House of 1,000 Corpses: My review...

[Guest Downhome]

(I posted this in the other thread, but I wanted to make sure my voice was heard damnit!)

 

 

Opening at selected cities, April 11th, 2003!

 

Click here for the trailer!

 

I didn't expect much of anything from this film, and I might as well say that right off the bat. The majority of the performers in this film are obscure, unknown actors which have rarely been in any films of true note, it's directed and written by a man who has never directed a film before (Rob Zombie if you are not aware), and quite frankly, this film has been thorugh the wringer way too much, and it's painfully obvious. The most well known actor in this film would be cult star Sid Haig, but unfortuently his role in this film is nowhere as large as I had been led to believe leading up to this film. Simply put, this guy is the high point of "1000", as he totally captures each scene he is in. If you aren't aware of who I'm talking about, he plays Capt. Spaulding, as seen here...

 

 

...the film begins on a hell of note. We start off with a great scene in Capt. Spaulding’s Museum of Monsters and Madmen, which leads us into the musical opening for the credits. I'm no fan of Rob Zombie, but I do admit that his music goes along perfectly in a film of this sort. So along with his music, the demented images in this opening, it really set a great tone for the rest of the film. Well, I should say it set a great tone for the rest of the film, which only lasted for a few minutes. It quickly broke down, and all direction seemed to be lost.

 

Everyone knows the plot of this film I assume. It's about a group of kids who are driving along, they run out of gas and are forced to stop at the odd, old looking gas station where they meet odd characters, which then lead them to a scarry and broken down house in the middle of nowhere, where all sorts of horror and murder begins to take place. Now call me crazy, I've been called that before, but does that not sound just like a plot seen before in a movie just of this sort? It's so fucking obvious that Rob Zombie wanted so bad for this one to be Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2000, but he fails to reach that goal.

 

The rest of this film is a horrible mixture of very bad acting, virtually no storyline or plot, no explanation for anything that is going on really, horrible editing, and an attempt at "cool shots" and the such, which only comes across as headache inducing. The film just seems to be one huge mess of various scenes trying to disturb the viewer, nothing really fits together in any way at all. Out of all of the camera angles, effects, and everything of that sort that we see throughout this film, there is only ONE which I feel is in any way truly original, cool, and horrifying. The shot is a closeup of the right part of someones face, and over their shoulder, we see "somone" following them as they are at a dead end trying to figure out what to do now. The shot holds there for a few moments, as the figure in the background over their shoulder moves closer and closer, and then they slowly turn their head to look over their shoulder, and the other half of their face appears as they do so, as they see the figure behind them. This is one of my favorite angles/shots that I have seen in years. There is nothing fancy about it, there are no special effects involved. As a matter of fact, it's the type of shot that any one of us could go out and shoot right now, but that's the thing. It's simple, and in this film it proves that less, is indeed more.

 

That is my favorite part of the entire film besides the very begining before the opening credits/song. The rest of the film is simply "just there", with really no positives that I can think of. The only real positive I suppose that I CAN name besides what I've said before, is that of the character Baby, played by newcomer Sheri Moon, this is her debut acting role. As from the "1000" web site, "Rob Zombie fans will recognize her from her numerous rock video appearances including such favorites as Dragula, Living Dead Girl and More Human Than Human.", so you may have seen her before if you've seen his videos. She is hot, beautiful, and has a great voice. I can't say much about her acting though, it pretty much just ran into the wall like most everyone else in this film. If you are currious, here is the best picture I have for you of her...

 

 

...also, the ending of this film comes out of nowhere. I like the ending of this film, but it just comes out of nowhere. I can't really explain it so as to not spoil it, but just be ready for a very abrupt ending, lol. Also, do not look for tons of gore and graphic death scenes in this film, because you will NOT find them here. This film is all about being emotionally disturbing by using quick jumps, setting, and the overall mood...

 

...it's just too bad that The Texas Chainsaw Massacre did the very same thing years before, and did it much better.

 

I don't really want to score this one, as I'm not all that sure as to what to score it on. In terms of a stand alone film in terms of acting, structure, etc... I'd give it 4/10, but as a horror film I'd give it around a 6/10. So average them together and you get a 5/10. If you like chessy, very bad made horror then check it out. If you are someone who loves your movies to really pull together in terms of structure, acting, directing, and all of this then just stay away from it, as you will not really find all that much to see here. I do suggest it though to you guys who love mindless horror, you MIGHT find something to enjoy here. I'll hold onto the hope that the sequel will be much more improved over this one, because it will truly need it. After waiting years for this film to finally finish up filming, and to be released, I am now forced to say that it was NOT, worth the long wait.

 

Sincerely,

...Downhome...

[Guest NoCalMike]

I figured it wouldn't be worth the wait. I was excited when I first heard about it and saw the trailer 2 years ago, but with every delay, my hopes diminished. Best bet is to wait for the uncut dvd.

[Guest snuffbox]

Where the bloody hell is this thing going to be playing at?!

[Guest Lethargic]

I also watched it. Started this review this morning and worked on it off and on all day. When I started I thought I'd be special to review 1000 Corpses and then I came here and it seemed like 300 of you already reviewed it. haha Anyway, here's my take....

 

 

 

So we watched 1000 Corpses about 3am last night on bad movie Saturday night. We waited that late because we wanted to make sure that everybody else would go away and just me and my best friend could sit here and really pay attention to the movie with no interruptions. This was 1000 Corpses. Years of waiting had occured for this movie. This was a special night.

 

When we watch these shitty movies every week. We talk through 90% of them because there would be no other way to get through them. Did we talk through Corpses? Yes, but the thing is....we talked ABOUT the movie. We basically were giving each other a running review as it went and for the first hour or so it was the most fun we'd had in a long time. Usually we're talking about, you know, the weather. That's a pretty good compliment actually. A movie that actually holds our attention enough for us to watch it and talk ABOUT it is very rare.

