Original Series
Paranoia
Welcome
Previously featured on YouTube before ultimately being ousted by the powers that be (those powers being the people behind "Nail Gun Massacre") thecinemasnob.com will
feature all of the Snob's videos, old and new, and also brand new shows and full length original movies for those of us who already can't get enough of Z-Grade Cinema.
Links
Mike Bracken
The Spoony One
Tenebrous Kate
Eccentric Cinema
ThatGuyWithTheGlasses
Cinemassacre
Revolving Video
Shaun Millington
Shriek Freak Arrow in the Head
Leslie Jones Blastoff Network
I Spit on Your Taste
Vault of Horror
Bloody Disgusting
Varied Celluloid
Patrick Rodriguez
Avante Garde Theatre
DjDaymage Halloween Mix
Cheap Arse Film Review
Forgotten Junk
Banned From the Video Store
The Experience Cinematic
Fistful of Cult
Video Hero's Hollywood Rant
The Horror Channel
Full Moon Reviews
SFHFF Review
The Spoony One
Tenebrous Kate
Eccentric Cinema
ThatGuyWithTheGlasses
Cinemassacre
Revolving Video
Shaun Millington
Shriek Freak Arrow in the Head
Leslie Jones Blastoff Network
I Spit on Your Taste
Vault of Horror
Bloody Disgusting
Varied Celluloid
Patrick Rodriguez
Avante Garde Theatre
DjDaymage Halloween Mix
Cheap Arse Film Review
Forgotten Junk
Banned From the Video Store
The Experience Cinematic
Fistful of Cult
Video Hero's Hollywood Rant
The Horror Channel
Full Moon Reviews
SFHFF Review
The Cinema Snob: Radiodrome: Siskel & Ebert on Women in Danger
BlogAds
Support
Help Support The Cinema Snob!
Unfortunately my page hates donate buttons and the link doesn't work, but if you would like to help out The Cinema Snob, my Paypal account is under thecinemasnob@yahoo.com
Unfortunately my page hates donate buttons and the link doesn't work, but if you would like to help out The Cinema Snob, my Paypal account is under thecinemasnob@yahoo.com
Long overdue. God. they were self-righteous
Reply to this
You guys had some good points about the R-rating being stupid, because you are going to watch a slasher-movie..... what would you expect??
I just hate how the consumers are treated as children, like the Rating censorship and other censopship. It's like the newest version of "the adventures of Huckleberry finn" in which the word "niggar" is censored out.... i really dont get it. The Book was written in an ignorant and racist age and the book reflect this. No one who reads that book suddenly a racist.
And it is the same with movies: critics and censors read too much into the movies. They see their own demons in the movies and censor them. Why is it that the lowest common denominator always sets the bar (low).
Sorry for that rant if you found it stupid.
Reply to this
Ratings aren't censorship. Their purpose is to provide information about the content of the movie so that censorship isn't necessary. If the ratings boards didn't exist, the government would have the right to regulate movies, TV, and video games. That's what Schwarzenegger v. EMA was all about last year.
It's good to have the ratings system, since it informs people about what they're going to see if they can't tell from the publicity. The problem is with people who ignore the ratings system and then complain about the violence, or nudity, or language in an R rated film they let their kids watch.
Reply to this
I think everyone here agrees with you, to some extent.
Certainly, having a rating system is preferable to having censorship. The problem is that the rating system is midhandled, creating situtations that border on censorship, and also people cannot always agree what should be rated what.
But that last sentence you said is amazing. It is extremely true. The sad thing is, many people just don't get that. What you said should 100% self-evident, but is not.
Reply to this
im sorry the rating system is censorship.
granted, its not censorship in the same way that you cant make it or distribute it, but you also dont get a wide release if its in theaters at all, if its nc17
look up this movie is not yet rated on netflix, its an interesting enough "documentary" that even if you aren't totally into movies, you will still find it a decent watch.
and it shows with comparisons to r rated movies that the same content that gets them nc17 got an r in others, and they also wont tell you what to cut, and if you dispute your film getting an nc17 you aren't allowed to site other movies with similar or worse getting an r.
in certain aspects the current rateing system is worse than censorship because at least with censorship there are rules and guidelines, not just a whim of some people.
Reply to this
I'll probably be one of the few posting here that agrees with much of what the two of them have to say. In particular, Gene's absolutely right when he says Halloween evokes an "up" feeling. Not sure what's so hard to grasp about this. He even specifically states its the art direction, music, and the general quality of the filmmaking that's gives off way the positive experience. It's a film made with imagination, mature style, and wit. That's what sets Halloween apart from the rest.
Reply to this
Just because Halloween is better, doesn't make the others bad. Also, what you said about Halloween could also be said about "When a Stranger Calls," a movie that is arguably more psychological than "Halloween," yet it's dismissed in this as being another slasher film, which it isn't. I think Brad is right in this when he says if something like When a Stranger Calls came out before slashers started making it big, they wouldn't have been as up in arms about it.
It's all about intent. It's one thing not to like these movies, but to look for underlining themes at aren't there is childish.
Reply to this
Didn't say it makes the others bad. Am I saying it's clearly far superior and earns its place upon a pedestal? Yep. Ironically, Halloween II is the best example there is of How To Make An Inferior Slasher 101. Friday The 13th (Part 1) gets by, which is at least semi well made schlock-fun with respectable attempts at atmosphere and a fantastic Henry Manfredini, screeching violin score.
Reply to this
I love Halloween, but saying every slasher movie sucks when compared to Halloween is like saying every drama sucks compared to The Godfather Part II. It's a completely unfair, not to mention erroneous statement.
My problem with the special is this: it's one thing to say the movies are poorly made and poorly acted. That's fine, I don't need other people to like the same kinds of movies that I like. It is, however, a whole other thing to say that these films are misogynistic, and anyone who enjoys them is an anti-social creep. I'm sure there are some creeps (like the one Roger mentioned) who enjoy these movies, but they do not represent the entire audience. In fact, they are a severe minority.
Reply to this
What about "Jaws"? We only see the shark from it's POV for effect in the first half. Does that mean we're supposed identify with the shark?
And I agree the purpose of exploitation is to make money, the last thing they thought of was to make a statement of any kind.
Speaking of Slashers: Ever seen "Bay of blood" by Mario Bava? Many scenes bears similarity to Friday the 13th part 2
Reply to this
By the way "Stagefright" is an awesome movie!
Reply to this
I think you said it best before. "So in 1984, the consensus among parents was; It's ok for Santa to get butchered, but not ok for Santa to do the butchering. Isn't outrage hilarious?"
I've had some lengthy feminist discussions on Facebook recently and I wanted to post this and start another dialogue, but I don't think I can handle it...
Wow, Jerrid was really on tonight! I don't think I've heard "You make a good point" directed at him so many times before.
Good show. I really enjoy listening! You should tackle the outrage over video games in the early 1990s. So crazy.
Reply to this
I could only hear half of it, so if this was said in the show, my apologies.
I believe what gives them the justification to say that the movies "hate women" is that the survivors were, typically, virginal and "innocent;" the "loose" or "liberated" characters were the ones to get butchered. It was, effectively, a misogynistic rebuttal to the idea of women being empowered; the ones to survive were the ones who fit with conservative male values.
I believe that was the crux of their disgust as much as anything, but I admit I could be mistaken.
Reply to this
The idea of the virginal hero is not something that every single slasher film did, and is more of a stereotype of the genre. There are numerous slashers where the survivor isn't shown having sex, but that doesn't mean they were virgins. Plenty of Friday the 13th films had survivors who, maybe weren't shown having sex, but still had had sex. And it would be one thing if that was the intent of these slasher producers, but if they really wanted to make something with a conservative agenda, I don't think they'd be making a slasher film.
Reply to this
I don't think it's a conservative agenda -- like, Passion-of-the-Christ sort of bullshit -- so much as unconscious misogyny that is incredibly commonplace. And again, if I'm putting words into their mouths, I apologize; I can only get the first half of the show to load.
Reply to this
See, that's a valid criticism of the genre... but I feel like Siskel and Ebert's objections aren't based on on an objection to slut-shaming, but a pseudo-chivalrous response to seeing women get hurt or killed. Those poor wimmenz! We men must protect them! The fact that they have this visceral response to WOMEN in danger, but not men, speaks volumes to me about just what they think about women and their ability to take care of themselves.
Reply to this
I think you guys, especially the host, missed the point of the comments by Siskel & Ebert. It is absolutely true that all these films are complete pulp and in no way are even remotely comparable to things like Psycho. I agree with most of what Siskel and Ebert say.
