list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around The Fly on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/The_Fly/12024/default.aspx Title: The Fly
Year: 1986
Director: David Cronenberg
Plot: Considered fairly gruesome in its day, the original 1958 The Fly looks like Mister Rogers' Neighborhood compared to this 1986 remake. Jeff Goldblum and Geena Davis star as Seth Brundle, a self-involved research scientist, and Veronica Quaife, a science-magazine reporter. Inviting Veronica to his lab, Seth prepares to demonstrate his "telepod," which can theoretically transfer matter through space. As they grow closer over the next few weeks, she inadvertently goads Seth into experimenting with human beings rather than inanimate objects. Seth himself enters the telepod, preparing to transmit himself through the ether -- but he doesn't know that he is sharing the telepod with a tiny housefly. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 19
Number of Lists: 33
Number of blog posts: 6
Number of discussion threads: 7
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Sat, 15 Aug 2009 19:10:20 GMTThe Fly1986David CronenbergConsidered fairly gruesome in its day, the original 1958 The Fly looks like <a href=/films/160735/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Mister Rogers' Neighborhood</a> compared to this 1986 remake. <a href="/players/P____27435/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jeff Goldblum</a> and <a href="/players/P____17342/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Geena Davis</a> star as Seth Brundle, a self-involved research scientist, and Veronica Quaife, a science-magazine reporter. Inviting Veronica to his lab, Seth prepares to demonstrate his "telepod," which can theoretically transfer matter through space. As they grow closer over the next few weeks, she inadvertently goads Seth into experimenting with human beings rather than inanimate objects. Seth himself enters the telepod, preparing to transmit himself through the ether -- but he doesn't know that he is sharing the telepod with a tiny housefly. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide19Tag Target (>10)33673http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u47040uncmn.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Fly/12024/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_mow/archive/2009/7/16/43082.aspx Post By: The_MOW
Post To: The_MOW Blog
Post Date: 7/16/2009 6:42:48 PM
Body: "Seth" is a scientist who has made every Trekkie's come true -- he has invented a a transporter device. However, like every invention made in a movie, something goes drastically wrong. When taking the next step in the experimentation of the device, he uses himself as the guinea pig -- and has his DNA fused with a fly which has snuck into one of the transporters with him. And to complicate things, his journalist girlfriend, "Veronica" (Geena Davis), is carrying "Seth's" possibly deformed child. And she seeks help from her former boyfriend, "Stathis" (John Getz). This has got to be the worst movie I've seen that has only one thing going for it -- good make-up effects. The first problem is that it is very slow. I found myself checking email and message boards pretty frequently. The script is the problem here. There is no action, and very little horror. Because of the weak script, the performances are not that great. Goldblum appears to be playing every character he's played before to me, and I think he's not the best actor in Hollywood. Personally, I think they should have picked somebody else. As for Davis, her performance is somewhat better. Other characters appear to be just there as either plot devices or just there. Another problem is character development. The relationship between "Veronica" and "Seth" was extremely rushed. As for "Stathis", his character seemed to have been added at the last second in the writing of the script. Out of the entire main cast, "Stathis" is the worst written and has the least development. The special effects are fair in this movie. It is pretty obvious that when "Seth" begins to become more fly-like and begins to be able to climb up walls and on ceilings, they made a full-scale room they could flip over with an engine to give the illusion that he is crawling on the walls and ceiling. As for the make-up effects, they look like they spent the most money of this. Despite the fact that the make-up Goldblum wears looks more like a burn victim than a fly. At the end of the transformation of "Seth" it is obvious that it is some poor animatronic figure. The movements are not that natural. As for the movie's fear factor, there is none. There is one scene which is intended to make you jump when "Seth" jumps through a window, but it's not a good scare as there was no build up. The music is also fair. It's not the best soundtrack, but it does its purpose. However, it doesn't help build excitement or fear in you. If you ask me, check this one out on HBO when there really isn't much on. Or, if you like, rent it when you can't find a better movie.
]]>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:42:48 GMTThe_MOWThe_MOW Blog7/16/2009 6:42:48 PM"Seth" is a scientist who has made every Trekkie's come true -- he has invented a a transporter device. However, like every invention made in a movie, something goes drastically wrong. When taking the next step in the experimentation of the device, he uses himself as the guinea pig -- and has his DNA fused with a fly which has snuck into one of the transporters with him. And to complicate things, his journalist girlfriend, "Veronica" (Geena Davis), is carrying "Seth's" possibly deformed child. And she seeks help from her former boyfriend, "Stathis" (John Getz). This has got to be the worst movie I've seen that has only one thing going for it -- good make-up effects. The first problem is that it is very slow. I found myself checking email and message boards pretty frequently. The script is the problem here. There is no action, and very little horror. Because of the weak script, the performances are not that great. Goldblum appears to be playing every character he's played before to me, and I think he's not the best actor in Hollywood. Personally, I think they should have picked somebody else. As for Davis, her performance is somewhat better. Other characters appear to be just there as either plot devices or just there. Another problem is character development. The relationship between "Veronica" and "Seth" was extremely rushed. As for "Stathis", his character seemed to have been added at the last second in the writing of the script. Out of the entire main cast, "Stathis" is the worst written and has the least development. The special effects are fair in this movie. It is pretty obvious that when "Seth" begins to become more fly-like and begins to be able to climb up walls and on ceilings, they made a full-scale room they could flip over with an engine to give the illusion that he is crawling on the walls and ceiling. As for the make-up effects, they look like they spent the most money of this. Despite the fact that the make-up Goldblum wears looks more like a burn victim than a fly. At the end of the transformation of "Seth" it is obvious that it is some poor animatronic figure. The movements are not that natural. As for the movie's fear factor, there is none. There is one scene which is intended to make you jump when "Seth" jumps through a window, but it's not a good scare as there was no build up. The music is also fair. It's not the best soundtrack, but it does its purpose. However, it doesn't help build excitement or fear in you. If you ask me, check this one out on HBO when there really isn't much on. Or, if you like, rent it when you can't find a better movie. http://www.spout.com/blogs/rik_tod/archive/2008/9/10/34966.aspx Post By: rik_tod
