|
C.D.D.B. Stats; nerds only
|
|
Topic Started: Jun 29 2006, 08:41 AM (2,541 Views)
|
|
Aaron
|
Nov 11 2008, 07:14 PM
Post #76
|
Fugee Emeritus
- Posts:
- 3,484
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #61
- Joined:
- June 15, 2005
|
- Karim Amir,Nov 11 2008
- 08:23 PM
Hee. I'm actually very surprised to see that my hubby is a tougher grader than I am since I'm always accused of "not liking anything."
That's just because I watch more crappy movies than you .. ;)
Great stats Vorn. Thanks for putting that all together. Reminds me that I need to rate more on CDDB.
|
|
|
| |
|
sharon peters
|
Nov 11 2008, 10:52 PM
Post #77
|
Change your title already
- Posts:
- 602
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #57
- Joined:
- May 20, 2005
|
- vornporn,Nov 11 2008
- 03:12 PM
Award for Being the Only Person with more CONs than PROs
1. sharon peters (193 to 167)
Somebody add the remaining Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street sequels to the database so I can push that baby toward 200. :P
|
|
|
| |
|
Alex Rogan
|
Nov 12 2008, 09:18 AM
Post #78
|
Fugee Emeritus
- Posts:
- 2,443
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- April 28, 2005
|
- Karim Amir,Nov 11 2008
- 05:23 PM
since I'm always accused of "not liking anything."
I get berated for this by my friends as well, but now I can tell them that I grade on the bell curve. Thanks Vorn!
|
|
|
| |
|
Helen Wheels!
|
Nov 12 2008, 12:10 PM
Post #79
|
Anybody wants me, can come in and get me.
- Posts:
- 1,323
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- March 4, 2005
|
- sharon peters,Nov 11 2008
- 10:52 PM
- vornporn,Nov 11 2008
- 03:12 PM
Award for Being the Only Person with more CONs than PROs
1. sharon peters (193 to 167)
Somebody add the remaining Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street sequels to the database so I can push that baby toward 200. :P
OK, pal, I've added:
Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter (Joseph Zito, 1984) Friday the 13th: A New Beginning (Danny Steinmann, 1985) Jason Lives: Friday the 13th Part VI (Tom McLoughlin, 1986) Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood (John Carl Buechler, 1988) Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday (Adam Marcus, 1993) Jason X (James Isaac, 2001)
Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy’s Revenge (Jack Sholder, 1985) Nightmare on Elm Street 3, A: Dream Warriors (Chuck Russell, 1987) Nightmare on Elm Street 4, A: The Dream Master (Renny Harlin, 1988) Nightmare on Elm Street, A: The Dream Child (Stephen Hopkins, 1989) Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare (Rachel Talalay, 1991)
Just a quick question: You patronize this shit, because...? :huh: :P
|
|
|
| |
|
Kevin Harvey
|
Nov 12 2008, 12:36 PM
Post #80
|
Another deserter....
- Posts:
- 1,501
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- April 14, 2005
|
- Helen Wheels!
-
Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter (Joseph Zito, 1984) [...] Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday (Adam Marcus, 1993) [...] Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare (Rachel Talalay, 1991)
They just keep promising....
- Quote:
-
Just a quick question: You patronize this shit, because...? :huh: :P
How else can she be expected to stay on top of these prestigious C.D.D.B. awards lists? Though I suppose all those CONs for Kurosawa, Ford and others of their ilk help too. :)
|
|
|
| |
|
Russ
|
Nov 12 2008, 12:39 PM
Post #81
|
Bark! Go away
- Posts:
- 7,540
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- March 5, 2005
|
- Helen Wheels!,Nov 12 2008
- 08:10 PM
Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy’s Revenge (Jack Sholder, 1985)
I have actually read some interesting (and apparently sincere) appreciations of this film over at the Criterion forum, of all places.
|
|
|
| |
|
Cassius Bean
|
Nov 12 2008, 01:33 PM
Post #82
|
Home of the Weiners. Envy of all.
- Posts:
- 3,661
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #31
- Joined:
- April 2, 2005
|
- Helen Wheels!,Nov 11 2008
- 04:06 PM
Very impressive stuff! Thanks, Jeff and Tom.
As others have observed about their ratings, I think I do a pretty good job of avoiding the stinkers or those movies I suspect I simply wouldn't appreciate.
