Slashers are my absolute favorite genre. I think everybody on here knows that. Anyway, I never thought Terror Train was all that great, really. It's pretty so-so. Pretty unforgettable.

They're my favorite horror subgenre. I just got tired of horror in general. But I've seen so many now... I mean, when you've really been constantly consuming that stuff for your entire life, like I have...... I just find myself watching less and less horror films.. just getting less excited by them. I am sadenned by this, but oh well.

Hmm, actually, I guess my favorite genre would be whatever the fuck Slime City, Body Melt, Street Trash, BRain Damage, etc. is... bizarror melt horror I guess.

saw Disgrace, the adaption of the Coetzee book with John Malcovitch. dire but well acted and interesting

oh I understand. For the past 10 yrs I'd say 95% of the movies we watch are horror. Which means five years ago we were still finding awesome movies we hadn't seen yet. Now it's like there's maybe 2 a year that we're like really impressed with. So I understand. I wouldn't say I'm "bored" with horror by any means, But I have seen so much of it (especially slashers) that it takes something special in a film to wow me.

fucked up flick no? when I first heard about a Bad Leutenant remake I was like NO! but Herzog really made his own thing here. I liked this freaked out flick.

funny at times, odd at times. I give it a 7/10. Not bad, but kind of "light" if that makes any sense.

He never saw the original, and supposedly it's a reboot, not a remake -- as in, if it did well (it didn't, did it?), they wanted to make a whole series out of them. In a way, it was more like a sequel than a remake -- hence the subtitle.

The original is one of my all time favorite films. The sequel/reboot/whatever was okay, I guess. It had some cool scenes. Nic Cage is always entertaining.

You're not alone, horror is my favorite genre, and slasher flicks are my favorite type of horror film! Terror Train was nothing too special as opposed to the magic of something like Happy Birthday to Me or Friday the 13th part IV (or even part VII!) - but I wouldn't exactly consider it waste of time, when put on scale with all films, of all genres.

As a slasher, it automatically delivered to my tastes more than other types of films, which must contain a certain uniqueness for me to truly feel attached to them. I have a strong prejudice in favor of horror, it blatantly affects my judgment, and I'm perfectly fine with that.



I wouldn't exactly consider Terror Train to be all that tired. Like I said, it isn't the best of the bunch - but it's far from the bottom of the pit where films like Tobe Hooper's Night Terrors; The Creeps, and The Crawlers dwell.

It has it's perks in art direction (i.e. the subtle-eerie costumes, and multi-colored strobe lighting), the writing was clever enough (small neat twists, terrific setting), plus it starred scream queen superstar Jamie Lee Curtis! It's like Prom Night, but not nearly as cool - and without the brilliant soundtrack, or riveting cinematography.

With horror's macabre tendencies, it's a genre that allows for some truly unique art to be created if proper dedication is applied. It's a realm where its' fans are more often willing to suspend their disbelief and go along for the ride - that's where you can really fuck with 'em, and many independent crews, whether they're from the US, Italy, Japan, Spain, France, or wherever seem to go the extra mile to do just that.

my fave horror movies are not slashers but the kind that make you question reality, and that make you feel like something very very wrong is lurking just underneath the surface of our "real" world. Love that weird shit.

Wait Until Dark rules. Maybe the best Audrey Hepburn movie.

I have a love/hate relationship with the horror genre. It obviously has the capacity to be great and has plenty of incredible movies, The Monster, Nosferatu, The Haunting, Re-Animator, TCM, all of those horror pictures in the 30's, etc. But at the same time, I feel like it's the most oversaturated genre there is. There are just SO MANY BAD ONES. I mean, just look at Sci-Fi's (Syfy whatever) original movies that they're always playing. And it just goes from there, The Chilling, Hollow Gate, Screaming Dead, any number of movies that appeared on MST3K, while some are extremely entertaining on their own, plenty are just unbearable (such as The Brain That Wouldn't Die or Robot Vs. The Aztec Mummy) those might be considered science fiction though. And some I feel are only interesting because of how goofy they are. Such as Hardrock Zombies, or Demon Wind. It's a genre I enjoy greatly, but it's also the one I take the least seriously probably.

the silliness is what i enjoyed. it was totally over the top. haven't read the book...

someone the other day said salo was the best movie ever, and then he went on to say Taxi Driver was the most boring movie he'd ever seen. I said "I try to respect everyone's opinions but that one is terrible."

