Left to one's own interpretation...

New movies! Old movies! B-movies! Discuss discuss discuss!!!

Postby Pacino86845 on Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:26 pm

Quick movie deathmatch: Kids vs Rules of Attraction, who comes out on top?

I just rewatched Kids last night, and though I liked Rules of Attraction I'd put Kids ahead.
User avatar
Pacino86845
EGYPTIAN LOVER
 
Posts: 14064
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:20 am

Postby tapehead on Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:29 pm

I like Rules of Attraction better, but maybe it's because all the participants are consenting adults.
Underage Chloe Sevigny was hot though.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby so sorry on Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:29 pm

Pacino86845 wrote:Quick movie deathmatch: Kids vs Rules of Attraction, who comes out on top?

I just rewatched Kids last night, and though I liked Rules of Attraction I'd put Kids ahead.


I've only seen both of these films once, and quite a while ago... they both made me feel very unsettled...

I'd say Kids kicks me in the balls harder (younger kids in situations like that... disturbing)
User avatar
so sorry
Deacon Blues
 
Posts: 15728
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:29 am

Postby Pacino86845 on Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:37 pm

Rules of Attraction was definitely more aesthetically pleasing, like all the hot young adults and their rich-people identity issues... but Kids really was like a sledgehammer to the balls, I agree, and probably because of that it works better (for me) as a comment on modern youth (or youth in general, to some extent).
User avatar
Pacino86845
EGYPTIAN LOVER
 
Posts: 14064
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:20 am

Postby tapehead on Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:39 pm

My balls got through it unscathed.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby Seppuku on Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:42 pm

tapehead wrote:Underage Chloe Sevigny was hot though.


:shock: That's fucking depraved, man!

I think I'm just gonna ignore your posts from here on out.




























Ah, who am I kidding?

Image

(Incidentally, I'm betting the Snap Vampire agrees with us...)
User avatar
Seppuku
SWINGING PLASTIC LION
 
Posts: 7872
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Limeyland

Postby tapehead on Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:49 pm

seppukudkurosawa wrote:
Image

(Incidentally, I'm betting the Snap Vampire agrees with us...)


Betcha Larry Clarke does too.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Re: John Carpenter's The Thing

Postby TheButcher on Fri Sep 17, 2010 3:56 pm

Spotting the Difference: From Campbell's 'Who Goes There?' to Carpenter's 'The Thing'

The art of adaptation is just that; an art. Adapting a short story, a novel, or even a novella takes a finely honed sense of what worked in the adapted material, of what drew readers and, presumably, a movie studio to purchase the film rights, and what works on the big or small screen. Of the three, the novel is generally the most difficult to adapt, the short story second hardest (because so many details and backstory have to be created from scratch), and that makes the novella, with its limited page count and linear story, usually minus subplots, perfect or near-perfect for the big - or small - screen jump.

John W. Campbell's 1938 science-fiction/horror novella, 'Who Goes There?,' has been adapted twice for the big screen, first, loosely, as 'The Thing from Another World,' produced and ghost-directed by Howard Hawks ('Rio Bravo,' 'Red River,' 'The Big Sleep,' 'His Girl Friday') in 1951 and thirty-one years later, by John Carpenter ('Prince of Darkness,' 'They Live,' 'Halloween') as 'The Thing.' Carpenter's adaptation hews closely to Campbell's novella, with some key differences (which we'll discuss below) while Hawks' adaptation shares a general premise and ideas, but little else with the source material.

[Note: Spoiler alert is in full effect.]
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: John Carpenter’s Apocalypse Trilogy

Postby TheButcher on Thu Dec 30, 2010 6:49 pm

John Carpenter’s Apocalypse Trilogy
American film director, screenwriter, producer and composer, John Carpenter, has made great contributions to the horror and science fiction genres in the past 30 years. Beginning with his low budget classic that started the slasher genre, “Halloween” and his Lovecraftian ode and career starter for actor Kurt Russell, “The Thing”, Carpenter has created some of the most horrific and powerful horror and science fiction films in America. You'll need to sleep with the hid lights on after these movies.