Is it strange that (and particularly over the past few months since my cable provider added four new channels devoted to "movies that nobody liked"), I actually find myself first thinking: "I will hate that movie"; second, TiVo-ing same movie; third, watching that movie before the others in the queue. Perhaps I should see a therapist?
This behavior, however, has led to somewhat Jaime-esque musing, such as "the recent films of Sylvester Stalone might be more interesting and engaging than the recent films of Gus Van Sant." And, "note to self: go back and see other Sylvester Stalone movies to determine hidden genius." And finally: "change cable company; book therapist; WWJiggyD?."
I think I would also score strongly on a list devoted to members who are the only person to rank a movie (although, surely Fred would rule that domain with an iron fist.)
|
|
|
| |
|
Maxime G.
|
Nov 12 2008, 05:29 PM
Post #83
|
Afro Sheen
- Posts:
- 1,186
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #79
- Joined:
- October 5, 2005
|
- vornporn,Nov 11 2008
- 03:07 PM
Also, note fred placing Top 5 on both the Love and Hate lists. Our most schizoid rater!
I blame my teenage crisis!
- Richard, Nov 11 2008
- 03:07 PM
re: Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2
I have actually read some interesting (and apparently sincere) appreciations of this film over at the Criterion forum, of all places.
It's been a couple of years since I've seen it but aside from its famous homoerotic subtext, I found it as bland and unremarkable as it gets. I'd be curious to read those appreciations.
- Cassius, Nov 11 2008
- 03:07 PM
I think I would also score strongly on a list devoted to members who are the only person to rank a movie (although, surely Fred would rule that domain with an iron fist.)
Yeah, thanks to the countless awful straight-to-video horror/thrillers I keep subjecting myself to. I noticed you seem quite fond of them too - never thought someone else from here would see Heartstopper!
|
|
|
| |
|
Cassius Bean
|
Nov 13 2008, 08:09 AM
Post #84
|
Home of the Weiners. Envy of all.
- Posts:
- 3,661
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #31
- Joined:
- April 2, 2005
|
- fred savage,Nov 12 2008
- 05:29 PM
Yeah, thanks to the countless awful straight-to-video horror/thrillers I keep subjecting myself to. I noticed you seem quite fond of them too - never thought someone else from here would see Heartstopper!
I've got Kaw in the queue, baby.
Kaw (Sheldon Wilson, 2007, not in database)
|
|
|
| |
|
Dirt
|
Nov 13 2008, 11:07 AM
Post #85
|
After all.....
- Posts:
- 5,645
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #11
- Joined:
- March 6, 2005
|
- Cassius Starship,Nov 13 2008
- 12:09 PM
- fred savage,Nov 12 2008
- 05:29 PM
Yeah, thanks to the countless awful straight-to-video horror/thrillers I keep subjecting myself to. I noticed you seem quite fond of them too - never thought someone else from here would see Heartstopper!
I've got Kaw in the queue, baby. Kaw (Sheldon Wilson, 2007, not in database)
You should follow-up with an appropriate companion piece (to which I just added a rating, to keep the other, singular, rating (from you-know-who) company)
Squirm (Jeff Lieberman, 1976)
|
|
|
| |
|
Russ
|
Nov 13 2008, 01:53 PM
Post #86
|
Bark! Go away
- Posts:
- 7,540
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- March 5, 2005
|
- Dirt,Nov 13 2008
- 07:07 PM
You should follow-up with an appropriate companion piece (to which I just added a rating, to keep the other, singular, rating (from you-know-who) company)
Squirm (Jeff Lieberman, 1976)
Wha-a-a-t?? You mean I haven't rated this yet? Darn, I gotta catch up with all these Grade-Z chillers that have been getting dumped in the database.
(mixed for me too, btw)
|
|
|
| |
|
Russ
|
Nov 13 2008, 02:32 PM
Post #87
|
Bark! Go away
- Posts:
- 7,540
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- March 5, 2005
|
- fred savage,Nov 13 2008
- 01:29 AM
- Richard, Nov 11 2008
- 03:07 PM
re: Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2
I have actually read some interesting (and apparently sincere) appreciations of this film over at the Criterion forum, of all places.
It's been a couple of years since I've seen it but aside from its famous homoerotic subtext, I found it as bland and unremarkable as it gets. I'd be curious to read those appreciations.
