CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › "Citizen Kane Syndrome"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Citizen Kane Syndrome" - Page 2

post #51 of 83
4/11/06 at 12:40pm
Not while Bob's still kickin' he won't.
Reply
post #52 of 83
4/11/06 at 1:59pm
This may have been what caused the great Amélie debacle a year or so ago.
Reply
post #53 of 83
4/11/06 at 2:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Straxboy - An Anthony Hickox Film
Because fabfunk might jab his cock in it ?
Reply
post #54 of 83
4/11/06 at 2:13pm
Not sure where you got that photo, Z, but....damn.
Reply
post #55 of 83
4/11/06 at 2:13pm
This is truly the Citizen Kane of thread derailments.
Reply
post #56 of 83
4/11/06 at 2:14pm
Sweet mother of appropriatisationism !
Reply
post #57 of 83
4/11/06 at 2:15pm
Not in MY mouth.
Reply
post #58 of 83
4/12/06 at 8:16am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobClark
This is truly the Citizen Kane of thread derailments.

That is surely the only thing I'm going to take away from this thread
Reply
post #59 of 83
4/12/06 at 7:12pm
The derailment that saved us from yet another "Defend The Matrix!" derailment. I bow to you. But not blow.
Reply
post #60 of 83
4/12/06 at 7:51pm
I have to admit, I suffered the same reaction to the original Halloween when I finally saw it in my 20's after seeing everything that came after...
My reaction was: "What's the big deal?..."
I thought John Carpenter's other films were much better and this "pioneer of slasher flicks" was a big disappointment for me. Chalk that up to all the imitators and the rest of Carpenter's resume (Thing, BTiLC, Escape from NY)...
I tend to like the Carpenter/Kurt Russell team-ups more i guess...
Reply
post #61 of 83
4/12/06 at 9:11pm
In all seriousness, I think the film that most suffers from this is Psycho. It's not that scary anymore, and everyone knows the shower scene is coming. It took a second viewing for me to appreciate it.
Reply
post #62 of 83
4/12/06 at 10:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by soybomb42
In all seriousness, I think the film that most suffers from this is Psycho. It's not that scary anymore, and everyone knows the shower scene is coming. It took a second viewing for me to appreciate it.
I think that's what keeps Psycho relevant: it deepens on repeat viewings, so it's not entirely dependent on shocks and surprises. Hitchcock, to no one's surprise, knew what he was doing.
Reply
post #63 of 83
4/13/06 at 6:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DARKMITE8
I have to admit, I suffered the same reaction to the original Halloween when I finally saw it in my 20's after seeing everything that came after...
My reaction was: "What's the big deal?..."
I thought John Carpenter's other films were much better and this "pioneer of slasher flicks" was a big disappointment for me. Chalk that up to all the imitators and the rest of Carpenter's resume (Thing, BTiLC, Escape from NY)...
I tend to like the Carpenter/Kurt Russell team-ups more i guess...
Great example. I somehow didn't get around to watching Halloween until last year. Had the exact same reaction.
Reply
post #64 of 83
4/13/06 at 6:12am
I don't understand. It's still a brilliantly made, low budget film in its own right. How is it disappointing ?

Unless you're mistaking novelty for quality.
Reply
post #65 of 83
4/13/06 at 6:22am
HALLOWEEN's just masterful film-making, regardless of the slasher revolution it heralded. Carpenter's score and the exploitation of the static wide lens and steadicam are second-to-none in that particular genre. Even if it doesn't make me jump out of my seat as much as some of today's cheap shockers do, it's still massively enjoyable in terms of watching a master craftsman at work.
Reply
post #66 of 83
4/13/06 at 9:14am
Next up:

"I think JAWS is rubbish because I saw DEEP BLUE SEA first and the sharks are soooo much better."
Reply
post #67 of 83
4/13/06 at 11:41am
I think one of my problems with Halloween is that I wasn't a big slasher fan, so I was kinda hoping if I exposed myself to the Grand-daddy of them all, I would be a convert...

I guess I will always prefer the Creature Features over the "guy with a mask/knife"... however i do love Psycho, Se7en, Silence of the Lambs (I even harbor some fondness for From Hell).

Cutting up teenagers doesn't entertain me that much. However, some "dead" guy on a table whose head rips itself off, grows spider legs, and scurries across the floor as a bystander exclaims: "You gotta be f**kin' kiddin' me!"... that's got me in my seat...
Reply
post #68 of 83
4/13/06 at 11:58am
I used to feel the same way about Halloween, but I'd strongly reccomend repeated viewings. I love that movie more every time I watch it. And I am in no way a fan of the slasher genre. Halloween is just great filmmaking.

