Wes Craven's THEY

[Guest Black Tiger]

Who's all planning on seeing the new Craven movie? I'm going to be there the first night it plays.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Not me. I saw the preview a few times already -- looks lame, but then again horror movies don't do much for me.

 

Maybe a DVD rental though...

[Guest CoreyLazarus416]

Iwon't see it. Craven's track record has proven he has one good movie and then two crap ones. Although his last two crap movies have already passed, so this might be interesting...

 

...BUT it just screams "Nightmare On Elm Street" in terms of plot, and I think Craven already did enough of those.

[Guest C.H.U.D.]

This isn't a Wes Craven movie, it's directed by Robert Harmon.

 

That's the reason why I do want to see it, because Harmon directed one of my favourite horror films, The Hitcher.

[Guest Lethargic]

The people that made Ghost Ship have a better track record than these lame ass "Wes Craven presents" movies. I'd kill myself before ever watching another one of those. I can't believe that one of his direct to video bullshit movies is actually going to the theaters.

[Guest C.H.U.D.]

The people that made Ghost Ship have a better track record than these lame ass "Wes Craven presents" movies.  I'd kill myself before ever watching another one of those.  I can't believe that one of his direct to video bullshit movies is actually going to the theaters.

Don't judge the movie before you see it. Harmon is a good director, and if the script is decent, it could be entertaining. It wouldn't be hard to make a film better than Ghost Ship.

[Guest El Satanico]

It looks like a decent movie. Looks like it could have a nice creepy vibe to it.

 

The previews actually does make it look like a Nightmare on Elm Street plot. I think it's just because they were talking about sleeping and dreams. I doubt it's as much like Elm Street as some people have concluded.

 

I probably won't see it in the theater, but I'm sure I will see it. However i'm not as hard on "Wes Craven Presents" movies as most people seeng as how I liked Vampires and Ghosts Of Mars.

 

:ducks the various meats tossed at me:

[Guest Lethargic]

The people that made Ghost Ship have a better track record than these lame ass "Wes Craven presents" movies.  I'd kill myself before ever watching another one of those.  I can't believe that one of his direct to video bullshit movies is actually going to the theaters.

Don't judge the movie before you see it. Harmon is a good director, and if the script is decent, it could be entertaining. It wouldn't be hard to make a film better than Ghost Ship.

Why can't I judge a movie before seeing? That's what a trailer is for. That trailer looks like complete and total crap. And if Hitcher is his best movie you'd have a hard time convincing me that he's a good director. I thought that movie was slow, annoying and stupid.

[Guest Madmartigan21]

However i'm not as hard on "Wes Craven Presents" movies as most people seeng as how I liked Vampires and Ghosts Of Mars.

Those are both John Carpenter movies that have nothing at all to do with Wes Craven.

 

I saw They a few months ago at a screening. It's NOTHING like A Nightmare on Elm Street with regards to its plot OR its quality.

 

SPOILERS

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

The main characters all had night terrors as kids, but only two of the four knew each other at that time. This was not a coincidence. They all had something implanted in their bodies by what I will call "bug-like" creatures.(This is revealed later in the movie, not the beginning. Although in the opening you seen one of the kids pulled under his bed by something.) I said it that way because, its never explained what "THEY" are in any fashion. I don't believe "THEY" are suppsoed to be insects, I just don't know what else to call them. Anyway, flashforward to the college years and one kills himself after trying to explain to the main chick what he thought was happening to him. Eventually the creatures start hunting down the remaining three, but mostly at night because they have an aversion to the light. NOTHING is ever explained. SOME explanations would have been nice, such as:

 

- How were the kids chosen by the creatures? What did they have in common?

- If the creatures were going to kill them eventually, why not do it when they were kids? Why wait for adulthood? Which brings me to:

- What did the things(which looked like long, thin, black bones) "They" implanted do exactly? If I remember correctly the main chick thinks that the "bones" might be tracking devices. But after they're removed, the creatures don't seem to have any trouble finding them. If the "bones" change the kids biologically in someway over time to make them ingestable, how so? This is never even TOUCHED upon, nevermind answered.

 

All in all, They is a completely forgetable below average movie.

[Guest Flyboy]

Is it even download worthy, Madmartigan21?

[Guest Madmartigan21]

It depends on your feelings about Horror movies, I suppose. If you're like the other hardcore horror movie fans from this board, then go for it. It's a technically well made horror movie, but there isn't anything done well that you haven't seen done better many times before.

[Guest El Satanico]

:slaps my forehead: god damn do i feel stupid now.

 

Damnit and i full well know that John Carpenter did those movies. I have no clue what i was thinking.

