Unpopular opinions!

Discussion in 'General' started by _pi_, Nov 6, 2007.

  1. Matt89

    Matt89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    6,106
    Likes Received:
    1,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto
    I've gotta be honest, I don't see what you're talking about. Where exactly does she whine? Carrie doesn't whine, even if she did, she'd have good reason. She was a shy awkward teenager due to the fact that she had no friends and everybody made fun of her. Not to mention her mother was an insane religious fanatic. The film is set-up very well, and I wouldn't say it plods on and on. FINAL EXAM plods on and on. Those '80s slashers that have say, 2 murders in the beginning of the film and then go a whole 45 mins to an hour without a single murder...THOSE films plod on and on.

    You can't feel empathy towards her? Not after what those girls did to her in the shower? Not after the way her mother treats her? Not after the way Sue was kind enough to help Carrie out and her plan backfired horribly? If there's one person who deserves empathy in ANY horror film, it's Carrie.

    But meh, if you found it boring, I mean hey, you found it boring. Not much I can really do to convince you. Sure you may not have liked it, but that doesn't mean it's a bad film.


    Well it's not classic horror, it's classic films in general. Either way, Carrie was probably like the 3rd horror film I ever saw. I've always loved it because it is a brilliant film.

    ~Matt
     
  2. DVD-fanatic-9

    DVD-fanatic-9 And the Next Morning, When the Campers Woke Up...

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,079
    Likes Received:
    411
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horror
    I know what you mean. I've been finally for the first time dipping into the classics. Can't say I really liked a single one. In the past month I watched: Cat People, The Wolf Man, and Dracula. None of them really got me. But certain pieces of them did. Some scenes. I think maybe they are a little overrated. I mean, I don't pretend to know anything about the classic era of cinema. But when I started about 2 years ago, I enjoyed Jailhouse Rock and Father of the Bride a lot. But the horror movies don't seem to be nearly as impressive or interesting. Not to mention I tried The Uninvited and was almost in tears I was yawning so much.



    Never quite expected to see Metallica and Marilyn Manson put into the same group. I mean, clearly Metallica is so huge and all that that they're sort of like The Beatles of metal and there've probably been books written about them and made movies and sold lots of DVDs of their live stuff and hell, they could make a fortune off a DVD just titled Metallica: On the Toilet. You know? Marilyn Manson was a combination of a lot of experimentation with sound and a lot of different styles. I mean, frick- when you look at their first albums- they sampled James Brown and radio novelty tunes from the 1950's, as well as Halloween sound effects, talk shows, and covering 80's new wave / synth-pop artists like The Eurythmics. But yeah, I guess they'd sort of sound the same to the untrained ear. Either way, they are united by one thing: neither of them 'just' scream.

    Don't know what "Emo" music is. I still don't know what Emo is. People expend way too much thought and energy on labeling and identifying new trends... do they think they sound clever doing so? We shouldn't support this insanity by playing along. Dare to be different. Once in a while at least, won't kill ya.
     
  3. Matt89

    Matt89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    6,106
    Likes Received:
    1,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto
    Never been much of a fan of The Wolf Man myself, but Cat People has to be one of the greatest horror films made in the '40s. There are very strong and interesting undertones of lesbianism in the film, was highly controversial when it came out. But, I can totally see why people can't get too much into horror fom the "Classical Era". I don't think I own a single horror film from that era. Musicals, comedies and noir films from that era are what I think stick out the most and have the everlasting appeal.

    ~Matt
     
  4. DVD-fanatic-9

    DVD-fanatic-9 And the Next Morning, When the Campers Woke Up...

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,079
    Likes Received:
    411
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horror
    Oh, and the music scores very much sound alike. I think the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's brought about a lot more experimentation and style and art in the genre.

    Clearly I haven't had enough experience with classic films, but Cat People is in my mind the weakest classic horror film I've seen in years, second only to Uninvited. As for the lesbiana... She just seemed jealous to me, maybe a little too jealous with not much reason to be, but hell- this was 1940's portrayals of women. Alice got most of her pleasure in the film from cigarettes. A very giving gal, but- what did she really receive? A child and a lot of familial disharmony in the sequel. Oh, critics might say she got the guy, but, she spent too much of the movie concerning herself with how unhappy her friend is and trying to comfort "the other woman."
     
  5. X-human

    X-human I ate my keys

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2003
    Messages:
    8,724
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Illinois
    Not sure if this would be "unpopular" in so much as never thought about but I would say that H.P. Lovecraft would almost certainly hate 99% of all the horror films made based off of his material. There's zero doubt in my mind that he would of despised Re-Animator.