Post To: The Cinema 4 Pylon: SpOutpost
Post Date: 9/10/2008 2:04:56 AM
Body: Director: Shawn KuUS, 22 minutes, colorCinema 4 Rating: 5Despite a title sure to be at least partially tempting to any horror nut, Pretty Dead Girl: A Musical Necromance turns out to be rather tame. And if you could get the subject of necrophilia past the initial tsk-tsking of your grandma, there is a good chance that she would end up at film’s end thinking the movie was rather sad and sweet, and would hardly take offense at all to what is being suggested by its potentially creepy premise.I first saw Pretty Dead Girl on some cable network sometime about a year ago. I am not sure if it was Sundance or IFC, but honestly, I mix those channels up so much that I am never able to check out any of their shows regularly. Of course, most of the shows I have seen on there are of the variety about which I don’t give a rat’s ass, except for the ones done by Henry Rollins and Jon Favreau, but honestly, even thinking really hard, I can’t remember which one of the channels, Sundance or IFC, either show was actually on. I keep wanting to check out Live from Abbey Road – which is also on one of them -- but every time I flick over to it because someone I like – Muse, for instance – is on there, I end up having to sit through someone deplorable, like Josh Groban, Big and Rich or some Idol failure, to get to the good stuff, all of which seems to be interspersed with the horrendous. Can’t they just concentrate on one artist for a show? And one of these channels shows a bunch of '70s horror flicks on Friday nights -- all of which I already own, but it's nice to have them at one's fingertips anyway -- and one of them shows a lot of Japanese samurai and gangster films from the ‘50s and ‘60s, so they have that going for them. Whichever channel they are.What does this have to do with Pretty Dead Girl? Well, nothing at all, but -– Hey! Maybe I saw this on one of the Showtime networks instead? All I know is that I had Pretty Dead Girl on my DVR queue for a good long while, meaning to show it to Jen, who has some measured interest in musical films, and musical theatre in general. I watched it and enjoyed it, whatever channel it was on, though I wasn’t blown away it by it. This possibly had something to do with the musical episode from Buffy, titled Once More With Feeling, and how it seems, in my head at least, that any attempt to music up the horror or sci-fi genres should actually run through Mr. Whedon first. (Oh, if only Firefly had made it to that style of episode…) We are now in an age where, every time one turns around, it seems that another classic horror or science fiction film is being adapted into a musical (or opera – big difference there…) onstage. (Plan 9 from Outer Space, The Evil Dead, Carrie, Creature from the Black Lagoon, The Fly, etc.) Or, at least the notion gets raised that such-and-such (say, Chainsaw) would make a swell musical. I don’t know why things are trending this way – perhaps because the horror genre itself has gotten more and more trapped in its current torture porn rut – but outside of an almost rubbernecking interest I have towards these things, since I like both musicals and horror films, I actually start to despise the gimmick after a short while. And then it affects my attitude when confronted with mildly ambitious little films like Pretty Dead Girl.It’s not a fair comparison, though, because Pretty Dead Girl is not really in the horror genre; it merely teases the viewer with promises of sick glory via its title. Honestly, once I realized it was a musical, I started to imagine a remake of Return of the Living Dead 3 with that hot little zombie chick played to pierced goth glory by a smokin' Mindy Clarke. Now, that would be highly interesting (and also make RotLD3 a much better overall film.) Pretty Dead Girl doesn't even get near such possibilities, centering itself on all-out romantic tragedy instead. All told, it is no more offensive than any number of other Romeo and Juliet-style stories, where suicide is playfully dangled in the air due to the hopelessness of the romance. The title, though, implies so much more beyond a simple desperate love affair that it really is disappointing to see that all told, Pretty Dead Girl is nothing more than magic potion fluff, with a bottle of poison bringing on the appearance of suicide, but only if every single drop is gulped down the gullet (hence the magic part). Otherwise, it becomes a full-on suicide. That this storyline springs forth from the actions of a morgue techie (with a clearly misguided missile) who cavorts and dances about (always in a G-rated way) with the bodies of deceased hotties does make it seem potentially horrific at first, and one almost can’t wait for the film to go all Re-Animator on us and suddenly we shall find torrents of blood gushing from the stumps from where the limbs of unsuspecting doctors have been ripped, and there shall then commence a rising bout of rampant cannibalism in the halls of the hospital, syringes stuck through eyeballs of screaming nurses, zombie fetuses that devour their mothers from the inside out, and, perhaps worst of all, an Alaskan governor will then get dangerously close to the White House. And then only one of those things happens… and it’s not even in the movie.Unlike most of the examples listed two paragraphs above, the musical part in Pretty Dead Girl is not the gimmick. Instead, it is the false trappings of horror that are the actual gimmick, and it almost seems like a gimmick which has only been employed to get people to watch the film who are ultimately going to be disappointed once the film doesn’t follow through on its sick promise. It certainly tricked me into watching it the first time. And instead of where I thought it was going, I got a nice – just nice – little musical instead, with a couple of catchy tunes (I have had that “I have waited more than the better of my life” melody ear-worming me for the past couple of weeks since I started watching the film again), a lot of leggy dames hoofin’ it in a dream sequence, a trio of well-turned (and well cast) performances in the main roles and… well, that’s about it. It doesn’t go beyond that for me. It’s good, it's pleasant, and then I forget about it.When I first saved it on my DVR to show Jen, I never followed through. A couple of months later, as it sat there unwatched, I finally deleted it after convincing myself that she really wouldn’t think that much of it. And then I forgot about it until I received the Shorts! Volume 3 collection from Spout Mavens. Now, with DVD in hand, I have once more sidled up to the “should I show it to her?” stage, and already I am convincing myself to the negative impulse again of not even showing it to her. The problem here is one of too much familiarity with the genre. The more experience or expertise one has in a certain genre, the more lesser items in that genre start to give way almost immediately to feelings of ennui. At least, that’s the way it normally works. I know some people that are horror nuts – some even on this very website -- who unabashedly adore every single horror movie that comes out, practically carving little gory hearts with dripping arrows through them into the top of their computer desk while once more giving five stars to something like Saw IV. Sure, some are better than others, but still… horror is great! Isn’t it? Aren’t all horror movies, no matter how bad, instantly awesome and cool, just because they are horror movies? Well, no. Some just blankly suck outright, and some are just downright