Jump to content
🔒 The Earwolf Forums are closed Read more... ×

grudlian.

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    2122

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    59

Posts posted by grudlian.

  2. Posted

    3 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

    I love how Paul has incorporated Cody and Devin into the mini-episodes. It’s nice to have their insight as well. 

    Also, just like Paul I grew up with tomato/mayonnaise sandwiches. They are great. Tomatoes are delicious. However, I’m sorry Kraft, but I will never, ever, ever eat one of your weird hybrid flavors. First of all, I think it’s kind of lazy. What, I can’t be bothered to squeeze two different bottles? Get out of here with that shit! Americans need to be more active! And secondly, I’m not sure I trust your ratios. If you put too much ketchup or BBQ sauce or whatever your whole sandwich is gonna be totally fucked. There’s an art to condiments. You can’t just wing it!

    Also, Ranch is fucking disgusting. You think adding ketchup is going to somehow make that horror show edible? Get the fuck out of here...

    Also ketchup and mayo? I legit gagged a bit when Paul said that.

    • Like 3

  5. Posted

    14 hours ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

    Probably because most people, at least the ones at a horror convention, aren't really scared by the movies as adults and watching most horror movies as an adult, it doesn't feel like what they're actually going for is actually to scare you. 

    Movies like Jaws, Psycho, and Blair Witch might have succeeded the most in causing fear in adults, in the sense they made some feel anxiety or vulnerable when doing every day things they always took for granted.

    Then there's the whole horror-comedy issue.

    Though, if we don't go with the whole categorical schema thing we do with everything, then I'd probably go with, "anything that would have scared me when I was 6, or as an adult disturbed, unnerved, or unsettled me." But I'm sure that's incomplete as well.

    Just because the audience isn't scared doesn't mean the movie isn't trying to scare the audience (I'll admit "scare" is limiting but frighten, disturb, unsettle, etc.). The hardcore horror audience may respond to things commonly found in horror differently but I think the intent of the film is what matters. If a horror convention attendee watches a horror movie and gets excited/happy/whatever, that doesn't negate what the film tries to do. If I watch Tootsie or The Graduate without laughing, the movies are still confused whether or not I find them funny. That's at least my take on it.

    As for horror comedy, I think the line is blurry (as are all genres). A true horror comedy, to me, would be something like those middle period movies in a slasher franchise. Nightmare On Elm Street is a horror movie. By the fourth one, Freddy is still trying to scare us but he's also doing one liners. By the time we get to Freddy Vs. Jason, we're just cheering him on and laughing. So, I don't consider that horror at all even though it's bloody and violent.

  7. Posted

    1 hour ago, Cameron H. said:

    I have to agree with you. I enjoyed the episode fine, and I like all their picks well enough (I would definitely put them all on a Top 100 Horror list), but only Night of the Living Dead comes close for me to making it on the actual “all movies/all time” AFI list - and then, only because the other proffered movies were (in my opinion) weak contenders. There’s no way ANY of those movies deserve to be on a list with Citizen Kane or 2001 or most of the movies on the AFI list. I think, in terms of an honest shot, you have to be talking about movies like The Exorcist, The Shining, Alien, or Rosemary’s Baby. Frankenstein (which was on the previous list) or Bride of Frankenstein are also worthy of consideration. But Blair Witch and Scream? Really? I like them both, but on a list of “all time greats” I just don’t see it. Fun and scary? Yes. Great? No way.

    I think what holds me back on Blair Witch is that it's influential but not necessarily good. They continually talked about seeing it at the time. If we're talking top 100 ad campaigns, Blair Witch deserves a spot. But it's central ideas have been done better.

    Cannibal Holocaust (which I hate hate hate) used found footage nearly two decades before Blair Witch and is weirdly more believable in spots. Paranormal Activity uses it better and doesn't rely on marketing tricking you into believing it was real (it's marketing was also fantastic though).

    Blair Witch really only might belong because it popularized a new genre of found footage horror.

    • Like 1

  10. Posted

    1 hour ago, Cam Bert said:

    I really hated the Nina Paley parts. Like I was almost ready to give this movie one star as a result. I get that she wrote it (though I’m pretty sure she just interviewed the narrators) and animated it all which is impressive but her story has no real connection to the Ramayana other than breaking up but still loving the guy. Other than that the links are tenuous at best. The voice acting for her ex-boyfriend was awful. The animation style was very 10oz Mouse. The whole thing just seemed like “this event lead me to the Ramayana” but I just wanted to hear the story of the Ramayana. If there was more information in her story to link to the connections it might have been interesting. The fact the songs line up with the story is much more interesting. 