    All those who say they're fans and drew inspiration from him (including myself) would all get a rude awakening when he'd call all our tastes in horror as terrible and disown us all. There's no doubt in my mind that little if any of the adaptation and continuations of his work would be seen as anything but revolting to Lovecraft.
     
  6. Matt89

    Matt89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    6,106
    Likes Received:
    1,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto
    Yeah I'd agree with that, but I'd say it was more the '60s and '70s as opposed to the '80s and '90s. The horror genre was killed in the mid-'80s, I think. Not much of a revival in the '90s either, and the horror genre has more or less remained the same ever since. It took a while for horror to fully develop to what it became in the '60s and '70s, primarily because of the Hollywood Production Code. Even still, the stuff coming out of Europe was way ahead of its time. (Michael Powell's Peeping Tom and Bergman's Hour of the Wolf are two great examples.)

    But horror I believe is still the weakest aspect of classic film. If you want to start getting into it, I would seriously recommend that you do not start with horror. Horror flourished in the '60s and '70s, whereas "The Golden Age of Cinema" I believe flourised throughout the '30s-late '50s, and then with the introduction of "New Hollywood" in the late '60s (Bonnie & Clyde, The Graduate) cinema once again picked up, for about 15 years or so and now everything since has been pretty much hit and miss.

    ~Matt
     
  7. Paff

    Paff Super Moderator

    Joined:
    May 14, 2000
    Messages:
    8,664
    Likes Received:
    1,006
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SoCal
    Maybe this is somewhere already in the first 31 pages, but I HATE heavy metal, and I hate that it's tied in with horror so much. As in, every time there's some horror themed event, it's loaded up with extremely fat or extremely skinny guys with long hair and scraggly facial hair wearing black band T-shirts.
     
  8. Workshed

    Workshed A Barge Person

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    Messages:
    10,003
    Likes Received:
    1,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    CA
    *looks down at The Sword logo on black hoodie while watching Feast 2*
     
  9. Matt89

    Matt89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    6,106
    Likes Received:
    1,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto
    Fuckin' WORD.

    ~Matt
     
  10. Rockmjd

    Rockmjd Guest

    Yes, in fact the previous post. ;)
     
  11. DVD-fanatic-9

    DVD-fanatic-9 And the Next Morning, When the Campers Woke Up...

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,079
    Likes Received:
    411
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horror
    Pure ignorance right there. Sorry, but it's the truth. I mean, yeah a lot of overrated movies came out in the late 80's and early 90's (Prince of Darkness, Evil Dead II, Halloween 4-6, some of Soavi's stuff, several etc's). But Jesus- Peter Jackson's Dead Alive and Bad Taste, Frank Henenlotter's Brain Damage, Killer Klowns from Outer Space, Stuart Gordon's From Beyond and Dolls (I find both to be superior to Re-Animator), several incredible Troma offerings (I count even the ones they acquired, not made). The 1990's was the revival of classic / period horror (Bram Stoker's Dracula, Sleepy Hollow, Mary Reilly), psychological horror (Silence of the Lambs, Misery), black horror (Def by Temptation, Tales from the Hood), and sci-fi horror / monster movies (Tremors, Gremlins 2, Arachnobphobia). All of which produced several absolutely outstanding films. You seem to only be counting the negatives, not the positives. But anyway, I'll admit it's not as cool as the 1980's was. But "killed"? Nuh-uh. :) Especially not when the sheer intelligence and immense quality of Misery and Silence of the Lambs literally started the decade off on a much better foot than the 1980's.

    I don't know what you think horror lost (after I'll hazard to guess you mean '85- year of RotLD/R-A/DotD), but a guy as smart as you has probably recognized that horror changes forms. Time changes the genre. Nobody can stop time. I rather find that horror kind of went on a break many times during the 1990's but that helped to produce more ambitous horror projects, even if there weren't by and large so many of them. The problem with the 1990's is the same problem with the 1980's- it wasn't ongoing. It stopped and then started all over again: rip-offs and sequel-itis. And of course remakes which spilled into this decade something awful.




    Funnily enough, I have already seen Graduate and B&C. Years ago. Just for the hell of it. Without all the IMDb buzz and all that sort of thing.
     