atrocious from every conceivable angle. The same with every genre.As I have said before, at least 75 percent of everything is garbage, no matter what form of media, no matter how much there is, and into this giant slice of pie, I heap mounds of the merely average. There is another slice of percentage, a chunk that perhaps appears as a normal slice of that pie, which accounts for the merely good. And finally, there is left a much thinner slice, the remainder, that denotes that which exists in the "very good to great" range. The continued and legendary greatness of certain entries in any genre make it increasingly harder, over time, to enjoy that category’s far more noxious efforts. It is towards a target sublime to which artists, even popular artists, should aim their talents. Back to the point, because my girlfriend has a good deal of experience, and therefore opinion, regarding the musical genre, and is well versed in those films which serve as the pinnacles of the form, I know instinctively that it is going to take far more to impress her in this genre than it would, say, me.And I already think that Pretty Dead Girl is merely a good short musical film. Not fantastic, not knock your socks off, but just good. And so, for someone with the more than average eye for musicals in general, having seen the excellence which can be achieved in the genre, watching this is like seeing a dance sequence pop up in Ally McBeal. Sure, the actors might be giving it their all, but they are miles from being in the real thing. And, further discounting it for the gimmick factor of its fake fantasy horror trappings, Pretty Dead Girl can seem pretty dead from the beginning. And, if not dead, then just merely playing possum. And nicely at that.And, speaking for myself, though I liked it well enough, nice is not what most people who would be intrigued by such a title as Pretty Dead Girl are going to be expecting.
]]>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 06:04:56 GMTrik_todThe Cinema 4 Pylon: SpOutpost9/10/2008 2:04:56 AMDirector: Shawn KuUS, 22 minutes, colorCinema 4 Rating: 5Despite a title sure to be at least partially tempting to any horror nut, Pretty Dead Girl: A Musical Necromance turns out to be rather tame. And if you could get the subject of necrophilia past the initial tsk-tsking of your grandma, there is a good chance that she would end up at film&rsquo;s end thinking the movie was rather sad and sweet, and would hardly take offense at all to what is being suggested by its potentially creepy premise.I first saw Pretty Dead Girl on some cable network sometime about a year ago. I am not sure if it was Sundance or IFC, but honestly, I mix those channels up so much that I am never able to check out any of their shows regularly. Of course, most of the shows I have seen on there are of the variety about which I don&rsquo;t give a rat&rsquo;s ass, except for the ones done by Henry Rollins and Jon Favreau, but honestly, even thinking really hard, I can&rsquo;t remember which one of the channels, Sundance or IFC, either show was actually on. I keep wanting to check out Live from Abbey Road &ndash; which is also on one of them -- but every time I flick over to it because someone I like &ndash; Muse, for instance &ndash; is on there, I end up having to sit through someone deplorable, like Josh Groban, Big and Rich or some Idol failure, to get to the good stuff, all of which seems to be interspersed with the horrendous. Can&rsquo;t they just concentrate on one artist for a show? And one of these channels shows a bunch of '70s horror flicks on Friday nights -- all of which I already own, but it's nice to have them at one's fingertips anyway -- and one of them shows a lot of Japanese samurai and gangster films from the &lsquo;50s and &lsquo;60s, so they have that going for them. Whichever channel they are.What does this have to do with Pretty Dead Girl? Well, nothing at all, but -&ndash; Hey! Maybe I saw this on one of the Showtime networks instead? All I know is that I had Pretty Dead Girl on my DVR queue for a good long while, meaning to show it to Jen, who has some measured interest in musical films, and musical theatre in general. I watched it and enjoyed it, whatever channel it was on, though I wasn&rsquo;t blown away it by it. This possibly had something to do with the musical episode from Buffy, titled Once More With Feeling, and how it seems, in my head at least, that any attempt to music up the horror or sci-fi genres should actually run through Mr. Whedon first. (Oh, if only Firefly had made it to that style of episode&hellip;) We are now in an age where, every time one turns around, it seems that another classic horror or science fiction film is being adapted into a musical (or opera &ndash; big difference there&hellip;) onstage. (Plan 9 from Outer Space, The Evil Dead, Carrie, Creature from the Black Lagoon, The Fly, etc.) Or, at least the notion gets raised that such-and-such (say, Chainsaw) would make a swell musical. I don&rsquo;t know why things are trending this way &ndash; perhaps because the horror genre itself has gotten more and more trapped in its current torture porn rut &ndash; but outside of an almost rubbernecking interest I have towards these things, since I like both musicals and horror films, I actually start to despise the gimmick after a short while. And then it affects my attitude when confronted with mildly ambitious little films like Pretty Dead Girl.It&rsquo;s not a fair comparison, though, because Pretty Dead Girl is not really in the horror genre; it merely teases the viewer with promises of sick glory via its title. Honestly, once I realized it was a musical, I started to imagine a remake of Return of the Living Dead 3 with that hot little zombie chick played to pierced goth glory by a smokin' Mindy Clarke. Now, that would be highly interesting (and also make RotLD3 a much better overall film.) Pretty Dead Girl doesn't even get near such possibilities, centering itself on all-out romantic tragedy instead. All told, it is no more offensive than any number of other Romeo and Juliet-style stories, where suicide is playfully dangled in the air due to the hopelessness of the romance. The title, though, implies so much more beyond a simple desperate love affair that it really is disappointing to see that all told, Pretty Dead Girl is nothing more than magic potion fluff, with a bottle of poison bringing on the appearance of suicide, but only if every single drop is gulped down the gullet (hence the magic part). Otherwise, it becomes a full-on suicide. That this storyline springs forth from the actions of a morgue techie (with a clearly misguided missile) who cavorts and dances about (always in a G-rated way) with the bodies of deceased hotties does make it seem potentially horrific at first, and one almost can&rsquo;t wait for the film to go all Re-Animator on us and suddenly we shall find torrents of blood gushing from the stumps from where the limbs of unsuspecting doctors have been ripped, and there shall then commence a rising bout of rampant cannibalism in the halls of the hospital, syringes stuck through eyeballs of screaming nurses, zombie fetuses that devour their mothers from the inside out, and, perhaps worst of all, an Alaskan governor will then get dangerously close to the White House. And then only one of those things happens&hellip; and it&rsquo;s not even in the movie.Unlike most of the examples listed two paragraphs above, the musical part in Pretty Dead Girl is not the gimmick. Instead, it is the false trappings of horror that are the actual gimmick, and it almost seems like a gimmick which has only been employed to get people to watch the film who are ultimately going to be disappointed once the film doesn&rsquo;t follow through on its sick promise. It certainly tricked me into watching it the first time. And instead of where I thought it was going, I got a nice &ndash; just nice &ndash; little musical instead, with a couple of catchy tunes (I have had that &ldquo;I have waited more than the better of my life&rdquo; melody ear-worming me for the past couple of weeks since I started watching the film again), a lot of leggy dames hoofin&rsquo; it in a dream sequence, a trio of well-turned (and well cast) performances in the main roles and&hellip; well, that&rsquo;s about it. It doesn&rsquo;t go beyond that for me. It&rsquo;s good, it's pleasant, and then I forget about it.When I first saved it on my DVR to show Jen, I never followed through. A couple of months later, as it sat there unwatched, I finally deleted it after convincing myself that she really wouldn&rsquo;t think that much of it. And then I forgot about it until I received the Shorts! Volume 3 collection from Spout Mavens. Now, with DVD in hand, I have once more sidled up to the &ldquo;should I show it to her?