[h8kurdt]

Originally Posted by Dr. Eugene Felikson

The remake was criticized for being a shot for shot, and too close to the original. How can it be "shit" if the original is so great?

*insert longwinded rant about how Van Sant is underrated, and pretend like hes more iconic than Hitchcock to see if I can get anyone to argue w me*

Van sant is certainly more to my taste, anyway.

Seeing as it's a shot for shot remake it's begs the question of what's the point. From what I can remember is that there's the added scene where he's watching her undress and they make explicit the fact he's masturbating. Why? COS ITS THE 90S WE CAN DO THIS SHIT NOW! Alt the end of the remake you're just left thinking "what was the point?". It's like listening to a cover of the Beatles. Sure it's ok, but I'd rather just listen to the Beatles instead.

As for the sequels, I remember seeing one with Jeremy Irons on ch5 when I was about 12 (before I'd seen the original actually). It's basically him recounting his story to a radio DJ or something. The only scene I remember is him rolling around with his mum on the floor and she berates him when he gets a boner. 12 year old me who had just started puberty was confused as hell at that scene. I'm sure Freud would have had a field day with that one.

[h8kurdt]

Originally Posted by Dr. Eugene Felikson

Hell even that Sasha Grey / Elijah Wood knockoff is better

 

OPEN WINDOWS!! Hahaha that movie was wild

I guess none of these could exist without Hitchcock laying out the blueprint but they really took his initial concept and threw in more spicy meatballs

Wasn't there a blatant remake of Rear Window with Shia Lebeef? 2007 I think it was or something around that. As usually happens with remakes it quickly got forgotten and the original is the one people go back to.

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Not me. I might've seen the 1st sequel, years ago, but it left no impression.



You must spread more reputation before giving it to Mr Greenwood again.

Maybe you were watching the Phantasm movies or something. I still need to see all those.

Originally Posted by h8kurdt

Seeing as it's a shot for shot remake it's begs the question of what's the point. From what I can remember is that there's the added scene where he's watching her undress and they make explicit the fact he's masturbating. Why? COS ITS THE 90S WE CAN DO THIS SHIT NOW! Alt the end of the remake you're just left thinking "what was the point?". It's like listening to a cover of the Beatles. Sure it's ok, but I'd rather just listen to the Beatles instead.

As for the sequels, I remember seeing one with Jeremy Irons on ch5 when I was about 12 (before I'd seen the original actually). It's basically him recounting his story to a radio DJ or something. The only scene I remember is him rolling around with his mum on the floor and she berates him when he gets a boner. 12 year old me who had just started puberty was confused as hell at that scene. I'm sure Freud would have had a field day with that one.

Hahaha, I really need to rewatch both the OG and the remake again. Admittedly I could be blinded by my need to be a contrarian, and my soft spot for Vince Vaughn and Van Sant in general.

Originally Posted by h8kurdt

Wasn't there a blatant remake of Rear Window with Shia Lebeef? 2007 I think it was or something around that. As usually happens with remakes it quickly got forgotten and the original is the one people go back to.

Nah, that's Disturbia. Just a knockoff of Rear Window. Shia plays a bad kid on house arrest who's perving on the hot girl next door through binoculars

 

Its sorta like Body Double w that dude who looks eerily like Bill Maher

 

Hitchcock is brilliant no doubt, but I think dudes like DePalma and Argento who learned a fair share of his tricks ultimately ended up making more enjoyable filma.

They're certainly sleazier. I enjoy sleaze.

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

 

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Dr. Eugene Felikson

Hitchcock is brilliant no doubt, but I think dudes like DePalma and Argento who learned a fair share of his tricks ultimately ended up making more enjoyable filma.

There's a reason why Hitchcock wasn't just a darling of the critics but also a box-office hit machine. Ordinary people who could care less about film technique saw his name on a poster and knew that above all else they'd be entertained. Whereas I can't think of a single Argento film that, for all its individual moments of brilliance, doesn't have major pacing issues at some point. And I say that as an Argento fan.

And for the life of me I'll never get the fuss that's made about DePalma. I enjoy some of his films but to say he learned a fair share of tricks from Hitchcock is like saying a Rolling Stones cover band learned some tricks from Mick n Keef.

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

^ Phenomena and The Bird w the Crystal Plumage would like to have a word with you

[!@#$%!]

brian de palma is amply justified by carrie and scarface, but he’s no hitchcock. cmon!

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

Body Double, Blow Out, Dressed to Kill, Untouchables, Carrie, Scarface, Sisters, Phantom of the Paradise, Carlito's Way, Mission Impossible, like fucking even Snake Eyes and Raising Cain are fun as all hell in their own way.

De Palma is a god.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Dr. Eugene Felikson

Body Double, Blow Out, Dressed to Kill, Untouchables, Carrie, Scarface, Sisters, Phantom of the Paradise, Carlito's Way, Mission Impossible, like fucking even Snake Eyes and Raising Cain are fun as all hell in their own way.