Then again, the guy also listed a 7 hour Hitler documentary as one of his all time favorits even though he admitted to me privately that he'd only watched an hour of it.

Cube - 5/10

Entertaining and thankfully short, with a cool concept, but the overacting is just horrible.. this seriously has the worst acting I've seen in a movie... because the acting is the movie (there's really nothing else going on except actors interacting and walking around and dying), so we get to spend a long time with the characters. The "conspiracy theory" girl is just horrible, but the autistic dudes takes the cake. I was laughing through every scene with him in it. SO fucking bad. Also, if subtracting the numers gives you the way the cube moves, then the cube would have returned to its original position after only a few moves. Consider any three digit number XYZ. To figure out where the Cube is after three moves, you would add the three moves together. So (X-Y)+(Y-Z)+(Z-X) is where it is after three moves. However, this number is always 0. This means that any individual cube will return to it's original position after three moves. So, the math was pretty laughable too -- and they hired a "math professor" to help write the script? Haha?! Still, for a no budget "horror" film, it was entertaining enough, and certainly way better than Saw and the other "DEATH TRAP" films around. At least it has a neat concept, and doesn't feel the need to explain anything to the audience, which is daring, frustrating, brilliant, and stupid all at the same time.


Also, I had it before, but somebody on fangs sold me Masculin Feminin (8/10), the Criterion version, for $10, so I am giving my old copy to someone else. aNYWay, had a re-watch last night. Let's face it, Godard films can be watched 100 times and still never get boring.








Love the 9 minute conversation with Miss 19..







Will any director ever have even half as good a run as Godard? Yeah, Giuseppe made 33 great-to-mindblowing films (with only one or two misfires) in 10 years. But Godard.. wow.. My Life to Live, Little Soldier, Pierrot Le Fou, La Chinoise, A Married Woman, Week End, and Masculin Feminin are simply some of the most inspiring, innovative, mindblowing films ever made. Counting his shorts, he made 23 amazing films from Breathless to Week End. In 7 years. Though I much prefer his later work (SLOW MOTION especially -- if you have not seen this film, please do whatever you can to see it!), he only releases like 1 film every 5 years now or something. He was just on such a fucking roll back in the 60's. Damn!



ANYWAY, MASCULIN...





(that really should've been the cover of the criterion version)


...is perhaps his most leisurely paced film of his early period. No music to speak of, really, aside from a reoccuring hit pop song, sang by the star of the film (and "# 6 in Japan!"). Unlike most Godard films of this period, the tone is oddly cold and self-important... there isn't a lot of absurdity or humor.. I can see why critics didn't like this film at the time, as it feels a bit aimless in places, and is very static at times. It lacks the visual flair of a lot of his films (keep in mind the film before it was his most colorful and inventive work up to that point, Pierrot Le Fou). It feels unfun and, perhaps, unimportant. But I love it for precisely those reasons.. the whole film is dark, but not in an obvious way, it's very subtle. The whole film is quiet except for random bursts of violence and LOUD gunshots. Note the opening scene, which is broken up with a sudden 10 second scene ending in a gunshot. The camera is more content to kind of sit still and observe, and all the characters are quite flawed and even a bit dumb. Godard was really trying to show how naive everyone was/is. That interview with Miss 19 -- I mean, what director does this stuff? 9 minute conversations with characters that have nothing to do with the rest of the movie, talking about events and topics that aren't covered elsewhere in the movie. It would feel like such a random scene, if it wasn't the most compelling and genius part of the movie. Also, gotta love the movie within a movie scene -- again, a good 5 minutes of screentime is devoted to a completely unrelated segment. Yet there's just something about the nonchalance and patience of this movie that really makes it one of my all time favorites. The scenery is beautiful, Jean Pierre Leaud proves himself to be one of the best films ever (his acting in La Chinoise and Joy of Learning is absolutely incredible, as well, and he's the only reason to watch any of Trauffaut's duller films).

"Kill one man and you're a murderer. Kill thousands and you're a conqueror. Kill everyone and you're a god."