&rdquo; stage, and already I am convincing myself to the negative impulse again of not even showing it to her. The problem here is one of too much familiarity with the genre. The more experience or expertise one has in a certain genre, the more lesser items in that genre start to give way almost immediately to feelings of ennui. At least, that&rsquo;s the way it normally works. I know some people that are horror nuts &ndash; some even on this very website -- who unabashedly adore every single horror movie that comes out, practically carving little gory hearts with dripping arrows through them into the top of their computer desk while once more giving five stars to something like Saw IV. Sure, some are better than others, but still&hellip; horror is great! Isn&rsquo;t it? Aren&rsquo;t all horror movies, no matter how bad, instantly awesome and cool, just because they are horror movies? Well, no. Some just blankly suck outright, and some are just downright atrocious from every conceivable angle. The same with every genre.As I have said before, at least 75 percent of everything is garbage, no matter what form of media, no matter how much there is, and into this giant slice of pie, I heap mounds of the merely average. There is another slice of percentage, a chunk that perhaps appears as a normal slice of that pie, which accounts for the merely good. And finally, there is left a much thinner slice, the remainder, that denotes that which exists in the "very good to great" range. The continued and legendary greatness of certain entries in any genre make it increasingly harder, over time, to enjoy that category&rsquo;s far more noxious efforts. It is towards a target sublime to which artists, even popular artists, should aim their talents. Back to the point, because my girlfriend has a good deal of experience, and therefore opinion, regarding the musical genre, and is well versed in those films which serve as the pinnacles of the form, I know instinctively that it is going to take far more to impress her in this genre than it would, say, me.And I already think that Pretty Dead Girl is merely a good short musical film. Not fantastic, not knock your socks off, but just good. And so, for someone with the more than average eye for musicals in general, having seen the excellence which can be achieved in the genre, watching this is like seeing a dance sequence pop up in Ally McBeal. Sure, the actors might be giving it their all, but they are miles from being in the real thing. And, further discounting it for the gimmick factor of its fake fantasy horror trappings, Pretty Dead Girl can seem pretty dead from the beginning. And, if not dead, then just merely playing possum. And nicely at that.And, speaking for myself, though I liked it well enough, nice is not what most people who would be intrigued by such a title as Pretty Dead Girl are going to be expecting. http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_August_25_Monster_Madness/625/34368/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 8/25/2008 5:51:37 PM
Body: [quote user="mercurial"] I loved how Matinee made fun of and embraced the cheesy monster movies of the 1950's and 1960's with MANT! And the really hardcore monsters in my book are Jeff Goldblum in The Fly (especially when he gets his prickly fly penis and wants to mate), the monster in Jeepers Creepers (that opening scene with the monsters truck steadily approaching the brother and sister is intense), and King Kong (the 1933 original) is great aside from the racist subtext. [/quote] I just bought Matinee used on VHS for $2 at Bookmans so I could show my kids. They loved it and I had forgotton how much I liked it. I made me wish I had grown up a few generations earlier. As far as The Fly is concerned, I liked the Jeff Goldblum version but another movie I made my kids sit through was the original with Vinnie Price. My seven year old ate it up. He loves the end with the little fly with a human head crying, "HELP MEEEEEE, HELP MEEEEE" It's interesting, he will quote that and "FEEEEED MEEEE SEEMOOORE" so much more often than anything from Monsters Inc. or Little Monsters I too really liked the Jeepers Creepers monster, and I thought the movie as a whole stood on it's own two feet as well. The sequel wasn't horrible, but it wasn't very good either.
]]>Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:51:37 GMTleeroy711Weekly Theme8/25/2008 5:51:37 PM[quote user="mercurial"] I loved how Matinee made fun of and embraced the cheesy monster movies of the 1950's and 1960's with MANT! And the really hardcore monsters in my book are Jeff Goldblum in The Fly (especially when he gets his prickly fly penis and wants to mate), the monster in Jeepers Creepers (that opening scene with the monsters truck steadily approaching the brother and sister is intense), and King Kong (the 1933 original) is great aside from the racist subtext. [/quote] I just bought Matinee used on VHS for $2 at Bookmans so I could show my kids. They loved it and I had forgotton how much I liked it. I made me wish I had grown up a few generations earlier. As far as The Fly is concerned, I liked the Jeff Goldblum version but another movie I made my kids sit through was the original with Vinnie Price. My seven year old ate it up. He loves the end with the little fly with a human head crying, "HELP MEEEEEE, HELP MEEEEE" It's interesting, he will quote that and "FEEEEED MEEEE SEEMOOORE" so much more often than anything from Monsters Inc. or Little Monsters I too really liked the Jeepers Creepers monster, and I thought the movie as a whole stood on it's own two feet as well. The sequel wasn't horrible, but it wasn't very good either. http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_August_25_Monster_Madness/625/34365/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 8/25/2008 5:32:57 PM
Body: Without straying too far from the topic (my idea of a monster is fairly broad), here we go: From my childhood I was always equally scared shitless and mesmerized by the monsters in Legend (mainly Tim Curry as the Lord of Darkness and that creepy green Swamp Witch) as well as those in Clash of the Titans (Medusa gave me nightmares for years). Gremlins was a great monster movie as well as Little Shop of Horrors when I was growing up. And I'm gonna go ahead and include Jaws cause that son of a bitch was a monster if I'd every seen one. I loved how Matinee made fun of and embraced the cheesy monster movies of the 1950's and 1960's with MANT! On the comedic side, Tremors was always good for a laugh. Ghostbusters and Freaked are probably on the top of the list of hilarious monster movies. Monsters, Inc should also get an honorable mention. And the really hardcore monsters in my book are Jeff Goldblum in The Fly (especially when he gets his prickly fly penis and wants to mate), the monster in Jeepers Creepers (that opening scene with the monsters truck steadily approaching the brother and sister is intense), and King Kong (the 1933 original) is great aside from the racist subtext.
