The Hot Blog

I've just recently found out that Good Luck Chuck not only is in the comedy genre, but also that it has a plot that involves more than just staring at Jessica Alba's attributes. Neither of these things have been apparent in any aspect of its marketing campaign up to now.

But using Chucky in Jersey's logic, the fact that the ad campaign doesn't use name-checking must mean that the movie is worth seeing, right?

Jeff; you watched both Hostels in a theatre. So... yeah... it's worth seeing -- for you. HIYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

I don't know if this is Jeff's typical masturbation material, unless Jessica gets tortured to death in it, which is possible if Dane Cook starts telling her some of his "jokes."

My understanding is that she plays a klutz, thus giving her an opportunity to prove she is as inept at slapstick as she is in every other genre.

Ian, please stop fantasizing about me masturbating.

Jeff,

Totally off topic. Did you see Halloween and what did you think? I couldn't find your thoughts on it.

Nicol, click my name for a link to my blog where I wrote a review of it (short version: mixed bag but overall I enjoyed it).

Sit down, Jeff.

Okay. I agree with pretty much everything you said. The first act is actually quite good and after the initial argument I thought the way it depicted the child Myers was quite chilling.

I also thought Sheri Moon did a good job of not being a one dimensional 'white trash' mom. She did what she had to do to put food on the table but was just in a bad set of circumstances. I like her look too.

The film does get flawed in the home stretch but overall yes; flawed but not a bad film at all. Much better than what the crix and fans are saying.

Nicol, Jeff, I could maybe agree that Halloween wasn't as awful as many said. It's actually not badly made; Zombie isn't a complete hack and I think he believes in the material and kinda knows what he's doing in terms of performances and, actually, writing dialogue. I like how his characters in the movie have actual conversations; they don't just speak in exposition. Most of the performances are good.

But the material in here is not so great. The first half is interesting but not particularly original origin-of-killer story (you mean... he was abused/teased as a child?! No way! Chilling!); the second half is a competently made but not particularly exciting slasher movie.

The big problem: Neither half is scary! Like, in the least. That's what struck me about it the most. I mean, Devil's Rejects isn't really scary either (and House of 1000 Corpses is outright boring), but it's not really going for scary. I wasn't sure what Halloween was going for, except grafting bits of Zombie's sensibility (white-trash characters, swear-heavy dialogue) onto old material.

And I'm not carrying some torch for Carpenter's original; I actually haven't seen it yet (I meant to watch it beforehand, but when it became too late I figured, hey, I'll be one of the few film fans watching it with a somewhat clean slate).

Jesse,

No, it wasn't scary per se, but nowadays, what is?

What I did think the first half was, was unsettling and disturbing. It made me feel awful. As though I was watching a train wreck about to happen and couldn't avoid the catastrophe. For a horror film, that works for me.

I also thought that he wasn't making Myers sympathetic so much as saying that even with an 'unjust' childhood, one can still cross a line into behaviour that cannot be justified or excused in anyway and go into evil.

That is the lesson Loomis has to learn in this. The Danny Trejo character also learns it too late. Again, the latter half is flawed, but I really did like the first portion. Moon also stood out for me.

Nicol, I think we probably agree on quite a lot, depending on the subject.

I'm fine with a movie merely being entertaining. If a horror movie is actually scary it's a true rarity, maybe one movie a year.

As regards Danny Trejo, though, I don't think he has a 'lesson to learn'. He doesn't really deserve any comeuppance - what happens to him is Rob Zombie refusing to sentimentalize his characters in the Hannibal Lecter sense where 'good' characters are left safe while 'bad' characters like Ray Liotta in Hannibal are given grotesque death scenes (that said, I still like Hannibal).

"No, it wasn't scary per se, but nowadays, what is?"

So, the movie gets slack cut for it because horror in general is pretty sucky at the moment? Not trying to start a fight, but that doesn't wash. But then I'm also tired of Zombie being cut slack because he pulls one or two decent sequences out of his movies each time. When he delivers an entire feature-length film that lives up to the promise of his best sequences and some embryonic ideas then I'd be willing to cut him some more. HALLOWEEN was a pretty standard serial-killer origin story with the original story stapled on out of obligation. Neither part really fit together and none of it was compelling beyond a couple of well done parts.

What can be scary these days? Any number of things. The slasher and torture subgenres are pretty well past their sell-by dates, though. Someone needs to get in there and freak us out again so that horror movies don't get by with being "pretty good compared to what we've been getting lately."

Halloween is as bad as most people are saying. Like Death Proof, it will be a kind of litmus test for me.

People who tell me they loved Death Proof make my head hurt.

People who say Halloween isn't that bad need to check their papers.

Rob Zombie couldn't even construct a single solitary jump scare. He telegraphed every scene. There wasn't a moment where you didn't see M.M. creeping up a solid minute before the kill.

Like Death Proof, Halloween felt like a movie made by someone claiming to love the genre, yet uses none of the principles of the films they're claiming to pay tribute to.

It's a head scratcher.

Oh, Anghus, for Christ's sake, get over yourself. "Litmus tests" for film are by and large idiotic. I can at least kind of, sort of understand them when they're phrased in terms of positives -- if someone doesn't like a particular movie you love, you would have a hard time trusting them -- but the whole business of "if you like x, you're an idiot, and if you don't hate y, you're a super-idiot" is fucking pointless. Really? People who tell you they loved Death Proof make your head hurt? Is your head in more-or-less constant splitting pain, then? Because an awful lot of people loved it. I'm not saying that makes you wrong, mind you, or that it makes the movie good (though in this case, you are wrong and the movie was good; that's not the point, though). I'm just saying, it sounds like whining to me. If you wanted to say that a particular argument about the movie (apart from "it was really good") boils you blood, go for it. But the "if you like this, YOU HAVE NO TASTE" school of online non-criticism holds no water with me.

So I guess I shouldn't be surprised that your argument about Halloween is pretty empty. Halloween didn't have any jump-scares? I guess what you mean is that it didn't EVEN have any jump-scares but I've seen plenty of movies worse than Halloween that put together jump-scares so I don't see how that factors into anything.

I'm not saying Halloween is cliche-free (in fact, if I had reviewed it I would've given it two stars or whatever the equivalent of a "meh" review is), but the amazing thing about your argument is that you seem to be saying it would be a better movie if it had more of them.

I love Death Proof and Halloween isn't bad.

For Death Proof, a big part of why I loved it was exactly because Tarantino deliberately went against the grain of the films he was paying homage to. For Halloween, I don't know, prove to me that it was bad.

LB: my point was that maybe one movie per year is actually scary. That slot was already filled this year by 28 Weeks Later, so it was not necessary for Halloween to be anything other than entertaining.

No, I get your point. I just want more than one scary movie a year. (And 28WL only partially filled the bill for me.)

Added to which I didn't find Zombie's HALLOWEEN entertaining. But I don't think your different opinion of it makes you less of a person. We just disagree.

Every now and then you see a movie made for (and by) people who do nothing but watch movies. Death Proof is that movie. The moment when Kurt Russell gets the hottie in his car, sees the other women leave and turns to the camera and smiles, pretty much sums up the orgasmic joy of cinema for me.

a lot of people liked Death Proof?

really?

The box office says otherwise, and the general consensus is, at best, mixed. There is hardly the mad across the board love of Pulp Fiction or Kill Bill. The movie was met by a tepid reaction by a lot of people. To claim 'a lot of people' like Death Proof is bold.

the jump scare train of thought works out like this. There isn't a genuine scary moment in the entire movie, and the jump scare, being the laziest trick in the horror handbag isn't even used. What makes Halloween so useless is that the first reel isn't even bad. It's a freaky little set up, though every death is telegraphed. The brutality of it works well. But then, the rest of the movie, you see this gigantic fucking lumbering brute standing in the background a good minute or two before every murder.

How is that scary?

Zombie, like so many horror filmmakers these days believe in showing everything and leaving nothing to the imagination. It's all right there on the screen. A reimagining of a film with no imagination.

That sums up Zombie's work well.

Anghus, while I wasn't a big fan of Death Proof, we all know that big box office does not necessarily mean that audiences liked the film or that it was a "good" film.

Other than that, though, I agree with most of what you're saying. But I think that if Rob Zombie had called his movie anything other than "Halloween" and called his main character John Smith, nobody would be outraged by the film. It also wouldn't have made thirty million dollars in its first weekend. I think Zombie had very little interest in making a "Halloween" movie, he just wanted to keep making the same type of misanthropic grimy picture that he'd already made twice before and I think it's a shame that the title "Halloween" had to be used just to make a few bucks. Then again, it's not like he ruined that title any more than the Busta Rhymes/webcam installment.

Where are you getting your figures for 'general consensus'? Most people I know liked Death Proof a lot. Grindhouse has an 82% positive on Rotten Tomatoes and a 77 on Metacritic, and I assume that those numbers are dragged down by Planet Terror.

I like Rob Zombie's films because in their best moments, they have absolutely zero interest in being boo scary. They're more about watching awful people do awful things, which is why in Halloween when the movie reverts to being a typical slasher movie it's something of a let down - but it's still far better at that than anything I've seen in a few years.

critics aren't mainstream movie fans, and when i say 'people', i'm usually not talking about critics.

that's two separate debates right there.

critics gave it a pass. but tarantino could film someone shitting in a box and i'd bet half the critics out there would find kind words for it. critics fall head over heels for certain filmmakers and even their greatest mistakes are forgiven and kind adjectives are doled out.

I'm not saying there aren't people out there who genuinely liked Death Proof, i'm just still trying to figure out what they liked. Because i'd say half to more than half of the people i talked to about Grindhouse were bored to tears by Death Proof and gave Planet Terror higher marks for at least delivering on the promise of a cheeseball flick.

Back to the Rob Zombie Debate.

Look at the Grindhouse trailers. Watch Werewolf Women of the SS, then watch Don't.

One is an incredibly funny, subtle piece that gets the genre it's spoofing. The other doesn't have a single solitary level other than the title and then showing just exactly what the title proposes. Sure, it delivers exactly what the title promises, but aren't movies supposed to be more than literal interpretations?

i think Zombie is a guy with style, but there's nothing beneath the shiny wrapping paper. Personally, i'll take an uglier package with something inside.

Werewolf Women is probably the worst thing he's directed, so it's not fair to judge him by that. Devil's Rejects is a superior piece of trash filmmaking. I don't think I laughed harder in a movie theater than I did at the scene with the guy selling chickens on the side of the road.

And what do I care how many people in the general populace liked Death Proof? That's like saying Rules of the Game is a bad film because it's in a foreign language and therefore boring.

no, it's not the same thing.

it doesn't matter what they think, but certainly it's easier to defend the merits of a film that strikes a chord with a broad audience than one that is generally forgotten and dimissed rather quickly.

To that end, it's also easier to defend it when people actually give a shit to take the time to go and see it.

I've heard a lot of people tell me they loved 300 or hated Pirates of the Carribean 3. The key is that they took the time to see it.

Grindhouse hit theaters with a thud. People just didn't give a shit. So whether it's good or bad can be debated, but it's difficult to debate the general lack of interest from the ticket buying public. And you can say what you will about run times and shitty marketing but at the end of the day people just didn't care.

I eagerly await the "but it will do gangbusters on DVD" comments.

I don't see what your point is. Not very many went to see Grindhouse, granted. I still loved it (or at least, I loved Death Proof and I was amused by Planet Terror). It's certainly easier to defend the merits of a popular movie, because fewer people are going to argue the point with you. But a good movie is a good movie, and this year of my ten favorite movies so far, only one has grossed more than $35 million domestic. We all like to use popularity as a way to support our arguments (___ must be a good movie because ___ number of people saw it) but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter.

jeff, i get what you're saying. but a 'good' movie is subjective, and if you're going to reduce a film discussion to 'i think it's good, and that's my opinion', then every discussion is going to be painfully short.

Anghus; do you think Death Proof is not going to sell this Tuesday on DVD? I can see that DVD making up almost single-handedly for the domestic release of the film, but my vision could be blured. Nevertheless... Zoe Bell saves that film. Without her: It's a goofy flick written by a man who has no idea how to capture a genuine female voice.

That aside; the scariest flick of the year is 28 Weeks Later? Really? Stupidest and most contrieved movie of the year in the horrour genre not counting Eli Roth's HOSTEL part II -- INDEED!