This film has a look to it unlike most of Godard's films, mainly because it was one of only ones from this period without Godard's usual cinematographer. Love the natural lighting and grainy black and white look. Absolutely captivating film, and the Bob Dylan reference is hilarious. He's a Vietnik? A beatnik overly interested in the Vietnam War.


Curtain rod.

So I saw the original play this is adapted from twice recently, and read it, because it totally blew me away. Truly extraordinary piece of writing. But this... frustrated the hell out of me. It's such a shame, because it comes close to being fantastic, and Thompson's performance is fucking amazing. I'm amazed she didn't win anything for it. But as an adaptation of the play, I can't help but feel the Nichols just missed the point somehow. Although, sure, the main character is dying of cancer, and that's the bulk of the action, I didn't really view it as a play that was as much about cancer as this ended up being. Just in all the editing choices, especially in the second half, they highlighted the 'oh the horror, she's really ill' stuff over the whole intellectual/John Donne related stuff. I don't know, I would probably have thought it was great if I didn't know the play, and it was still really powerful, but I just ended up finding it a bit lame and movie of the week, which the play wasn't at all...

DOUBLE SUICIDE - 8/10

Me and the old lady are going to watch Sin City (she's never seen it but she loved Machete) and Tracey Fragments before school today. While Tracey... is sorta pointless, I love some of the weird visuals in it..





Has anyone seen Les Yeux Sans Visage (Eyes Without a Face)? Curious about this scene:



d/l'ing now..

Eyes Without a Face is amazing. Did you want to know the gist of the scene or...?

Oh, no, Count Mecha, I guess I was just curious who was a fan on here. It looks right up my alley... supposedly, it's "atmospheric" and "haunting". Some of the screenshots look a bit like Bergman's "Persona" (one of my all time favorites). So, I can't wait. Feel free to tell me anything you like about it, though -- I'll probably watch it in a few days, but I always love reading your thoughts on films, Count Mecha, as a lot of your views are similiar to mine (though I seem to recall you not being too into El Topo, which I find baffling -- that's simply one of the greatest films ever, a true work of art.. and for Jodorowsky to pull all that stuff off -- the editing, cinematography, acting, writing, producing, directing, composing, all in the middle of nowhere with a budget of like $200,000 -- makes the film all the more special, unique, and mindblowing. Truly one of a kind, from the heart, and one of the few films that gets better and better with every watch!)



I decided to quote this since I just edited it, and we're on a new page. Figured some Godard freaks would like to respond... anyway.

Haha oh I see. I can't say whether or not you'll be into it or not as I'm really horrible at gauging anyone's enjoyment in a movie other than my mom (I got her pegged).

I'd say those adjectives effectively describe that film. I'd say it's almost a serene movie. It's not very jagged or chaotic, with the exception of the end. The scenes have a really calculated and calm flow. Which really helps for when it wants to be horrifying or chilling, which it can be any moment it wants to, but it chooses to be sparingly which is fantastically done. Haha, so it's kind of like you're watching the film on it's terms (you want something scary to happen son? Just hang on, we'll get there). But it doesn't do this in a way that the movie drags. Really it's a great film about cosmetic surgery. They should re-release it to today's audience where alot of people seem really invested in facelifts, botox, breast implants and all that other stuff. Yeah, I think that'd be pretty cool.

Here's the thing about El Topo, I LOVE the middle of the movie, where he goes on his quest to kill the four gunmen of the desert. That whoooole section there, blows my skull apart, it is flat out amazing. But the beginning just wasn't there for me, and neither was the third act in that town. Oh! Although, I did also really enjoy those bits in the church, particularly the russian roulette bit. That part felt so true! So yeah, I loved maybe 45% of it. I'm going to watch it again relatively soon, because hell, why not? I should.

But yeah, I like reading your thoughts too, largely because 90% of the time it's about stuff I don't know about. And I really admire that element of obscurity. I also enjoy how out of left field you can be. Like being totally into Freddy Got Fingered. Which don't get me wrong, it's a pretty cool movie, just seems like a step away from alot of the other movies you're into.

Masculin Feminin looks fun. Here's a pretty big admission from me. I haven't seen any Godard yet. Hah, I rented Breathless twice from the library in college and didn't get to watch it either time because of school. What do you think would be a good starting point for me?