    What annoyed me most about Nina's breakup story is it seems to be putting her own breakup on a huge pedestal. She's equating her breakup, which is a pretty big breakup all things considered, to this epic story that takes place over years. It's like comparing one time you went hunting to Beowulf fighting Grendel. You're a bit out of your league.

    • Like 2

  18. Posted

    24 minutes ago, tomspanks said:

    I wouldn’t mind skipping Birdemic. I love it, but I’ve seen it so many times. 

    I'm kind of the same. I've only seen it once but I've seen bits of it many times and talked about it a lot. I'll watch it, as I said, but we can also move to whatever is next.

    I know we skipped Trespass because we couldn't find a place to stream it but I can stream it through my library if people want that. I don't think it's the most fun watch but I saw it by myself. So, maybe it's more fun in a group?

  20. Posted

    7 hours ago, AlmostAGhost said:

    Cool I will

    I've been thinking about this all some more. I wanted to add, there's certainly a class of movies that are too much mood. There still needs to be some sort of coherence behind it, I think.

    But yea rhythm is a good way to think of it, I like that. I told this story during 2001, because somehow we had gotten on to James Joyce. But my brother was a minor Joyce scholar, and I always remember him saying to people who struggle reading Ulysses as "too hard": "just read it." It's not necessary to follow every paragraph. It's not necessary to get bogged down in not knowing every reference. Just let it wash over you and keep going and you should fall into its rhythm. And when you do, it's worth it. It's a book to experience.

    I do agree that Vertigo maybe isn't quite that level (though I believe 2001 is). There is a story here and it's pretty interesting and it's not nearly as ambiguous as 2001; the point isn't to ignore that. But I think it's a film about Ferguson's mental state, above all. And it sure does succeed in getting that across.

    Getting into a character's mind state is something I think Paul Thomas Anderson is trying to do more and more with his recent work. The Master and Inherent Vice felt like he wanted the audience feel everything the character felt. I guess that's what every movie tries but it feels like it's trying to br more personal somehow with Paul Thomas Anderson.

    • Like 1

  21. Posted

    5 hours ago, AlmostAGhost said:

    I'm realizing this is my favoritest type of movie: the one less concerned with concrete plot mechanics and more with a cinematic emotional experience. This goes for stuff on the list (2001, say) and not (e.g., a Rushmore which is more of a mood piece than people realize). They don't have to be sad emotion, just mood emotion, films you let wash over you as an experience. I'm left wondering about a lot after seeing Vertigo for the first time since 1996, sure, but that's what the best movies do - stick in your brain and make you work for it. Amy said something like she was 'willing herself to find reasons to like it' and it sounded like a knock, a bit of an insult, but for me, that's what I want a movie to make me do: to search for its center, and its greatness. Greatness doesn't have to be evident to everyone immediately, and just maybe... it shouldn't either. This is how I feel more connected to these top-of-the-list movies - they are true experiential pieces of art and not just 'a cool story I'm watching.'

    The ones that hit me like this will be in my top-10 in 50 weeks. I do shuffle my list around a bit all the time as I continue to think, but I feel safe in saying these moodier pieces like Vertigo and 2001 will still be there then.

    I definitely agree with you about mood over plot. The movies with some of the strongest impressions on me get to me in a way I can't describe, in a visceral way. I've always described this as a rhythm thing like you're in sync with the movie or you're not. And sometimes that doesn't translate to other people. It's the difference between "yeah, 2001 is a good movie" and "no, it was a religious experience".

    That said, I don't get that for Vertigo. I didn't rewatch it this week and it's honestly been a very long time since the last time I saw it. I like it just fine but I don't get its current status as the greatest movie ever. I'd keep it on the list but it's nowhere near the top for me.

    If you're into mood over plot, I wholeheartedly recommend Wong Kar Wai movies. In The Mood For Love in particular, but Days Of Being Wild and Chungking Express are both fantastic as well.

    • Like 2

  23. Posted

    1 hour ago, EvRobert said:

    i honestly think this movie, much like Blues Brothers 2000, was built around the songs/musicians. Like they went "well we can get X, Y, Z musicians and songs" and built a story around it and didn't care if things didn't make sense. 

    Which makes sense for Beyonce but was Montell Jordan a thing anymore?

    He hasn't had a hit since maybe 1998 unless he had a song after Let's Ride that I don't know. I know he wrote hits for others but I don't think he was a big name outside of the industry anymore.

    • Like 1
×