  12. Matt89

    Matt89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    6,106
    Likes Received:
    1,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto
    Well no, not really, I wouldn't call it ignorance. It's more of a casual observation. It's not about what horror lost, but what did it retain? Very little, if you ask me. Sure they may have come up with new approaches to the genre, but was it good? I'd say no it wasn't. It's all matter of opinon, notice I said "I think" the genre was killed in the mid-'80s. I said horror didn't have much of a revival in the '90s, not none at all. What I meant was that the new take on the horror genre in the '60s and '70s resulted in the making of some absolutely brilliant films: Repulsion, Hour of the Wolf, The Haunting, Rosemary's Baby, The Wicker Man, Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, The Exorcist, Carrie, Last House on the Left, Peeping Tom, Psycho (as much as I don't believe it to be horror, it was definitely an inspiration), Alien, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Shining, The Omen, Black Christmas, Halloween, etc. The horror genre was more consistent in the quality of films released, whereas the '90s was more of a hit and miss situation.

    Outstanding horror in the '80s and '90s? Tremors, Dolls(!), Arachnophobia, Killer Klowns From Outer Space, Dead Alive, Bad Taste? Outstanding? Not in the LEAST. They just kept on spewing film after film to make a quick buck. (Every major horror franchise was run INTO THE GROUND by the mid-late '80s!) Sure, some directors really worked at what they were trying to get across, but was it as successful as the majority of films that came out in the '60s and '70s? No. Certainly not.

    Alot of the "living dead" type films that came out in the '80s and '90s were just cash-grabs on bigger and better films. Romero's Dawn of the Dead had something to say, but this is exactly my point. What did the "zombie" film retain from Romero's film? Certainly not the message. It was the gore, the violence. These "clones" are almost devoid of everything. That isn't to say that I don't enjoy a good cheesy movie from the late '80s and into the '90s, but what I mean is that the horror genre was not nearly as consistent as the quality films that were released in the '60s and '70s. The majority of good horror films of the late '80s and '90s were quite few and very far between.

    That's what I meant by the horror genre died. It once had much to say. It no longer does, not to mention it was run into the ground by meaningless cash-grabs and it has never managed to right itself ever since.

    Also, Silence of the Lambs is not a horror film. It's a crime-thriller. Very different. It has a different focal point which disqualifies it as horror. And Misery, I believe just barely qualifies as horror. It's more of a psychological thriller. The movie focuses more on Annie's state of mind and her split personality rather than the horror of the situation.

    Thank you. You just made my point. :D

    ~Matt
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2008
  13. Matt89

    Matt89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    6,106
    Likes Received:
    1,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto
    And I'm starting to think now that I was a little harsh on my opinion of classic horror. Even looking back on those films: Dracula, Frankenstein, Howard Hawks' The Thing, Cat People, etc. They all had something to say. But, I don't believe that horror was able to flourish to its potential because of the limitations of the Hollywood Production Code, they merely worked around it, and in some ways, that definitely worked to their advantage. Looking back at it now, you know what? Yes, I'd certainly consider it a "Golden Age" for horror. The late '80s and '90s? Not so much.

    ~Matt
     
  14. Matt89

    Matt89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    6,106
    Likes Received:
    1,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto
    I couldn't agree more. I was thinking this EXACT thing when watching The Dunwich Horror on TCM the other night. And, as much as I think Re-Animator is a great film, yes. I agree with you 100% on that one. With the modern take that all film adaptations of his books seem to have...I'm almost certain he would've hated it.

    ~Matt
     
  15. dave13

    dave13 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    5,628
    Likes Received:
    881
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    I think its hard to justify praising Robert Wise's The Haunting while dismissing Val Lewton's contributions to the horror genre, so I'm happy to see you re-evaluate your stance on 30's and 40's horror.

    As for our earlier discussion about carrie, maybe i let my dislike for sissy spacek as an actor cloud my comments. you're right, she doesn't whine all over the place (although her shrill voice crying "It's Carrie!!" still reminds me of claws on a chalkboard). I still think its borring, but i concede that i'd probably be more empathetic towards the character with someone else in the role. Perhaps *sigh* I should watch it AGAIN.

    and dvd-fanatic-9. im not a boy! im a man! and nor am i an animal. repeat. NOT an animal.
     
  16. spawningblue

    spawningblue Deadite

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    5,069
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
    Agreed.

    I know you should feel sympathy for her, and you do at parts especially with her crazy mom, but at the same time it's high school, deal with it! Everyone gets teased or picked on, some more then others, but still. I have seen a lot worse happen to kids when I was at school then tampons thrown at you. She's a nerd who gets picked on, so what!?

    It's not a bad film by any means though. It's a well written, directed, and acted film and I can see why some people really like it, but I personally just couldn't connect or care about the main character enough to. I own it, and am not disappointed I do, but at the same time I don't consider it one of my favourites. There are many films out there I would rather watch.

    I wasn't comparing Marilyn Manson to Metallica. I agree they are two completely different bands. They were just the first two to come to my head that I hate but hear talked about a lot, including on this site. I could go on listing bands that I dislike, but I just through out those two as an unpopular opinion as I know a lot of people on here like them.

    As for Emo, couldn't agree more. That's what I hate. There is really no classification for what "Emo" is. I just hate that everyone uses that term, or lumps in so many bands into that genre as a negative thing. Most bands hate the term, even though they are thrown into that genre. Any music that emotes emotion is considered emo, and I think Fall Out Boy or whatever are far from Emo music. The term started being used when bands like Sunny Day Real Estate or Mineral were out. It wasn't considered such a negative thing back then though. But in the past few years it has become the new fad for 12 year old girls, and dudes wearing women's clothing and eye shadow, so in turn a joke. All of a sudden it became an embarrassment to like any of that music, even though everything was being lumped in that category. I'm sorry but Sunny Day, Fall Out Boy, Thrice, and The Appleseed Cast should not all be thrown into the same category of music, as they are all quite different from each other lyrically and musically. I think people need to listen to the music before judging it, and not hating it because 12 year old girls decided to label it Emo.
     
  17. DVD-fanatic-9

    DVD-fanatic-9 And the Next Morning, When the Campers Woke Up...

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,079
    Likes Received:
    411
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horror
    I actually think there's a lot of creepiness in humor itself, so I have a tendancy to think some of the best second-tier horror films are horror-comedies while many other fans get huffy about horror-comedies. Who am I kidding? I make no bones about how many first-tier horror films I think are also part-comedy: Dead Alive, Piranha, Dawn of the Dead, Killer Klowns from Outer Space, An American Werewolf in London, Evil Dead, etc.

    Related to the above, I also think there are very few great serious horror films. Throughout the entire genre (not just all the new-millennium survival flicks I've been pissing and moaning about the last few years, I'm talking: Romero's Day of the Dead, Carpenter's The Thing, Kubrick's The Shining - which was so stiff that at times it was just laughable for the wrong reasons, The Omen). Very few serious films that try to make the viewer think.

    Joe Dante said horror is about the-absurd. And I agree with him. A lot. I think a diet of mostly serious films and imagery numbs a person and requires less energy than films with comedic and fantasy themes. And I'm often all about effect - how it feels to actually sit through the movie. Style is important, and I prefer that hugely over the slickness to the look of all the Frailty's, Saw's, and French exploitation flicks this past decade. I can get that from Silence of the Lambs, or every 90's detective thriller Hollywood released.
     
  18. Hatchetwarrior

    Hatchetwarrior Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Messages:
    1,791
    Likes Received:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Farmingdale, New York
    I have to say, regarding the debate here between Matt and DF-9, I believe both of you have a lot I agree and disagree with. But the main problem I feel with this argument is the fact that everyone's definition of what a classic film is varies with each persons tastes cinematic-ally.

    From Matt's stand point, and this is what I've gathered reading his opinions here, is that a classic to him is a film that has something either Philosophical, sociological, or morally to say about the human condition. Now I agree, I love and appreciate anyone in film who is willing to go that route, but a classic, much like Dvd-Fanatic is arguing, can be something that has your various archetypal characters and story structure, but manages to bring something original and fresh (e.i. Killer Klowns, ect.) to the table.

    For me, a classic can fall into either two of the above mentioned categories. And to say that the 70's is some how the quintessential era for film making just because it has the most films under it's belt in terms of great cinematic quality and the following decades have been less consistent due to rip offs, remakes, ect. is nonsense to me. Even during the 70's there was plenty of shit films being churned out in drive-in's and grindhouses on a weekly basis. Hell, I could name quite a few films that came out in the 70's that were just as bad, if not worse, cinematic-ally than any thing Michael Bay or Paul W.S. Anderson have done.
     
  19. maybrick

    maybrick Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2001
    Messages:
    11,244
    Likes Received:
    950
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Keene, NH
    I love it when people revive threads that are years old and then others unknowingly try to soothe old debates as if they were made just last night. You may as well try to improve relations between the US and the southern Confederacy while you're at it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2010
  20. dave13

    dave13 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    5,628
    Likes Received:
    881
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    i remember this thread! i liked it. lets see some more unpopular opinions. How bout this: I read The Catcher in the Rye when I was in my early teens, which is when it's supposed to "speak to you," apparently. I hated it. Even then I thought: "This Holden guy is a whiny bitch. Suck it up and take some responsibility for your life." So yeah, my unpopular opinion: The Catcher in the Rye is a lousy book.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2010

Share This Page