De Palma is a god.

oh hahaha

i forgot dressed to kill. this is what i said about it after i saw it not long ago

http://sonicyouth.com/gossip/showpos...ostcount=20553

but see, i forgot dressed to kill. because of the shit writing i suppose.

i can’t forget vertigo or north by northwest or the birds or psycho. who the fuck could?

the untouchables... big yawn. not a kevin whatsisname fan. i remember the costumes the most.

carlitos... issokay.

scarface is a classic but it’s not so much a great movie as it is a great memorable excess. which i don’t mind but...

i have never seen blow out. ive seen blow UP which is fucking great. more antonioni por favor.

i never said de palma is not fun. he’s a lot of fun. he’s just not a true god. hero, sure. god, no.

[Rob Instigator]

 

rewatch for me, new wwatch for the wife.



Love this film. Quite deep. quite subtle, yet Terrence Stamp is a bad motherfucker.

[ilduclo]

check this, if you haven't seen it

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087414/

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

Symbols, please please please watch Blow Out

Hasn't Tarantino frequently cited it as the greatest film of all time? P sure that's why he casted him in Pulp Fiction to begin with

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Dr. Eugene Felikson

Symbols, please please please watch Blow Out

Hasn't Tarantino frequently cited it as the greatest film of all time? P sure that's why he casted him in Pulp Fiction to begin with

the... but... i dont think tarantino is that great ha ha ha

pulp fiction was epoch-making though. but ive tired of his schtick.

nevertheless, i’ve read good things about blow out elsewhere

(even though it’s a copy of a copy)

make you a deal: i watch blow OUT you watch blow UP

gotta drink from the source!


actually read cortázar’s LAS BABAS DEL DIABLO. great little short story...

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

I love Antonioni but have never actually seen Blow Up

I really loved L'Avventura, and Identification of a Woman

Is Blow Out an homage to Blow Up?

Okay deal. (Still have to watch Hotel Transylvania 3, and show my gf some John Waters but I'll throw Blow Up in there)

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

Tarantino is like the Family Guy of fine film, full of pop culture references and cool to hate these days. Dude hasn't made a bad film yet. I'm going to go out on a limb and say my two fav flicks of his are actually his least liked: Death Proof and Hateful 8.

I dig his hip hop approach to filmmaking though. The way he samples others to create his own. Also lots of pretty feet. Especially in Death Proof

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Dr. Eugene Felikson

I love Antonioni but have never actually seen Blow Up

I really loved L'Avventura, and Identification of a Woman

Is Blow Out an homage to Blow Up?

so julio cortázar wrote las babas del diablo which is a story in which a photographer in paris inadvertently captures... (no spoilers, read it)

antonioni made a movie based on that story but set in london and different characters. some people think it’s a bit of a failure in capturing the swinging 60s london, but i love it. i think you’d get a kick out of it. malcolm mcdowell is great in it and his character was based on a real dude of the times.

de palma as i understand substituted a microphone for the camera, but same basic idea?

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Dr. Eugene Felikson

Tarantino is like the Family Guy of fine film, full of pop culture references and cool to hate these days. Dude hasn't made a bad film yet. I'm going to go out on a limb and say my two fav flicks of his are actually his least liked: Death Proof and Hateful 8.

I dig his hip hop approach to filmmaking though. The way he samples others to create his own. Also lots of pretty feet. Especially in Death Proof

hahahaaaaaaaa oh yes he has that foot thing

say no more

(i stopped liking him with kill bill btw. but feet are feet.)

[!@#$%!]

BTW it’s DAVID HEMMINGS not malcolm mcdowell. hahahaha

[demonrail666]

I'm pretty much with Symbols in all this De Palma/Tarantino/Hitchcock thing.

De Palma's made some good films and I have a real soft spot for Body Double, even though I'd never call it a great film. De Palma's one of those always-interesting outliers wiorking in the mainstream that definitely lends himself to a cult following, but the Hitchcock comparisons are just silly and if anything only make Di Palma look worse than he is.

I also lost interest in Tarantino with Kill Bill.

My only disagreement with Symbols here is over Blow Up, which I do think was a miss-step from Antonioni (I actually prefer Blow Out) but I appreciate Blow Ups place in history and wouldn't question that Antonioni is in the very top tier of directors..

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

Its interesting that you both lost interest in QT after Kill Bill, because I'm young enough where Kill Bill was not only the first QT film I ever saw, but was the catalyst for my appreciation of film beyond Jim Carrey, Jerry Lewis, and Adam Sandler.

I was 12 when KB1 came out in 2003. Soon after, an AIM friend sent me Gummo via their file transfer function, and I stumbled on Eraserhead in the horror section of Best Buy. I was suddenly obsessed.

KB1 also features that animated bit by Katsuhito Ishii. The wild ass Verhoeven-inspired director behind Taste of Tea, and Funky Forest: First Contact

 

 

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

so julio cortázar wrote las babas del diablo which is a story in which a photographer in paris inadvertently captures... (no spoilers, read it)

antonioni made a movie based on that story but set in london and different characters. some people think it’s a bit of a failure in capturing the swinging 60s london, but i love it. i think you’d get a kick out of it. malcolm mcdowell is great in it and his character was based on a real dude of the times.

de palma as i understand substituted a microphone for the camera, but same basic idea?

Haha yup, sounds about right. I've only seen Identification of a Woman and L'Avventura from Antonioni. I've always loved the poster, but didnt realize that's what Blow Up was even about...

 

...
What is it about Kill Bill that you guys dont like?

The only thing I can think of is maybe that's where Tarantino's work became more kitschy. I love me some kitsch and sleaze. De Palma, Argento, John Waters, etc.