GameBanshee Forums

@Yanlee: Ah, Jacob's ladder. Yes, that was good, I especially liked the unexpected ending.

great ending, but then, it was top notch all the way through.

It's pretty scary to think that really are Vietnam vets who were experimented on with those kind of chemicals.

@Jacobs Ladder, very shame it has got the evil Macauly Cullkin in it.

That movie has shocking moments, but the whole package isn't that scary, you want scary try the original 'Haunting' (not the horrible Joel Schumacer version), the only movie to ever make me sweat with tension, i quake at the thought of it

That is a good one The constant suspense level, done without gore or special effects. I rather liked The Changeling too.

Originally posted by Mr Sleep:
<STRONG>senor spielberg-o </STRONG>

"Get me Steven Spielberg!"

"He's busy, sir."

"Then get me his non-union mexican equivalent!"

Originally posted by Mr. Sleep:
<STRONG>As for Kubrik being the master, i am not so sure. He certainly was a master of his trade, but he didn't exactly do that many films, what he did was good, but he has a limited back catalogue to assess. (IMO) Now Hitch, that is a master </STRONG>

I think Kubrick was the master of technical finesse, sound, and lighting. The dolly shots in the shining are just one example. I watched a restored print of 2001 on a big screen (and I sat CLOSE!) about 5 years ago, and I COULD NOT SEE ANY GLITCHES in the space shots!!! Lucas had to go back and re-edit star wars to get that kind of perfection 25 years after he released the movie!

Now as far as getting movies made and making money, Kub was definitely NOT the master. I am so sad that he didn't make more movies, and the fact is he was a procrastinator and a perfectionist and those qualities are not good for being a prolific artist.

Hitch on the other hand got lots of great movies made. I admire him just as much as Kub and they are a good study in comparison. Hitch would not wait years until an effect got good enough, he put the shot in there even if it didn't look perfect and got the movie in the theater and people loved it (jim stewart falling at the end of Rear Window is just one example of a cheesy looking FX shot in a Hitch movie). Hitch never went over schedule, never went over budget. This is a very important aspect of director's craft that allowed him to be so successful and prolific. Coppola (who I don't like) and Terry Gilliam (who I do) could learn a lot from studying Hitch's methods and techniques.

The saddest example of a director who couldn't color between the lines and ended up with a failed career and a paltry output because of it was....Orson Welles.

Anyway I wanted to get back to you on this, Sleep, but I wanted to wait until you were awake.

Originally posted by THE JAKER:
<STRONG>I think Kubrick was the master of technical finesse, sound, and lighting. The dolly shots in the shining are just one example. I watched a restored print of 2001 on a big screen (and I sat CLOSE!) about 5 years ago, and I COULD NOT SEE ANY GLITCHES in the space shots!!! Lucas had to go back and re-edit star wars to get that kind of perfection 25 years after he released the movie!</STRONG>

I'll take your word for it, Kubrik certainly was skilled, i will give him that, he also managed to make a relitively unknown piece of opera into a well know classic (ergo the start sequence) i haven't watched one of his films just to study the diretorship, i might do that in the future. That speilberg thing is quite interesting, there was Blue Shift on Spielbergs work, almost like things are falling in on themselves (whoops i did physics GCSE ) but spielberg was never that good a director, and no i do not like ET i think it is boring and pathetic. I would extrapolate if anyone wants, but that is not what i am writing about at the moment.

Well being a perfectionist is certainly a good thing for a director, look at Joel "i hate him" Schumacer, i can not think of a good film by him, it is not necessarily his choices, it is his directing. Where as kubrik chose good scripts/books and made them into good/excellent films. I think the script has an impact on any director, but it is not what makes a film great.

Now where was i....oh yes......

Hitch was so prolific i have not actually seen all of his movies, the funny thing is even his supposedly poor films (stage fright etc.) are actually really good. I think this is a measure of him as a director, in that you can not name a bad film. Maybe some of the sequences do not work that well because of technical dificulties of the time, but he still produced an excellent film.

