Nosferatu (both 1927, 1979)
Vampyr (C.T. Dreyer)
Near Dark
Martin (speaking of Romero…)

and the very recent swedish tale, LET THE RIGHT ONE IN is pretty upscale moviemaking, defying most of the expectations of the genre.

We should do more ‘shoot-the-shit’ episodes.

I enjoy the pacing of Dark Water, it should have been sold as a drama instead of a J-Horror remake (which of course it was, but Salles injected a different flavour and tone to it than Hideo Nakata.

Andrew loves his vampire flicks more than I do. That being said, its a pretty flexible sub-genre, which can and often does, go just about anywhere.

Nitpicks and comments at all:

quote from Andrew from this episode; “I hate comic book movies” – there you have it – I mean, your rundown of what you expected from the Hulk movie is pretty much dead on, however really I think I can make the same rundown to describe most vampire/zombie movies, including many you guys think have reinvented things. Im thinking again its a matter of taste, but also some of the ol’ blockbuster cycnism and a bit of snobbery. The comic book films make the money and the precious vampire/zombie flicks go unappreciated, in my opinion making comic book films overly nitpicked and many excuses made for the latter’s shortcomings, of which I think there are usually many.

Finally, Dark Water is a godawful shit movie. I couldn’t even finish it. Literally. I was suffering through it hoping it would end, and then the rental copy I had skipped its way to death where I had to eject it and gladfully return it for another movie. Even my DVD player knew better than Kurt does on this one

Mad lolz.

It might be better, but that isn’t the style he was going for. It is supposed to be funny though.

The Happening is the same animal as Doomsday, only M. Night isn’t making a film for fans of 70′s and 80′s genre mash-ups, he’s making a film for fans of 50′s science fiction films. It’s hokey, oddly shot, and actors are purposely acting by themselves so they seem stiff in their delivery. The entire film is an experiment, and one I enjoyed quite a bit.

yer eyin’ my lemonade.

“Wouldn’t the scene be better if it weren’t visually ridiculous?”

No, because it looked awesome. You were supposed to have fun with the over-the-top violence, not sit there actually scared that this might happen to you. It’s a great contrast to all the more subtle and realistic stuff, like the gun, or the opening etc. It just shows it’s an extreme thing happening.

Signs is more about the characters than the spectacle. The Happening is not. The Happening has typical movie characters, with typical movie solutions to typical movie problems. It’s all about reeling the masses in with visual thrills to get scared and have a good time at the movies. Signs is different, using genre conventions brilliantly to tell a more intimate story about a man and where he feels his authority comes from.

I just don’t get it. Happening is pure entertainment as opposed to Signs? What is the objective of Signs then? Both films seem pretty similar in genre to me.

So when Shyamalan was directing this scene he was thinking to himself “now for some empty spectacle. definitely don’t make it suspenseful. nothing ruins spectacle like suspense”. Wouldn’t the scene be better if it weren’t visually ridiculous? Was I supposed to have burst out laughing?

I also think this is Shyamalan’s sloppiest directing (except for those two movies that people only mention to say they haven’t seen them). There’s one scene on the old lady’s porch where she startles him by popping into frame. She was blocked by him… he couldn’t see her because he was standing in the way… of himself.

I get that’s not the type of thing that’s going to bother everyone. Maybe it’s even nitpicking, that’s fine. I’m not saying the film is bad because of that scene. But the blocking here is visually nonsensical and I don’t see how anyone could defend it. It’s an example of Shyamalan’s sloppiness that plagues this film.

The context is completely different. The Happening is pure entertainment, it’s meant as spectacle much more so than gutpunching tension. I mean compare what’s on the iPhone to the scene in Signs – one is ridiculously over-the-top and one is the opposite.

The effective scares in The Happening worked better for me than any horror movie I can remember seeing in years. Though I didn’t see The Descent (the story sounds completely uninteresting). I’d rather have the trade off of awesome/bad (hard-to-believe-it’s-actually-happening-on-screen is a better description of some of Shyamalans ideas I think) than I’d have the bland/bland of the rest of hollywood. The scene with the gun alone puts The Happening leagues above something like Iron Man.

Actually one of my biggest complaints of The Happening is that it’s just the same old tricks from Shyamalan.

Using color codes, green = evil. The iphone moment plays like a talentless hack ripping off a much better scene from Signs. There are some effective scares but just as often there are these WTF moments of utter piss (as the Chud writers say). “We can’t just be disinterested spectators!”
Obviously with the acting Shyamalan was going for something very specific stylistically but I just don’t think the actors got it.

In regards to people not getting tired of Cronenberg…I think it’s because his film making has changed. He still seems concerned with the “body” but he’s become more sophisticated about it. Gone are people sucked into TVs, exploding heads and men turning to flies and in their place we have tattoos, subtle facial disfigurement and ugly but believable deaths.

As for thoughts on “The Happening”….I’m still digesting but it’s safe to say it’s in the top 5 of best of the year so far. I *really* enjoyed it.

But at least when he fails he fails trying something new… I don’t think Boll and Bay can be said to do the same.