 

After that compliment let me get on to the ripping.

 

The problem with this movie is that it's made by a complete amateur and it shows. Everything about this movie looks amateurish. I felt like I was watching a cheap sci-fi network series like Black Scorpion or Jules Verne. It never felt like a movie. It didn't even look like one. It looked like it was shot on video and then had filters added to try to mimic film. Every in-door scene looked like a set, not a house. The most annoying thing about the movie's style and editing was the music montages. In between nearly EVERY SCENE there was basically what amounted to a 20 second music video. Random images, sometimes having to do with the plot - sometimes not, flash across the screen, timed to some shitty electronic rock Zombie music. You remember the Batsignal rotating in-between scenes on the 60's Batman show? Or the Transformers cartoon when the Decepticon insignia turned to the Autobot one? Imagine that but WAY too long and WAY too often. It was such a cheap ploy. To me it just said that Rob Zombie had no idea how to transition from one scene to another. And he didn't. The movie was difficult to follow because you'd have one scene and then you'd have that montage shit followed by another scene that seemed to not be connected to the last scene in any way. It was extremely annoying. 5 minutes into the movie me and my friend both looked at each with faces that said it all..."please tell me it doesn't do this through the whole movie!"

 

It did.

 

Another problem is that the movie seems like 3 movies stuck together. The first two movies are really good, the last one is terrible. I've never seen a movie use the "three act" structure to such a degree. Rob Zombie must've been reading Syd Field for months before writing this. The first act is about Sid Haig's Captain Spaulding character, the second act is about "the family" and the last one is like a TERRIBLE version of the TERRIBLE Hellraiser sequels of late. The first hour of the movie had it's problems but the movie was still good, though it did seem to be on a complete slide from minute 1 to minute 1:29. It was just a constant downhill slide. The good thing we kept saying is that this movie is NOTHING like all these nu-horror movies. This is no Feardotcom, this is no 13 Ghosts, this is no Ghost Ship. That made the movie great no matter it's downfalls. But with 20 minutes left, the movie took a complete left turn and ended up being EXACTLY like Feardotcom, 13 Ghosts and Ghost Ship. The last 20 minutes completely ruined this movie. It was terrible. It was stupid. It turned the movie into everything it wasn't supposed to be and ruined all the good things it had built up until then. The movie was so damn fun for an hour that the horrible last 20 minutes of music video bullshit nearly put us both on anti-depressants.

 

Another conversation we had....

 

Him: This movie should've been made 20 years ago.

Me: It was.

Him: Oh yeah, I forgot.

 

This movie does not deserve all the things said about it these past couple of years. It's not gonna "save" horror, it's not gonna "revive" horror. The same people saying this are probably the people that said Andrew WK was going to save rock and roll. The main reason this movie will not do any of that is because you've already seen it. This isn't a LITTLE like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, this IS Texas Chainsaw Massacre. There is nothing new here. If you've seen TCM, you've seen this and you've seen it better. At one point we were questioning if I had downloaded the wrong movie and actually gotten Michael Bay's TCM remake instead of Corpses. This is not similar, this doesn't come off as a tribute, this comes off as a guy that had no ideas of his own so he used somebody else's. This is simply Texas Chainsaw Massacre 5. Hell, I'd rather watch TCM The Next Generation, at least it was bad from start to finish and was entertaining because of it. Corpses started off good and THEN turned to shit.

 

There was a point where the family was sitting down for dinner and we of course said...."don't they have to get grandpa?" And they did. They got grandpa and brought him down to dinner. Then later on I said, "is there anyway possible that this movie won't end with the last chick running into a highway?" My friend tried to deny it at first and said he thought it would end with everybody dying. I said sure, everybody can die but I promise you it'll happen in the middle of a deserted highway. It did of course. Look, there's a highway! Surprise! So far I'm ignoring the fact that CHOPTOP is in the movie. No, not the actor who PLAYED Choptop. Yeah, it's the same guy, but he's still PLAYING Choptop. This isn't Bill Mosely playing somebody else, it's him playing the exact same character from TCM 2.

 

The only remake I've ever seen that's more faithful to the original source material was the Psycho remake. The problem is...THIS ISN'T SUPPOSED TO BE A REMAKE!

 

The main reason this horror movie isn't going to do anything for the horror genre is that this movie just plain isn't scary one bit. No tension, no suspense, nothing is really shocking. It doesn't even have any CHEAP scares! No music stabs timed to some character jumping out at you. NOTHING. We asked the question several times...."where is all the gore at??" There wasn't anything in here gory. We kept thinking, well, once they get to the house, but it never seemed to start and when it did start, the violence and death seemed to last for about 10 minutes or so. There were flashes of more brutal stuff in the montages, but we never really saw it. There was one scene with a razor blade that was a little bloody but I've seen MUCH WORSE in much tamer movies. We've all seen people cut themselves with razor's before in movies. Most of those scenes were a lot scarier than this because we CARED about those movies. There is nothing to care about in this one. Last House on the Left has some shocking scenes, there is NOTHING shocking about rednecks wearing giant paper mache heads in this movie. The movie also suffers because of it being a total rip-off of TCM. Suspense can't be built up because we KNOW everything that's going to happen. When a character shows up wearing another character's skin as a mask...you're so done with the TCM comparisons that it's not even worth pointing out or laughing at. The fate of all the characters is pre-determined before the credits have even started. I never felt a moment of anything remotely associated with horror. No scares, no thrills, no suspense, no jumps, no drama, nothing that you can think of.