That Jim Stewart thing is cheesy, but that movie also doesn't rely on any form of technology, so you can get into the film without the need to analyse the technical frailties. Look at the birds for instance, the technical problems with that are tanamount, he just didn't have the technology to succeed in what he envisioned, but somehow that movie still has/had impact.

Coppola i used to like but as i have become more educated in the filmic art i have transcended any appreciation for his style or directing.

Gilliam however is good, but the strange thing is whenever i watch his films i do not notice his directing style, nothing of his input comes across. This might be a good thing, i am not sure.

The saddest example of a director who couldn't color between the lines and ended up with a failed career and a paltry output because of it was....Orson Welles.

3 of the best films ever made though

"He was some kind of man" Classic He could also act, which is something hitch or Kubrik couldn't do (gilliam can though)

<STRONG>Anyway I wanted to get back to you on this, Sleep, but I wanted to wait until you were awake. </STRONG>

Indeed i am, i had a question, did/do you go to film school or anything similar, i think i heard reference to it before.

[ 08-31-2001: Message edited by: Mr Sleep ]

I am never any good at identifying actors, never mind directors, but what I will say about Kubrik is that two of his films that I have seen (Clockwork Orange and The Shining) I have found as terrifying and intense as the books....though with The Shining quite a bit was left out...

I think Stephen King writes a lot of stuff that works incredibly well on the page but would be very hard to film effectively, that's why so many of the film adaptations of his books sock so bad!

Sleep I am going to respond to your last post one point at a time because I can't keep it all straight

I did not go to film school per se. (there is a funny bit about film school in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back - on target.)

I have taken classes in film history - very interesting. One thing I'll say for Coppola is he is a student of film history. I got my bachelor's degree in modern literature, but the dept at my college was very liberal, and the hot thing was to take the deconstructionist and or post-modern critical tools and apply them to other mediums besides fiction - i.e. autobiography and biography, journalism, history, law, comic books, and film (or anything, for that matter - some of these lit crits are such master spammers they could write a whole book about the ingredient list on a cracker jack box or craig's posts )

Anyway so we had film classes in the lit dept. The cinemAH professor I mentioned before taught a class in "New German Cinema" - my favorite director was Fassbinder.

So unlike everyone else in LA, I am not employed nor do I want to be employed in the film industry. I just like movies. There are some very good reference books that help in looking up facts about directors, actors and films, and I have read them a lot.

I like books too, Hey Sleep! (if I haven't PUT you to sleep with this tirade) have you ever read anything by Martin Amis? I was backpacking in Turkey with a guy from Wales named Phil once and we ended up fighting over his copy of "London Fields" for a week!

I'm wathing Lost in Space, right now, MAN this movie blows!
Never have I seen sutch a bad ending, the rest wasn't mutch neather.

@The Jaker - re Stephen King I agree. I used to be a massive King fan until mass production watered down his style.

The Shining was the only book ever I had to put down because I was too afraid to read it alone

Filmwise, I have seen nearly all of them. I don't know why I insist. The Shining and, to a degree, IT were a fair representation. The rest? nah...they just cannot capture the skill....

I think the most faithful and yet still good movie of one of his books was Pet Sematary.

My favorite book of his was "Salems Lot", but I've never seen the movie.

@Jaker, in true King style the book was slow to take off. I didn't feel the film really did...imo anyway.

The thing was, with Kings books, that though they were slow they were unputdownable. Until the last few years.

Have you ever read any Dean Koontz, James Herbert, or Clive Barker?

I like Dean Koontz, but i think some of his books are - "same book, different title". My favorites were: "Dark Rivers of The Heart" (Why no movie?!?!?!) and one i cannot recall the title where all the people of a small mountain town are dead - god that one was scary!

James Herbert, Clive Barker - haven't read enough to say anything. I like the clive barker movies though.

@Jaker - I thought I would see what you thought before I posted...

Dean Koontz - I read one. I was SO disappointed with the ending that I went no further....

Who was the Italian who said the biggest waste of time was a bad book?

Re James Herbert, well I suppose he is the English version of Stephen King, but not quite as verbose....