]]>Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:32:57 GMTmercurialWeekly Theme8/25/2008 5:32:57 PMWithout straying too far from the topic (my idea of a monster is fairly broad), here we go: From my childhood I was always equally scared shitless and mesmerized by the monsters in Legend (mainly Tim Curry as the Lord of Darkness and that creepy green Swamp Witch) as well as those in Clash of the Titans (Medusa gave me nightmares for years). Gremlins was a great monster movie as well as Little Shop of Horrors when I was growing up. And I'm gonna go ahead and include Jaws cause that son of a bitch was a monster if I'd every seen one. I loved how Matinee made fun of and embraced the cheesy monster movies of the 1950's and 1960's with MANT! On the comedic side, Tremors was always good for a laugh. Ghostbusters and Freaked are probably on the top of the list of hilarious monster movies. Monsters, Inc should also get an honorable mention. And the really hardcore monsters in my book are Jeff Goldblum in The Fly (especially when he gets his prickly fly penis and wants to mate), the monster in Jeepers Creepers (that opening scene with the monsters truck steadily approaching the brother and sister is intense), and King Kong (the 1933 original) is great aside from the racist subtext. http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/7/7/32214.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 7/7/2008 9:01:04 AM
Body: Hancock made $107.3 million over the five night weekend, giving the Will Smith fractured superhero tale the third best July 4th opening of all time. It’s considered a victory for Smith’s star power, but it’s still almost $50 million less than Spider-Man 2 managed in a similar time frame. Meanwhile, The Wackness enjoyed the highest per-screen average of the weekend, earning $24,177 on each of its 6 screens. SAG is expected to make an announcement today about AMPTP’s “final offer”––although they might just announce that they need more time to think it over. Meanwhile, at a press conference at the Karlovy Vary Film Festival over the weekend, Robert DeNiro argued against a strike, accusing his fellow actors of not having “done their homework” on the economics. “I do not know if it is the right time to be doing this at all with the economy the way it is,” he warned. The opera directed by David Cronenberg based on his movie version of The Fly is bombing with French critics. Though complaints regarding the score’s “lack of expertise and imagination” have damaged ticket sales somewhat, apparently “Cronenberg diehards, Paris’ trendy 30ish art crowd and a sprinkling of goth girls” are still coming out in full force. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:01:04 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog7/7/2008 9:01:04 AM Hancock made $107.3 million over the five night weekend, giving the Will Smith fractured superhero tale the third best July 4th opening of all time. It’s considered a victory for Smith’s star power, but it’s still almost $50 million less than Spider-Man 2 managed in a similar time frame. Meanwhile, The Wackness enjoyed the highest per-screen average of the weekend, earning $24,177 on each of its 6 screens. SAG is expected to make an announcement today about AMPTP’s “final offer”––although they might just announce that they need more time to think it over. Meanwhile, at a press conference at the Karlovy Vary Film Festival over the weekend, Robert DeNiro argued against a strike, accusing his fellow actors of not having “done their homework” on the economics. “I do not know if it is the right time to be doing this at all with the economy the way it is,” he warned. The opera directed by David Cronenberg based on his movie version of The Fly is bombing with French critics. Though complaints regarding the score’s “lack of expertise and imagination” have damaged ticket sales somewhat, apparently “Cronenberg diehards, Paris’ trendy 30ish art crowd and a sprinkling of goth girls” are still coming out in full force. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/7/7/32213.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/7/2008 9:00:35 AM
Body: Hancock made $107.3 million over the five night weekend, giving the Will Smith fractured superhero tale the third best July 4th opening of all time. It’s considered a victory for Smith’s star power, but it’s still almost $50 million less than Spider-Man 2 managed in a similar time frame. Meanwhile, The Wackness enjoyed the highest per-screen average of the weekend, earning $24,177 on each of its 6 screens. SAG is expected to make an announcement today about AMPTP’s “final offer”––although they might just announce that they need more time to think it over. Meanwhile, at a press conference at the Karlovy Vary Film Festival over the weekend, Robert DeNiro argued against a strike, accusing his fellow actors of not having “done their homework” on the economics. “I do not know if it is the right time to be doing this at all with the economy the way it is,” he warned. The opera directed by David Cronenberg based on his movie version of The Fly is bombing with French critics. Though complaints regarding the score’s “lack of expertise and imagination” have damaged ticket sales somewhat, apparently “Cronenberg diehards, Paris’ trendy 30ish art crowd and a sprinkling of goth girls” are still coming out in full force. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:00:35 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/7/2008 9:00:35 AM Hancock made $107.3 million over the five night weekend, giving the Will Smith fractured superhero tale the third best July 4th opening of all time. It’s considered a victory for Smith’s star power, but it’s still almost $50 million less than Spider-Man 2 managed in a similar time frame. Meanwhile, The Wackness enjoyed the highest per-screen average of the weekend, earning $24,177 on each of its 6 screens. SAG is expected to make an announcement today about AMPTP’s “final offer”––although they might just announce that they need more time to think it over. Meanwhile, at a press conference at the Karlovy Vary Film Festival over the weekend, Robert DeNiro argued against a strike, accusing his fellow actors of not having “done their homework” on the economics. “I do not know if it is the right time to be doing this at all with the economy the way it is,” he warned. The opera directed by David Cronenberg based on his movie version of The Fly is bombing with French critics. Though complaints regarding the score’s “lack of expertise and imagination” have damaged ticket sales somewhat, apparently “Cronenberg diehards, Paris’ trendy 30ish art crowd and a sprinkling of goth girls” are still coming out in full force. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/HORROR_MOVIES_101/Re_Who_Wants_to_Help_Me_Kill_Michael_Bay/222/24753/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: TheWorkingDead
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 2/5/2008 6:09:19 PM