 

The first hour was good simply because of the cast. This cast is a horror/exploitation fan's dream. It's awesome to see Sid Haig back in the movies with a significant part. It's great seeing Mosely as Choptop again. Michael J Pollard. Karen Black (doing a great impression of Stifler's Mom by the way). Queen of the B-Movies Jeanne Carmen. Tom Towles from Living Dead 90 and Henry. The problem is that 90% of the audience is not going to know who these people are and they're not going to feel the same joy in seeing them.

 

Rob Zombie has a great eye for visuals. Just watch his videos. The problem is that his movie is just like most of his music. Remixes filled with samples. There are some great visuals in this movie but you've seen them all before. Mostly in TCM but a lot of others are here as well. There was one point where a coffin completely identical to the one in Serpent and the Rainbow popped up, next thing you see is Mosely in makeup taken directly from Serpent and the Rainbow. There are dozens of scenes like that where we'd say "isn't that from INSERT MOVIE?" There was even a scene that reminded me of Jeepers Creepers and that is NOT a good thing. This kind of filmmaking works for 5 minutes. It does NOT work for 90. Seeing Rob Zombie do a Caligari themed video is great. Seeing him recycle images from past horror movies in a video is fine. Seeing him rape and pillage every horror movie that came before this one for 90 minutes without injecting one idea of his own into it? Not so great.

 

I've never liked Rob Zombie's music. I always found his lyrics to be horrible. I've never understood why either him or the band became popular. I always found his "horror" style to be something of joke, a scam, a gimmick. Almost to the level of modern day Misfits. When they wrote a song called The Shining but yet the song was all about Poltergeist instead of The Shining, that was pretty bad. I always had the same feeling with Zombie. His lyrics come off as somebody trying to write songs inspired by horror movies he's never seen. I guess the same thing applies to his movie now. It was just a scam. This isn't old school horror. It looks like what non-horror fans think horror is, not what a real horror fan thinks it is. This is just amateurish crap. Then again, I've seen many, many amateur movies much better than this one that actually managed to stay consistent throughout the entire movie. Hell, if you're gonna suck, suck the entire movie. Don't start off good to get hopes hope and then jump in the shitter.

 

I don't know, I had a million points I wanted to make but I can't make them all. Just don't go into it expecting much. Then again, I didn't expect much when I went in. The problem is that the first parts suckered me in to thinking it was a good movie only to find out that it wasn't. I'll see it again when it comes out on DVD to check out the NC-17 cut but I don't think it'll be enough to make it one of my favorites or anything. If it's like most director's cuts I'll probably just end up hating it completely when that comes out.

 

The good news is that Friday night I watched that other movie stuck in studio hell, Run Ronnie Run - The Mr Show Movie. I don't need to rant on this. The movie was friggin hysterical. Funniest movie I've seen in a while. When Bob and Dave themselves said the movie sucked that didn't sound good. Dammit, they're wrong. I have 10 Show episodes so far, I laughed more at this movie than I did at all those episodes added together. Remember Joe Dirt? I do. I remember expecting one thing and getting something totally different that didn't make me laugh once. THIS is what I expected to get when I watched Joe Dirt. Rednecks, 70's rock and tons of laughs.

[Guest Respect The 'Taker]

Downhome is Jesus.

 

Thanks for the review, i was uncertain about it but thought that Zombie could get through on the brutality factor alone.

 

Guess not.

 

HA!

 

UYI

[Guest Downhome]

If by saying the first part of the movie was ok, you mean the first 5-10 minutes or so, then you are right. If you mean anything else, I just don't understand it. It was all horrible, with horrible acting, no storyline or structure, and most of all, no heart and originality.

 

I doubt this will get a nationwide release, as it isn't the type of horror that will make any type of profit. For horror to make a profit, it must be something new, something original, and a film with structure and story. I could see this one getting a cult following once it hits DVD, but not untill then, and THAT will only be because of the hardcore horror buffs.

 

No wonder the studio's kept turning this film down. It wasn't because it was too extreme, or too "out there". It was because it is pure shit, which obviously will not truly help any studio it is associated with. They said this was the film that no one wanted you to see...

 

...and I would not doubt that, just chalk it up to the studio's trying to save us from the horror of the film itself, in all it's badness, not the actual story of the film itself.

 

By the way, the Psycho remake doesn't hold shit to the original. With all of the talent that was involved in this film, it's pathetic that it turned out as it did.

[Guest Lethargic]

If by saying the first part of the movie was ok, you mean the first 5-10 minutes or so, then you are right. If you mean anything else, I just don't understand it. It was all horrible, with horrible acting, no storyline or structure, and most of all, no heart and originality.

 

I doubt this will get a nationwide release, as it isn't the type of horror that will make any type of profit. For horror to make a profit, it must be something new, something original, and a film with structure and story. I could see this one getting a cult following once it hits DVD, but not untill then, and THAT will only be because of the hardcore horror buffs.

 

No wonder the studio's kept turning this film down. It wasn't because it was too extreme, or too "out there". It was because it is pure shit, which obviously will not truly help any studio it is associated with. They said this was the film that no one wanted you to see...

 

...and I would not doubt that, just chalk it up to the studio's trying to save us from the horror of the film itself, in all it's badness, not the actual story of the film itself.

 

By the way, the Psycho remake doesn't hold shit to the original. With all of the talent that was involved in this film, it's pathetic that it turned out as it did.

Well, like I said, it's only fun if you're somebody that loves the cast. If you're a fan of all those guys you're gonna go crazy for it. If you're not, you'll see it as bad acting.

 

Personally I think there was too much story. I mean this is just TCM. TCM didn't have a story. Kids, van, house, family, death. That's the story. And that's the story here except it tacks on all the Doctor Satan and Captain Spaulding stuff. If it would've just kept it simple, kids, car, house, family, death it would've been a lot better. Instead he crammed every idea he had into one movie which was too much for an 89 minute running time. The family was never really scary because we never really got enough time to see them do much of anything but act like idiots.