For me, I have to admit that I sometimes have this problem with scifi novels, maybe because ideas are so central to that genre. I know when I read Stranger in a Strange Land, I could understand someone reading it back in the 60's really having their minds blown, but the concept felt very hackneyed in the 21st century. Although, I suppose the fact that I didn't really care for Heinlein's narrative voice had a lot to do with that.
Reply
post #69 of 83
4/13/06 at 12:08pm
I don't think you have to be a horror fan persay to appreciate HALLOWEEN. Even if you get sick to your stomach at the idea of slashers, you still have to admit that movie is a masterpiece. Unless you're a fan of SWEET HOME ALABAMA.
Reply
post #70 of 83
4/13/06 at 12:14pm
Psycho, Seven, and Silence of the Lambs aren't slasher movies.
Reply
post #71 of 83
4/13/06 at 12:20pm
I disagree. I'd place SOTL and SE7EN in the methodical serial killer category, but for me PSYCHO is the grandaddy of slasher flicks.
Reply
post #72 of 83
4/13/06 at 12:23pm
I'd hardly call it a "slasher" in the context it's being used here. Predecessor maybe, but not in the same context as a film like HALLOWEEN.
Reply
post #73 of 83
4/13/06 at 12:30pm
It's a direct inspiration to HALLOWEEN, and TEXAS CHAINSAW, and the slasher movies that came. It's a slasher movie through and through. Take Hitchcock's name away from that movie and describe it to people, it's a slasher flick.
Reply
post #74 of 83
4/13/06 at 12:47pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DARKMITE8
I have to admit, I suffered the same reaction to the original Halloween when I finally saw it in my 20's after seeing everything that came after...
My reaction was: "What's the big deal?..."
I thought John Carpenter's other films were much better and this "pioneer of slasher flicks" was a big disappointment for me. Chalk that up to all the imitators and the rest of Carpenter's resume (Thing, BTiLC, Escape from NY)...
I tend to like the Carpenter/Kurt Russell team-ups more i guess...

I don't agree with you, but that's what I mean by "Citizen Kane Syndrome".

I do think that a lot of the tricks in Halloween, in particular the composition of shock scenes and the innocuous-reveal-prior-to-appearance-of-the-killer, have become staples of the horror genre, and so could look cliched nowadays. That said, I still think Halloween's a great film, and my enjoyment wasn't lessened by these problems
Reply
post #75 of 83
4/13/06 at 4:25pm
My initial reaction to the idea of Psycho being a slasher flick was "Fuck no". It certainly informed slasher movies. The context of Psycho makes it a completely different experience- the audience left wondering what in the name of sweet buttery fuck is going on, as opposed to yelling at Jamie Lee to run for her fucking life.

You can call Psycho a slasher flick, but that's like saying Seven Samurai is just a swordfight picture.
Reply
post #76 of 83
4/13/06 at 10:06pm
I didn't say there wasn't more stuff going on. But when you get down to it, it's a slasher flick. Hell, it's widely accepted as the slasher flick by a lot of people, fan and industry.

It's like TEXAS CHAINSAW. There's a lot of stuff beneath the surface of that movie about the American family, Vietnam and the advance of technology in the work place, but at the end of the day, it's a slasher movie designed to terrify you. And at the base level, SEVEN SAMURAI is a movie about samurai defending peasants from bandits.

The only reason I can think not to call PSYCHO a slasher is of the fruity 'slasher is a dirty name, and it deserves something higher class than something like that,' hence the more acceptable term of thriller, or horror at the most by some people, with all the connotations horror subgenres like slasher have with folks.

But a big cat with stripes is still a tiger. Even if he went to Harvard, he may be the most intelligent tiger in the world, but he's still a tiger.
Reply
post #77 of 83
4/14/06 at 4:47am
I have a friend who does that. He hates horror movies, or thinks he does, so any horror movie he likes is classified as something else. "Thriller" is a common one. He also likes to subgenre things to death. For instance, Lethal Weapon isn't an action movie, it's a buddy movie. Drives me up the wall.
Reply
post #78 of 83
4/18/06 at 6:42am
Forget me, I'm bad at reading.
Reply
post #79 of 83
4/18/06 at 10:16am
Although i do not agree, i can see the argument for Physco being a "Slasher" film being valid, but Silence of the Lambs?
Really?
I didn't think anyone was actually killed in that film other than the main bad guy himself, and those two cops that Lecter offs during his escape.
Does that really qualify it to be a "Slasher" pic?
I would argue: Никогда
Reply
post #80 of 83
4/18/06 at 10:21am
Iconography and stylistic ticks Demme uses place it squarely within the 'slasher' genre on more than one occassion during the course of the picture's running time.

Maybe it's not a generic 'slasher picture' per se, but it's certainly a knowing examination and cinematic discussion of that particular breed of horror picture in the guise of another more complex sub-genre: the serial kliller picture (arguably just the 'slasher picture' with a deeper, more multi-faceted psychological profile).
Reply
post #81 of 83
4/18/06 at 10:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Brigden
It's like TEXAS CHAINSAW. There's a lot of stuff beneath the surface of that movie about the American family, Vietnam and the advance of technology in the work place, but at the end of the day, it's a slasher movie designed to terrify you...
Hmmm, your ideas are intriguing and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Reply
post #82 of 83
4/18/06 at 12:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel St. Buggering
I think that's what keeps Psycho relevant: it deepens on repeat viewings, so it's not entirely dependent on shocks and surprises. Hitchcock, to no one's surprise, knew what he was doing.
Totally agreed, but Hitchcock was also going for some seriously nasty shock, too. And that's gone. There are very few shocks to be had in the movie by a modern viewer with even a passing knowledge of pop culture. It's a shame, but it's a victim of its own success.
Reply
post #83 of 83
9/21/11 at 12:58am

Just rewatched Citizen Kane and stumbled across this old thread.

 

The film that has most lost its intended power for me due to its presence in pop culture is The Shining.  It plays more like a hilarious comedy to me now than a horror film.  Jack's iconic performance certainly doesn't help matters (or it does, depending on how you want to spin it).

 

It's still an amazing film.  I'm just not scared/horrified by it.

 

Goddamned Simpsons...

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › "Citizen Kane Syndrome"