Stupid me, I tried linking to the thread and it redirects you to a login screen. Ah well, here are some of the relevant passages from a thread titled, Underrated in CriterionForum.org:
- Quote:
-
A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge - my favourite of the series by quite a stretch and one of my favourite horror films of the decade. Two things are invariably mentioned in all reviews: it ignores the "rules" laid out in the original and it is super-gay from start to end. Both of these are true (it's strictly a body-possession film, in more ways than one), but I've never seen any review that points out what a strange, atmospheric and endlessly watchable film it is. Despite a weak script, Jack Sholder (one of the most underrated directors of the 1980s) does highly commendable work - it isn't played for camp like every Nightmare film after this, and he has probably the strongest visual sense of a nightmare of any of the directors who worked on this series (even Wes Craven). It's beautifully photographed and scored and there are so many excellent, sinister set-pieces - the opening sequence that ends with a schoolbus teetering on one of the pillars of Hell; Jesse seeing Freddy stoke his boiler through the basement window in the dead of night; the S&M gym murder of the P.E. teacher; the pool party slaughter sequence; the strange ending in the abandoned boiler room. Yes, the film has its crap (though never dull) bits, but I maintain that if this was a French movie from a decade earlier, it would be considered one of the all-time Eurocult classics.
- Quote:
-
You didn't mention the brilliantly bizarre spontaneously combusting pet scene! The stunned reaction of the family to the feathers fluttering onto the floor is a classic! Along with the gay subtext which Sholder claimed in the interviews on the boxset to have been entirely unintentional I am still left wondering whether the second film is either a brilliant poker faced parody consciously frustrating all expectations of a sequel - the Halloween III of the Elm Street series - or just a really silly stringing together of impressive/funny set piece moments (I agree that the school bus opening was very good)
- Quote:
-
It is much better than the mostly bland original (which has probably the most unsatisfying and incoherant ending of any popular eighties horror movie). Nightmare 2's tone is just so damn weird: one moment you get an effective horror image of Krueger smashing through a glass window and vanishing in mid-air while the glass continues to collapse, and seconds later you get insert shots of pop cans shooting white foam and hotdogs catching on fire, which is almost beyond parody. It's impossible to figure out the intensions behind stuff like that, which makes for an amusing, off-kilter feeling where you're always unsure of the film's sincerity. My only gripe is that when Krueger finally does go on a rampage, they do woefully little with that knife-glove of his (it's screaming for an eye-poke or something).
- Quote:
-
I don't want to turn this into another thread, but to wholeheartedly agree with you, if Jack Sholder had directed the first film it would have been far better. Wes Craven, for all his imagination, can't conjure up a menacing atmosphere to save his life - the film's most arresting moments are all shock images that exist in a void, and so many of the set pieces are clumsily handled. I'd also say that the 500 gallon bloodbath that shoots up out of Johnny Depp's bed is no more ridiculous than a demonic parakeet, but I digress.
- Quote:
-
But the scene made sense in the context of Craven's film, which took pains to delineate between 'reality' and 'dreams', a control of the, dare I say it, mise en scene that is needed to create that sense of the bleed-through of Freddy into everyday life. Some of the most effective moments of the first film were the ways the shift into the dream world were signified through incongruous and bizarre moments - the scene where Nancy falls asleep in her classroom is the best example but I also thought the death scenes of Tina and Glen in particular succeeded in showing the 'anything is possible' dreamworld bleeding into reality (with real world consequences) not through the physical appearance of Freddy but through the effects of his violence being shown. Also it is not just that the deaths of those characters which is so shocking but also that bizarre, impossible, violent events are occurring in a normal bedrooms. Troubled teens dying in their sleep while supposedly safe at home, just in a gorier and more inexplicable manner than an accident or a suicide. It all builds to Nancy actively bringing Freddy out of the dreamworld and into a confrontation in the real one, Freddy then takes her mother back with him while Nancy refutes his power over her by simply ignoring him. I have no trouble with that final scene in Craven's film which could either be seen as Nancy having being fully pulled into Freddy's world or that she will always have the shadow of Freddy in her dreams, taking her friends and mother away from her again and again – so he has kept some hold over her by the way he has impacted her life.