 

Calling the Psycho remake is a little weak. It's a lot more than pathetic. Doesn't matter the talent. You do a shot by shot remake of a movie regarded as one of the greatest of all time, only adding a jerk off scene, you don't deserve to make another movie.

[Guest Downhome]

Personally I think there was too much story. I mean this is just TCM. TCM didn't have a story. Kids, van, house, family, death. That's the story. And that's the story here except it tacks on all the Doctor Satan and Captain Spaulding stuff. If it would've just kept it simple, kids, car, house, family, death it would've been a lot better. Instead he crammed every idea he had into one movie which was too much for an 89 minute running time. The family was never really scary because we never really got enough time to see them do much of anything but act like idiots.

There is a different between a lot of shit going on for no reason, and an actual well thought out idea and story. The problem was that nothing tied together really, we had no explanation for anything, and you are right, they were NEVER scary, all they DID was act like a group of moron idiots.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

For horror to make a profit, it must be something new, something original, and a film with structure and story. I could see this one getting a cult following once it hits DVD, but not untill then, and THAT will only be because of the hardcore horror buffs.

I disagree with this statement - I think of all the genres of film, except maybe romantic comedies, horror has been the least original ever since its inception. With the exception of the additions of sex and gore, and the occasional rare exception (The Blair Witch Project, as much as I hate it), the horror film hasn't changed since... well, since ever.

[Guest El Satanico]

I also disagree with the "horror movies must be original to be succesful" statement. There's many examples that prove horror movies can use a certian formula and be succesful.

 

Latest example would be Darkness Falls being semi successful and opening at #1. Darkness Falls isn't exactly an original idea. In fact all the previews I've seen make it look like Candyman mixed with The Ring

[Guest Lethargic]

My take is that when people try to do something new with horror it usually sucks and bombs. With Friday the 13th, they kept trying to come up with new ideas. Send him to NY, send him to Hell, send him to space. Screw that man. Put Jason in the woods and kill people. That's all I need, all I want and I'll be friggin happy. Story? BAH!

[Guest Respect The 'Taker]

I also disagree with the "horror movies must be original to be succesful" statement. There's many examples that prove horror movies can use a certian formula and be succesful.

Hello? Scream? That movie ripped off about every horror movie that made it big. However it did it intentionally and with tongue in cheek, but still..

 

It's also my favorite horror flick ever.

 

..and i've seen a shitload of horror movies.

 

UYI

[Guest Downhome]

Shall we go through the list of horror films which have truly been succesfull at the box office? You mention Darkness Falls (one of the worst movies I've ever seen), but that film was a huge dissapointment at the box office, bringing in a total of only 31.83Mil, that is the total. Considering it was on quite a few screens also, that is a horrible bomb.

 

Yes, Scream does obvioulsly have aspects of horror throughout the years, but it was the first/one of the first films in the new age of Teen Horror in the 90's. It was something new and fresh, as it presented it's product in a way for a new generation. Most that have come after Scream of this kind, including Urban Legend and the two Scream sequels, have failed to match the total of Scream. The reason being, they were no longer "in", they were no longer "cool", they were no longer original. Scream was because it was the first, that's obvious.

 

Each, or rather MOST, horror films that come out are succesfull due to their having something new, original, or something one has not seen in years. Just look at the ones which have truly been succesfull, and really made a profit. Most of them are the exact type of what I'm talking about, and that's not my opinion, it's simply fact.

 

While the top 270 at the box office list has few horror films on it, the ones on there all have these same qualities for the most part...

 

#15 The Sixth Sense --- $293,501,675

 

#21 Jaws --- $260,000,000

 

#44 The Exorcist --- $204,565,000

 

#96 What Lies Beneath --- $155,370,362

 

#105 The Gremlins --- $148,168,459

 

#122 The Blair Witch Project --- $140,530,114

 

#143 The Silence of the Lambs --- $130,726,716

 

#150 The Ring --- $128,579,698

 

#234 Interview With the Vampire --- $105,264,608

 

#241 Scream --- $103,001,700

 

#242 Jaws 2 --- $102,922,000

 

#253 Scream 2 --- $101,334,380

 

#257 Sleepy Hollow --- $101,068,340

 

#267 Se7en --- $100,125,340

 

...now I don't know about you, but most of these are either timelessly original, or was original for the day and age which they were released. Yeah, some up above may not be horror to you, but I tossed them on just in case. Anyhow, these are the "horror" films to break the $100Mil barrier, and they all have something in common for the most part.

 

After these we have Scream 3 which fell to $88.36Mil, and after that not many come even close for the most part. The average for a horror release stays somewhere around $35Mil most of the time. You could say that horror should be looked at differently in terms of success, but a succesfull film is a succesfull film. The horror genre can be done really succesfully when you do the film with a touch of something new, something original, something that either hasn't been done before, or something that hasn't been done quite the same way.

 

The problem is the writers in Hollywood, and the directors. They seem to not really care all that much for the genre, but when done the right way, they can be huge. I know that there are more factors which add in when talking about a film being succesfull in the long term. Films like Elm Street, Halloween, Psycho*, 13th, Evil Dead, so on and so on are all succesfull, but in a different way for the most part. I'm talking box office here, that's all.

 

*(By the way, there are other films when based on the Adjusted Ticket Price For Inflation would be right up there way on the list. For example, Psycho only brought in $32,000,000 but when adjusted, it made $249,600,066 which is one of the top of all horror films. Jaws brought in $260,000,000 but when THIS one is inflated it comes to $749,261,086. I love messing around with the adjusted totals, lol.)

[Guest Lethargic]

If even you admit that a lot of those are't even horror movies then what does this prove? I don't even see much originality on that list. Actually I don't see ONE movie on that list that I look at and think that it was an original idea.