After the success of “Halloween”, Carpenter had the time, money and creative power to pursue a dream of creating a trilogy of films loosely connected by their H.P. Lovecraft influence and their apocalyptic storylines. The first in this trilogy was “The Thing,” a loose remake of the 1951 film “The Thing from Another World,” with Carpenter’s version much darker and much more horrific. The story of a US Antarctic research station that comes face to face with cosmic terror was more based on Lovecraft’s “At the Mountains of Madness” than the 1951 film. Released at the same time as Spieldberg’s “E.T.” the film did not do well at first release but has since found a new cult fandom after video release.

Carpenter’s second film in the trilogy, “Prince of Darkness,” deals with the coming of the Anti-Christ, who has been long gestating in a cylinder in the basement of a Catholic church. A group of PHD students and their philosophical professor come together to stop the evil from coming forth and destroying the world. Another unsuccessful film commercially for Carpenter, since then it has received much more kind reviews, some even calling it a lost classic and a great film at evoking Lovecraftian cosmic dread.

The last film in the series is “In the Mouth of Madness”, released in 1994 and starring Sam Neill of “Event Horizon” and “Jurassic Park” fame. The most Lovecraftian of Carpenter’s films, “In the Mouth of Madness” is about a private investigator that goes mad after reading the novels of a powerfully successful horror author named Sutter Cane. Cane, loosely based on Lovecraft and Stephen King, is revealed to be a pawn of evil whose novels are a way of opening a gateway to hell.

Carpenter’s Apocalypse Trilogy is deserving of a newfound look and criticism and should be considered among the great American film trilogies.


http://www.miskatonic-university.org/inquisitor/?p=37
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Left to one's own interpretation...

Postby TheButcher on Sun Aug 21, 2011 11:44 pm

User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: John Carpenter’s The Thing

Postby TheButcher on Wed Feb 20, 2013 11:16 am

User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: John Carpenter’s The Thing

Postby TheButcher on Tue Feb 10, 2015 7:23 am

User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: John Carpenter’s The Thing

Postby TheBaxter on Tue Feb 10, 2015 3:16 pm



looks like Guillermo del Toro is doing some on-location shooting at the Plateau of Leng
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 19226
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: John Carpenter’s The Thing

Postby TheButcher on Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:18 am

Watch: 84-Minute Doc 'The Thing: Terror Takes Shape' About John Carpenter's Classic Horror


John Carpenter / Kurt Russell - The Making Of The Thing
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Left to one's own interpretation...

Postby TheButcher on Fri Jun 03, 2016 2:44 am

Cinephilia & Beyond:
JOHN CARPENTER’S ‘THE THING’: THE STORY OF AN SF HORROR GAME-CHANGER
It's always nice to see your films appreciated even decades after they were made, William Friedkin told us recently, but films are usually made for contemporary audiences. John Carpenter, the great filmmaker whom the world will remember for all those marvelous classics such as Halloween, The Assault on Precinct 13, The Fog and the subject of our today’s post, The Thing, as well as for countless brilliant yet still underappreciated movies like In the Mouth of Madness or Vampires, probably couldn’t agree more. The Thing, Carpenter’s unique take on John W. Campbell’s novella ‘Who Goes There?,’ the same story that inspired the Howard Hawks-produced, Christian Nyby-directed 1951 horror classic The Thing From Another World, was met with critical disdain and an utter lack of enthusiasm at the box office, partly due to the misfortune of coming out at about the same time as Spielberg’s E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial and Scott’s Blade Runner. This was Carpenter’s first film made with the support of a major film studio, and the commercial defeat of it was a blow that the filmmaker took right to the heart. “I take every failure hard. The one I took the hardest was The Thing. My career would have been different if that had been a big hit,” Carpenter reasoned. When we talked to him a few years back, and used a polite phrase such as “a bleak response from the audience” to describe The Thing’s reception, Carpenter calmly set us straight, encouraging us to be more precise and call it what it really was in the eyes of the audience–raping of the Madonna. “They hated it. Hated. Especially the fans.” And yet, thirty-five years later, The Thing is universally considered to be one of the most prominent specimens of the science-fiction horror genre. A thrilling, brilliantly structured, nicely scored and well-acted masterpiece. It’s easy to forget an artist like John Carpenter in the sea of flashier, more commercially orientated filmmakers. Luckily for us, there are people like Guillermo del Toro here to remind us of the true values. Del Toro published a series of passionate tweets on Carpenter’s career, calling The Thing “a game-changer that cannot be matched, a Holy Grail,” among other superlatives handed to his colleague he obviously respects very much.