Body: Well, Gor, I'm going to defend remakes(in general) for a moment. I'm of the opinion that yes, remakes are essentially unnecessary, but hey, they can be good. I'm thinking specifically of The Fly, The Thing, Invasion of the Body Snatchers(the 70s version), and the Blob. Now, the Blob, The Fly and The Thing were all instances where I saw the remake first(they came out during my childhood; I was 11 when the Blob hit theatres). Being a film lover I eventually went back and watched those originals, and loved them all. But I still think the remakes are good movies. I would actually argue that the '78 Body Snatchers remake is a superior film, if only because it cultivates a sense of paranoia, claustrophobia and unease that the original, as great as it is, doesn't even attempt to match. It's also obvious that the makers had respect and love for the original film. Hell, it could almost be seen as a sequel, with poor old Kevin McCarthy still running from town to town, warning people of the invisible invasion. Now, for every good remake there are at least a dozen awful ones(Psycho, which you mentioned, The Omen, Hills Have Eyes, TCM, Etc.), but that doesn't mean that it can't be worthwhile. And sometimes, in cases like Dracula, The Wolf Man, or any of those 'classics', well, people have been making and remaking versions of those for, in some cases, centuries. An updating of mythology isn't something I view as completely blasphemous. And sometimes I view it the same way I view cover songs. Musicians all have favorite songs that they remake and put their own spin on it, and nobody bats an eye(nobody made this much of a ruccus when Hillary Duff covered The Who), but when it comes to film, we all(me included) get VERY defensive. Obviously there's a difference, but I'm willing to give someone the benefit of a doubt and assume they're remaking something out of genuine love of the original, and a desire to add their own voice to the mix. And those tend to be the really good ones. (And, though you seemed less than thrilled with it, I think the NOTLD remake is actually a pretty solid, creepy zombie film. It doesn't reach the heights the original does, but it does it's job. And pretty well.)So, it may seem odd after this defense of remakes to still hate Michael Bay, but the difference is clear. Bay is embarking on these remakes with no respect or understanding of the original. He knows he can make a fairly low budget film that will make back his money several times over. Plus he's a really crappy filmmaker, with no real grasp of things like, say, emotional substance.
]]>Tue, 05 Feb 2008 23:09:19 GMTTheWorkingDeadHORROR MOVIES 1012/5/2008 6:09:19 PMWell, Gor, I&#39;m going to defend remakes(in general) for a moment. I&#39;m of the opinion that yes, remakes are essentially unnecessary, but hey, they can be good. I&#39;m thinking specifically of The Fly, The Thing, Invasion of the Body Snatchers(the 70s version), and the Blob. Now, the Blob, The Fly and The Thing were all instances where I saw the remake first(they came out during my childhood; I was 11 when the Blob hit theatres). Being a film lover I eventually went back and watched those originals, and loved them all. But I still think the remakes are good movies. I would actually argue that the &#39;78 Body Snatchers remake is a superior film, if only because it cultivates a sense of paranoia, claustrophobia and unease that the original, as great as it is, doesn&#39;t even attempt to match. It&#39;s also obvious that the makers had respect and love for the original film. Hell, it could almost be seen as a sequel, with poor old Kevin McCarthy still running from town to town, warning people of the invisible invasion. Now, for every good remake there are at least a dozen awful ones(Psycho, which you mentioned, The Omen, Hills Have Eyes, TCM, Etc.), but that doesn&#39;t mean that it can&#39;t be worthwhile. And sometimes, in cases like Dracula, The Wolf Man, or any of those &#39;classics&#39;, well, people have been making and remaking versions of those for, in some cases, centuries. An updating of mythology isn&#39;t something I view as completely blasphemous. And sometimes I view it the same way I view cover songs. Musicians all have favorite songs that they remake and put their own spin on it, and nobody bats an eye(nobody made this much of a ruccus when Hillary Duff covered The Who), but when it comes to film, we all(me included) get VERY defensive. Obviously there&#39;s a difference, but I&#39;m willing to give someone the benefit of a doubt and assume they&#39;re remaking something out of genuine love of the original, and a desire to add their own voice to the mix. And those tend to be the really good ones. (And, though you seemed less than thrilled with it, I think the NOTLD remake is actually a pretty solid, creepy zombie film. It doesn&#39;t reach the heights the original does, but it does it&#39;s job. And pretty well.)So, it may seem odd after this defense of remakes to still hate Michael Bay, but the difference is clear. Bay is embarking on these remakes with no respect or understanding of the original. He knows he can make a fairly low budget film that will make back his money several times over. Plus he&#39;s a really crappy filmmaker, with no real grasp of things like, say, emotional substance. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2007/11/5/21426.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/5/2007 2:04:34 PM
Body: “No filmmaker has more daringly and relentlessly explored what it means to be human than David Cronenberg,” writes Jim Emerson at Scanners. He’s put together a 12 minute highlight reel to prove that point. Written in the Flesh: A Crash Course in David Cronenberg incorporates images from nine Cronenberg classics, including Videodrome, The Fly and A History of Violence.?? It doesn’t seem to be embeddable, but you can watch it here. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:04:34 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/5/2007 2:04:34 PM “No filmmaker has more daringly and relentlessly explored what it means to be human than David Cronenberg,” writes Jim Emerson at Scanners. He’s put together a 12 minute highlight reel to prove that point. Written in the Flesh: A Crash Course in David Cronenberg incorporates images from nine Cronenberg classics, including Videodrome, The Fly and A History of Violence.?? It doesn’t seem to be embeddable, but you can watch it here. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/HORROR_MOVIES_101/Re_Re_makes/222/19336/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: notkevinbacon
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 9/4/2007 11:51:21 AM
Body: I have to agree with just about everything on your list there (and I am totally stoked to see The Blob mentioned... which starts off so amazing that I could always ignore the fact that it doesn't quite keep it up to the end ). The 1978 Invasion of the Body Snatchers is my favorite flavor of that film. Though I think the Dawn remake is pretty slick I dislike how they handle the pregnancy arc (much better plotting in the original IMHO) and I wish it was titled differently so it was seperated from the Dead series (since Romero gets no money from the name I've been told). The NOTLD remake by Savini is good, but surprisingly gore less. I am not very impressed with Rob Zombie so far, but I'll see the remake of Halloween... Hills Have Eyes - the original never really did it for me, but I think the Aja remake is pretty good and I put it into the same camp as The Fly and The Thing as better than the original. I am pretty excited for the Piranha remake Aja is helming. I love the original movie and I enjoy Aja's style and slick gore... I am not looking for much more than killer fish and red waters in this one. Remakes have there place. We have been retelling the simplest stories for years and years (in film, in literature, etc). There are certain talesstories that are so simple and base that you can take them in many directions. I am all for remakes that alter, warp and rethink past ideas and stories (Again I think The Fly is a perfect example).