Around minute 24 I think Brad nails it: these movies are not for them, and it is really comparable to his review of Tree of Life (I personally think both Tree of Life and most slashers suck very much).
Also, I'm going to call some hypocrisy, mostly on the host. You guys are doing the exact same things as Siskel and Ebert are doing, only form the opposite site
Reply to this
You might be confusing me with Josh, I go see mainstreams films all the time, and give many of them positive reviews.
Reply to this
I posted a comment on that video on siskelandebert.org pointing out some of the flaws (like how a pov camera alone does not create empathy for a character, because there needs to be a reaction shot). My comment got a shit-load of negative votes and was eventually removed. Now, like you, I like Siskel & Ebert, but I don't agree with them a lot of the time. It's like some (not all, but a few) of the people that go to that website seem to take every word they say as fact, and anyone who disagrees with them is some kind of heretic. By the way, I see a Brad in the comment section as well, is that you?
Reply to this
Siskel and Ebert are such dumbasses. Now, don't get me wrong. Most of those 80's slasher movies are complete garbage, but not because of any offensive material. Just because they are badly-written and boring. I find it idiotic that these two imbeciles become offended when audiences cheer things on like women getting killed. Like, who cares? Hey, guys, it's FICTION. It's NOT REAL. Who the fuck cares how audiences react to it? Do they find it offensive when people jerk off in porno theaters too?
If Ebert thinks "I Spit on Your Grave" is the most offensive movie ever made, he'd probably have a stroke if he sat through Ruggero Deodato's "House on the Edge of the Park." That movie, IMO, makes "Grave" look like "The Accused" with Jodie Foster.
And, incidentally, "Halloween" is complete crap. 87 minutes of actors staring at the camera, and I'm a FAN of John Carpenter.
Reply to this
Roger Ebert: "I was disgusted at a movie that has a 40 minute rape scene on it. "
Josh Hadley: "look at how much comtempt he has on his voice, its like if rape disgusts him or something I DEMAND THAT EVERY VIDEOSTORE OWNER KNOWS ABOUT MOVIES WITH EXTENSIVE RAPE SCENES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH"
Also perverts ain't the same! The dude telling off a sexually promiscous woman that she deserves to get mauled ain't exactly the same that gets off to wierdo costume boning.
Reply to this
Brad is more well spoken and calm that Josh is in this. Not that I disagree with a lot of what Josh says, but Brad provides calmer rebuttals here while still seeming to have some respect for Gene and Roger.
Reply to this
I recently had a talk with Josh, but I'll say this: there's an episode on Lost In the Static, somewhere on the 10s,20s ,where you can tell that Josh isn't exactly very fond of Ebert. Probably much less than on this feature.
Reply to this
I love how in the Friday the 13th scene they try to say that "If you do these things like stand infront of a mirror, you'll get killed for being a whore in your underwear"
While I thought in that scene:
Men and Women often talk and be act weird and don't wear clothes often in the bathroom in front of a mirror cause they figure they are alone.. But what this scene does it take a simple thing like being alone in the bathroom and make it seem like they aren't. That's suppose to be scary.. A simple message.. I completely agree overlooking the entire point of that scene.
Reply to this
I know it's not related to the radiodrome but did you saw the new Season 15
Ass Burgers preview in southparkstudios? Jerrid should love that
Reply to this
Personally I like slasher and giallo films very much. I don't think they were all badly made. Between 1969 and 1984 or so. The standard was pretty high and most have some good qualities even if it only amounts to interesting scores and the odd decent scene, Contrary to popular misconception the worst were actually aberrations not the norm.
Even when they weren't great they had something. Could you imagine an ultra low budget modern slasher going with kills and a soundtrack as bonkers as Death Screams?
Reply to this
The main problem I have with this special is that S&E are so devoted to grand-standing that they make broad generalizations of all these movies. This doesn't seem to work when you're discussing movies that you admit to liking ("The Howling") or at least offer some sort of twist in the story or semblance of craft in their execution.
The point Brad makes with "Don't Go in the House" is the same one I would make with Bill Lustig's "Maniac," which is much sleazier than "When a Stranger Calls" but also purposefully psychological. The guerilla filmmaking in NYC, the musical score, the overall characterization of Frank Zito by Joe Spinell...these things were all positives to me.
The recent special edition release of that film is full of archival newscasts similar in their disdain for the slasher genre. Siskel even narrates one of them. But they grossly lump in 1980's "Silent Scream" into the mix without noticing that the killer in that film is a mentally disturbed woman and the victims run both sexes. Furthermore, the clips shown are from the climax, which is unbearable in the tension revolving around NOT wanting to see the female lead get killed. It's not deliberately nasty or morally concerned. The female lead even has sex and lives.
I'm all for criticism and reviewing, and not all slasher films are created equal. Anyone who saw "Shadows Run Black" on VHS when they were 13 can tell you that. But credit to the three of you for such a sober, hilarious breakdown of the special. S&E also did a response to Video Nasties, which was a primarily British movement but also very selective and subjective and tried to net a whole lot of exploitation movies in one handy camp.
Reply to this
I actually feel that Siskel and Ebert have a valid point that you guys overlooked. A couple of weeks ago, you did a Snob video (rightly) condemning the film 'Child Bride', which was merely a lurid film designed to titillate certain segments of the audience (see: lengthy scene of 12 year-old girl swimming nude), disguised as a social commentary/criticism of child exploitation. Many slasher-type films similarly have a lurid and explicit focus upon the violence being perpetrated on the victims, in graphic, almost loving detail. That the killer is punished in the end is irrelevant, when so much focus is placed upon the gruesome acts committed, stabbings (which, as criminal psychologists will tell you is often sexual, and even a substitute for rape, with real killers) and other graphic violence, in a lurid manner, and I see where Siskel and Ebert are coming from, and feel that they have valid points.
Add to that the fact that, as mentioned many slasher films, the victims are usually sexually active 'bad' women (bringing with it the implications that the victim 'deserves' it, a la the Madonna–whore complex that is often at the root of serial killer motivations, not to mention misogyny in general) while the survivors are traditionally virginal and chaste (the Madonna in said complex), and I believe that you guys dismiss Siskel and Ebert's arguments too easily, perhaps motivated by your own status as fans of the slasher genre.
I say this as a fan of the Friday the 13th films, and as one who believes that Ebert largely missed the point of those movies.
Reply to this
The Cinema Snob has also said "you're an exploitation film! Exploit something!" Slasher films should have, if anything, slashings in them. Doesn't mean they're making some kind of social political statement. They're fun theme park rides.
Reply to this
I agree that many, and perhaps even most, slasher and exploitation films are just fun movies with no deeper meaning. I'm okay with the Friday the 13th movies, and with revenge movies like 'I Spit on your Grave', which, while the violence in the rape scenes is graphic, disturbing and shocking, it is MEANT to be. You are supposed to be uncomfortable watching that film. However, there are too many films, especially torture-porn movies, where the violence, especially when directed towards women, is portrayed in such a way that it is clearly intended to be titillating and arousing. There is a disturbing misogynistic undercurrent to many, although certainly not all, such films. I don't think it is a conscious thing on the part of the filmmakers, but it is there. So, while S&E are largely off the mark in dismissing ALL slasher films, I think they do have a valid point still about some films that you guys are overlooking.
Reply to this
I don't think so. T think Siskel and Herbert were essentially the product of late 1960s film theory which heavily relied on reading subtext and political messages into films. Slasher films were aimed at the youth market. Most had no subtext of any sort and those that did
,Slumber Party Massacre being a good example, were closer to knowing parody.
There was also a piece of research, which to be honest with you I can't be bothered to look up, which demonstrated that more males than females were killed in slasher films. My belief is that Siskel and Herbert were old codgers moaning about young people. They were also essentially serious cinema fans and simply had little time for exploitation flicks.
Torture Porn. I maintain is a meaningless phrase cooked up by people who simply don't like horror films to imply that fans are perverted rather than just gleeful gore mongers. Actually, the emphasis in such films is mostly on male suffering Hostel II being the exception. Interestingly fairly mainstream modern horror can graphically depict penises being lopped off (Hostel II), eaten by fish(Piranha) and jammed with a needle (The Neighbour) but would never in a million years show anything resembling the equivalent violence to female characters.This is because willies are funny, not because modern horror film makers hate men. In the end 70's and 80s horror was actually more akin to the science fiction world. Some films were serious, some weren't. Scream queens coexisted with hulking killers and the fans interacted with it in an equally complex way. It's still much the same.