It might leave the film seeming relatively tame and conventional compared to some of the wild imagery of the sequel but while I found some of the moments impressive I was left feeling with the second film that the rules of the game hadn't been coherently set out (or, more damningly, not considered important to outline), something which left the film unable to build up anything more than a series of more or less effective set pieces. Sometimes they are 'it was all a dream' moments – sometimes, like the foaming beers or exploding birds, there doesn't seem to be an apparent cause. Is Freddy in possession of Jesse and killing through him or is he able to influence things beyond Jesse, as the boiling swimming pool would seem to suggest, and if he can influence things outside of Jesse why does he need to possess him? These might be interesting questions if I did not constantly get the feeling that I was thinking the logics of the situation through much more than was likely intended! In certain scenes such as the dogs with human faces guarding the entrance to the factory there is literally no explanation for why they turn up – they are an interesting touch but that is another prime example for me of the need to have a cool shock scene (and likely a reference to the 70s Body Snatchers film) without giving it some context within the film, thereby making it have less impact beyond the initial shock of its weirdness.
I know that many of the other films in the series have their wacky moments of illogicality beyond what can be explained as a real/dream world shift but I didn’t feel the same disregard for any continuity in what purports to be a sequel than I did in the second film. So while I wouldn’t agree that the second film was underrated in terms of its standing within the series, I would agree that it is certainly worth a look and shouldn’t be written off completely.
I do have some admiration for the second film in trying something different with the series (and I should note that being the first sequel there wasn’t really the weight of ‘Freddy lore’ that needed to be taken into account as there is now, which makes the second film, like the third Halloween, stick out like a sore thumb in the context of the whole series). It at least tries to tackle some interesting themes and take events in a different direction beyond the 'how will Freddy kill the cypher teens in an ironic way this time?' that the fourth, fifth and sixth films fell into. I liked the concept in the third film of the psychiatrist as the enabler, bringing the troubled teens together to fight their separate demons (of drugs, anti-social behaviour, wanting to be a TV star, and so on!) as a group while Freddy focuses on breaking the group apart and killing off the teens by isolating them and playing on their weaknesses.
Perhaps without the misshapen second film there wouldn’t have been as much attention paid to the third film (which I feel is one of the best, if again a more conventional, entry) in order to get things back on track.
The fourth and fifth films I’m not hugely fond of, since they continue the events from the third film but with a new set of teens to be killed in different ways (the fourth actually has a depressing Alien 3-style tone as the surviving characters from the third film, played by different actors in the next film, get killed off in off hand ways in order to hand the baton off to the next set, which really removes the point of linking the events so closely to the third film, except just in order to advertise it as being a continuance of events from its successful predecessor!)
I remember the sixth being painfully bad – though that might be considered as another Part 2 in the sense of being a failed ‘reboot’ of the concept trying to take things in a new direction. Then came Wes Craven’s New Nightmare which I thought was a fantastic tribute to Heather Langenkamp and her character of Nancy (I suppose now it also provides an interesting behind the scenes glimpse at the New Line offices during their heyday!)
That left me feeling that the Nightmare on Elm Street series were generally more successful than the Friday the 13ths (the Nightmare films had way bigger swings in quality though, while the Friday the 13ths felt more consistent in tone and entertaining, albeit average slashers without the ambitious concepts of the Nightmares. Friday the 13th for me only received bad entries with the final Paramount film, Part VIII and the move to New Line where, again, faltering if understandable attempts were made to shake up the formula leading to Jason Goes To Hell).
I was surprised at enjoying Freddy Vs Jason more than I thought I would, and much more than Alien Vs Predator, probably because the latter franchises seemed like they deserved something better than being tag-teamed together (or at least the Alien series did!)
I felt that the comic tone of the Nightmare films paired up extremely well with the blunt and brutal slashing of the Fridays (sort of like a comic double act at the expense of the straight man in Jason) resulting in an interesting hybrid of both. I also liked the idea of not being safe either awake or asleep, which raised the stakes for the – as usual – interchangeable teen cast. Even the inevitable impasse reached where neither party can actually ‘win’ their battle (because that would kill one or the other protagonist of a long running franchise) is treated with a wry and knowing wink to the audience. I’d probably suggest this entry as being an underrated one.
Sorry I think I’ve gone into too much detail about these slasher films! It was very nice to hear Narshty provide a spirited defence of Freddy’s Revenge though!