]]>Tue, 04 Sep 2007 15:51:21 GMTnotkevinbaconHORROR MOVIES 1019/4/2007 11:51:21 AMI have to agree with just about everything on your list there (and I am totally stoked to see The Blob mentioned... which starts off so amazing that I could always ignore the fact that it doesn&#39;t quite keep it up to the end ). The 1978 Invasion of the Body Snatchers is my favorite flavor of that film. Though I think the Dawn remake is pretty slick I dislike how they handle the pregnancy arc (much better plotting in the original IMHO) and I wish it was titled differently so it was seperated from the Dead series (since Romero gets no money from the name I&#39;ve been told). The NOTLD remake by Savini is good, but surprisingly gore less. I am not very impressed with Rob Zombie so far, but I&#39;ll see the remake of Halloween... Hills Have Eyes - the original never really did it for me, but I think the Aja remake is pretty good and I put it into the same camp as The Fly and The Thing as better than the original. I am pretty excited for the Piranha remake Aja is helming. I love the original movie and I enjoy Aja&#39;s style and slick gore... I am not looking for much more than killer fish and red waters in this one. Remakes have there place. We have been retelling the simplest stories for years and years (in film, in literature, etc). There are certain talesstories that are so simple and base that you can take them in many directions. I am all for remakes that alter, warp and rethink past ideas and stories (Again I think The Fly is a perfect example). http://www.spout.com/groups/HORROR_MOVIES_101/Re_Re_makes/222/19334/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: TheWorkingDead
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 9/4/2007 10:26:07 AM
Body: I'll admit that I'm past thinking a remake will automatically be bad, there've been too many good ones for me to think that, but I still dislike hearing about new ones. I can't think of a single movie I want to be remade. The Invasion was one I was looking forward to, because with 3 good versions already, and some pretty decent knock-offs, it seemd like an idiot-proof idea, but from what I hear(I'll reserve judgement until I actually see it) it fails.It's an interesting point that horror and sci-fi films get remade at a much higher rate than non-genre films. You don't hear much talk about people remaking Citizen Kane, or the Godfather, or any other 'classic' film, but every year about half the horror movies that make it to theatres seem to be remakes or sequels. Horror is a favorite of mine because it is so often home to much greater creativity and imagination than any other genre. It says something that so many of them, these days, are remakes. Missing some of that creativity and imagination.That being said, some of my favorite horror films are remakes. I'd be interesting in hearing what other remakes are people's favorites. Invasion of the Body Snatchers(1978): The original stands up, and the Abel Ferrera version has it's merits, but the 70s version has that horror and fear that seems to be crushing my chest. It's so claustrophobic and paranoid, and right from the word 'go' there's a surreal terror at work. And christ, that ending!The Fly: Obviously, because Cronenberg is a favorite director. The Blob: One of my favorite movie monsters, and a very underrated remake. Very effective, with awesome gore effects. Blessedly made before CGI, which has me worried about the upcoming remake they keep talking about.The Thing: The first film I remember seeing, I was 5 when it came out. And I had a dog the same breed as the ones in the film. It took me years to be able to sit in the same room as someone watching it. Now I recognize a lot of the humor, obviously, but it still has a pretty tense, paranoid feel, almost on a level with Body Snatchers.Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead: I'm lumping these two together. Both films remove a lot of the social and political subtext of the originals, but they still manage to be fairly effective movies. the NOTLD remake got passed over in terms of recognition, but it's a solid effort and has some good scares. Not to mention pretty good makeup effects. Now, not to make this longer than it already is, but I don't think any of those remakes detracts from the excellence of the originals. But I also think we here on Spout are a bit different that way. The majority of filmgoers wont go out and see the original, they'll be content with the new, more often than not inferior, versions.
]]>Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:26:07 GMTTheWorkingDeadHORROR MOVIES 1019/4/2007 10:26:07 AMI&#39;ll admit that I&#39;m past thinking a remake will automatically be bad, there&#39;ve been too many good ones for me to think that, but I still dislike hearing about new ones. I can&#39;t think of a single movie I want to be remade. The Invasion was one I was looking forward to, because with 3 good versions already, and some pretty decent knock-offs, it seemd like an idiot-proof idea, but from what I hear(I&#39;ll reserve judgement until I actually see it) it fails.It&#39;s an interesting point that horror and sci-fi films get remade at a much higher rate than non-genre films. You don&#39;t hear much talk about people remaking Citizen Kane, or the Godfather, or any other &#39;classic&#39; film, but every year about half the horror movies that make it to theatres seem to be remakes or sequels. Horror is a favorite of mine because it is so often home to much greater creativity and imagination than any other genre. It says something that so many of them, these days, are remakes. Missing some of that creativity and imagination.That being said, some of my favorite horror films are remakes. I&#39;d be interesting in hearing what other remakes are people&#39;s favorites. Invasion of the Body Snatchers(1978): The original stands up, and the Abel Ferrera version has it&#39;s merits, but the 70s version has that horror and fear that seems to be crushing my chest. It&#39;s so claustrophobic and paranoid, and right from the word &#39;go&#39; there&#39;s a surreal terror at work. And christ, that ending!The Fly: Obviously, because Cronenberg is a favorite director. The Blob: One of my favorite movie monsters, and a very underrated remake. Very effective, with awesome gore effects. Blessedly made before CGI, which has me worried about the upcoming remake they keep talking about.The Thing: The first film I remember seeing, I was 5 when it came out. And I had a dog the same breed as the ones in the film. It took me years to be able to sit in the same room as someone watching it. Now I recognize a lot of the humor, obviously, but it still has a pretty tense, paranoid feel, almost on a level with Body Snatchers.Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead: I&#39;m lumping these two together. Both films remove a lot of the social and political subtext of the originals, but they still manage to be fairly effective movies. the NOTLD remake got passed over in terms of recognition, but it&#39;s a solid effort and has some good scares. Not to mention pretty good makeup effects. Now, not to make this longer than it already is, but I don&#39;t think any of those remakes detracts from the excellence of the originals. But I also think we here on Spout are a bit different that way. The majority of filmgoers wont go out and see the original, they&#39;ll be content with the new, more often than not inferior, versions. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/disturbing/MemberTagFilms.aspxdisturbing
Number of films tagged: 283