Louis Theroux: A Place for Pedophiles

Thanks for all that, Count Mecha. I don't like Breathless very much, honestly. Er, when I say "don't like"... I recognize its importance, and it's entertaining enough, but I just can't comprehend why it's Godard's most reccomended work by so many people.

Actually, Band of Outsidera and Contempt are always reccomended too and those are some of his worst!

I HIGHLY reccomend Pierrot Le Fou -- not only one of his best, if not his best, but an excellent starting point, as it encapsulates his first period, and many of the things he'd explore until his first "break" after Weekend. It's colorful, entertaining, and rips the fabric of film apart.It tells a story, it plays with cinematic conventions, and it flat-out has some of the best editing, sound (oh my god -- the soundtrack is AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!), and dialogue ever.

I'd also reccomend Week End -- that's the first one I saw and I loved it.

I also HIGHLY reccomend Slow Motion, after you've seen the other two. It's probably more in tune with the types of films you like. It's a bit slower, but it's by far his best film in my opinion. First of all, it actually has, uh, slow motion in it, a lot (a girl getting slapped in slow motion, a girl riding a bike in very windy weather in slow motion), which is extremely fascinating. I guess this is a spoiler, but... well... a character gets killed and there's this AMAZING music from an orchestra.. and the camera pans to the right and it shows the orchestra actually playing.. I guess that sentence sounds cheesy, but trust me, it's MINDBLOWING in the context of the movie. I reccomend it for the same reasons I reccomend pierrot -- it's colorful, the music's amazing, it plays with cinematic convention, the editing is probably the best, ever. But it's WAY darker.

As for my movie tastes, I just can't stand people who get so into "art films" and shit that they simply can't appreciate something mainstream. I have a friend.. er, well... not a friend.. I dont' like him very much at all, actually... he only buys Criterion films. Period. That's it. He confessed to me he doesn't even like a lot of them. But online, DAMN! He acts like he's the god of Criterion. THis is the same guy who said Salo was the best film ever and Taxi Driver was the most boring overrated film ever. He regularly "watches" 2-3 hour black and white "art" films, often of a political nature, and I know for a fact he isn't actually into that stuff, and he ends up fast forwarding through most of it. The point is, he's downright one of the stupidest people I've ever met, but he is constantly trying to pass himself off as some cool "intellectual" type.

Then again, there are also people solely into mainstream films, who dismiss anything the least bit experimental or artsy as "PRETENTIOUS". I've had a hell of a time with people who like that piece of shit Donnie Darko, trying to reccomend better films in somewhat similiar veins in various imdb posts, and people are like "UHH THAT SOUNDS SOOOOOOO PRETENTIOUS [aka the most overused, misused word on the internet, used by people who generally have no idea what it means]." I just like films, period, and I think anyone with a real interest in movies, and the language of cinema, doesn't mind who a film stars, who directed it, how much money it made -- all that matters is if it sounds interesting, and ultimately, if it is interesting. While everyone as their preference, my aforementioned "friend" simply WILL NOT watch any film that is shot on digital, ONLY watching stuff on film. While I, too, prefer the look of film -- really, who doesn't? -- that's about the most retarded thing I've ever heard... "Wow, this film sounds cool and.. oh, wait, digital? Nah, not going to watch it." He also said that no film shot on digital has ever been good, or ever will be. Oh, and he also said that if you watch movies on vhs, you haven't seen the film. He recently said blu-ray is the only way to watch a movie, and he ONLY buys blu-rays now. What's funny is he tries to come off as some "cool" cinemaphile but he is probably the most ignorant person I've ever met when it comes to movies. He doesn't know the difference between Godard and Trauffaut for example. Hell, he doesn't know the difference between Herzog and Lynch! He tries to be so fucking smart and cool on the internet but actually having a real life conversation with him is hilarious, because you realize within 5 minutes that he doesn't know shit about anything. The funniest thing is, as much as a supposed 'Art house' dude as he was, I know secretly he was watching shitty horror movies that he downloaded when no one was looking. Because he is actually the most simple person I've ever met. But he wants people to think he's an intellectual.

The sad thing is, there are TONS of people like that... people who won't enjoy movies because of some hidden bias. I guess that goes for a lot of bands too... "uhh, I won't bother with [random pitchfork band] because Pitchfork gave 'em a 9.2! Fuck them!"

I just try not to have a bias -- though, obviously, I hate certain actors and directors, I'll at least familiarize myself with a work before I criticize it or whatever. Or if a film doesn't look interesting to me, I just don't watch it.

Freddy Got Fingered is simply the most brilliant mainstream Hollywood comedy, since the golden days of stuff like Kentucky Fried Movie and Groove Tube. It gets by without tired drug jokes, fat jokes, etc... it's inventive, absurd, and genuinely funny. I've seen it 30-40 times now, and it never fails to get genuine laughs. I think Tom Green was going for something completely different than the usual Hollywood shitfest, and he succeeded. Because it didn't have an obvious hook (it couldn't just be called "stoner comey" for example), critics didn't know what to say about it. Luckily, audiences LOVED it, it made shit-tons of money, I saw it in theaters 4 times alone, and I've never met a person in real life who thought it was anything less than drop-dead hilarious. Unlike a lot of new comedies, it didn't annoy me. And it was surreal as hell -- a guy famous for going around annoying people makes a multimillion dollar movie.. it mixes animation, guest celebrities (Shaq?!), and truly original humor in a blender and offers it to an unsuspecting public, who had never seen anything like it. In recent years, with Tom GReen out of the limelight, people are being far more kind to it and seeing it as the Bunuel-like surrealist treat that it is.

What's funny is the same critics who tear Tom Green a new asshole are the ones who'll call Jackass 3D the funniest movie of all time, even though they haven't had an original idea in 10 years, are simply ripping off old MTV shows Buzzkill and The Tom Green Show, and worst of all, are the most annoying millionaire assholes ever. Bam Margera is the worst person to ever exist.

Anyway, I make no difference between what is "cool" to like and what isn't, I just try to appreciate a film on its own terms, and honestly, I can find something good in just about any film, and something bad about just about any film too... I think Mean Girls is just as good as Dog Star Man, and I think Die Hard with a Vengeance is just as good as the latest Criterion $80 DVD of the week. All that ultimately matters to me is a movie that is entertaining and/or inspiring. And that's what I base my "ratings" on. Fuck the rest. Look at Texas Chainsaw Massacre -- I gave it, like, a 5. I dont' care about its "importance"; the film is genuinely horrifying in parts, but about 50 minutes of the movie is a girl running and screaming. I'd give Halloween a 5/10, probably, as well. Sure, it was one of the first popular slasher movies (though H.G. Lewis invented the slasher film, in my opinion), but man is it ever boring to sit through. Hell, I think Halloween II is better! So, yeah, fuck "influence" and "importance", all that matters is a movie is entertaining, let Ebert sit around with a thumb up his fat ass and talk about how "influential" Star Wars is, and let him suck Jar Jar Binks's dick while he's at it.

Thanks for the Godard recommendations, I'll start there for sure.

Haha, that guy sounds like a basket case. Those are some real winner character traits he has. I hate DVDs myself, well DVD players really. I have three of them, and only one kind of works. The oldest (and also non functioning) is like eight years old. However I have a vcr sitting in my garage from fucking 92 or something that I guarantee will work the minute I dust it off and plug it in. I'm gonna be watching VHS until I'm dead. I hope they never stop making blank vhs tapes. I don't have one of those newer plasma tvs that's really supposed to bring out the difference between dvd/blue-ray and vhs, so really there's no difference for me between the two.

But yeah, I've known people to reject watching a movie because it was black and white or in subtitles, which are both still extremely awful reasons. But man, not watching a movie because it's digital takes the cake.

Now I don't know anyone nearly as insane as the guy you just described, but I do know this one guy who has maybe the saddest requirement ever for the films he watches that I can possibly think of. He won't watch anything that came out before 1990. And geez he told me this a few years ago, he may have updated it to '93 by now. But he just won't watch anything with remotely any age on it because he can't stand the way the film looks or how dated the special effects might be. His F/X have to be top of the line. Well, under his definition anyway, like that Constatine/Van Helsing stuff, he's all about those movies. But just thinking about the 80+ years of amazing cinema he's going to miss simply because it's 'too old' for him makes me nauseous. He's also one of those guys that really scrutinizes every aspect of a film. Like rates every factor individually, like cinematography 6/10, writing 7.5/10. Shit like that. I barely handle whole ratings as it is, but he's just too much.