 

oi :shakes head:

[Guest Ravenbomb]

oh, man, when I was reading about 'bug-like' creatures, a gnat landed on my glasses, RIGHT in front of my right eye.

[Guest C.H.U.D.]

And if Hitcher is his best movie you'd have a hard time convincing me that he's a good director.  I thought that movie was slow, annoying and stupid.

Replace slow, annoying and stupid with entertaining, fun and exciting and you are right!

[Guest Lethargic]

The Hitcher is one of those movies that has complete lack of common sense and never attempts to use any. One of those movies where the main character just constantly does the stupidest things over and over and over again. So the entire time I'm yelling at the TV "do this, do that, why are you doing that, what are you doing you moron." I hate movies like that where anybody with common sense would've done one simple thing and the movie would've been over 10 minutes in. I consider movies like that an insult.

[Guest C.H.U.D.]

I don't watch horror movies for logic and common sense, yeesh. I like The Hitcher for it's look, music and Hauer's amazing performance of a great villain.

[Guest J*ingus]

I hated The Hitcher also, I wish they would've just used the first five minutes as a short film and then stopped there. I didn't believe Hauer's character or the whole movie for a second, and I've got a fairly high tolerance for suspending my disbelief.

 

And yeah, "Wes Craven Presents" are three of the least promising words to stick on a movie in my opinion. I think he's one of the most overrated directors today (don't even get me started on Scream...) and the movies that he produces are even worse.

[Guest HBK16]

Im going to see it. I have a sneak preview of it at work so I might as well go. It might be ok.

[Guest Lethargic]

I hated The Hitcher also, I wish they would've just used the first five minutes as a short film and then stopped there. I didn't believe Hauer's character or the whole movie for a second, and I've got a fairly high tolerance for suspending my disbelief.

 

And yeah, "Wes Craven Presents" are three of the least promising words to stick on a movie in my opinion. I think he's one of the most overrated directors today (don't even get me started on Scream...) and the movies that he produces are even worse.

I totally agree on both counts. As far as suspending disbelief, I don't think slapping the "horror" genre on any movie gives that movie the right to be stupid and be forgiven for it.

 

As far as over-rated. I just watched that Master of Horrors documentary on Showtime this past weekend with a friend and we both were shocked at just how crappy these so called "masters" of horror truly are. Here's the list....

 

Wes Craven - Came on the scene with the great Last House on the Left and made another classic in Elm Street. But since then what has he done? Nothing at all. Hasn't made a good horror movie since. Shocker? People Under the Stairs? New Nightmare? Vampire in Brooklyn? I liked Scream but I wouldn't say that's a real horror movie. And even Scream got put into the shitter with Scream 3 proving that it was more Kevin Williamson's script than Wes Craven's directing. And if you ignore the Scream movies, what has he been involved in, directing OR producing, that has made more than 5 dollars?

 

Dario Argento - A director that even the documentary said doesn't make good movies, only good death scenes. I still feel the only good thing he created is Asia Argento. And the few enjoyable movies he did make were in the 70's and early 80's.

 

Tobe Hooper - Tobe Hooper?? He did Massacre and then nothing else really. I do think Funhouse and Invaders from Mars are under-rated. But really, nothing of note. He did Poltergeist but we all know Spielberg REALLY directed that. Now he's been lowered to doing direct to video crap like Crocodile.

 

John Carpenter - Hit big with Halloween but then not much. Had a couple of good movies in the 80's. But hasn't made one thing worth seeing since 88's They Live. Hell, he hasn't made anything that was even a good IDEA since then.

 

Guillermo del Toro - The worst of the list because he's NEVER done anything worthy of a best of list, not even years ago. Made 2 indy films that nobody has seen. Made the shitbomb Mimic and the barely passable Blade 2 which was nowhere close to the original. Why he's a "master" I'll never know. I wish him and Brett Ratner would just kill each other in a gay lover murder/suicide pact.

 

John Landis - THIS is a master of horror? He made the completely over-reated Werewolf in London in 81 and didn't make another movie until the completely under-rated Innocent Blood in 92. That's 2 horror movies. Taking all movies into account, hasn't even made a profit since Coming to America in 88.

 

George Romero - Struck gold with the Dead movies but hasn't made a thing since. The latest script for the new Dead movie is so bad that nobody will touch it, not even an indy studio.

 

I don't see that any of these so called masters have done anything worth much in about 10-20 years so why are they the masters?

[Guest J*ingus]

Hey, this is a fun topic.

 

I still feel the only good thing he created is Asia Argento.