The thing with horror is that people who don't really like it. tend to project simplistic arguments onto it turning it into some sort bogeyman. The clearest indication that this is what Siskel and Herbert were doing is that once slasher films were reborn as mainstream Hollywood productions they they were no longer outraged> By the 90s the pair were giving favourable reviews to films they would have hated in the 70s and 80s. This is because they were no longer projecting things onto films that weren't there and because those films major releases. I would also argue that by the 90s Siskel and Herbert were no longer trying to read Reaganite, new-right messages into into everything.
pS sorry for any glaring mistakes my compoter is playing silly buggers.
Reply to this
Amazing post, and true.
How many mainstream horror films show female genital mutilation? Not many, but you listed several examples of movies with male castration.
Reply to this
Ebert has really changed over the years, he gave a very positive review to The Devils Rejects on his show.
Reply to this
This reminds me: You should review one of the movies Ebert wrote for Russ Meyer. I haven't seen them, so I have no idea of how riffable they are, but it just seems the perfect connection for the Snob to review a sexploitation movie written by the inspiration of his own character.
Reply to this
Fucking Roger Ebert, an incompetent cunt, never liked him, never will.
And you can argue against fucks like that all day. But no reason to. Four words sum it up:
It's. Just. A. Movie.
Not real. Consenting people acted in these movies, they are not real, there is no way whatsoever to criticize any movie on "moral" grounds, any movie criticism on such grounds is void.
I would note, of course, you are entitled to your own moral standards. If you do not want to see the violence, or nudity, or whatever, because you find it morally wrong of offensive, that is completely within your right. Simply do not watch those movies. But if you think for ONE SECOND that gives you the right to even THINK of imposing your morals on others, then you are a MONSTER, a TYRANT, and worst of all, a CENSORSHIPMONGER.
Look at me for instance: I love violence, but not gay people. I would rather die than watch gay porn. But I do not for ONE SECOND suggest that it should be illegal.
Reply to this
And I will say this, Brad:
There is mild hyprocricy in your argument. I am, of course, 100% for putting Ebert's retarded points in the garbage bag, but need I mention that your yourself have thought the same thing he does.
I of course refer to A Serbian Film.
NOW, I COULD BE WRONG.
If you were merely saying that that movie crossed your PERSONAL line, and it was too much for YOU, and YOU found it "IMMORAL" then I respect that (but not agree).
However, in your reviews of that movie, I got the impression you felt this film should be BANNED from OTHER people, like ME, or the other CONSENTING REAL HUMAN ADULTS on your website, or anyone. IF this was your opinion, than that is SHAMEFUL, WRONG, and, in your case (being an exploitation fan in general) hypocracy as well.
Now, if that was not your intention in that A Serbian Film reviews, then never mind. You are within your rights.
Reply to this
A brief note on that subject (a little, I daresay, off topic, I am sorry):
A Serbian Film, Is. Just. A. Movie. Any argument applied in the defense of When A Stranger Calls, or Maniac, or Silent Night, Deadly Night, applies DIRECTLY and IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY, to A Serbian Film.
Well, you, say, "newborn porn" is hardly CONSENSUAL on the part of the baby, inasmuch as the baby cannot consent. Well, that scene was faked, they used a doll (an INHUMAN _object_ not a real person), so they were fully within the bounds of morality, and their rights as filmmakers and artists.
Once again, Brad, if you do read this, I would be CURIOUS to know, if you think A Serbian Film should be banned, or if it is simply something that goes "too far" for YOU AND YOU ALONE. Because I deeply hope it is the latter.
Thanks
Reply to this
Also, EXCELLENT point on the "rape" thing. People LOOOOOVVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEE to claim that horror movies in general have lots of rape, and especially slasher films.
When most movies with rape are part of the "rape and revenge" subgenre; a "normal" horror or even slasher film does not even have rape.
--
Also, it is true. No one ever argues about "violence against men." As a true men's rights activist, I find the phrase "violence against women" inherently misandrist, and unncessary. Why is it that it is worse to harm a woman than a man? We are all people, all equal.
Reply to this
Also, I hate to say it, but the points you make are good. But unncessary.
EVEN IF THOSE TWO GUYS WERE RIGHT. EVEN if the movies were exclusively men raping and killing women, with no commupance for the men, and only women died, and were objectified.
Which is NOT the case. But EVEN IF IT WAS.
THE FILMS WOULD STILL BE LEGIMIATE. WHY?
BECAUSE. THEY. ARE. FAKE.
Side note: It would be hilarious if Ebert went to see a 1970s "roughie" film, because they actually ARE what he is describing here.
EVEN SO, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE DEGRADING AND OBJECTIFYING TO WOMEN. EVEN THOUGH THIS IS TRUE.
STILL. FAKE. MOVIES. CONSENSUALLY. FILMED.
Reply to this
To be fair, the director of A Serbian Film has claimed that the movie is "art" because it's symbolic of how the Serbian government fucks its citizens from birth to death. Or something.
That's a standard cop-out justification for when a director wants to make the most shocking and disgusting movie he can dream up. By calling it art, suddenly it's all justified rather then just being something you watch on a dare.
But by doing that, he himself has removed it from the realm of "Just a movie" and opens it up to much deeper criticism. I don't think anyone who makes slasher films has ever tried to claim such about their work.
Reply to this
That is an extremely GOOD and FAIR point.
NOW, there are two ways I could reply to that:
1. Perhaps censorship laws in Serbia are stricter than here (if so, I pity you, NOTHING is WORSE than censorship). And they would not be allowed to make a film THAt graphic without claiming the "it's art" thing. If so, we have to assume the claim was made, not to be true, but to allow the film to exist. If so, then it it "just a slasher film." This is unlikely, and as I have no knowledge of Serbian censorship laws, I cannot claim this to be true. I just say it bears considering.
2.) Let us assume the director was being serious, and thinks his movie is art. In that case:
2a. Whether or not it is "art" or just "something you watch on a dare" is irrelevant to the films legal and moral status. If it is just sleazy shlock, it still has as much right to exist as any other film. It is just the director is a joke.
2b. Again, I don't like in Serbian; I doubt you do. Maybe the gov't does fuck them from birth to death there. I don't think either of us are in a position to say that he was being genuine or not. We simply cannot fathom what it is like to be Serbian, so I don't claim authority to decide if the movies are just schlock, or if they have deeper meaning.
Also, I don't necessarily understand that last paragraph.
Any MOVIE, whether or not it claims to be "just a movie" or "something deep" can be criticized on any level. Any shlocky movie, even one that has no pretentins about what it is, (for instance, most slahser films), are ALLOWED to be criticized deeply. For instance, you COULD claim a movie like 1977's "Water Power" is shit, because it has no deep meaning, and whatnot. It is just that that criticism would be asinine. Nevertheless, it still exists as "just a movie."
My point with "just a movie" was NOT to absolve any movie (especially not one whose director claims it to be deep and metaphorical) from criticism of ANY kind. My point with "just a movie" was that ANY film (including A Serbian Film, or films whose director claims it to be deep and metaphorical) can be absolved of being considered EVIL, MORALLY BAD, or worthy of being BANNED or those grounds.
Sorry for das confusion.
Reply to this
I never ever called for the boycott or the banning of A Serbian Film. People should be allowed to make and show whatever the hell they want (so long as its legal). I just like my horror movies sans baby rape. But A Serbian Film shouldn't be banned. I saw it, didn't like it, so what. I'm not going to try looking for deep meaning in it (like S&E are doing), it was just bad exploitation, nothing more.
Of COURSE maybe I could PUT random capitalized WORDS in random PARTS of my sentences TOO, to drive my point HOME further. =) j/K
Reply to this
That is VERY good and REASSURING and makes me still think YOU are cool.
I am glad, I just misinterpreted you in your review of it, and you placing it as the worst movie of 2010 (I guess you missed CLASH OF THE TITANS, Paranormal Activity 2, MacGruber, and such) seemed odd. It was funny, though, to see the Exploitation Master, Brad Jones, be out-exploited, and something took him out (his favorite movie is Caligula, he loves 80s sleaze like Vice Squad and The Exterminator, and literally WATCHES WEIRD FUCKING PORN FOR A LIVING, but THIS MOVIE TOOK HIM OUT AND TOOK IT TOO FAR). That was amusing, especially as you considered The Girl Next Door to be the best horror film of the 2000s (excellent film, I agree).
Anyways, I am glad you clarified your thoughts, I am happy, happy, happy, happy about that. Yay!!
Reply to this
That was . . . necessary? I agree with your overall point in talking about this, but what purpose does it serve?
Reply to this
Absolutely none whatsoever =)
Reply to this
I saw this episode online a while ago, and while I disagreed with them on many points, I have to say, I disagreed with you guys on a few as well.
1.) You claim that the critics don't like these films for a lack of subtext and metaphors. I think they don't like the majority of the films because they don't find them to have compelling stories or characters. Seriously, you have to admit that most slasher movie characters are just fodder, and more often than not the heroes/heroines are bland.
2.) Siskel and Ebert do have a point that the image of a woman in danger is used far more often than a man in danger, particularly in ads. For example, "The Evil Dead" is about a man fighting demons with a shotgun, but the poster is of a woman being strangled. (I love that movie by the way).
3.) You argue that they're wrong because the women in the movies are the ones who are usually the main characters. That leads to the majority of the movie consisting of images of the woman being terrorized or in danger. And I bet after seeing several dozen of these same stories in a short period of time, most people would grow weary of it.
4.) S&E actually were rather prescient in their fear that people were rooting for the killer. A few years later, we get Freddy movies where the only draw was his witty one-liners and Jason movies with non-characters. The producers of these movies must have picked up on this trend from their audiences.
5.) S&E also had a point about sexually liberated women getting killed. Who usually dies early in a slasher movie? The slut. Who lives? The demure virgin. Their idea that this is some subconscious response to Women's Lib is absurd, but they did pick up on this very real trend decades before the execrable "Scream" movies did.
6.) Suggesting that "Friday the 13th" is better than "Halloween"? I'm sorry, you're wrong. Everyone's entitled to their opinion... and yours happens to be wrong. "Friday" was flatly shot with boring, interchangeable characters, forgettable music and comical killer sounds (chee-chee-ha-ha). "Halloween" actually had good actors and atmosphere. I'm sorry, but... so wrong.
S&E may over-analyze and overreact to these films, but come on, you have to admit that the vast majority of slasher movies are poorly-made sleaze that can only be enjoyed ironically (i.e. the entire "Friday the 13th" series).
Reply to this
1. There's plenty of slasher films that have compelling stories and characters. The original Elm Street, Stagefright, and the Friday the 13ths had very fun characters. In fact, the reason I don't like many of the current slashers is that I can't stand the characters. But that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not they're sexist.
2. I agree with that. On the other side, there's a lot of men on "action movie" posters. Who cares.
3. That means the surviving character, usually a woman, kills the villain at the end of the movie and is the hero.
4. The later Freddy movies are more or less comedies.
5. The movies are exploitation films. They have violence and nudity, so what. Also, the men die after the sex scenes as well; it takes two to tango. And not all survivors in slashers were literally virgins. Just not every character showed their tits.
6. If I said I thought "Friday the 13th" was a better movie than "Halloween," that's not what I was trying to say. I was trying to say that Pamela Voorhees had a better backstory, and that Betsy Palmer gave a pretty good psychological performance in the movie. But "Halloween" is more well made and handles suspense beautifully. Honestly though, all of these things people complain about the stereotypical 80s slasher film (virginal leading lady, slutty friends, women in danger) are prominent in "Halloween," but it's more well made (and scarier too) so its ok to give that one a pass, but complain about the same things in other movies just because they're not shot as good? The original "Friday the 13th" has great dread and atmosphere by the way. That movie's dark as shit, and the music is phenomenal. Just because "Halloween" is better, doesn't make "Friday the 13th" bad.
We're not arguing that slasher movies aren't sleaze, or that some of them aren't poorly made (but really, come on, they're not trying to be Scorsese films here), but this idea that there's a mass conspiracy that the movies are made by people who hate women and that people who see them hate women, and that the movies are anti women is ridiculous. That was our overall point.
Reply to this
I don't get why people go on about "Halloween" being this great slasher movie. It's poorly-made crap. The killer, Michael Myers, is totally one-dimensional and not scary at all, and at the end it's implied he's invincible, which was not indicated at any other point in the movie. Most of the movie is just Jamie Lee Curtis and Nick Castle walking around, staring at the camera, and endless shots of leaves blowing around in the wind. Terrifying. And I am a big fan of John Carpenter! I love "The Thing," "Big Trouble in Little China," "In the Mouth of Madness," "They Live," etc. But "Halloween" represents a point in his career, I think, before he found his style. I haven't seen the original "Friday the 13th" movie, but I've seen a few of the sequels, and they're just awful, they were like made-for-TV movies. I know they're not trying to be Scorcese films, but that doesn't mean they aren't boring. A great slasher film, and way the hell darker than any of that Jason/Freddy/Michael Myers kiddie crap, is "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer."
What I think is really hypocritical about this situation is that critics, by and large, will praise a WAR movie no matter how needlessly graphic it is (ie. Saving Private Ryan*), but will diss horror movies even though they basically contain the same types of violence. Why is that?
*a lot of the gore in that film seemed just as exploitive and over-the-top as any horror film. A better example of how to portray war is in "Platoon," where they mostly DON'T show you what's happening and only play the sounds, so you have to use your imagination.
Reply to this
...What.
Reading things like this for me really exposes when someone has an apparent lack for the understanding of subtlety and suggestion, and how why the absolute best works of horror of all time utilize it to their fullest. After Carpenter did Halloween, and to some extent The Thing, I'm not convinced even he does anymore either. Halloween isn't a slasher that shoves everything in your face, and I don't just mean violence. There's an incredible atmosphere and foreboding dominates the film into its violent third act. The shots from Annie's car of the sun setting as they cruise around, the "boring" atmospheric master shots of leaves blowing around in the wind. The timing of the scares and use of music, which are still more effective than anything I could point out today (Loomis and Sheriff Brackett in the Myers house and how it plays out sends shivers every time). It's the exemplary example of an intelligently paced and visualized scary movie.
Michael Myers is far scarier than any slasher icon you could name. "The Shape.", as he's referred to by Loomis numerous times with his consistent viewpoint that he's not human. The final shots and what they could mean only come out of nowhere if you simply didn't pay attention to the proceedings whatsoever.
Reply to this
The film does have a good sense of atmosphere, I'll give it that, but I need more than atmosphere to get me through a movie. The villain in the movie has no characterization or motivation whatsoever, and is one-dimensional and not scary. Just because he looks scary doesn't mean he IS scary. And the ending is complete bullshit (spoiler!). Myers gets stabbed in the throat, the eye, is shot six times, falls off a balcony, then just gets up and walks away. Just because Loomis says he's "inhuman" doesn't automatically imply that he's invunerable. It really is ultimately just a generic slasher movie.
Reply to this
Completely disagree withe your final point. I firmly believe that the majority of slasher films were fairly well made and had interesting ideas built into them because the simplicity of the formula meant that ambitious, usually, first time directors had to impose there personalities on their Films in other ways. In that era directors were still influenced by auteur theory and the low budgets meant that there was little studio interference.
As long as there were a few deaths you could pretty much do what you wanted with the films.
And those films are remarkably varied. far more so than their modern equivalents.
these are my examples.
Don't Go In The House. Grim urban character study with brilliant gritty film making and the startling image of the flamethrower scene. Not funny and not camp.
Night Warning AKA Butcher Baker Nightmare Maker. Savage satire about homophobia and incestuous urges.
Just Before Dawn, nearly as good as TCM.
The Slayer. Older characters in a strange dream world with an extremely odd ending.
House On Sorority Row,Stylish DePalma Homage with an hallucinogenic final twenty minutes. Remade as a pile of worthless crap.
Judgment Night. Not great but oddly a conspiracy thriller with slasher murders.
Toolbox Murders, satire on religious madness and arguably like Taxi Driver a version of Candide.
The Prowler, Scooby Doo with a bloodlust. "why the, the head impaling. pitchfork wielding, throat slasher was old man..... all along.
MBV, the every day tale of blue-collar working folk murdered by a maniac. Not a teenage in sight.
Pieces, hysterical nonsense of the highest order.
Alone in The Dark. Slick. well shot, well acted and again not a teen slasher.
You could also throw in Cruising, Tenebrae, Stagefright. Dressed to Kill and even the Incubus and still only have scratched the surface. Saying that slasher movies are all Friday the 13Th and Halloween. is like saying Rock and Roll was Elvis. Punk was the Sex Pistols and Disco was the Bee Gees,
Personally, past the age of 13 years-old I've never gone to a horror movie expecting to be scared. I want to see interesting bits of film making, odd ideas, gore and, yes, sometimes pure sleaze or even just good images with interesting music. And I see more of those in old supposedly crap horror than in modern films from most genres.(actually I re-watched Drive and I was unfair to it. It's very good). The real irony is that we are criticising films that exhibited flair and then going to watch completely anonymous multiplex fodder because they are of an acceptably bland quality. The point I'm trying to make is that those slasher movies were made when the influences were more interesting and it rubbed off on them. The film makes involved were not always churning out studio product. This is the difference between Don't go in the House and the Saw movies or House on Sorority Row and Chain Letter.
Reply to this
See, this is what I like, people having reasoned differences of opinion in thought out language.
Too often I get e-mails like "you are a fag" and "I hope you die" all for not liking a movie or talking shit about something (I am serious, I get those). I even had one person that threatened to throw battery acid in my face if he ever met me, all for dissing Halloween (by the way, I stand by my dislike of that movie).
So to those that don't agree with me, I like hearing why since it has all been reasoned and cool.
Reply to this
First I should note that when they did review "The Howling" on their show Siskel Did retract his comments from that previous show. Also you should definately see the Siskel and Ebert review of "Friday the 13th: Part 4" If you thought they went over the top in the "Women in Danger" episode Ebert absolutely loses it during that review. I wasn't a Slasher movie fan but after that review I knew I just Had to See it! I swear S&E are responsible for extending the Slasher trend another 2 years with their crusade, any thoughts?
Reply to this
Is anyone else having trouble downloading this, it either takes hours or it just stops itself after a while for me.
Reply to this
This is the most annoying trait that I see with a lot of self described "critics" in print, but even more so online. Too many people can't just like or dislike a movie for what it is because of their own taste, no, they have to ascribe a higher meaning to their opinion on it.
Look at all the fans of The Matrix movies, Chris Nolen films, Fight Club, (all of which I do like to varying degrees) and others who can't simply like a film for what it was, but must elevate it to the level of being "deep" , "art" or "Something that changes lives", and of course anyone who didn't like said film "Is just too stupid to get it."
Conversely, Look at people who wrote lengthy arguments about how 300 was a metaphor for white power, or claims of racist themes in the Star Wars prequels or Transforms 2 (Although yea, the twins were pretty bad). Or, of course S&E's reaction to slasher films here. They can't simply dislike the movie because it's not their thing or because elements of the film were poor, no, they dislike it because of some greater social evil that the film causes.
I agree there is merit in studying what kinds of media is popular and exploring what that may say about our society, but really, a lot of this shit just strikes me as an attempt by people elevate their own personal opinions and tastes, something which is by nature purely subjective, into the realm of right and wrong and a higher morality.
Reply to this
WHAT THE FUCK
HOW CAN SOMETHING THIS AWESOME AND TRUE EXIST
Amazing!!
Reply to this
Ebert & co sound like a bunch of old bickering republicans.
Reply to this
Hang on a second, buddy.
No need to bring politics into this.
I am a Republican (well more of a libertarian, but between the big two I definitely am 100% Republican) and I disagree with those guys.
A couple of old bickering democrats would sound just the same, I daresay.
Reply to this
You can't be a libritarian AND a republican. Either you're attempting sarcasm or you need to go take a political affiliation test.
Reply to this
Very true. Typically on tests I wind up right between those two corners.
I would be a true libertarian, but the abortion issue is the one thing that seperates me from most of them.
Other than that, I am libertarian in just about everything (legalize fucking everything, I say).
Reply to this
I thought I misheard Gene when he mentioned The Howling, because his description made absolutely no damn sense and was completely unrelated to the actual movie.
And... um... there's a lot of dudes getting hacked up in slasher movies. And let's talk about the life expectancy of black characters in these films...
Reply to this
I havent seen S&E Rewiews,but i Haved heard that they are beloved Film Critics of TV..But after i heard on this Whole "Women in danger" Thing i Rolled my eyes.
Reply to this
Honestly this atypical of their show. Yes they are infamous exploitation haters but their reviews of mainstream films are often pretty damn entertaining because they basically encourage the viewer to disagree with them. The staple of their show that made them different was that they (most often) disagreed on movies and and would have great debates over them. Their "Two-Thumbs Up" trademark meant a lot back in the eighties and nineties because it was rare that they both liked a film. Later on it became a joke but there was a good reason the show became the critical standard for a while.
If you're ever bored on youtube (not sure how much of their stuff is on torrent site) you should check out some of their old stuff, you might like it.
Reply to this
S&E really sound like they are projecting a bit here. Now by that I don't mean they are in anyway chauvinists or anti-women themselves, but I do think their argument totally constructed on the basis the people that are making these movies are some how morally broken. That is a total rationalization for why they reacted in disgust to these movies and other people enjoy. I think 30 years ago when slasher flicks the wave of exploitation films where exploding onto the scene this was easy for them to except rather than just deal with the obvious that people like these films at face value as fun entertainment and don't go to see "When a Stranger Calls" for social commentary or artistry.
I like reading film critics, I really do (S&E including), but I sometimes think that the hardest thing for them to do is admit that "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". I think for them admitting there is nothing deeper to read into something is akin to saying they serve no purpose. Not sure I think that is true, but it seems that way sometimes.
Reply to this
This shit from a man that gave Irreversible a good rating. WTF?!
Reply to this
For some reason I can never get these to play for me!
Reply to this
I used to have that problem, but they're all on iTunes now. You can just get them there.
By the way, why is RadioDrome listed as "Clean" on iTunes? I know you don't swear, but a show about horror and exploitation movies sponsored by adamandeve.com doesn't really sound "clean" to me.
Reply to this
I'm sorry guys, but that was terrible. It was 40 minutes of listening to some whiny fans getting upset because two people brought up something troubling about the thing they like, lashing out against them in defense of something that shouldn't be defended. I was listening to this with my sister and we both found ourselves agreeing with all the clips of Siskel and Ebert you used and noting that every single time you missed the entire point of their argument, attacking only the superficial aspects without dealing with the heart of the matter.
Here's the thing: no one cares that you like these films. No one is calling you misogynist for liking these films. What Siskel and Ebert were doing was pointing out a trend that they had noticed and was troubling them. Your arguments to refute their points did nothing to actually address their concerns: you spoke about the fact men also get killed in these films, but never about the differences between the portrayals of the male and female victims. You spoke about how it's often a woman who survives, without addressing the point that the surviving woman is usually shy, demure and virginal, traits that are indicative of the idea that women should be subservient and stay in the kitchen - I can't imagine a movie with a male character being the sole survivor with similar character traits ever being made. You completely dismiss the problem in horror films of sexually promiscuous women always dying, saying it isn't even an issue despite it being so commonplace that Scream lampooned it in one of its most memorable moments. You even said that you expect it to be a woman screaming in terror in a horror movie because were a man to do so would be weird - can you honestly not see how sexist that is?
These scenes of violence towards women are what these movies are sold on. When A Stranger Calls is a great example of one you "debunked", but that movie both begins and ends with a women being terrorised in a house by a man. The part everyone remembers from that film is Carol Kane's character picking up the telephone and hearing "have you checked the children?". That is the scene in the trailers, that is the scene on the poster and that is what got people into the theatres. That film was sold on a scene of violence against women. Arguing that point is ridiculous. Whether that makes the film misogynist or not is contentious and that's what you should have actually been discussing, but instead you simply said no it isn't and moved on, as usual, never actually addressing their point,instead using your extensive knowledge of events in horror movies to nitpick their arguments without ever addressing the thematic concerns they had.
I had other stuff to say but I'm out of space. I'll just end with this. Your attempt at arguing about this issue was shameful. It was disrespectful towards Siskel and Ebert, towards women and towards everyone who feels the portrayal of women in media is a problem. You should be ashamed of yourse
Reply to this
Three words: lol butthurt faggot.
I mean, really?
I would adress all that, but I'll focus on the last paragraph here.
"It was disrespectful to Siskel and Ebert." WHAT?? So now what THEY say is the LAW, and if you have honest disagreement, that is dissprectful. I concede, me calling Ebert an incompetent cunt is disrespectful (and I do stand by that), but Brad never said anything like that. Personally, I have no respect for Roger Ebert AT ALL, but Brad said during this show that he does, he just disagrees with him on this. Personally, I disagree with him on everything, I am almost ashamed to be a movie fan, because that associates me with Ebert.
Furthermore, EVEN IF it was disrespectful to Ebert, who cares? Why is he the deity we must all love and respect? I certainly respect that he survived cancer, but when it comes to movies, he's a fuckwad and his opinion is not to be valued.
Also, how was disrespectful to women?
cont
Reply to this
cont
Also, anyone who feels that "the portrayal of women in media is a proble," is a whining bitch, and deserves no respect. You got the fucking vote, you got the ability to be fucking President, you can be single your whole life and not be considered a whore, you are equal now. Happy? Good, then stop your whining.