Clive Barker - to me the master of short stories...try The Books of Blood - hard to come by though...

Originally posted by Yshania:
<STRONG>@Jaker - I thought I would see what you thought before I posted... </STRONG>

Are you testing me?

Dean koontz's weakness is his endings for sures...

@Jaker - no I am not testing you I was just interested in your opinion before I posted mine

Originally posted by THE JAKER:
<STRONG>I think Stephen King writes a lot of stuff that works incredibly well on the page but would be very hard to film effectively, that's why so many of the film adaptations of his books sock so bad!</STRONG>

i read some king ages back (can't even remmber the title) and wasn't very impressed. I must read some sometime but i currently have 3 other books too read.

Sleep I am going to respond to your last post one point at a time because I can't keep it all straight

I'll try not to jump into different tangents quite so quickly

@Film School, just wondered, you seem to know a lot of the small things, that people only usually now when they have studyed the subject.

Anyway so we had film classes in the lit dept. The cinemAH professor I mentioned before taught a class in "New German Cinema" - my favorite director was Fassbinder.

Ever seen Metropolis?

You live in LA, wow.

I like books too, Hey Sleep! (if I haven't PUT you to sleep with this tirade) have you ever read anything by Martin Amis? I was backpacking in Turkey with a guy from Wales named Phil once and we ended up fighting over his copy of "London Fields" for a week![/QB][/QUOTE]

Never read anything by Amis, my reading isn't half as eclectic as it could be. I have read a lot of Koontz, his endings always suck, but Dark Rivers Of the heart is by far is best of his books I tend to read Ellroy novels, haven't read on in a while, can't seem to find any in the secondhand book store. I also read work by Iain rankin who is a British writer, well worth reading, he writes really well and somehow always manages to come up with a decent plot They are converting his character to TV, should be itneresting. I will continue on this later.

@jaker the film/book you mean is Phantoms.

@Ysh only read Weaveworld by Barker wasn't that impressed.

Posted by Rob-hin:
<STRONG>I'm wathing Lost in Space, right now, MAN this movie blows!</STRONG>

Oh i agree entirely (Deckard ) To quote a simpsons line for a moment......

I didn't know it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows

Right, Phantoms...now this is the perfect example of Dean Koontz. The first two thirds of the book are incredibly scary and mysterious, and then when you finally find out what it's all about, it's disappointing. I think it's a problem with horror - as they say, once you see the cheesy rubber monster, it's not scary. Well something like that. Cheesy rubber monster - reminds me of Dr. Who

Dark Rivers of the Heart - (hereafter DROTH for short) I think this was the first Koontz I read, blew me away, and then every other one I read is just not as good. As I said before, why isn't DROTH a movie??? I think it would be the raddest movie (now it will probably be made into some stinky b-picture starring Gary Busey and Anna Nicole Smith - d'oh! stupid poetic justice)

Also, the end of DROTH sets up a sequel, yet where the heII is the sequel, Dean?? Oh well.

Originally posted by Yanlee:
<STRONG>Some of my favourites include:

Pulp Fiction
</STRONG>

I love Pulp Fiction. A suggestion...You should see "Snatch" if you haven't already. It's a newer movie with a great cast. Brad Pitt is the only name i can recall right off, but it follows the lines of Pulp Fiction, and is hilarious. I think i might have enjoyed it better than Pulp Fiction, actually.

[ 09-01-2001: Message edited by: average joe ]

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>@AJ: I interpret "A clockwork orange" as a future dystopi where sex, drugs and violence are just kicks to get out of an empty and meaningless life. It also puts up some interesting questions about human nature and the possibility to change it, about fate, justice, integrity and free will vs indoctrination/brain washing. It's a limit breaking and limit questioning story, so to speak.</STRONG>

I very much agree, CE. I understood the social contexts when i watched it, but those types of movies, for the most part, are not my thing. And watching it so late at night didn't make it any better.

future dystopi where sex, drugs and violence are just kicks to get out of an empty and meaningless life

Funny...i think this "future" is the here and now for a large part of the population. Or perhaps unfortunate would describe present day society better.