 

Great line, I'll surely be stealing that at some point in the future. I've never gotten the big hype over Dario. I saw Suspiria (overrated), Trauma (boring), and Phantom of the Opera (complete utter SHIT), and I wonder, what's the fucking attraction? Do incoherent editing, plentiful gore effects, and loud synthesized "rock" music somehow turn a standard dumb horror flick into a classic?

 

Tobe Hooper: I haven't seen much of his, just Chainsaw (fucking awesome), Chainsaw 2 (not so awesome) and Poltergeist (good but flawed). He seemed talented enough early on. What happened to his career?

 

John Carpenter: had a whole lot of good movies in his run, including Assault on Precinct 13, Halloween, The Fog, They Live, and In the Mouth of Madness. But he must've hit his head or something about ten years ago, cuz man his talent died in a hurry with crappy stuff like Escape from L.A. and Vampires.

 

Guillermo Del Toro: I don't understand why this guy is so heatedly controversial. I mean, what about Blade 2 inspires people to argue so passionately for or against it? I liked it, maybe better than the first one, but it's not like the movie saved my soul and then gave me a suitcase full of hundreds in the bargain. I liked Mimic a lot also, Cronos was overrated but tolerable. (Anyone else think this guy would be perfect for adapting Lovecraft to the screen?)

 

John Landis: since when was he a "horror" director? He's made two, and they were both mostly comedies.

 

George Romero: NOTLD and DOTD are two of the best horror movies ever in my opinion. But he got to Day of the Dead and damn, it was all downhill from there. You know, thinking back, I can't even think of another Romero flick that I've seen. That's pretty sad.

[Guest Lethargic]

I still feel the only good thing he created is Asia Argento.

 

Great line, I'll surely be stealing that at some point in the future.

I use that in a bunch of my interviews. I guess bunch isn't the right word since I don't have a bunch. But I've asked a few people that. "What's the best thing Argento ever made, Suspiria or Asia?" Nobody has said Suspiria yet.

[Guest J*ingus]

Another thing about Dario that creeps me out is how he constantly portrays Asia in such a sexual manner in all his movies. I mean, once she hit 18, BAM, her titties were bare in every film he shot with her.

 

Of course, there could be an argument here that it would be damned difficult to have Asia in a movie and have her not be sexual, it seems to be built in her, and it would be a crying shame to have such a spectacular body in a film and not show it off. But when it's her own father doing it... damn man, that's icky.

[Guest C.H.U.D.]

I would absolutely consider Dario Argento and John Carpenter "masters of horror". If none of them can be considered masters of the horror genre, then who could? There aren't a lot of directors out there who mainly focus on horror movies.

[Guest Lethargic]

I don't think there is a such thing as a horror MASTER. Or for any other genre. I personally don't see any MASTER directors out there today. The Hollywood system has created an enviroment where even the greats from the 70's and 80's don't really have the ability to create good work on a consistent basis anymore. Look at Coppolla. He goes through a string of movies like Godfather, the Conversation, Godfather 2, Apocalypse Now and others. But lately he either can't get a project off the ground or he does shit like Jack, The Rainmaker or Supernova. Or producing crap like the Jeckyl and Hyde kung fu TV series or Jeepers Creepers. The same thing has happened to a dozen directors that used to be great.

 

But on the horror front, I just don't agree that just because a director mainly focuses on horror movies automatically makes them a MASTER OF HORROR. The only thing that matters is if they make GOOD work. And not one of these guys has a solid track record of making GOOD movies. They may be horror movies but not good horror movies. People throw that title around so much now just to try sell whatever new movie they have out that it's crazy. 99% of the horror movie trailers you see will have some sort of "from the master of horror, from the master of suspense, from the master of thrills, blah blah blah" attached to it. It's just a way to sell something now. When people call Hitchcock the master of suspense, it was for a reason. Because out of 67 movies he made, maybe 5 were outright awful and another 5 weren't all that good. But for the most part is resume is consistently filled with good work. Where as these "masters" have made an average of around 20 movies with about 5 being good. That's not a mastery of anything, that's getting lucky every once in a while.

[Guest C.H.U.D.]

Good point, although I like pretty much everything John Carpenter has done, and most of it is horror, so I'd consider him a master of horror, or at least one of the best horror directors. I know a lot of people hate most of his work, but I don't, so it all depends on taste.

[Guest SuperTonyJaymz]

John Carpenter is a god iin my eyes, for the simple fact of They live and Big Trouble In little China.

 

Remember though, horror is a hard gerne, and i mean reall horror. You go out there and try to scare people, and its a whole hell lot harder to scare people these days than back in the day. And then sometims good ideas get muddled down with bad script, bad acting, or too much f/x *coughcoughresidentevilcoughcough*

 

What we need is more people stepping up to the challenge.

 

like me.

 

no really...stop luaghing