I agree with you on that point as well, I think for anyone with a serious in anything really, you have to be able indulge in some things that you hate. Cause man, if you're gonna hate it, you have to at least understand why you hate it. Like David Lynch I suppose for me. I'm not really a fan of his. But I'd really hate to be on the spot after saying I didn't like Lynch and then hearing someone say "Well which ones have you seen?" and then having to say 'uh well, I saw part of Dune and part of Muholland Dr.' So I watch his movies, even though I don't really like his style or anything and at times I'll be pleasantly surprised as I've enjoyed Blue Velvet and Elephant Man. And I guess I'll Eraserhead a third try and see if it finally magically hits me. But whatever, yeah I think it's important to be familiar even with the stuff you don't like.

And oh yeah, that last bit. Professional reviewers are so weird to me. They all have those awful rating systems (two thumbs up! 3/4 stars!). But what I also hate is how um, sterile their reviews sound. Like they'll say something, but it doesn't sound like they're saying anything at all! I was reading the Battlefield Earth wiki and Leonard Maltin's (who's the worst of the worst, fuck that guy) review read like this:

"Clumsy plot, misplaced satire, unbelievable coincidences and a leaden pace trample Travolta's weird but amusing performance."

I mean, that doesn't even sound like he watched the movie! It's like he talked about the movie without talking about it. Man, those guys are ridiculous. I would value anyone's review of a movie on this board infinitely more than those guys haha.

ANYWAY



I saw the Strange World of Coffin Joe sometime a little while back on IFC. It wasn't NEARLY as good as the first two Coffin Joe movies, probably because he's not really featured in it. But there are still neat things about this one. It's an anthology movie like the Twilight Zone or Tales From Crypt pictures. And the first story is the best about the Dollmaker. Although you can kind of predict where it's going to go it's still fun to watch because the end result is pretty chilling. But yeah, it feels like a short film, all of the segments are like twenty minutes, so the whole thing feel pretty quick. I probably won't ever feel like watching it again, and it's not nearly as memorable as the first two coffin joe pictures, which are both fantastic.

Great post, Mecha. I dig the weird Coffin Joe films too... strange and atmospheric. The second one is my favorite... I am so glad to see someone else who doesn't worship the ground Lynch walks on. While he's been involved in some cool projects, I have never thought of him as a good director (he showed a lot of promise on his early short films but never really explored any of the stop motion or painting-on-film stuff he did with those -- guess he wanted to be taken "seriously"). But I do highly reccomend The Straight Story, of course, if nothing else. He's alright in small doses, but I've always thought of him as more of a gateway director, like for people first starting to get into somewhat surreal movies and whatnot... and, yeah, Re: the guy I was talking about, he is the most insane person ever -- he has cheated on his wife with 38 different girls, too. Haha. Seriously. 38 girls in 5 years. Derek knows who I'm talking about (though we're not going to name any names here), as we've talked about him extensively. I plan on making a movie about him, actually, people will think I have a great imagination, but this guy is unbelievable...

Anyway, here's what I watched...



Robocop 1-3!

Haha! Hadn't seen any of these in probably 10 years. I'd seriously give 1 and an 8, 2 a 7, and 3... 4, perhaps, if I'm being really nice. Too bad, since part was made by the Night of the Creeps/Monster Squad guy, and it seems to have kiled his career pretty much.

But 1 and 2 really do hold up, after all these years. They both have weird, often mean spirited tones, which makes the success of the films somewhat confounding. I think a lot of people just observed them as Terminator type films when they came out, even though the first Robocop is obviously a metaphor for the life of Jesus Christ... um, anyway, I like the darkness of the first 1, and the thing just never lets up, its in constant motion; like the sudden Ed-209 battle and shit, out of nowhere. No one was expecting that. The interesting thing about Ed-209 is that he's in 55 shots in the final film, which is actually a really small number, but I have a good feeling those 55 shots took the longest to film of any scene in the movie. As someone who has made plenty of stop motion stuff, I gotta say that the shots in this are of the highest calibre -- especially for 1987 -- and it still holds up today, quite well.. I bet no one realized that the Ed-209 and Robocop fighting in a lot of shots were puppets! Honest-to-God puppets!