- Quote:
-
It all builds to Nancy actively bringing Freddy out of the dreamworld and into a confrontation in the real one, Freddy then takes her mother back with him while Nancy refutes his power over her by simply ignoring him. - Quote:
-
I'm surprised that you can find logic in this series of events, because I cannot. The fact that Freddy, or even pieces of him (his hat), can be brought into waking reality and have a real physical, corporeal presence within that reality surely demonstrates that Freddy has an equally independant existence within dream reality. So how exactly does Nancy escape death by merely 'ignoring' him? This might work if Freddy were somehow Nancy's creation, but he can clearly exist independant of anyone's individual consciousness (to the point where he can jump into waking reality and kill people who might not even know who he is), so that can't work. Perhaps Craven is working with general dream psychology, but merely being aware that you are in a dream does not in and of itself dispell the dream and negate whatever physical laws this or that dream is circumscribing. You can, as I well know, compell yourself out of a dream or into another narrative/world, but that should only work on a dream that is dependant entirely on your own mind. A malevolent spirit who has an existence verifably independant of yours can no more be imagined away in a dream reality than he can in a waking reality.
Nothing about the climax makes any sort of sense. I have no idea how Freddy got back into his own reality (let alone how he managed to drag Nancy's mother with him); I don't understand how he manages to become so intangible as to be be ignored away, nor why anyone thought that would be a good way to dispense with a villain; and everything after his defeat made no sense. I do understand the points you made Colin about the purpose of the final scene, but it's impossible to tell what's going on in terms of narrative, and any amount of thinking on it only leads to the conclusion that every single bit of narrative in the movie either did or did not happen, and any decision one way or the other is arbitrary.
Speaking of arbitrary, I'll make a slight digression and point out that the original Friday the 13th is a movie of incredible laziness. Clear from your mind for a moment the sequels and everything they've retroactively determined and just consider the first movie in and of itself. Ok. Ever noticed how the revelation of the murderer is completely and mind-numbingly arbitrary? There is no reason why the killer needs to be a insane cook whose deformed child drowned at the camp. You can literally replace her with anybody you want and give them whatever motive you want and nothing leading up to the reveal need be changed. The killer's identity makes not one single bit of difference to the narrative. Take Michael Myers out of Halloween and you need to rewrite basically the whole thing; plop him into Friday the 13th however and you only need to slightly alter the final five to ten minutes. It's incredible that this movie has gained classic status.
Good stuff, huh?
|
|
|
| |
|
YancySkancy
|
Nov 14 2008, 03:12 AM
Post #88
|
Administrator
- Posts:
- 10,557
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- March 4, 2005
|
- Richard Sagawa,Nov 13 2008
- 01:53 PM
- Dirt,Nov 13 2008
- 07:07 PM
You should follow-up with an appropriate companion piece (to which I just added a rating, to keep the other, singular, rating (from you-know-who) company)
Squirm (Jeff Lieberman, 1976)
Wha-a-a-t?? You mean I haven't rated this yet? Darn, I gotta catch up with all these Grade-Z chillers that have been getting dumped in the database. ( mixed for me too, btw)
Holy crap, I'm up late feeling a little under the weather, so I'm flipping through channels and there's Squirm, on Encore Mystery. If I hadn't missed the beginning, maybe I'd check it out.
|
|
|
| |
|
Maxime G.
|
Nov 18 2008, 12:54 PM
Post #89
|
Afro Sheen
- Posts:
- 1,186
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #79
- Joined:
- October 5, 2005
|
- Richard Sagawa,Nov 13 2008
- 02:32 PM
Good stuff, huh?
Yes, indeed. Even the ones who didn't like Freddy's Revenge that much seem to have found it interesting and original, so I guess I really missed something. It does make me want to see it again.
|
|
|
| |
|
Russ
|
Nov 18 2008, 01:16 PM
Post #90
|
Bark! Go away
- Posts:
- 7,540
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- March 5, 2005
|
fred, director Jack Sholder would have been a great candidate for the one of the old Ripe and Round polls - "Best Hat Trick" - he preceded that film with Alone in the Dark, an underrated slasher film that opens with the same kind of surreal dream/nightmare sequence that Nightmare 2 begins with, and features a great cast: Donald Pleasance as a pot-smoking psychiatrist and Martin Landau, Jack Palance, and the huge bald guy (Erland van Lidth) from Stir Crazy as his psychotic patients; Nightmare 2 is followed by Sholder's sci-fi classic, The Hidden, featuring Kyle MacLachlan as, what else, an FBI agent investigating some alien goings-on.
You really should check out these bookend films. They're awesome.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|