Anghus, you misunderstand what my intention is: you said people who love Death Proof make you head hurt, and I'm trying to make your head hurt. I'm not averse to discussion, but the ball is in your corner.

IOIOI: Really? What would you nominate in its place?

Horror movies that I saw this year that were more stupid and contrived than 28 Weeks Later (warning, masochism ahead):

1408
Hostel 2
Bug
Hatchet
Halloween
Mr. Brooks
Disturbia
Dead Silence
Vacancy
Captivity
The Invasion
The Messengers
Blood and Chocolate
The Hills Have Eyes II
The Hitcher

Disturbia is not a horror movie.

True, but it was definitely stupid and contrived.

I don't know. Nothing in 1408 had me slapping my forehead like 28WL trying to make me believe that in a city under complete military lockdown they aren't going to post at least one guard outside the lab that holds THE ONLY INFECTED HUMAN. Or that "the rage" turns you into a mindless berserker except for the one guy who is amazingly adept at using his key card and finding his kids across town. Or that just because the guy works on air conditioners that he can literally go wherever he wants any time he wants and never has to check in with anyone. Or...

Hey, that night vision scene was freaky.

You're missing the forest for the trees.

I won't even mention them jettisoning the single most interesting relationship/idea in the movie so we could get on with the repetitive horror/action.

When the trees are telling me that this entire story would fall apart if just one person made even an elementary school level decision or choice, sorry.

And I don't buy the "just like all the mistakes we made in Iraq" argument either. It doesn't work as allegory because, well, it just doesn't work as allegory.

And my response was to the "stupid and contrived" category. I'll let anyone argue "stupid", since that's kind of a grade-school put down that I try to avoid. But I defy anyone to say the movie wasn't as contrived as contrived comes.

What was the most interesting relationship/idea that was jettisoned?

Clearly, this was all a matter of taste. I can see most of the contrivances you're talking about, but none of them really bothered me.

The survivor guilt of the father tied to his moment of cowardice and how he presents that/hides it from his children and how it's compacted by the arrival (and subsequent fate) of the mother. So much potential there in any number of ways and it was just tossed aside to make way for the same old same old. Very little character development beyond the basics and nothing that stuck with me as much as a large portion of DAYS did.

Well, I thought 28 Days Later completely self-destructed in its third act as most Danny Boyle movies do, so there you go.

Part of the problem with Death Proof/GrindHouse is that GH was conceived as a horror film but QT wanted to do his veriosn of Vanishing Point which is barely even a chase film, let a lone a horror flick.

I finally caught VP recently and while it did not make me like Death Proof any more, it did help me understand it.

The problem is VP is a B level pseudo existential road trip movie, with very little action or chase scenes. If it spoke to QT, fine, but it is not a film that is really even emblematic of 70's GH films let alone a chase or a horror pic.

I suspect this is where QT's heart was when he was approached with the concept of GH and he thought he could shoehorn that idea into the horror concept. I think that is a factor as to why GH failed. As a concept, it really doesn't know what it is.

Death Proof is certainly not a horror film. It is not Vanishing Point. It is nothing like GH films of the era. It is not a coherent story. It really just fails on so many leves because QT didn't know what he wanted to do with it.

Fair enough, Jeff. And I didn't want to imply that DAYS is perfect, just that it stuck with me more than the sequel (which I thought self-destructed in the second act, which is another reason I didn't care for it.)

Yeah, 28 Days Later may have self-destructed in the third act (although I don't think that it really did), but there was nothing in the lousy sequel that even got close to it.

If I remember right, CHUD had a great review of 28 Weeks Later that pointed out the idiocy of the whole movie. I hated that it seemed to set up an interesting story and then a third in, that's gone and it's nothing but chasing. Maybe it's because I loved the first one so much that I really hated the sequel, which was just a mindless, typical horror movie.

Nicol, I agree with you that Death Proof is not really a horror film, and it's not Vanishing Point 2000, and it's not a standard narrative. But it is a Quentin Tarantino film, and as something that refused to play by the rules, I loved it. Probably the same reason why I was so happy when 28 Weeks Later set the groundwork for a narrative involving the dad's guilt, then sabotaged that to go directly into the horror narrative.

I bow to your superiority, jeff.

No, wait, I meant I'm bored and going to go do something else.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: