Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Site Polls' started by rhett, Jun 27, 2010.
Yeah I agree with Rhett on all his points. I do think Halloween is overrated but it still has so much going for it that the average slasher doesn't, comparing it to stuff like Final Exam is ludicrous. As for it being dated, I have never seen that as negative. Most of my favorite Horror films i.e Carrie, Exorcist, TCM, Evil Dead, The Shining look their time period. That doesn't make them any less amazing.
Sorry. I don't see Halloween as anything amazing. I will admit that Sean Cunningham didn't know what he was doing, and the cinematography was a complete fluke on the film's part. I mean, for what was going on behind the scenes, F13 is quite a spectacle. But Halloween just feels so dry, I can hardly get into it. Some scenes are nice, but...no. I seriously don't see the care in it. A killer breaks out of a loony bin and attacks a random girl and her friends. On a night that is certainly no Halloween I've ever seen. Nada...I respect peoples' views and love for the films and its series, but I can't get behind it when it just feels so 'blah' to me. Sorry.
Yeah man I actually think you're being seriously harsh on Halloween. Final Exam is a steaming pile of shit (the only reason I've held onto my DVD of it is because it's now extremely rare). But nah, you can't compare it to trash like that. Its cinematography I think is one of the things the film still has going for it. When I said I think it's dated, I meant that it's become very cliche, and that's not necessarily the film's fault. Because of its success, it was copied (much like the way Friday the 13th did) over and over and over and thus, the content of Halloween has become extremely cliche. But the cinematography in Friday the 13th is crap. I mean, the scenery is nicer because it takes place in the woods, but other than that....ugh. Friday the 13th is a terrible film, with shitty acting, poor production values (just compare it with part 2 and you'll see the differences, Friday the 13th Part 2 being a glossier, more professional-looking film). Friday the 13th has dated much worse, as it exemplifies the cliches of slasher films. Halloween has dated, but Friday the 13th is just campy, corny, 100% fromage. Okay, the killer's a woman. So what? It's really not that good a film. While I think Halloween gets too much credit, I think you're not giving it enough. It's a well-made film, it's just become very cliche'd.
Films like The Shining, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Thing, Carrie, Scanners, Videodrome, The Dead Zone, The Fly, etc IMO hold up MUCH MUCH better than Halloween. Even Black Christmas I think holds up better. Sure ALL these films "look their age", but I think that's more from a cinematographic sense. The content of Halloween is what's dated.
Oh yeah, and you gotta give Halloween credit for the opening scene that's one long take (although he pretty much stole that idea from Welles' Touch of Evil, but whatever).
Dead Ringers (1988) ......... Halloween
The Fly (1986)............ The Thing
The Dead Zone (1983)........ Escape from New York
Videodrome (1983)........... The Fog
Scanners (1981) ............. Christine, Prince of Darkness, They Live, Big Trouble in Little China
What does that even mean?
I have no idea myself. :eek2:
I understand what you're saying, but i gotta disagree on pretty much every count. the only one that comes close it the thing...but its up against the fly, which is one of cronenbergs best. its still just no contest.
I guess we will agree to disagree.
I mean, the acting in F13 isn't great, but Halloween's isn't either. Annie and Bob and don't shoot me, but even Loomis are filled with awkwardness, overreaching and camp value. But whatever...moving on...
Explain it to me then? Is this a "this movie vs that movie" kinda thing? Because honestly...it still makes no sense. Why would you compare The Fog with Videodrome? What the hell? And Christine, Prince of Darkness, They Live and Big Trouble in Little China with Scanners???
I don't mean to be such a dick, I just can't understand the logic or reasoning here.
A tie between Carpenter & Cronenberg for me, so I won't be voting.
Are we just considering their 80's output here ? I kind of lost the thread when HALLOWEEN came into the picture.
If you are strictly talking about the 80's I'll give Carpenter a slight edge,his output was wider and I think more consistant.If we are covering their whole body of work,that's a different story.
Carpenter, watched The Fog just last night.
yeah, thats what i was going with....*shrug*
While I doubt this will change anyone's vote, I thought I'd point out a couple of the things Rhett has said about the poll. He asks which director's horror films have aged the best. And he specifically said that he excluded Raimi because so much of his work has been out of the genre. To me that means that this would include films like Halloween and Naked Lunch, and exclude things like Big Trouble and Eastern Promises. And, while we are voting on a director, if you think that TCM has stood the test of time better than any other film, then I guess you would vote for Hooper, even if you thought that the rest of his stuff was crap. I chose Cronenberg because I think Brood, Fly and Videodrome haven't lost any of their power. As much as I love Carpenter and Argento, I think Cronenberg's best is fresher than theirs. As good as Halloween is, I have to admit that it has lost a bit of its edge due to all the copycats. Likewise with Argento.
i agree with you about Carpenter (one reason I didn't vote for him), but for me Suspiria has held up far better than the Fly, for example. Maybe the foreign setting (foreign to me, as an American), helps offset some of the datedness.
I just watched the Fly again recently, and the bit towards the end where it kind of turns into a superhero/action movie (when Brundlefly kidnaps Geena Davis) just screams 80s to me. On the other hand, Cronenberg was never my favorite, so that might color my perception too.
Cronenberg, Cronenberg, Cronenberg.
As others have said, a few of Carpenter's films feel very dated to me, whereas Cronenberg's grow more disturbing with every viewing.
Cronenberg. Hands down. I can watch The Fly over and over again and it STILL has some of the best effects, and its still fucking disgusting even in 2010.
I would love to have said Dario, but the poor dubbing of the time is just not done today, as Subs are much more accepted.
Carpenter.............close, but only cause he newer films were not that good.
I'd have to say Cronenberg if only cause his anti- body, anti-medical/establishement themese are still relevant.