How people portray women in media THEY create is their own business. If YOU don't like, then YOU don't watch it. YOU make YOUR own media, with women portrayed how YOU want. If I then called THAT a problem, then I would (hyprocritically) be doing what you are doing, and you would see how asinine it is.
cont
Reply to this
cont
Also, who portrays women like that? THE WOMEN THEMSELVES. The actresses, who are women, decided CONSENSUALLY to be in their performance. So if that is how you woman want yourselves portrayed, then go catifht amongst yourselves, preferably naked and in hot oil, but don't drag us menfolk's names through the dirt. To wit, Carol Kane CHOSE to give that performance.
If your post causes any of these guys to feel even one MOTHERFUCKING IOTA of shame, they will lose MONSTROUS amounts of respect from me. You should be ashamed of yourself for being such an easily offended bitch, and for nagging everyone here with your worthless opinions.
Reply to this
I kinda hope they feel a little sad that people like you even respect them, at least.
Reply to this
Actually, you know what, I am a loser with too much time on his hands, I will say some more stuff.
Okay, S&E didn't like the trend. You know what. That's fine. It is very obvious when a movie is like this. DONT FUCKING WATCH IT YOU FUCKING MORONS. Oh, your critics, you have to watch it. Then quit your job, or be more selective. But cut the bullshit.
To counterexample. I have noticed a disturbing trend of late of Robert De Niro embarassing himself. (Fockers, New Years Day, whatever). What do I do? Do I claim this is some kind of evil to warn the world about like a fucking moral guardian? No, I DONT FUCKING WATCH THOSE MOVIES. Quite frankly, I would argue that the average romantic comedy is more dangerous for youngfolks than any "women in danger" film to watch.
So, yeah, I just pointed out a trend I noticed, that bothers me. I didn't talk for an hour about it like these hacks, and I didn't FOR ONE SECOND suggest anyone should avoid them, as I assume people can decide bythemself
Reply to this
Also, why shouldn't a movie be "indicative of the idea that women should be subservient and stay in the kitchen"? They are made by people with opinions, perhaps even that opinion. FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
YOU go make a movie where this is not the idea sent forth if YOU want to.
Anyone who sees a movie that has the "stay in the kitchen or die" mentality", and then becomes that mentality because of the movie, is a fucking retard, a fucking movie should not change your opinion about things like that.
There is really no good argument against movies with the stay in the kithcen mentality, because they are (say it together, now): JUST. MOVIES.
Also, as Brad & co, point out, it's not even always this mentality being advocated. For a more modern example, look at Eli Roth. He tries to subvert this. Although a lot of people hate him (for others reasons, though, NOT that one). Although I like him.
Reply to this
It's amazing how you did the exact same thing Brad, Jerrid and Josh did and missed the entire point of what I said. That's actually fairly impressive.
Hmmm, I should probably point out something here: Brad, Jerrid, Josh - I don't think you're this guy. You all just made an insensitive show because you were upset. You spectacularly missed the point of everything Siskel and Ebert said, but I don't think you're hatefilled or vile people, just ignorant of an issue I find important. This guy actually is a misogynist.
Reply to this
You asked for it, now you're gonna get it.
Part 1
Oh, Chris, if you're a Christian (the name, not the religion) you are a sissy sack 'o' shit, if you're a Christine you are a whining bitch.
The thing is, it is easy to miss the entire point of what you said, as what you said was worthless shit. Nothing you said had any bearing on anything whatsoever.
To summarize: Anything you perceive as being wrong with the morals of the movies is probably you selectively interpreting them, and EVEN IF YOU ARE RIGHT, you find them morally wrong means absolutely nothing to anyone. This is because (everyone together, now!) They. Are. Just. Movies. Consensually. Filmed. Freedom to make a movie, freedom to have an opinion, ever hear of it?
So even if the movies are as misogynist as you claim (which is not the case, but I will hypothesize a world where that is the case to show you that you are fundamentally wrong, not just cosmetically), that has no bearing on anything whatsoever.
Reply to this
You asked for it; no you're gonna get it. Part 2 of a 15-part, 2000 word response (each part under 1000 characters)
I don't see why you think every movie should conform to you worldview. I really don't. I have a worldview (not misognyist, as you claim; I will discuss that below), and that's good. I don't expect every movie to espouse that. I certainly won't be offended when I see a movie that does not. In fact, I will usually avoid such movies, knowing I won't like them.
Reply to this
Part 3
On that note, it's like you say, these movies are not very subtle in their advertising. YOU and Ebert all say that FROM THE TRAILERS ALONE that you can tell these are awful movies you wouldn't like. That's fine. Solution: Don't fucking watch them. There, no you can't complain. I honestly don't see why it is so hard to NOT watch something that YOU do not want to. Now, if someone strapped you to a chair, and forced you to watch these films AGAINST YOUR WILL, then that person would be in the wrong, and I would sympathize with you. But you CHOOSE to watch or not watch these films, and thus have ABSOLUTELY NO CLAIM WHATSOEVER TO CRITICIZE, WHINE OR COMPLAIN ABOUT THEM, OR THEIR MORALS, IN ANY WAY. That is why "no one responds to your points," because they are simply irrelevant.
Reply to this
Part 4
For example, I hate Michael Moore. I know that Bowling For Colombine is very anti-gun, and I know that watching it would piss me off. So I simply don't watch it. If I wanted to watch some fat fucking jackoff lie to Charlton Heston, then I would watch that movie. But I don't, so I won't. That was not hard for me to do. I see a product being advertised, realize it is not to my tatse, and avoid it.
Similarly, you should do this with these "women in danger" films. This is known as the free market, where people are free to put products out as they want, and consumers are free to BUY or __NOT__ __BUY__ them as they CHOOSE too.
Now, you realize that "missing the entire point of what you said" is actually what would happen if anyone tried to respond to you, because your point was worthless, and based on a foundation made of something so slippery and false that it basically does not exist.
Now, we move onto the second paragraph.
Reply to this
Part 5
No, I certainly am not Brad, Jerrid or Josh. For one thing, Brad is 100x cooler than me, and has a badass movie collection, including lots of rape exploitation, and rape big boxes. I own 400 or so movies, mostly DVDs, and not too many that are obscure. So, you have finally said something true, that I am not these three guys. Congratulations, after thousands of words, you finally say something that does not amount of horse shit. Yay.
Reply to this
*rare exploitation and *rare big boxes,
not rape
Reply to this
Part 6
Now, "they made an insensitive show because they were upset." LOLWTF! Any thinking human being would be upset after hearing the holier-than-thou preachings of Ebert here. Like, this is as bad as Fred Phelps. Just replace "God hates fags" with "God hates movies Ebert doesn't like", and their insane ramblings would clearly be considered an insane as they are, and he would be hated by every other person in America, like Fred Phelps. Their insane fundamentalist-esque anti-movies-they-don't-like rant is astonishing. It would be INSANITY to not be upset after hearing it.
Reply to this
Part 7
So now that we have justified being upset, you claim it is "insensitive." Nope. If anything, it was HYPERsensitive. In that they had to claim near the beginning that yes, they do respect Ebert, and liked watching him as kids. I say, screw that. Their "women in danger" special would have been enough to singlehandedly take away any respect I had for them, but there was none in the first place. Sure, he is a famous critic. Lots of people are famous, and I dont like or respect them. Why Ebert? He has asinine opinions, that he is entitled to, true. But, no one respects Fred Phelps, even though he is 100% allowed his opinions, nevertheless everyone considers him an insane motherfucker and will party when he dies.
Reply to this
Part 8
Now, Ebert is obviously a lot more respectable than Fred Phelps, but the similarity does exist. And for those who say that Ebert has become less insane recently, well, for every good review of The Devil's Rejects, there are ten bad reviews of Kick-Ass. Yes, try and read his review of that film, it is so conceited, fundamentalistic, and asinine that it is hard to read. So let's not say he has changed completley.
Anyways, that was a bit of a tangent. What I say may be insensitive, I will grant you, but THIS SHOW WAS NOT. These three guys were, if anything, too sensitive. They simply corrected someone's extreme mistakes. They did not descend into name-calling and arbitrary swearing. That is what I am doing, but then, I am anonymous and on the Internet, and the GIFT says that is only to be expected. So PERHAPS I am being insensitive, but not those guys.
Reply to this
Part 9
Now, "they spectacularly missed the point of everything Siskel and Ebert said...". Nope. No they did not. They responded accurately and with FACTS to the insane things they said. They had DIRECT QUOTES NOT TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT from those guys. Then they refuted them (not terribly hard to do, I must say). They completley hit the nail on the head over and over and over again.
"but I don't think [Brad/Jerrid/Josh] are hatefilled or vile people." Well, that's true, neither do I. I see where this is going, though. You are going to compare them to me, who is apparently "hatefilled and vile." Bring it on, I'll refute that when the time comes.
"just ignorant of an issue I find important." This is probably the worst quote you have said in that paragraph, even the one falsely accusing me of misogyny (again, see below).
Reply to this
Part 10
Okay, finding non-issues important is a thing for stupid people. I guess that makes me stupid, because I am typing several thousand words in response to someone being stupid in and of themselves, but I'll admit it. Perhaps this is unncessary. But if I admit that, YOU should admit that finding this portrayal of women thing an unncessary, asinine, retarded, stupid and downright dumb thing to find important.
Like, really. You think "portryal of women in media" is bad? Fucking waste of time. EVEN IF THE PORTRAYAL IS NEGATIVE, which as we have discussed, it really isn't, that does not matter.
You know why?
REAL WOMEN ARE RAPED EVERY DAY. NON CONSENSUAL RAPE!! That is something to find important. That is actually an issue. Do something about that.
WOMEN AND CHILDREN ARE SOLD INTO SEX SLAVERY EVERY DAY. That is an issue, that is truly heartbreaking, and THAT is something to care about.
Reply to this
tl;dr
Reply to this
Part 11
Yeah, being offended by a women being scared in a movie seems fucking stupid now, eh? I just really brought down the HAMMERS OF LOGIC ON YOUR FUCKING HEAD.
ESPECIALLY because the women being scared in a movie is not really scared. AND IT WAS CONSENSUAL. She CHOSE to act in that movie.
Honestly, if anyone is insensitive, it's you. You could be volunteering at a shelter for abused women, but instead you simply BITCH AND WHINE about portrayal of women in media.
Reply to this
Part 12
Sure, I may not volunteer at such a shelter, but I am not pretending to be some HEROIC WOMEN'S RIGHTS SAVIOR like you. It's one thing to be like me, and not claim to be some kind of women's rights champion, and then not do anything helpful, as long as I also don't do anything harmful. That's just average. But to LIE and CLAIM you are a women's rights champion, and then DO NOTHING, that is hypocracy. And then when you attack "portrayal of women", and, in doing so, PRETEND TO BE HELPING but actually are not, when you COULD volunteer at an abused women shelter, is actually sickening. That is actually "vile". That is wrong. Shame on you.
So, you may find this issue important, but as I have shown, you finding it important is not only asinine, but massively hypocritical. Also, that also means YOU are the one ignorant of the issue. SHAME ON YOU. SHAME SHAME SHAME.
Reply to this
Part 13
Now, for the finale. "[Tommygunner] is actually a misogynist." Typical person arguing against me. Pull the m-card, and think that's it.
First of all, the word misogynist is so overused these days it makes me SICK TO MY FUCKING STOMACH. It refers to FULL ON HATRED OF WOMEN. As in, that guy whole shot up a bunch of women in Quebec, because they were women. THAT is misogyny. And also EXTREMELY wrong.
Reply to this
ACK!! This whole time I meant 16 parts. So this is 14/16 not 14/15. My mistake.
Part 14
But, no. These days, "Oh, that rapper has nearly naked girls in his videos." Misogynist. "That guy enjoys watching that rappers videos, because of the girls." Misogynist. "That guy looked at my tits." Misogynist. "That guy acknowledges that their COULD BE SOME DIFFERENCES IN THE BRAINS of men and women." Misogynist. "That guy enjoys watching movies where a women may be in danger, even though It's. Just. A. Movie., no women is really in danger, he never endnagered a women in real life, and the women was filmed consensually." Misogynist. "That guy visisted a strip club." Misogynist. "That guy's wife cooks for him." Misogynist.
And so on and so forth.
Reply to this
Again, its 16 parts, not 15, so 1 more after this. Sorry for the mistake.
Part 15
I think the real tragedy these days is that the word is so MOTHERFUCKING VASTLY OVERUSED. It cheapens it, lessens the impact, and really takes away from what is serious. The overuse benefits no one. When someone really is misogynist, people just say, "Oh lots of people are these days, no big deal." When, in reality, TRUE AND REAL misogyny is a big fucking deal. It leads to horrible things. Confusing basic sexism or chaunvinism (if the thing at hand is even that) with misogyny is outrageous and wrong. You, being an overuser of the word misogyny (as your use here indicats) are part of the problem.
Yeah, that's right. You know why: Because I am not a misogynist. There. I said it. I don't hate women.
I honestly don't know why you called me that, but I am not surprised. These days, anyone who would not worship the ground a woman walks on if she asks him to is considred one, it seems.
Reply to this
Part 16 (THE GRAND FINALE!!)
I have said nothing misogynistic. Sure, I may be a male chaunvinist, but that doesn't proove anything. I have never, will never, and would never, harm a woman (or anyone else; I just just as loathe to assault a man as a woman). I don't hate them. I don't see why you think I do.
Because I defend "women in danger" movies, perhaps? That's wrong on two counts. First, as we have shown, typically these movies are not even misogynist, so I am not even defending misogynist things. Secondly, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, even if they were, They. Are. Just. Movies. Even a movie that showed nothing but women being killed and raped would be. Just. A. Movie. And it would be fake. And watching it would not cause anyone to suddenly hate and murder women. So there.
You are wrong. You have caused me to write these thousands of words, because I am flabbergasted that someone could be such an idiot. Congratulations.
Reply to this
no one cares
Reply to this
Dude, I have no inclination or intention of reading anything you wrote in that rant. I applaud your effort, but I don't care about you or what you have to say in the slightest.
Now if someone else would like to actually discuss the issue as adults, I would welcome that.
Reply to this
holy fuck words
Reply to this
Why thank you for trivialising cinema as an artform. Truly no film can have a message, a lasting impact or even the slightest influence on its audience because they are "just movies and would be fake".
Roll up the propaganda departments, to hell with the human imagination there's no point because it's "not real".
You, sir or madam, are without a doubt a complete gobshite, and I wish you nothing but sores on your arse and arthritis in your fingers in the hopes that it will limit the amount of time you spend sitting in front of the computer typing such... bollocks.
Reply to this
The way I see it, there are two extremes.
The one you are proposing, sarcastically, where there is no imagination, no art, nothing, because it's "not real."
Then there is the one morons like Chris propose, where apparently after watching one woman get killed, any given watcher will become a Ted Bundy.
Obviously, neither of these are ideal or true. But, being FORCED to pick between them, I choose the first, because in that one, at least, freedom of speech is legitimatized.
When it comes to people like Chris, who aren't too bright, you can't be subtle or nuanced, so I had to go to an extreme. I went to the one closer to reality, but, obviously, not truly reality. Obviously films can affect people, and that's fine. I am just saying that NO FILM WILL CAUSE SOMEONE TO MURDER ANYONE, OR BECOEM A MISOGYNIST. Certainly, after watching certain films, you may leave with certain emotions. But NOT a newfound WOMEN HATING MURDER IMPULSE.
Also, I ensure you I am a sir.
Reply to this
less words, still nothing actually said
Reply to this
I said lots, both there, and in the 16-part Superpost above.
I had to keep hammering in the same point again and again, I concede, but people like Chris just don't get it.
Also, LOL this is like Instant Messaging the responds pile in so FAST!
Reply to this
What about my revolutionary socialist reading of slasher films being reactionary attacks on the working man.
Tools, boilers suites, images of murderous manual workers as killers. The working stiff v bourgeois suburbanites.
These films weren't misogynist they were propaganda for the capitalist system
It's all there.
Reply to this
First of all, the word misogynist is so overused these days it makes me SICK TO MY FUCKING STOMACH. It refers to FULL ON HATRED OF WOMEN.
lets click: http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/4191602/WOMEN_MISOGYNIST_MOVIE
Reply to this
I don't think that Brad was really all that butthurt in this. In fact, he sounded very respectful towards Gene and Roger, and even said that he's a fan and grew up watching their show. Brad was simply giving defense to a genre that he loves, on a show where no defense was being offered (just two older guys crying sexism in horror films). And Brad is absolutely right about "When a Stranger Calls." It's a much more psychological film than just a man terrorizing a babysitter for an entire movie.
Reply to this
I was calling "Chris" and his asinine post butthurt, I was defending Brad.
I agree he was respectful towards those 2 guys. Good for him. Personally, I think their morons, but we all have our opinions.
I agree he needs to make the dfense, it is a good genre, and people tend to come down on it and attack it for asinine and untrue reasons. The whole "in horror movies people are constantly raped" mindset is a good example.
Yes, and it is a very good film (unfortunately, that means it good a rubbish remake).
So I agree with everything you said. I think you didn't realize I was replying to Chris, I was calling him a butthurt faggot. Not Brad, he's a cool guy.
Sorry for das confusion.
Reply to this
"Personally, I think their morons, but we all have our opinions." lol
Reply to this
"Personally, I think their morons, but we all have our opinions." christ you're hilarious
Reply to this
You heard it here first folks!
Not only do I operate Tommygun's like a MOTHERFUCKING THIRTIES PROHIBITION IGNORNING BADASS MOBSTER, but I am also hilarious.
And I do see the humor in what I said, I am not above that. Having an opinion about an opinion is definitely women.
And I meant "they're" morons, not "their." And I was referring to Siskel and Ebert, not Brad and company, by the way.
Also, all the posts by "Tommygunner" or any related name are from one person, me. There are not several people using one name.
As far as I know.
Reply to this
Wow I can't believe I read the whole thing.
well M1928A1 (do you mind if I call you that actually I don't care if you don't). I'm afraid I have to call you out on the portrayal of woman (or men)in the media since it does matter. The media and the arts are often a reflection of our society and if one group is portrayed negatively it does tend to affect thinking if that point is repeatedly stated over and over again.
Case in point, homosexuality was once thought of as being a mental illness and since I don't want to waste your time watch this with this thought "people used think this was true" http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/riffs/27608-thatguyriffs-boysbeware
Where did this opinion come from maybe not the media but this stuff doesn't help.
The language and imaging that we read, listen too and watch is unbelievable powerful in it's effects if it wasn't then why waste so much money on propaganda. Although in fairness you did admit your hyperbole.
Over all I think you hurt your case more then helped the constant insults to Chris (which by the way could of stood for Christopher) in that "leave Brittany alone" style rant just makes you seem juvenile and also "lol butthurt faggot", really? Your aware that mad rant makes you look like the "butthurt" one. Also I must say I found your use of the word "faggot" a bit sad. Since by using it you are implying that being gay is bad thing since you used the connotation of being gay as an insult. Language is powerful be careful of how you use it (and know I'm just repeating myself).
oh and for the record I thought Siskel & Ebert were full of shite but I may be wrong.
Reply to this
Ah, that's a good point. Far more reasonable than a lot of the stuff I've been getting.
My point was just that there are many, many movies and songs and whatnot that have female empoewrment and all that. Some people tend to act like they do not exist.
As for Christopher, yeah, I forgot that one.
As for the "faggot"/gay thing, let me put it like this: You are free to be gay, get married, not be assaulted, and have rights like other people, and whatnot, but I am free to not like your lifestyle, or you, and I am free to use the word "faggot" however I want.
Reply to this
Actually these films were to busy being anti-the working-stiff to worry about the gender of the bourgeois suburban so-called-victims
Look at the killers! Janitors, miners, farm hands, men in boiler suites, electricians, and even grunts in army fatigues are all degraded by these reactionary movies.
Some of the killers were deformed or had learning difficulties. That means they've got to be more oppressed than than most people, even most women. It's just typical of of running dog lackeys like Siskel and Herbert to protect the vested interests of money in the face of Hollywood's attack on the working man.
Just why did Slasher films hate the proletariat? That's what I want to know.
To
Jason, Fred, Mike and all the working men defamed by Slasher Films. Comrades, I feel your struggle.
Reply to this
I can't tell if you are serious or not, but that is actually a somewhat interesting point.
If you are right, then I think they often make tradesman into killers is that a lot of the time, they have cool stuff that makes killing exciting (a welding torch, or lead pipe, or a miner's pickaxe). So maybe they just pikc these jobs because they have cooler things to kill people with.
Then again, maybe it is classism. I don't know.
I mean, if you think of most rape-and-revenge movies, it's almost always a city girl or at least a rich girl getting revenge on some dumb hicks. If there's once where a country bumpkin farmer's daughter gets raped by a bunch of rich city slickers, then kills them all violently, I'd like to know what it is.
So that is interesting. Patrick Fucking Bateman, at least, is a rich guy, although that's not really a slasher film, I suppose.
Reply to this
I was being silly, but also airing a thought thst sometimes occurs to me about Slashers films. I'm a huge fan.
But i do think a lot of these movies play on suburban college kids fear of manual workers. Big men with tools either taking time out from meat production or repairing machinery to hack kids to pieces in the backwoods or handymen kicking doors down to get them in colleges or at home. The original slasher icons were a really blue collar bunch. It's certainly a much more consistent theme than misogyny.
Reply to this
Wow, a whole lotta words from Chris... not much said.But that last (incomplete) paragraph you wrote here was the same hilarious soapboxing crap that Gene & Roger pulled, telling people they should be ashamed. You really made me laugh, great job. ;D
Reply to this
Honestly, I have never really cared about Siskel and Ebert's opinion on pretty much anything. I do agree that their self-righteous stance on slasher movies is by far the stupidest thing I have ever heard (right next to the violent videogame argument), but what really bothered me was that they praise Halloween but hate every other slasher movie out there because they "perceive" that the director and audience hates women. Honestly, why did they take a whole episode to rant about a genre they don't enjoy, but clearly others do enjoy?
Reply to this
If nobody mentioned this, I wanna address that point where you talk about the POV scene in Friday the 13th. It wasn't so much a stylistic decision on the part of the director, there's a few other scenes where Mrs. Voorheese kills people that you see trough her eyes. The point was just not to SHOW her because if you realized the killer was a woman, it would give away the twist and ruin the scene at the end when the main character meets her and she slowly starts acting more and more insane.
I like Ebert, but he's the kind of critic that needs to look into everything in detail. He reviews movies like he's sipping a 100$ bottle of wine, savoring all the quirks and the craft of the whole thing. He's the kind of person who thinks Citizen Kane is his favorite movie (it is FIY) because he can appreciate the pacing, the writing, the acting, the framing devices, the unique structure and all the things that went into the visuals like the camera angles and set design. When you're that knowledgeable, you get your entertainment from that, judging objectively, and that's fine.
On the flip side, I know plenty of people who aren't knowledgeable about movie making and think Citizen Kane sucks because it doesn't have explosions and lasers. They're judging the movie subjectively, and that's also fine.
A much wiser critic once had a theme song that went "If you're wondering how he eats or sleep, and other science facts, then repeat to yourself it's just a show, and I should really just relax." Or something like that.
Joel could totally kick Ebert's ass.
Reply to this
Okay, I need to get something off my chest.
It insults me when people single out how women in these kinds of issues? REALLY? you...you're not even going to bring up and compare how men are treated in films either? Singling out women does nothing but hurt the cause for equality. Both men and women suffer from how the media portrays gender. However, as S&E seem to be focused on is singling out how women are portrayed and not even bother even TALKING about the portrayal of men in these films. (For instance, in a lot of slasher films, most of the guys are portrayed as sex-crazed pigs).
Now, if ALL the women were portrayed as slutty bitches or submissive wimps THEN I'll call a movie sexist towards women. But slasher films in general sexist towards women? Yeah, I don't see it- especially since 8 out of 10 times its usually our heroine who not only defeats the bad guy but survives.
As for the whole 'have sex and you die' rule some people were bringing up. (for some reason I couldn't reply directly). That's NOT isolated to the female characters. That rule came into existence because it served as a cautionary tale for teenagers who fool around and have sex. "You fool around before marriage, you'll face the consequences!" And these stories existed long before movies started using it. While it does have to do with purity and whatnot, as Brad stated, it takes two to tango.
I *think* this became a staple in movies from the 50's though I should probably fact-check that.
My apologize for the rant.
Reply to this
Oh shit.
If you're really named "Elisabeth" and you're hot....
Marry me?
Reply to this
So how long until you get out of high school, tommy?
Reply to this
LOL Nice one
First of all, I was kidding, if that was not obvious.
You can't marry someone just because they agree with you on one topic, even if they are "hot".
And I am in university, and 20 years old. I concede I have no way to prove this, so you are free to go on thinking I am 12 years old, but that is not the truth.
For the record, my name is not Tommy, nor do I actually own a tommygun. But please do call me that, it sounds pretty cool.
Reply to this
Then learn to make an argument like someone in college before posting, thanks.
Reply to this
Sure, sorry, I forgot that posting comments on a review site, requires as much thought, seriousness, and argmentative finesse, as a college-level thing. My mistake.
Reply to this
At the end of Easy Rider, the Peter Fonda and Denis Hopper characters are murdered. Jack Nicholson also doesn't make it out of the movie alive.
Reply to this
I think Jarred may be onto something.
Reply to this
Art is like a border of flowers along the course of civilization. ~Lincoln Steffens
Reply to this