 

The Sixth Sense - Just a glorified ghost story.

 

Jaws - Just another giant animal attacks movie.

 

The Exorcist - Just another movie about the Devil and demons.

 

What Lies Beneath - The whole hype surrounding this movie is that it was Zemeckis trying to make a Hitchcock movie and that it was something of a ripoff of Sixth Sense. Not very original.

 

Gremlins - Another "monster attacks a small town" movie? 8 million of those were made in the 50s and 60s.

 

The Blair Witch Project - Can only be considered to be original by people who didn't see Last Broadcast and Man Bites Dog. Those of us who did see those movies just saw this as a very inferior rip off. There was more originality in the sequel than this one.

 

The Silence of the Lambs - Just another hunting down a serial killer movie.

 

The Ring - Remake.

 

Interview With the Vampire - Erotic vampires? No originality here.

 

Scream - I don't hate this movie like other horror fans but original? Uh, no. If you're saying it's original because of the whole horror movie cliche brought into the real world or whatever you wanna call it, Wes Craven himself already did that with Freddy's Dead.

 

Jaws 2 - Sequels are automatically disqualified from being called original.

 

Scream 2 - See above.

 

Sleepy Hollow - Just a live action version of a story that's been told for years and years in every form of media there is.

 

Se7en - Yet another hunt down a serial killer movie.

 

I'm not saying all these movies suck. I'm not saying this stuff to put them down. But original ideas? I don't see any.

 

To me, a good box office result is NOT doing like What Lies Beneath did. If you spend 130 million on a movie and you make back 150, that's not good to me. So you can say you're the #96 movie until something knocks you off? Wow! That's not what I would want to see happen. If I spend 130 I wanna get 250 back. Not a measly 20 mill return. To me, succesful horror movies are the ones like Elm Street that cost 2 million but brought back 25. That number doesn't knock your socks off does it? It's opening weekend it only made around 1 million and opened in the 10th spot. But that's the kind of movie that can keep a studio in business. They made their investment back 12 times over on Elm Street. That's just good business sense to me. Horror shouldn't be about trying to make a movie that'll make 100 million dollars. It should be about making a movie that'll make more money than it cost. A movie like Willard, people aren't going to flock to that. It's no shock what it made. The people that read the script should've known it was a 20-30 mill maker in the very best case scenario. But they didn't see it that way. They spent all that money to put in CGI rats to try to make it look good and pretty for everybody, now it has no shot at making a profit. They're making Freddy vs Jason with a 25 million budget, trying to make it more accesible for non-horror fans. Throw in another 10-15 mill for advertising and I'm willing to bet that this movie ends up making around 30 mil and never turns a cent of it into actual profit.

 

I'm getting off track and I don't know what I'm saying anymore so I'm stopping. haha

[Guest Downhome]

If even you admit that a lot of those are't even horror movies then what does this prove? I don't even see much originality on that list. Actually I don't see ONE movie on that list that I look at and think that it was an original idea.

 

The Sixth Sense - Just a glorified ghost story.

 

Jaws - Just another giant animal attacks movie.

 

The Exorcist - Just another movie about the Devil and demons.

 

What Lies Beneath - The whole hype surrounding this movie is that it was Zemeckis trying to make a Hitchcock movie and that it was something of a ripoff of Sixth Sense. Not very original.

 

Gremlins - Another "monster attacks a small town" movie? 8 million of those were made in the 50s and 60s.

 

The Blair Witch Project - Can only be considered to be original by people who didn't see Last Broadcast and Man Bites Dog. Those of us who did see those movies just saw this as a very inferior rip off. There was more originality in the sequel than this one.

 

The Silence of the Lambs - Just another hunting down a serial killer movie.

 

The Ring - Remake.

 

Interview With the Vampire - Erotic vampires? No originality here.

 

Scream - I don't hate this movie like other horror fans but original? Uh, no. If you're saying it's original because of the whole horror movie cliche brought into the real world or whatever you wanna call it, Wes Craven himself already did that with Freddy's Dead.

 

Jaws 2 - Sequels are automatically disqualified from being called original.

 

Scream 2 - See above.

 

Sleepy Hollow - Just a live action version of a story that's been told for years and years in every form of media there is.

 

Se7en - Yet another hunt down a serial killer movie.

 

I'm not saying all these movies suck. I'm not saying this stuff to put them down. But original ideas? I don't see any.

 

To me, a good box office result is NOT doing like What Lies Beneath did. If you spend 130 million on a movie and you make back 150, that's not good to me. So you can say you're the #96 movie until something knocks you off? Wow! That's not what I would want to see happen. If I spend 130 I wanna get 250 back. Not a measly 20 mill return. To me, succesful horror movies are the ones like Elm Street that cost 2 million but brought back 25. That number doesn't knock your socks off does it? It's opening weekend it only made around 1 million and opened in the 10th spot. But that's the kind of movie that can keep a studio in business. They made their investment back 12 times over on Elm Street. That's just good business sense to me. Horror shouldn't be about trying to make a movie that'll make 100 million dollars. It should be about making a movie that'll make more money than it cost. A movie like Willard, people aren't going to flock to that. It's no shock what it made. The people that read the script should've known it was a 20-30 mill maker in the very best case scenario. But they didn't see it that way. They spent all that money to put in CGI rats to try to make it look good and pretty for everybody, now it has no shot at making a profit. They're making Freddy vs Jason with a 25 million budget, trying to make it more accesible for non-horror fans. Throw in another 10-15 mill for advertising and I'm willing to bet that this movie ends up making around 30 mil and never turns a cent of it into actual profit.

 

I'm getting off track and I don't know what I'm saying anymore so I'm stopping. haha

If you don't see what's original with all of those films, then I don't don't know what else to say. To ME they are all horror, I just know that to some of you, you wont think so. I'm not getting into a huge discussion, since this thread isn't even about this, but all of those films were succesfull because they were original and new for either their time, or are timelessly original.

 

The seqels are there simply because the viewing public was still on a high from the first one that was released, as an extention of the first one. You just put down a number of classics, and they are just that because they offered something special. For some I don't expect you to understand, since you can't really understand unless you know exactly what was going on when they were released, and what peoples mindsets were. To say Jaws was "just another giant animal attacks movie" and that Se7en is "yet another hunt down a serial killer movie", then you obviously have no idea just what it was that the viewing public saw in them, even if subconsionsly. As for Scream, you have to understand that yes it was somewhat of a spoof on horror, but it was done for a brand new generation, it was done in a way that had never been seen for many people, thus the flocked to the theaters.

 

If you can't understand how any of these are original, then I am not going to further explain to you at all, because it is simply wasting my time.

[Guest Lethargic]

If you can't understand how any of these are original, then I am not going to further explain to you at all, because it is simply wasting my time.

Well, we at least found something we agree on. haha

[Guest El Satanico]

Those movies weren't original, BUT they did put a different spin on their material.

 

The key in the horror genre isn't total originality, but rather putting a different spin on what's been done before.

[Guest Kagato Otaku]

Scream - I don't hate this movie like other horror fans but original? Uh, no. If you're saying it's original because of the whole horror movie cliche brought into the real world or whatever you wanna call it, Wes Craven himself already did that with Freddy's Dead.

 

Craven didn't direct or really have anything at all to do with Freddy's Dead.

 

If you mean Wes Craven's New Nightmare, alright then.

[Guest J*ingus]

Actually I don't see ONE movie on that list that I look at and think that it was an original idea.

None? Not one? At all? I gotta take issue with a few of these.

 

The Sixth Sense - Just a glorified ghost story.

 

But how many times have you seen the final twist done before? I can only think of one example (Carnival of Souls), but even that was still handled quite differently.

 

Jaws - Just another giant animal attacks movie.

 

Just another excellently directed, well written, tightly acted scary-as-hell giant animal attacks movie.

 

The Exorcist - Just another movie about the Devil and demons.

 

I think this flick is quite overrated, but still, "just another movie about the Devil"?

 

What Lies Beneath - The whole hype surrounding this movie is that it was Zemeckis trying to make a Hitchcock movie and that it was something of a ripoff of Sixth Sense. Not very original.

 

I've only seen part of it, but I wouldn't call this one a horror movie.

 

Gremlins - Another "monster attacks a small town" movie? 8 million of those were made in the 50s and 60s.

 

But not many with the weird combination of hilarity and genuinely tense moments as this film.

 

The Blair Witch Project - Can only be considered to be original by people who didn't see Last Broadcast and Man Bites Dog. Those of us who did see those movies just saw this as a very inferior rip off. There was more originality in the sequel than this one.

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

 

Man Bites Dog was a very good film, but it hardly invented the Fake Documentary genre. Zelig, Spinal Tap, Cannibal Holocaust, and various other films have been doing this for a while now.

 

And are you seriously trying to say that Blair Witch was a ripoff of Last Broadcast? Firstly, both films were made around the same time, and neither group of filmmakers had heard of the other before their projects were already done. Secondly, let's face it, Last Broadcast is an utter puddle of flaming cow diahrrea. It sucks. It's boring. There's NO action or tension whatsoever. The ending completely breaks down the fourth wall and destroys every ounce of credibility that this movie, or any movie, has ever tried to build. It was one of the most miserably misconceived and badly executed "films" I've ever seen in my life. Meanwhile, I will maintain until my dying day that The Blair Witch Project is a brilliant masterpiece.

 

The Silence of the Lambs - Just another hunting down a serial killer movie.

 

Just happening to star Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster. Yeah, people may quibble over the exact acting talents of Boris Karloff or Peter Cushing, but how many "just another" horror flicks have that kind of thespianic power behind them?

 

The Ring - Remake.

 

Which doesn't mean that it's not an original concept in this country. Ringu wasn't exactly Seven Samurai in terms of being well-known by many people internationally.

 

Interview With the Vampire - Erotic vampires? No originality here.

 

Anne Rice basically invented the modern image of the tragic, sensual, haunted Eurotrash vampire, permanently hauling the nosferatu legend out of Romanian castles and into some different and more interesting locales.

 

Scream - I don't hate this movie like other horror fans but original? Uh, no. If you're saying it's original because of the whole horror movie cliche brought into the real world or whatever you wanna call it, Wes Craven himself already did that with Freddy's Dead.

 

Hell no this one wasn't original, and I hated it, but that's another argument for another time.

 

Jaws 2 - Sequels are automatically disqualified from being called original.

 

Scream 2 - See above.

 

I'd agree there, with rare exceptions like Godfather 2 or Aliens where they were trying for something different than the original.

 

Sleepy Hollow - Just a live action version of a story that's been told for years and years in every form of media there is.

 

So what if it's been told before? Tim Burton changed the entire story around and made a new version of it. (Of course, this movie pales in comparison to the similarly-themed Brotherhood Of The Wolf, but let's not quibble.)

 

Se7en - Yet another hunt down a serial killer movie.

 

Yeah, but once again, Brad Pitt, Morgan Freeman, Gwyneth Paltrow, and The Killer are all way above one's average horror flick acting crowd. I think some people overrate this movie and praise it way too highly, and it does have a bit of the Serial Killer As God cliche in it, but that still doesn't make it a bad flick.

 

So Lethargic, what would you list for some original horror movies?

[Guest Lethargic]

Obviously I meant New Nightmare. I couldn't remember what the hell that piece of crap was, looked it up on IMDB and Freddy's Dead was the most recent one I could find for some reason.

 

Did nobody read what I wrote? I said I wasn't attacking those movies. There is no reason to defend them on being good or not. But none of them are what I'd call original. Who cares if there was a twist at the end of Sixth Sense, it's still a ghost story. Who cares if Hopkins and Foster were in Lambs? It's still a tracking down a serial killer movie. All these movies are just different takes on the same tried and true plots that have been around for a hundred years. Even something like Memento, the backwards thing is a great idea, but the plot itself is still just a standard film noir plot. The presentation might be new but the heart of the movie certainly isn't. That doesn't mean it's bad, it's great. I don't know of any original horror movies in years. I thought about Cube for about 5 seconds until I remembered Exterminating Angel had a bunch of people trapped in a room, and a episode of Twilight Zone about people mysteriously trapped in a box.

 

Movies, ecspecially horror movies, are kinda like blues music. There are only so many blues chord progressions that are available. Only so many scales you can use in a solo. They've ALL been used before. Maybe a little different, maybe a little worse, maybe a little better, but we've heard it before. All you can do is use those same patterns we've all heard before in a slightly different way. You can put Brad Pitt, Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey in a movie and use the seven deadly sins gimmick but it's still a serial killer movie. It's not all that different from something like Dirty Harry chasing the Scorpio killer. It may be better made and executed better but at the heart of the movie it's still just another serial killer movie. And that's ignoring all the cliches in the movie of a young white cop, partnering with an older black cop nearing retirement.

 

Man Bites Dog was a very good film, but it hardly invented the Fake Documentary genre.  Zelig, Spinal Tap, Cannibal Holocaust, and various other films have been doing this for a while now.

 

Exactly my point. It's nothing new. Man Bites Dog is more in the horror genre though. It also features basically the exact same ending as BW did.

 

And are you seriously trying to say that Blair Witch was a ripoff of Last Broadcast?  Firstly, both films were made around the same time, and neither group of filmmakers had heard of the other before their projects were already done.  Secondly, let's face it, Last Broadcast is an utter puddle of flaming cow diahrrea.  It sucks.  It's boring.  There's NO action or tension whatsoever.  The ending completely breaks down the fourth wall and destroys every ounce of credibility that this movie, or any movie, has ever tried to build.  It was one of the most miserably misconceived and badly executed "films" I've ever seen in my life.  Meanwhile, I will maintain until my dying day that The Blair Witch Project is a brilliant masterpiece.

 

Well, of course the makers of Blair Witch are going to say they never heard of it. But all you have to do is watch the movie and see the identical shots. Watch the Sci-Fi documentary and see how amazingly similars part of it were. If you don't see that stuff you're completely blind. Look at the SEQUEL to Blair Witch. It used the exact same location as LB did, that's a huge coincidence. Last Broadcast is one of my favorite horror movies of all time. The movie is a million times better than that boring Blair Witch shit. Blair Witch had me wondering if anything was going to happen. Last Broadcast had me ready to leap out of my chair in anticipation. That scene where the killer's face slowly appeared drove me nuts. It was great. The thing that makes it better to me is that they didn't spend the entire movie in the woods like BW did, instead they used the footage spliced into a "documentary". That worked like a charm. So the movie never bogged down into watching tedious bickering between three people in a tent for an hour. The BW sci-fi documentary was outstanding to me. I loved it. The movie itself was OK at best. An hour and a half of rocks and sticks with 5 good minutes at the very end. LB had a much better way of doing it by not using the footage as the entire movie. And that ending was fucking brilliant. One of the better endings of any movie I can think of. It gave me EXACTLY what I wanted, unlike BW which gave me absolutely NOTHING. I will maintain until my dying day that The Last Broadcast is a brilliant 900 dollar masterpiece.

[Guest Downhome]

Movies, ecspecially horror movies, are kinda like blues music. There are only so many blues chord progressions that are available. Only so many scales you can use in a solo. They've ALL been used before. Maybe a little different, maybe a little worse, maybe a little better, but we've heard it before. All you can do is use those same patterns we've all heard before in a slightly different way.

That isn't true at all, not in the very least. All you need is true talent and ambition, and one can come up with something original. Have it be music, or the horror genre in film, it can always be done.

[Guest J*ingus]

Even something like Memento, the backwards thing is a great idea, but the plot itself is still just a standard film noir plot.

But where else has Memento's basic plot been done? The memory disorder that guy had was completely new, I've never seen anything like it in any movie or book ever before. I'd maintain his struggle with his own brain was the plot of the movie, not the search for his wife's killer.

 

Exactly my point.  It's nothing new.  Man Bites Dog is more in the horror genre though.  It also features basically the exact same ending as BW did.

 

It didn't have the exact same ending, for one thing. Cameraman gets killed? It's been done in Cannibal Holocaust and various other films, MBD didn't start it.

 

Well, of course the makers of Blair Witch are going to say they never heard of it.  But all you have to do is watch the movie and see the identical shots.  Watch the Sci-Fi documentary and see how amazingly similars part of it were.  If you don't see that stuff you're completely blind.  Look at the SEQUEL to Blair Witch.  It used the exact same location as LB did, that's a huge coincidence. 

 

It was a coincidence, plain and simple. The Last Broadcast had its premiere in March of 1998. But principle photography on Blair Witch Project was mostly filmed in October of 1997. They just happened to be doing similar things at the same time. Happens all the time in Hollywood: look at Deep Impact and Armageddon.

 

Last Broadcast is one of my favorite horror movies of all time.  The movie is a million times better than that boring Blair Witch shit.  Blair Witch had me wondering if anything was going to happen.  Last Broadcast had me ready to leap out of my chair in anticipation. 

 

I am now doubting your sanity. Blair Witch was happening right there, in front of you. Last Broadcast was all after the fact, and felt more like an episode of Unsolved Mysteries than anything else.

 

That scene where the killer's face slowly appeared drove me nuts.  It was great. 

 

And it's physically impossible to damage film in such a precise way to achieve the killer's goals, but anyway.

 

And that ending was fucking brilliant.  One of the better endings of any movie I can think of.  It gave me EXACTLY what I wanted, unlike BW which gave me absolutely NOTHING. 

 

Ugh. That ending...

 

 

***SPOILERS***

 

Explain to me, please, how the fuck it could possibly make any sense at all for a movie to suddenly just stop being a documentary, and turn into a standard narrative third-person fictional film? When the killer is choking that girl to death, I was wondering the whole time, "So who the hell is holding the camera now?!" It broke every single rule of storytelling, and not in a good way. It's as if some guy was writing a novel, and suddenly God stepped in to write the ending, complete with book pages that suddenly turned into TV screens. It completely ruined what would've been an otherwise tolerable flick for me.

 

***END SPOILERS***

 

 

Blair Witch didn't explain what happened, no, but I could deal with it. In the end, we didn't know any more about it than the characters themselves did, and I liked the ambiguity. In Last Broadcast, it explained the entire thing, but did so with such a clumsy Deus Ex Machina that I felt like I'd been fucked out of a real ending.

[Guest Lethargic]

But where else has Memento's basic plot been done? The memory disorder that guy had was completely new, I've never seen anything like it in any movie or book ever before. I'd maintain his struggle with his own brain was the plot of the movie, not the search for his wife's killer.

 

2 off the top of my head are Two O'Clock Courage and Deadline at Dawn. Both from the 40's and both featuring lead characters with memory problems trying to solve a murder.

 

It didn't have the exact same ending, for one thing.  Cameraman gets killed?  It's been done in Cannibal Holocaust and various other films, MBD didn't start it. 

 

Did I SAY it started it? Good God. All I'm saying is that it's been done before. You're just helping my point here by stating other examples.

 

And it's physically impossible to damage film in such a precise way to achieve the killer's goals, but anyway. 

 

Last time I checked this was a movie. Ever see Superman? Guess what. There's no alien men out there flying around in blue suits either. There's also no evil witch living in Maryland.

 

Explain to me, please, how the fuck it could possibly make any sense at all for a movie to suddenly just stop being a documentary, and turn into a standard narrative third-person fictional film?  When the killer is choking that girl to death, I was wondering the whole time, "So who the hell is holding the camera now?!"

 

The fact that you actually asked that question is a huge statement on your intelligence. Let's call a spade a spade here. LB is geared more towards intelligent movie fans that can grasp the fact that a fake documentary can make the switch to normal movie style in order to to accurately tell the story that they want to tell. Blair Witch is the dumbed down version of the story for popcorn munching morons who like to be scared of piles of rocks and stick figures. End of story.

[Guest J*ingus]

2 off the top of my head are Two O'Clock Courage and Deadline at Dawn. Both from the 40's and both featuring lead characters with memory problems trying to solve a murder.

Never heard of either of those, but I'll take a look at them if I get the chance, I do love a good amnesia story.

 

Did I SAY it started it?  Good God.  All I'm saying is that it's been done before.  You're just helping my point here by stating other examples.

 

Well, you seemed to be implying that those two movies were the ones that specifically got ripped off by Blair Witch.

 

Last time I checked this was a movie.  Ever see Superman?  Guess what.  There's no alien men out there flying around in blue suits either.  There's also no evil witch living in Maryland.

 

It just broke the rules, to me. The entire point of Last Broadcast is that there is no supernatural beastie, it's all explainable by human causes, right? And then it has the killer go and do something that's humanly impossible. And Blair Witch never insisted there was an evil witch living in Maryland, either.

 

The fact that you actually asked that question is a huge statement on your intelligence. 

 

Watch it, Leth, this ain't NHB.

 

LB is geared more towards intelligent movie fans that can grasp the fact that a fake documentary can make the switch to normal movie style in order to to accurately tell the story that they want to tell. 

 

That's my entire point: I don't think it can, or should, make the switch. I think that violates the basic premise of narrative filmmaking and breaks the compact of trust that most viewers have with most movies. They could've easily finished the movie in the fake documentary style without ever having to resort to such a trick.

 

Blair Witch is the dumbed down version of the story for popcorn munching morons who like to be scared of piles of rocks and stick figures.  End of story.

 

No, your average Dead Teenager Movie is for popcorn munching morons. Blair Witch was trying to do something very different from the norm, and it succeeded with me.

[Guest Lethargic]

You know what? Man, after we got into this little argument, I got so pissed that I quit coming here. That "who is holding the camera" question about LB always gets me so riled up I start calling people morons and stuff. So I just got to a point where I was saying "Screw that board man. Every friggin discussion I get in turns into an argument. Everybody there takes what I say too seriously or out of contex. They're all a bunch of kids and it makes me feel like an old man. Screw it. I ain't going there no more!"

 

So I tried posting somewhere else and I ended up coming to the conclusion that no matter how many arguments I get into, this place ain't all bad. haha So after getting over it and wondering why I get so pissed over that stupid movie I came back to apologize like a pussy, expecting you to be all pissed over the moron and intelligence comments and you didn't even seem to get mad at them you bastard. Plus I realized that I like to argue so why did I ever get sick of doing it? So my three day vacation is over. I am now back to argue. Blair Witch sucks! Bah!!!!

[Guest Flyboy]

What Lethary.. can I call you Lethary? Okay, good. What he's trying to say is... well, basically...

 

 

[Guest Lethargic]

What Lethary.. can I call you Lethary? Okay, good. What he's trying to say is... well, basically...

 

 

No, the short version is Leth, dammit.

[Guest Flyboy]

Lethary > Leth.