Jolt Country

It was canceled. And that was kind of my point.

the ending of saw was horrible. I don't understand how people gave the other ones a chance.

Casual Observer wrote:the ending of saw was horrible. I don't understand how people gave the other ones a chance.

There is some genre of murder mystery story that has a rule that goes along the lines of, "the killer is one of the people you met in the story before he did any killing."

Shows like Law & Order and CSI don't follow it, but they are on TV and have an hour, and so on and so forth. But I love books that do this. It becomes an interactive mystery.

I initially assumed that the first Saw didn't grab this writing style / genre / whatever, because two guys are chained up right away, and then the killings go on and on, and you start to get an idea of who is responsible later. When Tobin Bell gets up at the end you go, "Heyyyy! They did show you the killer before the crimes happened!" And if you are me you say, "... Cool."

But yeah, the other ones were pretty horrible. The second one was a script they shoehorned into the "franchise," such as it is, in order to get another movie out. Tobin Bell is awesome, but he's Steve Carlton on the 1972 Phillies.

savvyraven wrote:So to get your feet wet, Hollywood expects you to make really bad films.

What I've never understood, as I've said already, is why even pander to that if your given money, and a general frame of reference to work from?

Instead of trying to pander to what you think everyone else wants (as in, a horror movie) why not just say "Screw it!" and work out something that actually reflects the strengths of what you can do? Filming a crappy movie may be the procedure for getting into hollywood, but who caresabout working through a mold that is known to screw itself over at every oppertunity (even if it originated the idea), but rewards that which does succeed even if it was completely off base?

I never understood why people limit themselves to some vague idea that basically no one actually has any idea about but are sure they want, when you are given resources and can just put everything you have into it? Much less to fulfill the dreams and expectations of a few groups of people who just try to constantly invent the same thing over and over in the belief that they will get the same result?

Indie films do this to a certain extent, because since they are indie films, they have to use bad actors and basically cam corders to shoot the movie. How hard is it to tap into the many decent actors who basically do shakespeare, or small plays, write out an idea that works without looking as if it would have with a bigger budget but since you don't, it doesn't, and just rent a 16mm camera for a few weeks?

I never understood why anyone would start cutting themselves to pieces to fulfill the expectation of an idea, when the idea is purposefully unknown, and constantly redefined. Why destroy your own ability for a vague assumption?

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:I. ICE CREAM JONSEY. WISH TO LIVE IN A BARELY-TOLERABLE PURGATORY FILLED WITH NOTHING BUT FAUX-INTELLECTUALISTIC SHIT WHISTLERS LOOKING DOWN THEIR NOSES AT PEOPLE.

Thank God.

My life has finally been validated.

Bruce

Edgy cunt-puncher? What's that?

Anyway, I've never seen Cloverfield or Starship troopers 2 or any of the SAW movies.

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:I think the last movie I watched that had interesting characters was Highlander.

I just watched Cloverfield last night, and so am now prepared to comment on this.

I felt the weak spot of the movie was not the lack of characterization, but the attempt at characterization. Much better, I think, to have focused on people trying to deal with and survive the insane events portrayed, rather than trying to overlay a very strained romantic situation over the whole thing.

Surely there would be just as much tension in seeing people trying to save themselves, than trying to save The Girl.

That being said, it's the best monster (big monster smashing things, I mean) movie I've ever seen -- not having any nostalgic fondness for Godzilla or any of that.



MINOR SPOILER
-------------------

















...and I will say, the last five seconds are extremely clever, and I'm glad I had a rewind button on my DVD. I was like "hey wait, did..." "AHahha, woohoo!"

Very clever.

THREE POINT TWO FIVE (3.25) STARS (***1/4)

Good point. For instance, there was no attempt at characterization in The Thing, a movie that will be remembered more fondly than Cloverfield. The only bit I can think of is MacReady throwing his drink into the chess machine. ("What an asshole," we are supposed to think.)

But I guess there is something to be said for using real actors. Wilford Brimley, the old lawyer from L.A. Law, Frank and Beans from There's Something About Mary and Kurt &^%$ing Russell just all have charisma.

I thought the bits in Cloverfield where you saw the original tape were good (and I only caught the splash at the end thanks to the Internet) but yeah, the attempt was worse than no attempt at all.

And I did like the monster.

Yeah, I liked the monster, and I loved the baby monsters.

I am hoping for a sequel featuring the babies.

I am also hoping for a line of plush stuffed animals, featuring the Cloverfield babies.

Your wish is my command, Jonsey

http://www.hasbrotoyshop.com/ProductsBy ... 3&ID=21030