The version of the screenplay that Carpenter approved of was written by Bill Lancaster, son of a much more famous father Burt, but before that, there was a series of writers that attempted to adapt the material for a feature film, most prominent of whom were the authors of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Tobe Hooper and Kim Henkel, as well as Logan’s Run scribe William F. Nolan. Lancaster’s version blew Carpenter away, inciting him to call it the best screenplay he’d ever read. With Dean Cundey, with whom he worked on Halloween, The Fog and Escape from New York, behind the camera, with Ennio Morricone composing the score and later claiming the only reason Carpenter asked him to do it was because he got married to a Morricone score, with Kurt Russell in one of his most famous roles, surrounded by a less known, all-male cast because a great portion of the budget went into special effects, The Thing is a quintessential horror film of the eighties, still celebrated for the unbelievably fine effects and make-up that impressed even the misguided critics who hopped on the hate train at the time of the film’s release. It was then 22-year-old Rob Bottin who’s to thank for this. The legendary Stan Winston helped him out with one particular creature, but he was allegedly so impressed with Bottin’s work that he refused to receive credit for his effort.

The Thing remains one of the highlights of a distinctive, rich and somehow still undervalued career of a versatile filmmaker, accomplished composer and a modest, wise, down-to-earth man. Carpenter is a filmmaker whose work says everything you need to know about him, and The Thing talks in essays.
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: John Carpenter’s The Thing

Postby TheButcher on Thu Jun 09, 2016 12:24 am

Shout! Factory Announces New Extras For Upcoming Release of John Carpenter’s The Thing
Erik Amaya wrote:Shout! Factory will be releasing a new Blu-ray edition of John Carpetner‘s The Thing in September and recently announced a number of new special features to be added to the two-disc set.

First, the film will be presented using a new 2K scan of the inter-positive supervised and approved by director of photography Dean Cundey and a new 4.1 sound mix (audio format to be determined) from the the original 70MM Six Track Dolby Stereo soundtrack. Cundey will also provide a new audio commentary while new featurettes include interviews with the men of Outpost 31 — Keith David, Thomas Waites, and Peter Maloney to name a few — editor Todd Ramsay, visual effects artists Peter Kuran and Susan Turner, special make-up effects artist Rob Burman and Brian Wade, supervising sound editor David Lewis Yewdall, special sound effects designer Alan Howarth and other members of the crew.

The set will also include the John Carpenter/Kurt Russell commentary track and other special features from earlier releases. It will also come with the ninety-two minute US broadcast version of The Thing, which must be a trip to watch with the gorier effects removed. But I imagine the film is still moody, chilling and funny even if they cut around heads and hands being eaten.

The Thing: Collector’s Edition will be available from Shout! Factory on September 20th.
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Left to one's own interpretation...

Postby TheButcher on Sun Feb 12, 2017 7:24 am

NSFW!
Where Are All The Big Lovecraft Films?
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: Blade Runner

Postby TheButcher on Sun Jun 25, 2017 2:49 am

cockknocker wrote:Yeah the Thing is an awesome film, I agree it is Carpenters best work. Rob Bottin's work in that film is amazing. If that film was made today it would be cgi overload and completely unbelievable.

Carpenter has often talked about a sequel but universal wont let him do it. Frankly though that's probably for the best IMHO considering some of his recent output.

Did any of you guys play the game that came out a couple of years ago? Is it any good?

Just to swing slightly more on topic... I love the fact the ending is ambiguos and has been LEFT that way. Ridley Scott annoyed me like hell when he said Dekard is a replicant, just let us decide for ourselves ok?

Keepcoolbutcare wrote:What's the definitive proof in Blade Runner that Deckard is a replicant? I understand the ambiguity, but what about the movie makes you say he positively is one?


DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:Waitaminnit.... the Dino, he's inna the shock! I thought alla you guys knew Harry was a the robot guy! You guys are a losing your geek-a-cred, iffa you know what I mean, eh?


so sorry wrote:Deckard is a replicant?? what the fuck?!?!? I never played the game. And i completely agree that the ambiguous ending is near perfect.


Blade Runner 2049 Will Answer Whether Deckard Is a Replicant
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Previous

Return to Movie Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron