Aug. 1, 2005, 4:59 a.m. CST
Aug. 1, 2005, 5:01 a.m. CST
Is there ever gonna be a sequel to Big Trouble in Little China? We need one before Kurt Russel gets too old to spout awesome one-liners.
Aug. 1, 2005, 5:32 a.m. CST
Aug. 1, 2005, 5:44 a.m. CST
But why are on this side ads for a more than mediocre German film?
Aug. 1, 2005, 6:48 a.m. CST
You're one cool guy in my book. I have no idea how well you write, I guess I'll find out soon. But dammit if I'm not proud of the guy who used to run "the labs" and is now an H'Wood proxy. Good to see that some people can actually get a legit career out of all of this. Amongst the chaos, there is still hope for all of us... I suppose. Also give Toshi my best wishes. Don't forget to give the kid samurai lessons, whether it's through film or an actual course. Because, you give that kid a bit of a tan in a few years and throw a sword in his hand... We're talking Kurosawa all over again.
Aug. 1, 2005, 7 a.m. CST
Is it on television or in the theatres somehow? I really want to see these.
Aug. 1, 2005, 7:07 a.m. CST
by Frog Brother
dr_dreadlocks - What you talking about? I get you are referencing the director and star but it doesn't make much sense..."Because, you give that kid a bit of a tan in a few years and throw a sword in his hand... We're talking Kurosawa all over again."
Aug. 1, 2005, 7:20 a.m. CST
Let's face it: that's what this is. No other site would run an incestuous article like this: written by a guy on who's screenplay the movie in question is based. All credit to you furthering your career, Mori, but surely you must posess enough common sense not to run such blatent selfpromoting stuff. It'll boomerang inevitably on your integrity.
Aug. 1, 2005, 7:26 a.m. CST
Take samurai lessons and tan the child. He will be a samurai named Toshiro, or "Toshi". Though Toshiro sounds far more intimidating. Also, it was a reference to Mori's kid being "cool" in the future. Kurosawa all over again... I guess next time I'll just make a vague joke and later point it out for you, Frog Brother, if I'm being too vague.
Aug. 1, 2005, 7:53 a.m. CST
I only wish i had such inspirational stories to tell on a platform well known. Something like this can really get someone like me thinking that even in the hole i live in it still is possible to make an ambition come true. Thanks
Aug. 1, 2005, 7:55 a.m. CST
Fascinating article as far as I'm concerned. I can especially relate to your story about meeting Carpenter and co. on the "Starman" set...! As someone of a similar age who loves Carpenter's films, I can fully appreciate the excitement you described. Not sure about other readers, but I have no problem reading how you - and others - achieve your personal goals in the industry. Best wishes with the show and let us know where we can see it! Rastar
Aug. 1, 2005, 8:36 a.m. CST
Man, that's something you don't ever want to hear. Complete creative control is the kiss of death.
Aug. 1, 2005, 9:06 a.m. CST
Or whatever that piece of shit "series" was. The one with Teenage Caveman and the Spiderman ripoff. So far it sounds a lot better, the plot of Cigarette Burns seems pretty cool, if not a little bit 9th Gate. But that's like saying Mac And Me is a ripoff of E.T. Oh wait...
dr_dreadlocks - I still don't understand why you have to tan the child?
Aug. 1, 2005, 9:37 a.m. CST
Carpenter needs a hit bad.He should make a Thing sequel right now!.
Aug. 1, 2005, 9:52 a.m. CST
so is this like a one hour tv show? not a 2 hour movie then ....correct?
Aug. 1, 2005, 10:14 a.m. CST
Entertaining piece but what are the real chances that a TV series will provide great horror stories week on week. If you could make something worthwhile in ten days for only 2 million bucks, then why do 60 million dollar features still suck? This series will probably be as entertaining as, well, New Twilight Zone and about as horrifying as the return to The Outer Limits was. But Psycho, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Shining or The Thing, well, it won't produce any of those.
Aug. 1, 2005, 10:35 a.m. CST
Or does the story of Cigarette Burns sound derivative as all hell. I mean just from the run down I can name at least three movies that this thing sounds like it's cribbed ideas from. Now that doesn't of course mean that it can't still be entertaining, and I'm not here to piss all over anyone's dreams, but it hardly seems to reek of originality is all I'm saying. And for someone who bitches about lack of originality in films so damn much, and who is often first to point out where this film or that stole ideas from (and did so badly) I just find it all rather ironic really. But again, maybe that's just me.
Aug. 1, 2005, 10:36 a.m. CST
... I thought you couldn't copyright titles and also, there's lots of films with the same or similar names. Especially if this was an old French film not available easily or that well known, why couldn't you use it? What's stopping you? Just curious about how the system works ...
Aug. 1, 2005, 1:37 p.m. CST
by fried samurai
Itll be great to see some real horror for a change.I'm so sick of the pg13 crap thats flooding the multiplexes these days.Not that blood,cursing and nudity are needed to make a good story.But the studios insisting the director deliver a pg13 to bring in the teens frustrates me to no end.Is Cronenberg involved in this?He'd be perfect for this type of format..peace
Aug. 1, 2005, 2:13 p.m. CST
Aug. 1, 2005, 2:23 p.m. CST
I think that's the coolest thing in the world man. Not only getting your script made, but by John Carpenter. Wow, I'm relly happy for you man. And ther's going to be a new horror series coming on, this is awesome.
Aug. 1, 2005, 3:19 p.m. CST
Aug. 1, 2005, 3:39 p.m. CST
Sounds like a good one. If not, at least you got a fake movie poster out of it. I want some more John Carpenter movies, man. Sure, Ghosts of Mars didn't cut the mustard, but I think he still has it. If you guys are the ones to get him rolling again, I will give you each five dollars. In fact this offer is open for anybody, whoever does the job. Please send claims to I GOT JOHN CARPENTER ROLLING AGAIN SO GIVE ME FIVE BUCKS OFFER c/o Vern, hotmail.com. Some restrictions apply, etc.
Aug. 1, 2005, 3:43 p.m. CST
Aug. 1, 2005, 3:48 p.m. CST
And it's fucking bullshit this site is ignoring the "Masters of Sci-fi" show that's being made to compliment Masters of Horror. And yeah, Carpenter had it once, but has since lost it. Had it, lost it.
Aug. 1, 2005, 3:53 p.m. CST
If you ask me, which in my opinion you did, your argument doesn't hold water. If Moriarty posted a review as "Darth Anakin" claiming he saw an early version of Cigarette Burns and it "fucking owns goat ass" or whatever, and especially the writing is superb and particularly the half of the writing that was done by some Drew Mcsuch and such, not sure of the name but he is brilliant, etc., then that would be a plant. But what he did instead was, "Hi, my name is Drew, I wrote this episode and here is my firsthand account." There is nothing about this that is dishonest or not on the level. There is nothing to be tricked into. You said other sights would not post this type of article but that's not true, the fella from chud.com is producing a Jan de Bont movie about a giant super intelligent robotic sharkman (or something like that) and I believe he has written about that at least once. Also, if you read movie magazines they are full of articles interviewing people about making a movie, this is the same thing but cuts out the middleman. A breath of fresh air. I think you will agree that you got no leg to stand on, metaphorically anyway, nothing wrong with your real legs as far as I know. Maybe you could make an argument about him writing about other movies if you think he is being too easy on somebody because he hopes to work with them or something like that, but I don't see how you could be against him writing about his experiences with his OWN movie. Right? Good, I'm glad we could agree on this now you should congratulate Moriarty I think would be the polite thing to do. thanks Griffin.
Aug. 1, 2005, 4:47 p.m. CST
by 3 Bag Enema
Not "Scott and I." When he invited I? And you're the successful writer! Seriously, though, congrats on the show and I look forward to seeing it.
Aug. 1, 2005, 5:01 p.m. CST
I have been readin' Aint It Cool News for a log time. I have always cheered you on Mort!! Lay em' to waste!!! Tear it down!!!
Aug. 1, 2005, 6:14 p.m. CST
Mori, it's great that "Cigarette Burns" is being directed by John Carpenter. I'm happy you'll be seeing a film of your own script directed by one of the greats. I mean, I don't dig everything Carpenter's directed, but he's got a twisted, R-rated sensibility that I admire. I watched "The Thing" when I was sixteen, and that movie scared the shit out of me. I'm excited to see "Cigarette Burns," as well as other episodes of the "Masters of Horror." And, with even more glee, I look forward to "Masters of Science Fiction." Can I write a script for James Cameron to direct? I'll slap myself in about two seconds...
Aug. 1, 2005, 7:03 p.m. CST
Never give up!
Aug. 1, 2005, 7:28 p.m. CST
And sure you could qualify this article as "nonfiction" I guess, but the fact that your articles flow so damn well, and that everyone on the site enjoys them (well, almost everyone), is really indicative of how Cigarette Burns is going to be. If it's anything like these articles, it'll jibe like a motherfucker.
Aug. 1, 2005, 8:52 p.m. CST
Moriarty isn't exactly the darkest man alive, is he? I was making a crack about generally pale geeks. Fuck. Man, go to Wikipedia for cripes sake, leave me alone.
Aug. 1, 2005, 10:47 p.m. CST
by Mister Man
Ever since white trash invaded our culture, everyone seems to be determined to jump on the too-much-information bandwagon. Your private life is just that. Dignity, folks.
Aug. 1, 2005, 11:37 p.m. CST
in little China *2* damnit!
Aug. 2, 2005, 12:01 a.m. CST
You're wasting your breath man. You're never going to convince some people that scrutinizing the reputation of journalistic integrity on AICN is of the utmost importance.
Aug. 2, 2005, 12:02 a.m. CST
...I don't think it's a big deal. I, like other people, were sort of interested in hearing about what's going on up in Vancouver. But that's me.
Aug. 2, 2005, 12:26 a.m. CST
Has anyone read the book Flicker? It sounds just like Moriarity's story. Its about a guy obsessed with movies and he tracks down old films that have the power to drive people mad.Great book. It really goes into the science of movies and their play with light. Cig burns are even delved into.
Aug. 2, 2005, 2:03 a.m. CST
by Frog Brother
Mori being pale or not doesn't explain why you have to tan him? so he looks japanese or something? is that what you are saying? Maybe it's a colour thing. Ah ...dreadlocks, tanning children....unless of course you are black...I'm completely baffled!
Aug. 2, 2005, 2:47 a.m. CST
in Fangoria that Corman dropped out and the guy who did 'May' is directing one. Got an "AW CRAP / oh, cool" reaction from me. Hope he uses Angela Bettis.
Aug. 2, 2005, 3:19 a.m. CST
"DARIO IN THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER! Dario Argento was mentioned in the American celebrity-gossip rag "National Enquirer," specifically in Mike Walker's column "All The Gossip" from the July 4th, 2005 issue (verbatim): Creepy? You want CREEPY?? Dining together in Vancouver, where they're filming Showtime's Masters of Horror series, directors JOHN "Halloween" CARPENTER, JOHN "American Werewolf in London" LANDIS and DARIO "Deep Red Hatchet Murders" ARGENTO started arguing after Landis called the shower scene in Hitchcock's Psycho "the best--because you never actually see the gory stabbing!" Italian maestro Argento suddenly started stabbing his steak with a knife, screaming, "No...NO! I LIKE to see contact with the victim...lots and lots of BLOOD! Audiences love it!"...E-E-E-EEK!...Diners next to the horror-meisters were...er, horrified and quickly moved to another table. "Well," cracked Landis, "let's stop talking shop, eh?" -Too good to be false imo.
Aug. 2, 2005, 4:04 a.m. CST
Moriarty. Ignore the talkbackers with nothing better to say to you than "why put this here?", or "who cares?" or "plant". I THINK IT'S AWESOME THAT YOU ARE GETTING THIS SCRIPT MADE AND LOVED READING THIS ARTICLE. It is very exciting to hear about the process through your eyes and I really think this movie is going to turn out great and I can't wait to see it.
Aug. 2, 2005, 4:13 a.m. CST
p.s. After all the bitching on these forums about "no new ideas in hollwood" and "lowest common-denominator crap" and "we know how to make a movie better than these hacks" you guys go and start flaming one of your own? C'mon! Isn't the real point of this website that we all think we could do better? Well, here we are and someone has a great idea and it's being realized and still all some people can do is sit there and bitch. EVERYONE IN THE ROOM WHO WROTE A SCRIPT AND GOT IT FILMED RAISE YOUR HAND! EVERYONE ELSE SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GO BACK TO BEIN A LAZY, ARMCHAIR QUARTERBACK, BASEMENT DWELLING FUCKTARD WITH ENOUGH AMBITION TO RIDICULE OTHERS AMBITION BUT NOT ENOUGH TO RISK YOUR OWN! If ANY of you guys on these forums made a script and had the chance to film it I would love to hear about it. It sounds like most people on here generally have some excellent ideas and you would think that they would be supportive of a fellow film geek like this. I'm shocked, honestly. Someone called this article "incestuous". Man, even if whoever wrote that comment got to have an experience like this I would want to hear about it. Isn't this what this website is partially for? Holding the mainstream accountable and trying to bring fresh, quality ideas in and then reading articles about the rare events when these things actually happen? I would like to think so. Good luck Moriarty and thank you for the article...There, I'm done.
Aug. 2, 2005, 4:27 a.m. CST
I just wanted to point out that I don't find it ethical to post a plug for your own movie, masquerading it as a news article. I'd have no qualms about Quint or Harry visiting the set and sharing their experiences, but Mori doing it himself sort of smells like that cheap EPK stuff you find on most dvds these days. I fully applaud Mori for getting his screenplay produced, but he should have the decency to seperate his two distinct careers. After all, even Roger Ebert doesn't review ANY of Russ Meyers movies. Even the ones he had nothing to do with. This site is called Ain't it Cool NEWS, not ain't it cool PLUGS. And let's be honest about it: plugging his movie is the main goal for Moriarty here, not giving us insight into the set. If I had both a screenwriting and a journalism career, I'd probably be tempted to do the same. But then again, I have integrity and probably wouldn't.
Aug. 2, 2005, 6:02 a.m. CST
by Frog Brother
GriffinMill. you fool! If you didn't think that was cool news you are totaly out of touch with reality. 'ivehadsex' is 100% right in what he says. read his post. couldn't have said it better myself.
Aug. 2, 2005, 8:10 a.m. CST
Except for the fact that besides 'John Carpenter is filming a new movie', there isn't really much news in the article. Which is EXACTLY my point. Why does Mori rant on for paragraph after paragraph (this really has to be the longest article I EVER read on this site!) on a bit of news he could have condensed in about 10 or 20 lines? Precisely: because HE WROTE THE SCRIPT! THAT'S why I call this shameless selfpromotion. NOT because I'm jealous, like some of you are suggesting, because I actually HAVE a script currently in preproduction, here in Europe.
Aug. 2, 2005, 8:57 a.m. CST
by Frog Brother
GriffinMill - I agree it was a tad long but self promotion or not, this site is to talk film in any shape or form. nd even if it was self promotion, so what? These guys run the site and what they do outside of that is connected. It's not as if he is talking about flipping burgers! Anyway, let's not fight. I work in the industry here in the UK. what can you tell me about your script and production. seriously, i'm interested as I am in drew's. It's all film news and that's why I come here.
Aug. 2, 2005, 9:49 a.m. CST
Who forced you to read the article? That's my question.
Aug. 2, 2005, 10:06 a.m. CST
He gets his big break, refuses to play even the LITTLEST of ball, drags said big break into the street, shoots it in the balls repeatedly. I wouldn't be intensily loyal to a dude who called Meryl Poster a cunt on film before even breaking the surface of the industry.
Aug. 2, 2005, 10:51 a.m. CST
by Frog Brother
dr_dreadlocks - I agree. Let's tan him!
Aug. 2, 2005, 1:01 p.m. CST
Oh wait. That was "In The Mouth Of Madness".
Aug. 2, 2005, 2:20 p.m. CST
Moriarty didn't REVIEW the movie, he just wrote about the experience of having his first script produced. There's no reason to expect or want it to be objective because it's autobiography. Personally I'm excited about this series because I like alot of these directors, and this is literally the first place I have seen news on it more than the list of directors and writers that's been everywhere. Plus, it's nice to sometimes get a look from the point of view of the writers, since it's different from the usual actor or director focus. So this IS cool news, bud. I wish there was more stuff like this on the sight. Now you're saying it's self promotion like that's a big deal, so what. People go on talk shows to promote their crappy movies, they don't usually give you this much insight. I have a book available at http://www.lulu.com/outlawvern, it will change your life if you buy it. etc. Big deal, we're all gonna live despite the self promotion. I thought the article was interesting. And if Harry or somebody else did the article like you suggested, you fuckin know you woulda been railing right and left about the impropriety of Harry reviewing Moriarty's script. And you'd at least have a better point than with this one. Please take my word for it, I am a world class ethicist. p.s. that is not true I am not an ethicist, and it is unethical to pose as an ethicist, in my opinion, but I could be wrong since I got no ethics. p.p.s. I was also glad to hear Mick Garris helped Moriarty out. Now I know that he probaly has positive qualities that outweigh his horrible blight on the world of entertainment. I still think the show should probaly be called MASTERS OF HORROR PLUS ONE EPISODE BY THE GUY WHO DID SLEEPWALKERS.
Aug. 2, 2005, 3:37 p.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
... I'll go one step further. It's not just this article that is exempt from objectivity... I hereby declare that I am sick and tired of hearing that word used. I am not objective about film. I have not been objective about film since the day I saw STAR WARS when I was seven. I believe that film is a completely subjective thing, and when I hear someone tie themselves in knots to try and give me an objective reaction to a movie, I tune the fuck out. If you aren't passionate about your likes and dislikes, then why would you bother writing about movies at all? As a job? Fuck that. My articles -- whether they are reviews, set visits, previews, or whatever -- are and always have been and always will be subjective as hell.
Aug. 2, 2005, 3:40 p.m. CST
All I'm saying is that no other newspaper, website or whatever would have posted a 6000 words (really! count them!) article about a book, movie, stage play, whatever that was written by the guy who also wrote the book, movie, etc. I don't think there's any disputing that. Besides, if a studio intern who worked on the latest Uwe Boll movie wrote in with a 500 sentence report on how much fun he had working for the legendary director, EVERYONE would call it a plant, EVEN IF he was just a normal guy gushing about the good time he had. Just because this time it's Mori you really shouldn't treat it any differently.
Aug. 2, 2005, 3:42 p.m. CST
Thanks for admitting I'm absolutely right in my theory!
Aug. 2, 2005, 3:58 p.m. CST
by Frog Brother
Griffin, if you feel the need to sit and count the amount of letters in an article you have far too much wasted time on your hands. MORI - thanks for the time you put into telling us about this. I found it very interesting. You don't often see movies from this point of view. Can't wait to see it!
Aug. 2, 2005, 4 p.m. CST
by Billy Goat
Dammit, I've gotta get off my slacker ass and start making me some movies!
Aug. 2, 2005, 4:05 p.m. CST
You didn't seriously think I counted them words by hand did you? There's a nice little feature in MS Word that does it for you... Anyway, now Mori has basically proved me right, I will retire from this poor excuse for a forum. Maybe I'll visit Movie City News or Coming Attractions or Variety for some REAL movie news...
Aug. 2, 2005, 5:41 p.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
The difference is that I not only admit to complete subjectivity, but I also say that any place you read that claims to be "objective" is full of shit. Movie City News? Coming Attractions? VARIETY? Agendas, each and every one. At least we wear ours up front where you can see them. That's much more honest.
Aug. 2, 2005, 6:47 p.m. CST
If you do, one day, start singing your own praise calling a script you've written "A Goldman-esque Masterpiece"... We will flame you down. But I doubt that'll happen any time soon. Plus, Mori, don't worry about what these people say. Truth is, most people are rather jealous. I mean, I'd love to work with Carpenter. But I'm glad SOMEBODY gets to... Lucky bastards.
Aug. 2, 2005, 6:49 p.m. CST
Maybe I just missed it, for which I declare myself a butthead, but when is "Masters of Horror" being released? Anyone know?
Aug. 2, 2005, 8:16 p.m. CST
I enjoyed reading your article, and I really don't get what the problem is. You weren't overtly 'bigging up' your work, just giving us an interesting bit of, as Vern said, autobiography. With the current fascination with blogging, it's only what every other person on the planet seems to be doing these days. And I see people promoting their work every way they can all over the place, and who can blame them? As long as they're not trying to hide their intentions, what's the problem? ------ Everyone seems to misunderstand websites; they're not locked into any specific 'purpose' or restriction on what they have on them (outside of legal considerations). No-one pays money to view this site, so the owners/editors have no obligation to we readers whatsoever. They can put up whatever the hell they want, and we can read it or not, and have whatever opinion of it we like. ------ Also, GriffinMill, you don't seem to understand the term 'plant'. The whole point of a plant is someone who pretends NOT to be involved in the production, but is submitting a positive review of it. Moriarty told us of his involvement, and avoided posting any real value judgements on his own work at all. That pretty much equates to: exactly the perfect opposite of a plant. ---- But where GriffinMill's really lost me completely, is comparing John Carpenter and Uwe Boll. I'm agog.
Aug. 3, 2005, 2:23 a.m. CST
by zikade zarathos
If you can't be Objective about Film, you're absolutely useless as a Critic. Like it, dislike it, whatever... your opinion's meaningless because, guess what... I'M NOT YOU. You HAVE to be able to recognize that sometimes you can like a film while objectively understanding that it's a piece of garbage, or dislike a film while objectively recognizing it's good, but just not your bag. I don't care if you personally LIKED something or not, because that doesn't tell me anything about the movie, it's just one big long story about your personal RESPONSE to the movie. Film ISN'T a completely subjective thing... every movie isn't equal. That would be like saying that if I go out and shoot an hour of film of a single shot of a leaf, it's instantly equal to CITIZEN KANE because there's probably ONE person out there who would prefer it. I've heard Moriarty say this type of thing, before, and it bugs me to no end, as it's horribly insulting to people who try to make (and HAVE made) inhererently good movies. It reduces every movie ever made to an empty, piece of crap. Without objective qualifiers (aesthetic splendor, intelligence, depth, etc), every piece of artwork is equally garbage; every opinion, no matter how baseless or ill-informed, equally valid. Concerning his top 10 list of last year, he said he hates it when a critic labels his list BEST OF THE YEAR, claiming that every list is only a FAVORITES LIST -- some are, but some of them aren't, of course, as there ARE critics able to discern what makes a good movie and a bad movie.
Aug. 3, 2005, 3:04 a.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
I totally disagree with you. Name one great critic who wrote from a purely objective point of view. Kael, often considered the biggest voice in modern film criticism? Nonsense. She wore her likes and dislikes on her sleeve. Ebert? Again... nowhere near objective. Criticism is all about bringing your understanding of a craft to the table, but also your reaction to what a filmmaker has done. If you don't react... if you don't feel... then the film is a failure. Your reaction is exactly what a review is about. You can recognize the context something falls under in terms of film history, you can admire the craftsmanship of something, but all criticism finally boils down to "did it work FOR ME or not?" Objectivity should be applied to news reporting, but "objective" criticism doesn't exist.
Aug. 3, 2005, 3:20 a.m. CST
Now Griffin left for some other sight. What the fuck are we supposed to do? What are we gonna eat? GRIFFIN, COME BACK. WE DIDN'T MEAN TO. GOD DAMN IT GRIFFIN, WE'RE IN LOVE WITH YOU. CAN'T YOU SEE THAT? Anyway, I also wanted to disagree with Zardok Zoolabog or whatever the name was right above me. Moriarty is right, the whole consumer reports method of film reviewing is worthless horseshit. You really want some dude with a fruity mustache to GUESS what you will think about the movie and give you a little chart about its artistic merits? The worst part of that school is that, in order to appeal to the masses, they gotta assume their reader is a moron with horrible taste. It's already talking down to the reader anyway because when you approach it like that, you're pretending the reader is some kind of weird retarded alien who doesn't understand that he and everybody else have tastes that differ. I mean, did you catch the end of Ebert's DEVILS REJECTS review where he said basically "listen up fuckers, I gave this movie 3 stars because I liked it. Don't come whining to me if you bring your church group and they don't like seeing a deformed giant drag a naked corpse through the woods. Use some common god damn sense and pick out your own fuckin movies you piece of shit, you're an adult and you're acting like a little fuckin whiny baby." (paraphrase). My point is, we're all adults, we all understand that we can look at Ebert's review and make a guess what we might think based on what he said and what he said about other movies we liked or didn't like. So let's not pretend otherwise. However, you are right there are some critics who are "able to discern what makes a good movie and a bad movie." That critic is called ME. For example I have proven through tests and measurements that P. Verhoeven's HOLLOW MAN is actually GOOD. I know, a lot of people are surprised but it's true, it's a good movie. Maybe not to a lot of subjective losers, but objectively and scientifically it's already been decided in the GOOD column.
Aug. 3, 2005, 3:46 a.m. CST
Aug. 3, 2005, 4:24 a.m. CST
by zikade zarathos
"Name one great critic who wrote from a purely objective point of view..." Domingos Isabelino and Panofsky. There's double what you asked for. I hated Kael and have little interest in Ebert. "[...]but all criticism finally boils down to 'did it work FOR ME or not?'" See now, I disagree with this, and if we don't see eye to eye on what the real purpose is of art criticism, then we're obviously not going to agree on your particular reviewing style. All Criticism, in my opinion, SHOULD boil down to "Did the movie work?" period. It seems to me what you're saying is that all movies are, in reality and an artistic sense, equally devoid of any inherent worth. That hour long leaf movie I mentioned above is, in fact, identical in 'worth' to CITIZEN KANE, and it would be impossible to actually argue that one's better than the other, because apparently, neither is -- it's all up to the viewer. NOTHING'S actually better or worse than anything else. Right? You've NEVER thought, "Boy, I sure like this movie, but I know it's dumb"? Or, "I don't like it, but I know it's expertly done?" Auden once said, "For an adult reader, the possible verdicts are five: I can see this is good and I like it; I can see this is good but I don't like it; I can see this is good and, though at present I don't like it, I believe that with perseverance I shall come to like it; I can see that this is trash but I like it; I can see that this is trash and I don't like it." Obviously there's levels inbetween "trash" and "good," but you get the picture...
Aug. 3, 2005, 4:57 a.m. CST
Aug. 3, 2005, 5:05 a.m. CST
Its very hard to be objective in dealing with art. Thats why there are so many diffrent views on music and movies, etc. Art inspires emotion, when reviewing a movie you are not giving a plot summary. Its not news reporting. You are sharing how you felt, the goods and bads of the project, that reflect how you think a movie should be made. Good job on the article mort. But if you could...cut it down a little. I understand the excitement, but i felt like it was pointless to talk about everything Scott said. Good luck. Thanks for the inside view. Oh, and is Chris Moore as much as a jerk in person as he seems on Project Greenlight? That guy angers me.
Aug. 3, 2005, 9:36 a.m. CST
Carpenter's trademark lately has been making shit. He's a burned out husk; his talent has run dry, like his scalp. Fucking hippie...
Aug. 3, 2005, 10:53 a.m. CST
There I said it. Halloween, Fog, Escape from New York and The Thing. Those were his days of wine and roses. Everything else (and I mean EVERYTHING else) has been of direct-to-video release quality from this hack.
Aug. 3, 2005, 1:41 p.m. CST
Some people have faith in objectivity... they know in their hearts that there is official proven good and bad movies. This debate has actually made me understand what goes on in these talkbacks. Some people have this religious belief in objectivity so that is why each and every talkback has at least 25 shitheads, er I mean men of God, coming in announcing that without room for leeway, MOVIE A SUCKS GOAT BALL SACS while MOVIE B OWNS DOGGY SHITCAKES and SCI-FI FRANCHISE X is definitely for sure only for people who have been fucked to death by a horse in Enumclaw, Washington, although SPACE ADVENTURE #23 reinvented the language of cinema to the point where it should probaly be considered both the first narrative film and the prequel to DIE HARD. AND SINCE YOU ALL HAVE DIFFERENT TASTES THAN ME AND DISAGREE WITH SOME OF WHAT I HAVE SAID, YOU ARE WORTHLESS HUMAN BEINGS AND ALSO I HEARD YOU WERE KINDA GAY. You'll notice that these type of holy rollers won't give any explanation or insight into what it is about these movies that "sucks" or "rules." In their belief system there is no need for a reason, maybe even no reason. There is just faith in GOOD and BAD. Devils and angels. Monsters and unicorns. For example the guy above who has declared that there are 4 good Carpenter movies and "everything else (and I mean EVERYTHING else)" is direct to video quality. Look here bud, I take this personally because I have watched the Cruel Intentions trilogy. I have watched the Skulls sequels. I have watched every Seagal picture. I have even watched 2 direct to video sequels to a Carpenter movie. And I know for sure, objectively and subjectively, that you are full of shit. THEY LIVE, VAMPIRES, ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13, ESCAPE FROM LA, BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA... not only are these all good, I think they're better than THE FOG which is on your officially for sure good list. So I guess I'm a heretic. Burn me at the stake. I'm sorry, I love Jesus and all but this cinematic fundamentalism, I now realize, is why talkbacks are so ridiculous. Why can't we just accept that some felt GLADIATOR was the best picture of its year, I felt it was a piece of horse shit mainly due to the uninvolving closeup shaky cam gladiating, and maybe it's okay for various humans to disagree on movies occasionally. VIVA SUBJECTIVISM, MOTHERFUCKERS.
Aug. 3, 2005, 1:47 p.m. CST
The monikers of "good" and "trash" that you just used...where did those come from? Where were those established from? From people's OPINIONS. Opinions that grew to prominence over time for a whole slew of reasons. What we're talking about here is judging art as good or bad, which is a terribly explosive topic. Maybe it would be better to judge whether things are or are not art in the first place. But then again, the definition of art is pretty subjective. And here we are at the beginning again! yay!
Aug. 3, 2005, 2:07 p.m. CST
by zikade zarathos
We (humans) invented the concept of Art, and so, we got to invent the Rules (what's good, what's bad, what's interesting, what's not, blah blah blah). These Rules change and evolve over time, as Criticism is very much the science of what determines good and bad art -- but to claim there's no such thing as good and bad art because equally erudite critics can argue back and forth for decades about what's good and what's bad doesn't mean the entire practice is without merit. It would be like hurling out the concept of Evolution or Quantum Mechanics or Chaos Theory because experts continue to debate the details. ********* Look, I'M ALL FOR OPINIONS IN REVIEWS! Why do you think I come to this site every day?! I ENJOY reading Moriarty's, Vern's, Harry's et al opinions. They're passionate about what they do, and it's infectious. I'm not asking for this site to be replaced by robots who coldly analyze movies based on some random formula. I'm arguing, however, that there ARE objective, aesthetic principles that exist beyond pure opinion, and to claim otherwise erodes damn near the entire history and practice of Art. Peace out.
John Carpenter is going down down down
Aug. 3, 2005, 4:51 p.m. CST
by El Vale
The kid's name is Toshiro McWeeny. Ouch.
Aug. 4, 2005, 9:15 a.m. CST
... but Roger Corman ain't dead either.
Aug. 4, 2005, 9:19 a.m. CST
Congrats. I think it's inspiring when someones dream comes to actualization. Props.
Aug. 4, 2005, 12:56 p.m. CST
by Roger Thornhill
As a couple of talkbackers have so boldly stated without at all trying to explain their reasoning. The misguided consensus among American filmgoers and critics is that Carpenter somehow lost it with Prince of Darkness and never got it back. I completely disagree with this notion because not only is Prince of Darkness an excellent horror film, but Carpenter made several interesting films afterwards including THEY LIVE, IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS, ESCAPE FROM LA, and VAMPIRES. All of these latter day works have all the trademarks of a Carpenter film such as a paranoia, insanity, a mistrust of authority, and selfish protagonists. The Hawksian themes of a group-of- professionals-trapped-in-a-building-without- outside-help pops up slyly in PRINCE OF DARKNESS, VAMPIRES, and GHOSTS OF MARS. Indeed, some critics have rightly characterized VAMPIRES and GHOSTS OF MARS as western hybrids (another trademark of Carpenter as seen in THE THING and BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA). I will concede that he has made several bombs in his latter years including MEMOIRS OF AN INVISIBLE MAN and VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED but he also made several lackluster pictures in his heyday such as CHRISTINE and STARMAN. I would argue that Carpenter never "lost it" and instead American audiences just lost interest in Carpenter for whatever reason. Carpenter once said, "In France, I'm an auteur; in Germany, a filmmaker; in Britain; a genre film director; and, in the USA, a bum." An apt description indeed.
Aug. 4, 2005, 6:26 p.m. CST
But even if you're one of these weirdos that hates Carpenter's style, you can't deny that he HAS a style. A hack is some director for hire with no personality. Even Carpenter's worst enemy would have to admit he's not a hack. (I wonder who his worst enemy would be, though?)
Aug. 5, 2005, 9:57 a.m. CST
by Mister Man
this site is SO boring.
Aug. 5, 2005, 1:27 p.m. CST
People are shaped by their experiences, likes, dislikes, and what they've seen before. You can't simply rip out a chunk of your brain and say, "I have no bias or emotions whatsoever and I shall blankly assimilate this unreeling flickering of light." Art is inherently about emotions and catharsis and its impossible to completely disassociate yourself from something that is designed to provoke an emotional reaction. Yes, there is the craft of filmmaking (if a movie looks "great" or "crappy" or whatever) but that all mushed together to reach the same emotional endpoint. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go out and buy a big box of tissues because I gotta go review "Dukes of Hazzard".
Aug. 5, 2005, 1:40 p.m. CST
Aug. 5, 2005, 11:56 p.m. CST
America does have a nasty habit of crapping on some of its more individual lights, & forcing them overseas to work or receive recognition.... Chaplin, Welles, Polanski ( a more complicated case, to be sure) and I'm not in any way comparing any of these to each other or to Carpenter, except for the aforementioned syndrome. Always wished Carpenter had the budgets required to make his movies properly. The current Hollywood hardon for remaking John's movies makes me think that someone else believes that too...but they won't be Carpenter movies anymore than that turd fest called the Haunting (the remake) was a Robert Wise film. Note to The Suits - remake The Thing at your own peril. While I would go back to the boards & perhaps CGI some of the "rubber head" sfxs in the Carpenter version, you clowns are not going to make a better film. Just don't do it...
Aug. 6, 2005, 2:49 a.m. CST
I actually am in the category of "person who wrote a script and had it shot". Just letting you know.
Aug. 7, 2005, 11:06 a.m. CST
that's right, "person who wrote a script and had it shot"here
Aug. 9, 2005, 10:31 a.m. CST
by Mr Bungle
...hope it turns out well. Moriarty you're a lucky bastard to be rubbing shoulders with all the horror greats, and I'm sure its not by accident. Well done on getting your script shot. I've read enough of your reviews over the last 2 years to know you have what it takes to write a refined prose with a rabid fanboy wit. I hope this series becomes the new Tales from the Crypt, coz the lack of that, Outer Limits, Perversions of Science and The Hitchhiker tales in my life (TV is dirt in bogland) has created a void that since has never been filled. I been filling it with shitty freddy's Nightmares episodes fer focks sake!
Aug. 9, 2005, 3:06 p.m. CST
by Wee Willie
Being on a soundstage with John Carpenter with Dario Argento and Stuart Gordon's sets pushed to the side, chatting with Mick Garris, while upstairs Tobe Hooper sounds very much like my idea of heaven. Except in heaven there'd be naked girls... Oh wait, there WAS a naked girl. You rock dude. All the best with everything.
Aug. 9, 2005, 3:10 p.m. CST
Started with Escape from LA. I hated that one. Then Vampires, then Ghosts of Mars. I was telling a freind of mine (a huge Carpenter fan) about The Decline of Carpenter one day and he said the following: "You're looking at these as movies, when you should be seeing them as wild crazy comic books put on film." A lightbulb went off in my head and now I like almost all of newer films. If you try to take them seriously, you're fucked. But if you enjoy them as pop madness, they're rather enjoyable.
Aug. 12, 2005, 6:55 p.m. CST
by The Tenia
I have come to this site for some time and never bothered to post... till now. After scrolling over this ridiculous masturbatory post of this "reviewer" I felt sickened, honestly. Have some class,really now. This film site should stick to updating it's fans about potentially interesting cutting edge films, NOT it's geeky writers insignificant TV schlock. The plot is a blatant rip off of POPCORN... POPCORN! for christ's fucking sake sir!