body parts being destroyed.

watching scary movies is thrilling. it is similar to sitting around a fire and telling ghost stories. watching these torture porn flicks is more like sitting in the colosseum watching people being fed to the lions. that is just not for me.




Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1225299367
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Post by flipp525 »

rolotomasi99 wrote:torture porn
"You're obsessed with that phrase, Martha."
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Zahveed
Associate
Posts: 1838
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:47 pm
Location: In Your Head
Contact:

Post by Zahveed »

I agree with OG, except on a more detailed level. Horror is just an umbrella term that covers anything that's shocking, terrifying, revolting, or just an extremely tasteless use of negative actions. Sweeney Todd wouldn't be considered horror to those who are looking to be scared, but there is a prolific amount of killing and use of blood. Saw and Hostel are considered horror because of the torture. It doesn't necessarily scares anyone but it is, well, horrifying. Then you have the ghosts, monsters, and other paranormal phenomena that just scares people because they either believe it can happen to them (there have been occurances of actual poltergeists and possessions whether it be psychological, scientific anomaly, or spiritual) or they're just afraid of the possibility of it happening. Some people even tend to bundle of suspense with horror, as is the case with Silence of the Lambs and the Scream trilogy. This isn't false to say that they are, but it isn't always the case to say it is.
"It's the least most of us can do, but less of us will do more."
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

Well, horror can be looked at in three ways. Terror, Horror and a Blend of the two. Most of you guys submit Blends as examples of great horror films. The Birds would be considered Terror and the more modern slasher films would fall square into the Horror category. Everyone has a different opinion of Terror/Horror/Blends and to each his own.

I happen to like all three. I think Hostel, regardless of its abject thrust for violence is a truly frightening tale that explores the lengths the depraved will go to for entertainment when they have the money to spend and how the temptation of money can corrupt a city's people. It may not be on the level of Psycho, but has created its own separate level. I would also argue that the first two Saw films are inventive and original, plus they are films that question morality and the triumph of the human will. I think people willfully dump on these kinds of movies because they feel the violence is too glorified, but many of them have significant redeeming value.

Being scared is not a prerequisite for me and horror films, but I love plenty that are truly scary.

For me, a great set of horror films has to include A Nightmare on Elm Street, a most important work, IMO.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Post by rolotomasi99 »

Eric wrote:
criddic3 wrote:They used to make decent horror movies from time to time. This decade is just devoid of any.

Very untrue ... the last 10 years have brought the likes of Pulse, Inland Empire, The Devil’s Rejects, Land of the Dead and Irréversible, all of which stand strong with the major horror films of other eras. Others like The Descent and Hostel I'm not a major fan of, but have their admirers. John Waters loves the hell out of the Final Destination series. I still haven't seen some well-regarded films like Wolf Creek, Inside and 28 Days Later.

Maybe it's not quite a renaissance on the order of the '70s and early '80s, but the genre is not moribund.
do not forget THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST. that movie was squirm inducing.

however, to me horror movies are supposed to be scary. none of these torture porn films are scary. of the ones you listed eric, only THE DESCENT truly terrified me. its overall tone of claustrophobia sent chills through me. maybe it is because i have actually gone spelunking. at one point, i had to crawl through a narrow passage and got stuck. i was only able to free myself with the help of my friends. the scenes without the mutant cannibals were the scariest in THE DESCENT. i actually started hyperventilating while watching that movie. i highly recommend it to anyone looking for a good scary movie to watch this halloween.

i agree with eric, though. they just do not make scary movies like they used to. the focus now is on the special effects to gross out the audience rather than actually scaring them. my favorite scary movies are PSYCHO, SUSPIRIA, THE HAUNTING, THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, HALLOWEEN, CARRIE, NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, THE EXORCIST, DON'T LOOK NOW, ALIEN, ROSEMARY'S BABY, POLTERGEIST, and THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. all those mentioned are the originals, not the horrible remakes.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
User avatar
Eric
Tenured
Posts: 2749
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:18 pm
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Contact:

Post by Eric »

criddic3 wrote:They used to make decent horror movies from time to time. This decade is just devoid of any.
Very untrue ... the last 10 years have brought the likes of Pulse, Inland Empire, The Devil’s Rejects, Land of the Dead and Irréversible, all of which stand strong with the major horror films of other eras. Others like The Descent and Hostel I'm not a major fan of, but have their admirers. John Waters loves the hell out of the Final Destination series. I still haven't seen some well-regarded films like Wolf Creek, Inside and 28 Days Later.