But yeah, I was surprised by the real human drama of Robocop, and all the parodies (the 6000 SUX car commercial) and stuff are hilarious. It wasn't a mindless action flick, though the action was topnotch. You just flat-out don't see films like that nowadays, and, hey, you never will again, since people woul rather watch remakes and AWFUL sequels (Indiana Jones and the Skullfuck or whatever).

Robocop 2 feels a little off, of course, It has most of the dreary atmosphere of the original, with a bit more action pieces (though not as much VIOLENCE -- nothing like Murphy getting shot in the first one). The big controversy, perhaps, is that a kid gets killed in it! The main villian, the drug lord guy, is a bit silly. It's interesting how they tried to make part of the movie more mainstream, in a way, but probably killed their chances with the 14-year-old kid dealing drugs and getting killed. Entertaining film, not deep at all, and obviously running out of steam.. There are so many idiotic plot points, which reduces the satirical nature of the first one, which is essentially a dark comedy and genuinely disturbing at times, into just another action film. It's not as good as you remember, but not as bad as people pretend it is either. I do wonder one thing.. how come a bomb (that causes a HUGE explosion) doesn't even leave a dent on Robocop, but a few machine gun bullets blows his whole hand off?





As for 3, it's bad. No Peter Weller -- the fuck?! Oh, wait, he was the only smart one involved. I see. Haha. He was apparently working on Naked Lunch at the time (which I've seen 7 times and still find overrated and hard to sit through).

Anyway, silly stupid garbage film. "My FRIENDS call me Murphy. YOU call me Robocop." ... Jesus. Oh well, at least Nancy Allen probably got a lot of money (she being one of the most underrated actresses ever -- and forever being burned in my memory for starring in so many DePalma classics like Blow Out and Dressed to Kill) Robocop 3 might be worth a look, for those who want to see how a movie that is clearly intended to be extremely serious, somehow ended up being the most hilarious.

Anyway, Trash Humpers leaked online.



So I'll be watching this tonight.

^

the first time i ever got high, i was watching that movie. i think it's pretty funny

just saw this one too. brilliant!

Kristen Bell rules

6-6.5/10



watched a second time. def. 10/10 for me now.

YES! NOW Yer TALKIN'!!! As I always say, Daisies is probably my biggest influence as a filmmaker.. though I didn't see it until after I'd already made like 7 movies.

The first Robocop is a masterpiece, the other 2 make me wanna stick my face in a blender. However, I own all 3.

What is really the huge difference between the 1st one and the 2nd one that occasionally makes people love the 1st one and hate the 2nd? They are actually extremely similar -- though I didn't realize it until the recent viewing... except the 2nd one has a bit more action and has better visuals. Obviously, the 1st one is the best, as it's the darkest (but only by a notch), but there really isn't much of a difference between 1 and 2, not to the point where I could see anyone hating the 2nd one if they love the 1st one. Plus, a 12 (I was wrong, he wasn't 14) year old kid gets brutally murdered in it! I actually find 2 really daring, in a way, since there's a HUUUUUUUUUUUUGE chunk of the movie where Robocop isn't even in it! Like 30 minutes without him even in it!





Now that I've watched the film, it wasn't as Giuseppe-like as I thought it'd be. Yeah, there is a resemblance in the camcorder/no-budget aesthetic/focusing on the denizens of impovishered "trailer towns"/the whole "series of loosely-connected vignettes" in place of story (and, again, that only speaks for a very small fraction of Giuseppe's films, he has an extremely diverse filmography, at least judging by the 34 films I've seen of his), but the humor and tone was a lot different. And, frankly, to me, the film just wasn't as good as any of Giuseppe's stuff; it all comes down to if you find this VERY particular sort of stuff entertaining and funny, and I was mildly amused by a lot of it, and chuckled quite a bit (seeing people in old men masks humping trash WAS kinda funny!), but it just seemed to drag and drag, and there wasn't a lot to hold my attention. Whereas Giuseppe, again, filled his home-video experiments with interesting music, strange editing, and hilarious dialogue -- this just goes from blank, empty scene to blank, empty scene. There just isn't much to this, beyond the initial shock of "creepy old men mask dudes doing 'weird' stuff". I think it's about on the level of Gummo (which is just a slight step above Mister Lonely, to me) in its quality, and I was glad that it was only 77 minutes long. Not an awful film by any means, just extremely average. Julien Donkey-Boy will remain Korine's masterpiece, at least for now, thanks to its interesting editing, compelling characters/dialogue, and beautiful visuals. According to Korine, this was intended as more of an "artifact", anyway -- you know, a "parody" (for a lack of a better word here) of the kind of film you might (but probably wouldn't...) find at a thrift store, some strange home-recorded snapshot of a moment in time of some people you'd never meet, and probably wouldn't want to. I actually have bought some $1 old, unlabeled home movies from Goodwill out of curiosity, and it's usually somewhat entertaining in some strange, creepy way -- seeing people you'll never meet from 20 years ago opening Christmas presents and such, can be strangely compelling though the excitement wears off pretty quickly. This film is a tribute to that, and it suffers the same flaws. A decent experiment, with some genuinely funny moments and better than 99% of the films I've seen in the past year, no doubt, but I just feel like it was missing SOMETHING -- I'm not sure what -- that would have made me enjoy it more. A somewhat amusing diversion.

I highly reccomend a film entitled "Bride of Frank" from 1996, which has this similiar no-budget thing going on, shot on a camcorder... with some wild camcorder effects, too. It's probably the best no-budget film ever made, and shares a similarly perverse and voyeuristic sense of humor to this film, but is a lot more interesting.

5/10.

You're crazy if you think Gummo is as awful as Trash Humpers. I agree, the joke gets old very quickly - and it really isn't as original as people are proclaiming it to be. I expected a lot more from Korine.

I bumped into one of my classmates from film school while leaving the theater after seeing this sack of fuck. I told him that it almost felt as if Korine was making fun of his fans. But he wouldn't stop gushing about it, and spat fact after fact about the making of the film to me. He kept telling me that I just didn't "get it". Yeah, right...

I don't find either one "awful", just average. Korine's just not a very good filmmaker. He has great tastes though. I've immersed myself in experimental/obscure/no-budget/undeground cinema for half of my life, and I am just not impressed by his stuff at all. All Korine does is appropriate some of the stranger concepts/ideas of Mike Leigh, Fassbinder, Godard, even Dennis Hopper (Last Movie, Out of the Blue, etc) and so on and so on forever, and makes them his "own", kind of a pop version of genuine weirdness. He's dull. This film is a Giuseppe wannabe, and that's about it.

Gummo - 9/10
Julien Donkey-boy - 10/10
Mister Lonely - 7/10
Trash Humpers - 4/10

4 films in 14 years. So ridiculous.

(written by)
kids - 4/10
ken park - 0/10

(directed by)
gummo - 5/10
julien - 7/10
mister lonely - 3/10 (this film SUCKS; the jump cut Michael Jackson dance and the nun sky diving scene is the only reason I gave it a 3)
trash humpers - 5/10

BTW, Sylvester Stallone's favorite film of all time is Julien Donkey Boy. Seriously.

I also watched this






Pussy Soup (aka NEKO RAHMEN TAISHO ) - 6/10

And, yeah, it's just weird as hell. It's kinda like Meet the Feebles, though!



WILCO: I AM TRYING TO BREAK YOUR HEART... I don't rate documentaries, as I've explained, since the "quality" of a documentary has to do with your interest in the subject matter, and if you really like something (Joy Division: Under Review, which is terrible and boring but I watched it anyway since I LOVE Joy Division), then yeah. The rating doesn't matter.

And, you know what? I think Wilco is very average, but I love Loose Fur, and I actually think Ghost is Born is an incredible album, love the artsier stuff in particular, the more Gastr Del Sol-type stuff....... anyway, this movie is more about Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, which is an average album, but the doc. was cool, so there.

"Quit ya' moody brooding!"

Yeah, Julien is huge, I always dug the Spongebob reference (which someone finally put on youtube a while back)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG4-xPRrxxw