Number of people who tagged: 119

Number of times used: 394

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:55:54 GMT283119394Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sci-fi/MemberTagFilms.aspxsci-fi
Number of films tagged: 217

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 375

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:33:53 GMT217102375Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/future/MemberTagFilms.aspxfuture
Number of films tagged: 493

Number of people who tagged: 101

Number of times used: 259

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:16:33 GMT493101259Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/80s/MemberTagFilms.aspx80s
Number of films tagged: 87

Number of people who tagged: 90

Number of times used: 162

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:50:41 GMT8790162Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/scientist/MemberTagFilms.aspxscientist
Number of films tagged: 1408

Number of people who tagged: 31

Number of times used: 77

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:47:27 GMT14083177Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/experiment/MemberTagFilms.aspxexperiment
Number of films tagged: 728

Number of people who tagged: 22

Number of times used: 40

]]>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:14:11 GMT7282240Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/mutant/MemberTagFilms.aspxmutant
Number of films tagged: 452

Number of people who tagged: 18

Number of times used: 28

]]>Wed, 27 May 2009 13:02:10 GMT4521828Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/teleportation/MemberTagFilms.aspxteleportation
Number of films tagged: 19

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 8

]]>Fri, 08 May 2009 22:21:55 GMT1968Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/bloodgutsandgorecom/MemberTagFilms.aspxbloodgutsandgorecom
Number of films tagged: 240

Number of people who tagged: 5

Number of times used: 283

]]>Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:17:40 GMT2405283Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/metamorphosis/MemberTagFilms.aspxmetamorphosis
Number of films tagged: 60

Number of people who tagged: 5

Number of times used: 9

]]>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:02:14 GMT6059Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/body-horror/MemberTagFilms.aspxbody-horror
Number of films tagged: 5

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 6

]]>Mon, 24 Dec 2007 00:39:05 GMT526Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fingernail/MemberTagFilms.aspxfingernail
Number of films tagged: 2

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 2

]]>Mon, 05 Mar 2007 17:15:30 GMT222Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fly-insect/MemberTagFilms.aspxfly-insect
Number of films tagged: 19

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 2

]]>Tue, 20 May 2008 13:05:02 GMT1922Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sciencerunsamok/MemberTagFilms.aspxsciencerunsamok
Number of films tagged: 91

Number of people who tagged: 0

Number of times used: 0

]]>Fri, 22 May 2009 13:15:00 GMT9100Tag