Maybe it's not quite a renaissance on the order of the '70s and early '80s, but the genre is not moribund.
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2874
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Post by criddic3 »

How did you guys get from The Birds to James Bond? LOL

I think it's ridiculous that they keep trying to remake Hitchcock movies, which are uniquely unsuitable for remaking. There's just no way to match the quality of his work.

They made a cable sequel in 1994, called Birds II: Lands End that included a cameo by Tippi Hedren. It was awful!

This is just an excuse to make a gory killer-bird movie. Why Clooney would get involved is beyond me. I mean, Michael Bay made the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake. Campbell is a good director for adventure movies, but I guess it's a sign of the times that there are no suspense/horror directors out there who could do justice to this material.

They used to make decent horror movies from time to time. This decade is just devoid of any. The only one I would outright recommend are Burton's Sweeney Todd and, maybe if pressed 30 Days of Night. I hope the remake of The Wolf Man turns out well. But that's another thread.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Post by rolotomasi99 »

OscarGuy wrote:For me, GoldenEye is not only the best Brosnan, but it's one of the top-middle best of the franchise. I also love the theme music and believe that the titles sequence is one of the 5 best in the franchise. What a fantastic opening.
hmmm. maybe i need to see it again. all i remember is the death-by-thighs, which is the equivalent of the batsuit having nipples.

to me, CASINO ROYALE is THE DARK KNIGHT of the bond series. it takes its character very seriously, is able to move it to a more morally murky area, and is an expertly executed film all around. the villain is a bit of a bore, but new bond more than compensates.

of course, the action scenes are great. the airport chase is thrilling, and the venice finale is epic. however, the parkour scene just takes the cake as one of the best chase sequences ever put on film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56mZAPBgjAY
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
Zahveed
Associate
Posts: 1838
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:47 pm
Location: In Your Head
Contact:

Post by Zahveed »

OscarGuy wrote:For me, GoldenEye is not only the best Brosnan, but it's one of the top-middle best of the franchise. I also love the theme music and believe that the titles sequence is one of the 5 best in the franchise. What a fantastic opening.
It's the best Bond game, that's for sure.
"It's the least most of us can do, but less of us will do more."
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

For me, GoldenEye is not only the best Brosnan, but it's one of the top-middle best of the franchise. I also love the theme music and believe that the titles sequence is one of the 5 best in the franchise. What a fantastic opening.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Post by rolotomasi99 »

Penelope wrote:GoldenEye is the only Brosnan Bond that's still watchable.
all i really remember about that movie is famke janssen killing people by crushing them with her thighs. :p

i know the best bond films (particularly GOLDFINGER) are campy, but this just seem so stupid. however, the rest were craptastic too, so your statement is probably accurate penelope.

CASINO ROYALE...now that was a fantastic bond movie. i hope QUANTAM OF SOLACE is better than its title. i am still puzzled by the decision to have marc forster direct, but the trailer looks good.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
Penelope
Site Admin
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 11:47 am
Location: Tampa, FL, USA

Post by Penelope »

GoldenEye is the only Brosnan Bond that's still watchable.
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston

"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Post by rolotomasi99 »

Zahveed wrote:This remake has been in production for some time now and Naomi Watts has been in talks for a leading role.
nicole "remake" kidman must have not been available...or maybe they wanted this one to be a hit rather than the flops kidman has starred in (BEWITCHED, THE STEPFORD WIVES, THE INVASION).

what really has me worried is michael bay is producing. martin campbell directing is iffy. sure he made dreck like VERTICAL LIMIT, THE LEGEND OF ZORRO, BEYOND BORDERS, etc., but he also made one of the best james bond movies (CASINO ROYALE), although he is also responsible for one of the worst (GOLDENEYE).
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
Zahveed
Associate
Posts: 1838
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:47 pm
Location: In Your Head
Contact:

Post by Zahveed »

This remake has been in production for some time now and Naomi Watts has been in talks for a leading role.
"It's the least most of us can do, but less of us will do more."
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

The casting news isn't why Hitch is rolling over...the idea of yet another remake of one of his films is, however.



Clooney Tipped To Star In The Birds

24 October 2008 5:09 AM, PDT

The Birds star Rod Taylor was wary of a remake of the 1963 movie - until he learned George Clooney is favourite to take the lead role.

Clooney is tipped to play lawyer Mitch Brenner in a remake of Alfred Hitchcock's classic horror film.

And Taylor predicts Clooney will do a better job than any other actor.

He says, "I often cringe when I hear mention of remakes, but I'll hold judgement, especially since I've been told Clooney's the favourite."
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Post Reply

Return to “2009”